|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 6, 2022 10:28:37 GMT
Good good example of why London in such a mess can I present you with Will Norman, one of the Mayor's transport advisors. He basically thinks motor vehicles should be banished from all roads. Now basically, it looks a good idea as presented. The convenient thing that he fails to mention is there has been years of disruption as a multi-million euro project has seen the multi-lane highway buried in a tunnel. If London suggested such thing, and they deemed it to be financially viable, I could get behind such a project. How can someone in public office be allowed to misrepresent and deceive the public like this? He is promoting a scheme where they have built a new road, but wants us to do the same without building a new road. So exhibit A, why is London in such a mess, I present you with Will Norman. Germans are getting healthly areas right (it would seem), London is not. Is this guy the biggest threat to London's future? Germany's gets things done, the British just cock everything up! This is not just a one off tweet from this guy! What a total numpty that guy, if that is what you call inspiration, what a sad individual. I can think of more pleasant things in my life to take inspiration from.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 6, 2022 10:32:39 GMT
I do not feel sorry for Heathrow and feel that it is scandalous. They have made millions over the years. They used the excuse with the government some years ago to hike up the parking prices to encourage people to use public transport. They then came up with the drop off fee to make more money, it does not even make sense to use this, you are better off parking in the car park now. Then they want the transport authorities to charge more for people to get there via Elizabeth line and the Underground. This clearly is wrong on all levels. What next? Charge bus passengers an additional levy to get in there. Same here, I have no sympathy at all for Heathrow. They made tons of money prior to covid (it used to be one of the busiest globally!) with sky-high passenger fees etc etc and connections to mostly lucrative destinations everywhere. But the money was all used to pay dividends to fairly wealthy shareholders (which they can legally). Customer service was pretty poor in my view: - no chance of booking priority like Gatwick has - shoddy service if you have booked a wheelchair (I remember back in 2017 my parents had to wait for more than an hour for the golf cart to come and pick them up from the plane - poor experience at immigration with typical waiting of more than an hour even pre-covid although this one is more on the home office. Airline immigration is literally the easiest thing to plan for as you know exactly how many flights are arriving with passengers of what nationality at what time! It used to be so annoying seeing the immigration officers disappearing one by one for shift changes at 8am when you already have been waiting for an hour with no replacement in sight! One thing with Heathrow as well is the long drawn out process at departures going through security screening, passport control, immigration. Other airports do it much better. Terminal 3 is the worst of them all, even after it has been resdesigned.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 6, 2022 12:59:21 GMT
I do not feel sorry for Heathrow and feel that it is scandalous. They have made millions over the years. They used the excuse with the government some years ago to hike up the parking prices to encourage people to use public transport. They then came up with the drop off fee to make more money, it does not even make sense to use this, you are better off parking in the car park now. Then they want the transport authorities to charge more for people to get there via Elizabeth line and the Underground. This clearly is wrong on all levels. What next? Charge bus passengers an additional levy to get in there. Same here, I have no sympathy at all for Heathrow. They made tons of money prior to covid (it used to be one of the busiest globally!) with sky-high passenger fees etc etc and connections to mostly lucrative destinations everywhere. But the money was all used to pay dividends to fairly wealthy shareholders (which they can legally). Customer service was pretty poor in my view: - no chance of booking priority like Gatwick has - shoddy service if you have booked a wheelchair (I remember back in 2017 my parents had to wait for more than an hour for the golf cart to come and pick them up from the plane - poor experience at immigration with typical waiting of more than an hour even pre-covid although this one is more on the home office. Airline immigration is literally the easiest thing to plan for as you know exactly how many flights are arriving with passengers of what nationality at what time! It used to be so annoying seeing the immigration officers disappearing one by one for shift changes at 8am when you already have been waiting for an hour with no replacement in sight! Regarding customer service, TBF, I wouldn't expect much considering they get crappy pay & working conditions aren't great either. When the airlines tried to hire back the people they sacked off during the pandemic, it was reported the reasons most turned them down wasn't because they got fired but because they found better jobs with more pay and better conditions. You get what you pay for (in terms of pay staff crap, expect crap service within reason)
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 6, 2022 13:01:45 GMT
