|
goddamnedtwisto posted:IIRC all the express services from London to the airports are sold as separate franchises from the lines they travel over. With the exception of Luton which is served only by GTR, and southend, served by Abellio. Though you can probably make arguments that those airports are barely in london, despite the nomenclature.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:IIRC all the express services from London to the airports are sold as separate franchises from the lines they travel over. Heathrow Express is not a franchise, it's a separate open-access operator with no franchise. Stansted Express is just a branding thing, it's not separate at all.It's also not ticketed separately, unlike Heathrow and Gatwick. Gatwick express is part of the Southern franchise and has been since 2008.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Metrication posted:
Yeah, the way it's arranged now is actively worsening service, as it reduces the number of trains power hour you can get through Blackfriars as the Wimbledon and Sevenoaks trains have to cross over each other just south of Blackfriars. Or as the 2011 RUS put it Network Rail posted:Consistent with the recommendations of the South London RUS, operational analysis indicates that services routed via Herne Hill will need to operate into the new London Blackfriars bay platforms, whilst services routed via Catford will need to operate through the Thameslink core. Given the track and station layout currently under construction at London Blackfriars, reversing this arrangement would not be operationally viable. Now this Very Expensive Infrastructure project is finished I imagine someone from NR has had a quiet word over at DfT towers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Conductor on my train delivered all station and train announcements in rhyming couplets. 10/10 would train again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Second Crossrail 2 Consultation has started:
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
lol looks like Kings Road station is happening and the terrible protesters outraged about poor people being able to get public transport into Chelsea can suck it. Meanwhile, harsh times down in South London with one of the most honest delay excuses I've ever seen 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:lol looks like Kings Road station is happening and the terrible protesters outraged about poor people being able to get public transport into Chelsea can suck it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:lol looks like Kings Road station is happening and the terrible protesters outraged about poor people being able to get public transport into Chelsea can suck it. Greenhithe is a bad place, but it's Not South London 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Can't remember the last time our 'new' 37 sets managed a full week without cancellation due to mechanical problems  Also I was coated off in this thread some time ago for expressing potentially Neanderthal views about young women and working on the railway. You'll be happy to hear my depot has taken on its first young female conductor for years and she is already pregnant less than a month after completing her training, causing all sorts of cancellation chaos 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Can't remember the last time our 'new' 37 sets managed a full week without cancellation due to mechanical problems Good to see your views haven't changed a bit
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Can't remember the last time our 'new' 37 sets managed a full week without cancellation due to mechanical problems As someone who is in the 99th percentile amongst humans in terms of Neanderthal DNA (as per 23andme) I object strongly to your characterisation of my people as misogynists. But, do tell, what jobs should women of childbearing age be allowed to do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-strike-proof-docklands-light-railway-has-gone-on-strike-a6720706.htmlquote:One consultant who worked on the project recalls that powering the DLR via overhead cables was ruled out by the Thatcher government, who told him with some disgust that: "This must not look like a bloody tram! Trams come from socialist countries. We are not a socialist country!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
I actually don't have a problem with young women/women of childbearing age working on the railway per se: we have had a couple in the past who have actually wanted to do the job and at least made it out of their six month probation period before deciding to start a family. It's just certain women seem determined to game the system to the detriment of their colleagues which riles me. Another young woman was taken on at a neighbouring depot a few years back and managed five years of employment without ever doing six months actual work in a row. When she was working she was accommodated for childcare meaning she only worked between 9am and 5pm (I've never seen a train crew diagram for that window). There is a similar thing going on at another depot which is apparently a permanent arrangement. My argument against that is the entire reason train crew grades are well paid is because the work is extremely anti-social with regards to the hours: if it was 9-5 the pay would reflect that. It's just this aspect of it I find frustrating to be honest: the woman in question will now be on an essentially paid holiday until 2018 after she has had the child, full maternity, all missed holidays reimbursed and then is retrained. It's an exceptionally generous package which has been fought for by the unions and which I agree with, it's more the employees accessing this package when they haven't even worked a full set a shifts that riles me. This isn't just my