Train Driving vs Bus Driving

[Dieseldriver]

why do you find it bizarre that someone would want to know the union's role in something? or are you telling me that the culture of the rail industry is that no-one should ever dare question the union? I, in turn, find it disturbing that you object to the union's role should be held up for scrutiny or question...

what is wrong with a member of public trying to understand what processes are involved in it being decided that 4 weeks training on a route is the right amount of time? at the end of the day, with the huge subsidies paid to TOC's by the taxpayer then surely the industry should be accountable as to why it is such a horribly expensive and complex burden on said tax payer.

In truth, the more I receive defensive or aggressive answers from train drivers {union members} then the more I might be forgiven for thinking there is something being hidden from the public here.
I am not anti-union.... I am just seeking an understanding of the processes

Trust me, I am extremely critical of unions. In fact, a lot of the time I begrudge paying them every 4 weeks. There is nothing about unions to be called into question on this subject though, I am employed by a Train Operating Company, they tell me what time I am given to learn new routes or traction. I don't get what your angle is, unions have little to do with what we are talking about which you don't seem to understand. If I'm honest it's starting to get a bit insulting as you seem to think the only reason our traction and route learning is such a long process is because the unions call the shots and insist on that length of time to cause havoc. It is simply not true. The reason the training is so long is because it needs to be, if it wasn't then we would not be able to competently do our jobs.

 

[scotraildriver]

The unions have NOTHING do do with training. Im not sure why you seem obsessed with their role. (Or not).They only intervene if members highlight a potential safety issue or such like. Unions provide a voice between employees and management in organisations with large numbers of employees where a collective voice is useful. They don't really influence day to day operations at all.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I don't see how you could think anything is being hidden from you. If you look through my replies and others we are telling you why route learning and traction training takes as long as it is. You don't like those answers though and continue to insist that the reason it's so long is because unions are trying to be awkward. If you are asking questions then digesting the information given to you by those of us who actually know what you are talking about then fair enough but I get the distinct impression that you won't be happy until one of us 'admits' that a moron could do our job, we press a button to go and one to stop and we could be trained to do it on a one day course.
That isn't the truth though and you don't seem to want to accept that for some reason known only to yourself

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The unions have NOTHING do do with training. Im not sure why you seem obsessed with their role. (Or not).They only intervene if members highlight a potential safety issue or such like. Unions provide a voice between employees and management in organisations with large numbers of employees where a collective voice is useful. They don't really influence day to day operations at all.

so going back to my example of HS2 where there are no current agreements for obvious reasons management will come along and say... "we will be giving 4 weeks route learning. Like it or lump it" and the unions and their members will say "yes sir no sir 3 bags full sir"? no? I thought not. so my question still stands... what processes are there for agreeing how much training is needed on any given route or traction unit?

As I also said above, defensively agressive answers do nothing to dispel the idea that there is something being hidden here and that unions are having a malevolent influence!

 

[scotraildriver]

Management will say "we'll give you 4 weeks route learning." If, after 4 weeks you are not happy that you are fully competent you will be given additional time until you are. Nothing to do with the union, everything to do with operating a safe railway. End of.

 

[Bromley boy]

Management will say "we'll give you 4 weeks route learning." If, after 4 weeks you are not happy that you are fully competent you will be given additional time until you are. Nothing to do with the union, everything to do with operating a safe railway. End of.

Indeed.

It’s also worth noting that, in relation to Thameslink, agreed route learning time frames and norms are a known quantity. The lack of route trained drivers is entirely down to:

- failure to employ enough drivers in the first place (as was flagged to the TOC years ago);

- failure to ensure adequate provision for training was made in the run up to the recent timetable change.

Nothing to do with unions, everything to do with penny pinching and incompetence on the part of the TOC. The results of this ineptitude are there for all to see.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[scotraildriver]

Indeed, I'm saying nothing more. I've tried to explain and given links to the rule book etc but you are obsessed with trying to blame unions for training issues. I give in.

 

[Bromley boy]

Indeed, I'm saying nothing more. I've tried to explain and given links to the rule book etc but you are obsessed with trying to blame unions for training issues. I give in.

