Two New Forum Sections?

[whhistle]

1: Disruptions
Not sure if it's been discussed before (I have a feeling it has), but this thread is a great example of someone posting something about some sort of disruption but it doesn't really fit with the subforum subject, maybe. Downside is it might concentrate speculation all in one place. Upside means the speculation really IS in one place.

2: Railway staff chat.
It would be great to have a private section for those who actually work for the railway. While I don't particularly like elitism or anything, there are a few questions or things I'd like to ask but not for joe-anyone to reply.
Perhaps moderated by applicants sending an email from a company address to a person/s who can then add them to the group. Downside would be a fair bit of work in the beginning (although my job gives me a lot of free time!). Plus, not everyone has access to a company email address. Up side means those who work for the railway can talk about various things to those who understand a lot more.

Just an idea.

 

[takno]

I would have thought that RDG would be the best people to provide a private cross-industry forum, rather than trying to get a non-industry body to carve one out of something that explicitly operates as a public forum.

 

[70014IronDuke]

1: Disruptions
Not sure if it's been discussed before (I have a feeling it has), but this thread is a great example of someone posting something about some sort of disruption but it doesn't really fit with the subforum subject, maybe. Downside is it might concentrate speculation all in one place. Upside means the speculation really IS in one place.

I think this might be a good idea myself.

2: Railway staff chat.
It would be great to have a private section for those who actually work for the railway. While I don't particularly like elitism or anything, there are a few questions or things I'd like to ask but not for joe-anyone to reply.
Perhaps moderated by applicants sending an email from a company address to a person/s who can then add them to the group. Downside would be a fair bit of work in the beginning (although my job gives me a lot of free time!). Plus, not everyone has access to a company email address. Up side means those who work for the railway can talk about various things to those who understand a lot more. ...

But do they?
I am not so keen on this. I suspect a lot of staff would just naturally migrate to the 'insiders' forum - using the maxim 'better safe than sorry' - and this would mean that many of us would miss out on very interesting subjects. And what about former and retired rail staff who no longer have (or never had!) company email addresses? What's more, some of whom may actually know more about the subject than those who allegedly "understand a lot more" about it

Sorry, I think this forum is what it is. If staffers don't like addressing all and sundry ... don't post in here in the first place.

 

[MrCub]

A 'Disruptions' section seems like a really good idea, but I echo concerns about a 'staffroom'. Some of us who do not work on the railway like to read and really do value the views and insider knowledge of staffers.

 

[TheEdge]

Sorry, I think this forum is what it is. If staffers don't like addressing all and sundry ... don't post in here in the first place.

Personally I disagree, I think there would be somewhere for a staff forum. This is probably one of, if not the largest collection of UK rail staff from different grades and employers accessible to all rather than the official forums which tend to be much more of a management thing.

And no matter how much you like to believe it the armchair "experts" don't know it better. Staff (including myself) have asked technical or operational questions and the armchair gang start piping up with a wide selection of totally incorrect replies.

 

[najaB]

Personally I disagree, I think there would be somewhere for a staff forum.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think that this is the place for it. As others have suggested, a 'Staff Room' here would detract from what I see as the purpose of the forum - a place for staff and enthusiasts to mix and interchange ideas and knowledge.

 

[furnessvale]

Personally I disagree, I think there would be somewhere for a staff forum. This is probably one of, if not the largest collection of UK rail staff from different grades and employers accessible to all rather than the official forums which tend to be much more of a management thing.

And no matter how much you like to believe it the armchair "experts" don't know it better. Staff (including myself) have asked technical or operational questions and the armchair gang start piping up with a wide selection of totally incorrect replies.

As retired staff, would I be with the "in" crowd, or grouped with the "no nothing" crowd?

 

[Bayum]

I’d not be posting particulars on any forum. Facebook teaching pages, Reddit and even TES. Surely there wouldn’t be anything staff would want to discuss on a forum away from the eyes of everyone else?

 

[TheEdge]

Its not about hiding anything, its about keeping on point. A thread recently about Wrong Direction Movements exemplified the reason I'd like a staff area (retired or active).

