Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2006 1:04:32 GMT
Will the S stock CTBC be similar to the 1992/1995/1996/2009 CTBC? Given the size of the stock and the fact that some D stock drivers like to stand behind the M door and drive with their left hand, how much flexibility will the choice of CTBC offer if the driver chooses an unusual driving position?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Nov 4, 2006 2:49:34 GMT
I believe the CTBC will not be part of the arm rest, but similar to the current D stock set up. AFAIK, "they" still haven't mind their minds up on wether it will be left or right handed  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2006 18:01:55 GMT
AFAIK, "they" still haven't mind their minds up on wether it will be left or right handed This seems to me to be a complete no-brainer. The driver sits on the left, so most of the switches, now and any future additions, will be on the left. So the TBC has to be on the right! |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Nov 5, 2006 2:54:10 GMT
Perhaps yourself and my other colleagues can email the upgrade team with your thoughts on this issue then?
I have already put my case across for a right handed CTBC - and judging by the feedback I have recieved (very good BTW), I am the only driver on the whole of SSR who has done so!
Come on colleagues!! - we need to stick together on this one and push for it, otherwise our future office could be less than perfect!! We could end up with something which has been decided by someone who has never done our job....
NOW is the time to act, as this issue is very active at this stage of the design process - it could be too late very soon!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 21:48:32 GMT
Agreed. This goes right back to the original statements made by prjb on this subject.
Will the S stock CTBC be like the D stock one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2006 23:11:54 GMT
Talking Of D stocks' CTBC, didnt someone find a fault with the Mock Up design? Apparently, someone managed to jam the handle in full parallel with the aid of a pin or match or summat... there was a small apeture at the base of the shaft holding the handle...
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Nov 6, 2006 2:40:51 GMT
Funny you should mention that  ;D ;D ;D @ TOK - as I said previously (reply #1), it will not be part of the armrest like the 90's series.....it will be part of the desk - the only current stock with a similar set up being the D stock. I don't believe it will be the same as the current D stock version, but it will be in a similar vein. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2006 16:21:07 GMT
Funny you should mention that ;D ;D ;D How so? Did the same mistake appear again? @ TOK - as I said previously (reply #1), it will not be part of the armrest like the 90's series.....it will be part of the desk - the only current stock with a similar set up being the D stock. I don't believe it will be the same as the current D stock version, but it will be in a similar vein. Blaargh - I can't read  |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Nov 6, 2006 20:56:42 GMT
This debate has been raging for quite some time now! MRSSL instruct BTUK to build a train according to LU standards, this is stipulated in the PPP contract. The problem is that LU do not have a standard (not even a Human Factors standard) which stipulates where the TBC must be positioned. So, effectively, as long as BTUK adhere to our standards and observe human factor guidelines then they can stick the CTBC where they like and still be compliant with their contractual obligations. We have made our feelings on this subject very clear and will be scrutinising any solution that is proposed. I am an ex-driver as is my boss, there are current drivers also involved in the form of your H&S Reps. The decision on location of the CTBC is still being decided and as soon as I have an update I will let you know. Our hands are tied on this one to a degree though.  |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Nov 7, 2006 9:11:43 GMT
Funny you should mention that ;D ;D ;D How so? Did the same mistake appear again? I'm not willing to divulge in the public arena - you have a PM Our hands are tied on this one to a degree though. Ah yes, come to think of it, I remember you telling me just how much 'hands are tied' on this one. Oh well, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the right outcome  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 12:59:20 GMT
Whilst appreciating that we must wait and see on this one ....as a general comment ...
Whilst the D stock arrangement is better than the preceding stocks ...
On an unrefurbished train I can't actually hold the train in parallel without either having the seat at a slight angle to get me closer or leaning forwards giving me back ache (and I don't have unusually short arms !).
On a refurbished train, the seat comes further forward so I can hold the train in parallel ...but the seat that close means there is no movement room at all for my legs which either have to be up on the heater or wedged at 90 degrees, an unnecessary strip of wood preventing that extra inch of movement room and the PEA override button digging into the bottom of your foot (you either stand on that anyway or get cramp from bending your left foot to one side of it). (So i still have to sit at an angle with the seat in it's former position)
In other words the ergonomics of the D stock cab are far from ideal, if better than predecessors, and this primarily stems from the CTBC being on the desk. The arrangement on 1992 stock with the CTBC on the chair is far more comfortable and satisfactory from my personal view ...but I presume upsets the "like to stand to drive" brigade.
The CTBC being left hand operated when most people are right handed would be plain daft !
Perhaps there should be more than one CTBC location for driver choice ? ? ? ? !!!
