OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

You don't know London, do you? Trains and stations are already at full
capacity in rush hour. Some would say too crowded.

And the extra cars on the road would slow down the buses too.

--
*The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Ah - right. The only reason to go to automation is safety.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?

Most parts, PT is virtually non-existent.

Usually because of no demand. Even when there is a reasonable service,
many prefer to use their car.




Or, where I am now, totally
non-existent. So no subsidies.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

How the **** is the clue in the name

university - from the Latin "The whole"

academics - from the French, a person who works in an academy

academy - from the Greek, a place of learning

By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

but that doesn't extrapolate up to the places where there is PT

which as the OP suggested, is routinely subsidised (though not always)

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

tim... wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

How the **** is the clue in the name

university - from the Latin "The whole"

academics - from the French, a person who works in an academy

academy - from the Greek, a place of learning

By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous


I tend to go by the modern meaning of words[1] rather than their
etymology; it is a bit more relevant.


[1] Unless I don't like the way they are changing in my lifetime, in
which case I use the same spurious argument that you are using.


--

Roger Hayter

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

tim... wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

but that doesn't extrapolate up to the places where there is PT

which as the OP suggested, is routinely subsidised (though not always)

tim

Most PT may have subsidies, but most places don't have (PT) subsidies.


--

Roger Hayter

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/18 09:22, tim... wrote:


"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Â*Â* 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.Â* Or, where I am now, totally
non-existent.Â* So no subsidies.

but that doesn't extrapolate up to the places where there is PT

which as the OP suggested, is routinely subsidised (though not always)


Indeed. A friend who was rather high up in Arriva trains before they got
sold, explained

"Some routes are 'social lines' and they get paid whether they carry
passengers or not, and the fare income from the passengers is scarcely
worth the expesne of collecting: Other lines are massively provitable
coimmuter lines which can charge almost waht they like. Wuhich is why
you vcan get a ticket from York to London for £150 return or if you find
a 'social line' that starts slightly outside the main city, you can get
a return ticket to london for £15..."

Or something like that.

Of course like the NHS, and disbaility legislation public transprt is
another sacred cow.

It would in fact be far cheaper for people who need such things to be
given a card that entitles them to free taxis, rather than buses, and
free trains, or for genuinely disabled people to be given substantial
sums to go towards cuistomising their houses to meet their special
needs, rather than enforcing blanket legislation that in fact never does
meet their needs.

It's just more 'socialism in action' virtue signalling that doesnt
actually solve the problem it's meant to. Like windmills amnd solar panels.





tim





--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/18 09:20, tim... wrote:
By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous

No. By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
places where people go to *learn*.

Academics are *not* teachers. Their primary function is research.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
tim... wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

but that doesn't extrapolate up to the places where there is PT

which as the OP suggested, is routinely subsidised (though not always)

tim

Most PT may have subsidies, but most places don't have (PT) subsidies.

The vast majority of the population have access to some form of PT.
Those who don't most likely choose to live where they do.

--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It would in fact be far cheaper for people who need such things to be
given a card that entitles them to free taxis, rather than buses, and
free trains, or for genuinely disabled people to be given substantial
sums to go towards cuistomising their houses to meet their special
needs, rather than enforcing blanket legislation that in fact never does
meet their needs.

It's just more 'socialism in action' virtue signalling that doesnt
actually solve the problem it's meant to. Like windmills amnd solar
panels.

Just love the idea of giving someone a free taxi card.

It takes a true head in the clouds type like Turnip to think it wouldn't
be abused and cost the taxpayer a fortune.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 20/02/2018 22:42, T i m wrote:
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.

More passengers use buses in london than use the tube and that doesn't
include coaches and buses elsewhere.


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.

Tubes aren't particularly fast.
The old ones aren't very strong though and would probably crumple rather
too much if driven into the end stop at speed. That wouldn't be an
accident though as it would have to be deliberate by the driver.



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.

Well the typical risk on a tube is zero as can be seen by the lack of
accidents.
The same can't be said for buses and coaches.


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.

But they don't happen.


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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

but that doesn't extrapolate up to the places where there is PT

which as the OP suggested, is routinely subsidised (though not always)

tim

Most PT may have subsidies, but most places don't have (PT) subsidies.

That rather depends upon how you define "most places"

How far from a bus/rail stop does a person have to be before they are
considered as having a PT option?

And how large does a community have to be to be given a weighing in this
calculation?

