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.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 am unaware of high speed operation in steam days perhaps you will enlighten me ?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.
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.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.110-plus was well inside the performance envelope for a Gresley A4 and the Stanier Duchess/Coronations, that's steam-age HS running.
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.The only time I've known an accident occour with 125mph stock is when 110mph stock would have suffered exactly the same fate anyway...
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.That's why all non-steam cabs now, high speed or not, are single-manned.
So why does the rule book specifically demand two people in the cab in some circumstances?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.