|
|
Post by up1989 on Sept 13, 2016 13:00:32 GMT
It's only the berth of certain semi-automatic signals that drop the code out after a period of time. It's usually locations where there's points in the overlap, or a reversing move is possible from that position (e.g. a bi-directional platform) Yep, so sound advice to anyone is check, recheck and check again. The countdown can often give indication as to when signal will clear - around 18 secs left on countdown, but don't anticipate it. What we were taught at Ashfield house is SODOSO before trying to motor up. S -signal O- opo eqpt (mirrors/monitors) D-doors O-opo S-signal O-opo even on the Northen seltrac system I still run this through my head before either ato start or wind up in pm. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 13, 2016 13:40:04 GMT
Yep, so sound advice to anyone is check, recheck and check again. The countdown can often give indication as to when signal will clear - around 18 secs left on countdown, but don't anticipate it. What we were taught at Ashfield house is SODOSO before trying to motor up. S -signal O- opo eqpt (mirrors/monitors) D-doors O-opo S-signal O-opo even on the Northen seltrac system I still run this through my head before either ato start or wind up in pm. Gotta love the mnemonics, think this one must have came in after last time I was there. When I first did my motormans course the only one I remember is ATO - Air, Traction, Overloads for no movement, before it became PLATO, as we had no pilot light to check. On central line, there's a lot of afternoon glare on EB signals that are difficult to see, so the term 'in-cab signalling' was adopted, basically, your codes are your signal! |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Sept 13, 2016 14:20:52 GMT
we had quite a few, many of them were rude, but easy to remember, I am sure things have changed big time now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 16:38:16 GMT
I would love to comment but i wont
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 13, 2016 19:09:18 GMT
I would love to comment but i wont I hear you! We live in a society where experience in doing a job counts for very little indeed 😔 |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Sept 13, 2016 19:27:44 GMT
I would love to comment but i wont I hear you! We live in a society where experience in doing a job counts for very little indeed 😔 I would argue that isn't quite true. A lot of jobs ask for you to have experience already nowadays. The problems seem to be that managers are now no longer promoted up from the job which they now have to manage but were brought in from elsewhere (often trying to implement practices which don't work outside of management school) which leads to the situations you see above and hear about all too often. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 13, 2016 19:33:29 GMT
I hear you! We live in a society where experience in doing a job counts for very little indeed 😔 I would argue that isn't quite true. A lot of jobs ask for you to have experience already nowadays. The problems seem to be that managers are now no longer promoted up from the job which they now have to manage but were brought in from elsewhere (often trying to implement practices which don't work outside of management school) which leads to the situations you see above and hear about all too often. I think that was the point I was getting at |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 13, 2016 20:13:09 GMT
I would argue that isn't quite true. A lot of jobs ask for you to have experience already nowadays. The problems seem to be that managers are now no longer promoted up from the job which they now have to manage but were brought in from elsewhere (often trying to implement practices which don't work outside of management school) which leads to the situations you see above and hear about all too often. I think that was the point I was getting at To be fair, experience still does count for a fair bit on LU - indeed with training being pretty minimalist nowadays many parts of LU run on experience. But, there's no value in having the wrong kind of experience. 30 years experience is useless if the person has spent 30 years doing a task incorrectly - which despite all the competence management processes is still quite possible. Personally I'd prefer a well-trained member of staff over someone who is 'experienced' but doesn't actually know what they're doing. Sadly training has really been slimmed down in recent years, and sadly it shows. It's also worth adding that having 'been through the grades' doesn't automatically make someone good at their job in my view, although it often helps. I can think of plenty of such managers who are pretty awful, before and after any promotion they may have had. For me, the latter is the key point - the recruitment process should reward good people, and the performance management / training system should deal with poor people - in reality it often doesn't and can appear arbitrary at times. For example, I can think of a train crew depot where at one time all three Train Operations Standards Managers came directly from the stations side, with predictably negative results. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 13, 2016 21:08:57 GMT
I think that was the point I was getting at To be fair, experience still does count for a fair bit on LU - indeed with training being pretty minimalist nowadays many parts of LU run on experience. But, there's no value in having the wrong kind of experience. 30 years experience is useless if the person has spent 30 years doing a task incorrectly - which despite all the competence management processes is still quite possible. Personally I'd prefer a well-trained member of staff over someone who is 'experienced' but doesn't actually know what they're doing. Sadly training has really been slimmed down in recent years, and sadly it shows. It's also worth adding that having 'been through the grades' doesn't automatically make someone good at their job in my view, although it often helps. I can think of plenty of such managers who are pretty awful, before and after any promotion they may have had. For me, the latter is the key point - the recruitment process should reward good people, and the performance management / training system should deal with poor people - in reality it often doesn't and can appear arbitrary at times. For example, I can think of a train crew depot where at one time all three Train Operations Standards Managers came directly from the stations side, with predictably negative results. In my spare time I teach and am also an elite player development rugby coach for a Premiership side. My philosophy is very much an athlete centred 'experience' approach. I subscribe to the method that we must bring people to the point of 'unconscious competence', this is where experience lies. The majority