|
Post by redexpress on Jan 7, 2019 19:58:43 GMT
Interestingly, nothing about the 603 no longer running during the holidays as mentioned on londonbusroutes. And there isn't a frequency change anyway. The new timetable (as loaded to londonbusroutes.net) shows that the only change is the withdrawal of the service on school holidays. Not sure how this is meant to "improve reliability of journey times" as stated in the document.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jan 7, 2019 21:18:00 GMT
A week late being published, but here we go content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-permanent-bus-changes.pdf215, 275, 97, 357, late entries / updates Walthamstow changes H13 extra journey N277 3 additional buses 357 re-routed 257 new duty schedules (this is weird category for passengers) 603 frequency change 20 stop revised 56 changes due to Mini-Holland demand change 228 change to driver changeovers W12, W15, W16, N55, changes due to new bus facility Whipps Cross Firstly, many thanks for providing a link to the update. There are glaring errors with regard to some of the Walthamstow area changes including: Route 97 - How can alighting point AP be served if Walthamstow bus station in omitted and buses run direct via Hoe Street? Presumably the text for the 97 should have been broadly similar to that for the 357 since both now serve stops on the Hoe Street railway bridge.
Route W16 - The changes referred to apply to route W19 and not W16. The W16 should not have featured at all in this update.
Perhaps the TfL proof reader is enjoying an extended festive break. Additionally there is no mention to the fact that the 230 will no longer serve the current stop C on the existing roundabout or that the 257 and 357 will still continue to serve the new bus facility.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 7, 2019 23:49:11 GMT
A week late being published, but here we go content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-permanent-bus-changes.pdf215, 275, 97, 357, late entries / updates Walthamstow changes H13 extra journey N277 3 additional buses 357 re-routed 257 new duty schedules (this is weird category for passengers) 603 frequency change 20 stop revised 56 changes due to Mini-Holland demand change 228 change to driver changeovers W12, W15, W16, N55, changes due to new bus facility Whipps Cross What an ATROCIOUSLY written document!!!! Where the hell do I start with this!! 1) So some of the entries are bold, some aren’t. 2) The entry for route 56 makes no sense. 3) Some of the entries have a big gaping gap between the top of the cell and the top of the text, some don’t. 4) The entry for route 97 also doesn’t make sense, and also isn’t punctuated correctly. 5) Page 12 is completely unnecessary. A completely blank box, completely unprofessional as is the rest of this atrocity. Honestly what kind of idiots are working for TfL at the moment, people who do not have any basic grasp of the English language clearly! I’ve never written one of these documents before, but I guarantee I’d know how to lay it out and word it professionally. And to be able to work out what irrelevant info doesn’t need to go into the document like on the 228! I actually had to laugh at that bit, it’s not rocket science! It’s actually a little concerning. It looks like it was written by a kid, the person who wrote this should get the sack.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 7, 2019 23:56:36 GMT
A week late being published, but here we go content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-permanent-bus-changes.pdf215, 275, 97, 357, late entries / updates Walthamstow changes H13 extra journey N277 3 additional buses 357 re-routed 257 new duty schedules (this is weird category for passengers) 603 frequency change 20 stop revised 56 changes due to Mini-Holland demand change 228 change to driver changeovers W12, W15, W16, N55, changes due to new bus facility Whipps Cross What an ATROCIOUSLY written document!!!! Where the hell do I start with this!! 1) So some of the entries are bold, some aren’t. 2) The entry for route 56 makes no sense. 3) Some of the entries have a big gaping gap between the top of the cell and the top of the text, some don’t. 4) The entry for route 97 also doesn’t make sense, and also isn’t punctuated correctly. 5) Page 12 is completely unnecessary. A completely blank box, completely unprofessional as is the rest of this atrocity. Honestly what kind of idiots are working for TfL at the moment, people who do not have any basic grasp of the English language clearly! I’ve never written one of these documents before, but I guarantee I’d know how to lay it out and word it professionally. And to be able to work out what irrelevant info doesn’t need to go into the document like on the 228! I actually had to laugh at that bit, it’s not rocket science! It’s actually a little concerning. It looks like it was written by a kid, the person who wrote this should get the sack. Another issue as people have noted is the W16 entry being for the W19, although it mentions that affects the borough of Havering and City of London The N55 change will also apparently affect Hammersmith and Fulham
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 8, 2019 0:32:44 GMT
