Public's misconceptions of the railway..Driving is easy... funny and aggravating..

[Cherry_Picker]

We will just move more and more to a service based economy. I just hope mainline trains dont go driverless until, oh, sometime after my 65th birthday.

 

[A-driver]

We will just move more and more to a service based economy. I just hope mainline trains dont go driverless until, oh, sometime after my 65th birthday.

I think you and your kids at least will be out lived by driver operated trains.

No one is talking about driverless trains except for a few people on here.

 

[O L Leigh]

In 10 years time all commercial flights will be crewed by a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to bite the man if he touches anything.

O L Leigh

 

[LE Greys]

In 10 years time all commercial flights will be crewed by a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to bite the man if he touches anything.

O L Leigh

Didn't they say that ten years ago?

 

[TDK]

I can only speak for disc braked units, I dont sign loco.


You cant unless being conducted/ piloted.
There are a couple of other possibilities as well.
What makes you think I am post qualified?
I have been driving for 4 years, okay not long in the scheme of things but long enough to have a rough idea whats going on.

Well sorry if you are not it is just you joined the forum in May 2010 and put your job description as a train guard, I am certain I remeber you posting something about finishing your hours with a DI somewhere on the forum last year? Sorry but maybe I am mistaken!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Depends, if the rear of the train stops in the Overlap (typically 200 m) of the junction Signal then the preceeding signal will have been at Red since the incident train passed and it will be safe to set back, if not that signal can have been at yellow and the driver of a following train may have seen a Double Yellow or Green that authorises them to proceed up to the junction Signal. The signaller has to follow stringent procedures to ensure an unsignalled setting back movement is protected from any risk of collision with a following train and if it was closely following that may be impossible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Must be quite rare for any one driver though. The most important factor is they are, usually, unsignalled movements so protection relies entirely on the signaller following correct procedure, unless all the conditions are met the move can't be authorised as there's a small but real risk of collision with a following train.

It is I suppose, I have had about 20 in 12 years driving, some have been wrong platform allocation when I have been called on to an occupied platform with a longer train than the signaller realised I had others have been wrong routes at junctions, fortunately I realised a long way back that I had been wrong routed as the signal sequence was incorrect for the route I wanted.

 

[Robsignals]

Plus it gives a very jerky ride swapping from heavy braking to full acceleration and back to full braking a few seconds later, it may "exploit the full capability of train and route" but it certainly isnt smooth.

I'd be confident that can be solved, technology has progressed somewhat since 1967 or even since DLR. Until reading about drivers happily running at full speed in zero visibility I wanted a driver in the cab but now I can't see any objection to automated driving.

 

[Mintona]

I'd be confident that can be solved, technology has progressed somewhat since 1967 or even since DLR. Until reading about drivers happily running at full speed in zero visibility I wanted a driver in the cab but now I can't see any objection to automated driving.

Maybe it's because train drivers are so skilled that they know where they are without actually being able to see?

 

[notadriver]

I'd be confident that can be solved, technology has progressed somewhat since 1967 or even since DLR. Until reading about drivers happily running at full speed in zero visibility I wanted a driver in the cab but now I can't see any objection to automated driving.

Well thankfully what you want doesn't matter. Drivers have run at full speed in zero visibility for years. What is your problem ?

 

[OxtedL]

Perhaps the implication being made here is that when they can't see out of the front of the train then the number of things that they can do above and beyond what computers can do approaches zero.

Which perhaps misses the point that most of the time they can see...

 

[MattRobinson]

If they can do the job just as well without being able to see, they don't need to and hence aren't doing much over and above computers thus they can be replaced by computers.

Don't forget that building all this computer control requires humans to do a lot of the design work.

Not that I'm advocating moving over to computer control.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tomnick]

Driving normally, whether in clear weather or during fog or falling snow, is one thing (and even in thick fog, a human might be able to respond to, or even just report, a potential danger like a road vehicle on the opposite line that a computer might ignore), but I'd like to see the computer examine the line effectively, or even just proceed at caution, being prepared to stop short of any obstruction - both fairly common instructions.