of athletes start at a point of 'unconscious incompetence' and it is my job to move them through the levels of competence so they are doing without thinking, this is where I believe experience lies. First stage is 'conscious incompetence' where they basically now know what it is they have to do, but aren't competent to do it. Next is 'conscious competence' where they think about what they're doing and are doing it competently. Finally is 'unconscious competence' where skill and experience lies, the athlete does it to a high level of competence naturally and doesn't have to think about it. Agreed, experience alone isn't everything, after all, we could be doing something extremely well, but we're not doing the right thing I.e. Bad habits, shortcuts etc. Where going through the grades doesn't automatically make you good at something, and agreed, it is down to the trainer/coach to identify this in training needs. However, for me as a T/op, I'd say it took me about 2yrs to operate at unconscious competence, where I could feel something not quite right, I maybe couldn't explain why I felt it, yet I was invariably correct in my feelings and automatically knew how to deal with it. I would say I've learnt as much - if not more - about the job by doing it as I have in training. Lets not forget, also, that ATOR/5 day block training is a relatively new system of training. Where the company is at, at the moment, and accepted in society is where I'd look at a rugby player whose big, athletic, strong minded (behaviours) and say he/she ticks off requirements so I'm going to pick them over someone who is a proven player, but doesn't show the same attributes. Granted, he may be able to play Rugby but in terms of added value, it's more than likely that the inclusion of the player puts the team back several steps, and more often than not, the player never lives up to expectations. The company has plenty of opportunity for development interventions, and in some cases, I'm sure they use them to the fullest, but I've never witnessed it in my time on the job. As for my lot, I'm a qualified teacher, I've applied many times to become an L&D trainer - something I could very easily do, AND the company wouldn't have to spend money training me either as I hold all the required certs. The feedback I receive when I'm unsuccessful is poor at best, my PD never acknowledges it, saying I need to gain experience with L&D in a classroom environment in my own time, trouble is, in my own time I'm already gaining all the experience I can get teaching. As old John Littlerichard (yes I know that isn't his real name) would say "You couldn't make it up!" |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 14, 2016 7:03:54 GMT
It's also worth adding that having 'been through the grades' doesn't automatically make someone good at their job in my view, although it often helps. I can think of plenty of such managers who are pretty awful, before and after any promotion they may have had. !" This is the well-known "Peter Principle" (formulated by Lawrence Peter in 1969) that "the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence." The consequences of this are that "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties", and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." It can be that the required skills are different, but not more difficult. For example, an excellent engineer may be a poor manager because they might not have the interpersonal skills necessary to lead a team. It can also mean that the person who is best at the specialist skill gets to spend little time doing it because they spend all their time on admin and management. Likewise, a PhD may not make a good teacher if they can't think down to his pupils' level of comprehension. we must bring people to the point of 'unconscious competence', Definition of an amateur: someone who practices until they can get it right. Definition of a professional: someone who practices until they can't get it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 14, 2016 7:58:58 GMT
we must bring people to the point of 'unconscious competence', Definition of an amateur: someone who practices until they can get it right. Definition of a professional: someone who practices until they can't get it wrong. Indeed, practice doesn't make perfect unless it's perfect practice, and the trouble with perfect practice is it needs constant drilling and in a world of instant gratification if something isn't mastered right this minute now, then someone is to blame. The road to Ithaca, people want to reach the destination so eagerly that they miss the experience of the journey 😉 As for definitions, having watched the professionals of West Ham on Saturday, I'd argue this lol |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 14, 2016 9:44:37 GMT
Yep, so sound advice to anyone is check, recheck and check again. The countdown can often give indication as to when signal will clear - around 18 secs left on countdown, but don't anticipate it. What we were taught at Ashfield house is SODOSO before trying to motor up. S -signal O- opo eqpt (mirrors/monitors) D-doors O-opo S-signal O-opo even on the Northen seltrac system I still run this through my head before either ato start or wind up in pm. Even as we enter a more automated era, it is still vital - and likely more difficult - to maintain vigilance. It's easy to pass over responsibility to machines, who knows what will occur come the much talked about 'technological singularity', human/tech hybrids maybe? We plug ourselves into the train in order to validate journeys? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 9:56:25 GMT
This has been a lot of fun, but as a signals fan, I'd appreciate it if we could drift back to the topic. Ta 
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Sept 14, 2016 10:50:31 GMT
This has been a lot of fun, but as a signals fan, I'd appreciate it if we could drift back to the topic. Ta Indeed, hence last post. As for the signals on the Central line, by and large the term 'in cab signalling' is generally used. It is certainly what the company want us to see it as. Here's an interesting fact, the central line GM about 11 yrs ago wanted to take us into what has called the 'upper echelons of automation', he asked for a SRSC to apply more reliance on the 'in cab signalling' term, his view was that if its claimed that we have in cab signalling, then that is where the driver should look for his/her signal, NOT outside, so Technically, a driver should be able to operate the train with the blinds pulled down. The ensuing OS process saw a proposed procedure that was much like: - Codes drop to zero - Top knocks handle out and awaits return of code As you can imagine, the procedure never saw the light of day. I think there was a point being made though by the GM that was even in an automated system, we still need someone watching! |
|
