Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

t_star2001uk · 10 May 2017

So from my point of view as a driver. I would rather know where i am than rely on a system that has a potential to malfunction. There have been references in this thread to pilots using tablets as Electronic Flight Bags, how many commercial airline pilots during the take off, flight and landing cycle handle the actual control of the aircraft communication and system monitoring single handed. I believe that is one of the reasons why there are 2 people on the flight deck. The system as it stands, works, why fix something that isn't broken in the first place.

RailUK Forums

glbotu · 10 May 2017

The most frustrating thing about this entire thread is that it's being discussed between people who know lots about:

a) The Railways
b) The Aviation Industry
c) Technology

But with absolutely no overlap.........

This is leading to lots of going round in circles between "technology is great" and "driving trains doesn't work like that", with very little acceptance by either side that the other side knows what they're talking about, because each post is interjected with stuff that's wrong about the things the other poster knows little about. I would posit this thread would go along a lot smoother and lot more productively if pro-tech people acknowledged train drivers know a something about driving trains and train drivers acknowledged that there are people out there who know something about technology and that each side of this discussion realises that there is more to the other field than you could have imagined.

What has mostly been gleamed from the aviation discussion is that analogies are bad.....

Apologies for commenting on the meta-discussion, but I think this could be a great thread, but is currently being hampered by the above.

I also somewhat take issue with "people with degrees are pompous know-it-alls". I would posit that that's a personality trait that fields in "management" and "consultancy" attract, because it's largely the ability to convince people that you know what you're talking about, even when you don't. As someone in a technical field who's not in management and who has a degree, I share your frustrations on a daily basis. This is not limited along the degree/no degree boundary.

driver_m · 10 May 2017

glbotu said:
The most frustrating thing about this entire thread is that it's being discussed between people who know lots about:

a) The Railways
b) The Aviation Industry
c) Technology

But with absolutely no overlap.........

This is leading to lots of going round in circles between "technology is great" and "driving trains doesn't work like that", with very little acceptance by either side that the other side knows what they're talking about, because each post is interjected with stuff that's wrong about the things the other poster knows little about. I would posit this thread would go along a lot smoother and lot more productively if pro-tech people acknowledged train drivers know a something about driving trains and train drivers acknowledged that there are people out there who know something about technology and that each side of this discussion realises that there is more to the other field than you could have imagined.

What has mostly been gleamed from the aviation discussion is that analogies are bad.....

Apologies for commenting on the meta-discussion, but I think this could be a great thread, but is currently being hampered by the above.

I also somewhat take issue with "people with degrees are pompous know-it-alls". I would posit that that's a personality trait that fields in "management" and "consultancy" attract, because it's largely the ability to convince people that you know what you're talking about, even when you don't. As someone in a technical field who's not in management and who has a degree, I share your frustrations on a daily basis. This is not limited along the degree/no degree boundary.

What part of the drivers viewpoint is wrong? I haven't seen anything on our side to disagree with. I will say the criticism of 'managers with degrees' is a lazy one which smacks of the current trends of criticising experts by politicians. However, the railway has had a lot of these managers who come in with bright ideas and they find out quickly that they don't necessarily work. I've personally experienced this myself with 2 graduates who got very frustrated when they exhibited thought but not wisdom. That is what the railway needs . Wisdom.

Dave1987 · 10 May 2017

InOban said:
1. A train carrying, say, 250 passengers will, at present, have two crew. Those PAX would fill four coaches, with four crew. Given that staff costs are the largest part of a bus service, the bus ought to cost more. And since the rolling resistance of steel wheels on rail is much less, the bus should be using more fuel. But in fact, such a bus service would require no subsidy, but the train would. Why?

2. Up here, the last two oil flows - from Grangemouth to Fort William and to Lairg - have recently switched to road, because its cheaper. Here in Oban we have two rail-served oil terminals both entirely served by road. Every day or so a single driver collects a tanker of marine fuel from G'mouth, drives up to Oban, discharges his load himself into the storage tanks, and returns to the depot. Fact.

I am entirely in favour of a well paid, unionised workforce - the collapse of the TU movement has resulted in our poverty wage economy. But every activity on the railway must be adding real value to the purpose of the business, and essentially the OP was wondering whether, given modern, incredibly cheap technology, route learning was still a core skill. Seems a reasonable question.

