RMT strikes re: 4 day week

[SLC001]

We had to cancel our trip to London to stay at a nice hotel for 4 days due to Covid. Therefore, we recently arranged some time ago to go this Tuesday and now find we have a tube strike.
I cannot adequately express my disgust at this action by the RMT who again are holding the public, their paymaster, hostage for their own selfish reasons. I have nothing but contempt for these privileged people who feel that their interests subordinate the rights of ordinary people, many of whom are struggling and I would tell the drivers so to their face. Drivers’ rights do not subordinate the rights and reasonable expectations of people to go about their ordinary business who now face disruption, inconvenience, additional expense and frustration. As for the cost to the economy….
The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation. They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible. It is a disgraceful approach and a cynical disregard for, and respect shown to their passengers.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[bluegoblin7]

They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible.

I don't see anything in your diatribe directed at TfL or London Underground, so you clearly do not hold them jointly responsible.

Strikes are last resorts. Have you read this thread and educated yourself on the issues at hand? Would you like to work in those conditions?

 

[Kay_M]

We had to cancel our trip to London to stay at a nice hotel for 4 days due to Covid. Therefore, we recently arranged some time ago to go this Tuesday and now find we have a tube strike.
I cannot adequately express my disgust at this action by the RMT who again are holding the public, their paymaster, hostage for their own selfish reasons. I have nothing but contempt for these privileged people who feel that their interests subordinate the rights of ordinary people, many of whom are struggling and I would tell the drivers so to their face. Drivers’ rights do not subordinate the rights and reasonable expectations of people to go about their ordinary business who now face disruption, inconvenience, additional expense and frustration. As for the cost to the economy….
The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation. They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible. It is a disgraceful approach and a cynical disregard for, and respect shown to their passengers.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

"Privileged people" OK I'm going to say this with the most respect possible. The things that train drivers have to go through on a regular basis is exactly why most people could NEVER do that job. You don't have to deal with the fact that in your job someone could literally jump in front of you and possibly die. You don't have to possibly deal with having to work a good amount of weekends and have to alter your social life. But hey let's give it up to the 9-5 armchair experts on here who loves to talk about how it inconveniences them to get around. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF A STRIKE. This was a last resort. In fact last month the strikes got called off to give the management a chance to reconsider things but it didn't happen. By the way there's gonna be some trains running so you can still make your trip.

 

[whoosh]

Might be worth pointing out that ACAS updated its guidance on pickets and crossing picket lines 2 weeks ago (7th April 2026).

Unclear yet if this will change what other employees choose to do, even if in the past they chose not to cross.
Especially as it now appears anyone not involved in the strike who takes secondary action is not protected and could lose their job.

Picketing - Strikes and industrial action - Acas

Who can join a picket, crossing a picket and rules for picket lines during strike or industrial action.

www.acas.org.uk

It's not 'secondary action' if it's your job role employed by your employer that is involved in a dispute.
If a recognised trade union has a mandate to industrial action via a ballot, you can join the action even if you are not in the trade union concerned. You can be in another trade union, or no trade union.

If it's a different role or employer then it would be 'secondary action'. Secondary action used to be permitted, with strikes on buses or tubes backed by secondary action on the other mode back in the 1980s as an example. But same job role, same employer is not.

 

[bramling]

The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation. They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible.

So RMT are 100% responsible, yet in the next line you say the employer is jointly responsible. Which is it?

To what extent do you consider TFL might have contributed to this situation?

 

[xtmw]

The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation. They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible. It is a disgraceful approach and a cynical disregard for, and respect shown to their passengers.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sorry?

RMT didn't propose the changes - it was TfL. RMT are protecting members interests and campaigning for fair working conditions, completely fair IMO.

 

[Old Walter]

The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Well, no actually. A few years ago a plan to change everything in the train grades was put forward, labelled as ‘Trains Modernisation’. The ideas were hugely unpopular (and in many areas would be unworkable) and in 2024 the project was shelved with the modernisation team disbanded.

Then, more recently, ASLEF decide to announce a ‘groundbreaking’ deal to achieve a four-day week. The plan is pretty much Trains Modernisation being bought back. This has caused considerable angst seeing as a union who is supposed to cater exclusively for drivers is actively working with LUL for a significant worsening of conditions and over the modernisation plan a reduction of driver numbers and consequently less members for them.

