Train Prep no longer necessary?

[Reorte]

If a light for, say, oil comes on in the car and it's not the result of a sudden catastrophic failure I'd interpret that as a last resort warning for something I should've spotted earlier...

 

I'm never in favour of technology replacing people. Aiding, yes, can be a good case there, substituting, no. And more and more often there seems to be an attitude of "why are people doing this, we should have machines doing it?" appears to stem more from a disturbing idealism that our fellow human beings are a problem to be removed than a desire to do a better job.

[Zomboid]

I drive the same car every day (well, every time I drive a car). I get to know it, and without kicking the tires or checking the oil I can detect the kind of thing that someone unfamiliar wouldn't necessarily, and react accordingly.

 

Most train drivers will drive a wide variety of different trains from day to day, and won't have that familiarity with the machinery. Even if they did, his much time would they spend in the middle car of a 3 car set to notice if it's doing anything unusual?

[Reorte]

I was sticking to cars since I've no experience of driving or maintaining trains, but I think that's my point, why I'd have thought it does make sense to do the physical checks. Actually seeing what's there, or actually making sure something is working rather than just relying on a light to tell you if it thinks it is (where possible / practical). You've got a light, fine, that makes two holes that need to line up instead of just one for knowing whether something's working but it isn't if you also check yourself.

[Nick C]

The first thing I was told for the IAM Roadsmart advanced driving test was to do a full walk-round inspection of the car before any journey - not going as far as opening the bonnet, but visually checking tyres, windows, a glance underneath etc for anything untowards or out of place. Similarly one of the first things I was taught when I started volunteering at the MHR was to watch every train for anything amiss - and as soon as you've been doing it for a few shifts it becomes second-nature. 

[Ray H]

I was involved with train & staff scheduling in my working life.

 

There were numerous agreements that had to be complied with when compiling such schedules. For example it required three crews to be rostered when it was necessary/required to swap crews between train. Crew 1 was booked to relieve crew 2 on train A whereupon Crew 2 walked across the platform and relieved crew 3 on train B. Crew 3 then crossed the platform in the other direction and relieved crew 1 on train A. Crew 1 then went on to do whatever their roster said. As you can guess, Crew 1 never went anywhere either train with crews 2 & 3 effecting the changeover between themselves.

 

Likewise, train preparation for safety reasons was booked to take a set amount of time depending on the stock being prepared. It involved one member of the crew walking back and forth through the train twice to perform the relative checks. Needless to say said crew member only went back & forth once.

 

There were numerous other such agreements that were abused in similar ways. As staff time costs money, whoever pays them, you can perhaps understand why there have been and still are attempts to remove this abuse by whatever means are available be it by machine or (other) manpower.

 

I'm not suggesting that safety checks should be done by humans but there were so many instances where it wasn't done properly, modern technology can add to the safety element.

[Sheffield]

Right from thestart of the industrial revolution there has been pressure to take the skill out of the man and put it in the machine. It allows a lower skilled man, who is cheaper and less able to demand higher pay, to become able to do the job. This is just another step on this path.

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

 

 

Why should train crews do their prep checks in their own time? I doubt anyone on here would be in favour of this.

 

It was a joke, explaining the lack of thinking behind those writing such rubbish, i.e. the 'waste of paid time', if those had to do so in their own time!

[roythebus]

If the "prepare in your own time" were to be introduced, where would liability start and finish if there were to be an incident? It doesn't add up at all. to refer to a case in the bus driving industry, the "Shearings" case was interesting. Shearings ran tour coaches. A  driver could be required to drive his own car from home to a distant location, say Dover from Manchester, to take over a coach to ago abroad. Say 6 hours driving for that journey in a car. He and another driver could then be on duty for up to 22 hours sharing the coach driving between them. the car driving wan't recorded on the tachograph. It was deemed that the drive to pick up the coach was indeed work and needed to be put on the tacho as "other work".

It cost Shearings a fortune in legal fees to get the case heard but t least the law was clarified. If your employer tells you to do it, it's work.

 

[62613]

46 minutes ago, roythebus said:

 If your employer tells you to do it, it's work.

 

Correct.

[Nick C]

20 hours ago, roythebus said:

If the "prepare in your own time" were to be introduced, where would liability start and finish if there were to be an incident? It doesn't add up at all. to refer to a case in the bus driving industry, the "Shearings" case was interesting. Shearings ran tour coaches. A  driver could be required to drive his own car from home to a distant location, say Dover from Manchester, to take over a coach to ago abroad. Say 6 hours driving for that journey in a car. He and another driver could then be on duty for up to 22 hours sharing the coach driving between them. the car driving wan't recorded on the tachograph. It was deemed that the drive to pick up the coach was indeed work and needed to be put on the tacho as "other work".

It cost Shearings a fortune in legal fees to get the case heard but t least the law was clarified. If your employer tells you to do it, it's work.

 

Similar to the more recent issue of carers - where the companies were only paying them for the time actually spent with the patients, and not the time spent travelling from one appointment to the next.

[Broadway Clive]

Large London Transport depots would usually have a spare train prepared by the crew of the first trains into service, morning and afternoon. This enabled a dud to be cancelled at short notice and replaced by the spare without losing time on inspection and testing. IIRC this established the principle of a test certificate being valid for a period of time after being conducted by someone other than the driver who takes the train into service. Certainly there were many crews and drivers who neglected their preparation out of lateness or laziness, so reducing their input in favour of depot staff became one that was hard to resist. 

[Andymsa]

On 30/11/2020 at 16:54, Ray H said:

I was involved with train & staff scheduling in my working life.

