Cab design

[rob.rjt]

I hope this is in the right section, but a few threads recently have got me thinking about cab design, especially the apparent issues that the unions have with the 769s on GWR and the introduction of 701s on SWR.

As an outsider to both the engineering and the politics of this, various questions come to mind.

1. What checks are done before construction begins to make sure that the trains as delivered will be accepted by staff
2. I am assuming that there is not a vast amount of difference between the functions needed on different trains, why are there not 'standard' layouts for central and left-side driving positions?
3. Why can cab designs not be approved nationally?
4. What changes require re-approval?
5. How small can the disagreements be for staff not to want to drive - could it be as small as (everything else being equal) a switch being on the right side of the driving desk, not the left?

I apologise if these questions seem basic -as I say, I am coming at this as an outsider trying to gain insight. I also don't want to turn this to turn into a thread denigrating any group of people for the decisions they make.

 

[Gulf1159]

Aslef had a very big input into the cab design of the 345. They were involved from the initial design.

 

[D365]

As above. Engagement with key stakeholders throughout the process. Could involve progress meetings every 2 or 4 weeks, and ”driver days” when a physical mockup is prepared and reviewed.

 

[Fyldeboy]

If the driver involvement is so intense (as it should be) then I think the OPs question is why do we end up with disputes about cab design/layout.

 

[rob.rjt]

If the driver involvement is so intense (as it should be) then I think the OPs question is why do we end up with disputes about cab design/layout.

Kind of, yes. Part of it is why do we get to trains built and there are still disputes about cab design/layout once the trains are delivered and ready for service(as is my understanding over the 701s). Also why are trains that can be driven somewhere suddenly not be driven when move to another TOC (like the 769s). Then the other things are just an attempt to build my understanding on the issues here.

 

[tomuk]

On the 701s I think it can be split into three parts. Firstly there appears to have been a fundamental cock up by Bombardier/First on the cab layout, the exact details aren't public, but a large modification has had to be made to the 701s and other short/gangway nosed Aventras. Second Bombardier's poor quality design/build i.e. where they have fitted mismatched, too bright indicators and switches to the cab desks. Thirdly union acceptance, this seems to be quite an obstacle, although there are probably genuine concerns, see first two points, it would be naïve not to see that the introduction of new stock is an opportunity to the union for 'negotiation' whether that to progress existing pay, terms eg OBS, or wider political (more RMT than ASLEF) issues.

 

[D6130]

The most comfortable, practical and ergonomic driving cab that I have ever experienced was that of the class 60s....the last locomotive type designed and built under the BR regime. I'm pretty sure that there was a fair bit of union involvement in its design.

 

[tomuk]

The most comfortable, practical and ergonomic driving cab that I have ever experienced was that of the class 60s....the last locomotive type designed and built under the BR regime. I'm pretty sure that there was a fair bit of union involvement in its design.

Don't the 60's share the cab layout with 58s and 59s with the control pedestal on the right hand side rather than a desk.

 

[D365]

The most comfortable, practical and ergonomic driving cab that I have ever experienced was that of the class 60s....the last locomotive type designed and built under the BR regime. I'm pretty sure that there was a fair bit of union involvement in its design.

I got the chance to hop into a Cl60 recently. Compared to the 56 I was surveying, the 60 was night-and-day in every aspect. Even on a cold winter day, stabled outdoors, the 60 was incredibly comfortable.

 

[JonathanH]

Also why are trains that can be driven somewhere suddenly not be driven when move to another TOC (like the 769s).

Two reasons. Firstly, just because the facilities for the driver were acceptable in the 1990s doesn't mean they are acceptable now and secondly, newly introduced stock should offer at least the same facilities for the traincrew as the stock it is replacing if not more.

 

[O L Leigh]

I've known trains to have been delivered with cabs that were effectively a fait accompli. In other words, "that's the cab, get on with it". But then I've also known trains that have been designed with input from drivers that are appalling. I think that the issue is summed up by the old saying "One man's meat is another man's poison."

 

[rob.rjt]

Two reasons. Firstly, just because the facilities for the driver were acceptable in the 1990s doesn't mean they are acceptable now and secondly, newly introduced stock should offer at least the same facilities for the traincrew as the stock it is replacing if not more.

This goes some way to explaining why the 769s are not being approved, however it does not explain why drivers in Wales and the North are willing to drive the same units

I've known trains to have been delivered with cabs that were effectively a fait accompli. In other words, "that's the cab, get on with it". But then I've also known trains that have been designed with input from drivers that are appalling. I think that the issue is summed up by the old saying "One man's meat is another man's poison."

This may provide the other part of the conundrum, but does not really explain why there could not be a national 'acceptance board' for cab designs from unions. Obviously not all units can be used everywhere, but surely it would be easier for all if the design was approved nationally and stays approved so that transfers between TOCs are easier.