So to have the modernisation scheme scrapped in 2024 and ASLEF bring it back just to get one over on the RMT (to say they’ve bought a four-day week in first) is a big part of the problem. Of course, as soon as ASLEF started talking to LU about this, management were very keen to get their project started again, so what we see now is an ASLEF/management collusion against the majority of drivers on LU. 58% voted against the changes and to stay on the current five-day week with existing arrangements - but this has been ignored. Really the plan should be shelved but we’ve got the vanity of a few senior ASLEF reps and the ideas of management taking priority over everyone else - which unfortunately is pushing many drivers into the corner they’re in now.

If you’re cross with a union, it’s not the RMT you should have a problem with on this one.

 

[xtmw]

Drivers’ rights do not subordinate the rights and reasonable expectations of people to go about their ordinary business who now face disruption, inconvenience, additional expense and frustration. As for the cost to the economy….

That is the point of a strike.

The strikes last month were suspended in good faith, there was no headway in talks and therefore this is the last resort.

 

[Broucek]

... therefore this is the last resort.

It's funny just how often the RMT utilises its "last resort"....

 

[bramling]

It's funny just how often the RMT utilises its "last resort"....

What other realistic options do rail unions have? Work to rule isn’t really an option as drivers essentially do that as part of their daily role anyway. LU drivers don’t do overtime so an overtime ban isn’t viable.

For the root cause of this particular dispute, ask the question as to why TFL seems to be going through constant change programmes, without delivering any tangible improvement in the quality of service provided to the end user? In fact, on the contrary, the stations modernisation programme turned out to be a complete shambles and has been somewhat reversed.

 

[Horizon22]

Well, no actually. A few years ago a plan to change everything in the train grades was put forward, labelled as ‘Trains Modernisation’. The ideas were hugely unpopular (and in many areas would be unworkable) and in 2024 the project was shelved with the modernisation team disbanded.

Then, more recently, ASLEF decide to announce a ‘groundbreaking’ deal to achieve a four-day week. The plan is pretty much Trains Modernisation being bought back. This has caused considerable angst seeing as a union who is supposed to cater exclusively for drivers is actively working with LUL for a significant worsening of conditions and over the modernisation plan a reduction of driver numbers and consequently less members for them.

I am mostly curious about what the gripe about the four-day week is? For example this is pretty much universal across mainline rail TOCs - no doubt where ASLEF get the idea from - and is pretty much supported universally, even on intense DOO services like say Overground, Elizabeth line, Southeastern, Southern. There were a few mentions here and there on Page 1, but it doesn't strike me that the opinions are so vehemously strong and universal that has led us to where things are today

I'm sure they exist and there's more than meets the eye, but why is LU so out of kilter here going so far as to call an effective 4 day strike?

 

[bluegoblin7]

As has been said many times, it isn't solely about the four day week - it's also the fundamental productivity and T&C changes which come with it, many of which are effectively ripping up the best part of three decades of agreements.

 

[LTJ87]

Thanks for the replies to my question earlier - will look at my options if I can’t defer my trip.

 

[Adsy125]

As has been said many times, it isn't solely about the four day week - it's also the fundamental productivity and T&C changes which come with it, many of which are effectively ripping up the best part of three decades of agreements.

What are the T&C changes? From the info in the public domain it seems that the RMT are going on strike over an optional 4 day week with condensed hours, which another union has agreed to. It's all a bit bizarre.

 

[Horizon22]

As has been said many times, it isn't solely about the four day week - it's also the fundamental productivity and T&C changes which come with it, many of which are effectively ripping up the best part of three decades of agreements.

Which T&C changes? From what I have gleaned it is pretty much solely about the four day week, with a few auxillary points around it - I'll take the point on losing the crew managers at book on - but the 4 day week seems to be the fundamental problem. But again I ask; why are LU staff so against something that is standard on mainline rail? Or is the issue around implementation and communication.

 

[Recessio]

What are the T&C changes? From the info in the public domain it seems that the RMT are going on strike over an optional 4 day week with condensed hours, which another union has agreed to. It's all a bit bizarre.