Today - September 4th - is 40 years since the 'Fares Fair' cuts of 1982. I wonder how the scale of the crisis and the cuts compare to what we are facing now. Yes, and even with the fares fair prices, just over 50% of the cost of the bus network was covered by the fare box. Different crisis, with some similar features. There were quite a lot less buses in service in 1982 compared to now, and bus frequency was generally worse. The 1980s were not really a good decade for London Transport.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 6, 2022 13:02:42 GMT
Can you not just touch out at Hatton Cross, touch back in and get the next train? Saves a few quid legally Every pence matters You can do that as SILENCED mentioned though I've heard conflicting reports on how long the time limit is between tapping out and back in but you can get around it that way - diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2022/09/flight-plans.html
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Sept 6, 2022 13:22:42 GMT
Same here, I have no sympathy at all for Heathrow. They made tons of money prior to covid (it used to be one of the busiest globally!) with sky-high passenger fees etc etc and connections to mostly lucrative destinations everywhere. But the money was all used to pay dividends to fairly wealthy shareholders (which they can legally). Customer service was pretty poor in my view: - no chance of booking priority like Gatwick has - shoddy service if you have booked a wheelchair (I remember back in 2017 my parents had to wait for more than an hour for the golf cart to come and pick them up from the plane - poor experience at immigration with typical waiting of more than an hour even pre-covid although this one is more on the home office. Airline immigration is literally the easiest thing to plan for as you know exactly how many flights are arriving with passengers of what nationality at what time! It used to be so annoying seeing the immigration officers disappearing one by one for shift changes at 8am when you already have been waiting for an hour with no replacement in sight! Regarding customer service, TBF, I wouldn't expect much considering they get crappy pay & working conditions aren't great either. When the airlines tried to hire back the people they sacked off during the pandemic, it was reported the reasons most turned them down wasn't because they got fired but because they found better jobs with more pay and better conditions. You get what you pay for (in terms of pay staff crap, expect crap service within reason) I agree, I don’t exactly blame the people. Not a very exciting job spec to wake up at 3am to be at the airport at 4am to unload heavy bags all day To be honest the people aren’t bad, most people at Heathrow have always tried to go the extra mile (including helping elderly with luggage etc etc). It’s just that even pre-covid when 5 people were needed, there would be 3 at the most
|
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 64
|
Post by frank on Sept 8, 2022 0:18:29 GMT
Frank, Clapham South incident, It was a driver controlled train we we all agree. Now would the the departure system work on the Northern Line? Presumably door closure system is instigated by the driver or platform staff. How does the train then start? Its it an automated process, or is it a driver initiated process? If it is the former, then yes the drivers action were heroic. If it was the latter, the passenger was dragged along the platform as a result of the drivers actions. I do not know the intricacies of how a tube train leaves a station ... can anyone fill in the blanks. The one thing that can not be disputed is a driver controlled train dragged a passenger along the platform. This is clearly a failure of the system. So what process actually caused the train to move off with a passenger trapped in the door. Automated or manual process? I am not saying it is the fault the driver, he can only work within the limitations of the system, but it can not be denied it is the fault of the system. Could a different system be better? The simple fact is the passenger should not have been dragged along the platform at all. Saying the driver saved the situation from getting worse, does not excuse the initial failing. How can you eliminate this initial action that caused the failure? Paris initially had problems with curved platforms but have overcome them. We can learn from their experiences. Trips, falls and the likes can be fixed by platform edging as used on JLE and all Paris automated lines. If there are as many instances of entries in the incident log as you claim ... in my eyes, the makes the current practice inherently unsafe. Should such a system be open to the public? @silenced regarding your point around the the system/practice be unsafe. Every time you step into a road vehicle whether as a driver, you are at the mercy of other road users to safely observe the rules of the road and manage their vehicle safely. Not veering out of their lane, not speeding, not under influence of alcohol, not on their mobile phone, driving a vehicle which is insured and with an MOT etc. If you are a passenger, you are also at the mercy of your driver. Crazy when you think about how much reliance their is on complete strangers with basic training to fulfil their end of the bargain. Yet this system is 'open to public consumption'. Should we stop driving tomorrow? Or do we accept that the benefits of the system despite its flaws outweigh the negatives? I'm thinking of transport being a stimulus to economy, education, communication, health, social mobility and connectivity. The point I am making is that all systems have risk. Whether it be transport, electrical, IT, Banking, even the system my beloved Ajax football team deploys, carries risk. And risk that humans have to eventually mitigate. Mitigation comes in many forms, ranging from monitoring right through to testing. Where London Underground trains are concerned part of that mitigation comes in the form of Train Operators. Now I am not saying that we should blindly accept a system with risks and never strive to reduce risk. