RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > UK Railway Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12th August 2017, 11:54   #13231
Edinburgh2000
New Member
 
Join Date: 28 Apr 2017
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisgr31 View Post
Train drivers need to do route knowledge because they do not drive on line of sight.

The actual process of driving a train and getting it to stop and start might be simple but, as ever, that's not the difficult part. The skill comes in stopping it in the right place time and time again irrespective of the conditions.
Careful where you are going with that argument. You are making the case for automated driving of all fast trains. Tram drivers, for example, need to use their judgement based on what they see from their windscreen. You are saying that high speed train drivers are automotons and simply perform pre-programmed actions based on their route knowledge, their knowledge of the weather, and the state of the lineside signals, something a machine could do much more reliably. If drivers cannot stop in the distance they can see, they are adding no more safety than a machine can.
Edinburgh2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 12th August 2017, 12:11   #13232
otomous
Member
 
Join Date: 5 Oct 2011
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edinburgh2000 View Post
Careful where you are going with that argument. You are making the case for automated driving of all fast trains. Tram drivers, for example, need to use their judgement based on what they see from their windscreen. You are saying that high speed train drivers are automotons and simply perform pre-programmed actions based on their route knowledge, their knowledge of the weather, and the state of the lineside signals, something a machine could do much more reliably. If drivers cannot stop in the distance they can see, they are adding no more safety than a machine can.
No, he is saying that route knowledge is required for drivers to adapt to changing conditions and that is harder to do with a heavy fast moving vehicle that cannot stop in the distance the driver can see.
otomous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 13:09   #13233
Dave1987
Established Member
 
Join Date: 20 Oct 2012
Posts: 3,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDM View Post
Agree absolutely. ASLEF are forcing the government & rail industry to go down the driverless path. If only Aslef could agree to train drivers being as flexible & productive as bus & lorry drivers then there would be no need for driverless trains except on metro lines & reserved freight routes. There are many in ASLEF who are sensible & pragmatic, I wish they could persuade the few ASLEF dinasaurs that their obduracy will do their children & them out of train driving jobs. Look what is happening in Sydney australia. A new quite long distance commuter line is coming into service very soon without any staff aboard, because Sydney's ASLEF equivalent refused to allow DOO. Take heed! There are very close links between Australian & UK rail management.
I would not normally respond to posts like this but feel I need to respond to the inaccuracies in your post again. Wow you really do have something against drivers don't you! Drivers are not forcing the Government into going driverless at all. As much as I'm sure some Tory right wing politicians would love to see drivers on the dole queue for daring to stand up for themselves it isn't going to happen any time soon. David Waboso (the head of Digital Railway) has said driverless trains present some serious problems that would need to be overcome. If the Government aims to put everyone that hates them out of a job then the economy will collapse. For a supporter of Government that is supposed to be about "jobs jobs jobs" you and your fellow right wingers seem very keen to put people on the dole.
__________________
My opinions are my own.......
Dave1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 13:29   #13234
pompeyfan
Established Member
 
Join Date: 24 Jan 2012
Posts: 1,083
Default

To be fair it's the first post by XDM that hasn't trashed guards (probably not worth their effort). It would seem the general gist of the conversation is 'do as we say or we'll find a way to get rid of you'
pompeyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 13:35   #13235
313103
Established Member
 
313103's Avatar
 
Join Date: 13 May 2006
Posts: 1,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1987 View Post
I would not normally respond to posts like this but feel I need to respond to the inaccuracies in your post again. Wow you really do have something against drivers don't you! Drivers are not forcing the Government into going driverless at all. As much as I'm sure some Tory right wing politicians would love to see drivers on the dole queue for daring to stand up for themselves it isn't going to happen any time soon. David Waboso (the head of Digital Railway) has said driverless trains present some serious problems that would need to be overcome. If the Government aims to put everyone that hates them out of a job then the economy will collapse. For a supporter of Government that is supposed to be about "jobs jobs jobs" you and your fellow right wingers seem very keen to put people on the dole.
Guards are hated more by this poster then drivers, so i think you are alright for the time being. He/she will like drivers more if the pesky so and so's didn't have the temerity to support the guards and oppose DOO in its current form.
__________________
If you fight you won't always win. But if you dont fight you will always lose. Bob Crow
313103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 13:45   #13236
Carlisle
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Aug 2012
Posts: 1,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOban View Post
I don't know what can be done. But can I repeat. We have an overall transport system which is dangerous and polluting because the railway may be safe, but is too expensive for most purposes.
I'm afraid that's largely true , I know a couple of DBS drivers due for voluntarily severance shortly, so clearly the industry has failed miserably to replace its lost coal traffic with any type of new business

Last edited by Carlisle; 12th August 2017 at 13:48.
Carlisle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 14:01   #13237
pompeyfan
Established Member
 
Join Date: 24 Jan 2012
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlisle View Post
I'm afraid that's largely true , I know a couple of DBS drivers due for voluntarily severance shortly, so clearly the industry has failed miserably to replace its lost coal traffic with any type of new business
Out of interest, how is the cost to transport a rake of intermodal containers broken down?

