Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[fowler9]

The thing is when all the navigation tech goes down a train driver can still drive the train to the timetable when they have route knowledge. If all the tech goes down and the driver doesn't know the route then if it is dark or foggy or whatever then the train is going nowhere, actually that is probably the same without it being dark or foggy.

 

[fowler9]

Just to try and clarify my thoughts, the thread title is "Is route knowledge an outmoded concept" and I would ask if Visual Flying is an outmoded concept? Would you get on a plane if you knew the pilot wouldn't have a clue what to do if all his navigational equipment went down.

Again aviation and the railways is a bad comparison.

 

[theironroad]

The thing is when all the navigation tech goes down a train driver can still drive the train to the timetable when they have route knowledge. If all the tech goes down and the driver doesn't know the route then if it is dark or foggy or whatever then the train is going nowhere, actually that is probably the same without it being dark or foggy.

If route knowledge is all but abolished and reliance is placed on navigation/GPS aids then any failure is going to result in resorting to driving on sight at low speed. Fog, intense rain/snow etc is all going to result in the service collapsing in terms of timetabling.

However, if it's financially cheaper for the tocs to take the odd weather hit in terms of performance compared to drivers having full route knowledge, then they'll take the collapse in performance and disruption as it may well be the cheaper option.

 

[Dryce]

If all the tech goes down and the driver doesn't know the route then if it is dark or foggy or whatever then the train is going nowhere, actually that is probably the same without it being dark or foggy.

But it's not as if the driver is just another point of failure either.

There's a tendency in discussions like this to list all that can go wrong without treating the humans involves equitably as risk factors.

There's also a tendency to stack conditions. So we have multiple tech failuers. The environmental conditions are very poor. And the human in the loop operates perfectly?

If the conditions are that bad I'd rather the human was backed by some decent technical assistance.

 

[najaB]

The thing is when all the navigation tech goes down a train driver can still drive the train to the timetable when they have route knowledge.

That is true. However, memory is fallible. I started the thread because seems odd that rail is one of the few (the only?) method of transport that doesn't use technology in this way. Road, shipping and air all use some combination of position reckoning and moving map technology.

 

[fowler9]

Yeah I get what you are all saying. I took the title of the thread to mean route knowledge was not needed.

 

[InOban]

I agree. Each mode of transport is unique, but that does not mean that there are not technologies which may have been developed for one, but which can be applied to another. As other posters have pointed out, the constraints of Rail - the fixed track etc- actually make it easier to apply certain technologies, and there are other ways of determining exact position than GPS. But we must accept that a part of the reduction in the cost of, say, flying in due to the reduction in the size of the flight crew from four to two, with no need for a flight engineer or navigator.

In the same way, within a generation ships have moved from celestial navigation and paper charts updated by hand, to a chart plotter in which speed, location etc are overlaid on to an electronic chart.

 

[najaB]

Yeah I get what you are all saying. I took the title of the thread to mean route knowledge was not needed.

No. Not that it isn't needed, the question was if relying on route knowledge as a *primary* safety system is an outmoded concept.

 

[ComUtoR]

route knowledge as a *primary* safety system

I don't see it as the primary safety system. I use my route knowledge to drive my train and be able to stop at stations. The safety systems protect my train when something goes wrong.

When the safety systems fail and the brown stuff has hit the spinny ting. Then you have route knowledge and the person up the pointy end to protect the train/track/passengers. Effectively, I am the last line of defence. To do that correctly and safely, I need route knowledge.

 

[najaB]

I don't see it as the primary safety system. I use my route knowledge to drive my train and be able to stop at stations. The safety systems protect my train when something goes wrong.

When the safety systems fail and the brown stuff has hit the spinny ting. Then you have route knowledge and the person up the pointy end to protect the train/track/passengers. Effectively, I am the last line of defence. To do that correctly and safely, I need route knowledge.

Thanks for that. It seems to me that route knowledge is certainly _treated_ as a primary system: if the driver doesn't sign the route the train ain't going anywhere.

You can isolate TPWS, AWS, etc but lack of route knowledge is inviolate.

 

[fowler9]

Thanks for that. It seems to me that route knowledge is certainly _treated_ as a primary system: if the driver doesn't sign the route the train ain't going anywhere.

You can isolate TPWS, AWS, etc but lack of route knowledge is inviolate.