Superb profile pic.

Good work!

EDIT: sorry that was aimed at @atraindriver

 

[Dieseldriver]

Indeed, I'm saying nothing more. I've tried to explain and given links to the rule book etc but you are obsessed with trying to blame unions for training issues. I give in.

I'm with you on that one mate. Shame really...

 

[Tomnick]

At the risk of stirring things up somewhat, it was my understanding that route learning norms were agreed through consultation with the relevant union. They, in my part of the world at least, don't seem unreasonable for the quantity and depth of knowledge required, so I'm not sure there's a problem really?

 

[BRblue]

At the risk of stirring things up somewhat, it was my understanding that route learning norms were agreed through consultation with the relevant union. They, in my part of the world at least, don't seem unreasonable for the quantity and depth of knowledge required, so I'm not sure there's a problem really?

Nope I don't see a problem either... but the OP is obviously trying to turn this into yet another union bashing thread!
To start with I had a bit of sympathy for the OP, now I wish I hadn't wasted my time replying to his original query.
And I'm tempted to agree with atraindriver... tabloid journalist, beeb researcher or one of Wilkinsons henchmen.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm sorry people are thinking what they are thinking, I can assure everyone that I am not a journalist. I am however, trying to understand how route learning works. But I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that the unions have no input into how much route learning is given... So... anyone willing to explain how it is decided what is a reasonable amount of route learning? at what point, for example, would a manager be within their right to say to a driver who keeps saying they are not competent on a route that they have had enough training and disciplinary procedures are taken against the driver for failure to sign off a route?

{and please don't tell me there aren't drivers who use the rule books to their own advantage!}

 

[Johncleesefan]

This thread is literally going round and round in circles. You get the answer to your question, you chew it up and spit it back out and then you ask it again. I don’t know why people are answering it still.

Route learning- takes as long as it takes, there’s your answer (again) I’m not going to explain it anymore as others have done so

At the end of the day. Even if a driver has had all the allotted time set by management or the union or whoever, if they ain’t happy then they are having longer.

 

[jdxn]

I'm sorry people are thinking what they are thinking, I can assure everyone that I am not a journalist. I am however, trying to understand how route learning works. But I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that the unions have no input into how much route learning is given... So... anyone willing to explain how it is decided what is a reasonable amount of route learning? at what point, for example, would a manager be within their right to say to a driver who keeps saying they are not competent on a route that they have had enough training and disciplinary procedures are taken against the driver for failure to sign off a route?

{and please don't tell me there aren't drivers who use the rule books to their own advantage!}

So - not train driving, but signalling.... New signallers go to an intensive signalling school and then return to their boxes to pass out on their levers, panels or workstations. There will be a training guide which will have some approximate timescales for passing out, which will apply to both these new signallers and trained signallers moving boxes. Learning the box is the equivalent to driver's route learning. The RMT aren't there making statements about how long it takes. The signaller wants to pass out so that they can get overtime and Sundays and it's just a fact that it takes a differing amount of time for each person. Its also dependant on circumstances - has the person learning been exposed to emergencies and problems, or maybe they've just hit the quiet times - it makes a difference. In fact it's to the employer's credit that they don't say x weeks, but allow an individual the right time for them. Some signallers are brilliant with the rules, but struggle to learn the area and for others the reverse. Of course, during the training it maybe that the employer identifies someone who may struggle to complete the training and pass out but that's the same in an
Of course some people will attempt to string out the training, but that's not union driven, and its vitally important for drivers' route learning and signallers passing out that it is not rushed.

It maybe that you 'cannot accept' - just bear in mind from all the answers above and my equivalent example that you just may be wrong.

 

[whoosh]

I agree that there seems to be a determined search here for a herring - and it's red.

If it takes x amount of time to learn a route (whether agreed with a union as a formality or not - IT'S NOT RELEVANT), and you've got y amount of drivers you need to train to run a robust service, then you are asking for trouble if you've left insufficient time in the calendar to do it. Which is what's happened at Thameslink.

