In article , T i m
scribeth thus
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:12:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
But it has been common for a very long time for people not to stay
long in their first job. They can usually get higher wages and
promotion more easily by moving companies.

Before I started freelancing, I jumped jobs a few times

In every case it was not because I wasn't being paid enough

Same here. It was down to poor working conditions and boring work.

Exactly why tube drivers are well paid. ;-)

As an aside and whilst I get the thought, has anyone here been a tube
driver to be able to say just how 'boring' it is (or isn't)?

Ok, I can understand how when observed from a job some might consider
'interesting', we are all different (psychometric profile) and
therefore would be 'entertained' by different things.

So, from a day-to-day POV I guess it's fundamentally fairly
straightforward but do they have rotas and rosters that mean they
could be driving different routes, either daily or occasionally?

Have a butchers on You tube - where else...

Quite a few on there...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaj5EIAKIZU

Whilst 'most trips' are uneventful (certainly as seen by the
passengers), who knows what may have happened and was 'dealt with' by
the driver ... be it a signaling issue, minor malfunction or summat
else?

Or how would 'most people' deal with a jumper ... or some terrorist
action on their train?

Whilst there are accidents at work ... operating heavy machinery etc
you are probably more likely to only hurt yourself because you screw
up, rather than be hurt as a result of other peoples actions.
Similarly, I wouldn't think most blue collar workers are responsible
for thousands of peoples lives, every singe working day. That might
make the job 'interesting' to some?

And of course, for some people, 'trains' or even public transport in
general is something they love to be involved in, sometimes at any
level, with a 'driver' being the top of their list. ;-)

And then there is the 'community'. Such workers are usually in groups,
teams or gangs and often build up very good, strong and lifelong
relationships with their fellow workers.

I think it's deffo 'a career', rather than just 'a job' for most of
them.

Just thinking out loud ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

--
Tony Sayer

On 19/02/2018 11:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
Exactly why tube drivers are well paid. ;-)

As an aside and whilst I get the thought, has anyone here been a tube
driver to be able to say just how 'boring' it is (or isn't)?

Not me. But I know one who currently is, and one who was and moved into
management. The only reason the one who currently still does it is for the
money.


Not a good reason to do the job is it?
Just there for the cash tends to make people do a worse job than
enjoying it.
Maybe they recruited the wrong person but that may be because they had
little choice.

On 19/02/2018 08:38, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1669881 20180218 170209 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/02/18 16:47, Mark wrote:
Brexit may benefit a few very rich people, but most will lose out.
Brexit may harm most rich people but evertyone else will benfit mightily

Turnip gets it arse-about-face as usual.


He just lies to try and win his argument.

On 19/02/2018 10:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/02/18 09:51, tim... wrote:
Brexit in name only will be the worst thing that can happen

1000 times worse than staying in

That is, of course, the Plan....
,

You won, live with it.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:02:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Exactly why tube drivers are well paid. ;-)

As an aside and whilst I get the thought, has anyone here been a tube
driver to be able to say just how 'boring' it is (or isn't)?

Not me. But I know one who currently is, and one who was and moved into
management.

Sometimes the way, especially after a time in service or if they have
some health issues.

I don't have any figures, but have been told these are well above the norm
with tube drivers. Including things like suicide. Perhaps the ultimate
health issue.
That particular mate is a true anorak about all things LT related. Mainly
the history of the tube. Absolutely fascinating.

The only reason the one who currently still does it is for the
money.

I guess there will be people doing it 'for the money' at the outset
and / or maybe times are changing?

Well, most work to pay the bills. Apart from Brexiteers, obviously, who
think it all comes from a printing press. A non union one, of course.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:12:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
But it has been common for a very long time for people not to stay
long in their first job. They can usually get higher wages and
promotion more easily by moving companies.

Before I started freelancing, I jumped jobs a few times

In every case it was not because I wasn't being paid enough

Same here. It was down to poor working conditions and boring work.

Exactly why tube drivers are well paid. ;-)

As an aside and whilst I get the thought, has anyone here been a tube
driver to be able to say just how 'boring' it is (or isn't)?

Ok, I can understand how when observed from a job some might consider
'interesting', we are all different (psychometric profile) and
therefore would be 'entertained' by different things.

So, from a day-to-day POV I guess it's fundamentally fairly
straightforward but do they have rotas and rosters that mean they
could be driving different routes, either daily or occasionally?

AIUI

They always work out of a single depot so get to drive the same route every
day

For the purposes of making sure that they get adequate daily rest breaks
they will get a shift "week" which are a string of shifts during the same
parts of each day. Next week they might get shifts in a different part of
the day. Note that their shift week is a variable feast here. It doesn't
mean Monday to Friday.