That was sort of my point. You wouldn't want to get in plane with a pilot who couldn't fly the thing if the computers went down either.

 

[najaB]

That was sort of my point. You wouldn't want to get in plane with a pilot who couldn't fly the thing if the computers went down either.

The thing is, route knowledge isn't equivalent to flying skills.

 

[fowler9]

The thing is, route knowledge isn't equivalent to flying skills.

True, and it is a bad comparison.

 

[ComUtoR]

Thanks for that. It seems to me that route knowledge is certainly _treated_ as a primary system: if the driver doesn't sign the route the train ain't going anywhere.

Oh I agree with what you say but your intent continues to be the same. It is to allow a unit to go somewhere the Driver doesn't sign. For as long as that point remains then we are stuck in a loop.

Could there be a complimentary tech to enable a Driver to work a route - YES 100%

Should there be onboard systems to allow better degraded working situations - YES 100%

The issue I have with both of those is that when you integrate anything into the train you start to have new rules for when it fails. The railway will treat is as either safety critical or totally pointless.

If it's treated as a critical system then you end up with a situation where a unit will be out of service and your in another situation where you can drive the unit but tech has limited you. TPWS is great but its critical. Isolate and your out of service.Can you drive without it. Of course. Same with the PA and the Mitrac if either fail your out of service. I don't need either to drive a route.

If it is a non critical system then you need to be able to drive without it. That means you would still require route knowledge. Ergo why add such a cost ?

Should you allow a Driver to drive somewhere without any route knowledge ? I still say no. Not outright but it would require so many caveats I believe it would be totally prohibitive.

How do you feed the information to the Driver at 70-100mph ? Remember we need to be looking out the front window.

Can a system really be reliable enough to navigate and drive by ? I agree that various tech is about and what some people have described actually exists in units and is in passenger service (see 700's) but it doesn't navigate. It is about positional data and I have no issues with that whatsoever but it still needs to translate to the Driver in some way.

How far would this allow a Driver to drive ? I posted earlier upthread about some of the things I need for a single diversionary we use. It's quite far and there are is a lot to consider for us to drive. When you remove the requirement for route knowledge you could therefore go anywhere on the network.

You are very much in a situation of 'What if...' So much of what I do is on the fly, reacting to the unit and track and every trip (even on the same route) differs slightly. When those 'What if's' happen; someone needs to be liable too. For the railway and the Driver that liability it important. Someone needs to take the risk. With route knowledge I am expected to be proactive and I know what's round the corner. I agree you can program a lot into the computer but they still aren't proactive enough. The second the weather changes I drive differently, drop a running brake test and drop my speed into low adhesion areas. I also react to what is happening on track. The other day there were passengers dangling their legs over the platform. Which I needed to react to. I was asked to examine the line too a few days ago. Because I have route knowledge it allows the conversation between the Sig and I to go smoothly and with complete understanding.

These kind of questions still hang in the air. I'm generally open minded but they can't just be answered by accusations of being a luddite and afraid of tech or that 'it will exist in the future' or just blind acceptance it is possible. I can agree all that. I need to know how it will present to the Driver and how we deal with the 'what if' situations.

The way we do route knowledge is a little outdate. It's much better than it use to be and could certainly be updated; which is happening.

 

[t_star2001uk]

The thing is, route knowledge isn't equivalent to flying skills.

But navigation without computer aids is.....

 

[FordFocus]

Loosely been following this thread but I'll give my thoughts as a driver...

There are some good pieces of technology that's come out on the railway over the past decade but some have been either implemented poorly or not supported after initial investment so became a huge waste of money. Some of these projects are supported by RSSB and government. One technological example similar to the OP post is DAS.

My TOC amongst others have something called DAS (Driver Advisory System) that's designed to make you drive within the timetable to save fuel or energy. It knows the speeds, gradients, mileage and the technical specs of the trains performance. The problem with DAS is it took too many tweaks to make it into a workable state. Originally it was advising the driver to drive too slow or didn't have the correct timetable loaded into it so stations were been missed. It couldn't take into account the difference between routed through a diverging junction at 40mph or a through line at 100mph, so made the train late as it couldn't account for the decrease in speed for the junction. It can't tell occasionally whether you were on the fast line (e.g. 100mph) or the slow line (75mph) because the GPS isn't accurate enough to decipher between the running lines. This causes risks with over speed or short signalling sections. When you have this reliance on technology it can increase risks.