What an ATROCIOUSLY written document!!!! Where the hell do I start with this!! 1) So some of the entries are bold, some aren’t. 2) The entry for route 56 makes no sense. 3) Some of the entries have a big gaping gap between the top of the cell and the top of the text, some don’t. 4) The entry for route 97 also doesn’t make sense, and also isn’t punctuated correctly. 5) Page 12 is completely unnecessary. A completely blank box, completely unprofessional as is the rest of this atrocity. Honestly what kind of idiots are working for TfL at the moment, people who do not have any basic grasp of the English language clearly! I’ve never written one of these documents before, but I guarantee I’d know how to lay it out and word it professionally. And to be able to work out what irrelevant info doesn’t need to go into the document like on the 228! I actually had to laugh at that bit, it’s not rocket science! It’s actually a little concerning. It looks like it was written by a kid, the person who wrote this should get the sack. Another issue as people have noted is the W16 entry being for the W19, although it mentions that affects the borough of Havering and City of London The N55 change will also apparently affect Hammersmith and Fulham I didn't think Chiswick, Edensor Road fell within the Borough of Hammersmith (obscure joke only gettable by those of us long in the tooth enough to remember an Ealing pre-E suffix routes>)
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 8, 2019 9:48:45 GMT
A week late being published, but here we go content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-permanent-bus-changes.pdf215, 275, 97, 357, late entries / updates Walthamstow changes H13 extra journey N277 3 additional buses 357 re-routed 257 new duty schedules (this is weird category for passengers) 603 frequency change 20 stop revised 56 changes due to Mini-Holland demand change 228 change to driver changeovers W12, W15, W16, N55, changes due to new bus facility Whipps Cross What an ATROCIOUSLY written document!!!! Where the hell do I start with this!! 1) So some of the entries are bold, some aren’t. 2) The entry for route 56 makes no sense. 3) Some of the entries have a big gaping gap between the top of the cell and the top of the text, some don’t. 4) The entry for route 97 also doesn’t make sense, and also isn’t punctuated correctly. 5) Page 12 is completely unnecessary. A completely blank box, completely unprofessional as is the rest of this atrocity. Honestly what kind of idiots are working for TfL at the moment, people who do not have any basic grasp of the English language clearly! I’ve never written one of these documents before, but I guarantee I’d know how to lay it out and word it professionally. And to be able to work out what irrelevant info doesn’t need to go into the document like on the 228! I actually had to laugh at that bit, it’s not rocket science! It’s actually a little concerning. It looks like it was written by a kid, the person who wrote this should get the sack. Calm down dear, it’s only a clerical error 😝 Do you really think that someone should be sacked for this? I hope whenever you make a mistake your bosses are more lenient with you. No-ones personal safety or data has been put at stake and no laws have been broken. Whoever is in charge of this area (not necessarily the do-ers) needs to review and revise the current process and possibly conduct some refresher training with the team. I’ve seen quite a few posts in different parts of the forum calling for people to be sacked for non-sackable offences. If you are a leader, sacking someone really is the last resort once all other possible avenues of support and action have been tried and failed.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 8, 2019 10:59:47 GMT
What an ATROCIOUSLY written document!!!! Where the hell do I start with this!! 1) So some of the entries are bold, some aren’t. 2) The entry for route 56 makes no sense. 3) Some of the entries have a big gaping gap between the top of the cell and the top of the text, some don’t. 4) The entry for route 97 also doesn’t make sense, and also isn’t punctuated correctly. 5) Page 12 is completely unnecessary. A completely blank box, completely unprofessional as is the rest of this atrocity. Honestly what kind of idiots are working for TfL at the moment, people who do not have any basic grasp of the English language clearly! I’ve never written one of these documents before, but I guarantee I’d know how to lay it out and word it professionally. And to be able to work out what irrelevant info doesn’t need to go into the document like on the 228! I actually had to laugh at that bit, it’s not rocket science! It’s actually a little concerning. It looks like it was written by a kid, the person who wrote this should get the sack. Calm down dear, it’s only a clerical error 😝 Do you really think that someone should be sacked for this? I hope whenever you make a mistake your bosses are more lenient with you. No-ones personal safety or data has been put at stake and no laws have been broken. Whoever is in charge of this area (not necessarily the do-ers) needs to review and revise the current process and possibly conduct some refresher training with the team. I’ve seen quite a few posts in different parts of the forum calling for people to be sacked for non-sackable offences. If you are a leader, sacking someone really is the last resort once all other possible avenues of support and action have been tried and failed. Whether it's a sackable offence or not the persons suitably for the job must be called into question, it is atrocious and simply not good enough.