 

There were numerous agreements that had to be complied with when compiling such schedules. For example it required three crews to be rostered when it was necessary/required to swap crews between train. Crew 1 was booked to relieve crew 2 on train A whereupon Crew 2 walked across the platform and relieved crew 3 on train B. Crew 3 then crossed the platform in the other direction and relieved crew 1 on train A. Crew 1 then went on to do whatever their roster said. As you can guess, Crew 1 never went anywhere either train with crews 2 & 3 effecting the changeover between themselves.

 

Likewise, train preparation for safety reasons was booked to take a set amount of time depending on the stock being prepared. It involved one member of the crew walking back and forth through the train twice to perform the relative checks. Needless to say said crew member only went back & forth once.

 

There were numerous other such agreements that were abused in similar ways. As staff time costs money, whoever pays them, you can perhaps understand why there have been and still are attempts to remove this abuse by whatever means are available be it by machine or (other) manpower.

 

I'm not suggesting that safety checks should be done by humans but there were so many instances where it wasn't done properly, modern technology can add to the safety element.

the word abuse of an agreement is rather offensive. The agreements are those that have been agreed overtime between unions and management for set tasks to be allowed so long to fulfil. If said task is completed safely before the allotted time then that a bonus.

[Ray H]

22 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

. . . . . The agreements are those that have been agreed overtime between unions and management for set tasks to be allowed so long to fulfil. If said task is completed safely before the allotted time then that a bonus.

 

It wasn't meant to be offensive. It highlighted the fact that the times agreed between staff and management were to enable the prep work to be done properly. The point I was making was that in the majority of cases that prep work was not being done in the agreed manner. I recognise that things done properly but quicker can be a bonus, sometimes to both management and staff but not doing what's supposed to be done is wrong.

[Andymsa]

21 minutes ago, Ray H said:

 

It wasn't meant to be offensive. It highlighted the fact that the times agreed between staff and management were to enable the prep work to be done properly. The point I was making was that in the majority of cases that prep work was not being done in the agreed manner. I recognise that things done properly but quicker can be a bonus, sometimes to both management and staff but not doing what's supposed to be done is wrong.

Just because something is done quicker on a particular day doesn't  mean it’s not done properly. Prep times are generally a little longer than is actually needed to allow for faults reported or fixed.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 30/11/2020 at 04:49, DavidCBroad said:

Maybe they think anyone can drive a train because you don't need to steer, oh hang on, they may think you do have to steer. Never make the mistake of overestimating a political researcher's intelligence,  

 

 

Of course you need to steer!   Why else would that great big wheel be there?  

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Class_108_driver's_cab.JPG/1024px-Class_108_driver's_cab.JPG

 

I was once on a railtour that was overbooked and somebody (not some uninterested journalist or a politician with an axe to grind, but an enthusiast, no less) decided to sit in an unmanned guard's compartment and screwed down a large red wheel to make it easier to sit on.  That carriage had to be detached at Reading - and some of the other passengers thought it was a joke when they were given the reason "flat tyre" for the delay.

[Ray H]

17 hours ago, Andymsa said:

Just because something is done quicker on a particular day doesn't  mean it’s not done properly. Prep times are generally a little longer than is actually needed to allow for faults reported or fixed.

 

When the agreed preparation method required the crew member to walk through the train four times, those four times were for a reason. I'm sure if it could be done with just two walks that would have been agreed instead.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Ray H

[roythebus]

It's a bit like walking time. At Waterloo the agreed walking time from the old mess room in the Village Block on platform 15 was 5 minutes to the front of the train on all platforms. with a new guv'nor in the early 1980s this was altered. He was concerned about late departures after the flexible rostering strike. He had a bit of a gammy leg and one evening peak walked with the union rep from his office opposite the mess room to the end of platform 1. It took him a good 9 minutes fighting through the evening crowds. Walking time was then 10 minutes to the furthest platforms. then when trains were put in the "wrong" platform that messed up the agreed walking time. So we ended up with 10 minutes walking time to all platforms. Which then messed up the new flexible rostering rosters...

 

[Mark Saunders]

Remember the Six P’s !

[Supaned]

Footnote to this - altererd workings on a job I was on this morning - train was booked to arrive with 3 sets which split to form 3 separate trains. Actually arrived with 2 as the driver doing the prep had found a missing sanding pipe on one of the vehicles. Somewhat important , especially at this time of year.

 

I wonder if these CONservative Home zealots are in some way connected to that Peter Wilkinson character of the DfT? I remember him making some spurious claims about traincrew allegedly being entitled to some sort of break which had continued on since the days of steam. I'm certainly not aware of any such breaks - the only ones we get are a PNB (physical needs break ie to go to the toilet or eat) , or some diagrammed time away from the driving cab to comply with agreed limits on continuous working time , which to be honest is very much needed if you've done several hours of intensive work.

[Ken.W]

On 03/12/2020 at 13:14, Supaned said:

I wonder if these CONservative Home zealots are in some way connected to that Peter Wilkinson character of the DfT? I remember him making some spurious claims about traincrew allegedly being entitled to some sort of break which had continued on since the days of steam. I'm certainly not aware of any such breaks - the only ones we get are a PNB

 

That's right. The PNB was introduced with single-manning as a requirement for single manned diagrams.

On turns which were still double manned (Driver and Secondman) there was no requirement for any break

[russ p]

9 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

That's right. The PNB was introduced with single-manning as a requirement for single manned diagrams.

On turns which were still double manned (Driver and Secondman) there was no requirement for any break

 

When I was secondman I was never very sure how my presence stopped the bloke next to me from needing the loo! 

I remember when our LDC condemned the messroom at whitby (which happened a few times) some DMU turns were double manned for PNBs