Dr_Intoxicated
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 503
Do we have an estimate of how many were trained before training was suspended?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Class 701 SWR introduction delays: what should happen now?
- Thread starter 57746
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
OneTrackMinded
Member
The 701 project so far in a nutshell
No, because there are not sufficient DCO passed stations to deliver that course.
Very good!
Nogoohwell
Member
I suspect the reason for the revised training course not being agreed by the unions is that it would impact pay of drivers.
Under the old course, drivers were trained to DOO, for which they are paid for.
On the new course, drivers are not being trained to that standard. So if the pay deal is itemised to say DOO, but drivers are not trained or qualified for this, does it mean in theory the pay can be lowered or clawed back?
Not saying that they would do this, however it would significantly impact any future pay negotiations as the DfT can point out that drivers are being to do something that they are no being trained to do.
This is a real mess.
Under the old course, drivers were trained to DOO, for which they are paid for.
On the new course, drivers are not being trained to that standard. So if the pay deal is itemised to say DOO, but drivers are not trained or qualified for this, does it mean in theory the pay can be lowered or clawed back?
Not saying that they would do this, however it would significantly impact any future pay negotiations as the DfT can point out that drivers are being to do something that they are no being trained to do.
This is a real mess.
Nope - the payment was for contracts to be changed to include DCO, which was done. They can’t very well “claw that back”, and that possibility won’t be on the table, especially as the intent is still supposedly to introduce it at some point in the future.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
So we still do not know why the new version of the course is not being used. Do we even know for sure that there is a new version of the course ?.
From what was said above there is a new version but there’s been a failure to agree, hence training is paused.
lewisf
Member
Is this the last blocker before mass rollout can begin, or are there other unresolved issues 8 years after the order for these trains was first placed?
AIUI,
SWR and ASLEF agreed on a new training course that wouldn't include DCO in it for now and at a later date, on inclusion of the DFT this was when the fail to agree occurred as I guess the DFT still want the drivers doing what they are essentially paid to do.
The newer version of the training course would have essentially buried DCO for good.
Snow1964
Established Member
Although I vaguely remember (can't find the post now) that something like 110 drivers were trained before training stopped.
Not sure what percentage of suburban drivers that is, but with careful rostering (and 701s never seem to work Sundays), it might be enough to put about 10 diagrams into play.
It would be interesting to see the wording/content that’s caused the failure to agree.
Ultimately if it’s now accepted that DCO isn’t going to be brought in for the foreseeable future - and that certainly seems to be the case - it’s a little difficult to see the point of it being in the current training course, and why the DfT are sticking their oar in and making such an issue of it. The drivers aren’t going be driving DCO trains anytime soon whatever happens.
As and when it’s brought in a few years down the line refresher training would be required anyway, and it’s already in the drivers’ contracts, so why is this a reason to delay still further?
Last edited:
Unless someone leaks it, I imagine we won't see it due to commercial confidentially interests.
Why can't they still run the old course?
If it covers a range of things, including things that are not currently available, it is not creating gaps. I would see the issue if it was the other way round and being expected to do things outside of training.
I've been trained and assessed on pieces of equipment not routinely carried. I've seen people do mandatory e-learning on extremely specialised kit that 99% of the fleet does not carry. People do complain a bit about having to learn stuff they will legitimately never use, but I've not seen anyone refuse to engage in/deliver the training because of it. And yes, I know that isn't a railway field.
There was a course. The course covers more content than is currently needed. Why not still plough on with that?
If it covers a range of things, including things that are not currently available, it is not creating gaps. I would see the issue if it was the other way round and being expected to do things outside of training.
I've been trained and assessed on pieces of equipment not routinely carried. I've seen people do mandatory e-learning on extremely specialised kit that 99% of the fleet does not carry. People do complain a bit about having to learn stuff they will legitimately never use, but I've not seen anyone refuse to engage in/deliver the training because of it. And yes, I know that isn't a railway field.
There was a course. The course covers more content than is currently needed. Why not still plough on with that?
There isn't enough stations passed for DCO any more, so the course can't be run.
The fact it did run previously was due to the fact drivers were doing things in the training that weren't safe.
Right, that's where my knowledge ends. That has been said a few times, but as someone on the outside I don't understand it.
The training included degraded working before? (Which seems to be everywhere as degraded?)
Genuine question - why can they not run the same kind of training, doing degraded working stuff in the wild, and doing the DCO competency bits in a simulator where it is naturally safe?
The training included degraded working before? (Which seems to be everywhere as degraded?)
Genuine question - why can they not run the same kind of training, doing degraded working stuff in the wild, and doing the DCO competency bits in a simulator where it is naturally safe?
