Back to the bad old days’: swingeing rail cuts set alarm bells ringing

[43066]

Talk about self-defeating. Strikes from unions regarding generalised cuts (i.e if an industry is shrinking as opposed to one department being impacted) will just make the powers that be more sure that their course of action is correct.

Even where cuts are part of a 'legitimate' downsizing, I can certainly foresee circumstances where I'd sympathise with a strike.

But just going out all guns blazing, where there's not even any concrete proposals... there's no better way of telling the public (and the politicians) that you're stuck in the 70s and proud of it!

I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for the rail unions to oppose cuts. After all those cuts will directly affect their members, and there is a real risk of “because Covid” being used as an excuse to further an anti rail agenda (which I expect we all agree this government generally has, halo projects such as HS2 aside). I would certainly agree the “tanks on the lawn” rhetoric is regrettable, unnecessary and does indeed come across as 1970s. They seriously need to get help with their communications; TU press releases often read like parody!

One could argue that the roles of booking office staff and suburban guard definitely are in the same space as the role of coal miner in the 1980s. The railway as a whole indeed definitely not.

It’s certainly getting to the point where change in certain areas is overdue in light of new tech and modern travelling patterns. In 2021 I don’t think anyone can credibly argue against the end of non commercial guards and sadly ticket office closures to come. Of course this has been on the cards since long before covid reared its head .

The hope is the unions representing these staff recognise that fact, accept that change is inevitable, and work constructively to avoid redundancies. Obvious solutions would be: NC guards retraining to become fully commercial; or redeployment of ticket staff to passenger assistance, helping with TVMs etc., a la LU.

Knowing the main union concerned I’m rather worried they lack the necessary pragmatism.

You sir l have zero sympathy with. The archetypical right wing Tory bigot shut your mouth and tug your forelock to your employers type. How dare those pesky teachers want to protect themselves, their pupils, and their health. I support them. I despise the current Government.

How ironic. In your righteous indignation you’ve just perfectly described exactly the contemptible attitude you yourself regularly display on here towards railway staff and unions.

Let me guess: all unions are equal, but some are more equal than others?

 

[O L Leigh]

I know it's almost as much a raw nerve as DOO, but we probably do have to talk about the possibility of driver assist to reduce the necessity of repeated and lengthy route training.

Not really. We could just ignore it.

The obvious barrier to that would be the need to rewrite the driver competency standards. Clearly this is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier because it is, as has been outlined, already done elsewhere.

But I do think that route learning is another one of those things that gets overplayed. Yes it may take a few weeks to learn a long and complex route but, provided that the knowledge is maintained, that is a one-off investment in time that does not need to be repeated.

 

[matacaster]

Not really. We could just ignore it.

The obvious barrier to that would be the need to rewrite the driver competency standards. Clearly this is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier because it is, as has been outlined, already done elsewhere.

But I do think that route learning is another one of those things that gets overplayed. Yes it may take a few weeks to learn a long and complex route but, provided that the knowledge is maintained, that is a one-off investment in time that does not need to be repeated.

Yes, but it is restrictive. If a normal route is signed for, but it is blocked, use of a diversionary route may not be possible if driver(s) don't sign the diversion.

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes, but it is restrictive. If a normal route is signed for, but it is blocked, use of a diversionary route may not be possible if driver(s) don't see an the diversion.

Yes it's restrictive. I don't deny that. This is why quite a lot of drivers at TOCs up and down the country sign a range of diversionary routes, the learning of which is usually just a one-off the same as their main routes.

 

[Carlisle]

Some posters might be surprised how difficult and expensive moving a single unit from station to nearby siding can be in certain circumstances.

Then consider the option of using suitably trained depot staff for these type of short distance ECS moves & avoid tying up expensively trained mainline drivers. I understand such practices are fairly widespread in some countries but happy to be corrected if that’s wrong.

 

[Ken H]

You and the rest of the rationale thinking British public.

