Double manning over 110mph ended when?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Captain Speaking

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
1,194
Location
Wilmslow
The question is, why was there ever such a notion that it was required? Sounds like a union-driven job creation scheme, and counter-productive as these shemes often are. Two in the cab when there's really only a job for one can easily lead to distraction for the one who has a job to do, by the other who hasn't.
 

deltic1989

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2010
Messages
1,484
Location
Nottingham
The question is, why was there ever such a notion that it was required? Sounds like a union-driven job creation scheme to me, and counter-productive as these shemes often are. Two in the cab when there's really only a job for one can easily lead to distraction for the one who has a job to do, by the other who hasn't.
I think I read somewhere that with the replacement of steam with diesel and the lack of a need for firemen the unions kicked up a fuss as some of thier mambers would be made redundant. So BR created jobs for them as secondmen. Could be wrong though.
 

dk1

Established Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
8,317
Location
East Anglia
Many ECML trains where significantly decellerated on Saturdays & Sundays when 125mph & double manning could not be justified.
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be much reason for a second man to be mandatory for over 110mph. The APT-E was blacked by ASLEF because it only had one seat in the cab, meaning no second mans position. This suggests that 110mph + trains could have had some union involvement in the addition of a mandatory second man.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,483
There was more than 1 person in the cab in steam and diesel days-firemen, second men etc and they didn't provide a distraction as has been suggested in that post.

In those days there were very few of the safety systems we have today and so a second person was seen as a safety issue-even now if the AWS ir TPWS fails on a train then a second man must be provided with route knowledge (ie a driver) or else the train will be limited to 40mph.

110 was obviously the negotiated limit of safe working with only 1 driver and few safety systems.
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
I'd like to know what concessions GWT and GNER made with ASLEF to relax the rules then, as the requirement was relaxed prior to the advent of TPWS.

The trains would still have been running with the same safety systems (AWS) as when 125 running was first introduced. GWT would have certainly had a safety advantage with having the ATP trial area, but does/did this cover all of the over-110mph area of the Western? GNER would not have had any additional signalling safety systems.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,704
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Before too many people jump on here with inaccuracies and assumptions, it was nothing to do with Union demands.

The simple fact is that at that time no-one had any experience of fleet operation at 125 mph - anywhere.

Discussions took place involving the BRB, HMRI and ASLEF and in view of the lack of experience in high speed driving and the concentration necessary, it was decided that two Drivers should be the norm. The second Driver would assist in keeping a lookout, as well as ensuring that the Driver responded to the signals.

I can only speak of the ECML, but the driving was arranged that each Driver would drive for half of the journey and then pass over to the second. They reversed on the way back as well.

As experience grew it was recognised that a Driver could concentrate, drive, read the signals and read the line ahead without detriment and subsequently this was supported by a detailed Risk Assessment. Only then did HMRI authorise single manned working.

Edit to say

110mph working was ONLY authorised with a maximum run to Preston - 3 hours
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
Cheers OT. I am quite surprised it took until 1996 to be dropped as a requirement in that case. That's in the region of 20 years since the first trains started running at over 110mph.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,374
Despite what OT says it was the reason ASLEF negotiated it, there was plenty of experience of high speed driving from steam days. The public reason isnt always the same as the private reason and you will find most history books taking a more cynical view.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,704
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Despite what OT says it was the reason ASLEF negotiated it, there was plenty of experience of high speed driving from steam days. The public reason isnt always the same as the private reason and you will find most history books taking a more cynical view.
I am unaware of high speed operation in steam days perhaps you will enlighten me ?

I am also sure that if you speak to HMRI they will give you their position as it was in 1976 on the double manning of trains running above 100 mph.

Remember its is HMRI that placed a prohibition on travelling above 125mph using conventional signalling not the Railways.
 

DXMachina

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2011
Messages
652
110-plus was well inside the performance envelope for a Gresley A4 and the Stanier Duchess/Coronations, that's steam-age HS running.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,704
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
110-plus was well inside the performance envelope for a Gresley A4 and the Stanier Duchess/Coronations, that's steam-age HS running.
As it was for the GW loco that exceeded 100 mph but I remember the first 100 mph sign going up on the GN main Line well after steam was on its way out. There was no high speed running at or above 100 mph in the UK on a regular and sustained fleet operation. Whilst some trains may well have reached this speed it was not done through the medium of a timetable.

The linespeed was the reason that untiil the deltics and their predecessors, the maximum design speed of diesel locomotives was 90, then 95 but not 100 until the Class 50s.

From 1964 and until the mid-70s the WCML was the only true high speed line with extended 100 mph running.
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
910
Location
London E14
Also, steam locos are double-manned by necessity of having a driver and a fireman. Therefore there couldn't have been any experience of drivers travelling alone at high speed.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,738
Sounds like people trying to form some conspiracies here... Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Like people say this was the first experience of single man High speed running so its only natural to be safe and chuck in an extra man at the start.
 

Chafford1

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Messages
242
110-plus was well inside the performance envelope for a Gresley A4 and the Stanier Duchess/Coronations, that's steam-age HS running.
They were capable of that speed, but certainly didn't run at that speed on any regular post war services - if you look at the attached link, there's one 94mph run on a railtour, the maxima for the other runs are all in the 70s and 80s.

http://locoperformance.tripod.com/edition13/lnerpacifics.htm
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
910
Location
London E14
The only time I've known an accident occour with 125mph stock is when 110mph stock would have suffered exactly the same fate anyway...
Yes, but they couldn't know that at the time, nobody had any experience of sustained high speed running so they didn't know what the human factors were. If it had turned out that a single person couldn't cope alone with services at that speed then everybody would have either been praising the decision to run double-manned from the start or having a go at them for killing so many people by running single-manned hs trains before establishing it was safe.

Even ignoring the fact that steam locos were double manned, the cab of a steam loco is a very different environment to the cab of a diesel or electric loco.
 

Chafford1

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Messages
242
The only record of sustained steam running above 100mph in the UK I have seen was the press preview run of the 'Silver Jubilee' in September 1935 hauled by A4 Silver Link - 100mph average over 43 miles with a 112 mph maximum.
 

Captain Speaking

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
1,194
Location
Wilmslow
Oh come on get a grip! You NEEDED two on a steam loco as there were (and are on heritage engines) TWO jobs to do - Driving and firing. Both are full time jobs - one man could not do both. It has NOTHING to do with how fast a steam loco went.

The argument of 'they didn't have high speed experience so put 2 men in just in case' doesn't hold water. It's not rocket science to work out there'd be one man with a job to do, and a spare man with nothing to do except to chat and thereby distract the one with the job to do - ergo, two man operation in those circumstances is less safe than single-man operation.

That's why all non-steam cabs now, high speed or not, are single-manned.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,483
That's why all non-steam cabs now, high speed or not, are single-manned.
No, the reason cabs are now single manned is because technology has improved sufficiently. That is why cabs still need to be double manned to this day if equipment fails.

And I wish people would stop claiming 2 in a cab to be a distraction-it isn't if managed properly as it would be with 2 professionals doing their jobs. Infact there is a strong argument that having a 2nd person in a cab to provide company is far less of a distraction and improves concentration. I certainly find that when I have someone else in my cab with me. Same with driving a car on a long motorway trip.
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,764
Location
Essex
It's not rocket science to work out there'd be one man with a job to do, and a spare man with nothing to do except to chat and thereby distract the one with the job to do - ergo, two man operation in those circumstances is less safe than single-man operation.
So why does the rule book specifically demand two people in the cab in some circumstances?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top