• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
but true accessibility is about getting rid of gaps and steps into trains, not employing someone to lump a ramp around. And it should be possible at the vast majority of locations.

There are an awful lot of curved platforms on the mainline network, we even have curved platforms where the mainlines are actually straight, to get rid of all of those would cost £trillions (whatever a trillion is :-?).

But just think of the savings when all those horrible humans are down the dole office!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
These guidelines include providing transport to the nearest accessible stations and assistance at accessible stations under the national Passenger Assist scheme, which requires 24hours notice.

There is little chance of a "test case" based on disabled people turning up without notice being successful, because Parliament have already legislated on the matter. Of course the DfT/GTR will know this.

On the other hand if a booking for assistance has been made, GTR will have to ensure there's someone to provide it.

What about all the cases where they just turn up and go, surely 'case law' would be just as relevant in things like this?

The only way Southern could argue the point is if they had been refusing to assist wheelchair passengers who hadnt booked 24 hours in advance!

Oh and just because they have booked 24 hours in advance Southern are not guaranteeing assistance will be provided, just that they will try to provide assistance.
 

Stew998

Member
Joined
17 Jan 2014
Messages
98
Location
Mid Sussex
probably some truth in that......I myself would consider my options if I was working in The City and relied on Sothern to get me there. Would be interesting to see how passenger volumes work out in the next couple of years on Southern Routes
I was only saying to a fellow traveller today that there seem to be less passengers on non-strike days than there were pre-strike.... A lot of people are discovering either alternative ways of getting to work or are working flexibly either from home &/or doing less days in the office. That, I suspect is here to stay.

I tend to agree that a second member of staff is desirable especially on longer routes and I know females travelling later at night would certainly agree with this. However, whether that needs to be a Guard seems questionable and whatever public sympathy the Guards may have had is dwindling fast. If you doubt this then take a look at the comments on this BBC piece: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38994965 No doubt there are a few extremists on there but the trend is clear and most people I talk to think the same.

Frankly when you consider the situation with slam door stock a few years ago the risk of DOO on modern stock simply has to be pretty low in comparison and when trains on the same line are running DOO then the safety argument over opening and closing the doors just sounds ludicrous.

I am afraid the RMT should have negotiated a decent deal for the transition to DOO with guaranteed OBS early on.

I'm no fan of the way the government, Horton and his henchmen have handled this but I fear the RMT have played into their hands.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
The law is already carefully framed. One of the disability laws sets outs TOCs responsibilities to disabled passengers (forgive me if I forget which), but it is little more than they write a Policy document which follows guidelines set by the ORR/ATOC.

These guidelines include providing transport to the nearest accessible stations and assistance at accessible stations under the national Passenger Assist scheme, which requires 24hours notice.

There is little chance of a "test case" based on disabled people turning up without notice being successful, because Parliament have already legislated on the matter. Of course the DfT/GTR will know this.

On the other hand if a booking for assistance has been made, GTR will have to ensure there's someone to provide it.

The 24hr booking system makes a mockery of everything done to offer equality between Disabled and Non-Disabled passengers. Where I am you currently have a situation where a Disabled user can use the train virtually like any other passengers, turn up and go, with the Guard always being there to enable this. The only exception to this is for wheelchair users where travel is to or from the few stations where infrastructure like lifts and ramps to avoid step aren't provided. Even in those cases where the destination is the problem though it is the Guard who normally liaises with the Disabled passenger and control to make alternative arrangements. To take away this existing provision from these passengers, forcing a system where people, some of whom commute to and from work every day in a wheelchair, will now have to book specific trains 24hrs in advance for every day, even then without an absolute guarantee of being able to travel on their desired train, is completely against the spirit of what the DDA/Equalities Act tries to achieve.

Given the lengths many industries/companies/businesses have had to go to comply with the DDA/Equalities Act, with serious money being involved, it would seem ridiculous that the railway can seriously reduce its provision to Disabled passengers...

