Driving on line of sight without route knowledge

[Egg Centric]

I understand why route knowledge is essential in ordinary operations. But what sort of considerations prevent driving on line of sight - perhaps with a max speed of say 15-20mph as well and maybe also with a briefing by a signaller - in an emergency situation without route knowledge. It doesn't sound difficult.

Maybe it's doable but a solution in search of a problem?

Maybe it's already permitted!

But I doubt both the above given the occasional times you hear about a train unable to move to/from a non standard platform because someone doesn't sign a single simple movement. So what am I missing?

 

[Sly Old Fox]

What would be the benefit?

 

[Egg Centric]

What would be the benefit?

Very short unsigned movements (like when someone signs platforms 1-4 but it'd be handy to get them into platform 6) mostly. Possibly in some very unusual situations longer (few mile) diversions.

 

[bramling]

I understand why route knowledge is essential in ordinary operations. But what sort of considerations prevent driving on line of sight - perhaps with a max speed of say 15-20mph as well and maybe also with a briefing by a signaller - in an emergency situation without route knowledge. It doesn't sound difficult.

Maybe it's doable but a solution in search of a problem?

Maybe it's already permitted!

But I doubt both the above given the occasional times you hear about a train unable to move to/from a non standard platform because someone doesn't sign a single simple movement. So what am I missing?

The problem is where do you draw the line? So driver starts a move they’re unfamiliar with but are assured it’s simple, then there’s a failure or something and suddenly a more complex move is required. Essentially it’s asking for something to happen.

In essence everything is okay until it isn’t.

 

[baz962]

Although it sounds easy and in a lot of instances it would be to just say go into a different platform etc , it can also be dodgy. Some complex stations might have a lot of ground position signals that you don't realise are for the particular platform. You might not know if or where a stop marker is or even if the train would be fully platformed. If the units you drive are allowed onto a platform you would normally sign all platforms at the location and so there are usually good reasons you don't sign a platform. Another reason is if you need a totally different line to access a platform and when I was at London Overground we had to go a different route into platform 17 at Clapham junction instead of the normal platform 1 and had to have been assessed into 17 separately.

 

[Somewhere]

Perhaps drivers should have route knowledge of all possible scenarios they may encounter on lines of route they sign. If they don't sign Platform 6, then perhaps they should sign it.
What would a briefing from a Signaller achieve? They're in a signalling centre many miles away, and possibly won't have the knowledge to pass onto a driver that the driver would require

 

[Geeves]

The chord in Manchester city center and the Brewery curve at Newton Heath is a good example where even if you sign both ends you cannot drive over it unless you get it signed off and that depends on what you sign at the depot. As the original poster says I am sure a driver could handle it on sight in an emergency but that flexibility does not exist

 

[Somewhere]

The chord in Manchester city center and the Brewery curve at Newton Heath is a good example where even if you sign both ends you cannot drive over it unless you get it signed off and that depends on what you sign at the depot. As the original poster says I am sure a driver could handle it on sight in an emergency but that flexibility does not exist

I bet if the driver was finishing the flexibility would suddenly exist!

 

[class ep-09]

I understand why route knowledge is essential in ordinary operations. But what sort of considerations prevent driving on line of sight - perhaps with a max speed of say 15-20mph as well and maybe also with a briefing by a signaller - in an emergency situation without route knowledge. It doesn't sound difficult.

Maybe it's doable but a solution in search of a problem?

Maybe it's already permitted!

But I doubt both the above given the occasional times you hear about a train unable to move to/from a non standard platform because someone doesn't sign a single simple movement. So what am I missing

Some continental Europe work that way.

You can drive anywhere in the country at reduced speed because signal meanings are consistent and there is very little of such things as “rear clear markers” , different stopping positions for different trains - and above all - at stations any platform can take you from anywhere to anywhere , so it does not matter where you are routed at a station.
There is also ETCS that allows driving under supervision of the system not on sight.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Very short unsigned movements (like when someone signs platforms 1-4 but it'd be handy to get them into platform 6) mostly. Possibly in some very unusual situations longer (few mile) diversions.

I can’t think of a scenario where a driver could be signalled into a platform they don’t sign. If it’s an option, they already sign it.

