Steam Drivers

On the K&ESR we already give drivers a briefing on locos when they enter/re-enter traffic or when visiting locos arrive. However we don't do a full competence assessment on all classes as yet but the competence assessment does cover off differences with different locos. For example if an assessment is done on a loco with a pole revers the driver will be questioned on risks with a screw or steam reverser. It sounds like this won't be enough, it will be interesting to read the full guidance. I think that there will be issues with the drivers that have limited availability and the movement may lose several because they simply won't do enough turns to keep them up to date with assessments. I suspect that in the future drivers will be either paid or limited to volunteers who can make a commitment of 50+ days a year.

 

I don’t see why this is being made out to be a huge issue just yet, because we have little information to go on.

Firstly, the bulletin mentions classes so we can at the present time assume it means exactly that (perhaps unless there are major differences like the braking systems example Jamessquared mentions above). So standard four tanks, for example, count as one. Secondly it only refers to Drivers.

Question One, do existing drivers get ‘grandfather rights’ (or a period to certify all existing drivers before this comes in), meaning that this only applies to new / trainee drivers?

If so, then does it just mean that, during training, I need to spend a day on each engine then in traffic and be able to answer questions about each one in my test? I imagine many lines already do this. On the IWSR we have Austerity, A1x, O2 and ‘Ajax’ with Ivatt 2mt before too long. In my driver training I have thus far worked on Austerity and A1x, if or when I need time on the O2 this needs to be accommodated but is not going to be that hard to arrange. When the Ivatt is ready I will then need to spend time on it and be classed as competent either as part of training or once it is ready. But an Ivatt 2mt is a superheated, outside valve gear, physically larger engine with a Midland brake and is very different to the inside cylinder saturated locos we have otherwise, so some sort of conversion briefing does seem like a good idea...and most lines will already give training in this scenario.

Question Two, does ‘class competency’ expire and what are the implications for re-certification?

Last month I had my first turn on an A1x since, if I remember right, 2010. No fault of mine or the railway, just that on the days I worked, the only in-traffic example was either not running or was on the other service train. So, if this can happen relatively easily, under this directive will my theoretical competency to drive an A1x expire and when? Do I need a re-assessment or just to work on this class for a day to keep this in date? Do I need periodic re-certification to keep my competency current on each class or just my overall ‘driving competence’ (as is the case today) and what form would this take?

I think a line only needs to worry about the in-service locos to start with and the list will then populate itself as new classes of engine come in (which does not happen that often). I doubt the Bluebell has to worry about who worked on the Adams 25 years ago especially as it may be another 25 before anybody does again, just when it comes back the drivers will need some sort of certification on it. So I do not think the admin burden is that great, but the training and assessment load may be depending on how long we have to implement it.

If this is just an attempt to bring ‘best practice’ from the diesel driving world into ours, there must be people on this board who are diesel drivers on heritage railways, could we have some posts explaining how you deal with this issue please?

 

wonder how long it is before we need to do this when driving cars ?

 

Martin,
1. How often do you need refeshers?
2. Do you have an assessment day on each or just time during initial training on each type and a generic assessment?
3. Out of interest, how many classes in service and how many drivers?
4. Do you have drivers 'trained' on different types as a regular thing and therefore does the roster clerk have to watch this?
Thanks

 

It will be interesting to see what happens once the Churnet Valley's USA gains main-line accredition with regard to the training of footplate crew(s) as the "grandfather rights" - if any - were presumably lost sometime in the 1940s.

 

Maybe they will have to hire Polish or Chinese drivers..

 

I can speak from my experience of the NYMR on this. I am only passed to drive Cl 24 & 25v diesels so, on any day that I am rostered, if it is going to be a diesel (generally as a substitute for steam), control has to ensure that a suitable loco is available at the end of the line from which I am going to start; either that or provide another driver to undertake that part of my duty which will require me to drive a diesel. With regard to steam locos, loco duties are generally only finalised the night before for a variety of valid reasons, but crew rosters are published a couple of weeks in advance. The need to juggle loco availability and crew competence would be a nightmare of organisation if individuals were passed for individual locos.

 

That won't help - 6046 came from Hungary if I recall correctly

 

In my view this is a nonsense. The variability to concentrate on is the equipment fitted, not the loco class. So steam reverser, hydrostat, etc etc etc. There is more similarity between an rebuilt WC and a standard 5 than between the rebuilt and unrebuilt WC. This guidance is tackling an ill defined problem, in an illogical fashion. The perception that diesel training is "best practice" and should be translated to steam misunderstands both the nature of the problem and the nature of the differences between the two traction types. Only my view of course. I don't think it is overstating things to say that this is the sort of regulation that has the potential to derail the heritage railway movement. What a pity that it is the Heritage Railway Association that is responsible.

 

Has this guidance already been published or is it yet to be drafted in detail?

 

This would appear to be analagous to the Highway Code whereby the Highway Code is NOT a legal requirement BUT breach of the Highway Code regulations is acknowledged as an admission of liability.