 

[scotraildriver]

Route learning is also very boring and makes for a long shift with someone constantly peering over your shoulder . Who wants to do that for any longer than necessary? Anyway that's it I'm out.

 

[ComUtoR]

But I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that the unions have no input into how much route learning is given...

You have been told that they do. What input do you believe they have have ? The problem, of course, is that regardless of what gets said you refuse to believe the answer given. Even when it agrees with you. You are clearly looking for a confirmation of something. Can you enlighten us to what you believe what happens and more specifically than 'the Union are involved' ?

So... anyone willing to explain how it is decided what is a reasonable amount of route learning?

*I can tell you exactly. I'm just not willing to because the answer doesn't seem to be what you want.

at what point, for example, would a manager be within their right to say to a driver who keeps saying they are not competent on a route that they have had enough training and disciplinary procedures are taken against the driver for failure to sign off a route?

This IS where the Union and probably CIRAS would get involved. Drivers sign for competence when they are ready. For an Manager to discipline someone for not signing when they are not ready would break the Health and Safety at Work act which would be a criminal offense. Also, what would they be disciplined for ? It would also be considered bullying to threaten disciplinary so again, the Union would likely get involved in the inevitable grievance.

{and please don't tell me there aren't drivers who use the rule books to their own advantage!}

This you would have to explain. The rule book is very black and white. I have no choice but to follow it.

I do however, use route learning to my advantage. I can usually squeeze a rest day out of the company and I can choose my own hours so I can book various things in my personal life for a few weeks. I also go home early as I tend not to work a full day. I can also go for a break whenever I want too. Half day and a pub lunch.

*so will google

 

[Tomnick]

I'm sorry people are thinking what they are thinking, I can assure everyone that I am not a journalist. I am however, trying to understand how route learning works. But I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that the unions have no input into how much route learning is given... So... anyone willing to explain how it is decided what is a reasonable amount of route learning? at what point, for example, would a manager be within their right to say to a driver who keeps saying they are not competent on a route that they have had enough training and disciplinary procedures are taken against the driver for failure to sign off a route?

{and please don't tell me there aren't drivers who use the rule books to their own advantage!}

The unions do have some input into the route learning norms, i.e. the time normally allowed to learn a given route. It seems a constructive process to me, but if nothing else, it makes it easier for the management to discipline someone as you suggest, if they're really taking the biscuit - they're not going to do that for someone who just (genuinely!) feels that they need a few extra days though, nor are they going to put pressure on someone to sign a route after the agreed number of days if they're not quite ready. I don't know what the issue is!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, but seeing as though my original query was brought about by the Thameslink shambles, perhaps someone with some knowledge could answer this question....

I have, in the past, been an allocations officer for a bus company in London, where the drivers were employed on "one road" rotas. I was only allowed to allocate drivers to routes they had signed for, for obvious reasons. I was doing this at the time that the congestion charge was introduced and there was an upsurge in the number of buses on London's streets. As a consequence the company was running at approx 25% below establishment, and yet I never lost any mileage due to unavailability of staff. Much of my day was spent negotiating with drivers to take their rota'd duty off of them to give to other drivers... or to put said driver on a route they knew to cover work that I had no other way of covering. By the end of each day, I had the work fully covered + the required number of spares.

My questions are:
are the supervisory staff at Thameslink doing this?
if they are, are the drivers, in general co-operating with short notice changes/ requests?
if they are not doing this, why not?

 

[Tomnick]

I don't know about Thameslink, but at our place, drivers who can't cover their booked job for lack of route knowledge revert to 'spare' and can then be allocated any other work as long as it falls within the times of their original turn.

Generally, of course, the extent to which traincrew co-operate with this process, e.g. agreeing to come in earlier or to stay later when reverted to spare, depends largely on the extent of goodwill present and/or the size of the 'carrot' dangled!

There's only so much that can be achieved with that approach though, and it appears that the extent to which route knowledge is missing at Thameslink has just completely overcome efforts to work around it.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, but seeing as though my original query was brought about by the Thameslink shambles, perhaps someone with some knowledge could answer this question....