If a driver has very limited or no route knowledge and has to rely on some form of iPad for knowledge then you can kiss goodbye to the timetable as that driver is unlikely to be going anywhere near line speed. "If in doubt, creep about" is a term used for unfamiliar signalled moves. You take your time to ensure you don't mess up with a SPAD. This iPad software would have to interact with signalling in some way. As I mentioned before, DAS can't figure out what route or line your taking because it's unable to know what's happening ahead. I don't fancy driving a train going around the corner to find a different combination of signal aspects that iPad is telling me that's set for a diverging junction at 20mph. I think the workload of looking constantly at the iPad, trying to concentrate on controlling the train movement and looking out the window for signals/stations/signs/obstructions/workers is too much of a workload. Add in a degraded working scenario and the risk is too much IMHO.

Whilst we're in the era of fixed signals with either AB, TCB or Axle Counters I can't see route knowledge ever going the way of iPads. Once ERTMS is rolled out nationally more then the topic could come up again. It's not all despair though, I believe that up-to date route maps should be available to all drivers on iPads (other well known branded tablets available ), controlled nationally and approved by Network Rail and RSSB as a group standard so all drivers can understand the key and symbols to the maps.

 

[philthetube]

But navigation without computer aids is.....

no, navigation without computer aids on a plane or in a train are very different.

on a plane you are relying on your eyes, you see an airport ten miles away and you aim for it and stop at it. On a train you go round a corner and there is a station 200 yards away, you go 2 miles past it before you are able to stop.

I really hope this makes it clear, in a way everyone can understand, why the two are not comparable.

 

[455driver]

Let's risk being branded "ill thought out", or worse epithets.
What is the risk of ECML drivers who do not sign the diversionary route via Hertford taking that route when the main line between Alexandra Palace & Stevenage is blocked?. In the dark, far too risky if they drive at what used to be called line speed. In daylight still too risky. If they miss an advance PSR/TSR warning,or see a signal late it would be catastrophic. But if they drove at 45 mph max in daylight & 30 mph in darkness, TPWS & the low speeds would eliminate the risks, or would they?
I & some driver colleagues,but not all, think it would be perfectly safe. And most of those I mentioned it to would do it if they were guaranteed no "please explain" or enquiry, if they Spadded. Plus the right to drive at below 45 mph if they were uneasy. What risks are there at these low speeds with TPWS? I do not think there are any. The benefits are obvious, that more main line long distance services could be run if the line was blocked at say Hitchin. The same principle could apply everywhere on the railway with higher or lower top speed restrictions. I can see it being vigorously opposed,but the opponents motives should be challenged.

So you would be happy to bet your licence and job on it would you?
Whether you believe it or not if you went on a diversion route you didnt sign and messed up, the responsibility would have to end up squarely on somebodies shoulders, guess who would be first in line with everyone else closing ranks?

 

[Hartington]

The display of data is going to depend on quite what is expected of the system. As an aide memoir for day to day use on signed routes I would have thought a display similar (NOT the same as) to a satnav used in a car or perhaps a tablet would suffice. After all the knowledge is still there, your signature (if I can put it that way), hasn't changed. For use on unsigned diversionary routes the same display might still work PROVIDED the train is driven quite a lot more slowly than normal line speed and that is probably not operationally acceptable. To be able to drive at line speed is a completely different kettle of fish and I'd be inclined to think in terms of synthetic vision projected via a HUD and at that point the question of cost becomes a real issue.

In either case what data you display and in what form is going to be critical. That's going to require input from drivers. How soon before it actually appears should a critical item be displayed; for that matter what is the hierarchy of items to be displayed? Are speed limits more important than signals or is one sometimes more important than the other? Do you want words or pictures? Do you want any element of control over the way the display works for you compared to another driver? Does the system have a training use?

The questions, at this point, are myriad but that should not be a reason for not doing it.

 

[najaB]

The display of data is going to depend on quite what is expected of the system...

It doesn't have to be exclusively visual. The railway already makes use of auditory alerts in the form of AWS bells and buzzers (*so* close to bells and whistles ).

 

[fowler9]

Perhaps looking forward something like a HUD could be useful. Although as ComUtoR said if this becomes part of safety critical equipment the second it isn't working the train goes out of service whereas at the moment trains work pretty much just fine using the mark one eyeball (I say mark one rather vaguely taking in to account millions of years of evolution ).