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that we need to be realistic. I would like for my house to have a swimming pool on the roof. Technically feasible, however my bank account says no. Installing PEDs on the entire Central line, technically feasible, but at what cost and what level of disruption. Who is going to fund this? If it was a no brainer, then why didn't Boris who's continuously banged that drum begin to set aside provisions for driverless trains during his 8 year stint as Mayor of London? Bringing this back to driverless trains, the basic options are as follows (there are other scenarios, I'm just overly simplifying the basic options to try and keep this short!). A: Driverless trains (no driver at all) and no physical protection system (e.g. no PEDS) = huge increase risk of passenger vs train incidents and increased risk during detrainment B: Driverless trains (some form of onboard staff) and no physical protection system (e.g. no PEDS) = huge increase risk passenger vs train incidents C: Driverless trains (train staffed or not staffed) and a physical protection system (e.g. PEDS) = huge increase in cost (both construction and maintenance) and long term line and station closures and disruption D: Increased automation (with a Train Operator) = increase in cost and minor increase in risk (trains generally accelerate faster and brake harder). This where LU currently are with exception to the Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines. I'll replay the case I'm making one more time although I get the feeling many aren't buying it! Maybe I haven't expressed myself well enough. Much of LU is deep tube as well as being single-bore with no space for walkways. The Paris metro is typically twin-tracked, wider, with a much shallower depth (cut and cover) with shorter sections between stations like the DLR. Paris Metro is instantly better geared up for infrastructure such as walkways for maintenance and evacuation, in fact one of the lines was designed with passive provision in mind for driverless trains. The platform levels and curvatures on the Paris Metro are largely the same. Yes they had technical challenges to over come but nothing to the same extent that LU will have. Remember the Tube really is just an amalgamation of different railways built during a period of competition and private investment resulting in many varied platform typographies and station profiles across the network. Therefore at the time of development there was no incentivisation for standardisation. Most importantly, the height and distance between the train and the platform are rarely the same between each station, let alone within the same station. This is a large part of the reason as to why the rollout of step-free access across the network has been such a slow process. The step free tube map for platform access to trains which is a great way to grasp how many different platform levels LU has, often mitigated by manual boarding ramps content.tfl.gov.uk/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdfRegarding how a LU train departs a station and how the incident unfurled, this is well described within the Clapham South RAIB accident report I shared earlier... www.gov.uk/raib-reports/serious-accident-at-clapham-south-tube-station
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 8, 2022 0:49:53 GMT
Frank, Clapham South incident, It was a driver controlled train we we all agree. Now would the the departure system work on the Northern Line? Presumably door closure system is instigated by the driver or platform staff. How does the train then start? Its it an automated process, or is it a driver initiated process? If it is the former, then yes the drivers action were heroic. If it was the latter, the passenger was dragged along the platform as a result of the drivers actions. I do not know the intricacies of how a tube train leaves a station ... can anyone fill in the blanks. The one thing that can not be disputed is a driver controlled train dragged a passenger along the platform. This is clearly a failure of the system. So what process actually caused the train to move off with a passenger trapped in the door. Automated or manual process? I am not saying it is the fault the driver, he can only work within the limitations of the system, but it can not be denied it is the fault of the system. Could a different system be better? The simple fact is the passenger should not have been dragged along the platform at all. Saying the driver saved the situation from getting worse, does not excuse the initial failing. How can you eliminate this initial action that caused the failure? Paris initially had problems with curved platforms but have overcome them. We can learn from their experiences. Trips, falls and the likes can be fixed by platform edging as used on JLE and all Paris automated lines. If there are as many instances of entries in the incident log as you claim ... in my eyes, the makes the current practice inherently unsafe. Should such a system be open to the public? @silenced regarding your point around the the system/practice be