Same on GWR area with Plymouth and Bristol XC depots could be comfortably absorbed by GWR.

Do we need the XC TOC? Surely the other IC TOC's could operate it as a joint venture. Like the old NE/NW-SE/SW stuff on table 51 did.

 

[43066]

I know it's almost as much a raw nerve as DOO, but we probably do have to talk about the possibility of driver assist to reduce the necessity of repeated and lengthy route training.

Even if it was just balises that bring up the relevant portion of the sectional appendix as a "moving map indicator" or using balise datagrams to give advance warning of speed restrictions etc.

I wouldn’t have said it’s a particularly raw nerve. It’s known that the need for route knowledge will gradually diminish over time as ERTMS is rolled out. In the meantime it’s difficult to imagine how any kind of “sat nav”/DAS type device will meaningfully diminish the need for a high level of route knowledge, when driving to conventional signalling, with conventional safety systems.

Braking points aren’t fixed, vary by weather, time of year, and the individual unit you’re driving. You need to know when to shut off to come down to *that* speed on *this* particular gradient etc. An image of the sectional appendix wont help you when you’re in thick fog, can only see 10 feet in front of the cab, you’re doing 120mph and you need to *know* when to put the brake in during leaf fall.

In other words, if you sign the route sufficiently well to drive it at all, you won’t need a DAS. If you would need to rely on a DAS to drive it you won’t be able to do so safely and competently.

Until ERTMS becomes widespread it’s likely more cost effective to optimise depots/routes to ensure drivers are utilised efficiently and have regular booked work over their entire route card. This is already done to a large extent: for example in my case it would be rare for me to go more than two or three weeks without covering everything I sign (one rarely used diversion aside, for which I carry maps). The only ongoing training that would be needed would be in the event of a major resignalling.

Most passenger drivers have a stable and unchanging route card and once you know it you know it. A “sat nav for drivers” *might* have more applicability as an aide memoire in the case of operations such as ROG, or freight operators with massive and regularly changing route cards.

I’d be interested to hear other views on the above.

Then consider the option of using suitably trained depot staff for these type of short distance ECS moves to avoid tying up expensively trained mainline drivers, I understand such practices are fairly widespread in some countries but happy to be corrected if that’s wrong.

This is already widespread in the U.K! Shed drivers can make ECS moves between depots and stations in many locations.

 

[Ken H]

I wouldn’t have said it’s a particularly raw nerve. It’s known that the need for route knowledge will gradually diminish over time as ERTMS is rolled out. In the meantime it’s difficult to imagine how any kind of “sat nav”/DAS type device will meaningfully diminish the need for a high level of route knowledge, when driving to conventional signalling, with conventional safety systems.

Braking points aren’t fixed, vary by weather, time of year, and the individual unit you’re driving. You need to know when to shut off to come down to *that* speed on *this* particular gradient etc. An image of the sectional appendix wont help you when you’re in thick fog, can only see 10 feet in front of the cab, you’re doing 120mph and you need to *know* when to put the brake in during leaf fall.

In other words, if you sign the route sufficiently well to drive it at all, you won’t need a DAS. If you would need to rely on a DAS to drive it you won’t be able to do so safely and competently.

Until ERTMS becomes widespread it’s likely more cost effective to optimise depots/routes to ensure drivers are utilised efficiently and have regular booked work over their entire route card. This is already done to a large extent: for example in my case it would be rare for me to go more than two or three weeks without covering everything I sign (one rarely used diversion aside, for which I carry maps). The only ongoing training that would be needed would be in the event of a major resignalling.

Most passenger drivers have a stable and unchanging route card and once you know it you know it. A “sat nav for drivers” *might* have more applicability as an aide memoire in the case of operations such as ROG, or freight operators with massive and regularly changing route cards.

I’d be interested to hear other views on the above.




