Driver Competencies

Sounds like a poorly A3, just goes to show black 5s will keep going forever!

 

It'll keep going as long as the crew can, but these things don't get better with use.

 

It is interesting because I was flicking through an old copy of Modern Railways today and there was a Cecil J Allen piece which began by describing the crew who had brought the train in as quote 'a bunch of useless layabouts' before going onto praise the subsequent crew. It struck me that there was no thought about why the loco might have arrived in a particular state, the mechanical condition of a loco, the context in which the crew had taken over the loco etc etc. It was just 'oh arrives in this state, must be the fault of the crew'. Nursing a loco with limited water supply, leaking tubes etc to a water stop is more impressive than doing however many MPH up or down a bank. The more Allen I read the more I dislike it. Nice as a historical record but the commentary...

 

In a way its similar to the stories that a wrong un was often still a wrong un even after overhaul with many new parts.

 

The other main line problem is that crews passed for steam have not necessarily signed for the particular road to be taken, and problems arise as a result. The classic example was 2968 on 'The Welsh Dragon', Port Talbot to Salop on 18 October 1997.The driver and fireman were from Crewe and had never worked the line. They were therefore provided with a conductor driver. I understand that this young lad had signed the road only a few weeks previously and had never been on a steam loco footplate before. The only man familiar with both steam and the road was the owners' representative, Alun Rees, who had been a fireman at one of the South Wales sheds and had regularly worked over it back in the day. Back then, the load limit for a Class 5 was seven bogies for 240 tons; it didn't help that this train was only slightly overloaded at nine bogies, including the generator coach, for 365 tons.

When Alun saw the fire preparation being made before the start, he told the fireman that he needed a lot more on than that, to be told, "We're the professionals, we know what we're doing." Alun's reply of, "Suit yourselves, but you'll stick," was an accurate prophecy. It happened on the 1 in 60 of Cynghordy Viaduct; pressure was well up but the fireman had mortgaged the boiler to the point where a stop was necessary. Once done, it was realised that a restart on that gradient and curvature was out of the question, so they set back three miles to straight track on a mere 1 in 8o gradient. The driver restarted with full second valve and the lever right down in full gear, and ran the boiler too low again at exactly the same spot.

Another blow up and another set back saw Alun take the regulator. While he had to be rather forceful, he didn't thrash it like the Crewe man did; they reached the summit and stopped for another refill of the boiler, finally departing the summit 182 minutes late.

There were many repercussions over the incident. Railtrack should never have allowed that overload, but even so, had Alun's advice been heeded, she probably would have made it to the top; she restarted the train twice and eventually made the summit without assistance. The conductor driver wasn't to blame; he drove multiple units and had no idea how that load, gradients and curvature would affect a steam engine, but in those circumstances he should not have been given that duty. But ultimately, the driver and fireman ignored the advice of the owners representative, who generally does know the engine and how to work it.

 

I wouldn't say that's ironic, I'd say that's logical. If you're used to running 6 coaches at 25mph, that has a huge amount less demand and more room for error than if you take the same loco and hang 12 behind it at 75mph. Therefore you can afford to be more complacent in the former scenario, even if you don't realise it. To then take that same attitude and technique put it into a scenario which requires many steps up in terms of ability and knowledge, there are bound to be those who struggle to adjust, especially if they're used to feeling very on top of things on the heritage route they've grown up on. Especially if you're used to tank engines or small tender engines with a small, narrow box, and you suddenly find yourself on a big Pacific with twice the grate area, a significantly greater proportion of which you physically cannot see.

 

Surely there must be some minimum period between signing for a road and being competent to conduct?
Pat

 

Can't see why. If you know the road, you know the road, you sign it and are able to drive over it. You're doing exactly the same when a conductor driver: driving over the route. You aren't teaching the booked driver.

 

But in the instance you’ve mentioned it was the conductor’s first time on a steam loco’s footplate, there’s quite a difference between handling a Stanier Mogul and a 150xxx multiple unit over the same route. Surely a day of familiarisation at the SVR could have been arranged beforehand?

 

What happens with a conductor driver/driver relationship, I assume that the conductor in this case could do little more than provide basic advice regrading the ups and downs and curves of the route along with speed limits and signal locations?

 

Yes, his job is to follow the signals, speed limits, and so on. Unless things have changed, the conductor would usually take the controls, but these days of diesels and electrics he might not be passed for the traction, in which case the booked driver controls the train and the conductor pre-warns him of signals ahead, speed limits coming up, etc. He doesn't need to be familiar with the class of engine; he's there for his route knowledge, that's all.

That's how it was. If that's no longer the case, I'm sure someone will let us know.

 

That story may help explain why some passenger operators apparently operate a policy of only allowing conductors who sign the traction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Conducting is a bit of a dark art, especially on steam. Anyone conducting steam really should have a basic understanding of it if you want to avoid problems. Having some idea of steam footplate etiquette and pitfalls is the first thing you need. Usually, you have to conduct both the driver and the fireman. Helping the fireman is probably of greater importance than the driver, he really needs to be informed when the regulator is likely to be shut, gradient changes and braking areas so he can get the best out of the boiler safely. As a driver, I really dislike being conducted, it is very hard to get the train to 'flow' as the nuances of the route are inevitably missed. Performance where the driver and fireman sign the road is usually better.

No route is the same, working steam over the West Highlands is a very different proposition to working steam over the Midland and the knowledge you need is very different. The basic standards are just that, however there is still an onus on the diligent railwayman to keep improving his knowledge and understanding.

 

Can I like this part of your post more than once and substitute the term railwayman with person? Because I’m of the belief that every day you can pick up and learn something new, whatever your job is.

 

What’s wrong with the term railwayman?

 

I think the idea is that the principle isn't limited just to a railway context, but as applicable to all areas of life

 

From my limited experience, I would like to add a few general comments.
This will, hopefully be my 50:th year on the footplate of a now 7 miles narrow gauge railway.
We have over the years taken a number of new locos into service and rebuilt/extended our line several times.
My conclusion is that a new loco you learn in a few days on the footplate.
But, even a short line like ours takes several dozens of days to learn. To get the real flow in both driving and firing, you have to learn the line so well that you exactly know how much to open up or shovel at the exactly right spot. And some never learn...
We have the (from your perspective) the odd situation to have manual braking. Double redundant braking systems, as I prefer to view it.
Training as a brakesman is a very good way to be introduced and learn the basics as a railway man/woman.
From my experience, those that really learn how to brake the train well, i.e. "driving" from the rear end, will almost always also become good footplate persons. Both firing and eventually driving.
In training as brakesmen, they both learn the line well and are able to feel the speed (we have no speedometers). And most of all are able to judge the braking of the train to stand still at the right spot.

I remember an event some years ago. A colleague of mine had a (professional) visitor from another country in the cab of a diesel. The visitor made some remarks about the lack of continuous train brakes. Approaching the terminal station my colleague stood back and crossed his arms and did nothing. The train stopped a few yards short of the stop sign on the platform. Training is a long process.