Certainly the news reporting I've seen seem to mainly focus just on the 4 day week - I had no idea about the other factors until I saw them on these forums

 

[bramling]

I am mostly curious about what the gripe about the four-day week is? For example this is pretty much universal across mainline rail TOCs - no doubt where ASLEF get the idea from - and is pretty much supported universally, even on intense DOO services like say Overground, Elizabeth line, Southeastern, Southern. There were a few mentions here and there on Page 1, but it doesn't strike me that the opinions are so vehemously strong and universal that has led us to where things are today

I'm sure they exist and there's more than meets the eye, but why is LU so out of kilter here going so far as to call an effective 4 day strike?

There’s two issues at play.

Firstly, many drivers, especially older ones, *don’t* want the change to the way the working week is divided up. They feel that 8.5 hours of intense tunnel metro work is enough, there’s nothing more to that than that. Whilst officially the whole thing is voluntary, there is scepticism about how that would work in practice.

Secondly there’s then the various other things which have been tagged on, ostensibly in order to make the whole thing work. If you don’t want changes to your disposition of days, why should you then be happy about a whole load of incidental changes to terms & conditions.

You can probably also add that faith and trust in LU’s management is pretty much non existent. As an institution, LU is not well run, and hasn’t been for many years, and their record on change programmes is similarly poor. It it was me, I would be on strike tomorrow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2026 ==

Which T&C changes? From what I have gleaned it is pretty much solely about the four day week, with a few auxillary points around it - I'll take the point on losing the crew managers at book on - but the 4 day week seems to be the fundamental problem. But again I ask; why are LU staff so against something that is standard on mainline rail? Or is the issue around implementation and communication.

Three Golders Green-Edgware-Kennington-Golders Green rounders, half an hour meal break then same again, 4 mins at each terminus, in a cab the size of a broom cupboard with indifferent air conditioning, dust, constant noise, most of the duty in tunnel, stations every 2 mins and the increasingly problematic behaviour of the London population, compares disfavourably to even the worst mainline metro work. ATO doesn’t really help, in fact most drivers think this has made things *more* draining.

Oh and add on top of that LU’s sloppy management so on the day you’re spare you walk into same again, you then glance at the sheets and to rub salt in the wound the person you’re running for has barely touched a train in the last 7 years yet nothing seems to be done about it.

 

[Old Walter]

What are the T&C changes? From the info in the public domain it seems that the RMT are going on strike over an optional 4 day week with condensed hours, which another union has agreed to. It's all a bit bizarre.

It wasn’t even a case of the other union agreeing to it - the other union created this situation. It is bizarre, what we are essentially seeing is RMT taking action against something ASLEF led which they (ASLEF high up reps) and senior LU management are in collaboration with.

This idea needs to be taken off the table and forgotten about. Many people can get the idea of union demands every time there’s a pay claim - the RMT have stated a four day week for years, along with other things. For me the principle is akin to the old adage of selling a used car, ask for way more than what you want and by the time you’ve been bargained down you get something which you can say is a success.

In this case, a four day week has been asked about, the answer isn’t very good - so forget about it. Ask again in a few years. Move on. The ASLEF Trains Functional Council (TFC) members (the higher up LU reps whose full time job it is to do union work - no driving involved) and the ASLEF executive committee (full time employees of the union) can’t do this and have used a situation where senior LU management prefer to deal with ASLEF to force an issue where it’s not needed. ASLEF high-ups are acting as an arm of management in a situation where long recognised agreements and working arrangements don’t need to changed. The binning off of Trains Modernisation in 2024 proves this.

The ASLEF TFC and Exec on LU have a long history of ignoring their grass roots members and living in an ivory tower making decisions that many people do not want. Personally I don’t understand why any LU driver would want to be a member of them. On a practical level it would appear that many ASLEF drivers are less willing to take strike action than their RMT colleagues and for that reason alone they remain with their union.

As it’s been stated on this thread many times, it’s not about the introduction of a four day week - it’s the amount that needs to be given up and changed to accommodate this. For many it’s too much so the best thing is to keep things as they are.

 

[sleepinghobby]

We had to cancel our trip to London to stay at a nice hotel for 4 days due to Covid. Therefore, we recently arranged some time ago to go this Tuesday and now find we have a tube strike.
I cannot adequately express my disgust at this action by the RMT who again are holding the public, their paymaster, hostage for their own selfish reasons. I have nothing but contempt for these privileged people who feel that their interests subordinate the rights of ordinary people, many of whom are struggling and I would tell the drivers so to their face. Drivers’ rights do not subordinate the rights and reasonable expectations of people to go about their ordinary business who now face disruption, inconvenience, additional expense and frustration. As for the cost to the economy….
The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation. They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible. It is a disgraceful approach and a cynical disregard for, and respect shown to their passengers.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Opinions like these serve to remind us all how important it is for working people to fight always for better working conditions.