And you have been told that route knowledge is a key aspect of a train drivers route knowledge. You may refuse to accept that and believe that drivers could drive via a glorified sat nav but just because you believe it does not make it so. Aids to assist drivers learn a route quicker or more thoroughly, yup that could work. A driver who knows a route well will only be using a small amount of their brain power to actually drive. If you are using all you concentration on looking at a train sat nav there is a high likelyhood of you missing those track workers who aren't in a position of safety or the door that's come open on a freightliner wagon! Or the opposite you are sounding the horn for a track worker and have missed your train sat nav telling you about the PSR that's coming up and BANG you have tripped the TPWS over speed loops.

glbotu · 10 May 2017

driver_m said:
What part of the drivers viewpoint is wrong? I haven't seen anything on our side to disagree with.

I mean, there's been quite a lot of discussion with respect to the capabilities of computers/machines to do things, most of which is incorrect, because it's focusing on the wrong aspects of what the computers can and can't do, especially with regards to comparing aspects of general consumer technology with obvious flaws because it's been done on the cheap, rather than looking at the actual capabilities of the technology. (eg: many posters' belief that we'd slap a TomTom in a train and hope it could figure itself out - as it were - rather than making a semi-bespoke kit that could track train movements with decent granularity - something that is definitely not without the limits of technology).

Additionally things like believing that a human can memorise a route better than a computer can which is something that has been put forward by quite a few posters as well.

driver_m said:
I haven't seen anything on our side to disagree with.

I mean, that's not surprising. No-one would expect you to, given you're arguing from a particular standpoint. I just wanted to point out that currently both sides of the argument seem to not have the full picture and that that's reducing the quality of the discussion.

driver_m said:
I will say the criticism of 'managers with degrees' is a lazy one which smacks of the current trends of criticising experts by politicians. However, the railway has had a lot of these managers who come in with bright ideas and they find out quickly that they don't necessarily work. I've personally experienced this myself with 2 graduates who got very frustrated when they exhibited thought but not wisdom. That is what the railway needs . Wisdom.

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

ComUtoR · 10 May 2017

glbotu said:
because it's focusing on the wrong aspects of what the computers can and can't do, especially with regards to comparing aspects of general consumer technology with obvious flaws because it's been done on the cheap, rather than looking at the actual capabilities of the technology. (eg: many posters' belief that we'd slap a TomTom in a train and hope it could figure itself out - as it were - rather than making a semi-bespoke kit that could track train movements with decent granularity - something that is definitely not without the limits of technology).

Do you realise that it is precisely because things ARE done on the cheap that some of us balk so much at the introduction of new technology.

We have GPS based equipment and it gets lost (a lot) and we have other GPS based systems that are based on a 'general area' rather than any form of accuracy. Anyone with working knowledge of a 375 could tell you how poor it is.

We have PIS databases that don't load or have multiple errors. We have paperwork (digital) that is wildly out of date.

The Sectional appendix is wrong in many many places

I have track maps issued in December last year that have signals that arent even there or have the wrong indication on.

And safety systems that don't actually work that well.

I rolled a unit backwards that has an electronic hill start which wasn't supposed to happen.

Then maintenance is so bad that these much lauded systems fail over and over again.

I'll happily support tech, when it works; and when implemented correctly and with the decent equipment. Oh and contracts that allow stuff to be returned because its frankly **** (see our PIS system)

Mystic Force · 10 May 2017

This is about if drivers need route knowledge. It is assumed they still have traction knowledge (how this particular type of train requires to be driven) and operational knowledge (rules of the railway) we are discussing are these two sufficient with some other system to provide information on a route to drive a train safely at either normal operational conditions or during a reduced operational condition. I think case 2 is highly likely, if anything drivers would need to be more skilled to be able to cope with non normal working conditions ie off their normal route. Being certified to work without knowledge would likely require a higher level of confidence in the individual so assigned.

Changes in the railway will come and aids to driving are likely to be one of them which will change the drivers everyday job. Automatic trains are not coming anytime soon on British rail lines, retrofitting to that level isn't going to be easy, quick or cheap. But improvement of the tools available to help with driving will come

GW43125 · 10 May 2017

Harpers Tate said:
So, much like live traffic updates, which have been a feature of road-based GPS devices for many years?

Well, no.

Suppose you've got a junction ahead. You're currently doing 90 and it drops to 20. You get the two yellows. You let it roll as the satnav says there's plenty of time. You brake just before the satnav says it's time to brake. But the rails are still slippery from the shower earlier. You go into emergency. You slide. You miss that red at about 30mph. You're in deep ----

D1009 · 10 May 2017

ComUtoR said:
Do you realise that it is precisely because things ARE done on the cheap that some of us balk so much at the introduction of new technology.

We have GPS based equipment and it gets lost (a lot) and we have other GPS based systems that are based on a 'general area' rather than any form of accuracy. Anyone with working knowledge of a 375 could tell you how poor it is.