Does an isolated house in the middle of several square miles of open field
have the same weighing as a 100,000 population town covering the same area?

I'm sure we could show that "most places" don't have a PT subsidisy if we
considered anywhere more than 10 yards from a bus stop without a service and
all of the middle of the fields locations had equal weight to the centre of
towns. But that would be silly

OTOH If we considered the percentage of population with a bus/train stop
less than 1 mile away, I think you might find 90-95% in that set

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.

How the **** is the clue in the name

university - from the Latin "The whole"

academics - from the French, a person who works in an academy

academy - from the Greek, a place of learning

By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous


I tend to go by the modern meaning of words[1] rather than their
etymology; it is a bit more relevant.

Except that you have defined it to mean what you want it to mean

When it *doesn't* mean that.

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/18 09:20, tim... wrote:
By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous

No. By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
places where people go to *learn*.

Academics are *not* teachers. Their primary function is research.

That they may be

but the clue to that is NOT in their name.

They have historically acquired a name that does not point to what they do.

That's the point

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/02/18 09:20, tim... wrote:
By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous

populace

No. By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
places where people go to *learn*.

Academics are *not* teachers. Their primary function is research.

That was certainly the case when I was at Uni.

I'm not arguing otherwise

I am arguing that they did not acquire the name that they have because of it

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:58:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

We don't employ clerks they are called administrators and we employ loads already. It could be difficult to understand why an academic has to come in on saturday or sunday when no teaching takes place.
Just think how much shorty a university year and course could be if they and everyone worked 7 days a week.


I just know driving a tube is about the last thing I'd choose as a career,

Why, I can think of many jobs I wouldn't want to do.
would you really prefer to be Nigel Farages personal secratary with all those late night workings ?

would you rather be a bus driver with the risk of being assulted by passengers.

no matter what the pay. A train would be different.

I think I'd prefer to be a tube driver than a train driver unless it was old steam trains.

I remmebr going to ramsgate and margate on holiday and the highlight of my trip was going through blackwall tunnel, and then any tunnel. For me a tunnel was an unknow underground world.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:51:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
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.

I guess you've never tried to travel on the roads during those times.
Most would go back to cars and if more people use busses you'd need more buses.

you really think that over a billion passnger journeys a year could be taken up by the roads.
You should tell those pushing for HS2 that the road can handle everything.


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.

There's **** from all exausts.



Why should the people living near the power stations put up with the
**** chucked out to run the tube?

It doesntl chuck out the **** on your doorstep it's in designated areas which you could charge less rent for.


Its probably more than cars to move
the same number of people.

It isn't, why do you think electric cars are being 'pushed' because they are cleaner to run than diesle or petrol.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 22:01:29 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

What do you mean so who was meant to be teaching the students the catering staff ?

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 20/02/2018 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Ah - right. The only reason to go to automation is safety.


Well yes, that is why millions are spent on safety systems because the
drivers aren't responsible enough to not do so.

Isn't safety enough of a reason for a union man?

I suppose member numbers are more important than safety.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 22:01:29 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

So who do you think should be teaching at universities ?
We are in this russel group, maybe that's why they want me to teach, but call it imparting knowledge.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-lecturers-pay

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:58:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

We don't employ clerks they are called administrators and we employ
loads already. It could be difficult to understand why an academic has
to come in on saturday or sunday when no teaching takes place. Just
think how much shorty a university year and course could be if they and
everyone worked 7 days a week.

Given you probably work what is referred to as office hours, you'd not
really need many to administer what you're paid as regards any extras for
working outside those.

But a tube driver is very different. Anti social hours which normally
attract a premium over a similar job with regular hours. And it can make
sense to 'buy out' any extra payments for such working that you'd not
normally do for one who only worked them once in a while.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2018 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Ah - right. The only reason to go to automation is safety.


Well yes, that is why millions are spent on safety systems because the
drivers aren't responsible enough to not do so.

Safety systems tend to be introduced in light of experience of actually
running the thing. Nice to know you have so much faith in software writers
getting it right from the off.

Isn't safety enough of a reason for a union man?

Odd isn't it? If a union mentions security/safety of passengers as a
reason to keep manned trains, that is making up reasons. Yet you expect
people to believe untried automation on the London underground is just
bound to be better.

I suppose member numbers are more important than safety.

Horses for courses.

Perhaps you could give an example of an underground system - built
piecemeal like the London one, and is as extensive and complex - that runs
totally on automation?

