Boltar wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

B2003



It's not the layout thats the problem, unlike driving a car though
drivers are supposed to know what to do when something goes wrong, there
is no AA or RAC, C Stock, D Stock and A Stock are very different, C and
A are probably the most similar, but there are massive differences
between them, the problem may be sorted by the introduction of the new
sub surface stock the S stock (make your own mind up what the s will
stand for)but the issue of route knowledge will remain, drivers are
supposed to drive all of their route once every 6 months.