We have PIS databases that don't load or have multiple errors. We have paperwork (digital) that is wildly out of date.

The Sectional appendix is wrong in many many places

I have track maps issued in December last year that have signals that arent even there or have the wrong indication on.

And safety systems that don't actually work that well.

I rolled a unit backwards that has an electronic hill start which wasn't supposed to happen.

Then maintenance is so bad that these much lauded systems fail over and over again.

I'll happily support tech, when it works; and when implemented correctly and with the decent equipment. Oh and contracts that allow stuff to be returned because its frankly **** (see our PIS system)

Some of the examples you have quoted actually make the case for greater use of technology as provision of the information by traditional means is proving problematic. Just because there are currently problems with introduction of new systems doesn't mean they can't be made to work in the future.

driver_m · 10 May 2017

I think what we do need to prioritise with the computing side of things, is the tech to get more capacity on the actual track we have. Moving block has got to be the way forward. If we are to prioritise technology, then that's where I'd concentrate my money. Looking at a route map ultimately means that something else is not being looked at. That's my main concern with the removal of route knowledge.

Something that allows our human intuition not to be stifled by an automatic aid is the ideal. Human interaction probably causes most of our problems, so to solve this requires a human to best counter it.

ComUtoR · 10 May 2017

D1009 said:
Some of the examples you have quoted actually make the case for greater use of technology as provision of the information by traditional means is proving problematic. Just because there are currently problems with introduction of new systems doesn't mean they can't be made to work in the future.

The examples I quoted are using technology and not 'traditional means'

My Sectional appendix is electronic and on my company iPad. Its cloud based so will update as required. The old cut and paste (literally scissors and glue) from the WON/PON is the traditional way. The Sectional appendix is wrong in various places. That doesn't change if its delivered to me electronically or in a weekly paper format. It's wrong at the base level.

Our PIS is GPS based. It gets lost. The database is supposed to update every night but due to the problems with the onboard system it doesn't update. The database is riddled with errors and causes rogue announcements. This is our latest system. The old way you just punched in a code. The old old way was 100% manual. On the new 700's the PIS is integrated quite closely and once again, its proving to cause more problems than solve.

The electronic hill start is the absolute latest bit of kit on our latest bright and shiny new train. We used to press and hold a button.

The future is now and the tech is going in and being used but it doesn't work. I don't think you can excuse tech by saying it will work in the future because each time something is updated it still doesn't work.

To throw it back to you. Which of my examples can be further improved with technology and how ?

D1009 · 10 May 2017

ComUtoR said:
The examples I quoted are using technology and not 'traditional means'

My Sectional appendix is electronic and on my company iPad. Its cloud based so will update as required. The old cut and paste (literally scissors and glue) from the WON/PON is the traditional way. The Sectional appendix is wrong in various places. That doesn't change if its delivered to me electronically or in a weekly paper format. It's wrong at the base level.

Our PIS is GPS based. It gets lost. The database is supposed to update every night but due to the problems with the onboard system it doesn't update. The database is riddled with errors and causes rogue announcements. This is our latest system. The old way you just punched in a code. The old old way was 100% manual.

The electronic hill start is the absolute latest bit of kit on our latest bright and shiny new train. We used to press and hold a button.

The future is now and the tech is going in and being used but it doesn't work. I don't think you can excuse tech by saying it will work in the future because each time something is updated it still doesn't work.

To throw it back to you. Which of my examples can be further improved with technology and how ?

I refer you to the last sentence of my previous post. And I don't have an anti driver agenda, by the way.

ComUtoR · 10 May 2017

D1009 said:
I refer you to the last sentence of my previous post. And I don't have an anti driver agenda, by the way.

I don't care about agendas etc. Neither did I suggest as such. However, you stated something and suggested there could be a greater provision of technology. I'd like to know what and how.

Traditional means have moved on and we are using modern systems. But in the spirit of discussion and openness I'm more than happy to discuss how we do what we do and where it goes wrong with the current tech and any future iterations of it.

Something as simple as an automated PIS is surely something they could get right. There is still a human part of the chain that requires a database to be maintained. When that database is wrong it causes problems. When it can't be updated, it causes problems. When the unit freezes, it causes problems. When the GPS gets lost, it causes problems. I've spoken to the person who lead the project to install the system and it can't be fixed. Replaced but not fixed. How many years do we wait for a version that works.

The more techy version is linked to the doors. Guess what happens when the PIS doesn't work as intended or not even entered !

With the GPS situation for a 375 it meant you couldn't release the doors in the sidings. The tech didn't work alongside how we do our jobs.

With the suggestion for a route knowledge based system. Will that mean if the system doesn't work then it can't run ? It will almost certainly be something safety critical if its for the diversionary aspect or it.