I have, in the past, been an allocations officer for a bus company in London, where the drivers were employed on "one road" rotas. I was only allowed to allocate drivers to routes they had signed for, for obvious reasons. I was doing this at the time that the congestion charge was introduced and there was an upsurge in the number of buses on London's streets. As a consequence the company was running at approx 25% below establishment, and yet I never lost any mileage due to unavailability of staff. Much of my day was spent negotiating with drivers to take their rota'd duty off of them to give to other drivers... or to put said driver on a route they knew to cover work that I had no other way of covering. By the end of each day, I had the work fully covered + the required number of spares.

My questions are:
are the supervisory staff at Thameslink doing this?
if they are, are the drivers, in general co-operating with short notice changes/ requests?
if they are not doing this, why not?

Again, I don’t see the relevance of that comparison.

The fundamental issue with TL has been a lack of drivers with knowledge of key bits of the network, specifically London Bridge (high level) - Blackfriars, the snow hill tunnels to the core and the Greenwich line/north Kent line. This has been made worse by the fact that depots have been moved/closed and many drivers’ routes have therefore changed.

If you don’t have enough drivers who sign the bits of the network necessary to run the service, it’s game over. No amount of playing around with things or chopping and changing will alter that.

The resultant disruption has itself perpetuated the problem because the only way drivers can learn route is to backseat in cabs and if no trains run over the routes for hours at a time (as was the case down the north Kent), that can’t happen. A driver route learning is a driver unable to drive a train elsewhere.

The reason this situation has come about is that the TOC has failed to arrange sufficient route learning despite years spent preparing for the new timetable. That, in turn, is because they don’t employ sufficient drivers in the first place to release enough for route learning and continue to run the service.

Why are you so convinced that this debacle is the fault of unions and uncooperative drivers?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I don't know about Thameslink, but at our place, drivers who can't cover their booked job for lack of route knowledge revert to 'spare' and can then be allocated any other work as long as it falls within the times of their original turn.

Generally, of course, the extent to which traincrew co-operate with this process, e.g. agreeing to come in earlier or to stay later when reverted to spare, depends largely on the extent of goodwill present and/or the size of the 'carrot' dangled!

There's only so much that can be achieved with that approach though, and it appears that the extent to which route knowledge is missing at Thameslink has just completely overcome efforts to work around it.

I see, so is part of the problem that the rotas aren't one road rotas?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Again, I don’t see the relevance of that comparison.

The fundamental issue with TL has been a lack of drivers with knowledge of key bits of the network, specifically London Bridge (high level) - Blackfriars, the snow hill tunnels to the core and the Greenwich line/north Kent line. This has been made worse by the fact that depots have been moved/closed and many drivers’ routes have therefore changed.

If you don’t have enough drivers who sign the bits of the network necessary to run the service, it’s game over. No amount of playing around with things or chopping and changing will alter that.

The disruption has itself perpetuated the problem because the only way drivers can learn route is to backseat in cabs and if no trains run for hours at a time (as was the case down the north Kent), that can’t happen. A driver route learning is a driver unable to drive a train elsewhere.

The reason this situation has come about is that the TOC has failed to arrange sufficient route learning despite years spent preparing for the new timetable. That, in turn, is because they don’t employ sufficient drivers in the first place to release enough for route learning and continue to run the service.

Why are you so convinced that this debacle is the fault of unions and uncooperative drivers?

where in my question was there any suggestion that it was the fault of unions/ uncooperative drivers? My question was to do with allocation of uncovered work {be that uncovered cos of hols/ sick or by booked driver not having relevant knowledge}. Tbh it is getting rather tiresome that any questioning of how rotas/ route learning / allocations work is met by a chorus of "how dare you attack the unions"

as I have repeatedly said, I am a layman trying to understand how the situation has come about, and whether there is anything that could be done to at least ease the situation... if you re-read my post you will see that I explained how bus allocations take place... and asked whether there are any parallels in the rail industry.

nb having re-read my post perhaps Q3 could have been worded better....if they{the supervisory staff} are not doing this, why not?