Of course there are many times that those shifts will start at 5am or finish
at 2am

If they get shifts that they don't personally like, they can swap with a
colleague if they can find someone who prefers to do that shift.

Whilst 'most trips' are uneventful (certainly as seen by the
passengers), who knows what may have happened and was 'dealt with' by
the driver ... be it a signaling issue, minor malfunction or summat
else?

Or how would 'most people' deal with a jumper

whilst personally upsetting, there is sod all a driver can to do to "assist"
a jumper.

... or some terrorist
action on their train?

How does a bus driver deal with this? Do they get 50 grand a year on the
miniscule possibility that it happens?

Whilst there are accidents at work ... operating heavy machinery etc
you are probably more likely to only hurt yourself because you screw
up, rather than be hurt as a result of other peoples actions.

bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly above
NMW.

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 19/02/18 09:51, tim... wrote:
Brexit in name only will be the worst thing that can happen

1000 times worse than staying in

That is, of course, the Plan....

hence my other comment which you snipped

tim

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:00:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:02:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Exactly why tube drivers are well paid. ;-)

As an aside and whilst I get the thought, has anyone here been a tube
driver to be able to say just how 'boring' it is (or isn't)?

Not me. But I know one who currently is, and one who was and moved into
management.

Sometimes the way, especially after a time in service or if they have
some health issues.

I don't have any figures, but have been told these are well above the norm
with tube drivers. Including things like suicide. Perhaps the ultimate
health issue.
That particular mate is a true anorak about all things LT related. Mainly
the history of the tube. Absolutely fascinating.

The only reason the one who currently still does it is for the
money.

I guess there will be people doing it 'for the money' at the outset
and / or maybe times are changing?

Well, most work to pay the bills. Apart from Brexiteers, obviously, who
think it all comes from a printing press. A non union one, of course.

It all comes from the magic money tree ;-)

--
insert witty sig here

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:40:01 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:
snip


Ok, I can understand how when observed from a job some might consider
'interesting', we are all different (psychometric profile) and
therefore would be 'entertained' by different things.

So, from a day-to-day POV I guess it's fundamentally fairly
straightforward but do they have rotas and rosters that mean they
could be driving different routes, either daily or occasionally?

Have a butchers on You tube - where else...

Quite a few on there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaj5EIAKIZU

Thanks Tony, that seems to confirm everything I said about the job and
the people who typically do it. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers. Most would be fed up of it after a few days.

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 19 February 2018 16:00:16 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers. Most would be fed up of it after a few days.

What makes you think that lots of kids (male) have wanted to be train drivers.
I don't know anyone that wanted to be a sewage worker digging out fatburgs.
I do know soneone that works for TFL but in HR rather than a tube sriver.

On 19/02/2018 15:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers. Most would be fed up of it after a few days.


So replace them with computers.
Half their job is already done by computers anyway.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers. Most would be fed up of it after a few days.

What makes you think that lots of kids (male) have wanted to be train
drivers.

You don't understand the difference between a train and tube?

I'll give you a clue. The fact it's called the tube.

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 15:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers. Most would be fed up of it after a few days.


So replace them with computers.
Half their job is already done by computers anyway.

Odd the way so many on here want jobs replaced with computers. But never
their own, obviously.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers.

That'll be why they are continually briefing against the introduction of
automated trains then

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary
significantly above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers.

That'll be why they are continually briefing against the introduction of
automated trains then

There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to keep the
likes of pamela happy.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.


Responsibility perhaps?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary
significantly above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.


Responsibility perhaps?...

Do love the way so many want to say what others should be paid. ;-)

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 19 February 2018 18:31:46 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers. Most would be fed up of it after a few days.

What makes you think that lots of kids (male) have wanted to be train
drivers.

You don't understand the difference between a train and tube?

I'll give you a clue. The fact it's called the tube.

Yep and as a kid I wanted to be a tube driver rather than a train driver was one of my first memeories standing watching tube trains run under a bridge.
When I experineced this IIRC dreamland margate the 'steam/smoke/ hurt my eyes as I stood on the bridge, so while liking steam trains. I never wanted to drive one except the one casey jones drove in that americain series I remmeber watching on the TV.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary
significantly above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers.

That'll be why they are continually briefing against the introduction of
automated trains then

There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no.

and why is that then?

Oh, it's because it will risk them losing their jobs.

But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it.

You said that they were drivers?

as to paying for it ...

I am sure that the dozens of counties around the world looking to put in
driverless subways are doing it because, overall, it is cheaper

Far more important to keep the
likes of pamela happy.

In what way will pamela be happy?

tim

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.