The swing in staff attitude from the vote 3 months ago to strike to oppose DOO to today is 41.5% where 95.6% of staff supported taking action to oppose DOO in the original ballot.

This ignores the circumstances of the second vote though. I appreciate that various people have played up that 'only' 54% voted no, but to me it ignores the real significance of ASLEF members having to vote no against the recommendation of ASLEF. Where I am the Drivers voting against something recommended and supported by ASLEF would be considered incredible! Going by what Drivers are saying where I am, the main reason they'd have voted yes to accept that deal (the majority wouldn't have anyway) was not because they supported the deal, but largely because that was what ASLEF recommended. I think this is also why the turnout was lower this time around, as not voting avoided voting against ASLEF's recommendation... As such, I wouldn't underestimate the continued feeling against this deal/DOO.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Edited...

..........................


This ignores the circumstances of the second vote though. I appreciate that various people have played up that 'only' 54% voted no, but to me it ignores the real significance of ASLEF members having to vote no against the recommendation of ASLEF. Where I am the Drivers voting against something recommended and supported by ASLEF would be considered incredible! Going by what Drivers are saying where I am, the main reason they'd have voted yes to accept that deal (the majority wouldn't have anyway) was not because they supported the deal, but largely because that was what ASLEF recommended. I think this is also why the turnout was lower this time around, as not voting avoided voting against ASLEF's recommendation... As such, I wouldn't underestimate the continued feeling against this deal/DOO.

I'm rather surprised by this comment. If I was a member of any union I would vote however I felt, regardless of what the union recommended.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,184
How much money and how long would it take to retrofit the camera system used on current 700/electrostar stock compared to first generation electrostar stock? Personally think if GTR promised to replace the camera stock by x date then it would be a game changer.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
The 24hr booking system makes a mockery of everything done to offer equality between Disabled and Non-Disabled passengers. Where I am you currently have a situation where a Disabled user can use the train virtually like any other passengers, turn up and go, with the Guard always being there to enable this. The only exception to this is for wheelchair users where travel is to or from the few stations where infrastructure like lifts and ramps to avoid step aren't provided. Even in those cases where the destination is the problem though it is the Guard who normally liaises with the Disabled passenger and control to make alternative arrangements. To take away this existing provision from these passengers, forcing a system where people, some of whom commute to and from work every day in a wheelchair, will now have to book specific trains 24hrs in advance for every day, even then without an absolute guarantee of being able to travel on their desired train, is completely against the spirit of what the DDA/Equalities Act tries to achieve.

Given the lengths many industries/companies/businesses have had to go to comply with the DDA/Equalities Act, with serious money being involved, it would seem ridiculous that the railway can seriously reduce its provision to Disabled passengers...

But then this goes back to how they have managed on GN and Thameslink and on metro routes around London for the last god knows how many years?

Im not saying its right but for every point you and others make you then have ask that very same question I have just made and the answer will be that they have managed and thus Southern can prove that it works and thats been their argument all along - its proven to work with our other brands so we're just bringing it into line now.

Its crap but its a fact. No matter which way you swing it.
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
The 24hr booking system makes a mockery of everything done to offer equality between Disabled and Non-Disabled passengers. Where I am you currently have a situation where a Disabled user can use the train virtually like any other passengers, turn up and go, with the Guard always being there to enable this. The only exception to this is for wheelchair users where travel is to or from the few stations where infrastructure like lifts and ramps to avoid step aren't provided. Even in those cases where the destination is the problem though it is the Guard who normally liaises with the Disabled passenger and control to make alternative arrangements. To take away this existing provision from these passengers, forcing a system where people, some of whom commute to and from work every day in a wheelchair, will now have to book specific trains 24hrs in advance for every day, even then without an absolute guarantee of being able to travel on their desired train, is completely against the spirit of what the DDA/Equalities Act tries to achieve.

Given the lengths many industries/companies/businesses have had to go to comply with the DDA/Equalities Act, with serious money being involved, it would seem ridiculous that the railway can seriously reduce its provision to Disabled passengers...