 

[800 Driver]

This goes some way to explaining why the 769s are not being approved, however it does not explain why drivers in Wales and the North are willing to drive the same units

This may provide the other part of the conundrum, but does not really explain why there could not be a national 'acceptance board' for cab designs from unions. Obviously not all units can be used everywhere, but surely it would be easier for all if the design was approved nationally and stays approved so that transfers between TOCs are easier.

The short answer to this is that in Wales the 769s are a stop gap for a year until their brand new traction arrives, in Northern there are so few 769s that drivers only drive them sporadically and they have an agreement to only drive them a max 3 hours. However at Reading they will become the main traction for most drivers for the foreseeable future, which means drivers could be stuck in the cabs for 7 - 8 hours a day, day in day out. A 769 is much worse than the traction it will replace (16x) so why should a drivers union accept a worsening of workplace ergonomics and comfort for the long term?

 

[tomuk]

The short answer to this is that in Wales the 769s are a stop gap for a year until their brand new traction arrives, in Northern there are so few 769s that drivers only drive them sporadically and they have an agreement to only drive them a max 3 hours. However at Reading they will become the main traction for most drivers for the foreseeable future, which means drivers could be stuck in the cabs for 7 - 8 hours a day, day in day out. A 769 is much worse than the traction it will replace (16x) so why should a drivers union accept a worsening of workplace ergonomics and comfort for the long term?

They are both 90s ex BR stock so I can't see what the major difference is. The only one would be cab cooling which was retrofitted to the Turbos but the 769s are retrofitted too. Cab environment does seem to be a thing at FGW than at other TOCs, is it a a hobby horse of someone on the company council?

 

[wobman]

Tocs tend to use rolling stock consultants that don't drive trains, then once build aslef tell them all the faults and design flaws. Even drivers on toc integration teams don't get listened to, as rolling stock technicians know better than drivers

A lot of time and money could be saved if drivers were listened to regarding cab design etc

 

[100andthirty]

I recall, many years ago, a change to an existing cab involving fitting a new seat. Drivers' representatives were involved all the way though but when the seats were installed for what I'll call the rank and file drivers, they weren't happy. Strikes were threatened and in the end the old seats were refitted.

Whilst there are occasions when short sighted management fails to consult, it has to remain true that the driver's accommodation is a very personal thing.

We see it in cars. For example, I am fond of the VW group layout and find the Peugeot layout very hard to cope with. I am sure there are others with the exact opposite view.

 

[ExRes]

They are both 90s ex BR stock so I can't see what the major difference is. The only one would be cab cooling which was retrofitted to the Turbos but the 769s are retrofitted too. Cab environment does seem to be a thing at FGW than at other TOCs, is it a a hobby horse of someone on the company council?

Have you ever driven a 319/769? the seat position is appalling and comfort non existent, they're on a par with a 73, comparing a 319/769 with a 165/166 is a no contest, how drivers managed Brighton to Bedford is beyond me

 

[ComUtoR]

Have you ever driven a 319/769? the seat position is appalling and comfort non existent, they're on a par with a 73, comparing a 319/769 with a 165/166 is a no contest, how drivers managed Brighton to Bedford is beyond me

Yes. They weren't that bad.

 

[43066]

Have you ever driven a 319/769? the seat position is appalling and comfort non existent, they're on a par with a 73, comparing a 319/769 with a 165/166 is a no contest, how drivers managed Brighton to Bedford is beyond me

On balance, as someone who has driven both, I’d agree that 319 cabs are worse than those of networkers for comfort. Although you could at least drive standing up in 319s.

 

[D365]

Tocs tend to use rolling stock consultants that don't drive trains, then once build aslef tell them all the faults and design flaws.

Isn't the purpose of employing design engineers and HF consultants, to manage these stakeholder requirements?

 

[tomuk]

Have you ever driven a 319/769? the seat position is appalling and comfort non existent, they're on a par with a 73, comparing a 319/769 with a 165/166 is a no contest, how drivers managed Brighton to Bedford is beyond me

No I haven't. I have been in the cab of Chiltern 165s though. What's specifically wrong with them is it just the seat? I seem to recall there were issues due to the cab door and doo monitors compared to the earlier 317 style cabs.
What I find interesting is the acceptability of the new gangwayed stock like the 730s or 196s/197s where it appears you are driving round inside a postbox with a tiny postage stamp sized windscreen to see out of.

 

[800 Driver]

They are both 90s ex BR stock so I can't see what the major difference is. The only one would be cab cooling which was retrofitted to the Turbos but the 769s are retrofitted too. Cab environment does seem to be a thing at FGW than at other TOCs, is it a a hobby horse of someone on the company council?