That is all very well but the Highway Code which was the basis of my driving test in 1970 is NOT the same as the Highway Code which was the basis of my children's driving test some 40 years later. In fact in some cases the procedures conflict hence my children claiming that I should now be banned from driving whereas I claim to be a better driver because the new rules are dangerous !! A case in point is the procedure for right turns; in my day the driver was advised to straddle the white line so that traffic could flow both on left and right sides of the car but today the driver is advised to keep to the left hand side of that white line thereby (on narrower roads) blocking traffic from behind until the turn can be completed. I adopt the "old way" but my children claim it to be dangerous - if not illegal.

Turning back to the possible future railway procedures I would hope that there will be some discussion before they are introduced as it is important to realise that (a) there needs to be different standards for heritage line and main line operation and (b) the heritage line(s) will need to have more robust documentation than many currently appear to maintain. The main consequence I foresee is an increased cost in terms of time; finance and staff availability; can / will the movement afford such costs ??

 

Sorry I do not quite understand you.

"Refreshers...are generic after initial specific training on type" - I read that as you have a single, generic refresher per year once you are qualified, however your training includes an element on each particular class.

That sounds exactly what we have on the IWSR for steam at the moment, however ours is an annual competency assessment rather than a 'refresher' which suggests some element of training.

What would we do differently?

 

Not yet published. I don't know the status of the draft.

 

No problem on the main line as according to Network Rail ALL steam locos already belong to just one class - they are all class 98!

 

90% of steam drivers at Preserved Railways will not be affected by this new Guidance. But the people who manage their competence will have to do a bit more work to set up a spreadsheet listing competence on each type of loco the individuals are deemed competent to operate. And maintain that record on a regular basis. Grandfather rights are a tried and tested way to avoid re-inventing the wheel....
The 10% who may have something to prove are: firemen on the verge of being promoted to driver, newly qualified drivers and the complete idiots who shouldn't be allowed near a railway, let alone driving a valuable, historic locomotive.
And of course it's those 10% that management should be spending at least 50% of their "staff management" time in helping the new ones get better, and finding a polite way to dispense with the idiots.

 

You misunderstand me. This guidance seems to be being written around training for each class. Both the rebuilts and unrebuilts are of the same class, though clearly very different. My view is that the training should focus on common "components of control" items of equipment that may be common to a number of classes . I too would imagine that a sensible and rational approach would see the two types of Bulleid treated differently, but that isn't what it says yet, and I was merely using the class to illustrate the point. I agree that crew training "in general" could be improved. It always can be. It is how we go about that objective that will determine how easy or otherwise it is to achieve the objective.

I agree that crew competent on specific types would have avoided several incidents. I think that TYPE is the operative word here, and not CLASS. Familiarity with the TYPE, era, company, braking system, and other general characteristics too innumerable to list here, in other words the common features found across a number of classes of a particular TYPE. Yes that makes absolute sense, and is what some railways (e.g. SVR) already do. Try to carry out the same training by class, and then assess competence on a sufficiently regular basis, and that is quite another matter altogether. Much more complicated, and it is an over complication, the proverbial sledge hammer to crack a nut.

If class is the basis for the guidance, then we will have the situation where a driver who is passed to drive a 57XX would not be able to drive a 16XX or a 94XX. I could drive a U but not an N, and an S15, but not an N15, a std5, std 9 and std 4 tank, but neither a 2-6-0 nor a 4-6-0 version of the std 4. I could drive both rebuilt and unrebuilt Bulleid light pacifics but not a Merchant Navy. An Ivatt class 2 tank, but not the tender version, or its std cousin. A 42XX would be no problem, but the 72XX would leave me stumped apparently. A King would be fine, but not a Hall or a Castle, and whilst a 43XX would be ok the Manor would not. Luckily for me both A4s and A1s would get a tick, but the A3 would not (which probably isn't a big problem really). I could go on, but I am already being exceptionally boring. Yet all these pairs are substantially very similar if not the same in layout and general handling. That is my point. I am all for continuous crew training improvement, but guidance as drafted, isn't going to help us to do a better job. It simply panders to a particular agenda that I think is overly simplistic in its thinking. I will take some convincing that training by class is necessary in the sense that it would significantly reduce the risk of operation beyond that level that could be achieved through training by TYPE. If someone can set out a good case as to why that is so, then I am very happy to listen to it, but at present I am feel that we can achieve as low a level of risk by type training, and in the process considerably reduce the burden of undertaking the improvement in crew standards.

 

I wonder what would happen at galas as well, or whether they could continue to operate in the variety we currently know?

For example, with the exception of "the one that got away" to the KESR, the Bluebell has a monopoly on SECR locos, at least those likely ever to steam. They have certain significant differences to many other locos: notably a steam reverser which has its quirks both in preparation and operation, as well as being right-hand drive; having notably free-steaming boilers, slow injectors, a lot of water lift when the regulator is opened. Nothing too complicated once you are used to them, but clearly distinct in their own ways.

So imagine one went on loan to a railway more familiar with Standards, Bulleids and so on. How would competence work? Presumably the host line might be compelled to have an owner's rep riding on the loco for the duration of the gala. Add in driver, fireman and third man, and the cab of, say, a P or an H is getting pretty crowded - certainly to the detriment of the fireman's room for manoeuvre! (And not just a P: imagine a 45xx going to a line unused to such types, and needing a fourth person in the cab all day...)

Tom