You might also consider than the brand new Crossrail - not even open yet
- still will have a driver. But no surprise you think you know better than
the designers of it.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 15:01:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:58:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

We don't employ clerks they are called administrators and we employ
loads already. It could be difficult to understand why an academic has
to come in on saturday or sunday when no teaching takes place. Just
think how much shorty a university year and course could be if they and
everyone worked 7 days a week.

Given you probably work what is referred to as office hours,

Yes I do as the labs are open from 9-6pm, some are open access and are open until 2am other open 24/7.

we used to only open 9-5 but with building works and teh like we have had to extent the opening hours.

you'd not
really need many to administer what you're paid as regards any extras for
working outside those.

No but when I first came here we had about 30 technicains and 2 administrators now we have about 7 technicins and 25 administrators.


But a tube driver is very different.

yuo mean they work in tunnels.

Anti social hours which normally
attract a premium over a similar job with regular hours.

Yes I agree but remmebr my flatmat worked even less socail hours, unless you think saturday ~9pm until sunday ~10am is social with NO breaks.


And it can make
sense to 'buy out' any extra payments for such working that you'd not
normally do for one who only worked them once in a while.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

Is that strippers using grahics card for cryptocurrency ?


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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 15:01:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given you probably work what is referred to as office hours, you'd not
really need many to administer what you're paid as regards any extras for
working outside those.

But a tube driver is very different. Anti social hours which normally
attract a premium over a similar job with regular hours.

The thing is I dont know how premuim, heres a job going here.
https://webapps2.is.qmul.ac.uk/jobs/...ion?jobID=3052

Hoping you can access it .
£32-£38k 0.8 x this scale, working with china so if you have to talk to them you'd need to during their office hours in china.

All jobs listed here if anyones interested.

https://webapps2.is.qmul.ac.uk/jobs/jobs.action

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/18 13:33, tim... wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/02/18 09:20, tim... wrote:
By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous

populace

No. By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is
as places where people go to *learn*.

Academics are *not* teachers. Their primary function is research.

That was certainly the case when I was at Uni.

I'm not arguing otherwise

I am arguing that they did not acquire the name that they have because
of it


You can argue, but you would be wroing.

Tyhe original Akadeima was a place of learning and phislophy, but then a
school didn't mean a place of teaching, but a place of learning.

Teaching is a very modern concept.

And arguably a somewaht misguided one. Learning was aquired by reading
the thoughts of others, listening to their ideas and arguing with them.

Teaching 'Received wisdom' - the bastion of marxist 'education' is
little more intelleigent than learning The Q'ran by heart.

It's just indoctrination: the memorising of the witterings of those in
authority for later regurgitation, by those too lazy or too stupid to
think for themselves - who unfortunately now have all been to 'uni' and
become insufferable prigs.




--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/18 14:31, whisky-dave wrote:
So who do you think should be teaching at universities ?

No one should be teaching at universities.

If there are teachers, its a technical college at best.

There were no teachers at Canmbridge. Just lecturers. And books, and if
you bothered to attend, tutors.



--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/18 14:31, whisky-dave wrote:
So who do you think should be teaching at universities ?

No one should be teaching at universities.

If there are teachers, its a technical college at best.

There were no teachers at Canmbridge. Just lecturers. And books, and if
you bothered to attend, tutors.

and - Directors of Studies. tutors were only looking after your behaviour,
not your academic progress.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/2018 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2018 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Ah - right. The only reason to go to automation is safety.


Well yes, that is why millions are spent on safety systems because the
drivers aren't responsible enough to not do so.

Safety systems tend to be introduced in light of experience of actually
running the thing. Nice to know you have so much faith in software writers
getting it right from the off.

Isn't safety enough of a reason for a union man?

Odd isn't it? If a union mentions security/safety of passengers as a
reason to keep manned trains, that is making up reasons. Yet you expect
people to believe untried automation on the London underground is just
bound to be better.

I suppose member numbers are more important than safety.

Horses for courses.

Perhaps you could give an example of an underground system - built
piecemeal like the London one, and is as extensive and complex - that runs
totally on automation?

Docklands.
Much of the tube is automated, to stop the driver from doing silly things.
Its a small step to remove the driver.


You might also consider than the brand new Crossrail - not even open yet
- still will have a driver. But no surprise you think you know better than
the designers of it.