I've been about for some years now and I have seen various bits and bobs come in. I've never known anything to work quite as intended.

D1009 · 10 May 2017

ComUtoR said:
I don't care about agendas etc. Neither did I suggest as such. However, you stated something and suggested there could be a greater provision of technology. I'd like to know what and how.

Traditional means have moved on and we are using modern systems. But in the spirit of discussion and openness I'm more than happy to discuss how we do what we do and where it goes wrong with the current tech and any future iterations of it.

Something as simple as an automated PIS is surely something they could get right. There is still a human part of the chain that requires a database to be maintained. When that database is wrong it causes problems. When it can't be updated, it causes problems. When the unit freezes, it causes problems. When the GPS gets lost, it causes problems. I've spoken to the person who lead the project to install the system and it can't be fixed. Replaced but not fixed. How many years do we wait for a version that works.

The more techy version is linked to the doors. Guess what happens when the PIS doesn't work as intended or not even entered !

With the GPS situation for a 375 it meant you couldn't release the doors in the sidings. The tech didn't work alongside how we do our jobs.

With the suggestion for a route knowledge based system. Will that mean if the system doesn't work then it can't run ? It will almost certainly be something safety critical if its for the diversionary aspect or it.

I've been about for some years now and I have seen various bits and bobs come in. I've never known anything to work quite as intended.

The examples you have quoted refer to the way the tech is being used at the moment and the difficulties involved in implementing it. To put it bluntly it probably indicates a level of incompetence on the part of the people involved, but it doesn't mean the technology itself isn't fit for purpose.

As regards route knowledge, I contend that as cab signalling is implemented, lineside signals are removed and the system effectively tells the driver at what speed to drive, some of the elements of current route knowledge will be different, and possibly not as challenging. It would be very interesting to get the comments of Eurostar drivers on this, as they also have the benefits of driving over the SNCF and SNCB networks and would be able to comment on the relative merits.

najaB · 10 May 2017

D1009 said:
Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but I thought there already was an automated reminder of TSRs/ESRs in the form of the AWS. Why would you need another one?

There is, but (a) the reminder itself doesn't convey any information about the restriction; and (b) the magnets are (if I understand things correctly) placed at the actual start of the restriction, rather than significantly in advance of it. A GPS-driven solution could provide as much advanced warning as you choose to.

ComUtoR · 10 May 2017

najaB said:
(b) the magnets are (if I understand things correctly) placed at the actual start of the restriction, rather than significantly in advance of it.

Magnets are placed in advance of it.

D1009 · 10 May 2017

najaB said:
There is, but (a) the reminder itself doesn't convey any information about the restriction; and (b) the magnets are (if I understand things correctly) placed at the actual start of the restriction, rather than significantly in advance of it. A GPS-driven solution could provide as much advanced warning as you choose to.

No, they're placed at the warning board, but I understand the point you were making.

najaB · 10 May 2017

Llanigraham said:
Having seen and used "commercial" grade GPS tracking equipment on vehicles in this area, there are many places on the roads that it doesn't work, and they have better "sighting" that the railway route.

That is very surprising. As long as you have a clear view of a decent enough patch of sky (c 30° or so) you should have at least four or five GPS/GLONASS satellites in view. You can use this site to get an idea of what should be visible: https://in-the-sky.org/. Use the Select Satellites dropdown to add GLONASS satellites.

ComUtoR · 10 May 2017

D1009 said:
No, they're placed at the warning board, but I understand the point you were making.

3.2 Normal arrangements with lineside equipment

The following equipment is used in connection with a TSR.

A portable AWS magnet is normally placed 180 metres (approximately 200 yards) on the approach to the warning board.

A warning board is placed on the approach to the speed indicator. The distance between the warning board and the speed indicator is normally the appropriate braking distance for the permissible speed at that location.

A speed indicator is placed at the start of the TSR.

A termination indicator is placed at the end of the TSR.

Diagram SP.1 on page 9 shows a normal TSR.

When an ESR is to last for more than a short time, equipment is provided as soon as possible. The normal equipment for a TSR is provided, and in addition an emergency indicator.

A portable AWS magnet is normally placed 180 metres (approximately 200 yards) on the approach to the emergency indicator. The emergency indicator is placed at least 180 metres (approximately 200 yards) and not more than 400 metres (approximately 440 yards) on the approach to the warning board.

The portable AWS magnet for the warning board is placed at or beyond the emergency indicator.

Diagram SP.14 a) on page 35 shows the normal arrangements for an emergency indicator.

Both quotes taken from the current rulebook.