 

[Hartington]

Dings, buzzes and klaxons are fine until the number of warnings becomes such that either the same sound means different things or the whole cacophony becomes overwhelming.

In any case, if the system is being used as an aide memoir rather than a part of the safety systems any noises it might make become distractions and unwanted.

If that basic system were to be used to enable emergency driving of diversionary routes at reduced speed it becomes more important but the existing signal protection systems (TPWS etc) would still be in place and protecting the system so still I don't see the need for buzzers etc.

Once you get to HUDs and synthetic vision the data would be presented on that HUD with appropriate visual cues. You only get buzzers and bells (the temptation to write belles instead!) now so why would you need more when the track, signals, buildings, bridges, platforms etc (all your current visual cues) are still there for you?

 

[najaB]

Dings, buzzes and klaxons are fine until the number of warnings becomes such that either the same sound means different things or the whole cacophony becomes overwhelming.

I wasn't thinking it would be bells (or belles for that matter!). It could easily be synthesised voice - e.g. "Ahead: 100, diverging route left: 40." or similar.

 

[Dryce]

on a plane you are relying on your eyes, you see an airport ten miles away and you aim for it and stop at it. On a train you go round a corner and there is a station 200 yards away, you go 2 miles past it before you are able to stop.

I think you'll find it's rather more complicated than that.

You don't necressarily see what you are aiming for.

Aiming for it is one thing - managing your energy state to set up for stable approach is quite another.

And an aircraft is flying in an environent that itself may be moving quite significantly and dynamically.

By comparison a track with a bit of corner ahead and a station 200 yards ahead is quite simple in terms of the ease of knowing your position and managing your energy state.

I really hope this makes it clear, in a way everyone can understand, why the two are not comparable.

It doesn't.

 

[AlterEgo]

no, navigation without computer aids on a plane or in a train are very different.

on a plane you are relying on your eyes, you see an airport ten miles away and you aim for it and stop at it. On a train you go round a corner and there is a station 200 yards away, you go 2 miles past it before you are able to stop.

I really hope this makes it clear, in a way everyone can understand, why the two are not comparable.

News to me that in instrument flying you rely on visual clues.

Better go check that analogy Phil.

 

[InOban]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/digital-route-learning-at-db-cargo-uk.html

UK: Freight operator DB Cargo UK has introduced an internet-based route learning programme developed with Track Access Services Ltd to familiarise drivers with the physical characteristics of the routes over which they operate. Accessed via tablet or computer, it combines high-quality footage of routes filmed by DB Cargo UK with a moving track diagram, and also displays route characteristics such as signal locations and line speeds.
Drivers traditionally learn a route by physically travelling over it in an allotted period of time. Using streamed media enables drivers to review a route or sections of it as many times as they wish. It also removes the need to operate trains specifically for route learning, reducing costs and conserving network capacity, allowing ‘faster mobilisation for geographic or seasonal spikes in workload’, according to DB Cargo UK....

Comments?

Would be a good idea for truck drivers going on a new route!

 

[Johncleesefan]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/digital-route-learning-at-db-cargo-uk.html

Comments?

Would be a good idea for truck drivers going on a new route!

Yes and from the db drivers I've had in my cab route learning recently they are neither happy nor confident in this arrangement hence why they are in my cab physically going over the route in the flesh and refusing the dvd alone.

Its suppose to be a money saving tactic to avoid paying the man hours of that driver route learning but he'd still need to be payed to watch the dvd 1000 times

 

[ComUtoR]

Comments?

Yes, I would like to hear your comments. Is this in favour of route knowledge or against it ? This very much supports retaining route knowledge. After all its teaching you a route.

 

[Johncleesefan]

Yes, I would like to hear your comments. Is this in favour of route knowledge or against it ? This very much supports retaining route knowledge. After all its teaching you a route.

From the drivers I spoke to, the company hope all route learning will be done on dvd, so they will technically have the same knowledge standard but wont have actually driven it. Its a different argument to the thread but still relevant

 

[ComUtoR]

so they will technically have the same knowledge standard but wont have actually driven it.

Totally different knowledge standard. It gives you basic knowledge but doesn't tell you how to drive it. Its speeds and signals.

Its a different argument to the thread but still relevant

Its more evidence in support of route knowledge