Take Victoria for example, Southeastern drivers only sign platforms 1-8 but there isn’t physically a link to platform 14 so they couldn’t get there even if the signaller wanted them to.

 

[Tomnick]

Very short unsigned movements (like when someone signs platforms 1-4 but it'd be handy to get them into platform 6) mostly. Possibly in some very unusual situations longer (few mile) diversions.

The only place I know where some drivers don't sign for all platforms is Man Picc, where some only sign 13/14 and not the main shed – and that's not a place you want to go if you don't know what you're doing!

At the vast majority of places, if you sign the station, you sign all the platforms and all the shunts (even out onto routes that you don't sign) even if you normally only ever go in and out of one bay.

 

[Hugo3000]

I can’t think of a scenario where a driver could be signalled into a platform they don’t sign. If it’s an option, they already sign it.

Take Victoria for example, Southeastern drivers only sign platforms 1-8 but there isn’t physically a link to platform 14 so they couldn’t get there even if the signaller wanted them to.

I may be wrong, but I think some drivers only sign platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Picadilly. If that's blocked it would be handy for them to be able to use the main station.

 

[driver9000]

I may be wrong, but I think some drivers only sign platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Picadilly. If that's blocked it would be handy for them to be able to use the main station.

Correct.

 

[Krokodil]

Shunts are when SPADs are most likely. Best not to add any more risk than there is already.

I may be wrong, but I think some drivers only sign platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Picadilly. If that's blocked it would be handy for them to be able to use the main station.

This applies to TfW crews from Chester/Llandudno Junction/Holyhead. In practice though, if 13/14 are blocked then they're not going anywhere anyway, so you may as well screw the unit down at the airport until the line reopens.

I would hope though that EMR crews sign the main station in case they need to terminate short.

 

[louis97]

I would hope though that EMR crews sign the main station in case they need to terminate short.

EMR have booked work in and out of the main shed, so I'd hope so .

 

[172007]

The only place I know where some drivers don't sign for all platforms is Man Picc, where some only sign 13/14 and not the main shed – and that's not a place you want to go if you don't know what you're doing!

At the vast majority of places, if you sign the station, you sign all the platforms and all the shunts (even out onto routes that you don't sign) even if you normally only ever go in and out of one bay.

West mids don't sign platforms 3 & 4 at Birmingham Moor Street.

 

[Matt Taylor]

SWR don't sign platform five at Basingstoke although that may have changed since the Salisbury-Readings started.

In some respects it does already happen. Some years ago I was the guard on a train that ended up with a smashed windscreen to the point that it was impossible for my driver to see anything, as a result I had to enter the driving cab and become the driver's eyes from the second person's side at very low speed for about three miles.

 

[ExRes]

I bet if the driver was finishing the flexibility would suddenly exist!

And then something goes wrong and, in the extreme, the driver loses their job for the sake of doing a favour? I remember a route that we only signed in one direction, one of my colleagues was asked to do a favour and drive it the opposite way, he had a SPAD, guess who got the blame, NR, control or the driver?

 

[Somewhere]

And then something goes wrong and, in the extreme, the driver loses their job for the sake of doing a favour? I remember a route that we only signed in one direction, one of my colleagues was asked to do a favour and drive it the opposite way, he had a SPAD, guess who got the blame, NR, control or the driver?

Driver doing themselves a favour. If anyone else wonders how a train got somewhere, blind eyes are generally turned and no questions are asked.

 

[Falcon1200]

I understand why route knowledge is essential in ordinary operations. But what sort of considerations prevent driving on line of sight - perhaps with a max speed of say 15-20mph as well and maybe also with a briefing by a signaller - in an emergency situation without route knowledge. It doesn't sound difficult.

What would be the benefit?

A reduction in delays and disruption. Here are three (very frustrating) examples from my time as a Controller;

Bridge Street Junction (Glasgow Central) to Shields Junction; There is a third line apart from the Up and Down Mains, not all Drivers signed this line.

Newton (Lanarkshire); The main lines bypass the platform lines which can be used for diversions, again not all Drivers signed this route.

Mossend Yard; The most absurd example, when the Down Main was blocked for some reason a Driver refused to take the Down Goods line (converted for passenger train use by the Signalling Centre Shift Manager) due to not signing the line; The Down Goods runs immediately adjacent to the Down Main for its entire length!