I am curious to see how many ASLEF drivers do cross the picket line and how TfL's strike planning evolves come the following set of strikes. I would expect LU to have more non striking drivers available to them but on the other hand, I don't think they are prepared to offer more frequent services due to h&s.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Opinions like these serve to remind us all how important it is for working people to fight always for better working conditions.

I am curious to see how many ASLEF drivers do cross the picket line and how TfL's strike planning evolves come the following set of strikes. I would expect LU to have more non striking drivers available to them but on the other hand, I don't think they are prepared to offer more frequent services due to h&s.

The train service provided will be varied depending on both the availability of drivers currently at work but also the predictions for later book ons - there's no point bringing a train into service at e.g. Upminster if it has no relief at Earl's Court.

There are minimum train frequencies to avoid serious overcrowding and safety issues, but if a full complement of drivers turned up a full service would run. "H&S" is nothing but your own supposition.

 

[boiledbeans2]

[...]
Three Golders Green-Edgware-Kennington-Golders Green rounders, half an hour meal break then same again, 4 mins at each terminus, in a cab the size of a broom cupboard with indifferent air conditioning, dust, constant noise, most of the duty in tunnel, stations every 2 mins and the increasingly problematic behaviour of the London population, compares disfavourably to even the worst mainline metro work. ATO doesn’t really help, in fact most drivers think this has made things *more* draining.
[...]

But I think the above is more or less known prior to day 1 of the job?

If you're going to sign up to be a tube driver, then you know you'll be sitting in a broom cupboard, with stations every 2 mins, in noisy tunnels, with limited breaks.

If you didn't like the tunnels and frequent stops, you could choose to be a long distance mainline train driver instead.

 

[Recessio]

But I think the above is more or less known prior to day 1 of the job?

If you're going to sign up to be a tube driver, then you know you'll be sitting in a broom cupboard, with stations every 2 mins, in noisy tunnels, with limited breaks.

If you didn't like the tunnels and frequent stops, you could choose to be a long distance mainline train driver instead.

I think the point of the strike though is not in protest of the current conditions that they signed up for, it is that in the RMT's view that TfL are changing these conditions to be (even) worse than the ones they willingly signed up for.

 

[bramling]

It wasn’t even a case of the other union agreeing to it - the other union created this situation. It is bizarre, what we are essentially seeing is RMT taking action against something ASLEF led which they (ASLEF high up reps) and senior LU management are in collaboration with.

This idea needs to be taken off the table and forgotten about. Many people can get the idea of union demands every time there’s a pay claim - the RMT have stated a four day week for years, along with other things. For me the principle is akin to the old adage of selling a used car, ask for way more than what you want and by the time you’ve been bargained down you get something which you can say is a success.

In this case, a four day week has been asked about, the answer isn’t very good - so forget about it. Ask again in a few years. Move on. The ASLEF Trains Functional Council (TFC) members (the higher up LU reps whose full time job it is to do union work - no driving involved) and the ASLEF executive committee (full time employees of the union) can’t do this and have used a situation where senior LU management prefer to deal with ASLEF to force an issue where it’s not needed. ASLEF high-ups are acting as an arm of management in a situation where long recognised agreements and working arrangements don’t need to changed. The binning off of Trains Modernisation in 2024 proves this.

The ASLEF TFC and Exec on LU have a long history of ignoring their grass roots members and living in an ivory tower making decisions that many people do not want. Personally I don’t understand why any LU driver would want to be a member of them. On a practical level it would appear that many ASLEF drivers are less willing to take strike action than their RMT colleagues and for that reason alone they remain with their union.

As it’s been stated on this thread many times, it’s not about the introduction of a four day week - it’s the amount that needs to be given up and changed to accommodate this. For many it’s too much so the best thing is to keep things as they are.

I agree with all this.

