A joint effort, in a constructive way in my experience. The company has a duty to manage the risk associated with knowledge fading, so there's not usually much to argue about.
How long would an Edinburgh service take via all of Hertford, Cambridge, Joint, Leeds, Sunderland, Carlisle?
This is completely false; there have been numerous ECML diversions lately such as via Carlisle, Hartlepool, Garforth, and many more; there have been very few weekends lately without any diversions
I've never felt ill on trains
Not since COVID.
Whose decision was it to remove the capability for 57s to drag 390s then? The cost of maintaining a few more locos for both stranded unit rescue and diversion purposes must be less than the ongoing cost of RRBs every time there is a block with a non-electrified diversion available, unable to be used because there would be no 57s left for unit rescue?
I'm confused here. Obviously maintaining a pool of Class 57s (or similar), presumably at both Carlisle and Preston, together with a pool of suitably trained drivers does indeed have an 'ongoing cost'. (Can you give us an idea what it would be?)
I was trying to weigh RRB cost vs more Thunderbirds, which is more of a fixed cost for fuel, driver, maintenance per callout as opposed to RRBs, which have a large call out cost each time they are used, and the operator can raise or lower the price according to demand.
I struggle to believe that anyone in the rail industry (let alone SRA, DfT, Treasury or whoever) would have suddenly decided: "Got a brilliant idea! Lets ditch nice, cheap Thunderbirds (that also happen to provide a more convenient service for passengers) and instead switch to expensive, inconvenient and 'uncertain' RRBs."
I'm surprised that route knowledge lapses so quickly. I can think of roads which I used to drive regularly but haven't for at least 5 years, but, if had occasion to do so, I would still know them well. I would like to see independent research as to when route knowledge declines to a level which poses a significant risk.
Why does training work like this always have to be done on rest days? In the rest of the commercial world training sessions and days are scheduled in normal working time. If office staff need training on new computers they don't have to come in on Sunday to do it.
RRBs are covered by compensation payments. Thunderbirds aren't. If they aren't paid to do it, they don't do it.
They aren't, but office workers aren't doing the day job whilst being trained.
Route knowledge for Train Drivers is safety critical and is essential for the safe (and punctual) running of the train.
I know It's just unbelievable the lack of understanding some people have of the job, but are very opinionated about the role.....
It is absolutely mind blowing to be honest with you
How can you say this ? You obviously have zero understanding of what's involved in retaining route knowledge.next you will be saying why don't traindrivers just use sat nav...
RRBs are only covered by Schedule 4 compensation for pre-planned work, of course. So no cover for emergencies, breakdowns, etc. I had thought that the post to which I was responding was advocating a 'standing capability' for Thunderbirds all week.
I don't believe you believe that!
Well if it isn't true that Schedule 4 and the Access Charge Supplement are (currently intended to be) balanced, why have the ORR already consulted on the future of the arrangements as part of the current Periodic Review in the light of a possible totally different industry structure and positioning of revenue and cost risk under GBR?