unsafe. Every time you step into a road vehicle whether as a driver, you are at the mercy of other road users to safely observe the rules of the road and manage their vehicle safely. Not veering out of their lane, not speeding, not under influence of alcohol, not on their mobile phone, driving a vehicle which is insured and with an MOT etc. If you are a passenger, you are also at the mercy of your driver. Crazy when you think about how much reliance their is on complete strangers with basic training to fulfil their end of the bargain. Yet this system is 'open to public consumption'. Should we stop driving tomorrow? Or do we accept that the benefits of the system despite its flaws outweigh the negatives? I'm thinking of transport being a stimulus to economy, education, communication, health, social mobility and connectivity. The point I am making is that all systems have risk. Whether it be transport, electrical, IT, Banking, even the system my beloved Ajax football team deploys, carries risk. And risk that humans have to eventually mitigate. Mitigation comes in many forms, ranging from monitoring right through to testing. Where London Underground trains are concerned part of that mitigation comes in the form of Train Operators. Now I am not saying that we should blindly accept a system with risks and never strive to reduce risk. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that we need to be realistic. I would like for my house to have a swimming pool on the roof. Technically feasible, however my bank account says no. Installing PEDs on the entire Central line, technically feasible, but at what cost and what level of disruption. Who is going to fund this? If it was a no brainer, then why didn't Boris who's continuously banged that drum begin to set aside provisions for driverless trains during his 8 year stint as Mayor of London? Bringing this back to driverless trains, the basic options are as follows (there are other scenarios, I'm just overly simplifying the basic options to try and keep this short!). A: Driverless trains (no driver at all) and no physical protection system (e.g. no PEDS) = huge increase risk of passenger vs train incidents and increased risk during detrainment B: Driverless trains (some form of onboard staff) and no physical protection system (e.g. no PEDS) = huge increase risk passenger vs train incidents C: Driverless trains (train staffed or not staffed) and a physical protection system (e.g. PEDS) = huge increase in cost (both construction and maintenance) and long term line and station closures and disruption D: Increased automation (with a Train Operator) = increase in cost and minor increase in risk (trains generally accelerate faster and brake harder). This where LU currently are with exception to the Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines. I'll replay the case I'm making one more time although I get the feeling many aren't buying it! Maybe I haven't expressed myself well enough. Much of LU is deep tube as well as being single-bore with no space for walkways. The Paris metro is typically twin-tracked, wider, with a much shallower depth (cut and cover) with shorter sections between stations like the DLR. Paris Metro is instantly better geared up for infrastructure such as walkways for maintenance and evacuation, in fact one of the lines was designed with passive provision in mind for driverless trains. The platform levels and curvatures on the Paris Metro are largely the same. Yes they had technical challenges to over come but nothing to the same extent that LU will have. Remember the Tube really is just an amalgamation of different railways built during a period of competition and private investment resulting in many varied platform typographies and station profiles across the network. Therefore at the time of development there was no incentivisation for standardisation. Most importantly, the height and distance between the train and the platform are rarely the same between each station, let alone within the same station. This is a large part of the reason as to why the rollout of step-free access across the network has been such a slow process. The step free tube map for platform access to trains which is a great way to grasp how many different platform levels LU has, often mitigated by manual boarding ramps content.tfl.gov.uk/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdfRegarding how a LU train departs a station and how the incident unfurled, this is well described within the Clapham South RAIB accident report I shared earlier... www.gov.uk/raib-reports/serious-accident-at-clapham-south-tube-stationOK, I accept the French can do things that are way beyond the realms of the English. French engineers are obviously superior to the British counterparts. Now should that just be accepted? Yes one line was built to be automated? How about the other 2, and the 4 new ones they are building, not to mention the lines in other French cities? How could France do an automated line in 1991, around the time the PC was invented, yet in the 2020s, railway staff here still deem it impossible. Technology does not seem to have come to UK railways ... why? ...it pays railwaymen to keep it that way! Why is it only Brits that have 'a can not do attitude' Probably because too many people believe their own self importance! Britain should be at the forefront of technology, not saying we can't do something the French did over 30 years ago! When I worked for a bank, we were expected to make systems possible, not say we can't do it. The spec for the faster payments systems was crazy ... but we did it.