One thing to add, is I’m not convinced that the whole proposal will end up being particularly great for the end-user either. If one of LU’s arguments is “the TOCs work like this”, given the constant crewing issues on certain TOCs - especially at times like weekends or holiday periods - this isn’t a ringing endorsement of their aspirations.

But I think the above is more or less known prior to day 1 of the job?

If you're going to sign up to be a tube driver, then you know you'll be sitting in a broom cupboard, with stations every 2 mins, in noisy tunnels, with limited breaks.

If you didn't like the tunnels and frequent stops, you could choose to be a long distance mainline train driver instead.

The difficulty there is it would essentially mean a significant loss of pay for a year whilst training, assuming there’s a suitable mainline location near to where the person lives.

Why would anyone want that as a result of goalposts changing?

But assuming a load of LU drivers did decide to transfer to mainline, you’ve then introduced the problem of a load of vacancies that now need filling. LU already has vacancies. Arguably LU is already in the position where they are struggling to fill vacancies with people who can carry out the role to a high standard, especially in terms of communications.

Really LU need to be making their work more attractive not less so, especially in terms of non-pay factors.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

The RMT are 100% responsible for this situation. They cannot blame their employers as I hold both the union and employers jointly and severally responsible. It is a disgraceful approach and a cynical disregard for, and respect shown to their passengers.

Industrial action is kind of designed to be disruptive.

Opinions like these serve to remind us all how important it is for working people to fight always for better working conditions.

I'd love to see people who do complain about this sort of stuff start losing the rights the unions have fought for over the years. I'd reckon they would be in favour in about 5 minutes.

 

[Mawkie]

As is always the case with these things, there is a headline deal, and there is what is really going on behind the scenes. Nobody is voting against a four day week, they are voting against a wholesale bonfire of terms and conditions that have been fought for (and striked for) over the last 30 years.

Overall Offer
What I have:

• Established 5-day week with known conditions
• Stable, predictable working arrangements
• Existing protections and practices

What is changing:

• 4-day week is being “bought” through concessions, not a free gain​
• Paid meal break used to justify longer duties​
• “Voluntary” overtime may create pressure or expectation of over time​
• Entire model driven by cost-cutting and performance targets, not staff benefit​

Duty Lengths & Parameters
What I have:

• Safer, shorter duty limits (won through past disputes)
• More manageable fatigue levels
• Greater consistency in shifts

What is changing:

• Longer and more intense shifts to compress hours into 4 days
• Return toward older (pre 1992) working conditions
• Increased fatigue risk despite management claims
• Less balance in duties = some shifts significantly longer

Summary:
I'm working harder per day to get the extra day off.

Start & Finish Times
What I have:

• Start/finish times broadly aligned with travel and lifestyle
• More night duties (which some rely on)

What is changing:

• Earlier starts + later finishes = longer day footprint
• Even small changes can break commuting arrangements, especially outside London
• Loss of night duties = loss of preferred work patterns and flexibility
• Standardisation ignores local realities of depots and travel

Summary:
Impacts hit a minority hard, even if averages look small.

Booking-On Arrangements
What I have:

• Face-to-face booking-on with a manager present
• Clear structure and boundaries for starting work
• Defined workplace location

What is changing:

• Move to remote/tech-based booking-on
• Potential erosion of safety culture and oversight
• Risk of work creeping into unpaid time (walking, prep, etc.)
• Step toward depersonalised, less protected working practices

Summary:
This looks like modernisation, but also removes safeguards and normalises remote management.

Pool Arrangements
What I have:

• Duties fixed a week ahead = predictability
• Clear knowledge of where I’ll be working
• Better ability to plan life outside work

What is changing:

• Less notice (as little as 24 hours) for final duties
• Increased uncertainty about location and exact work
• Split pool system adds complexity and instability
• “Flexibility” mainly benefits the employer

Summary:
A major shift from predictability = uncertainty, especially for carers and those with commitments.

Annual Leave
What I have:

• Extra leave via banked time
• Ability to build additional time off
• Strong expectation of summer block leave

What is changing:

• Loss of banked leave = real reduction in total leave
• Cannot rebuild that leave through extra hours
• Summer leave less guaranteed in exact periods
• “More rest days” replaces guaranteed leave with fragmented time off
• Move from 8 block weeks to 6 block weeks

Summary:
This is effectively a reduction in usable leave, dressed up as a restructure.