This is already widespread in the U.K! Shed drivers can make ECS moves between depots and stations in many locations.

a device driven by GPS that displays the line limit, the distance to the next stopping station, and the next signal would surely help. It could display emergency notices for the line the train is on too, if its receiving mobile data, perhaps warning of poor adhesion. The driver would not touch it, just refer to it occasionally.
Dont the French drivers drive with a 'fiche' on their desk. Last pic I saw was paper but thats probably electronic now.

 

[Carlisle]

This is already widespread in the U.K! Shed drivers can make ECS moves between depots and stations in many locations.

Ok thanks for that information.

 

[Goldfish62]

DB has operated for years using the Buchfahrplan and later elektronische Buchfahrplan to substitute for detailed route learning. I have not heard of any crashes that resulted from that being the case. So yes, absolutely.

I was talking to a friend about this recently. He is a driver manager who has decades of experience driving both freight and passenger. He is also, incidentally, a great admirer of European railways.

I asked him why he thought there seemed to be so many more collisions in Germany when the signalling system is more sophisticated than AWS/TPWS. His unequivocal response was that it's probably at least in part due lack of specific route knowledge.

 

[O L Leigh]

I’d be interested to hear other views on the above.

In regard to telling you anything about the route, DAS is a terrible system. It's inaccurate, doesn't show sufficient detail and is frequently faulty/inoperative. All DAS does is to act as a sort of moving timetable, advising you what speed to drive at in order to arrive at a timing point on-time (although even this function can be highly suspect and, if on-time running is to be assured, a driver must learn from experience when it is safe to follow the advice and when to ignore it).

I can see a situation where a technological solution could be used to aid route learning, but I would agree that it would not reduce the need for a driver to learn how to drive a route. The ability to read a map or follow a satnav does not mean that a driver is competent to drive over any particular route; something that is equally true for road users as it is for train drivers.

I could potentially see a situation where the amount of time allocated to learning a route could be reduced, although I do not believe that any system could ever fully replace route learning. Such a system could be helpful in telling the driver precisely where the train is and the names and locations of certain features (crossings, junctions, etc) together with a brief display of expected signal aspects and route indications. However, it would have to be accurate and reliable if it is to have any part to play, as any failure of the system is likely to have an impact on train running (if it's gone "pop", can the train still be run?).

However, I will repeat again that I don't believe that cutting back on route learning is going to yield much if any measurable degree of saving; certainly not enough to be considered anything like low hanging fruit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was talking to a friend about this recently. He is a driver manager who has decades of experience driving both freight and passenger. He is also, incidentally, a great admirer of European railways.

I asked him why he thought there seemed to be so many more collisions in Germany when the signalling system is more sophisticated than AWS/TPWS. His unequivocal response was that it's probably at least in part due lack of specific route knowledge.

Without knowing the specific cause of each collision I think that is an incredibly bold statement.

I'd not say the signalling system as a whole was that much more sophisticated than TPWS. OK, they use speed signalling rather than our "stop/go" type approach, but Indusi (PZB) and TPWS are very similar in concept though don't quite work the same way. Yes, there are collisions that Indusi would prevent that TPWS wouldn't, but then you can offset that against things like the lack of interlocking on the signalling of some German branch lines, and the slightly bizarre "override the interlocking" Zs1 signal, which would be fine if it was only used on unidirectional lines as a drive-on-sight measure, but on a bidirectional line has caused some nasty crashes.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'm sure that this point has already been raised, but amalgamating depots would not necessarily result in efficiency savings. Enlarging a depot's route and traction cards only serves to increase the number of route refresh days required to ensure competency is maintained.

But I do think that route learning is another one of those things that gets overplayed. Yes it may take a few weeks to learn a long and complex route but, provided that the knowledge is maintained, that is a one-off investment in time that does not need to be repeated.

However, I will repeat again that I don't believe that cutting back on route learning is going to yield much if any measurable degree of saving; certainly not enough to be considered anything like low hanging fruit.

Are these statements not somewhat contradictory? If technology eliminated the requirement for route refresh days, then surely each driver could sign more routes and amalgamation of depots would then result in efficiency savings? E.g. more efficient diagramming and fewer spares?