|
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 64
|
Post by frank on Sept 8, 2022 0:55:26 GMT
@silenced regarding your point around the the system/practice be unsafe. Every time you step into a road vehicle whether as a driver, you are at the mercy of other road users to safely observe the rules of the road and manage their vehicle safely. Not veering out of their lane, not speeding, not under influence of alcohol, not on their mobile phone, driving a vehicle which is insured and with an MOT etc. If you are a passenger, you are also at the mercy of your driver. Crazy when you think about how much reliance their is on complete strangers with basic training to fulfil their end of the bargain. Yet this system is 'open to public consumption'. Should we stop driving tomorrow? Or do we accept that the benefits of the system despite its flaws outweigh the negatives? I'm thinking of transport being a stimulus to economy, education, communication, health, social mobility and connectivity. The point I am making is that all systems have risk. Whether it be transport, electrical, IT, Banking, even the system my beloved Ajax football team deploys, carries risk. And risk that humans have to eventually mitigate. Mitigation comes in many forms, ranging from monitoring right through to testing. Where London Underground trains are concerned part of that mitigation comes in the form of Train Operators. Now I am not saying that we should blindly accept a system with risks and never strive to reduce risk. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that we need to be realistic. I would like for my house to have a swimming pool on the roof. Technically feasible, however my bank account says no. Installing PEDs on the entire Central line, technically feasible, but at what cost and what level of disruption. Who is going to fund this? If it was a no brainer, then why didn't Boris who's continuously banged that drum begin to set aside provisions for driverless trains during his 8 year stint as Mayor of London? Bringing this back to driverless trains, the basic options are as follows (there are other scenarios, I'm just overly simplifying the basic options to try and keep this short!). A: Driverless trains (no driver at all) and no physical protection system (e.g. no PEDS) = huge increase risk of passenger vs train incidents and increased risk during detrainment B: Driverless trains (some form of onboard staff) and no physical protection system (e.g. no PEDS) = huge increase risk passenger vs train incidents C: Driverless trains (train staffed or not staffed) and a physical protection system (e.g. PEDS) = huge increase in cost (both construction and maintenance) and long term line and station closures and disruption D: Increased automation (with a Train Operator) = increase in cost and minor increase in risk (trains generally accelerate faster and brake harder). This where LU currently are with exception to the Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines. I'll replay the case I'm making one more time although I get the feeling many aren't buying it! Maybe I haven't expressed myself well enough. Much of LU is deep tube as well as being single-bore with no space for walkways. The Paris metro is typically twin-tracked, wider, with a much shallower depth (cut and cover) with shorter sections between stations like the DLR. Paris Metro is instantly better geared up for infrastructure such as walkways for maintenance and evacuation, in fact one of the lines was designed with passive provision in mind for driverless trains. The platform levels and curvatures on the Paris Metro are largely the same. Yes they had technical challenges to over come but nothing to the same extent that LU will have. Remember the Tube really is just an amalgamation of different railways built during a period of competition and private investment resulting in many varied platform typographies and station profiles across the network. Therefore at the time of development there was no incentivisation for standardisation. Most importantly, the height and distance between the train and the platform are rarely the same between each station, let alone within the same station. This is a large part of the reason as to why the rollout of step-free access across the network has been such a slow process. The step free tube map for platform access to trains which is a great way to grasp how many different platform levels LU has, often mitigated by manual boarding ramps content.tfl.gov.uk/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdfRegarding how a LU train departs a station and how the incident unfurled, this is well described within the Clapham South RAIB accident report I shared earlier... www.gov.uk/raib-reports/serious-accident-at-clapham-south-tube-stationOK, I accept the French can do things that are way beyond the realms of the English. French engineers are obviously superior to the British counterparts. Now should that just be accepted? Every country has their cultural challenges, granted. But this topic has nothing to do with the English vs the French or any nationality vs anyone.