Docklands is, crossrail isn't because of unions not technology.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 20/02/2018 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

You don't know London, do you? Trains and stations are already at full
capacity in rush hour. Some would say too crowded.

And the extra cars on the road would slow down the buses too.



The mayor would just ban the cars.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/2018 13:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:51:04 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
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.

I guess you've never tried to travel on the roads during those
times. Most would go back to cars and if more people use busses you'd
need more buses.

you really think that over a billion passnger journeys a year could
be taken up by the roads. You should tell those pushing for HS2 that
the road can handle everything.

The tube doesn't do that many.
The buses do.



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.

There's **** from all exausts.

Yes and from tube trains.




Why should the people living near the power stations put up with
the **** chucked out to run the tube?

It doesntl chuck out the **** on your doorstep it's in designated
areas which you could charge less rent for.

So if you are poor its OK to be gassed!



Its probably more than cars to move the same number of people.

It isn't, why do you think electric cars are being 'pushed' because
they are cleaner to run than diesle or petrol.


Because they reduce pollution where they check it.

By the time you have generated electricity, moved it and used it it will
probably have generated more pollution than moving the same number of
passengers in a modern car. If you are using ****ty old buses or VWs YMMV
..

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/2018 11:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It would in fact be far cheaper for people who need such things to be
given a card that entitles them to free taxis, rather than buses, and
free trains, or for genuinely disabled people to be given substantial
sums to go towards cuistomising their houses to meet their special
needs, rather than enforcing blanket legislation that in fact never does
meet their needs.

It's just more 'socialism in action' virtue signalling that doesnt
actually solve the problem it's meant to. Like windmills amnd solar
panels.

Just love the idea of giving someone a free taxi card.

It takes a true head in the clouds type like Turnip to think it wouldn't
be abused and cost the taxpayer a fortune.


Leftycnts like TNP never think about the cost to others as long as they
can spend someone else's money.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Perhaps you could give an example of an underground system - built
piecemeal like the London one, and is as extensive and complex - that
runs totally on automation?

Docklands.

Dennis, please read what I wrote slowly and carefully. I've quoted it at
the top of this post.

--
*How come you never hear about gruntled employees? *

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/02/2018 11:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It would in fact be far cheaper for people who need such things to be
given a card that entitles them to free taxis, rather than buses, and
free trains, or for genuinely disabled people to be given substantial
sums to go towards cuistomising their houses to meet their special
needs, rather than enforcing blanket legislation that in fact never does
meet their needs.

It's just more 'socialism in action' virtue signalling that doesnt
actually solve the problem it's meant to. Like windmills amnd solar
panels.

Just love the idea of giving someone a free taxi card.

It takes a true head in the clouds type like Turnip to think it wouldn't
be abused and cost the taxpayer a fortune.


Leftycnts like TNP never think about the cost to others as long as they
can spend someone else's money.

Perhaps he's not even thought that those who are remote from public
transport are also likely remote from a taxi firm.

--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:15:30 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:42, T i m wrote:
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.

More passengers use buses in london than use the tube and that doesn't
include coaches and buses elsewhere.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to my statement? If a mate asks you
to carry a box of eggs or a tray of eggs, which requires the most
responsibility (irrespective of how many there are of each)?


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.

Tubes aren't particularly fast.

They are all generally faster than 13mph and the risk of injury goes
up with speed.

The old ones aren't very strong though and would probably crumple rather
too much if driven into the end stop at speed.

Not nice irrespective, especially in the dark and a some meters
underground.

That wouldn't be an
accident though as it would have to be deliberate by the driver.

Or a fault somewhere?



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.

Well the typical risk on a tube is zero as can be seen by the lack of
accidents.

That's only anecdotal then isn't it. It has no bearing on the
potential of risk to either set of passengers in the event of an
accident.

The same can't be said for buses and coaches.

Quite.


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.

But they don't happen.

Irrelevant to the potential risk / responsibility (see egg tray
example).

It's a similar thing with air travel. Stastically flying is safer than
most other forms of mass transport just when it goes wrong, it
generally does so in a big way. That I'm guessing it's more difficult
to get a pilots licence than a bus drivers licence? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 17:42:17 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/18 13:33, tim... wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/02/18 09:20, tim... wrote:
By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is as
*teaching* the populous

populace

No. By any reasonable understanding of the words, their derivation is
as places where people go to *learn*.

Academics are *not* teachers. Their primary function is research.

That was certainly the case when I was at Uni.