|
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 64
|
Post by frank on Jan 8, 2019 14:54:25 GMT
Sadly, as someone who left TfL a few years ago, largely because I saw the ambition to run things as if it were Sports Direct and not a public transport company, I can safely say that a large number of people who hold strong knowledge of the transport network have not only left, but also are being/have been replaced by those who lack understanding of public transport and in many cases quite couldn’t care less about the nuisances of public transport. These changes that TfL having been making through a number of poorly executed internal restructures since 2013, that are still ongoing (they knew not to rock the boat before the Olympics), are now beginning to show in the public domain. Not just through poorly written documents, but also delusional changes to our transport network. I’m sure this forum can list a phloethra of such decisions. This is not just a reflection of the budget deficit. Believe me when I say this.... I have been in high level meetings and heard about the Metropolitan line closures affecting northeast London, seen internal maps showing the London Overground terminating at Marylebone, read documents refusing to Victoria station on the Piccadilly line and laughed in dispear of the W&C line being renamed “Westminster & City line”. The list goes on and on, and on. It is not just the nature of the mistakes, it’s the type of people who having making the mistakes. Sit in he marketing sector for a day (Note that I did not work in this department), and you’ll easily spot the ‘transport’ person, and the employee who is more suited to marketing for tv and radio. Its not so much that the writer and proof checker of this document need to be sacked, its a wider issue of TfL actually needing to go back to basics and start employing transport savvy people who understand and are affected personally by the network, and posses an appreciation of public transport with a blend of London’s demographics or whom are at least willing o learn it). If they don’t, before you know it, the 25 will terminate at some random place called City Thameslink!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 8, 2019 15:37:01 GMT
Calm down dear, it’s only a clerical error 😝 Do you really think that someone should be sacked for this? I hope whenever you make a mistake your bosses are more lenient with you. No-ones personal safety or data has been put at stake and no laws have been broken. Whoever is in charge of this area (not necessarily the do-ers) needs to review and revise the current process and possibly conduct some refresher training with the team. I’ve seen quite a few posts in different parts of the forum calling for people to be sacked for non-sackable offences. If you are a leader, sacking someone really is the last resort once all other possible avenues of support and action have been tried and failed. Whether it's a sackable offence or not the persons suitably for the job must be called into question, it is atrocious and simply not good enough. But that's what busman has said when he mentioned a review & revision needs to take place rather than simply sacking someone which in this instance, I have my doubts over how beneficial that would be - it's clear to everyone that TfL's processes are shambolic.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 15:40:07 GMT
Calm down dear, it’s only a clerical error 😝 Do you really think that someone should be sacked for this? I hope whenever you make a mistake your bosses are more lenient with you. No-ones personal safety or data has been put at stake and no laws have been broken. Whoever is in charge of this area (not necessarily the do-ers) needs to review and revise the current process and possibly conduct some refresher training with the team. I’ve seen quite a few posts in different parts of the forum calling for people to be sacked for non-sackable offences. If you are a leader, sacking someone really is the last resort once all other possible avenues of support and action have been tried and failed. I agree no one is going to die as a result of the errors. However it is far worse than a clerical error. It is both a public document *and* one sent to TfL Stakeholders like MPs, councillors and Assembly Members. It is therefore part of TfL's public image. If I had produced a document this BAD when I worked at LT / TfL I'd have been bollocked from one end of the office to the other and quite right too. I have told the story before of being forced to sit in the office past 1800 on a Friday when I was taken through a Board Paper I'd written and having all the non compliances with the laid down template pointed out to me. That included where I had failed to put two leading spaces at the start of sentences! You tend not to forget stuff like this. You can argue about the pedantry of the Board Paper template but the point is that it is there to be complied with. In those days Board Papers were internal documents. Now they are published on the web for everyone to see. The errors