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 16,679
Of course it can be run. You remove from the course the elements that no longer apply and get on with it.
What it actually is an unhealthy cocktail of management incompetence, DfT interference and unions being awkward for the sake of being awkward. They all need locking in a room with no food or water until they agree a way forward.
Such as?
But did it include degraded working on purpose or was it done not on purpose, until there was a strong enough case put to the right people with power, to stop the training?
Peter Sarf
Established Member
My bold. Is that really the case ?. If it is then I can see that the DfT might not be prepared to be pragmatic about that, even if they might as well.
I too am puzzled that the earlier course cannot be used. Both old and new versions include the degraded working procedures that are merely (he says) more commonly needed than was thought before.
Last edited:
The old course can't be used because it includes DCO and the infrastructure doesn't support training that. A driver couldn't be signed off as competent as completing that course, and that's the only course ASLEF have agreed to. SWR seem to have accepted that position.
The failure to agree the new course isn't anything to do with the course itself, or the fact that DCO is no longer being trained. Officially it would only be a temporary suspension of training DCO which the infrastructure currently doesn't support, which would allow the training and rollout to speed up. DCO would then be introduced at a later point when the infrastructure allows it. The DfT seem to be happy with that, and that's what SWR are proposing.
The failure to agree the new course isn't anything to do with the course itself, or the fact that DCO is no longer being trained. Officially it would only be a temporary suspension of training DCO which the infrastructure currently doesn't support, which would allow the training and rollout to speed up. DCO would then be introduced at a later point when the infrastructure allows it. The DfT seem to be happy with that, and that's what SWR are proposing.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
So I think you are saying that there are so few places where DCO can be applied that there is nowhere to realistically execute the training for DCO ?.
That is a big shortfall in DCO capable stations then !.
Bigger than I had grasped.
So do we know why the training without DCO in it has not gone ahead yet ?.
Is this just (!) due to a slowly evolving set of resolutions ?.
ASLEF happy, DfT happy, SWR happy.
So... Why no course?
Again, genuine question and not trying to sound antagonistic... What does the new course involve? If the old one was "How to drive the train, how to deal with issues on the train, and how to DCO" can't that last bit be ripped out and the rest used? With notes in the other bit I guess to say to avoid pressing button X as it is a DCO button?
There was a question asked a while back on how removing the DCO module would remove so much time from the course. I think that was not resolved.
So... Why no course?
Again, genuine question and not trying to sound antagonistic... What does the new course involve? If the old one was "How to drive the train, how to deal with issues on the train, and how to DCO" can't that last bit be ripped out and the rest used? With notes in the other bit I guess to say to avoid pressing button X as it is a DCO button?
There was a question asked a while back on how removing the DCO module would remove so much time from the course. I think that was not resolved.
The old course was 2 weeks long, 1 week spent on learning traction, 1 on DCO operation. With DCO paused they can get drivers trained in half the time and so back being productive quicker.
Previously, unless they had completed the week of DCO training they couldn’t be deemed competent on 701s.
It was agreed in theory , once agreement was drawn up to sign SWR side said we don't agree anymore to the new course.
The old course is impossible to complete currently because there are not enough stations fit for driver close practice in the real-world situation.
The old course is impossible to complete currently because there are not enough stations fit for driver close practice in the real-world situation.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I can only draw the conclusion that some or all of SWR, ASLEF and DfT have no sense of urgency on this.
Meanwhile units continue to be rotated about the country to/from warm storage. This is an additional cost which indicates progress is expected to be made (god forbid they were allowed to deteriorate). How many of the class 701 units are "officially" accepted by SWR now ?.
Are there still any technical issues with the units themselves ?.
The nearest to a technical issue I can think of is, indirectly, the lack of DCO capable stations.
Are there any signs that stations are being improved to allow DCO ?.
Meanwhile units continue to be rotated about the country to/from warm storage. This is an additional cost which indicates progress is expected to be made (god forbid they were allowed to deteriorate). How many of the class 701 units are "officially" accepted by SWR now ?.
Are there still any technical issues with the units themselves ?.
The nearest to a technical issue I can think of is, indirectly, the lack of DCO capable stations.
Are there any signs that stations are being improved to allow DCO ?.
So basically ASLEF won't agree to the shorter course unless DCO is taken off the table. Not surprising that the DFT won't accept that.
OneTrackMinded
Member
The militant South West back at it again. Frankly ridiculous really - ASLEF had previously agreed to it and signed off on it, but now that it’s being removed temporarily from the training they want it gone completely? Jumping at an opportunity. So now we’re essentially back to square one