opinion by the way, this is an opinion shared by many of my female colleague across different grades and age ranges. I suppose you could argue it's a fault with the entire way the system is currently run in that every member of train crew has a line of work within a link (a link is all of the lines of work together which added up is all of the possible shifts on possible days, in theory if you work through the link over a period of 20 weeks everyone will have done the same work) and when that line isn't covered others have to cover that work, either through spare rostering or the denial of holidays. When anyone is off for a long time either on the sick or for other reasons it causes major rostering issues and makes it a lot harder to get time off, which in turn causes morale issues. TLDR: I am not against women of childbearing age working on the railway if they do a bit of work prior to receiving the generous maternity package.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Congrats on being a massive throwback I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Well if I am then I am. Just don't complain next time your train is cancelled because 'a member of train crew is unavailable'
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
I suppose there is an argument to be made about people having to repay training costs if they leave the job inside a set amount of time, say two years. However I bet the actual number of people who do leave within that time is incredibly tiny and would make no difference to the overall level of train staff. If what you're asking for is people to not be hired on the basis they might take time off due to medical reasons, you might as well start training robots now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:... How on earth do you get to 2018? Maternity leave is at most a year, and you do know that maternity pay isn't actually anywhere your full salary for the year right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:How on earth do you get to 2018? Maternity leave is at most a year, and you do know that maternity pay isn't actually anywhere your full salary for the year right? Company website: 'Maternity and Paternity Benefits Northern offers above and beyond the statutory entitlement for both Maternity and Paternity pay/leave. Maternity – Our employees can enjoy a full year off work whilst on maternity leave, 9 months of this is at full basic pay' Full basic pay in the conductor grade currently stands at £26,500. We get 31 days paid holiday per year and work a for day week on our current shift system. There is an agreement now any pregnant member of train crew does not have to work trains in case there is an incident that could hurt the baby. If the baby is born May 2016 then she will return approximately May 2017, then have all her owed holidays to take before retraining on course which takes over three months (additional for traction and route pass out). Between that course and the accrued holidays owed it's not hard to make up the rest of the year. That's without an application to be accommodated. Also everyone is subject to medicals fairly regularly to assess their competence to work, although they never pick up anything except the odd case of colour blindness (which precludes a candidate from working as train crew).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Well if I am then I am. Just don't complain next time your train is cancelled because 'a member of train crew is unavailable' gently caress off back to the 19th century mate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Company website: Is not working trains the same as paid holiday? They literally don't have to come to work? Assuming she gets about a month off due to annual leave then that takes us to June 2017 which is nowhere near 2018. You don't get to count months of retraining as paid holiday I'm afraid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Well the retraining part is still Monday - Friday 9-5 not working trains but I accept your point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Have you considered not being a massive shitlord about your coworkers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
This is someone who told her trainer 'I won't be working many trains when I pass out (qualify) anyway' so I don't feel particularly shitlordish in this instance, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Blacknose posted:Have you considered not being a massive shitlord about your coworkers? Exactly. I can understand small organisations having issues with maternity leave (and paternity leave for that matter), but any bigger company can and should just plan and budget for the fact that people have babies and mums and dads absolutely have the right to take leave when this happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
It's possibly a bit exploitative of the hard work of the unions in getting that package and of your co-workers in making the money that funds it to sign up for a job, then gently caress off on maternity leave immediately afterwards. I don't agree that the conclusion should be "gently caress women working on trains" but "gently caress people who sign up and then don't come to work" yeah, kinda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's possibly a bit exploitative of the hard work of the unions in getting that package and of your co-workers in making the money that funds it to sign up for a job, then gently caress off on maternity leave immediately afterwards. Exactly. Nobody is saying these systems can't be abused but he presented it as "hey you guys you gave me poo poo for being a sexist look at what this woman is doing hurf durf"!