 

[O L Leigh]

Too many variables. Even existing ATO sections on LU and DLR require human supervision and override for when things happen that the computer can't cope with. Likewise, as anyone who signs Stratford in London will know, there has to be a system that will stop trains in the event of any problems.

O L Leigh

 

[Latecomer]

Will a computer differentiate between a p-wayman who requires a sound of the horn (but not necessarily a brake application) and a trespasser on the line or potential suicide? Even if the computer stops a train in given situations you need a person (driver) to take considered and appropriate action in the aftermath. Don't assume that a train operator who acts as a passive front cab conductor will have the same sense of what has happened. They almost certainly won't.

 

[kieron]

Too many variables. Even existing ATO sections on LU and DLR require human supervision and override for when things happen that the computer can't cope with.

The LU line and DLR do, the Copenhagen Metro doesn't. You can't really generalise about rail systems.

No one is talking about driverless trains except for a few people on here.

And Rio Tinto in Australia. They've been working on it for a few years, so creating an automatic freight train which can be many miles away from the nearest human isn't a simple task,

 

[O L Leigh]

Copenhagen Metro has on-train "stewards", so it's not necessarily the same as saying that they are different from UK systems. The LUL system does indeed have drivers, but the DLR has an on-train presence in much the same way as the Copenhagen Metro does.

But it doesn't address the issue that driverless trains still require outside intervention when things go wrong. You may not be familiar with the arrangements for the DLR, but there are specific instructions regarding the DLR where it runs alongside the NR network in the event of an emergency situation. I won't divulge what these are on an open-access forum, but the point remains that driverless systems cannot always cope with situations that could happen daily on the rail network without outside intervention. These things can be addressed on a small, closed network such as metro and LU systems, but become MUCH more complex when applied to the NR network. That Rio Tinto have made progress with some driverless systems "...many miles away from the nearest human" shows just how difficult making these systems work really can be.

O L Leigh

 

[maniacmartin]

I think what's effectively been said here by drivers is that in fog instruments can "drive" the train without human visibility. Therefore the instruments could just drive the train. I think the biggest block to driverless trains isn't technology, its the unions.

 

[O L Leigh]

I disagree. The problems are mostly to do with safety and cost.

The safety question I have discussed above. The cost issue is to do with fitting the entire NR network (or even part of it) and the relevant rolling stock with the necessary technology to make driverless operation work reliably and safely to the same standard as having drivers in the cab. It is likely to be cheaper to retain drivers.

O L Leigh

 

[Robsignals]

Driving normally, whether in clear weather or during fog or falling snow, is one thing (and even in thick fog, a human might be able to respond to, or even just report, a potential danger like a road vehicle on the opposite line that a computer might ignore), but I'd like to see the computer examine the line effectively, or even just proceed at caution, being prepared to stop short of any obstruction - both fairly common instructions.

Are they common on HS1? Operating a driverless railway requires a different philosophy where staff do not go on the line without a possession and, like HS1, have a secure track side inner fence. How often do they report an obstruction in time to prevent a collision, very rarely I'd guess.

Drivers have a great heritage but present day reality is rather less glorious, in truth there's quite a bit of doing nothing and their skills in anticipating the line ahead to apply the brake at the right time are ideally suited to automation. In fact a computer with a detailed line database and precise position monitoring, not just GPS, can brake more accurately and won't have a lapse of attention (but would need to be duplicated or triplicated in case of failure). I don't think it will happen any time soon not least because the public or rather the media would be hostile, I do think someone should be in overall control but ultimately they will only need to be in the cab when there's a problem. On HS2 it's possible the driver will do nothing more than press a Start button but keeping watch at those speeds is rather pointless, after one trip in the cab they may switch to passenger facing duties for the next trip(s), a 'Train Operations' grade!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is likely to be cheaper to retain drivers.

That will ultimately depend on whether, or perhaps when, drivers price themselves out of a job.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm still not convinced, except as anything other than a theoretical exercise.