Responsibility perhaps?...

you try driving a bus in a straight line all day and see what happens

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary
significantly above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get and
keep tube drivers.

That'll be why they are continually briefing against the introduction of
automated trains then

There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no.

and why is that then?

I'd guess they feel safer/more secure about having a human driving. In the
same way as they dislike unmanned stations. Perhaps they've visited my
local Tesco where a recent software 'upgrade' has left all the self
checkouts useless for about a week. Bodes very well for computer
controlled trains. Even before the hackers get stuck in.

Oh, it's because it will risk them losing their jobs.


But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it.

You said that they were drivers?

No I didn't. No surprise you read it as that, though.

as to paying for it ...

I am sure that the dozens of counties around the world looking to put in
driverless subways are doing it because, overall, it is cheaper

But then no other city has an underground system so old/complex/widespread
as London. You can't even run any train from any line on all of them.

Far more important to keep the
likes of pamela happy.

In what way will pamela be happy?

She apparently doesn't like anyone to be well paid. Apart from herself,
obviously.

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to keep the
likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they would
be broke.

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

On 20/02/2018 08:23, tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.


Responsibility perhaps?...


A bus/coach crash can kill a lot more people than a tube even if they
kill all the tube trains passengers.

Just think about a collision between a bus and a tanker near a football
ground that's emptying out.

So its not responsibility.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary
significantly above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get
and
keep tube drivers.

That'll be why they are continually briefing against the introduction
of
automated trains then

There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no.

and why is that then?

I'd guess they feel safer/more secure about having a human driving.

You misunderstand

the "they" I was referring to is the Drivers Union

(I thought that was obvious, the MITS has no means to "brief" for something)

tim

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:03:33 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to keep the
likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they would
be broke.

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

What do you think the roads would be like if the tube trains suddently stopped, you can see what happens on tube strikes would you really want the roads conjetsed like they are on strike days ?

Anyway why should us tube users have to put up with the **** that comes from your exhaust pipes !

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:11:32 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary
significantly above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.

But significantly less boring. The real reason it isn't easy to get
and
keep tube drivers.

That'll be why they are continually briefing against the introduction
of
automated trains then

There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no.

and why is that then?

I'd guess they feel safer/more secure about having a human driving.

You misunderstand

We do and it's not the driving, when you're stuck in a tunnel you have a hope that a person who knows what's going on will be able to lead you along the track in the direction of the nearest platform, with a suitable torch.

In fact I'd like 2 train drivers one at each end, they wouldn't have to be able to drive the tube, but they should be able to if needed in an emergency and also have basic first aid training.



the "they" I was referring to is the Drivers Union

(I thought that was obvious, the MITS has no means to "brief" for something)

tim

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to keep
the likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they would
be broke.

Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

I'd certainly agree with that. It's what you get with a government where
big business is in charge.

Since the HofP is falling down, it might make sense to build new in a
deprived part of the country. But then the likes of Turnip would go on and
on about travel costs.

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no.

and why is that then?

I'd guess they feel safer/more secure about having a human driving.

You misunderstand

the "they" I was referring to is the Drivers Union

Sorry for thinking if you quote a post you are following on from the last
point made.

BTW, what would you expect a 'drivers union' to say if they were asked
about driverless trains?

--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:03:33 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to
keep the likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they
would be broke.

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

What do you think the roads would be like if the tube trains suddently
stopped, you can see what happens on tube strikes would you really want
the roads conjetsed like they are on strike days ?

I doubt the likes of dennis much cares if he doesn't live in London. But
doesn't stop him having an opinion on how much a tube driver should be
paid.

Anyway why should us tube users have to put up with the **** that comes
from your exhaust pipes !


--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:48:57 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:03:33 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to
keep the likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they
would be broke.

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

What do you think the roads would be like if the tube trains suddently
stopped, you can see what happens on tube strikes would you really want
the roads conjetsed like they are on strike days ?

I doubt the likes of dennis much cares if he doesn't live in London. But
doesn't stop him having an opinion on how much a tube driver should be
paid.

well I don't blame him for having thoughts, I too think tube drivers earn more than the job is worth but knowing someone in HR the weekely wage seems a bit vague for shift work and is difficult to work out as how do you account for a 9-10 week. It's like trying to work out if academics/lecturers are worth the money when it's said they only need 20 contact hours per week and are paid 6 or 7 days in a week.

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 20/02/2018 08:23, tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.


Responsibility perhaps?...


A bus/coach crash can kill a lot more people than a tube even if they
kill all the tube trains passengers.

But the bit you miss is there are a LOT more of them!..

Any idea how may PAX a tube train carries at all?..

Just think about a collision between a bus and a tanker near a football
ground that's emptying out.


Why stop there what about whatever anything;!..

