vacman
|
|
« Reply #300 on: February 11, 2008, 21:17:00 » |
|
Help! YUP!!!!!! Some people got too much time on their hands!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #301 on: February 11, 2008, 21:22:51 » |
|
Help! YUP!!!!!! Some people got too much time on their hands! I wasnt a great fan of the original song....
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #302 on: February 11, 2008, 21:35:36 » |
|
Same here, but this ones even worse!!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #304 on: February 12, 2008, 19:16:07 » |
|
I had a friend visiting today who is an Exeter driver who says he gets terrible backache after driving 142s. And he spend a lot of his time driving them, as must do a lot of his colleagues.
Hey, that would be a shame if drivers refused to work 142's on health and safety grounds! It happened before when the 153's were first introduced, drivers refused to drive from the small (new) cab as it was too small, and for months they had to go around in pairs with the small cabs buried! Don't know how they finally sorted it out? Vacman, you know how small the small cab is on a 153, well the drivers refused to work the units because the cab was only about 1/2 the depth it is now they had to go back to works for reworking. Do the 153's still have the Riveted cover above the exit doors, that covers over that shocking word "LEYLAND"
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #305 on: February 12, 2008, 19:26:29 » |
|
I had a friend visiting today who is an Exeter driver who says he gets terrible backache after driving 142s. And he spend a lot of his time driving them, as must do a lot of his colleagues.
Hey, that would be a shame if drivers refused to work 142's on health and safety grounds! It happened before when the 153's were first introduced, drivers refused to drive from the small (new) cab as it was too small, and for months they had to go around in pairs with the small cabs buried! Don't know how they finally sorted it out? Vacman, you know how small the small cab is on a 153, well the drivers refused to work the units because the cab was only about 1/2 the depth it is now they had to go back to works for reworking. Do the 153's still have the Riveted cover above the exit doors, that covers over that shocking word "LEYLAND" Explains why the cab extends into the passenger saloon, hence slow loading times.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #306 on: February 12, 2008, 19:26:55 » |
|
I had a friend visiting today who is an Exeter driver who says he gets terrible backache after driving 142s. And he spend a lot of his time driving them, as must do a lot of his colleagues.
Hey, that would be a shame if drivers refused to work 142's on health and safety grounds! It happened before when the 153's were first introduced, drivers refused to drive from the small (new) cab as it was too small, and for months they had to go around in pairs with the small cabs buried! Don't know how they finally sorted it out? Vacman, you know how small the small cab is on a 153, well the drivers refused to work the units because the cab was only about 1/2 the depth it is now they had to go back to works for reworking. Do the 153's still have the Riveted cover above the exit doors, that covers over that shocking word "LEYLAND" I think you may find that 153 "small" cabs were always the same size as they are now, the agreement reached was that the units wouldn't be used on long distance services.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #307 on: February 12, 2008, 19:29:48 » |
|
Also, if the cab was "half" the depth than it currently is then it would only be about 2 ft from the back of the seat to the front of the desk! physicly impossible to fit anyone into!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #308 on: February 12, 2008, 19:35:23 » |
|
Also, if the cab was "half" the depth than it currently is then it would only be about 2 ft from the back of the seat to the front of the desk! physicly impossible to fit anyone into!
Thats why they refused to work them, think the cabs were increased in depth by about 200mm.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #309 on: February 12, 2008, 19:49:45 » |
|
The only thing I was aware of was that a piece was cut out of the desk to allow more leg room.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #311 on: February 13, 2008, 13:58:58 » |
|
Recent Parliamentary Written Answer : Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment she has made of the Health and Safety Executive^s report on the safety of type 142 carriages; what assessment she has made of the suitability of type 142 stock for use on the Manchester-Southport line; what reports she has received of (a) safety and (b) overcrowding issues on this service; and if she will make a statement.
Mr. Tom Harris: Following the publication of the Health and Safety Executive report into the train accident at Winsford South Junction on 23 June 1999, the rail industry has taken forward a programme to make improvements to the crashworthiness of class 142 vehicles. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR» ), the current regulator for rail safety, has been monitoring industry progress on implementing this programme.
Train operating companies are responsible for deploying appropriate rolling stock to meet the capacity demands for the train services they operate. The ORR has received six complaints about safety and crowding issues on Northern Rail services generally since April 2007.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #312 on: March 09, 2008, 00:03:02 » |
|
Rail passengers can expect cancelled services and overcrowded trains when First Great Western relocates five of its carriages to a northern firm, campaigners have warned (link below.) http://thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=141507&command=displayContent&sourceNode=257390&home=yes&more_nodeId1=257393&contentPK=20095835They are angry that FGW▸ plans to send five of 12 Pacer units to Northern Rail and say it could create misery on the lines which run from Exeter to Exmouth, Barnstaple and Paignton - especially at peak times. But the company insists the lost carriages will be replaced by units which are currently out of service for an upgrade. See quote below for background : Got a list Class 142 (12) 142001 142004 142009 142028 142029 142030 142062 142063 142064 142067 142068 142070 004, 028, 062, 067, 070 Short-Leased until October 2008 to cover for refresh program.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shazz
|
|
« Reply #313 on: March 09, 2008, 00:24:48 » |
|
Would this be something to do with the daft?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dog box
|
|
« Reply #314 on: March 09, 2008, 08:56:46 » |
|
Funny this now everyone loves 142s!!!........think it was well documented from the very start of the arrival of the Pacers that 5 were only on short term lease and would be going back.
|
|
|
Logged
|
All postings reflect my own personal views and opinions and are not intended to be, nor should be taken as official statements of first great western or first group policy
|
|
|
|