Even on trains with guards, booking in advance makes scant assurance that assistance will be available. I book my weekly commuting journeys on a Saturday for the following week. This week there was no assistance on Wednesday, Thursday and today and I was helped onto the train by another passenger each time. This isn't that unusual and last week I had to get myself and my wheelchair off the train to avoid being carried back the way I'd come. If the situation is like this now with guards on the train, I dread to think what it's going to be like once they've gone.
 

JonathanP

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2008
Messages
317
Location
Berlin, Germany
In Berlin on the U-Bahn(5 minute headway, stops every 1-2 minutes) and the S-Bahn(5-10 minute headway, stops every 2-3 minutes in the centre), they load and unload wheelchairs every day without station staff or a conductor.

The wheelchair user waits by the front cab door. The driver sees them, then while people are getting on and off he sets up the ramp stored on the platform adjacent to the first passenger door, and the wheelchair goes on. Then he puts the ramp back and off the train goes. This video shows the procedure : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olyphv8lEGY

They can also do DOO dispatch from the platform on the S-Bahn. In the cab there is a microphone on a long cord. The driver stands on the platform, announces he is closing the doors, presses a button on the microphone to trigger the door closure, and then gets back in the cab and drives off. Safety problems solved.

So there are other options if you think outside the box a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Domeyhead

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2009
Messages
386
Location
The South
It will make no difference because the whole circus has been planned well in advance. For about the 100th time, this entire scenario is about saving money. That is it. It really is. This is achieved by not paying wages. That is achieved by ceasing to employ the people in question.

The government will be very careful to avoid any situation which makes disabled accessibility mandatory, and so makes OBS indispensible, because not only would that mess up the entire project, but would also mean staff would need to be reintroduced on every other DOO network by way of the same ruling. That simply will not happen.

Of course it is about saving money! You say this as though this is a revelation of a sinister conspiracy between the DFT and the Franchise holders. All change has to achieve some kind of direct or indirect benefit otherwise there is no point in doing it. it is not a secret. In this case there are also immediate benefits in removing potential obstacles to enabling or optimising an intensive timetable on limited infrastructure. There is no intention to remove OBSs in the short term anyway and Southern have said this, in writing, so what is the point of going to war now on a future scenario before it happens? Almost all those passengers (remember them) experience and accept change during their working lives as a fact of life, and almost all will have been deskilled out of a previous role by the technology that enables them to carry their work everywhere they go. It's the arrow of progress. The RMT seems to regard maintaining operational status quo from start to end of a career as a kind of birthright and has shifted the focus from overall passenger safety to the possibility that sometimes disabled passengers may be inconvenienced on the exceptional occasions when a train moves without an OBS on board. Is that it? Because in 20 years time other technologies will be in place that makes the current situation irrelevant as a reference point for example the nonsensical idea that passengers they will still be required to book 24 hours in advance for assistance and that station staff will still be performing the same duties in the same place on the same trains to the same people with the same mobility.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
What about all the cases where they just turn up and go, surely 'case law' would be just as relevant in things like this?

The only way Southern could argue the point is if they had been refusing to assist wheelchair passengers who hadnt booked 24 hours in advance!

Oh and just because they have booked 24 hours in advance Southern are not guaranteeing assistance will be provided, just that they will try to provide assistance.

What case law are you talking about? Have there been any cases about disabled passengers turning up to go and their right to get on a train? AFAIK Bestwestern is correct, DOO has been in place elsewhere without any such cases.

Anyway Parliament is supreme, the judiciary may overrule the Goverment (as it has recently in the Article 50 case) but it can't overrule parliamentary law.

It really is grasping at straws to believe otherwise.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
The 24hr booking system makes a mockery of everything done to offer equality between Disabled and Non-Disabled passengers.

Your opinion of the law doesn't change it. Yes the law goes into great detail about the design of trains etc, but far less detail about the help to be given by TOCs to the disabled.
 