Transfers & Tie-Ins
What I have:

• Flexibility to move depots/lines over time
• Ability to respond to life changes

What is changing:

• 5-year tie-in restricts mobility
• Harder to change location if circumstances change
• Could deter new entrants or trap staff in unwanted locations
• Management downplays impact, but locks people in structurally

Summary:
Reduced career and life flexibility.

Representation Levels
What I have:

• Ability to challenge through industrial action
• Representation linked to membership strength

What is changing:

• Push to move dispute into formal procedures (slower, controlled)
• Emphasis on delaying or avoiding industrial action
• Potential attempt to limit leverage during negotiations

Summary:
LU want to move this dispute towards the Trains Functional Council because ASLEF have a disproportionate amount of full time reps over RMT and will force through the changes.

Overall Trade-Off
What I gain:

• 4-day week
• Paid meal break
• More rest days across the year

The Trade Off:

• Longer, more fatiguing shifts
• Less predictable working patterns
• Reduced annual leave (in practice)
• Less flexibility in transfers
• Weaker booking-on protections
• Greater employer control over rostering

From a worker perspective, this is not simply a “4-day week deal” — it’s a full restructuring of working conditions where the headline benefit (4-day week) is used to justify a package of efficiency-driven changes that shift risk, flexibility, and uncertainty onto staff.

In summary:
I get fewer days at work — but each day is harder, and the job becomes less predictable and less flexible.

 

[sh24]

Roll on driverless tube trains, eh?

For the avoidance of doubt, that was a joke. Appreciate the context shared in this thread. It's easy to see things in black and white whereas reality is always many shades of grey.

 

[Florence Rox]

I am a member of station staff at one of London's busiest stations, and can see why TFL management can't just let drivers reduce their hours for the same salary. A reduction of hours would involve having to recruit and train thousands of new drivers, also, several members of station staff would also be willing to strike for a 32 hour week, if the drivers got the reduction they asked for. I have noticed thew RMT has become far more militant since the departure of Mick Lynch.

Thanks Mawkie for giving us a more comprehensive understanding of the strikes from a drivers point of view, but when I was on my training, over 50% of all new CSAs were planning to be drivers, far more than wanted to become supervisors because they did not want to work nights, and the drivers pay was much better.

To anyone who says sack the drivers and recruit new staff from the dole queue, this is totally unrealistic and there really isn't the talent pool there, nor are there people willing to do the job, hence the high salary. Driverless trains will not be a thing for decades either for various reasons I won't go into here

 

[blimmo]

ATO doesn’t really help, in fact most drivers think this has made things *more* draining.

I don't really understand this. ATO removes certain aspects of the role during normal operations. Sure doors etc. may be the most stressful part of the job but those responsibilities all existed before ATO as well!

 

[bramling]

I don't really understand this. ATO removes certain aspects of the role during normal operations. Sure doors etc. may be the most stressful part of the job but those responsibilities all existed before ATO as well!

I don’t think this should be that surprising. When manually driving the driver was essentially much more tuned in to the job, with the mind being kept healthily occupied by the task of driving the train. In ATO the driver is just sitting in a chair, looking forwards into a relatively featureless tunnel. In the same way that being a passenger in a car can be quite draining, as opposed to driving it where time tends to pass a lot quicker.

It’s worth adding there’s significant differences between the various LU lines. It’s probably fair to say the Metropolitan is the best to work on, and probably the Northern the worst. Victoria isn’t as bad as one would think as its drivers are never in the cab more than about half an hour or so at a time. Piccadilly line is quite intensive but at least there’s no ATO. Something like the Central is somewhere in the middle.

 

[blimmo]

I don’t think this should be that surprising. When manually driving the driver was essentially much more tuned in to the job, with the mind being kept healthily occupied by the task of driving the train. In ATO the driver is just sitting in a chair, looking forwards into a relatively featureless tunnel. In the same way that being a passenger in a car can be quite draining, as opposed to driving it where time tends to pass a lot quicker.

I don't think that maintaining attention during long repetitive tasks can possibly be as draining as actually driving. I don't have any experience of train driving but driving cars is always much less draining if they have cruise control and I don't have to focus on maintaining speed constantly. Sure I still have to be ready to react if something unexpected happens but that level of concentration is still way easier than constantly doing feedback control.

I don't want to appear like I'm doubting people's real experience, I'm just genuinely confused!