Most ATO systems operate on lines where there is no public access and very little chance of emergency situations arising due to things like obstructions on the line and such. I still take issue with the situation where the DLR shares NR infrastructure, as this is the closest we currently get to an existing ATO system working on an "open" network where problems can come in from "outside" the system. As I hinted before, where this happens the ATO system requires outside intervention in order to maintain safety.

Perhaps technology can replicate at least some of the functions of human drivers, but not all of them. Without a radical re-think of the existing NR network with regard to access and security it would not be possible or economical to provide an ATO system that is, as I have said above, as reliable or as safe as having human drivers.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That will ultimately depend on whether, or perhaps when, drivers price themselves out of a job.

Not going to get involved in that one.

Most staff pay increases are at or around annual increases in RPI, so therefore not that far removed from fare increases. Whether or not you believe price and costs are going to influence future rail operational practices will depend on whether or not you believe that the railways should be made to pay their way, in much the same way as Ernest Marples and Richard Beeching did. To lay the blame solely at the door of *ahem* "greedy drivers" is naive in the very least. Our European neighbours understand that railways are part of "The State Inc" and form part of the infrastructure that supports other industries and makes them successful, and so they invest in them to ensure that "The State Inc" is economically strong. This is something that us Brits and our glorious leaders seem slow to learn or appreciate.

O L Leigh

 

[Latecomer]

I do think someone should be in overall control but ultimately they will only need to go to the cab when there's a problem. On HS2 it's possible the driver will do nothing more than press a Start button but keeping watch at those speeds is rather pointless, after one trip in the cab they may switch to passenger facing duties for the next trip(s), a 'Train Operations' grade!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That will ultimately depend on whether, or perhaps when, drivers price themselves out of a job.

Sweeping statement about drivers pricing themselves out of a job aside, when the driver has "pressed the start button" and is wandering back to "passenger facing duties" how quickly will they be able to respond to the person struck by the train? How quickly will they know if the person was on their own and how far back down the line they might be? Was a second person struck a glancing blow and is somewhere in the undergrowth?

As already said the DLR and the like have pretty comprehensive and secure lineside fencing built for purpose - it is nothing like what exists on most of the rest of the NR network. The money you are talking about to put in safeguards to ever make driverless trains a reality on most of the network far outweigh the salaries currently paid to drivers for carrying out a demanding and responsible job (well at least I think so each time I observe 400 people alight from my train and another 200 get on all within the space of 90 seconds and carry out DOO safe dispatch ensuring that no one has slipped or got caught or done something stupid that the computer would miss).

 

[notadriver]

The amount of people with such a low opinion of the skills of train drivers on this forum is amazing. It's a wonder anyone new wants to become a driver at all!

 

[O L Leigh]

The driver's desk of the future...?

O L Leigh

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I think what's effectively been said here by drivers is that in fog instruments can "drive" the train without human visibility. Therefore the instruments could just drive the train. I think the biggest block to driverless trains isn't technology, its the unions.

I think some people might have been overplaying how unimportant visibility is.

I can only speak for myself here, obviously, and yes I can drive a train in thick fog at night almost the same as in broad daylight but even at it's absolute worst visibility is still 50 yards or so. As train driving is generally pre emptive (as opposed to car driving which is largely reactive) then your route knowledge will tell you that feature X is a certain distance from location Y and your traction knowledge will enable you to apply that information into doing something useful. I know this bridge is a mile and a quarter before the next station I am booked to stop at, I can apply the brake as I pass under it and it will bring my speed down to a level where I can fine tune it to a stop within the platform (etc)

The technology exists to autonomously drive cars around busy city streets without crashing. It exists to move metro style trains over short distances (and never far from the cavalry if something goes wrong) at medium speeds and I'm pretty sure if somebody really wanted to make it work on much heavier stock travelling at much higher speeds, often through remote areas then they could. We have landed a man on the moon so we can do pretty much anything if the desire is there, but for the time being I think the current system is the best. Obviously I have a vested interest, but I dont kid myself into thinking somebody will push it through one day. I just dont think it is all as simple as you seem to suggest and I do think we are quite a few years away from the government spending tens of billions on upgrading the track and rolling stock of the network into automatic operation.