 

[Wolfie]

I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for the rail unions to oppose cuts. After all those cuts will directly affect their members, and there is a real risk of “because Covid” being used as an excuse to further an anti rail agenda (which I expect we all agree this government generally has, halo projects such as HS2 aside). I would certainly agree the “tanks on the lawn” rhetoric is regrettable, unnecessary and does indeed come across as 1970s. They seriously need to get help with their communications; TU press releases often read like parody!




It’s certainly getting to the point where change in certain areas is overdue in light of new tech and modern travelling patterns. In 2021 I don’t think anyone can credibly argue against the end of non commercial guards and sadly ticket office closures to come. Of course this has been on the cards since long before covid reared its head .

The hope is the unions representing these staff recognise that fact, accept that change is inevitable, and work constructively to avoid redundancies. Obvious solutions would be: NC guards retraining to become fully commercial; or redeployment of ticket staff to passenger assistance, helping with TVMs etc., a la LU.

Knowing the main union concerned I’m rather worried they lack the necessary pragmatism.



How ironic. In your righteous indignation you’ve just perfectly described exactly the contemptible attitude you yourself regularly display on here towards railway staff and unions.

Let me guess: all unions are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Re your last two paras, if you read carefully what l post l often talk about my take on public perception, not my own views, and that take often relates to RMT in particular and not all rail unions. I also post about my experience of the reality of dealing with HMT. That isn't anti-railway TU, that is bitter reality.

Do l think that current T&Cs on the railway will go unchallenged? Not a hope.

I'd agree there are good reasons, but ... (and there's usually a but)

Are they currently on different pay, terms and conditions?

And, if so, wouldn't harmonising conditions (which will only go one way) make a significant hole in any savings?

Re your last para you really haven't had dealings with HMT....

 

[Bald Rick]

Are they currently on different pay, terms and conditions?

yes

And, if so, wouldn't harmonising conditions (which will only go one way) make a significant hole in any savings?

probably not, and you wouldn't necessarily have to harmonise anyway (TUPE applies).

 

[Goldfish62]

Whatever people's respective views of the unions let's not forget the government's role in the disastrous decline in passenger numbers on both rail and buses.

It was the government that led an aggressive and highly successful campaign to scare people off public transport in the early days of the pandemic while, scandalously, saying masks weren't necessary. Many of these people have made alternative arrangements and will never return.

I know of no other country where the government has led such an aggressive anti-public transport campaign as part of their Covid response.

The devolved governments and some (but not all) TOCs are also culpable.

 

[O L Leigh]

Are these statements not somewhat contradictory?

No, because I am talking about two different things; gaining route knowledge and maintaining route knowledge.

Gaining route knowledge is a one-off investment in time while maintaining route knowledge requires regular release built into the roster. The more routes a driver signs, the more diversions there are on the route card, the more days release are required. Therefore, bigger depots with more extensive route cards require more route refresh days than depots with smaller route cards due to the likelihood of a driver not covering that route within the timescales allowed for maintaining competence. As with a lot of things, there appears to be a formula for calculating the number of route refresh days required for each roster.

And that is the point I'm making. If amalgamating depots results in an enlarged route card, the consequence of this is an increase in the number of route refresh days required by the staff. This means a reduction in efficiency not an improvement due to the greater number of non-productive days each member of staff spends in any given year.

If technology eliminated the requirement for route refresh days, then surely each driver could sign more routes and amalgamation of depots would then result in efficiency savings? E.g. more efficient diagramming and fewer spares?

Who can say? Maybe.

If such technology existed to permit such a change it would have an effect whether there had been an amalgamation or not. The impact would likely be quite small, though. Depot establishments might go down, but probably only a few percent. However, I am unsure whether or not route refreshing would automatically become a thing of the past. The frequency and number of days release might reduce but there are situations where a driver learns a route without ever driving it and may only see it for the first time in anger quite some number of months or even years later. I have allowed one such route on my own route card to lapse for this very reason following the restrictions imposed by Covid meant that I could no longer refresh it.

