There's nothing to stop you starting a thread about buses in Doncaster if you wish, just as there's no rule that says threads have to have national relevance.
The people of Doncaster don't have an overinflated sense of their own importance, and hence wouldn't bore the rest of the country to tears with tales of woe regarding their public transport system.
One thing is for sure, you wouldn't catch me anywhere near a Tube station at 3am. Chances of being murdered run at around 78%.
The people of Doncaster don't have an overinflated sense of their own importance, and hence wouldn't bore the rest of the country to tears with tales of woe regarding their public transport system.
One thing is for sure, you wouldn't catch me anywhere near a Tube station at 3am. Chances of being murdered run at around 78%.
The people of Doncaster don't have an overinflated sense of their own importance, and hence wouldn't bore the rest of the country to tears with tales of woe regarding their public transport system.
Self-importance? You mean like thinking that every thread has to be relevant to you personally? No one forces you to go onto threads that don't interest you in order to whine about what your fellow FM's want to discuss.
I'm sure you would be happy if your employer turned round and said you had to start working nightshifts without consulting you beforehand?
How about if you were told you had to man a tube station on a Friday night on your own, with no one to help you deal with drunken troublemakers?
Get ready for the continuous media bombardment of the 'perils of unions' rhetoric this week. They know exactly what they're, if they can get Sun readers to vote Tory, they can push us to give up our rights to organise in work places too.
You make it sound as if the unions are blameless - when it is reality that the rail unions hold the record for the number of strikes caused by petty pointlessness and vindictiveness. Striking for the right to have a paid holiday or proper health and safety measures, it is not.
e.g. "the Olympics are on - let's get some more money because we know the government won't let us actually strike. Even if you don't work anywhere near London"
I don't think Londoners need to be told about unions. They experience it every time they are made late for work because people earning £50k, possibly more than they do, (and don't actually have to pay fares) want even more money
Yes it would not be used (other than by vagrants) after 2 am in "the Sticks" such as Epping and Upminster. As someone said - why not pilot an hour extra on a couple of lines as an experiment?
Oh and 24/7 certainly opens the doors for terrorism.
I'm sure you would be happy if your employer turned round and said you had to start working nightshifts without consulting you beforehand?
How about if you were told you had to man a tube station on a Friday night on your own, with no one to help you deal with drunken troublemakers?
It's a few nights a year, it's not as if they're being asked to work every night of the week.
London as a whole does not need 24 hour tube.
The west end yes. But not all London.
Ruislip, Cockfosters, Elm Park etc. don't need 24 hour tube.
There are night buses.
Just one more mistake following:
Cable car
Boris buses
Bendy buses
London needs more tube routes not 24 hour tube.
Ruislip and Elm Park is not getting the Night Tube and Cockfosters is only getting it because the Piccadilly line depot is at Cockfosters. So I cannot see what you are talking about.
Yes it would not be used (other than by vagrants) after 2 am in "the Sticks" such as Epping and Upminster. As someone said - why not pilot an hour extra on a couple of lines as an experiment?
Oh and 24/7 certainly opens the doors for terrorism.
Also Epping and Upminster are not getting the Night Tube.
You miss the point - the suburbs do not need tube trains at 3am in the morning. There are night buses and cabs too for the few out at that time of night. I have no vested interest in the stupid scheme either.
Maybe you can afford a cab from the west end to Ruislip or Cockfosters many of the rest of can't . Maybe your happy to spend ages waiting for a night bus in the cold and rain at 1 in the morning - many of us arn't . Why would you want to make it difficult for people in the suburbs to enjoy the west end ?
London as a whole does not need 24 hour tube.
The west end yes. But not all London.
Ruislip, Cockfosters, Elm Park etc. don't need 24 hour tube.
There are night buses.
Just one more mistake following:
Cable car
Boris buses
Bendy buses
London needs more tube routes not 24 hour tube.
Well new Tube Routes are going to take years and billions of investment.
As for 24 hour tube - London is a 24 hour city - and people who use the tube to get into the West End are going to need a transport system that gets them out of it. That is before you get to the legions of night workers who are currently forced to use expensive taxis to get home at the early hours of the day.
You miss the point - the suburbs do not need tube trains at 3am in the morning. There are night buses and cabs too for the few out at that time of night. I have no vested interest in the stupid scheme either.
Do you really think that a poorly paid cleaner is going to be able to afford a taxi to the Suburbs - and finding a bus at night to take them is going to be difficult at best and need a number of changes.
Do you really think that a poorly paid cleaner is going to be able to afford a taxi to the Suburbs - and finding a bus at night to take them is going to be difficult at best and need a number of changes.
I'm not convinced cleaners take taxis or even tubes. If I've had to start work at stupid o'clock I'm on a very early bus, along with a few cleaners coming out from Oxford Street. Bus-only passes are cheaper.
I'm not convinced cleaners take taxis or even tubes. If I've had to start work at stupid o'clock I'm on a very early bus, along with a few cleaners coming out from Oxford Street. Bus-only passes are cheaper.
and for those who are in an area not served by a night bus? Or where there are not that many night buses. Sometimes it will be the employer that pays for the taxi - especially in areas such as the city or Canary wharf.