I see in them and even in the Commissioner's Report set my teeth on edge. They should NEVER be published with errors / typos etc. Precisely the same applies to the service change document. I used to see the old service change documents and also the old weekly Travel Information bulletin. They were both vastly better produced than this mess. I was even asked to be a proof reader for the bus service change document despite not being a Buses employee. I suspect "proof reading" is now considered to be a waste of time given how rarely it is done. I think it also shows that TfL seem not to care very much about its public face. When you consider the enormous legacy from the Frank Pick days of smart typefaces, roundels, architectural excellence and clever advertising this is a crying shame.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 8, 2019 15:42:57 GMT
Whether it's a sackable offence or not the persons suitably for the job must be called into question, it is atrocious and simply not good enough. But that's what busman has said when he mentioned a review & revision needs to take place rather than simply sacking someone which in this instance, I have my doubts over how beneficial that would be - it's clear to everyone that TfL's processes are shambolic. I'm aware of what busman has said, your posting seems a bit superfluous quite honestly.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 8, 2019 16:30:56 GMT
What an ATROCIOUSLY written document!!!! Where the hell do I start with this!! 1) So some of the entries are bold, some aren’t. 2) The entry for route 56 makes no sense. 3) Some of the entries have a big gaping gap between the top of the cell and the top of the text, some don’t. 4) The entry for route 97 also doesn’t make sense, and also isn’t punctuated correctly. 5) Page 12 is completely unnecessary. A completely blank box, completely unprofessional as is the rest of this atrocity. Honestly what kind of idiots are working for TfL at the moment, people who do not have any basic grasp of the English language clearly! I’ve never written one of these documents before, but I guarantee I’d know how to lay it out and word it professionally. And to be able to work out what irrelevant info doesn’t need to go into the document like on the 228! I actually had to laugh at that bit, it’s not rocket science! It’s actually a little concerning. It looks like it was written by a kid, the person who wrote this should get the sack. Calm down dear, it’s only a clerical error 😝 Do you really think that someone should be sacked for this? I hope whenever you make a mistake your bosses are more lenient with you. No-ones personal safety or data has been put at stake and no laws have been broken. Whoever is in charge of this area (not necessarily the do-ers) needs to review and revise the current process and possibly conduct some refresher training with the team. I’ve seen quite a few posts in different parts of the forum calling for people to be sacked for non-sackable offences. If you are a leader, sacking someone really is the last resort once all other possible avenues of support and action have been tried and failed. I totally agree with these thoughts. Clearly the document was a week late, but what we do not know is if a junior was tasked with doing it, or a manager did it him/herself. Maybe the scheduled person was off sick and the person doing it had no training on what should be there so 'winged it' It does appear to have been rushed, and not checked (based on multiple detail errors and poor punctuation). To me it appears to be poor (or negligible) training and any fault lies with the Manager whose team owns the document as they clearly had no backup plan for timely production.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 8, 2019 18:05:09 GMT
Calm down dear, it’s only a clerical error 😝 Do you really think that someone should be sacked for this? I hope whenever you make a mistake your bosses are more lenient with you. No-ones personal safety or data has been put at stake and no laws have been broken. Whoever is in charge of this area (not necessarily the do-ers) needs to review and revise the current process and possibly conduct some refresher training with the team. I’ve seen quite a few posts in different parts of the forum calling for people to be sacked for non-sackable offences. If you are a leader, sacking someone really is the last resort once all other possible avenues of support and action have been tried and failed. I totally agree with these thoughts. Clearly the document was a week late, but what we do not know is if a junior was tasked with doing it, or a manager did it him/herself. Maybe the scheduled person was off sick and the person doing it had no training on what should be there so 'winged it' It does appear to have been rushed, and not checked (based on multiple detail errors and poor punctuation). To me it appears to be poor (or negligible) training and any fault lies with the Manager whose team owns the document as they clearly had no backup plan for timely production. I would agree with this. I expect this has been put together by someone holding the fort over the Christmas/New Year period who doesn't normally do it. Rather than boiling them in oil, perhaps some proper desk instructions are needed to ensure whoever ends up doing it in future knows precisely what is needed.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2019 18:40:51 GMT