IMHO, in such circumstances, there should be a derogation for Drivers without route knowledge to accept these lines with the following conditions;

The derogation would only apply to locations specified in the Sectional Appendix
The route would be set throughout the diversion to the point (at least) where route knowledge recommenced
The movement would be made, throughout, at a specified maximum speed, say 5 or 10mph

Interested to hear other views on this.

 

[Topological]

My mind turned to a situation where the driver signs to a through station, but not beyond it. In the situation that there were sidings / refuge / options to hold on the track, it might be useful to be able to clear the platform in disruption. The train in the platform could be talked to the siding, loop, or just to be a bit further along the line.

--A---Platform---Siding---Refuge Point---Line blocked

So in this case could a train at Platform get to the Siding/Refuge Point to allow A into the platform.

I do not know if such a situation could arrange, but I guess it does.

 

[zwk500]

A reduction in delays and disruption. Here are three (very frustrating) examples from my time as a Controller;

Bridge Street Junction (Glasgow Central) to Shields Junction; There is a third line apart from the Up and Down Mains, not all Drivers signed this line.

Newton (Lanarkshire); The main lines bypass the platform lines which can be used for diversions, again not all Drivers signed this route.

Mossend Yard; The most absurd example, when the Down Main was blocked for some reason a Driver refused to take the Down Goods line (converted for passenger train use by the Signalling Centre Shift Manager) due to not signing the line; The Down Goods runs immediately adjacent to the Down Main for its entire length!

IMHO, in such circumstances, there should be a derogation for Drivers without route knowledge to accept these lines with the following conditions;

The derogation would only apply to locations specified in the Sectional Appendix
The route would be set throughout the diversion to the point (at least) where route knowledge recommenced
The movement would be made, throughout, at a specified maximum speed, say 5 or 10mph

Interested to hear other views on this.

IMHO the solution to these problems is just to include them in the route knowledge training. Same with the directional problems mentioned above. Adding an additional line to an existing signed route should be relatively straightforward.

The main scenario I can see a line-of-sight exemption being helpful would be if there was disruption and platforms were being blocked up and drivers didn't sign the nearest depot, sidings or available route. In that case then I could see a case for something as you outline above, or based on the rules for making an unsignalled move. The movements would need to be pre-defined (e.g. no further than fitting behind a shunt signal) in the Sectional Appendix.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

A reduction in delays and disruption. Here are three (very frustrating) examples from my time as a Controller;

Bridge Street Junction (Glasgow Central) to Shields Junction; There is a third line apart from the Up and Down Mains, not all Drivers signed this line.

Newton (Lanarkshire); The main lines bypass the platform lines which can be used for diversions, again not all Drivers signed this route.

Mossend Yard; The most absurd example, when the Down Main was blocked for some reason a Driver refused to take the Down Goods line (converted for passenger train use by the Signalling Centre Shift Manager) due to not signing the line; The Down Goods runs immediately adjacent to the Down Main for its entire length!

IMHO, in such circumstances, there should be a derogation for Drivers without route knowledge to accept these lines with the following conditions;

The derogation would only apply to locations specified in the Sectional Appendix
The route would be set throughout the diversion to the point (at least) where route knowledge recommenced
The movement would be made, throughout, at a specified maximum speed, say 5 or 10mph

Interested to hear other views on this.

None of these sort of situations should occur in the first place, for my money. Learn the route and all lines associated with it in the first place. If you don’t do it for a while have a refresher on it. Drivers shouldn’t be driving on routes they don’t sign, but they also shouldn’t be refusing goods loops (for example), that’s just madness. You sign the main, you sign the goods.

 

[Seehof]

Passenger trains are not allowed in some goods loops.
I know of some drivers who refused to go down lines beyond the end of a station which they did not normally drive down. Certainly, where I used to work, if you did anything you were not trained for or had not learned and it went wrong you would be totally blamed for it.
Any doubt with anything speak to the signaller.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

IMHO the solution to these problems is just to include them in the route knowledge training. Same with the directional problems mentioned above. Adding an additional line to an existing signed route should be relatively straightforward.

