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

[TheEdge]

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

I did make sure to keep the paper copy of my license that said I signed 37s. I shunted them exactly once but that's all that matters!

 

[dk1]

I did make sure to keep the paper copy of my license that said I signed 37s. I shunted them exactly once but that's all that matters!

Never knew that. I was too far up the link to be given the chance unless I agreed to go back to doing nights. That was NEVER going to happen so bye bye Growler traction training lol

 

[craigybagel]

I must admit, I'm rather confused by the premise of this thread - what exactly is the problem with traction training at the moment? Can any posters actually point to any issues it's caused - or is it just being used as yet another stick to beat the Unions with?

 

[dk1]

I must admit, I'm rather confused by the premise of this thread - what exactly is the problem with traction training at the moment? Can any posters actually point to any issues it's caused - or is it just bring used as yet another stick to beat the Unions with?

No idea. Didn’t look at it like that, just putting people right that don’t understand. Carry on the beating I say if that’s what the intention is, it makes no difference to us.

 

[skyhigh]

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

But that's exactly how it works for both drivers and guards anywhere I've worked? With extra time available if the trainee struggles (usually staying behind at the end of the day for a 1-1 with the trainer focussing on required areas) or is deemed not yet competent on an assessment?

 

[craigybagel]

No idea. Didn’t look at it like that, just putting people right that don’t understand. Carry on the beating I say if that’s what the intention is, it makes no difference to us.

Oh yes, I quite agree with you But whilst there are certain things I think it's fair to say the railway could probably do better, I've never felt that an excess of training time on traction was one of them.

 

[TheEdge]

Never knew that. I was too far up the link to be given the chance unless I agreed to go back to doing nights. That was NEVER going to happen so bye bye Growler traction training lol

Depot Drivers of a certain age only. But we never really touched them much in the end.

 

[6Gman]

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

Insert joke here.

More seriously, there is a widespread assumption outside the industry that the management and the unions are in some sort of permanent guerilla warfare.

My experience, and I've sat on both sides of the divide, was that we spent 85% of the time co-operating, 10% haggling and less than 5% in dispute.

 

[craigybagel]

Insert joke here.

More seriously, there is a widespread assumption outside the industry that the management and the unions are in some sort of permanent guerilla warfare.

My experience, and I've sat on both sides of the divide, was that we spent 85% of the time co-operating, 10% haggling and less than 5% in dispute.

I think it's a common theme across these forums in particular - unless you actually work for the TOC involved, the only time you normally hear about the Union is during disputes. The day to day cooperation and mutual assistance that happens the vast amount of the time never gets reported.

 

[alf]

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 ==


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?!

Totally reasonable.

 

[markymark2000]

I think for me, before I make a full decision on this, what is actually required in the driver type training? I get the feeling that about 50% of it probably fits under the category of 'Youll likely never need to use this but when you need it, you really need this knowledge else it will cause huge issues'. Kind of like cabin crew with planes doing all the swimming stuff. Likely never need it but if something goes wrong, people would die without them having that knowledge.


The only thing that I have made any decision on is that the 'stopping distances' thing is only partly valid. Every single train behaves differently and hence the reason for the rolling brake test. Every single one acts differently and I believe that they can even behave differently between each cab. (Not drive a train but going off what I have seen and heard). If it's different depending on the cab, the argument fully for braking distances is a little flawed. It's still valid as a 800 will stop differently to a 153 but can someone 'train' on something which is so variable?

 

[skyhigh]

The only thing that I have made any decision on is that the 'stopping distances' thing is only partly valid. Every single train behaves differently and hence the reason for the rolling brake test. Every single one acts differently and I believe that they can even behave differently between each cab. (Not drive a train but going off what I have seen and heard). If it's different depending on the cab, the argument fully for braking distances is a little flawed. It's still valid as a 800 will stop differently to a 153 but can someone 'train' on something which is so variable?

You definitely can. You learn the range of what you'd expect on say a 150, and you'd know if it was outside of the range you'd expect and if you need to report it as a poor brake.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2022 ==

I think for me, before I make a full decision on this, what is actually required in the driver type training? I get the feeling that about 50% of it probably fits under the category of 'Youll likely never need to use this but when you need it, you really need this knowledge else it will cause huge issues'. Kind of like cabin crew with planes doing all the swimming stuff. Likely never need it but if something goes wrong, people would die without them having that knowledge.

Some of it is like that, but then there's more stuff along the lines of what issues it causes when various MCBs trip. You'd get a completely different fault if the local control tripped in the leading cab on a 150/1 to a 158, for example. Then there's things like locations of isolating cocks - all very well being told what to isolate by someone on the phone, but if it's dark pouring with rain it would be impossible to find what you needed if you didn't know where it was (as it inevitably is when you need to do it!)

 

[seagull]

The only thing that I have made any decision on is that the 'stopping distances' thing is only partly valid. It's still valid as a 800 will stop differently to a 153 but can someone 'train' on something which is so variable?

Part of the issue is that there is no standardisation between train types.
As an example, full service brake (the one used for a running brake test or in snow, and also when rapid deceleration is needed) is Step 3 on the brake controller on a 158, but Step 6 on a 390, and on a 220/221 there is no step on the brake controller at all as it's stepless.
Those differences absolutely do have to be trained, as a big part of braking successfully is the "feel" of the train, combined with route knowledge, as well as the very significant difference in distance to stop between, say, an older 15x class DMU and one of the newer types.
That "feel" to driving incidentally is one reason why driving simulators can be quite tough to get right, as you can't feel the braking.