Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[Dave1987]

To those saying they are disappointed that a sensible discussion can't happen only need look at some of the responses. Several people on here seem to have an agenda against drivers so naturally drivers defend robustly. If people want to have a sensible conversation then quit the agenda against drivers and then maybe we might be more amenable to this type of discussion.

 

[Llanigraham]

That is objectively not true. While computer vision is a bit of a black art, when it comes to pure recall of information computers exceeded human capabilities a couple of decades ago. It is possible now for me to have a petabyte or more of instantly accessible data stored in a device I can carry in a backpack.

How does a driver read this "instantly accessible data" whilst on a diversion route driving a 120 tonne passenger train on a rainy night on a falling gradient towards a station he has to stop at?
Will it tell him that he needs to brake at a particular tree taken into account the load and conditions?
And that the waterleak inside the tunnel approaching the station may also affect the amount of brake effort he needs, which he won't know until he hits that water leak?

 

[Bromley boy]

Wrong!

Yes it is totally wrong!

Knowing someone in the airline industry, the vast majority of his landings are visually flown. He flies into various oversees airports without ILS (or where it's too unreliable to use) and regularly flies a widebody airliner which is not fitted with gps (it makes do with three inertial reference systems).

The previous assertion on this thread that all commercial flights are conducted in class A airspace is also incorrect. They are not. Stansted, Luton and Gatwick are all in class D airspace. Southend is an interesting one as it is now a fairly major airport handling scheduled EasyJet and Stobart Air flights. Until recently it was class G.

It's now had a large block of class D imposed around it, largely because ATC were getting fed up with having to vector A320s around non-radio microlights and blokes hanging under parachutes with fans strapped to their backs.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes it is totally wrong!

Knowing someone in the airline industry, the vast majority of his landings are visually flown. He flies into various oversees airports without ILS (or where it's too unreliable to use) and regularly flies a widebody airliner which is not fitted with gps (it makes do with three inertial reference systems).

The previous assertion on this thread that all commercial flights are conducted in class A airspace is also incorrect. They are not. Stansted, Luton and Gatwick are all in class D airspace. Southend is an interesting one as it is now a fairly major airport handling scheduled EasyJet and Stobart Air flights. Until recently it was class G.

It's now had a large block of class D imposed around it, largely because ATC were getting fed up with having to vector A320s around non-radio microlights and blokes hanging under parachutes with fans strapped to their backs.

Aviation is my speciality subject so I know exactly what happens with flying commercial aircraft.

 

[Bromley boy]

Aviation is my speciality subject so I know exactly what happens with flying commercial aircraft.

Yes although I responded to you I was aiming the body of the reply at the previous incorrect comments.

Despite what they may think, quite a few armchair "experts" on here clearly know as little about aviation as they do the railway...

 

[Dave1987]

Yes although I responded to you I was aiming the body of the reply at the previous incorrect comments.

Quite a few armchair "experts" on here clearly know very little about aviation or railway...

Sorry that wasn't meant against you

And yes I agree.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Despite my comment about pilots relying on automation, which on commercial flights for most things they do - although they are constantly monitoring the automation and are ready to step in if needed, IMO Route knowledge is essential. until such time as all trains are self driving, it will continue to be.

There is one comparison with road driving that I will use that shows, how when correctly trained, the human mind can beat technology, and that is the London Taxi driver.

They still do the knowledge of London, and can navigate to somewhere in London faster than any sat nav.

They have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the streets of London and can use it to great effect to short cut or to divert around traffic issues.

A rail driver's knowledge of their route and the characteristics of their train is similar. To know where you are on a foggy night is no mean feat, but train drivers know. They know the speed limits, signal positions, where there are bumps, where poor adhesion is, where may get poor adhesion, where braking points are. You can assist with technology (and to use an analogy, London cabbies normally have a Sat Nav hidden somewhere although they rarely use it for navigation - they make excellent warnings for traffic problems ahead, and outside of London they are obviously used for navigation) but I wouldn't replace that route knowledge of either profession.

 

[Bromley boy]

In fairnes, interesting as some of the comparisons with aviation etc. can be, they are irrelevant as aeroplanes and trains are chalk and cheese.

The answer to the OP's question is "no, route knowledge isn't outmoded", and neither will it be for several decades, if ever, looking at NR's improvement plans.

This is due fo the age of the infrastructure and the fact that the existing route knowledge + signals + TPWS/AWS system works extremely well and extremely safely.

The technology exists to change it but the cost of implementing it far exceeds the benefit.

 

[Antman]

To those saying they are disappointed that a sensible discussion can't happen only need look at some of the responses. Several people on here seem to have an agenda against drivers so naturally drivers defend robustly. If people want to have a sensible conversation then quit the agenda against drivers and then maybe we might be more amenable to this type of discussion.

I can't say I've noticed anybody with an agenda against drivers.