The main scenario I can see a line-of-sight exemption being helpful would be if there was disruption and platforms were being blocked up and drivers didn't sign the nearest depot, sidings or available route. In that case then I could see a case for something as you outline above, or based on the rules for making an unsignalled move. The movements would need to be pre-defined (e.g. no further than fitting behind a shunt signal) in the Sectional Appendix.

This is absolutely the case. It's a clear consequence of privatisation that some TOCs have felt the need to reduce route training costs leading to a loss of flexibility at precisely those times it is most needed. And what we are talking about here is relatively small areas around key nodes rather than extensive diversionary knowledge. The objection typically raised to such localised additional knowledge is maintaining the competence but in most cases that is not difficult and more a matter of having the willingness to make it happen.

Anyone who has ever read about historical accidents will surely understand that the idea of informal line-of-sight derogations to the normal route knowledge standards is very much at the top of a slippery slope. I suspect that the effort and cost involved to ensure no erosion of usual safety standards would end up offering little by way of savings compared to providing the appropriate route instruction in the first place. And there will often be the perfectly practical option of providing route conductors for short moves: if disruption is happening there is a likelihood of some local crews being busy doing nothing who could be used for just such a purpose.

 

[The Puddock]

RSSB did a research project into this in 2010 and the conclusion - broadly - was that it works in other countries but wouldn't be well received by TOCs and FOCs here. If you have a Spark log in, the project number is T655.

 

[craigybagel]

My mind turned to a situation where the driver signs to a through station, but not beyond it. In the situation that there were sidings / refuge / options to hold on the track, it might be useful to be able to clear the platform in disruption. The train in the platform could be talked to the siding, loop, or just to be a bit further along the line.

--A---Platform---Siding---Refuge Point---Line blocked

So in this case could a train at Platform get to the Siding/Refuge Point to allow A into the platform.

I do not know if such a situation could arrange, but I guess it does.

Funnily enough I have just such a location on my route card. Busy station with both thrush and terminating services, and beyond it on one side of the mainline a TMD, and on the other a turn back siding. I don't sign, and will not invest any circumstances go past the signal on the end of the platform.

It might not be far, or fast, but short shunts like this are among the most complicated things you have to learn as a driver. It's very easy to get it wrong - and if you do you'll cause a whole lot more disruption than by blocking the platform.

My depot did use to sign the TMD, but with so little work and so many drivers to keep competent it was no longer practical to keep it on our cards.

 

[D6130]

When I was a driver at Skipton, we signed the whole stations at Leeds, Lancaster and Carlisle....including all shunts at the 'not normally used' ends of those stations. In more than twenty years of driving, I only ever had to do a 'wrong end' shunt twice at Leeds, twice at Lancaster and once at Carlisle.....in each case several years after having first signed the relevant routes. A quick glance at my route maps - which I always carried in my bag - followed by a phone conversation with the signaller, explaining the situation - and we were on our way. Signallers are always sympathetic and helpful to drivers who haven't done a move for a long time. After all, they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of a collision/derailment/ points run-through. However, in the case of a route or shunt manoeuvre that has never been taught or signed, it's a definite no-no.....you have to request the services of a qualified conductor driver or it doesn't happen.

 

[baz962]

Trouble is that may not always be the TOCs fault. At London Overground we had a move across all four WCML tracks from the relief lines to Willesden TMD and vice versa. I wanted to learn it and my trainers/ instructors wanted us to learn it. I was led to believe that the signallers didn't want to block the four lines to enable it. Personally I would be happy for special circumstances , but as alluded to above you would need some rules around it. As a driver you will get in trouble if it goes awry.

 

[Deepgreen]

I know this will be shot down, BUT, playing devil's advocate, as long as signals. speed restriction signs, etc., are obeyed, there SHOULD be no reason why any driver can't take a train (as long as it is traction they sign, of course) over any route. In other words, any UK rail route should be signalled and signed to permit safe operation by anyone qualified on the traction involved. However, I know that route knowledge is invaluable to allow slicker operation than might the case for someone new to the route. Of course, everyone is new (when solo) to a route they sign at some point...

I generally dislike comparisons with road transport, but road users do not require route training as long as they can drive (and quite a wide range of 'traction' at that) and, as long as all speed limits and road signs are obeyed, there should be no problem (and they have the additional problem of steering!). I realise of course, that there are good reasons why rail transport is vastly safer than road, including good knowledge of routes driven.