I hope any dead man arrangement will recognise that Train Drivers are not now all burly brutes fresh from mining coal !!! I gather there are regular complaints that C stock CTBC's are too hard to hold down (my rare operation of that stock meant I had to stand or I couldn't get the pressure on it ...and 1973 stock drivers often seem to be laying with a whole arm and body weight across it to hold it down.) Litigation following Repetitive Strain Injury may otherwise follow now people become more aware of their legal rights.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Nov 14, 2006 18:55:44 GMT
On an unrefurbished train I can't actually hold the train in parallel without either having the seat at a slight angle to get me closer or leaning forwards giving me back ache (and I don't have unusually short arms !). On a refurbished train, the seat comes further forward so I can hold the train in parallel ...but the seat that close means there is no movement room at all for my legs which either have to be up on the heater or wedged at 90 degrees, an unnecessary strip of wood preventing that extra inch of movement room and the PEA override button digging into the bottom of your foot (you either stand on that anyway or get cramp from bending your left foot to one side of it). (So i still have to sit at an angle with the seat in it's former position) In other words the ergonomics of the D stock cab are far from ideal, if better than predecessors, and this primarily stems from the CTBC being on the desk. The arrangement on 1992 stock with the CTBC on the chair is far more comfortable and satisfactory from my personal view ...but I presume upsets the "like to stand to drive" brigade. The cab and cab equipment is and will be designed to meet recognised human factors standards. LU (for once) have led the way for the rail industry here and are equal to the MOD in this area (nobody mention the SA80 please!). You are right though, not being able to stand and drive is widely unpopular and this has led us away from an armchair style controller. The CTBC being left hand operated when most people are right handed would be plain daft ! This arguement doesn't quite hold water. You cannot discriminate against any one group, even if 90% of the population is right handed. Rather, you must be able to prove that the final design is suited to all users. Besides which I am right handed and drove a 'C' Stock perfectly well for many years. Perhaps there should be more than one CTBC location for driver choice ? ? ? ? !!! Don't you start! ;D This has crossed our minds (briefly) to try and end the deadlock. I hope any dead man arrangement will recognise that Train Drivers are not now all burly brutes fresh from mining coal !!! I gather there are regular complaints that C stock CTBC's are too hard to hold down (my rare operation of that stock meant I had to stand or I couldn't get the pressure on it ...and 1973 stock drivers often seem to be laying with a whole arm and body weight across it to hold it down.) Litigation following Repetitive Strain Injury may otherwise follow now people become more aware of their legal rights. Again, with human factors standards in place, the design must fit a wide variety of users. Generally this means between 5th percentile female through to 95th percentile male. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 19:28:56 GMT
Will the S stock CTBC have holes in the handle to keep your hand from sweating and making it slippery?
I won't mention the fact that the cab aircon should prevent that and whoops, I just did! ;D
Seriously though, will it have some form of ergonomically-inspired non-slip grippy material on it? Or will those dirvers concerned about hygiene and traction (no pun intended!) simply continue to wear their driving glove?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 19:31:53 GMT
and hopefully it won't 'come away in my hand' ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 19:34:21 GMT
What they need to do is have a small air blower in the handle, if you're gonna have a holey one...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 19:36:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 19:37:17 GMT
or heated CTBC like a heated steering wheel in a Range Rover! genius! ATO promoted to upgrades ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 19:38:58 GMT
Where do you think I got my inspiration from then??? ;D
But, yes thats the thing; When the 92ts was first delivered the CTBC was just a bare metal pole. Many Ops complained it was difficult to keep grip for a long period of time, so the solution was to cover it in a rubbery/silicone 'sleeve'.. which doesn't actually improve things one iota... The only real and practical solution is to wear a driving glove...
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 14, 2006 20:01:21 GMT
Besides which I am right handed and drove a 'C' Stock perfectly well for many years. Every stock until the Ds required the driver to use their left hand either for the brake or for the CTBC. (I'm assuming that the layout of controls in pre-38s was a follow on from gate and other early stocks.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 20:45:23 GMT
Whilst I suppose I'd prefer a right sided arm rest CTBC, my main issue with the consol one on a D stock is how it interacts with the seat position and the depth of the foot well.
A consol mounted CTBC on S stock will still be OK, IF the consol is deep enough to stretch ones legs under it and the CTBC is at the front of the consol (ie. over your lap). After all surely no one has their computer keyboard at a full arms length away whilst having a leg room no deeper than the keyboard ?? !!
The D stock cab is a leap forwards in popularity to it's predecessors ...I assume in part because it and subsequent stocks are driven with the right hand ... though clearly left handed operators need to be able to drive them too !!
The D stock CTBC handle never gets sweaty or slippery ... though it is too fat ...but that material seems ideal for the handle !
Any handle with holes in would soon get full of yucky grime !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 21:09:10 GMT
Okay, abandon idea of 'holey' CTBC... maybe have an actual 'handle' with indentations for the fingers and a 'palm rest'? the 'deadman' application part could be a 'trigger' type button underneath, where your fingers would be...