I totally agree with these thoughts. Clearly the document was a week late, but what we do not know is if a junior was tasked with doing it, or a manager did it him/herself. Maybe the scheduled person was off sick and the person doing it had no training on what should be there so 'winged it' It does appear to have been rushed, and not checked (based on multiple detail errors and poor punctuation). To me it appears to be poor (or negligible) training and any fault lies with the Manager whose team owns the document as they clearly had no backup plan for timely production. I would agree with this. I expect this has been put together by someone holding the fort over the Christmas/New Year period who doesn't normally do it. Rather than boiling them in oil, perhaps some proper desk instructions are needed to ensure whoever ends up doing it in future knows precisely what is needed. You won't know this but every bit of work in TfL has formal instructions and processes. I was involved in the early LU part of this work. It was expanded and extended considerably after I left. Therefore I would certainly expect there to be instructions in place for the production of a public facing document. Now that's not a guarantee of perfection from someone tasked with producing something for the first time but it should mean something better than what was appeared in publication. As Snowman said the real issue here is the manager not ensuring that activities were covered by competent people over a holiday period. I had to explain to my boss who was doing what in my absence before I was allowed out the door. Part of that was because my department was responsible for time critical processes including payment of contractors and production of key documents that were used by the LU Board. In short those things couldn't be allowed to go wrong or be late. It's just common sense but it's born out of experience. I remain of the view that allowing decades worth of experience to leave and be replaced by people in their 20s with barely a few year's experience is daft. Only 1 or 2 of those 20+ year olds will be sufficiently adept at their age to perform at the same level of older employees. They tend to be the genuine "high flyers" who have exceptional skills and abilities and there aren't many of them about. You can't expect their performance levels from all of their compatriots.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 8, 2019 20:01:23 GMT
I would agree with this. I expect this has been put together by someone holding the fort over the Christmas/New Year period who doesn't normally do it. Rather than boiling them in oil, perhaps some proper desk instructions are needed to ensure whoever ends up doing it in future knows precisely what is needed. You won't know this but every bit of work in TfL has formal instructions and processes. I was involved in the early LU part of this work. It was expanded and extended considerably after I left. Therefore I would certainly expect there to be instructions in place for the production of a public facing document. Now that's not a guarantee of perfection from someone tasked with producing something for the first time but it should mean something better than what was appeared in publication. As Snowman said the real issue here is the manager not ensuring that activities were covered by competent people over a holiday period. I had to explain to my boss who was doing what in my absence before I was allowed out the door. Part of that was because my department was responsible for time critical processes including payment of contractors and production of key documents that were used by the LU Board. In short those things couldn't be allowed to go wrong or be late. It's just common sense but it's born out of experience. I remain of the view that allowing decades worth of experience to leave and be replaced by people in their 20s with barely a few year's experience is daft. Only 1 or 2 of those 20+ year olds will be sufficiently adept at their age to perform at the same level of older employees. They tend to be the genuine "high flyers" who have exceptional skills and abilities and there aren't many of them about. You can't expect their performance levels from all of their compatriots. I know exactly where you're coming from - I've been in places where whole teams have disappeared and the loss of corporate and institutional memory has been alarming. The effects aren't always visible until some way down the line. You need fresh blood in a team to stop it ossifying but you also need a bedrock of experience to spot mistakes. I'll never forget the day I was able to shoot some bright spark's idea by telling them 'the coroner said it was dangerous'.
|
|