 

[ComUtoR]

Agreed. It is data or possibly information.
Then you conduct if there's a driver who does know the route, or use a portable unit if there isn't. Again, I'm not talking about anything linked to the controls of the train or the signalling - it's basically assisted navigation in the same vein as pacenotes for a rally driver.

The reason why conducting works so well is that the person conducting can see, hear, and feel everything the train is doing. You need that on the ground feedback and intimate knowledge to be able to conduct. The on the ground information will need to be sent back to whoever is remotely conducting

There is also a problem of traction. I drive to two sets of PDPs and they use different braking policies. I assume you would need to program any rules and traction related information into whatever system you implement too.

As to providing a portable unit. There is the question of it being collected and then taken to the unit. That will take time and again considerable cost as you would need multiple portable units in various locations for them to be effective. If your bring a portable unit then you might as well bring a competent Driver instead.

As to providing a Driver with route knowledge. Do you propose always keeping a spare Driver with the requisite knowledge for each route the TOC covers so that they can remotely conduct. ? If it came to a point where every Driver was using this system to navigate then who will there be with any form of route knowledge as its been replaced with this new system.

Its an overcomplicated solution and one that grows in complexity when you consider what is required to drive a route.

Cheaper and easier to retain route knowledge.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Doesn't matter how many thousands of times a driver has driven a route, if they've never used a particular cross-over before to reverse a train, they could end up killing a load of people when they do it wrong.
Or what about having to call at a station on the fast lines that they've only ever called at on the slow lines before? Its bad enough with retail staff in the railway industry not being trained properly - I'm sure once we get managers with degrees in charge of drivers too, they'll be getting rid of the requirement for route knowledge.

Two polite questions:

-- How could using a crossover you've never used, by which I presume you mean one on a route you sign but one which is only used in emergencies, lead to a load of people being killed?
-- Why does have a degree represent a negative factor in the ability of managers?

 

[GW43125]

Two polite questions:

-- How could using a crossover you've never used, by which I presume you mean one on a route you sign but one which is only used in emergencies, lead to a load of people being killed?

You don't know the limits, don't know the signals, don't know where the LoS is...

 

[Domh245]

You don't know the limits, don't know the signals, don't know where the LoS is...

Not quite sure how that might lead to death, considering crossovers generally are low speed, and that their use is generally protected by the signalling system.

I wonder if there is an argument then for such moves as this unsigned crossover being "signposted" on the ground and operated at a blanket speed of 5/10mph so that it could be used? For example, driver pulls up to the signal controlling the move, to which is attached a plate detailing the first step of the move (ie what aspects will be shown to allow the move, where the train should be stopped (with use of marker boards if necessary) and then a similar board on the other side detailing the last part of the move.

 

[MichaelAMW]

You don't know the limits, don't know the signals, don't know where the LoS is...

Indeed, and there will be plenty of drivers out there for whom that is the case for many places they sign, so call the signaller and ask for his/her help. They have an excellent knowledge of the signals, and a sectional appendix on the shelf to check the speeds, if they don't already know them.

 

[GW43125]

Indeed, and there will be plenty of drivers out there for whom that is the case for many places they sign, so call the signaller and ask for his/her help. They have an excellent knowledge of the signals, and a sectional appendix on the shelf to check the speeds, if they don't already know them.

I do see the point though, I don't see why you couldn't, say, go over the crossover at 10mph, stay on the phone to the signaller and get them to tell you once you're clear of the signal to reverse.

 

[Agent_c]

And of course that autopilot can be reprogrammed from the ground. My understanding is that the only time pilots have to use their expensively acquired skills is when they are landing in a turbulent crosswind.

Unless they fly small planes into local airports without Instruments Landing Systems.

Completely false... and Automatic actually takes more work.

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

And what do terms like “automatic” and “autopilot” mean anyway? Typically I click off the autopilot around a thousand feet or so and hand-fly the rest of the landing. On takeoff, I fly manually at least through 10,000 feet, and sometimes all the way up to cruise.

The autopilot is a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. I prefer the term autoflight system. It’s a collection of several different functions controlling speed, thrust, and both horizontal and vertical navigation—together or separately, and all of it requiring regular crew inputs to work properly. On the jet I fly, I can set up an automatic climb or descent any of about six different ways, depending what’s needed. The media will quote supposed experts saying things like “pilots fly manually for only about ninety seconds of every flight.” Not only is this untrue, but it also neglects to impart any meaningful understanding as to the differences between manual and automatic, as if the latter were as simple as pressing a button and folding your arms.



One evening I was sitting in economy class when our jet came in for an unusually smooth landing. “Nice job, autopilot!” yelled some knucklehead behind me. Amusing, maybe, but wrong. It was a fully manual touchdown, as the vast majority of touchdowns are. Yes, it’s true that most jetliners are certified for automatic landings, called “autolands” in pilot-speak. But in practice they are rare. Fewer than 1 percent of landings are performed automatically, and the fine print of setting up and managing one of these landings is something I could talk about all day. If it were as easy as pressing a button, I wouldn’t need to practice them twice a year in the simulator or periodically review those tabbed, highlighted pages in my manuals. In a lot of respects, automatic landings are more work-intensive than those performed by hand. The technology is there if you need it for that foggy arrival in Buenos Aires with the visibility sitting at zero, but it’s anything but simple.