 

[Bromley boy]

where in my question was there any suggestion that it was the fault of unions/ uncooperative drivers?

The loaded question about whether drivers are cooperating!

For what it’s worth - they are. A colleague of mine who drives GTR services has, over the last few weeks, received incorrect and conflicting diagrams, several of which have included instructions to call at stations 700s are not cleared to call at for safety reasons.

He’s been given PIS codes which announce destinations the train isn’t going to so that he’s had to make announcements to override what the train is telling the passengers (700s won’t run within a PIS code, even if it’s the wrong one).

On more than one occasion he’s received a “wrong route”, called the signaller to query it only to find that the train he’s working has a different destination to the diagram supplied by the TOC.

He’s received extensive abuse from passengers for being the first train through a station in hours.

On other occasions he’s received no diagram at all and, according to agreed T’s and C’s, would have been well within his rights to refuse to drive the train (I would have done). He did so anyway because he wanted to try and provide a service.

where in my question was there any suggestion that it was the fault of unions/ uncooperative drivers? My question was to do with allocation of uncovered work {be that uncovered cos of hols/ sick or by booked driver not having relevant knowledge}. Tbh it is getting rather tiresome that any questioning of how rotas/ route learning / allocations work is met by a chorus of "how dare you attack the unions"

as I have repeatedly said, I am a layman trying to understand how the situation has come about, and whether there is anything that could be done to at least ease the situation... if you re-read my post you will see that I explained how bus allocations take place... and asked whether there are any parallels in the rail industry.

nb having re-read my post perhaps Q3 could have been worded better....if they{the supervisory staff} are not doing this, why not?

The point you seem to be missing is that there are physically not enough drivers route trained to run the TL timetable.

This has come about because the TOC has failed to plan properly.

As a layman, why can you not accept this?

 

[gsnedders]

I'm sorry people are thinking what they are thinking, I can assure everyone that I am not a journalist. I am however, trying to understand how route learning works. But I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that the unions have no input into how much route learning is given... So... anyone willing to explain how it is decided what is a reasonable amount of route learning? at what point, for example, would a manager be within their right to say to a driver who keeps saying they are not competent on a route that they have had enough training and disciplinary procedures are taken against the driver for failure to sign off a route?

{and please don't tell me there aren't drivers who use the rule books to their own advantage!}

I'm not a driver, but know some.

Things to note here: by accepting to take a train over a given route, the driver is accepting legal responsibility for safe operation for the train over that route. If they end up taking a diverging junction too fast and end up derailing, not knowing that those points have a given line speed for that direction, and ending up with a major accident, they could potentially tried for manslaughter by gross negligence. If a manager had forced a driver to sign a route (or, even just threatened consequences for them failing to do so) knowing the driver didn't believe themselves to know it well enough, they too could be found negligent, as could the corporate policy. As soon as there are consequences for refusing to sign a route, you encourage people who aren't competent to sign it, and that ends up with a culture of negligence which will eventually end in some major incident.

This is very different to driving any vehicle on the road (bus or otherwise): you're driving on sight, so you slow down to a speed such that you can ensure safe operation up to that point. As such, being put on a new route isn't a new risk: you're still driving on sight, at a speed such that you can ensure safe operation up to that point, just on a road you don't know (but it doesn't matter because you weren't driven beyond the distance you could see before).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The point you seem to be missing is that there are physically not enough drivers route trained to run the TL timetable.

This has come about because the TOC has failed to plan properly.

As a layman, why can you not accept this?

ok, please bear with me on this point... but why aren't there enough drivers route trained? I suppose the bit of the puzzle I can't work out is this...

before the changes I assume that Thameslink had enough route trained drivers to cover their routes, as did GN as did Southern... the service pattern has now changed, but that hasn't increased the number of drivers needed... just that not all the drivers know what they need to know to run the full route diagrams...

now I fully accept that the mess has been caused by management complacency... and I suppose what I can't fathom is why the situation can't be worked through by the management re-cutting the duties... and then fine tuning with daily re-allocations to ensure the maximum number of services run.