You'd have to pay for driver, shunter, loading, unloading, fuel, track access? Is there anything else? Which of the above is the biggest cost? I'd put money on it not being staff... how do you reduce those other costs?
pompeyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 14:26   #13238
otomous
Member
 
Join Date: 5 Oct 2011
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlisle View Post
I'm afraid that's largely true , I know a couple of DBS drivers due for voluntarily severance shortly, so clearly the industry has failed miserably to replace its lost coal traffic with any type of new business
Maybe because it is not given the same freedoms as the road lobby. It doesn't have unrestricted access to the rail network. It can't keep increasing the size of its wagons. It's not a level playing field!
otomous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 14:46   #13239
Carlisle
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Aug 2012
Posts: 1,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otomous View Post
Maybe because it is not given the same freedoms as the road lobby. It doesn't have unrestricted access to the rail network. It can't keep increasing the size of its wagons. It's not a level playing field!
Yes, I'm sure they're all longstanding major contributing factors too, that probably won't change unless a future government decides at some point to vastly increase the charges on lorries

Last edited by Carlisle; 12th August 2017 at 14:56.
Carlisle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 14:54   #13240
BestWestern
Established Member
 
BestWestern's Avatar
 
Join Date: 6 Feb 2011
Posts: 5,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDM View Post
Agree absolutely. ASLEF are forcing the government & rail industry to go down the driverless path. If only Aslef could agree to train drivers being as flexible & productive as bus & lorry drivers then there would be no need for driverless trains except on metro lines & reserved freight routes. There are many in ASLEF who are sensible & pragmatic, I wish they could persuade the few ASLEF dinasaurs that their obduracy will do their children & them out of train driving jobs. Look what is happening in Sydney australia. A new quite long distance commuter line is coming into service very soon without any staff aboard, because Sydney's ASLEF equivalent refused to allow DOO. Take heed! There are very close links between Australian & UK rail management.
Nobody within ASLEF thinks that Drivers shouldn't have proper route knowledge, and I very much doubt many TOC managers think their Drivers should have no traction knowledge. Sit, do nothing and wait for the RAC is not a clever option when a technical failure is blocking a main line.

As for your staffless trains in Sydney, we are already building lines encompassing ATO which had nothing to do with DOO disputes. There is a world of difference between a brand new, purpose built line and the idea of doing away with competent crew for purely cost reasons on the existing network. Anybody with a more knowledgeable and less tediously political viewpoint than your own will tell you that.

Last edited by BestWestern; 12th August 2017 at 15:00.
BestWestern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 17:47   #13241
furnessvale
Established Member
 
Join Date: 14 Jul 2015
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlisle View Post
Yes, I'm sure they're all longstanding major contributing factors too, that probably won't change unless a future government decides at some point to vastly increase the charges on lorries
What you mean is stop subsidising HGVs to the tune of 70% of operating costs.

This subsidy is provided by the private motorist who, if asked, I am certain would prefer some of that subsidy to be diverted to railfreight giving the motorist a clearer run on the roads.
furnessvale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 18:05   #13242
Carlisle
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Aug 2012
Posts: 1,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furnessvale View Post
What you mean is stop subsidising HGVs to the tune of 70% of operating costs.

This subsidy is provided by the private motorist who, if asked, I am certain would prefer some of that subsidy to be diverted to railfreight giving the motorist a clearer run on the roads.
I'm pretty certain they would too, providing the costs of the goods being carried didn't have to rise significantly in order to achieve it
Carlisle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 18:42   #13243
furnessvale
Established Member
 
Join Date: 14 Jul 2015
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlisle View Post
I'm pretty certain they would too, providing the costs of the goods being carried didn't have to rise significantly in order to achieve it
No reason why the cost should rise. Subsidy could be cost neutral. The total subsidy to rail domestic intermodal, for environmental benefits of rail, is currently gbp15.5m, which in road terms is peanuts.
furnessvale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 19:16   #13244
bramling
Established Member
 
Join Date: 5 Mar 2012
Location: South East
Posts: 2,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edinburgh2000 View Post
Careful where you are going with that argument. You are making the case for automated driving of all fast trains. Tram drivers, for example, need to use their judgement based on what they see from their windscreen. You are saying that high speed train drivers are automotons and simply perform pre-programmed actions based on their route knowledge, their knowledge of the weather, and the state of the lineside signals, something a machine could do much more reliably. If drivers cannot stop in the distance they can see, they are adding no more safety than a machine can.
Not necessarily - the driver may have already used his route knowledge to determine a need to drive at a lower speed for whatever reason. One of the good things about a human driving is that this works both ways - in good conditions they can drive the train as fast as possible, and adapt in time to avoid risking an incident occurring when conditions change. ATO systems have a rather more dubious record in this area - either forcing the train to travel slower even in good conditions, or having a greater number of incidents than if a human were driving but tolerated because it's ATO. In Britain today we have examples of both these approaches.
bramling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2017, 21:03   #13245
StephenHunter
Member
 
Join Date: 22 Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisgr31 View Post
The actual process of driving a train and getting it to stop and start might be simple but, as ever, thats not the difficult part. The skill comes in stopping it in the right place time and time again irrespective of the conditions.
Why do train drivers have to stop in a specific place on the platform anyway? I can understand if it was a 12-car in a 12-car length platform, but there's plenty of options for a 4-car in a 12-car length...
StephenHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017