Changes such as this are disruptive - not in the negative sense, but in terms of facilitating things that were not possible or impractical. Just the very fact that the Tube is open all night will open up opportunities and options that are not available now.
and for those who are in an area not served by a night bus? Or where there are not that many night buses. Sometimes it will be the employer that pays for the taxi - especially in areas such as the city or Canary wharf.
Some employers will pay for taxis - they often will for night staff - but I can't imagine that agency cleaners will get the same benefit. By the time many of them get out to the outer zones the normal buses could well have started running.
Changes such as this are disruptive - not in the negative sense, but in terms of facilitating things that were not possible or impractical. Just the very fact that the Tube is open all night will open up opportunities and options that are not available now.
I'm all for Night Tube in theory but it seems to have been rushed through.
Well new Tube Routes are going to take years and billions of investment.
As for 24 hour tube - London is a 24 hour city - and people who use the tube to get into the West End are going to need a transport system that gets them out of it. That is before you get to the legions of night workers who are currently forced to use expensive taxis to get home at the early hours of the day.
I think it would be a better use of the available investment to upgrade the systems on the network and introduce driverless trains - that makes the whole network more reliable and efficient.
Night services could then be introduced later down the line..
Some employers will pay for taxis - they often will for night staff - but I can't imagine that agency cleaners will get the same benefit. By the time many of them get out to the outer zones the normal buses could well have started running.
Why should the poorly paid be coming home just as the sun gets up - because it takes that much longer to take buses? If we followed that logic Daimler Benz would not have stood a chance because nobody would ride in a carriage with an engine in front instead of horses.
A faster and not that much more expensive service means they get home that much earlier.
I'm all for Night Tube in theory but it seems to have been rushed through.
Yes London does need a 24 hour tube. Its ludicrous that the biggest city in Europe's metro system shuts down at around midnight at weekends, whilst hundreds of thousands of people are still in central London, either working or enjoying themselves.
I agree. The tube is meant for the convenience of passengers, not the over-paid folk who work there.
I think it would be a better use of the available investment to upgrade the systems on the network and introduce driverless trains - that makes the whole network more reliable and efficient.
Just try getting that past the dinosaur's in the RMT. Ironic really in that the opposition of the unions to the night service is just going to increase calls for the fully automation of the service.
This thread begins with a proposition that London (unique among leading cities) does not need an all-night service - but think about it. By providing an alternative you bring both consumers and workers into the city, increasing wealth and opportunities that will benefit lower paid workers. People who want to drink or eat after a show and that is a job for a waiter or waitress - historically poorly paid workers who may actually want the extra work, which will no doubt pay more as well.
London as a whole does not need 24 hour tube.
The west end yes. But not all London.
Ruislip, Cockfosters, Elm Park etc. don't need 24 hour tube.
There are night buses.
Just one more mistake following:
Cable car
Boris buses
Bendy buses
London needs more tube routes not 24 hour tube.
So you want to build new tube lines taking 10-15 years and 20 billion each , but don't want to use what we have already for the other quarter of the daY?. Just so underground staff don't have to work the odd nightshift, for even more money than now?
Even Corbyn isn't suggesting you have trains in the centre, that don't go to where the people want to get back to - though he is backed by the sriking union that wants a lot more staff, working fewer hours and paid more , and fares going up by 6-7% to pay for it.
I think it would be a better use of the available investment to upgrade the systems on the network and introduce driverless trains - that makes the whole network more reliable and efficient.
Night services could then be introduced later down the line..
They are doing that - thats why the trains are now arriving at much shorter inervals . A lot of the weekend disruption seems to be to do with doing more of that. You can only do so much at a time without closing too much of the system down - even if you had enough engineers.
Driverless trains can't make things faster.You can't just let the computer go when its time leaving passengers clinging on outside. They just mean there's no human to notice something odd happening and to stop accidents, or react to them . It will happen if the drivers keep on striking , but its not at all desirable.
Do you really think that a poorly paid cleaner is going to be able to afford a taxi to the Suburbs - and finding a bus at night to take them is going to be difficult at best and need a number of changes.
Or be very impressed with the driver's argument - that night shifts would disrupt their lives - when, by definition, the people to benefit are the nurses, cleanes, doctors and other night shift workers - doing night work every day, or more often.
Even less impressed if they work out that the union strategy seems to be to employ more staff - so that they are rostered for nightshifts less often, then declare that there's too many staff - so they should be given a 32 hour week. They end up with more money for test work, and the cleaner gets to pay for it - in increased fares.
Comments
The people of Doncaster don't have an overinflated sense of their own importance, and hence wouldn't bore the rest of the country to tears with tales of woe regarding their public transport system.
One thing is for sure, you wouldn't catch me anywhere near a Tube station at 3am. Chances of being murdered run at around 78%.
So much rubbish in one post.
Self-importance? You mean like thinking that every thread has to be relevant to you personally? No one forces you to go onto threads that don't interest you in order to whine about what your fellow FM's want to discuss.
I'm sure that's very interesting to someone though I'm not sure I see how it's relevant in the national context.