As for what might happen in the event of an amalgamation, I would refer you back to my previous points. Amalgamation does not reduce the number of drivers required to provide a day's service and neither is it likely to have a big impact on the number of daily spares. Spare cover is again the subject of a calculation based on the number of jobs at that depot on that day. You might save one or two as a consequence of rounding, but that might be about it.

 

[irish_rail]

All of the TOCs you list have a certain amount of work to cover which will require a certain number of drivers. Amalgamating the operators will not alter this number. Also, you mention the cost of supporting this number of drivers. Again, there are only small savings to be made in this area, none of which will be specific to that location. These drivers still need managing (the ratio of drivers to managers will mean almost no alteration to the total number required), accommodating (which includes mess facilities for visiting drivers taking their breaks) and equipping (which is proportional to the number of drivers employed). About the only saving that you might be able to expect might be in a small reduction in the number of daily spares required. There may also be some savings to be had through amalgamation with reducing higher management, HR and Control, but again that's not going to represent a very big reduction in head count.

That just isn't true though. By amalgamating drivers and ensuring drivers can drive sufficient routes and traction you can significantly reduce the amount of spare coverage needed. And you would be surprised quite how many drivers are needed for each "running turn" at a depot. It isn't one driver for each turn, very far from it.

 

[matacaster]

No, because I am talking about two different things; gaining route knowledge and maintaining route knowledge.

Gaining route knowledge is a one-off investment in time while maintaining route knowledge requires regular release built into the roster. The more routes a driver signs, the more diversions there are on the route card, the more days release are required. Therefore, bigger depots with more extensive route cards require more route refresh days than depots with smaller route cards due to the likelihood of a driver not covering that route within the timescales allowed for maintaining competence. As with a lot of things, there appears to be a formula for calculating the number of route refresh days required for each roster.

And that is the point I'm making. If amalgamating depots results in an enlarged route card, the consequence of this is an increase in the number of route refresh days required by the staff. This means a reduction in efficiency not an improvement due to the greater number of non-productive days each member of staff spends in any given year.



Who can say? Maybe.

If such technology existed to permit such a change it would have an effect whether there had been an amalgamation or not. The impact would likely be quite small, though. Depot establishments might go down, but probably only a few percent. However, I am unsure whether or not route refreshing would automatically become a thing of the past. The frequency and number of days release might reduce but there are situations where a driver learns a route without ever driving it and may only see it for the first time in anger quite some number of months or even years later. I have allowed one such route on my own route card to lapse for this very reason following the restrictions imposed by Covid meant that I could no longer refresh it.

As for what might happen in the event of an amalgamation, I would refer you back to my previous points. Amalgamation does not reduce the number of drivers required to provide a day's service and neither is it likely to have a big impact on the number of daily spares. Spare cover is again the subject of a calculation based on the number of jobs at that depot on that day. You might save one or two as a consequence of rounding, but that might be about it.

A major reason given for slow introduction of new trains on TPE was inability to do route learning due to covid compliance. I really can't see why it's unbelievably difficult to build into a computer program a variety of different speeds, weather, braking and line conditions etc. Car manufacturers have not cracked autonomous driving yet, but that is vastly more complex than a train on a guided track which doesn't need steering.

 

[O L Leigh]

By amalgamating drivers and ensuring drivers can drive sufficient routes and traction you can significantly reduce the amount of spare coverage needed.

Spare coverage is a function of the number of jobs in the roster at any given depot on any given day, not route or traction knowledge. Therefore you can only reduce spare coverage by reducing the number of jobs.

If anything, making the depot structure more complicated by having drivers with different route and traction competencies makes spare coverage less effective, as you get spare drivers who do not sign the relevant route or traction required in order to cover a certain job. This was the situation where I work and was part of the reason for reorganising the depot to ensure a greater commonality of competency.

