London Bus Strike

System

Azari wrote: »

Do you want to have a little think about that and, maybe reconsider.

There is an immense flaw in your logic.

If you need a clue, just ask.

Yeah I was on the way back from the pub so was a bit merry. However there is no flaw. Obviously because you work in transport you know the ins and outs of the unions. However one of my exes used to work for TFL and it's a well known fact that the union only agreed to have automated trains as long as a human was also employed on the train.

If conductors were essential they would have them on every underground train. They don't because they don't need them

harz99

Skintski wrote: »

I have no sympathy. A bus can only hold a certain number of people so the fact that they are more likely to be full does not count as extra work in my eyes, its not as if they have to drive further or load luggage etc so as far as I can see they are demanding extra cash for doing their job. The emergency services will have their hands full and see no financial gain from it plus all leave has been banned during the games so I don't see what the bus drivers have to whinge about.

The strike is all because of greed.

Well said Skintski; the most sensible post on here by far.

Over my lifetime I have worked for what was LT as an old school bus driver with a conductor, a one person driver/operator, a guard on the underground and a ticket clerk on BR amongst other roles with these organisations, so here's my take on a few things.

In my day it did indeed take only two weeks to train a bus driver, nine days training with PSV test on the tenth day, pass and you had a permanent job and carried on to learn all the routes at the garage you were assigned to and also training on any other bus types you would have to drive, fail you were out unless there were any available conductor vacancies. Of course things have changed, we never had fares matters to worry about nor NVQs and so on. So yes, it takes at least four weeks for a new driver to become productive.

With regard to extra work generated during the Olympics, I was told that I was paid to drive a full bus, anything less was a bonus to me, that has not changed or drivers working the busiest routes in any one company would be paid more than those working the quieter routes, and that doesn't happen.

Turning to the bonuses that have been agreed with various other Unions and workers; as far as I am aware most have related to things like agreement to vary shift patterns, length of working day, days off etc. etc. and can be justified on those terms.

Unite appear to be asking for extra pay for the busmen to do their normal daily job, which is clearly not warranted and never has been - I well remember the rail strikes in the seventies which caused those of us busmen that worked routes from the suburbs into Central London no end of extra work, all we expected and got was overtime pay for finishing late, sometimes up to 2 hours at a time!

With regard to London Tube drivers being paid more than bus drivers, it is quite simple; Tube drivers are paid for two things, the job they do each day and the knowledge they have to put to use only occasionally when a train is stopped in trouble and needs to be got going again as quickly and safely as possible. A defective bus, can in 99% of cases, be parked at the side of the road until repair/recovery is possible. A defective train blocking the running line, or worse still stuck in a tunnel is a wholly different matter, hence the knowledge needed by tube drivers.

And finally, would you wish to travel on a fully automatic train in deep tube tunnels without a member of staff onboard, I know I wouldn't. The driver is there for safety reasons pure and simple, as is the train captain on the DLR - right back to the days when the Victoria line opened it never was, nor ever has been because of Union pressure.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

However there is no flaw.

You mean you haven't worked out what it is, yet.

Obviously because you work in transport you know the ins and outs of the unions.

I do not work in transport.

However, I can read and hence can clearly remember the reasoning behind the 'conductors' on the DLR. It has everything to do with safety (operating the train in the event of a breakdown in the ATS) and nothing to do with the unions.

However one of my exes used to work for TFL and it's a well known fact that the union only agreed to have automated trains as long as a human was also employed on the train.

Ah, yes, one of those well known 'facts' that has precisely nothing to do with reality.

If conductors were essential they would have them on every underground train. They don't because they don't need them

You really are quite dim, aren't you?

(Cue Goater getting all butthurt because I point out his lamentable lack of ability in the thinking department. )

I have already pointed out to you, before you made that comment, that they are there to move the train if the systems malfunction.

Can you see why they are thus not needed on normal underground trains?

System

Paris has fully automated trams with no train captain. I also believe they have them in Denmark, Germany, USA etc. In fact I believe its only the UK that insists on having "train captains".

There is no need to have a human on board a driver less train. Its only because of the unions that the DLR stick a man on the train. His job is to basically sit on a train and do nothing (he may open the doors). No company would employ a man to do nothing, unless pressure was placed on them to employ them.

Azari

Read the last paragraph of post #35 if you don't care to believe me.

Sheldon_Cooper

goater78 wrote: »

There is no need to have a human on board a driver less train. Its only because of the unions that the DLR stick a man on the train. His job is to basically sit on a train and do nothing (he may open the doors). No company would employ a man to do nothing, unless pressure was placed on them to employ them.

Goater, old bean, do try not to be such a muppet.

Someone who worked for LT has already explained why they have PSAs for you:

harz99 wrote: »

And finally, would you wish to travel on a fully automatic train in deep tube tunnels without a member of staff onboard, I know I wouldn't. The driver is there for safety reasons pure and simple, as is the train captain on the DLR - right back to the days when the Victoria line opened it never was, nor ever has been because of Union pressure.

This is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

The trains have always been fully automated and controlled by computer operations and have no driver; a Passenger Service Agent (PSA),[13][14] originally referred to as a "Train Captain", on each train is responsible for patrolling the train, checking tickets, making announcements and controlling the doors. PSAs can take control of the train in circumstances including equipment failure and emergencies.

I know how you love to contradict azari at every opportunity but you are just making a fool of yourself when there is plenty of evidence that you are wrong and yet you keep banging on with your ill thought out statements.

System

Azari wrote: »

Read the last paragraph of post #35 if you don't care to believe me.

That's just his opinion and although I respect it I don't agree with it. Like I say Paris copes without this safety measure and there doesn't appear to be any major safety concerns there.

harz99

goater78 wrote: »

That's just his opinion and although I respect it I don't agree with it. Like I say Paris copes without this safety measure and there doesn't appear to be any major safety concerns there.

Trams, not trains in deep level tube tunnels or on elevated sections of the DLR - significant difference.

System

The Paris system goes underground. I believe it broke down once and people were trapped!

harz99

goater78 wrote: »

The Paris system goes underground. I believe it broke down once and people were trapped!

And what a nice experience that must have been.

Anyhow, what happens in other countries is irrelevant here; the Department for Transport would not/will not sanction unmanned passenger trains on any large scale, heavily used network. The only ones allowed are things like the Gatwick inter terminal airport shuttle which is short distance and relatively easy to access from the track in case of breakdown - the cars still have manual control points for suitable staff to use in emergency.