|
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 64
|
Post by frank on Sept 8, 2022 10:00:13 GMT
OK, I accept the French can do things that are way beyond the realms of the English. French engineers are obviously superior to the British counterparts. Now should that just be accepted? Yes one line was built to be automated? How about the other 2, and the 4 new ones they are building, not to mention the lines in other French cities? How could France do an automated line in 1991, around the time the PC was invented, yet in the 2020s, railway staff here still deem it impossible. Technology does not seem to have come to UK railways ... why? ...it pays railwaymen to keep it that way! Why is it only Brits that have 'a can not do attitude' Probably because too many people believe their own self-importance! Britain should be at the forefront of technology, not saying we can't do something the French did over 30 years ago! When I worked for a bank, we were expected to make systems possible, not say we can't do it. The spec for the faster payments systems was crazy ... but we did it. I understand the frustration @silenced that the railway feels like a bunch of people whose default position is to say "No". And I cannot deny that I have experienced a lot of this in industry many times. However, there is a lot of innovation and engineering brilliance in UK railway projects. It's just that it's not celebrated or is not the most obvious in your face thing to the common eye. Take for example the construction of the Elizabeth line tunnel sections. Despite the significant delays to the Elizabeth line, it is recognised within the railway industry the world class nature of the tunnel construction. Attention to safety in construction, the UK is definitely a world leader. HS2, despite whatever people may think of HS2 as a scheme, the civils construction of the viaducts and tunnelling is already seen as world leading within industry. The UK's railway understanding is also reflected in the fact that a lot of countries who seek to modernise or develop new railways, continually look to the UK to poach people with particularly engineering operational knowledge. Unfortunately, the UK railway system is old and far more importantly was not really designed to facilitate significant future expansion beyond what has already been achieved in most cases. This plays a significant part driving up cost and technically complexity. This is the underlining reason why HS2 is being built, because we cannot keep squeezing extra capacity out of the parallel West Coast Mainline for both freight and passenger services. But even with HS2 and as we have seen on the Elizabeth line, as the trains will need to connection with the existing conventional railway, this means that the trains will need to be compatible with the existing railway, thus limiting how futuristic the trains and new network can be. Personally, I think that London is better off focusing on finishing off automating current Underground lines to a similar level of automation as the Victoria and Jubilee lines. And then to really be world class, building new self-contained railways, whereby tracks do not physically connect to existing lines (but stations for passenger interchanges can), and there you really will find the space and remit to truly design a visually world class leading train system. I am not saying driverless is unachievable, I am however saying that because of the cost and huge scale of the effort and potential length of disruption, that there might be better solutions that really are world leading that London should aspire towards. In the same way that the DLR really gave London something different and unique and is still relevant today.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 9, 2022 10:17:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Sept 9, 2022 11:44:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 25, 2022 21:29:56 GMT
Just seen on BBC London news up to 5000 of the lowest paid contractors such as cleaners and security staff who work for TfL will now get free travel in TfL services.
This is good news for the often forgotten about behind the scenes low paid workers. Yes it’s another dent in the finances but do think this is a positive move.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Sept 25, 2022 23:04:32 GMT
Just seen on BBC London news up to 5000 of the lowest paid contractors such as cleaners and security staff who work for TfL will now get free travel in TfL services. This is good news for the often forgotten about behind the scenes low paid workers. Yes it’s another dent in the finances but do think this is a positive move. Cleaners have recently voted for stike for the minimum wage and free travel hopefully they will get the pay increase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2022 12:50:44 GMT
Here is what a decent transport organisation does to get more passengers using their networks
|
|