The thread opened with a pile of acronyms and asked a question that needed proper rules understanding (not just I've read the PDF off the internet) to try to answer. It wasn't dark or shady, it was just technical and the OP wanted some other staff to give their views. Very quickly people starting throwing in that the OP should not have been using acronyms without defining them, it was pointed out the OP has used standard railway acronyms and if you couldn't understand those then the question probably wasn't aimed at you. Further on in that thread someone then questioned something from the rulebook. To myself and other rule trained people there was no ambiguity as the difference between the points involved is obvious, but the thread was then more pulled away discussing that point.

Maybe rather than a secret forum could there be a visible to all but posting rights only to staff?

 

[whhistle]

There are questions that railway staff might want to ask other railway staff but it would probably be boring or pointless to non-railway staff.

For example are there any tips on the poster boards at stations? How you keep them shut, or stop damp getting in. Another could be sharing information, such as typing TRJH EUS into TRUST (not many know about this, or using other tricks like trja cp g d) <-- those without TRUST access, the "public" don't particularly need to know and it would be pointless for them to read.

Like I say, it's not about creating a secret group - just about being able to discuss certain things with other folk who actualyl work on the railway.

 

[IanXC]

These are ideas that we have reviewed in the past, but I will ensure that they are on the agenda for our next forum staff team meeting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe rather than a secret forum could there be a visible to all but posting rights only to staff?

I think this would be a better idea if it did go ahead (like PPRuNe maybe) - I wouldn't want to lose the educational aspect of seeing what staff are thinking.

 

[yorkie]

...other folk who actually work on the railway.

I'm not sure if the plan is include people who maintain the railway or just the train operation side of things?

Either way, how would it work? Would it be for Network Rail and TOC staff only? Would catering staff (who may work for a TOC or who may work for contractors) qualify? What about contractors who carry out work on behalf of Network Rail and TOCs?

 

[eastdyke]

I'm not sure if the plan is include people who maintain the railway or just the train operation side of things?
Either way, how would it work? Would it be for Network Rail and TOC staff only? Would catering staff (who may work for a TOC or who may work for contractors) qualify? What about contractors who carry out work on behalf of Network Rail and TOCs?

And what about people who work for the railway today but leave next week, or people who worked on the railway some time ago? It creates an admin task of some magnitude to control.
The idea of part of the forum where 'rail employed staff' only may post but all were able to read could create lots of 'main forum' posts asking for information and clarifications arising from stuff posted in the restricted area. That would not be very efficient.

 

[whhistle]

Good questions, but I guess they'd have to be decided upon just like any decision about the forum.

If someone works for the railway, but then leaves next week, I suppose they'd still be in the group, unless they volunteered the information they were no longer a-part of railway personnel. I would allow legacy railway personnel though.
The difficulty would be verification - especialy for those among us who worked for British Rail... no email address for them. But then I guess some would be approved on a trust basis, or someone who clearly has railway working knowledge beyond that of many others.

I suppose the "approved" groups would be those that are TOC/FOC/Network Rail for certain. Catering / maintenance too as they're still working as a part of the railway system.

A designer who designs bogies? Yeah, why not... on the odd chance there is someone here who does that :P But perhaps those people, who would be far and few between, would be special cases. Sticking with TOCs/FOCs/Network Rail/Catering and Maintenance for now would be a good start, as I would guess that's where the majority of people who are registered here work.

I understand it might be a large task in the beginning but whether it's worth exploring, I don't know.

 

[eastdyke]

And then there is Heritage Rail. eg. SVR (Severn Valley Railway) currently advertise for a salaried Carriage Restorer/Painter on appointment he/she may be from outside the Industry. There are myriads of volunteers who have worked within the Industry and many many who have not, many work rail side and many do not.
All would require consideration of eligibility.
OTOH creating a 'private' area of the forum for which all Heritage Rail volunteers would be included could create an upsurge in volunteering!
But then I am not at all sure that this is a job for RailUK forums.