Last edited:

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Even on trains with guards, booking in advance makes scant assurance that assistance will be available. I book my weekly commuting journeys on a Saturday for the following week. This week there was no assistance on Wednesday, Thursday and today and I was helped onto the train by another passenger each time. This isn't that unusual and last week I had to get myself and my wheelchair off the train to avoid being carried back the way I'd come. If the situation is like this now with guards on the train, I dread to think what it's going to be like once they've gone.

You should be reporting the TOC to, I believe, the ORR who should enforce the rules.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Of course it is about saving money! You say this as though this is a revelation of a sinister conspiracy between the DFT and the Franchise holders.

And yet the mealy-mouthed TOC and the DfT do not admit to this in public, so a "sinister conspiracy" is exactly what it is! As evidenced on this thread where quite a few people seem to have bought into the TOC's line about no jobs being lost etc.

In any case the savings that will be delivered are modest and extremely long term, particularly given the cost of the ongoing despite. In the short term, the TOC/DfT's decision to trigger this dispute has turned a franchise that was delivering a modest profit into one that has cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune in direct costs, plus vast (but unquantifiable) indirect costs to the wider economy. So I suspect the dispute is a bit about saving money, and actually much more about making an (extremely costly) political statement of intent to break rail unions.

There is no radical technology in place that has made the guards' role redundant. DOO monitors in various guises have been around for decades and are nothing new. The removal of the guard will make safety (slightly) worse, will make the passenger experience worse and worsen the experience of disabled passengers. All to achieve some unquantifiable level of savings that will take many, many years to recoup.

As for your comment about unions protecting the status quo, of course they do. Their duty is to their members. I don't suppose anyone here takes any pleasure in passengers being inconvenienced but the RMT would hardly be doing their duty if they rolled-over on this so as not to inconvenience the travelling public. It is for the TOC and the DfT to look after the interests of passengers. Something they've shown scant regard for by triggering this dispute in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,368
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
And yet the mealy-mouthed TOC and the DfT do not admit to this in public, so a "sinister conspiracy" is exactly what it is! As evidenced on this thread where quite a few people seem to have bought into the TOC's line about no jobs being lost etc.

In any case the savings that will be delivered are modest and extremely long term, particularly given the cost of the ongoing despite. In the short term, the TOC/DfT's decision to trigger this dispute has turned a franchise that was delivering a modest profit into one that has cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune in direct costs, plus vast (but unquantifiable) indirect costs to the wider economy. So I suspect the dispute is a bit about saving money, and actually much more about making an (extremely costly) political statement of intent to break rail unions.

There is no radical technology in place that has made the guards' role redundant. DOO monitors in various guises have been around for decades and are nothing new. The removal of the guard will make safety (slightly) worse, will make the passenger experience worse and worsen the experience of disabled passengers. All to achieve some unquantifiable level of savings that will take many, many years to recoup.

As for your comment about unions protecting the status quo, of course they do. Their duty is to their members. I don't suppose anyone here takes any pleasure in passengers being inconvenienced but the RMT would hardly be doing their duty if they rolled-over on this so as not to inconvenience the travelling public. It is for the TOC and the DfT to look after the interests of passengers. Something they've shown scant regard for by triggering this dispute in the first place.

A fair summation in my view.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,603
Do you think months of strikes between now and then will make their departure more or less likely?
Depends on the government. I think they will probably go if the government want it. I guess one could say they should jump ship now but it's not to easy to jump ship just like that.
 
Last edited:

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Of course it is about saving money! You say this as though this is a revelation of a sinister conspiracy between the DFT and the Franchise holders. All change has to achieve some kind of direct or indirect benefit otherwise there is no point in doing it. it is not a secret.

Perhaps you could point out the significant cost benefits you feel will be achieved be exchanging a name bagde which says 'Conductor' for one which says 'OBS'?