A major reason given for slow introduction of new trains on TPE was inability to do route learning due to covid compliance.

Why would route learning hinder the introduction of new trains? I can see how the practical aspect of traction training could be affected by Covid, but route learning has little or nothing to do with introducing new trains.

I really can't see why it's unbelievably difficult to build into a computer program a variety of different speeds, weather, braking and line conditions etc.

Sims are good for familiarisation but they are not good at teaching someone how to drive. They do not and can never fully replicate the way that a real train will react. No sector of the transport industry uses sims to the exclusion of practical experience.

Car manufacturers have not cracked autonomous driving yet, but that is vastly more complex than a train on a guided track which doesn't need steering.

I'm unsure what that has got to do with the discussion, but if you believe that driving a train is no different to driving Train Sim then I'm afraid you are very mistaken.

 

[yorksrob]

Whatever people's respective views of the unions let's not forget the government's role in the disastrous decline in passenger numbers on both rail and buses.

It was the government that led an aggressive and highly successful campaign to scare people off public transport in the early days of the pandemic while, scandalously, saying masks weren't necessary. Many of these people have made alternative arrangements and will never return.

I know of no other country where the government has led such an aggressive anti-public transport campaign as part of their Covid response.

The devolved governments and some (but not all) TOCs are also culpable.

I can also remember the unions haranguing the government for lifting the essential travel only order, so they're also culpable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[gazzaa2]

I’m seeing Northern services a lot busier than they were before lockdown. Full and some standing on a 195 just after 10am on a week day. South East commuting may never be the same again - but the North still has so much untapped demand.

And while so much of capacity/rolling stocked is tied into the South East routes going in and out of London, while many TOCs are regularly full and standing.

Not for the pandemic, but my observation of the south WCML before it was that Mondays were actually quite busy. I suspect, though, that might be because you're adding in "weekly commuters" who travel down on a Monday and usually back on a Thursday with Friday from home, and may even not be headed for London but rather to connect onto the ECML and GWML (primarily) to other destinations.

Friday mornings might as well be Sundays, with a full peak timetable operating with trains at something like 50% capacity, some of them even lower. I've had single figures in a coach on a Friday on certain trains. Arguably Fridays could operate a Saturday timetable even pre-pandemic. The shift to partial home working was already progressing, the pandemic just sped it up.

Saturdays and Sundays have huge demand this year. Friday is the quieter day.

 

[irish_rail]

Spare coverage is a function of the number of jobs in the roster at any given depot on any given day, not route or traction knowledge. Therefore you can only reduce spare coverage by reducing the number of jobs.

If anything, making the depot structure more complicated by having drivers with different route and traction competencies makes spare coverage less effective, as you get spare drivers who do not sign the relevant route or traction required in order to cover a certain job. This was the situation where I work and was part of the reason for reorganising the depot to ensure a greater commonality of competency.



Why would route learning hinder the introduction of new trains? I can see how the practical aspect of traction training could be affected by Covid, but route learning has little or nothing to do with introducing new trains.



Sims are good for familiarisation but they are not good at teaching someone how to drive. They do not and can never fully replicate the way that a real train will react. No sector of the transport industry uses sims to the exclusion of practical experience.



I'm unsure what that has got to do with the discussion, but if you believe that driving a train is no different to driving Train Sim then I'm afraid you are very mistaken.

Take Plymouth. If all drivers signed 80x and voyagers plus Taunton to Penzance, then it would be easier for rostering to cover the work and so the establishment could reduce. I'm not suggesting the XC drivers learn London or GWR drivers learn Birmingham, just that we should all be able to drive anything between Taunton and Penzance. For GWR drivers this would involve zero additional route or traction training, and for XC drivers they would only need to learn 80x. It wouldn't be a big job, but it would quickly pay for itself.