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's possibly a bit exploitative of the hard work of the unions in getting that package and of your co-workers in making the money that funds it to sign up for a job, then gently caress off on maternity leave immediately afterwards. This is the point I'm trying to make but badly. I work with women of childbearing age who managed to somehow avoid the whole 'immediate pregnancy' thing. However in terms of the local depots to me, the last three women under 25 to be employed by the company were almost immediately pregnant following their training. I'm just suggesting it isn't a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Well it's not a coincidence that women can get maternity leave and can initiate their own pregnancies while men can't, no. That's biology. If you offered a comparable way for men to spend a year doing something they're socially expected to do on generous pay I would imagine you'd have plenty of them doing it as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Counterpoint: the maternity leave period requires a temporary replacement, which often allows a younger employee to get their foot in the door and get a step up in their career replacement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Nine of Eight posted:Counterpoint: the maternity leave period requires a temporary replacement, which often allows a younger employee to get their foot in the door and get a step up in their career replacement. There is no such thing as a temporary replacement regarding train crew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
A permanent replacement then? Even better for that person's career advancement!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
They don't do replacements until the original person has left: there's a guy I know who hasn't driven trains in three years tying up a driver's job while conductors below him are desperate to go driving, but whilst he is on the sick and 'coming back' they cannot train someone to work in his stead, it's to do with staffing and a union agreement I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah you can't fire people for maternity leave I don't think, or for being on the sick, that's the whole point of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:I'm just suggesting it isn't a coincidence. And I'm just suggesting that this makes you a shitlord. Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:They don't do replacements until the original person has left: there's a guy I know who hasn't driven trains in three years tying up a driver's job while conductors below him are desperate to go driving, but whilst he is on the sick and 'coming back' they cannot train someone to work in his stead, it's to do with staffing and a union agreement I think. Well that's a pretty stupid way to handle people being off work for months at a time. But in the end as long as she works for the train company after her maternity leave then she'll have had no more maternity leave than a woman who claims it after a few years, so who cares? I would think there's a clause in the contract to claim back the extra money they give in contractual maternity pay if someone tries to quit soon after.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Of course! I just mean for whatever reason there is no such thing as a temporary replacement or 'secondment' to cover someone who is not working for a long time (for whatever reason), they just leave that work uncovered and hope there's enough spares on a day to day basis to cover trains. Part of the problem is you have to be assessed and signed off to work a route, even when another depot saw an exodus of drivers move over to freight (8 out of 21 left in the space of 12 weeks) it still took ages to replace them, using qualified drivers. In the meantime it was just cancellations everywhere, everyday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I would think there's a clause in the contract to claim back the extra money they give in contractual maternity pay if someone tries to quit soon after. I don't actually think your employer can claim money back off you once they've paid you it. They can dock future pay but not claim money back off you unless they take you to court or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't actually think your employer can claim money back off you once they've paid you it. They can dock future pay but not claim money back off you unless they take you to court or something. They can if it's in the contract. http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp/advice-2/mums-dads-scenarios/pregnant-and-benefits/common-maternity-pay-questions/ quote:My employer gives extra maternity pay. Do I have to repay it if I do not go back to work? Similarly many employers have such a clause covering the costs of optional training courses they've paid for. It's usually tapered depending on the amount of time that has elapsed. It seems like a pretty basic clause to discourage abuse of the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:This is the point I'm trying to make but badly. I work with women of childbearing age who managed to somehow avoid the whole 'immediate pregnancy' thing. However in terms of the local depots to me, the last three women under 25 to be employed by the company were almost immediately pregnant following their training. I'm just suggesting it isn't a coincidence. Unless you're suggesting there's a particular make trainer spreading his seed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah you can't fire people for maternity leave I don't think, or for being on the sick, that's the whole point of them. Oh yeah, I really didn't think that through. An inability to use a temporary recruitment / promotion to backfill short-term need seems like a huge oversight. Clearly maternity benefits are the real issue though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:44
|
|