Drivers signing different traction types: is a new system required?

[Class800]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...y-01-02-22-operated-by-a-pair-of-153s.227703/

It seems to have run to time! https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P21389/2022-02-01/detailed#allox_id=0. Trains have this concept of signing different class numbers.

Aircraft have type ratings. Coaches I believe don't - a coach driver can I believe drive the route if a Plaxton Elite is substituted by Caetano Boa Vista or a Scania K410.

And my driving licence isn't type rated to the brand of car I passed my test in, nor is the licence of a HGV driver restricted to the type of lorry they passed in, a bus driver isn't restricted to the brand of bus the test was in even though passengers are carried, etc etc.

Maybe this sort of issue as seen with a long distance train being operated by 153s should lead to drivers having to be more flexible.

It should be feasible, surely. At least maybe to classify them as loco, DMU or EMU drivers - or ideally just train drivers.

 

[dk1]

It seems to have run to time! https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P21389/2022-02-01/detailed#allox_id=0. Trains have this concept of signing different class numbers. Aircraft have type ratings. Coaches I believe don't - a coach driver can I believe drive the route if a Plaxton Elite is substituted by Caetano Boa Vista or a Scania K410. And my driving licence isn't type rated to the brand of car I passed my test in, nor is the licence of a HGV driver restricted to the type of lorry they passed in, a bus driver isn't restricted to the brand of bus the test was in even though passengers are carried, etc etc. Maybe this sort of issue as seen with a long distance train being operated by 153s should lead to drivers having to be more flexible. It should be feasible, surely. At least maybe to classify them as loco, DMU or EMU drivers - or ideally just train drivers.

Drivers are flexible but can only drive the class of train/loco that they are fully trained on & have signed for competency on. If they then do not drive that particular type for a period of six months then a refresher must be provided.

 

[Class800]

Drivers are flexible but can only drive the class of train/loco that they are fully trained on & have signed for competency on. If they then do not drive that particular type for a period of six months then a refresher must be provided.

Suggesting the system needs to be more akin to coaches and buses rather than individual drivers being obstinate of course. As it works very well to have drivers on different 'classes' of bus and coach - so in theory it should work? It's a system issue

 

[dk1]

Suggesting the system needs to be more akin to coaches and buses rather than individual drivers being obstinate of course. As it works very well to have drivers on different 'classes' of bus and coach - so in theory it should work? It's a system issue

Thats never going to happen on the railways. If anything it will get stricter.

 

[skyhigh]

It seems to have run to time! https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P21389/2022-02-01/detailed#allox_id=0. Trains have this concept of signing different class numbers. Aircraft have type ratings. Coaches I believe don't - a coach driver can I believe drive the route if a Plaxton Elite is substituted by Caetano Boa Vista or a Scania K410. And my driving licence isn't type rated to the brand of car I passed my test in, nor is the licence of a HGV driver restricted to the type of lorry they passed in, a bus driver isn't restricted to the brand of bus the test was in even though passengers are carried, etc etc. Maybe this sort of issue as seen with a long distance train being operated by 153s should lead to drivers having to be more flexible. It should be feasible, surely. At least maybe to classify them as loco, DMU or EMU drivers - or ideally just train drivers.

There's a bit of a difference between different coaches and different classes of trains... tread or disc brakes, locations of systems and isolating cocks, combined power/brake handle or separate, TMS or not. The list is pretty long. If you're suggesting a driver should be able to drive any train they want to you clearly don't know the level of detail a traction course goes into.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

As it works very well to have drivers on different 'classes' of bus and coach - so in theory it should work?

That's like comparing apples and oranges to be honest.

 

[Mintona]

If you sign 150s then you can sign other sprinters without too much difficulty.

But going from a 150 to an HST to a 375 (for example) would be more difficult. They all work in rather different ways.

 

[craigybagel]

I'm not sure what the problem is that makes the OP think we need a change anyway - given that the two drivers who worked this service from Cardiff to Chester will both have been qualified on 5 different DMUs (it was 7 until a year ago when Pacers were retired), with 67 & DVT qualification coming on top of that. It doesn't seem like traction knowledge is really that restrictive for DMUs!

 

[seagull]

"Flexibility" is not because of drivers being awkward, far from it.
It's because of the safety implications of allowing a driver who is, let's say, trained on the class 158, instead to drive a class 150 on the same route, with no training on a class 150.

Reaction to braking is completely different, one being disc the other tread. Not a problem in a road vehicle "stop within sight distance" but a big problem on a train where braking has to start well before a station is visible.
Fault finding would be completely different, circuit breaker locations, safety equipment locations, fault lamp locations and meanings.
Engines are different, different fire button locations.
Onboard computers: some 158s have ERTMS which a driver needs to know how to setup, 150s have nothing.
And so on. Not going to happen.

 

[pdeaves]

I suppose the issue is more akin to workshop machinery. Just because I am allowed to use a lathe in workshop A doesn't mean I can use a forklift in workshop B.