 

[O L Leigh]

Take Plymouth. If all drivers signed 80x and voyagers plus Taunton to Penzance, then it would be easier for rostering to cover the work and so the establishment could reduce. I'm not suggesting the XC drivers learn London or GWR drivers learn Birmingham, just that we should all be able to drive anything between Taunton and Penzance. For GWR drivers this would involve zero additional route or traction training, and for XC drivers they would only need to learn 80x. It wouldn't be a big job, but it would quickly pay for itself.

But that isn't how it works. Your example conveniently ignores the depot establishment calculation which is how you arrive at the spare driver allocation. It doesn't matter what the drivers sign because if GWR has X number of diagrams and XC has Y number of diagrams, the total number of diagrams is X+Y and that figure is what would be used to calculate the depot establishment and the spare allocation.

 

[ComUtoR]

Sims are good for familiarisation but they are not good at teaching someone how to drive. They do not and can never fully replicate the way that a real train will react. No sector of the transport industry uses sims to the exclusion of practical experience.

Have you ever driven a Sim with a replicated route ? I've driven a few Sims over the years and the most recent SWR Sim I drove was incredible. You really could learn the route from it. My own TOCs Sim is notoriously bad. To make any significant changes will cost thousands and thousands.

I also had the absolute pleasure of taking an internal for a Sim day. He was a bit of a Spotter and we discussed his use of Train Sim. He took to the Sim like a duck to water. With little input from me he drove to a decent standard.

Whilst I do agree that it cannot replicate true practical experience, the Sim is often underestimated. It can be a superb tool for learning and familiarisation.

I pretty much dismissed all the usual tools for learning but due to my current role I have found that many of my views were misplaced. I have learned that the best approach is a mixture of everything. Practical experience and doing everything live cannot be replaced that's for sure but we do have an underused arsenal of tools at our disposal that the railway is reticent to use and I'm no longer sure why.



As to cross covering another TOCs routes and traction. My TOC successfully covered another local TOC for many years.

 

[O L Leigh]

Have you ever driven a Sim with a replicated route ?

Yes I have, and it's so poor that I have to concentrate hard to know precisely where I am at any given point. I certainly can't relax and then just take a glance out the "window" and get a fix on my position on the sim. I have the same issue with resignalling briefs that use artificial representation of the work being undertaken.

I also had the absolute pleasure of taking an internal for a Sim day. He was a bit of a Spotter and we discussed his use of Train Sim. He took to the Sim like a duck to water. With little input from me he drove to a decent standard.

That's great, but I wonder how he would be with a real train. Going from Train Sim to an official sim is probably not a very big leap.

Whilst I do agree that it cannot replicate true practical experience, the Sim is often underestimated. It can be a superb tool for learning and familiarisation.

I pretty much dismissed all the usual tools for learning but due to my current role I have found that many of my views were misplaced. I have learned that the best approach is a mixture of everything. Practical experience and doing everything live cannot be replaced that's for sure but we do have an underused aresnal of tools at our disposal that the railway is reticent to use and I'm no longer sure why.

Totally agree with that. The Track Access videos can be extremely useful, especially if there is something specific you want to look at again. It can take you out of the cab and relieve you of the concentration normally taken with driving to allow you to focus on aspects of the route.

 

[ComUtoR]

Yes I have, and it's so poor that I have to concentrate hard to know precisely where I am at any given point. I certainly can't relax and then just take a glance out the "window" and get a fix on my position on the sim. I have the same issue with resignalling briefs that use artificial representation of the work being undertaken.

Resignalling briefs suck !"£!"£$$%"$£^$%^^*(((*( ! ! ! ! ! !! !

The Sim is weird. Many of our Drivers get motion sickness in them and some just hate them with a passion. I did find that driving a route I knew was a little surreal. Like you, I wanted to look out the window at certain points and I was looking for braking points that weren't there because the route was scanned some time ago or the gradient didn't respond like I thought it would.

Driving a route I didn't know was completely different. From a learning perspective I found it exceptional. Driving not so much but I felt comfortable enough that if I drove the route I'd have a huge heads up.