I'm sure you would be happy if your employer turned round and said you had to start working nightshifts without consulting you beforehand?
How about if you were told you had to man a tube station on a Friday night on your own, with no one to help you deal with drunken troublemakers?
You make it sound as if the unions are blameless - when it is reality that the rail unions hold the record for the number of strikes caused by petty pointlessness and vindictiveness. Striking for the right to have a paid holiday or proper health and safety measures, it is not.
e.g. "the Olympics are on - let's get some more money because we know the government won't let us actually strike. Even if you don't work anywhere near London"
I don't think Londoners need to be told about unions. They experience it every time they are made late for work because people earning £50k, possibly more than they do, (and don't actually have to pay fares) want even more money
Yes it would not be used (other than by vagrants) after 2 am in "the Sticks" such as Epping and Upminster. As someone said - why not pilot an hour extra on a couple of lines as an experiment?
Oh and 24/7 certainly opens the doors for terrorism.
It's a few nights a year, it's not as if they're being asked to work every night of the week.
Ruislip and Elm Park is not getting the Night Tube and Cockfosters is only getting it because the Piccadilly line depot is at Cockfosters. So I cannot see what you are talking about.
Also Epping and Upminster are not getting the Night Tube.
Maybe you can afford a cab from the west end to Ruislip or Cockfosters many of the rest of can't . Maybe your happy to spend ages waiting for a night bus in the cold and rain at 1 in the morning - many of us arn't . Why would you want to make it difficult for people in the suburbs to enjoy the west end ?
Is that directed at this thread's users or the Tube staff?
Well new Tube Routes are going to take years and billions of investment.
As for 24 hour tube - London is a 24 hour city - and people who use the tube to get into the West End are going to need a transport system that gets them out of it. That is before you get to the legions of night workers who are currently forced to use expensive taxis to get home at the early hours of the day.
Do you really think that a poorly paid cleaner is going to be able to afford a taxi to the Suburbs - and finding a bus at night to take them is going to be difficult at best and need a number of changes.
I'm not convinced cleaners take taxis or even tubes. If I've had to start work at stupid o'clock I'm on a very early bus, along with a few cleaners coming out from Oxford Street. Bus-only passes are cheaper.
and for those who are in an area not served by a night bus? Or where there are not that many night buses. Sometimes it will be the employer that pays for the taxi - especially in areas such as the city or Canary wharf.
Changes such as this are disruptive - not in the negative sense, but in terms of facilitating things that were not possible or impractical. Just the very fact that the Tube is open all night will open up opportunities and options that are not available now.
Some employers will pay for taxis - they often will for night staff - but I can't imagine that agency cleaners will get the same benefit. By the time many of them get out to the outer zones the normal buses could well have started running.
I'm all for Night Tube in theory but it seems to have been rushed through.
London as a whole is getting it and those those parts that are only on Fri and Sat nights.
I think it would be a better use of the available investment to upgrade the systems on the network and introduce driverless trains - that makes the whole network more reliable and efficient.
Night services could then be introduced later down the line..
Why should the poorly paid be coming home just as the sun gets up - because it takes that much longer to take buses? If we followed that logic Daimler Benz would not have stood a chance because nobody would ride in a carriage with an engine in front instead of horses.
A faster and not that much more expensive service means they get home that much earlier.
Hardly - it has been on the cards for years.
I agree. The tube is meant for the convenience of passengers, not the over-paid folk who work there.
Just try getting that past the dinosaur's in the RMT. Ironic really in that the opposition of the unions to the night service is just going to increase calls for the fully automation of the service.
This thread begins with a proposition that London (unique among leading cities) does not need an all-night service - but think about it. By providing an alternative you bring both consumers and workers into the city, increasing wealth and opportunities that will benefit lower paid workers. People who want to drink or eat after a show and that is a job for a waiter or waitress - historically poorly paid workers who may actually want the extra work, which will no doubt pay more as well.
So you want to build new tube lines taking 10-15 years and 20 billion each , but don't want to use what we have already for the other quarter of the daY?. Just so underground staff don't have to work the odd nightshift, for even more money than now?
Even Corbyn isn't suggesting you have trains in the centre, that don't go to where the people want to get back to - though he is backed by the sriking union that wants a lot more staff, working fewer hours and paid more , and fares going up by 6-7% to pay for it.
They are doing that - thats why the trains are now arriving at much shorter inervals . A lot of the weekend disruption seems to be to do with doing more of that. You can only do so much at a time without closing too much of the system down - even if you had enough engineers.
Driverless trains can't make things faster.You can't just let the computer go when its time leaving passengers clinging on outside. They just mean there's no human to notice something odd happening and to stop accidents, or react to them . It will happen if the drivers keep on striking , but its not at all desirable.
Or be very impressed with the driver's argument - that night shifts would disrupt their lives - when, by definition, the people to benefit are the nurses, cleanes, doctors and other night shift workers - doing night work every day, or more often.
Even less impressed if they work out that the union strategy seems to be to employ more staff - so that they are rostered for nightshifts less often, then declare that there's too many staff - so they should be given a 32 hour week. They end up with more money for test work, and the cleaner gets to pay for it - in increased fares.