158747
Member
I think this is the usual b......t issued by the RMT, which they seem to be quite good at doing.
Because the way they are doing it is appalling. The unions press departments, and more generally the media at large, need to learn that misleading and lying to the public is not an acceptable way of making the public agree with them.So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?
The DfT and ROSCOs have had as long as the regulations have been around. Unfortunately the DfT are completely incompetent with franchise conditions and therefore TOCs weren't required to have the mods done until the last franchise award for each relevant franchise. Because previous TOCs had no incentive to have the mods done the current ones are left with too little time to get them done. This means that the effective amount of time available is equal to when the relevant noncompliant rolling stock last transferred to a different TOC.BTW- I'm still hoping to see an answer to my earlier question- how long have 'they' had to comply with the law? (whether this TOC or that or someone else- liability has been there). If someone buys an old car 'they' know it will need an MoT on or by such-and-such a date.
I don't understand.... are you complaining about people being sympathetic?I'm still finding it hard to go with the 'excuses' and the sympathy and understanding people have for them over those who have to put up with the result.
Do you expect passengers to just not be able to travel? Because that's what you seem to be advocating.And for the avoidance of doubt if that means not running non-compliant trains so be it.
People are frustrated by the inaccuracies in the RMT's press release and how one sided the story is with no acknoledgement that all the rolling stock is planned to be fitted or replaced and that a lot of the trains which dump on the tracks have had tanks fitted or been replaced already.So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?
I'm surprised by and remarking on 'sympathy' for 'the powers-that-be' ( 'the bosses'/ 'profiteers'/ 'big business'/ 'sympathetic government' allowing/ prolonging transgression)are you complaining about people being sympathetic?
I expect 'alternative and compliant provision' to be made. I dislike 'bustitution' too. If my car's out of commission for whatever reason I have to take a taxi or not go.Do you expect passengers to just not be able to travel? Because that's what you seem to be advocating.
all the rolling stock is planned to be fitted or replaced and ...
An MOT is required so your car is in good working order, CETs are not required for the train to be functional as they have been fine without them for years although they should be fitted.If my car has no MoT that's MY fault- no excuses; it shouldn't be driven, no matter what my plans.
I'm unsure if that would be feasible under current circumstances.Have to say I agree with the workforce on this one.
With COVID 19 about no trains with dump toilets should be allowed on the network..
Or if they must ...close off all dump toilets..
The proportion was not mentioned, the numbers of carriages however was asked and answered:The number of trains/carriages and proportion of the TOCs fleet they represent is not in scope of the question.
The RMT evidently decided not to include this information in their press release.Out of a national fleet of over 14,000 carriages there are approximately 350 that still discharge waste to the track and all of these will be refurbished or replaced.
Probably because it wouldn't help their case to admit that this issue affects less than 3% of rolling stock on the network. But hey, who cares about truth and completeness when you have an agenda to push?The proportion was not mentioned, the numbers of carriages however was asked and answered:
Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.www.parliament.uk
The RMT evidently decided not to include this information in their press release.
If, and l concede that isn't the case here, that 3% was concentrated in one area though...Probably because it wouldn't help their case to admit that this issue affects less than 3% of rolling stock on the network. But hey, who cares about truth and completeness when you have an agenda to push?
Well, certainly MML has quite a lot, enough to properly ruin your day multiple times I'd imagine.If, and l concede that isn't the case here, that 3% was concentrated in one area though...
Eldomtom2 thanks for the digging.
So much heated language. You could think that no union ever did anything any good. Why so much visciousness around trying to look after the health and welfare of workers, and in this case innocent bystanders too?
BTW- I'm still hoping to see an answer to my earlier question- how long have 'they' had to comply with the law? (whether this TOC or that or someone else- liability has been there). If someone buys an old car 'they' know it will need an MoT on or by such-and-such a date.
I'm still finding it hard to go with the 'excuses' and the sympathy and understanding people have for them over those who have to put up with the result.
And for the avoidance of doubt if that means not running non-compliant trains so be it.
I see upthread refs to 'a plan'- can someone provide a link to it? I know I would be less heated myself if I knew it would only be for a short and defined time, even if it should have been sorted ages back.