Our Sim is run with Corys software. It's horrible but to change anything costs an absolute fortune so its pretty wasted. Part of the railways inefficiency is that crap like our Sim really shouldn't exist and the Sim like the SWR one I used should be more like the modern standard.

That's great, but I wonder how he would be with a real train. Going from Train Sim to an official sim is probably not a very big leap.

Absolutely. We did discuss this and his experience from his home PC to a proper Train Sim was a huge step up. As he was internal he understood the differences so that made my life easier. When I chucked a few faults and bad weather at him then it all started to unwind. RealLife™ is very different and I'm not sure some people appreciate that from behind a screen typing on a forum.

Totally agree with that. The Track Access videos can be extremely useful, especially if there is something specific you want to look at again. It can take you out of the cab and relieve you of the concentration normally taken with driving to allow you to focus on aspects of the route.

If they are kept up to date (huge cost and investment) it could be better. I never liked them and I'm glad COVID Changed my perspective with using them.


Cheers for your reply, as always.

 

[O L Leigh]

Many of our Drivers get motion sickness in them and some just hate them with a passion.

I have to confess that I fall into that category too. I think that it's the lack of any movement which means that the inner ear isn't backing up what the eyes are telling the brain. Whenever I transition between curves and straights I have to close my eyes otherwise I get nauseous. Likewise I have no idea that I've "stopped" without making reference to the speedo.

I wanted to look out the window at certain points and I was looking for braking points that weren't there because the route was scanned some time ago or the gradient didn't respond like I thought it would.

Your routes are scanned? Ours are just artificially replicated, like a cut-price Train Sim route that someone knocked up over an evening. When they throw us situations like livestock on the line you have no idea what it is until you're right up to it because it looks nothing like any animal I ever saw in my childhood I-Spy books. Likewise other trains with hazard warning lights. Also the graphics are so poor that you end up stopped at a red and calling up "the box" to report that you are "...stopped at some signal..." because you simply can't read the plate and have no idea how much closer to it you can get before you've passed it.

That's not to say that I think they have no purpose. As a way of instructing and assessing a driver on their rules knowledge they are brilliant. They throw you into a situation and then see whether you apply the right rules and apply them correctly. For this they are extremely useful. They are also great for familiarisation, as I mentioned up-thread. In my career so far I've had two different traction conversion courses, both of which utilised sims. It was great to get into a cab and get familiar with the layout of the controls in a driving scenario, play with the TMS and explore some fault conditions and emergency situations too. In that regard, that they are "nothing like driving a real train" is almost immaterial.

But then, this is all drifting a bit too far off-topic.

RealLife™ is very different and I'm not sure some people appreciate that from behind a screen typing on a forum.

Amen to that, brother.

Cheers for your reply, as always.

Always a pleasure.

 

[tbtc]

Again, I really don't think that any/many people are arguing for a full Serpell - this is just a straw man that people clutch at to try to make their own preferences seem reasonable - the idea that we must either maintain the current number of services/ stations or do Serpell is rather silly - we should be able to discuss revisions without such hysteria...

That's a very poor example, as a Newcastle driver doing a Derby trip would take more than 6 hours due to the need to take a break. Your proposal would also blow the fatigue index right out of the water

Just an example of a TOC that have a depot with a very limited range of diagrams, where one return trip is less than a full day but two return trips is more than a full day - but if staff were shared across duties you could combine one "long" return trip with a "short" return trip to try to balance out staff duties - that way you use staff more efficiently as well as ensuring that they are able to fill a wider range of duties in the event of any problems (e.g. at the moment you could have a situation where one TOC in a city are short staffed whilst another have a full compliment of staff, but any "spare" staff cannot be loaned out since people are only trained for a limited number of routes/ traction types

 

[6Gman]

Then consider the option of using suitably trained depot staff for these type of short distance ECS moves & avoid tying up expensively trained mainline drivers. I understand such practices are fairly widespread in some countries but happy to be corrected if that’s wrong.

The location I'm thinking of would not have "depot staff". And that would not be unusual.