it's Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment). Basically means you work for the new company under the same Ts & Cs as you had in the old company.Haven't come across TUPE before. Could somebody explain please?
it's Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment). Basically means you work for the new company under the same Ts & Cs as you had in the old company.Haven't come across TUPE before. Could somebody explain please?
Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) regulations. Protects existing employees when takeovers, transfers of contracts or mergers etc take place.Haven't come across TUPE before. Could somebody explain please?
I know you didn’t, but a “cutoff” was what the poster I was originally replying to thought.Which I didn't say. Employers are able to effectively exclude anyone by making an offer they can't refuse. In my specific case roughly half took redundancy on standard terms, half got TUPE'd and a small number got an enhanced offer. Clearing old management is a normal consideration.
it's Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment). Basically means you work for the new company under the same Ts & Cs as you had in the old company.
Haven't come across TUPE before. Could somebody explain please?
Very clever of you spotting a typo. However, the post is still relevant, all this talk about TUPE has nothing to do with the lass 769 programme. The title ofthe thread: 'Porterbrook Cl.769 'Flex' trains from 319s, initially for Northern' gives the clue.Nothing to do with 369s, plenty to do with 769s!![]()
probably not.Back to 769s...
So now they've got two Flex 769s on Great Central Railway for testing are they going to run them in multiple and does this hopefully mean a step up in the progress and re-build of these sets.
I have nothing to 'get over' but thank you for acknowleding the drift.Yep sometimes.the conversation goes slightly off topic as you've probably noticed before in other threads which many people reply to as I was doing.
So get over it and back to Flex 769s which I had done in #2466!!
probably not.
the 769's are basically there to replace doubled up pacers/150's,so theoretically very little need to run in multiple.
might be done once or twice to prove "tow home" capability,but that's about it
probably not.
the 769's are basically there to replace doubled up pacers/150's,so theoretically very little need to run in multiple.
might be done once or twice to prove "tow home" capability,but that's about it
Now maybe but in 5 years time? Its best to get the multiple capability working well now incase you need it in future though as we all know needs and plans never change![]()
I think I read that they will be testing in multiple and it would not surprise me if when it gets to mainline testing, they check to see if a converted unit still runs fine in multiple with a none converted 319.
Even if it is not required to run in multiple for passenger services, running ECS moves as multiples or pulling a locked out empty unit on the back of a passenger service to save an ECS move will undoubtedly be required at some point. Better to find out now rather than waiting until you need it and find it doesn't work.
This would make sense to me especially for ECS (Empty Stock) moves. So maybe they will test a 319/769 combination once out on the mainline proper.
And, don't forget, the GWR Class 769s are to supposed get used in multiple, when initially used as temporary as Class 387 stand-ins. Or will delivery be too late for that??![]()
No they aren’t for the zillionth time.
769s replace Turbos on Branches, Basingstokes etc.
Turbos replace 387s on Mainline suburban duties.
387s go away for mods and work HX services
Crossrail replaces Turbos once fully open.
769s will not be SDO fitted so will not be able to work stopping services to Padd in 8 car formation.
Would a 769 in 2+2 provide any seating capacity benefit over a 166?Are the various 769 fleets going to be fitted with improved seating ?
Having used the 319s on Thameslink services for many years, IMHO the worst aspect of these units was the low seating and limited legroom. Simply providing new seat covers will not improve the internal layout.
If the 769 units were fitted more modern upright seating, then legroom would improve and there would be more room for additional seating or luggage space.
769 would certainly be very useful on the Gatwick to Reading services, as the current 3-car turbos have inadequate seating capacity and insufficient luggage space for the current hourly service frequency.
The low seating is the weirdest thing about the 319s. Clearly ergonomics wasn't paid much attention to during the design stage.Are the various 769 fleets going to be fitted with improved seating ?
Having used the 319s on Thameslink services for many years, IMHO the worst aspect of these units was the low seating and limited legroom. Simply providing new seat covers will not improve the internal layout.
If the 769 units were fitted more modern upright seating, then legroom would improve and there would be more room for additional seating or luggage space.
769 would certainly be very useful on the Gatwick to Reading services, as the current 3-car turbos have inadequate seating capacity and insufficient luggage space for the current hourly service frequency.
Indeed. The seats themselves have loads of cushioning but they remain really uncomfortable due to the design. Your bum is so low in the seat, your knees are actually above it and the lower legs intertwine with those sitting opposite.The low seating is the weirdest thing about the 319s. Clearly ergonomics wasn't paid much attention to during the design stage.
+1Indeed. The seats themselves have loads of cushioning but they remain really uncomfortable due to the design. Your bum is so low in the seat, your knees are actually above it and the lower legs intertwine with those sitting opposite.
More upright seats with a reasonable amount of padding would be ideal.
I know that, I was comparing 150s to 156s as a previous poster suggested that a 319/769 would be an upgrade compared to a 156.The 150s are the same mk3 bodyshell as a 319, the only difference is the propulsion and internal layout / condition.
Actually it says on wikipedia 769's will operate some services out of Paddington! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_769#Great_Western_RailwayNo they aren’t for the zillionth time.
769s replace Turbos on Branches, Basingstokes etc.
Turbos replace 387s on Mainline suburban duties.
387s go away for mods and work HX services
Crossrail replaces Turbos once fully open.
769s will not be SDO fitted so will not be able to work stopping services to Padd in 8 car formation.
Actually it says on wikipedia 769's will operate some services out of Paddington! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_769#Great_Western_Railway
Indeed, I've removed the Paddington part of this sentence from Wikipedia.Wikipedia is wrong then.
Apologies if this is slightly pedantic, but that's not quite accurate - they are coming to NT basically to provide desperately needed extra capacity. To the extent that the 14x and 153s are planned to leave the franchise, you could say that the 769s are indirectly replacing those classes, but certainly not (most unfortunately) replacing the 150s let alone other units of the Sprinter family.the 769's are basically there to replace doubled up pacers/150's ....