Alternatively, perhaps you might like to consider how much has been spent attempting to batter staff into submission, on court cases, on the PR propaganda war and on everything else, and then have a think about whether it would have been worth all of that if the only intention was to let Drivers 'do the doors'. There is an end game here. It really isn't difficult to see it. The 'conspiracy' is the repeated refusal to admit that the cost savings are going to come from destaffing the railway.
 
Last edited:

falcon

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
425
Firstly, because it would have looked bad and been unpopular with the public to have announced that all on train staff are being sacked. And secondly because it would have been mightily expensive to make the whole lot redundant in one go.

Give it a few years, demoralise and grind people down as much as possible. A good few will leave, some will retire (particularly the ex-BR ones who would be very pricey to pay off), a small minority may move to other useful roles within the company (get jobs as Drivers, etc). Agree favourable starting terms with Aslef, which then pave the way to make less and less effort to maintain the establishment of OBS, eventually running more and more trains without them until the Drivers accept it as normal and become disinterested, finally sealing the deal with a healthy pay rise at some point in the future. In the meantime, employ new-intake OBS on crap terms and conditions which make them easily disposed of. The RMT might object. Who cares. Finally, roll out this model across the network, and award Horton a Knighthood for 'services to the railway'.

Next up, Drivers..

Some people think that the staff and their unions are living in the past. Yet, ironically, those same people also seem to think that this Victorian approach to the business of employing people is 'modern' and 'the future'. How naive some people are.

Hitting the nail on the head 100%
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,697
Location
London
Work harder? Your post was interesting until the last bit


Just what I was thinking as I read that post. It was a useful contribution about how other railways work, all spoilt by some subjective mini rant at the end.
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,487
In Berlin on the U-Bahn(5 minute headway, stops every 1-2 minutes) and the S-Bahn(5-10 minute headway, stops every 2-3 minutes in the centre), they load and unload wheelchairs every day without station staff or a conductor.

The wheelchair user waits by the front cab door. The driver sees them, then while people are getting on and off he sets up the ramp stored on the platform adjacent to the first passenger door, and the wheelchair goes on. Then he puts the ramp back and off the train goes. This video shows the procedure : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olyphv8lEGY

They can also do DOO dispatch from the platform on the S-Bahn. In the cab there is a microphone on a long cord. The driver stands on the platform, announces he is closing the doors, presses a button on the microphone to trigger the door closure, and then gets back in the cab and drives off. Safety problems solved.

So there are other options if you think outside the box a bit.



However the S-Bahn trains are likely to be configured for this. On Southern the Disabled Area is not in the front coach it can be in the 2nd or 3rd - depending which DMOS is leading (A OR B).. Platform ramps are also in the centre of the platform. All designed for actual onboard staff to use!

If drivers were to do the ramps, as they're leaving the cab to walk down the train, the cab would have to be shutdown and secured (The Signaller informed etc). Then load the passeenger, stow the ramp, return to the cab and set up (contact the signaller again).. and then proceed... easily several minutes added. A guard or OBS can board a passenger in under a minute often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,697
Location
London
Here is a letter from the ABC-
https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2...e-answers-letter-to-charles-horton-from-abcd/

It wasnt a link it was a post, here it is in its entirety-



With thanks to the original poster.

That narrative of events makes for depressing reading for UK railways in 2017.

The idea that even the driver doesn't know whether on obs is on board or for how long, and what they are allowed or trained to do is a farcical state of affairs.

What the commentator in that piece briefly hints at but I'd imagine if at the forefront of every passenger who needs assistance is the uncertainty of the whole thing. Will there be someone to get me on? Will there be someone to get me off or will I get over carried?

Societies are often judged on how they treat their citizens and in particular those less fortunate. To treat wheelchair users, others with less mobility and all people who require a little help to traverse the often complex uk rail system in the way gtr southern is doing is abominable.

The dft and gtr should be ashamed of the way they are treating their customers.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Of course it is about saving money! You say this as though this is a revelation of a sinister conspiracy between the DFT and the Franchise holders.