 

[westcoaster]

Suggesting the system needs to be more akin to coaches and buses rather than individual drivers being obstinate of course. As it works very well to have drivers on different 'classes' of bus and coach - so in theory it should work? It's a system issue

I'm sure a bus driver I know says, he is only allowed to drive buses he has been trained on (big bus company, 5 bus types learned).

There is a massive step in technology between older trains and newer ones. Also braking systems, AC/DC motors, air systems, doors air/electronic or manual.

 

[notadriver]

Trains are more similar to aircraft in terms of the pilot needling to be type rated.

I’m a PCV driver and although bus drivers need type training this isn’t legally required and takes an hour at most including a quick drive. As a coach driver I’m expected to be able to acquaint myself to drive any vehicle my company has with no formal type training. And the hourly rate is usually less than service buses. Why? Because coach driving is more desirable work.

By comparison the traction course for most trains is a minimum of a week and must include a certain number of hours handling. On top of that there are written assessments and a final exam written and practical to be passed.

That is why train driver pay is high and the psychometric assessments are there to weed out those who can do the job and pass the 1 year course.

 

[MotCO]

Maybe a different question should be asked - are driver's cabs fairly standard, or should there be greater standardisation? Clearly DMUs and EMUs will perform differently, and the weight of the train will change its handling characteristics, but would a stsndard cab reduce some of the time it takes to type-train?

 

[6Gman]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...y-01-02-22-operated-by-a-pair-of-153s.227703/

It seems to have run to time! https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P21389/2022-02-01/detailed#allox_id=0. Trains have this concept of signing different class numbers.

Aircraft have type ratings. Coaches I believe don't - a coach driver can I believe drive the route if a Plaxton Elite is substituted by Caetano Boa Vista or a Scania K410.

And my driving licence isn't type rated to the brand of car I passed my test in, nor is the licence of a HGV driver restricted to the type of lorry they passed in, a bus driver isn't restricted to the brand of bus the test was in even though passengers are carried, etc etc.

Maybe this sort of issue as seen with a long distance train being operated by 153s should lead to drivers having to be more flexible.

It should be feasible, surely. At least maybe to classify them as loco, DMU or EMU drivers - or ideally just train drivers.

There are a host of differences between buses and trains in terms of driver skills/knowledge and the environment in which they operate.

Two key differences are stopping distances and access.

On the first I want my driver to know exactly where he needs to put the brake in to get down to the 40mph restriction over a junction regardless of what he's driving. And if something "trips" and stops the train halfway between Carlisle and Carstairs I want the driver to know exactly what he needs to do to reset. Not wait while he talks to a fitter miles away (and I certainly don't want to wait for a fitter to be vanned out to guide him through it).

And generic "EMU drivers" or whatever just won't work. Just an example, the WCML had 304s and 310s in the early days of electrification and their braking characteristics were very, very different!

 

[pdeaves]

Maybe a different question should be asked - are driver's cabs fairly standard, or should there be greater standardisation? Clearly DMUs and EMUs will perform differently, and the weight of the train will change its handling characteristics, but would a stsndard cab reduce some of the time it takes to type-train?

I suppose a risk of too much cab standardisation may result in a driver erroneously thinking that they are in one train type when they are actually in another with, say, lower braking capability. Probably unlikely, but accidents have happened all down the years where the unlikely happened.

 

[craigybagel]

Maybe a different question should be asked - are driver's cabs fairly standard, or should there be greater standardisation? Clearly DMUs and EMUs will perform differently, and the weight of the train will change its handling characteristics, but would a stsndard cab reduce some of the time it takes to type-train?

It would make next to no difference at all. Even aside from the issues of train handling others have pointed out, there's the fact that very little of traction training is spent in the cab. Mostly it's in the classroom, or walking around the unit itself.

Cabs are already fairly standardised as it is - I reckon you could put most qualified drivers in the cab of pretty much any DMU or EMU and so long as it had been prepped they could make a good stab of making the train move easy enough. It's everything else that takes time.

 

[pdeaves]

Another thing to consider is that society generally will accept higher risks/lower safety standards on the roads than on the rails. If any change is needed, it would be for road vehicle drivers to learn each vehicle they control. I don't see that happening across the board in a hurry!

 

[notadriver]

Another thing to consider is that society generally will accept higher risks/lower safety standards on the roads than on the rails. If any change is needed, it would be for road vehicle drivers to learn each vehicle they control. I don't see that happening across the board in a hurry!

Surely that’s because of the higher speeds involved on the railway. A lorry is only permitted to do 56 mph. A bus or coach can only achieve 62 mph. Compare that when drivers of trains weighing many times more than a road vehicle are travelling up to 125 mph - safety standards for rail should be higher.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately it would be best to standardise driver interfaces such that the inside of any cab looks like any other.
With ETCS the issues of differing train performance, which is tending to reduce over time regardless, will be somewhat ameliorated.

Since drivers will inevitably be driving to the panel.

But that is the work of decades, literally.