I'm not arguing otherwise

I am arguing that they did not acquire the name that they have because
of it


You can argue, but you would be wroing.

Tyhe original Akadeima was a place of learning and phislophy, but then a
school didn't mean a place of teaching, but a place of learning.

Teaching is a very modern concept.

And arguably a somewaht misguided one. Learning was aquired by reading
the thoughts of others, listening to their ideas and arguing with them.

Teaching 'Received wisdom' - the bastion of marxist 'education' is
little more intelleigent than learning The Q'ran by heart.

30 years ago the lectures used to lecture in the lecture theatres and it was up to the studetns to turn up to thiose lectures and take notes and then read up on the subject, now they donl;t even have to turn up for the lectures as they are recorded for them to watch on youtube and lots of PDFs or PP slides to download.

They were expected to run up for labs complete them write them up and hand them in, now they don't all turn up for the labs and the labs are partically marked as they do them.


It's just indoctrination: the memorising of the witterings of those in
authority for later regurgitation, by those too lazy or too stupid to
think for themselves - who unfortunately now have all been to 'uni' and
become insufferable prigs.

and that's just senior management for starters !

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:56:08 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/02/2018 15:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2018 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
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.

Ah - right. The only reason to go to automation is safety.


Well yes, that is why millions are spent on safety systems because the
drivers aren't responsible enough to not do so.

Safety systems tend to be introduced in light of experience of actually
running the thing. Nice to know you have so much faith in software writers
getting it right from the off.

Isn't safety enough of a reason for a union man?

Odd isn't it? If a union mentions security/safety of passengers as a
reason to keep manned trains, that is making up reasons. Yet you expect
people to believe untried automation on the London underground is just
bound to be better.

I suppose member numbers are more important than safety.

Horses for courses.

Perhaps you could give an example of an underground system - built
piecemeal like the London one, and is as extensive and complex - that runs
totally on automation?

Docklands.
Much of the tube is automated, to stop the driver from doing silly things.
Its a small step to remove the driver.

and a giant leap for mankind no doubt.



You might also consider than the brand new Crossrail - not even open yet
- still will have a driver. But no surprise you think you know better than
the designers of it.


Docklands is, crossrail isn't because of unions not technology.

Docklands is a light railway that carries far fewer passengers and very slowy in comparision to the tube or trains.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 01:05:53 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:15:30 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:42, T i m wrote:
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.

More passengers use buses in london than use the tube and that doesn't
include coaches and buses elsewhere.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to my statement? If a mate asks you
to carry a box of eggs or a tray of eggs, which requires the most
responsibility (irrespective of how many there are of each)?

Heard on the one show that the citreon 2CV specs. were that a passneger should be able to carry a basket of eggs on their lap while driving over a ploughed field at 40 MPH and the eggs shouldn't break.


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.

Tubes aren't particularly fast.

They are all generally faster than 13mph and the risk of injury goes
up with speed.

That's true but even walking into a door can also cause injuries and I;'m sure there are more of those every day than injuries due to the speed of tube trains.
A freind of mine got a fractured ankle when a bus pulled up suddenly.



Irrelevant to the potential risk / responsibility (see egg tray
example).

eggxactly I think.



It's a similar thing with air travel. Stastically flying is safer than
most other forms of mass transport just when it goes wrong, it
generally does so in a big way. That I'm guessing it's more difficult
to get a pilots licence than a bus drivers licence? ;-)

But then again it;s more difficult to get a bus licence than a car license or even worse a bike but I believe more people get killed in their cars even with a license than get killed on planes.


Cheers, T i m

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 21/02/18 18:36, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/18 14:31, whisky-dave wrote:
So who do you think should be teaching at universities ?

No one should be teaching at universities.

If there are teachers, its a technical college at best.

There were no teachers at Canmbridge. Just lecturers. And books, and if
you bothered to attend, tutors.

and - Directors of Studies. tutors were only looking after your behaviour,
not your academic progress.

Not in my day they weren't.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 20/02/2018 19:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:23, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:03:33 UTC, dennis@homeÂ* 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.


Ever been to London? I go infrequently on business, but when I do,
travelling on the tube at end-of-rush-hour, having got an early train,
it's rammed. As are the buses and the roads. There isn't much spare
capacity.


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.


Even if we accept that other cars may pollute less than a VAG vehicle,
they still pollute more, per person, than mass transit.

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.
Pollution is easier to deal with at a single point (like a power
station) than thousands of mobile points (like car exhausts).