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Nov 14, 2006 21:28:47 GMT
I think aspect has hit the proverbial nail on the head here, whatever the solution it has to be properly designed and fit for purpose. The issue of interaction between the operator and the controls are top of our list and we are making sure that everything is properly positioned. The real headache with the CTBC is getting it right for all users, which is where the importance of the seat and it's movement range is so key. unfortunately we have not yet been presented with a seat!
In the meantime I have insisted on having a series of meetings in Derby specifically to look at the positioning of buttons and other vital controls. Already BTUK have gone back to the drawing board for quite a few key controls due to our comments in these meetings. I really want this cab to be right, it would be nothing short of a disgrace if we don't produce a decent office for the drivers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2006 21:31:07 GMT
Just out of curiosity, will the S stock DSD be an NR-style one where the driver has to repeatedly 're-stroke' the deadman to provide additional confirmation that he is awake and alert?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Nov 15, 2006 21:35:55 GMT
The deadmans device will be in line with other such devices fitted to LU tube stock. The driver will need to re-stroke or an alarm wil be sent to the control centre.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by towerman on Nov 15, 2006 23:04:58 GMT
How does the OPO alarm work on ATO stock?The CTBC isn't touched when the train is in auto.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2006 0:29:31 GMT
How does the OPO alarm work on ATO stock?The CTBC isn't touched when the train is in auto. ATO stock do not have an alarm, I believe it is presumed the ATO will take the train to the next station in the case of an incapacitated driver where station staff can get assistance. (That said if the train is then in manual mode it doesn't quiet apply) Sub Surface stock do not have an alarm either, assistance can be provided by an adjacent train operator in the (mostly) twin track tunnels |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2006 0:33:20 GMT
I really want this cab to be right, it would be nothing short of a disgrace if we don't produce a decent office for the drivers. Despite the wishes and whines on here ....I have every faith in you sir !! Won't stop me trying to encourage it to be MY ideal office though ! lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I really must try to find time to contact the team properly rather than doing it all on here !!! |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by towerman on Nov 16, 2006 0:52:42 GMT
That's all very well,but supposing the T/Op became incapacitated somewhere like between Stratford-Mile End and the train fails to remotor after a signal stop,what happens then?I don't think you'd get many volunteers to walk up the track to the train,just in case it suddenly decides to start up again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2006 1:07:24 GMT
The deadmans device will be in line with other such devices fitted to LU tube stock. The driver will need to re-stroke or an alarm wil be sent to the control centre. Hmmmm, I feel you may have misunderstood me. When I refer to NR-style DSDs, I am referring to the driver's need to either push a foot pedal (i.e. in a locomotive) or press a button to acknowledge the DSD while the train is moving. If the DSD is not acknowledged the traction circuit is cut and the brakes are applied. The DSD I think you are talking about is the one-minute OPO alarm fitted to the deadman in existing stocks, which sounds when the train is stopped, the CTBC is in Off and Release or Hold and the deadman has been released. Will the S stock DSD combine these two features? That's all very well,but supposing the T/Op became incapacitated somewhere like between Stratford-Mile End and the train fails to remotor after a signal stop,what happens then?I don't think you'd get many volunteers to walk up the track to the train,just in case it suddenly decides to start up again. Good question, and one that I am also curious to see an answer for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2006 12:14:44 GMT
That's all very well,but supposing the T/Op became incapacitated somewhere like between Stratford-Mile End and the train fails to remotor after a signal stop,what happens then?I don't think you'd get many volunteers to walk up the track to the train,just in case it suddenly decides to start up again. I don't dispute your point ! I merely repeat my understanding of the position ! Same applies if the train is in ATO and stops with a fault between Mile End and Stratford and the driver becomes incapacitated. It would rely on control spotting the non-moving train, failing to get contact with the driver and getting the follwoing train to apply the rule and draw forward and access the stranded train from the rear if needs be then taking that train to the next station for help, whilst all subsequent trains apply the same procedure until service can be suspended in platforms until a spare train operator arrives. At least I am reasonably certain there is no OPO alarm on Central Line trains (now confirmed ...there IS in manual modes but not ATO mode), and I KNOW for certain there is not on the Victoria Line. I have a vague recollection that Central control can access the trains PA and call for staff or public to check on the driver ... or do i recollect it as a proposal (Also now confirmed ...they CAN do that). Can't do that on the Victoria Line though, and I am aware of an example where a Victoria Line train was stranded for over an hour with no communications (radio or tunnel telephone) between Finsbury Park and Seven Sisters before someone walked the track to the train to find out what was going on ...and that after the tunnel telephone wires had taken current off twice. |
|
;D ;D ;D