 

[SPADTrap]

The driver's desk of the future...?

O L Leigh

At least I can finally experience the full power notch without my HST flying off the tracks! Memories.

 

[TDK]

I think what's effectively been said here by drivers is that in fog instruments can "drive" the train without human visibility. Therefore the instruments could just drive the train. I think the biggest block to driverless trains isn't technology, its the unions.

On most of the trains on the UK network the instruments are for reference all you have is a speedo, air gauges and if you are lucky (or maybe unlucky) a TMS, the driver drives the train and monitors the instruments, in thick fog and I vouch for myself I will drive the train differently in this I will anticipate signals that may be at caution and slow the train as the sighting distance is less, I will approach staion platforms slower in case there are passengers too close to the edge as they cannot see me approaching, I will also sound the horn more frequently where it is needed, as for the unions you may be correct in the future but they way the railway currently is there just isn't the money to convert the whole network to a computerised system. In fog personally speaking the concentration levels are at a peak and you are looking for key areas to slow the train where in good visibility you are using the surroundings and have many more observatory key features so yes, I will drive differenty in the fog than in good visibility but will still keep to the timings.

 

[D365]

The driver's desk of the future...?

O L Leigh

Got one of them, don't think it would supply enough power

 

[A-driver]

Once again ill say this-what a load of ill informed ignorant posts that are being posted here. People are really ignorant enough to truly believe that driverless trains are that simple and that the only thing blocking them is unions?!!! And drivers are not going to price themselves out of a job.

People can think what they like but I'm certainly going to sleep sound knowing I'm not going to be replaced by a computer in my lifetime.

Once again people are confusing the term automatic with the term driverless. They are very, very different!

I'm not going to post anything else in this particular topic, just carry on reading and laughing at some of the quite frankly hilarious posts.

 

[island]

I think what's effectively been said here by drivers is that in fog instruments can "drive" the train without human visibility. Therefore the instruments could just drive the train. I think the biggest block to driverless trains isn't technology, its the unions.

That old chestnut again :roll:

 

[Robsignals]

I think some people might have been overplaying how unimportant visibility is.

I can only speak for myself here, obviously, and yes I can drive a train in thick fog at night almost the same as in broad daylight but even at it's absolute worst visibility is still 50 yards or so. As train driving is generally pre emptive (as opposed to car driving which is largely reactive) then your route knowledge will tell you that feature X is a certain distance from location Y and your traction knowledge will enable you to apply that information into doing something useful. I know this bridge is a mile and a quarter before the next station I am booked to stop at, I can apply the brake as I pass under it and it will bring my speed down to a level where I can fine tune it to a stop within the platform (etc)

The technology exists to autonomously drive cars around busy city streets without crashing. It exists to move metro style trains over short distances (and never far from the cavalry if something goes wrong) at medium speeds and I'm pretty sure if somebody really wanted to make it work on much heavier stock travelling at much higher speeds, often through remote areas then they could. We have landed a man on the moon so we can do pretty much anything if the desire is there, but for the time being I think the current system is the best. Obviously I have a vested interest, but I dont kid myself into thinking somebody will push it through one day. I just dont think it is all as simple as you seem to suggest and I do think we are quite a few years away from the government spending tens of billions on upgrading the track and rolling stock of the network into automatic operation.

Erm, 50 yds enables you to do what exactly? At any likely speed you'd cover that distance before you could move a control. Automatic driving is inherently pre-emptive, with a database containing all the key features and distances it always 'knows' where it is and is unaffected by darkness or fog, it can precisely calculate braking perhaps measuring adhesion and allowing longer distances during leaf-fall.

With current technology automating the basic driving task is really quite simple, as ever the devil is in the detail - what's happening around the track but at HS speeds there's very little a driver can do if they see a problem anyway. I don't expect it to happen soon but automatic driving aids will gradually be introduced until even drivers will have to wonder what they're doing there!

 

[Mintona]

I feel a twinge of jealousy from the above poster. There are so many things that a driver can do that a computer can't. If there weren't, then new trains would be built without drivers in mind. But they're not, anywhere in the world, as far as I'm aware.