Dryce · 10 May 2017

Llanigraham said:
Having seen and used "commercial" grade GPS tracking equipment on vehicles in this area, there are many places on the roads that it doesn't work, and they have better "sighting" that the railway route.

You shouldn't have to be dependent on GPS on the railway. It's fixed and well mapped infrastructure. Some on track or line side devices and accelerometers can do most of the job.

Dave1987 · 10 May 2017

D1009 said:
Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but I thought there already was an automated reminder of TSRs/ESRs in the form of the AWS. Why would you need another one?

Not all PSRs have warning boards or AWS magnets.

Dave1987 · 10 May 2017

najaB said:
There is, but (a) the reminder itself doesn't convey any information about the restriction; and (b) the magnets are (if I understand things correctly) placed at the actual start of the restriction, rather than significantly in advance of it. A GPS-driven solution could provide as much advanced warning as you choose to.

Er no, the magnet (if there even is one) is with the warning board.

Dave1987 · 10 May 2017

Dryce said:
You shouldn't have to be dependent on GPS on the railway. It's fixed and well mapped infrastructure. Some on track or line side devices and accelerometers can do most of the job.

You mean like good old fashioned signs and AWS magnets? I'm often reminded of the engineering principle KISS at the times like this.

Dave1987 · 10 May 2017

Seems that people are trying to reinvent the wheel TBH.

cjmillsnun · 10 May 2017

ComUtoR said:
What about DOO ?

The first rule of DOO, is don't talk about DOO

cjmillsnun · 10 May 2017

Dave1987 said:
You mean like good old fashioned signs and AWS magnets? I'm often reminded of the engineering principle KISS at the times like this.

This is what I don't understand. You have to prove your route knowledge to someone else in the same way that a London cabbie in training has to be able to recite a route to an examiner. It seems like people have a solution and are looking for a problem.

Llanigraham · 10 May 2017

najaB said:
That is very surprising. As long as you have a clear view of a decent enough patch of sky (c 30° or so) you should have at least four or five GPS/GLONASS satellites in view. You can use this site to get an idea of what should be visible: https://in-the-sky.org/. Use the Select Satellites dropdown to add GLONASS satellites.

Just drive down the road from Caersws to Cemmaes Road and you will see exactly why it doesn't work, and the railway is even more "hidden".

glbotu · 11 May 2017

driver_m said:
I think what we do need to prioritise with the computing side of things, is the tech to get more capacity on the actual track we have. Moving block has got to be the way forward. If we are to prioritise technology, then that's where I'd concentrate my money. Looking at a route map ultimately means that something else is not being looked at. That's my main concern with the removal of route knowledge.

Something that allows our human intuition not to be stifled by an automatic aid is the ideal. Human interaction probably causes most of our problems, so to solve this requires a human to best counter it.

You have to accept though, that moving block signalling would give you, the driver, a greater level of route knowledge-type detail, because moving block systems tend to work on target speeds. So, you'd no longer need to memorise where your PSRs are, because that would be delivered to you via the moving block system. Surely that would then extend to rarely used crossovers, for example. The system would say "drive train at max 5mph" and you would then need to comply. (Genuine question) How is that different to a system that provides you with that information without the moving block system.

Additionally, while we're on specific technological implementations, I don't think the solution to "where is the train" is a GPS (or deriviations thereof) solution. While it has a greater capital outlay, I reckon a leaky-feeder type system would be much better in its granularity and reliability. With beacon type systems for areas where that's not needed (eg: one train working sections).

Carlisle · 11 May 2017

Johncleesefan said:
.... And this is one of the reasons train drivers are paid the way they are, and why it is a tough job to get into, and also why you are expected to maintain competence in your knowledge.

I once heard that for train drivers in Germany, detailed route knowledge wasn't a major part of their training/competence, but I've no idea if there's any truth in that or not

Senex · 11 May 2017

Carlisle said:
I once heard that for train drivers in Germany, detailed route knowledge wasn't a major part of their training/competence, but I've no idea if there's any truth in that or not

Unless things have changed very much in the last few years, I don't think that's right. Up to the end of the 1980s a driver learning a new route from scratch had to travel over it on regular trains as second man for three months before being considered to have route knowledge. It was during the 1980s that films etc were used for the first time to help -- I'm pretty sure in connection with the opening of the new approach to Mannheim.

What you may be thinking of is that a driver could (can?) driver over a Hauptbahn without route knowledge if specifically authorised so to do and subject to a maximum speed of 100 km/h with the usual conditions for all drivers of having the WTT, the Geschwindigkeitsheft, and the La (or nowadays the electronic version, Ebula) open on the desk in front of him.

Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member