 

[dcsprior]

For the disruptions section, is the idea that it'd be to do with discussing all aspects of the disruption (e.g. how it happened, how to prevent repeat, etc) or just updates on what's happening and advice for those affected by it? I think the latter would be a very good idea, whereas the former may blur too easily into other sections.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What would be the point in a hidden forum for railway employees if it's true that they already have their own forums just for railway staff?

 

[IanD]

For balance we should then have a forum that railways staff are not allowed to post in. I'm sure that would be popular.

 

[TheEdge]

For balance we should then have a forum that railways staff are not allowed to post in. I'm sure that would be popular.

I've got no issue with that. If it would give me a wider audience to ask something like "When passing through a non operational wash plant in a yard with no special speed limits 3 or 5mph?" (which incidentally is something that has popped up recently) without the chiming in of people who have no idea of the actual answer I'd happily accept the existence of a new non staff forum, maybe called "Platform End Wibble and Froth Exchance"

 

[takno]

I've got no issue with that. If it would give me a wider audience to ask something like "When passing through a non operational wash plant in a yard with no special speed limits 3 or 5mph?" (which incidentally is something that has popped up recently) without the chiming in of people who have no idea of the actual answer I'd happily accept the existence of a new non staff forum, maybe called "Platform End Wibble and Froth Exchance"

I'd be surprised if you got more sensible answers from staff than you do from the wider community on questions like that. There will still be plenty of staff with no relevant experience, and many of them seem to be the first to chime in on any given topic. In any case, that sounds exactly like the sort of question that should be asked within your company and not put to the wider internet.

 

[IanD]

I'd happily accept the existence of a new non staff forum, maybe called "Platform End Wibble and Froth Exchance"

Because rail staff never come out with wibble and froth.

 

[Clip]

The thread opened with a pile of acronyms and asked a question that needed proper rules understanding (not just I've read the PDF off the internet) to try to answer. It wasn't dark or shady, it was just technical and the OP wanted some other staff to give their views. Very quickly people starting throwing in that the OP should not have been using acronyms without defining them, it was pointed out the OP has used standard railway acronyms and if you couldn't understand those then the question probably wasn't aimed at you. ?

Its part of the forum rules that state you must clarify your acronym in the first post so others know what is being spoken about.

I worked in the railway for many years but I don't know them all - should I, along with other people, not be informed and educated on what we don't know or would you prefer it to be a closed shop?

 

[Clip]

Edit to add - what about those who work for consultancy's to the railway and are ex staff - do they get included? What about designers of signaller and rolling stock - do they get included? Or what about joe blogs who sits for 8 hours a day watching a machine that punches out something that helps build the trains?

Its too wide and varying to say you should or shouldn't be included in certain discussions

 

[AlterEgo]

Its part of the forum rules that state you must clarify your acronym in the first post so others know what is being spoken about.

It is, but I expect the rule is supposed to be applied with a smattering of common sense. Nobody has to explain what SWR, or OP, or BTP are, for example.

However, more people might struggle with SIMBIDS.

If we take the Wrong Direction Moves thread as an example, the original poster wanted to advance a technical discussion about the requirements in the Rule Book. The opening post contained the following acronyms and abbreviations:

AB
TCB
WDM
TW7
TS2
TS3
Ops Control

As well as acronyms/abbreviations, there might be plenty of long form words and context in the discussion that laypeople might not understand. From the same thread:

authorise the driver up to the protection

separate rule with bell codes

shunting into forward section

I agree with @signallerscot when he says in that thread:

This is a good example of why non-rules trained people shouldn't really try to interpret the rules, given that they don't have the operational background, training and experience to interpret them correctly.

While the forum is a great resource for both staff and layperson alike, sometimes you just aren't qualified to understand something. I don't think staff posters should excessively simplify posts to be understood even by the greenest 13 year old ned.

 

[DarloRich]

Edit to add - what about those who work for consultancy's to the railway and are ex staff - do they get included? What about designers of signaller and rolling stock - do they get included? Or what about joe blogs who sits for 8 hours a day watching a machine that punches out something that helps build the trains?

