Cab design

[Deltafoxtrot87]

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.

Is this a common problem with Bombardier?

 

[wobman]

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.

I asked our Aslef reps and DIs that attended the meetings with the stakeholders and rolling stock engineers, all of their points were ignored and now the said problems will have to rectified before they enter service.

 

[O L Leigh]

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

Not only can perception be ignored, it should be.

H&S cannot be dictated to any industry by the partisan reporting of an often biased media and it’s consequent skewing of public opinion, but rather by the requirements of the legislation applicable to the situation and through negotiation with the staff to ensure that reasonable concerns are addressed.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

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….).

Nonsense, this is no comparison

Drivers need space and a comfortable, functiona workingl environment free of distractions for up to or more than 8hrs a day.. How would you like it if your train was cancelled due to driver going sick due to back issues after only 2-3 hours on the job?

 

[craigybagel]

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?

Worth pointing out as well that at TfW and Northern the 769s were replacing Pacers and Sprinters. Although I've not been in the cab of a 769 I can't imagine it's a whole lot worse than those. When compared to the much larger cab of a Turbo however.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

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.

It's true that the forward visibility on these units isn't amazing, but it's enough to meet the relevant standards. As far as driver comfort goes, the CAF units at least are oceans apart from the units they're replacing.