 

[Bromley boy]

ok, please bear with me on this point... but why aren't there enough drivers route trained? I suppose the bit of the puzzle I can't work out is this...

before the changes I assume that Thameslink had enough route trained drivers to cover their routes, as did GN as did Southern... the service pattern has now changed, but that hasn't increased the number of drivers needed... just that not all the drivers know what they need to know to run the full route diagrams...

now I fully accept that the mess has been caused by management complacency... and I suppose what I can't fathom is why the situation can't be worked through by the management re-cutting the duties... and then fine tuning with daily re-allocations to ensure the maximum number of services run.

It’s largely because the new network includes:

- brand new bits of route no drivers have signed previously (canal tunnels, London Bridge upper - Blackfriars);

- big changes to depot structure so that existing drivers will be driving over routes they have never driven (Luton drivers, some of whom are ex Bedford, and will have never driven via Greenwich and the north Kent to Rainham, for example, which was entirely southeastern previously).

The preview services operating since the spring were to be used to teach drivers London Bridge upper level. But clearly this wasn’t sufficient - presumably because not enough trains rain and/or GTR were unable to release sufficient drivers from their duties in order to learn routes.

When the time table went live in May there were nowhere near enough drivers trained up to drive the north Kent route, and virtually no great northern drivers signed the canal tunnels/the core.

It’s a complete and utter mess.

 

[gsnedders]

ok, please bear with me on this point... but why aren't there enough drivers route trained? I suppose the bit of the puzzle I can't work out is this...

before the changes I assume that Thameslink had enough route trained drivers to cover their routes, as did GN as did Southern... the service pattern has now changed, but that hasn't increased the number of drivers needed... just that not all the drivers know what they need to know to run the full route diagrams...

now I fully accept that the mess has been caused by management complacency... and I suppose what I can't fathom is why the situation can't be worked through by the management re-cutting the duties... and then fine tuning with daily re-allocations to ensure the maximum number of services run.

There's a number of factors here:

• Some routes (like Blackfriars to London Bridge) have more trains than before, and there aren't enough drivers trained for them, which means individual routes have increased the number of drivers needed for them. Some, as mentioned, are entirely new routes not signed by any drivers prior to this year (Canal Tunnels, most obviously).
• Scheduling is hard. (Like, really hard. In computational terms, at the scale of GTR, you probably can't find an optimal scheduling with a computer a thousand times quicker than we have today within the lifetime of the universe.)
• You can avoid some of the problems if you make drivers hand-over services more frequently (e.g., have one driver drive from Cambridge to Finsbury Park, one driver from Finsbury Park to Blackfriars, one driver from Blackfriars to London Bridge, one from London Bridge to Brighton), but then you have to allow time for the driver changes, add further risk of trains getting stuck because no driver is there able to take the train onwards (especially bad if you change at Finsbury Park and Blackfriars, where basically all services will get stuck until a driver appears!), and you then have to redo the entire schedule (see previous point: this is a hard problem).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It’s largely because the new network includes:

- brand new bits of route no drivers have signed previously (canal tunnels, London Bridge upper - Blackfriars);

- big changes to depot structure so that existing drivers will be driving over routes they have never driven (Luton drivers, some of whom are ex Bedford, and will have never driven via Greenwich and the north Kent to Rainham, for example, which was entirely southeastern previously).

The preview services operating since the spring were to be used to teach drivers London Bridge upper level. But clearly this wasn’t sufficient - presumably because not enough trains rain and/or GTR were unable to release sufficient drivers from their duties in order to learn routes.

When the time table went live in May there were nowhere near enough drivers trained up to drive the north Kent route, and virtually no great northern drivers signed the canal tunnels/the core.

It’s a complete and utter mess.

1st of all.... I agree fully that it is a complete and utter mess!

In effect the major problem is that there are brand new bits of route {canal tunnels/ remodelled London Bridge- Blackfriars} so, in part, are the problems due to late running engineering works?

and of course, these new bits of route are at key locations in the network!

this isn't probably the place to ask... but if there are key points where there is a problem why don't the TOC's announce a blockade at weekends with Rail Replacement buses so they can release drivers for intensive route learning?