 

[Roast Veg]

Ultimately it would be best to standardise driver interfaces such that the inside of any cab looks like any other.
With ETCS the issues of differing train performance, which is tending to reduce over time regardless, will be somewhat ameliorated.

Since drivers will inevitably be driving to the panel.

But that is the work of decades, literally.

Currently, drivers are also trained in a variety of non-driving (and indeed often non-cab) work for the purposes of fault finding and rectification without the need for a fitter. Moving all that training over to fitters would do some harm to reliability and recovery from disruption.

 

[Irascible]

I guess it depends what sort of rectification we are going to expect drivers to be certified for, with systems getting more complex. Remote real-time telenetry helps bring additional heads into the process without needing a physical presence. The airline industry has a wealth of experience to share there.

Properly enforced standards in software & systems would bring ongoing certification & training costs down, but of course thats the capex vs opex monster rearing it's head.

 

[Bevan Price]

Drivers are flexible but can only drive the class of train/loco that they are fully trained on & have signed for competency on. If they then do not drive that particular type for a period of six months then a refresher must be provided.

I can uderstand why drivers need training on different classes.
But WHY does that knowledge expires after only six months. It creates the impression that the drivers are incapable or remembering knowledge for long periods. Most trains are not redesigned / modified every six months, and it seems more like some of the "traditional practices" that used to be specified by Trades Unions in some inefficient industries.

 

[dk1]

I can uderstand why drivers need training on different classes.
But WHY does that knowledge expires after only six months. It creates the impression that the drivers are incapable or remembering knowledge for long periods. Most trains are not redesigned / modified every six months, and it seems more like some of the "traditional practices" that used to be specified by Trades Unions in some inefficient industries.

It’s just how it is. Nothing to do with being incapable of retaining information. Train drivers need to be fully up to date & confident hence the rule.

 

[43096]

It’s just how it is. Nothing to do with being incapable of retaining information. Train drivers need to be fully up to date & confident hence the rule.

I suppose there has to be a trade off somewhere. Obviously if you've driven a particularly type every day for 10 years or more, you could probably get in one 10 years later and still drive it perfectly safely. But at the other end of the scale there will be the driving of types that the driver is new to, so you'd want that time limit there to avoid losing familiarity.

 

[dk1]

I suppose there has to be a trade off somewhere. Obviously if you've driven a particularly type every day for 10 years or more, you could probably get in one 10 years later and still drive it perfectly safely. But at the other end of the scale there will be the driving of types that the driver is new to, so you'd want that time limit there to avoid losing familiarity.

Always think of that with class 08s. I signed them for over 15 years. But less so as I moved up links. Suddenly at a rules & regs exam my manager asked when I last drove one. I said no idea, maybe a couple of years back but not bothered as it’s like getting back on a bicycle. With that he crossed it off my competency & never driven one since.

 

[alf]

Management, using common sense, should decide the time needed to learn new traction.
Then that would be the time allocated.

If it is resisted then a plan should already be in place to overcome the effect of any ban on new traction. Such as giving the work to newly & fully trained new recruits.

I know this sounds brutal, but so is spinning out the time to learn new traction, specially bad as the railway industry is in the public sector now & ordinary folk’s taxes are being raised to pay for this sort of thing.

 

[wobman]

There's drivers that have signed a type of traction but have never driven them in service, then 6 months later they certainly need a refresher on them.

 

[craigybagel]

FWIW at the TOC that the train that originally spawned this thread was operated by its 1 year for traction before a refresher is required - 6 months is for routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2022 ==

Management, using common sense, should decide the time needed to learn new traction.
Then that would be the time allocated.

If it is resisted then a plan should already be in place to overcome the effect of any ban on new traction. Such as giving the work to newly & fully trained new recruits.

I know this sounds brutal, but so is spinning out the time to learn new traction, specially bad as the railway industry is in the public sector now & ordinary folk’s taxes are being raised to pay for this sort of thing.

Who said anything about the time being spun out? I don't recall any of my traction training feeling particularly leisurely.

Again, this thread came about after a 153 was rostered to a Cardiff - Holyhead service. The conversion course for drivers onto 153s from other DMUs only takes 1 day at the TOC in question - surely that's not too unreasonable?!

 

[MotCO]

Management, using common sense, should decide the time needed to learn new traction.
Then that would be the time allocated.

Can this be driver-specific? If a driver has regularly driven a type for 2 years, say, could he then have a 12 month 'registration', but a colleague who only drives them rarely, or who has only a few years' driving experience, may only get a 6 month 'registration'? Or is that too complicated to monitor, especially when allocating duties?

 

[dk1]

There's drivers that have signed a type of traction but have never driven them in service, then 6 months later they certainly need a refresher on them.

Very common indeed. Also many that sign a traction only to never need or ever drive it.

 

[Irascible]

Airline pilots need a certain level of activity to retain their type rating on an aircraft type ( I think it's something like 3 landings & takeoffs in the last 90 days ), so it's just how the system is. Given how the airline industry hates paying for just about anything there's presumably been a lot of study into how little time on type a trained crewmember can get away with...