Its too wide and varying to say you should or shouldn't be included in certain discussions

Agreed - there are plenty of railway jobs hidden even from those in the industry. Does someone working in an office but who never goes track side contribute less than the the bloke out shoveling crud at 3 am in the wind and rain? Does the guy who buys the fuel for the trains or the screwdriver for the fitter contribute less than the man driving the train?

I'd happily accept the existence of a new non staff forum, maybe called "Platform End Wibble and Froth Exchance"

seconded!

 

[whhistle]

And then there is Heritage Rail. eg. SVR (Severn Valley Railway) currently advertise for a salaried Carriage Restorer/Painter on appointment he/she may be from outside the Industry.

Preserved railways are a yes. While they may be outside of the industry, they're now it in.

what about those who work for consultancy's to the railway and are ex staff - do they get included? What about designers of signaller and rolling stock - do they get included? Or what about joe blogs who sits for 8 hours a day watching a machine that punches out something that helps build the trains?

Its (sic) too wide and varying to say you should or shouldn't be included in certain discussions

Yes to all of those.
I mean, I'd be surprised if there are any "joe blogs who watches a machine" who are registered here. I suspect they wouldn't particularly join in discussions about what speeds trains should go through washes, but may have a solution to a problem from a train building point of view.


I know it would have caused some to feel like they're missing out. But instead of saying "I don't agree with that suggestion" it appears there are some who would prefer to find an exact job to ask if they would be included - even if it doesn't affect them! For those that want access AND work in a railway related job AND are signed up on this forum, for those few (I suspect less than 20!) would be individually decided upon.
I'd have thought the majority of people here, who would be included, work for a TOC or FOC, so for the bulk of people, it'll be easy to set up and manage.

 

[yorkie]

I'd have thought the majority of people here, who would be included, work for a TOC or FOC, so for the bulk of people..

A lot of people work either in, or for, the rail industry but do not work for a TOC or FOC. There are a huge number of companies involved in providing services to the rail industry. I don't see how anyone could generate a list of eligible companies (and/or job positions within those companies) and verify people work for them.

it'll be easy to set up and manage.

How will it be easy? It sounds like an administrative nightmare.

 

[talltim]

The thread opened with a pile of acronyms and asked a question that needed proper rules understanding (not just I've read the PDF off the internet)

You didn't define the meaning of PDF

 

[whhistle]

A lot of people work either in, or for, the rail industry but do not work for a TOC or FOC. There are a huge number of companies involved in providing services to the rail industry. I don't see how anyone could generate a list of eligible companies (and/or job positions within those companies) and verify people work for them.

How will it be easy? It sounds like an administrative nightmare.

Someone else thought about these things above I think.

In the beginning, yes a rush and a fair amount of work to verify people. For those that don't have access to a company email, perhaps it could be done on a trust basis for some people, or made easier if someone who is in the group can vouch for them.

There are many people who won't have access to a company email, but if the idea was going to be taken forward then I'm sure something could be worked out for them.

There wouldn't be a list per se, but as I say, I expect the majority of people here that:
work in the industry AND
would like such a section AND
have access to a company email (or other means to easily verify) would be easy to add them to the group.

The few that:
work in a supporting industry with dubious connections AND
would like such a section can be decided upon by Moderators, like they (Mods) do about threads and such).

While it's great to think about all eventualities, I would have thought it's highly unlikely there is a huge amount of people who work in a questionable supporting industry that want access to a section. I suspect in the beginning, there would be less than 20.

It's not about creating a group of elite people that have a secret status, but about a wide variety of things. Questions like "how do I stop the damp getting in the poster boards?" or "what do I type in to TRUST to get... ?" or other little tricks to get the job done, even fares queries with PRIV passes or vouchers for international travel could be discussed. I have no idea how to use TOPS, but could get a few tips, which in turn could help out with the GEN requests here too.

I can think of loads of times I've shared knowledge with colleagues who didn't know they could do this or that, but it's not particularly something I'd be happy sharing with any tom, richard or harry that can read a relatively open forum.

If the initial idea isn't going to be given a chance then there's no point in working it out further. But it could work... with a little effort... and most of the work would be in the beginning, like most new things.