How many have died because or Tube crashes over time excluding 7/7
compared with the carnage on the roads?..


So its not responsibility.

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
well I don't blame him for having thoughts, I too think tube drivers
earn more than the job is worth but knowing someone in HR the weekely
wage seems a bit vague for shift work and is difficult to work out as
how do you account for a 9-10 week. It's like trying to work out if
academics/lecturers are worth the money when it's said they only need 20
contact hours per week and are paid 6 or 7 days in a week.

You could, of course, pay them a much lower flat rate. Then give
allowances for late and early starts, weekend and bank holiday working and
so on. Keep a pile of clerks in work.

I just know driving a tube is about the last thing I'd choose as a career,
no matter what the pay. A train would be different.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/02/2018 18:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 20/02/2018 08:23, tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 19/02/2018 14:13, tim... wrote:



bus driver, coach driver - neither of which get a salary significantly
above NMW.

Both of which need more skill than a tube driver.


Responsibility perhaps?...


A bus/coach crash can kill a lot more people than a tube even if they
kill all the tube trains passengers.

But the bit you miss is there are a LOT more of them!..

Yes there are a lot more buses.
They also have far more unpredictable events to deal with.


Any idea how may PAX a tube train carries at all?..

Does it compare with 10000+ at a match?
It certainly didn't when I was a student in London.


Just think about a collision between a bus and a tanker near a football
ground that's emptying out.


Why stop there what about whatever anything;!..

Well there are usually a lot of buses at football grounds so the chances
of an accident are higher.


How many have died because or Tube crashes over time excluding 7/7
compared with the carnage on the roads?..

A lot less which goes to show the drivers have less responsibility
because accidents don't happen very often.



So its not responsibility.

On 20/02/2018 16:23, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:03:33 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to keep the
likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they would
be broke.

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

What do you think the roads would be like if the tube trains suddently stopped, you can see what happens on tube strikes would you really want the roads conjetsed like they are on strike days ?

They would be bad for a week and then people would catch the bus or use
trains.


Anyway why should us tube users have to put up with the **** that comes from your exhaust pipes !



Because you don't pay enough to run the tube and who says there has to
be **** from the exhausts, not all of us run VWs, audis or skodas.

Why should the people living near the power stations put up with the
**** chucked out to run the tube? Its probably more than cars to move
the same number of people.

On 20/02/2018 16:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I doubt the likes of dennis much cares if he doesn't live in London. But
doesn't stop him having an opinion on how much a tube driver should be
paid.

Would you care to post a link to where I said what they should be paid?
All I have said is that the jobs should be open to all applicants so you
can get the best person for the job and that they should be replaced by
automation because its safer.

whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:48:57 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:03:33 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to
keep the likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they
would be broke.

Far too much public money is spent on London and the SE compared to
elsewhere.

What do you think the roads would be like if the tube trains suddently
stopped, you can see what happens on tube strikes would you really want
the roads conjetsed like they are on strike days ?

I doubt the likes of dennis much cares if he doesn't live in London. But
doesn't stop him having an opinion on how much a tube driver should be
paid.

well I don't blame him for having thoughts, I too think tube drivers earn
more than the job is worth but knowing someone in HR the weekely wage
seems a bit vague for shift work and is difficult to work out as how do
you account for a 9-10 week. It's like trying to work out if
academics/lecturers are worth the money when it's said they only need 20
contact hours per week and are paid 6 or 7 days in a week.

I don't know about polytechnics, but in the old universities teaching
students was not the main job of most academics. The clue is in the
name.

--

Roger Hayter

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/02/2018 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There have been several surveys asking the tube users if they want
driverless trains. And the answer is always a decisive no. But hey -
they're only the tube users who pay for it. Far more important to keep
the likes of pamela happy.


If only the tube user paid for it then we would be happy and they would
be broke.

Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?

Most parts, PT is virtually non-existent. Or, where I am now, totally
non-existent. So no subsidies.





--

Roger Hayter

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:37:29 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

Yes there are a lot more buses.

With a lower number of passengers per bus than a tube train.

They also have far more unpredictable events to deal with.

At much lower speeds (average 11 mpg in the City or summat) and with
much easier access to the emergency services than when in an
underground tunnel.


Any idea how may PAX a tube train carries at all?..

Does it compare with 10000+ at a match?

But it's all down to the 'typical risk', not some worse case
situation.

Any 'accident' in a tube train is likely (not 'unlikely') to injure
more people than the same in any single bus, simply because of the
typical speeds and number of passengers.

I agree though that the likelihood of a tube train crashing into a low
bridge because it's go off route or hitting another vehicle (big
enough to cause *it* issues) are probably less. ;-)

snip

Cheers, T i m