One/two man operation of diesels and electrics

[ac6000cw]

Wasn't the prototype HST cab redesigned ( from a central drivers position) to 2 seats side by side to have a second man for the unions?

Yes, for the production trains, and the side windows were also added.

 

[Taunton]

Traditional dmus seem to have been single manned from the start, though I noticed when in the 1970s they were sometimes substituted for the Class 27 push-pull on Glasgow to Edinburgh (double manned, and on mileage bonus for the number of round trips in a day), it was always two crew in the dmu cab.

 

[ac6000cw]

Traditional dmus seem to have been single manned from the start,

That's my understanding too, and single-manning of EMU cabs goes back much further than that (AFIAK the Southern Railway and some of its predecessors introduced a 'motorman' grade for EMU-only drivers).

Just came across this interesting old thread on RMweb re. single-manning - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/154063-when-did-driver-only-operation-doo-start-in-locomotives/

 

[30907]

There was certainly flexibility in the interpretation of the national agreements.

This tended to be inversely proportional to the size of the depot! (Nuneaton, Pwllheli, Carnforth tended to be much more co-operative than a Crewe or a Saltley!)

As an example Pwllheli regarded changing cabs at Barmouth (i.e. crews of southbound and northbound swopping over) as a "break from the driving environment" which certainly wouldn't be accepted at most depots!

When was that last the routine? Tywyn and Harlech for 20+ years, surely - coupled I suspect with some generous unproductive time owing to the timetable.

 

[6Gman]

Possibly a factor was that small depots could be more easily closed if they were un-cooperative.

There was a certain small, one freight subsector dependant, depot which was visited by their man in the mac. from '222' and faced with the real threat of closure suddenly remembered that somehow their route knowledge enabled them to drive all over the country with just a little bit of refreshing. It wasn't only the 'seagulls'

Oh indeed. That was certainly a factor with Nuneaton and Carnforth, but closing Pwllheli (6 drivers, four with the same surname!) would have been a challenge.

When was that last the routine? Tywyn and Harlech for 20+ years, surely - coupled I suspect with some generous unproductive time owing to the timetable.

You're quite correct - it was Tywyn in the example given. And, yes, there were some highly unproductive duties. One had no booked work, then the PNB ( ! ), then a return trip to Tywyn!

 

[Undaunted]

Traditional dmus seem to have been single manned from the start....

I think it was slightly more nuanced than single manning being the norm for dmus and emus. In areas where emus operated, the sheer number of trains meant that it was relatively easy to diagram duties that respected the maximum of eight hours duration with a PNB in the right place at the right time. For areas where dmus operated the service might be more sparse. To give an example, a double-manned Weymouth diagram in 1976 involved signing on at 15.20 to work a dmu to Bristol TM, relieving another dmu at Bristol TM 19 minutes after arrival and bringing it back to Weymouth with a late evening trip to Dorchester South and back empty, signing off at 00.07. The diagram was well in excess of 8 hours with no opportunity for a 30 minute break.

Going back to double-manning of emus, on the Southern's SWD, it would not be unusual to see a driver and secondman operating an emu if thediagram consisted of work on mixed traction. Thus a double-manned Waterloo turn in 1976 consisted of a return trip to Basingstoke with emus, followed by multiple trips to and from Clapham Yard with 33s, 73s and 74s. Double manned because there was no opportunity for a break until after 5 hours on duty.

I do remember one time the union said a firm 'no' to what looked like a reasonable double-manned duty. It involved a bit of faffing around with locos at Waterloo, a run to Salisbury and back and then a return to Hampton Court. The last-mentioned was an emu, scheduled for a 4-sub which apparently had no secondman's seat. So the union was not happy. Of course, another factor might have been that at about 195 miles, the turn fell just short of a mileage bonus. Now if only that 4-sub had been going to Shepperton (207 miles for the whole turn)...

 

[whoosh]

Am I right in thinking that when the HSTs were introduced there were two qualified drivers in the cab, as part of an agreement with ASLEF and/or NUR?

Wasn't the prototype HST cab redesigned ( from a central drivers position) to 2 seats side by side to have a second man for the unions?

It was redesigned for two drivers. The union negotiated for a second driver to be provided initially at speeds above 100mph. The thinking behind it was that the 125mph trains would be travelling 25% faster than the 100mph maximum that trains had travelled previously.

The speed at which two drivers had to be provided was later renegotiated to 110mph, which became the maximum linespeed on the West Coast Main Line (with class 87s modified to be able to achieve this), and the Midland Main Line (single-manned with HSTs).

I'm not entirely sure if the negotiations to be single-manned upto 125mph took place before privatisation, or whether all the privatised TOCs concerned coincidentally addressed the issue, but from around 1996 trains upto 125mph operated with one driver.
This allowed the speeding up of trains on Sundays on the ECML for example, as they had been timed at a maximum of 110mph on Sundays as at the time Sundays were overtime at an enhanced rate, so paying for two drivers in such conditions was undesirable!

 

[TurboMan]

Wasn't the prototype HST cab redesigned ( from a central drivers position) to 2 seats side by side to have a second man for the unions?

It was also due to the small matter of there being nowhere for an instructor/assessor/route learner/competent person to sit. That was quite an oversight in the original design.