Well for a start 319's are from the 80s and are second gen EMUs based on Mk3 platform and 16x's are from the 90s and are a totally different design (based on the Networker platform). There is much more space in a turbo cab. The cab cooling in the 769s is only being retrofitted in the GWR fleet because it's one of the ASLEF demands to make the cabs at least tolerable. The other thing to consider is that the GWR cabs are being fitted with ASDO screens which further reduce the space in the cab compared to 319s and other TOCs 769s.

 

[tomuk]

The TfW 769s are also getting or have already got cab cooling.

 

[wobman]

Isn't the purpose of employing design engineers and HF consultants, to manage these stakeholder requirements?

The thing being design engineers don't actually drive trains, they can't see things from the practical perspective of cab ergonomics. I've seen this on the latest 2 different types of rolling stock that have been aquired at the Toc I work for.

 

[brick60000]

A 769 is much worse than the traction it will replace (16x) so why should a drivers union accept a worsening of workplace ergonomics and comfort for the long term?

Because it is the job of a train driver to drive a train, from A to B, for a not inconsiderable remuneration package?

If people in other lines of work refused to say, move office because they didn’t like xyz, they would be laughed out of town (and probably a job….).

 

[800 Driver]

Because it is the job of a train driver to drive a train, from A to B, for a not inconsiderable remuneration package?

The kind of attitudes that are often presented in rail are exactly the reason that the industry is ridiculed by so many outside the industry.

If I refused to move to a new office in my place/industry of work because I didn’t like xyz, I’d be laughed out of town (and probably a job….).

What a load of rubbish. There's quite a lot of employment and health and safety law on the side of the union. Which is why the trains aren't moving yet. We're not victorian era chimney sweeps.

 

[brick60000]

What a load of rubbish. There's quite a lot of employment and health and safety law on the side of the union. Which is why the trains aren't moving yet. We're not victorian era chimney sweeps.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, paying members of public often have a perception that drivers are overpaid, and have unreasonable demands.

I want to add that I do not personally agree with that, in almost every instance (and have rephrased my original post just after you quoted me - sorry! - to make it less seeming like I’ve got a personal vendetta, because I don’t).

However, in a post-COVID world, it has to be acknowledged that a £1k+ season ticket holder is going to see ‘why is my new train not introduced yet’ as ‘high salary driver doesn’t like the seat’ and that is exactly how it will be spun by the usual anti-union media outlets.

That isn’t exactly how it is (and I appreciate the issue of ergonomics is far more involved than that) of course, but the issue of perception in an industry that is comparatively on its knees cannot be ignored.

 

[wobman]

As a driver I can sit in a drivers seat for up to 3hrs to 4hrs continuously without any break or moving, so cab ergonomics are quite important. If I'm uncomfortable and I'm fidgeting then that could obviously cause a safety of the line incident. You also have to consider the cab has to be fit for all sizes and builds of drivers, plus there numerous other reasons such as visibility of signals to consider.

I don't understand why drivers salaries is always brought up in every discussion, I have friends that earn far more than me and they are not drivers.
The relevance of bringing up drivers pay doesn't really add to the discussion but it always happens unfortunately.

 

[800 Driver]

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, paying members of public often have a perception that drivers are overpaid, and have unreasonable demands.

I want to add that I do not personally agree with that, in almost every instance (and have rephrased my original post just after you quoted me - sorry! - to make it less seeming like I’ve got a personal vendetta, because I don’t).

However, in a post-COVID world, it has to be acknowledged that a £1k+ season ticket holder is going to see ‘why is my new train not introduced yet’ as ‘high salary driver doesn’t like the seat’ and that is exactly how it will be spun by the usual anti-union media outlets.

That isn’t exactly how it is (and I appreciate the issue of ergonomics is far more involved than that) of course, but the issue of perception in an industry that is comparatively on its knees cannot be ignored.

The company's own research showed them that ergonomically 5% of the adult UK population would not be able to safely drive the 769s, because of their height and / or BMI. However one reason for the delay is that the company has not agreed to allow drivers to self declare if they believe they will have an issue, so that the drivers can then have an individual assessment to see if (from the company's own ergonomics assessment) they would be affected. GWR have now had 3 years to assess their drivers and have not yet assessed a single one. The company is also refusing to limit driving hours (which Northern have in place) until all the mods they have agreed with the union are necessary, are fully completed across the fleet.

If I was in anyway a cynical person, I would say that the company is using the Union's very reasonable refusal to accept the train, as cover for the fact that the trains would be disaster in revenue service, because of all the reliability issues that are happening on the test runs currently.

 

[D365]

The thing being design engineers don't actually drive trains, they can't see things from the practical perspective of cab ergonomics. I've seen this on the latest 2 different types of rolling stock that have been aquired at the Toc I work for.

Stakeholder requirements… by that I include regular meetings and hands-on days with drivers and their representatives. Though I suppose that the level of involvement does vary from project to project.