However DfT and GTR do not have the political courage to come out and spell it out. They hide behind mealy-mouthed claptrap about "improving customer experience" and "making existing staff more visible".

The only way this scheme makes any sense financially is if you reduce the headcount and/or reduce the salary of the OBS (and this can include removing future pay increases, even if the existing salary is "protected").

I think the fact it happens to undermine the RMT- who predominantly represent guards- is just a happy bonus.

The fact that DfT and GTR do not come out and say this is precisely what makes it a "sinister conspiracy", even though anyone with half a brain can see this is precisely what the end game is.

Interestingly, there are a number of posters on here who have bought into the GTR/DfT lines about it being about "efficiency" and not staff cuts, as though the cost of not having to cancel the occasional train is suddenly going to save tens of millions a year.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I'd imagine if at the forefront of every passenger who needs assistance is the uncertainty of the whole thing. Will there be someone to get me on? Will there be someone to get me off or will I get over carried?

I fairly often travel with a wheelchair-bound colleague, and we face that uncertainty even on trains with guards and at stations with despatch staff, and even after booking assistance weeks in advance. The number of times they've "forgotten" about my colleague is frankly disgraceful.

The advantage of the second staff member is there is someone's attention to get, to avoid being overcarried. I wouldn't use the usual tactic- frantically waving out of the door- on a DOO train because of the significant risk of being trapped.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,368
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
I fairly often travel with a wheelchair-bound colleague, and we face that uncertainty even on trains with guards and at stations with despatch staff, and even after booking assistance weeks in advance. The number of times they've "forgotten" about my colleague is frankly disgraceful.

The advantage of the second staff member is there is someone's attention to get, to avoid being overcarried. I wouldn't use the usual tactic- frantically waving out of the door- on a DOO train because of the significant risk of being trapped.

Carry a wedge/block with you to keep the doors open until help arrives.
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
Your opinion of the law doesn't change it. Yes the law goes into great detail about the design of trains etc, but far less detail about the help to be given by TOCs to the disabled.

The key would be the concept of reasonable adjustments as set out in the 1995 DDA and then assumed into the Equality Act 2010. What's reasonable can only be decided by the courts. While some legislation and regulations (which are subservient to primary legislation) have been implemented, these tend to relate to the physical environment, not the services offered to enable disabled people to use the train. This would need a court case along the lines of the Doug Paulley one and it's tough finding someone with the time, energy and resources to take such a test case. In the good old days (2000-2007) a case like this might have been supported by the Disability Rights Commission as it would clarify the law and enable future disputes to be more easily settled. However since the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, this approach is less favoured.
 

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,286
Location
Leeds
Here is a letter from the ABC-
https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2...e-answers-letter-to-charles-horton-from-abcd/

It wasnt a link it was a post, here it is in its entirety-



With thanks to the original poster.
That makes for extremely depressing reading. The comment by Sleepy Driver:
Southern Drivers have been told by their managers to leave wheelchair users on the platform if working DOO. Many of them have argued this and they have stated that if they feel that badly for the wheelchair users then help them but beware the consequences. Managers have been asked to put this in writing but will not in case it reaches twitter. Absolutely disgusting.

Shows what a disgusting state of affairs GTR are in and what little respect they have for their passengers and staff - as if it wasn't apparent already. If there's any Southern drivers here and a manager does put it in writing - put it up on Twitter, send it to the Beeb.


I resent the "Work Harder" bit..
It's easy, innit? You just press the green button to go and the red button to stop. Simples! ;)
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
Carry a wedge/block with you to keep the doors open until help arrives.

This is where a titanium wheelchair is very useful. It's a lot stronger than the doors and then when they come to investigate why they can't get interlock, they remember that they've forgotten to get me off the train.

As mentioned upthread, the uncertainty can be really stressful, especially where you are doing the journey frequently and this is on top of the usual commuting stresses
 

SA_900

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2016
Messages
158
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top