 

[Agent_c]

Agent c you may not be pulling hundreds around in a car but you can in a plane.

A plane where there are how many members of crew on board?

 

[Agent_c]

Just as people who have never flown a plane have been 'talked down' successfully after the pilot has been incapacitated.

I think you would do better if you didn't get your facts about aviation from movies. There is no record of it happening on an airliner, and only a very small number of light aircraft.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I do see the point though, I don't see why you couldn't, say, go over the crossover at 10mph, stay on the phone to the signaller and get them to tell you once you're clear of the signal to reverse.

Sounds like a plan! It's not all that different from drivers who rarely go into particular parts of a large station, e.g. a Portsmouth driver who would (I am guessing) sign Waterloo without having driven into each of the 20 (??) platforms there but then find themselves terminating on the Windsor side one Sunday morning two years later owing to engineering works. Slightly different but still about route knowledge is stop orders for places a particular depot doesn't normally serve.

 

[GW43125]

Sounds like a plan! It's not all that different from drivers who rarely go into particular parts of a large station, e.g. a Portsmouth driver who would (I am guessing) sign Waterloo without having driven into each of the 20 (??) platforms there but then find themselves terminating on the Windsor side one Sunday morning two years later owing to engineering works. Slightly different but still about route knowledge is stop orders for places a particular depot doesn't normally serve.

Good point actually. 19 (soon to be 24) platforms which are all the same speed after International Jn anyway. HOWEVER, anything can go anywhere after QTR. Whether they sign the Windsor side between Queenstown Road and the station, I don't know. Nor do I know whether they sign East Putney.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Good point actually. 19 (soon to be 24) platforms which are all the same speed after International Jn anyway. HOWEVER, anything can go anywhere after QTR. Whether they sign the Windsor side between Queenstown Road and the station, I don't know. Nor do I know whether they sign East Putney.

Which sounds like you get down to that speed of 20, 15, whatever it is, and follow your nose, but it must be harder although nonetheless within the expectations and competency of drivers - more guessing from me here... - for, say, a Salisbury driver to do the relatively rare move of going up the local lines between Woking and Waterloo, and remembering the different speed limits. (I appreciate that the more severe reductions usually have warning signs.)

 

[InOban]

I think you would do better if you didn't get your facts about aviation from movies. There is no record of it happening on an airliner, and only a very small number of light aircraft.

I should have made clear that I was referring to light aircraft. After all on all but the smallest passenger planes there will be more than one person able to take the controls.

 

[Bromley boy]

And of course that autopilot can be reprogrammed from the ground. My understanding is that the only time pilots have to use their expensively acquired skills is when they are landing in a turbulent crosswind.

Unless they fly small planes into local airports without Instruments Landing Systems.

(My emphasis).

Just saw this. No it can't. That's news to my mate who has 6000+ hours on Boeings, unless you know more than him!?

In future, maybe you should restrict yourself to discussions where you know enough about the subject to say something meaningful.

 

[InOban]

Several posters have talked about the danger of deskilled drivers. But haven't they been deskilled already when compared with the drivers of steam engines?

BTW I'm finding this thread fascinating, and I'm sometimes being deliberately provocative!

 

[Bromley boy]

Several posters have talked about the danger of deskilled drivers. But haven't they been deskilled already when compared with the drivers of steam engines?

BTW I'm finding this thread fascinating, and I'm sometimes being deliberately provocative!

And deliberately ignorant?!

 

[6Gman]

Several posters have talked about the danger of deskilled drivers. But haven't they been deskilled already when compared with the drivers of steam engines?

Not in terms of route knowledge.

 

[Llanigraham]

I do see the point though, I don't see why you couldn't, say, go over the crossover at 10mph, stay on the phone to the signaller and get them to tell you once you're clear of the signal to reverse.

You've made the presumption that the signaller can see you.
How do you do that when the Signalling Centre is 100 miles away?
Even in an old traditional Box you might not be able to see.

 

[GW43125]

You've made the presumption that the signaller can see you.
How do you do that when the Signalling Centre is 100 miles away?
Even in an old traditional Box you might not be able to see.

When the track circuit clears...

 

[Bromley boy]

Not in terms of route knowledge.

InOban's comments are amongst the most ignorant postings I've ever seen on this forum. That's really saying something.

I look forward to his justification of them...

 

[Agent_c]

I should have made clear that I was referring to light aircraft. After all on all but the smallest passenger planes there will be more than one person able to take the controls.

So in no way comparable to a train situation. In any case, I stand by my conclusion given your complete misinterpretation of what the auto flight system is, what it can do, how much work it saves (or creates) and just how many landings do not use it.