Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[Carlisle]

Very interesting, Thanks .

 

[coppercapped]

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

Traditional German signalling principles are based on speed, not route, signalling. As a result remembering junction speed restrictions is not necessary, the driver drives at the speed indicated by the signals.

That still doesn't mean that anyone can take a train out - driver training lasts a year or more.

As both Neil Williams and I have posted previously on this thread the driver refers to a document whilst driving that lists speed restrictions (Langsamfahrstellen = slow driving places), platform positions and so on. In newer stock this is now presented electronically. This has the German acronym of EBuLa - scroll down to EBuLa for more information. (German Wiki has more - just run it through Google Translate). Think of it as the railway equivalent of the aeronautical Jeppesen maps.

The concept is being extended. This is a translation from an undated DB web site but which I think is actually 2010.

EBuLa radio for special trains is now standard procedure
An extensive practical test has confirmed its reliability. Since February 2010, more than 100,000 short term planned trains have been provided with their WTT by radio.

DB Netz AG will introduce EBuLa-Funk (electronic book timetable and list of temporary low-speed areas) for scheduled trains from the 12th of December.
EBuLa users will now be able to use electronic WTTs for their short term planned traffic.

Since the end of 2009, the system has passed all test phases successfully. During this time, DB Netz AG has provided more than 100,000 trains in the occasional (= short term and very short term planned) traffic with their WTT by means of radio, currently more than 700 a day.

The advantage of EBuLa: the WTTs are no longer handed over to the drivers, but can be called up immediately after timetabling is completed. The driver enters the train number into the EBuLa equipment on the train and the EBuLa radio transmitter transmits the corresponding data to the display in the driver's cab.

What is not to like?

 

[D1009]

What is not to like?

The German railway safety record compared to ours.

 

[coppercapped]

The German railway safety record compared to ours.

A cheap jibe. So EbuLa radio has caused crashes...?

News to me.

(There is certainly room for improvement in DBAG's safety record - but none of it is connected with the use of EBuLa radio).

 

[fowler9]

I fully expect to get flamed for this one, so here goes...

In 2017 is it right and correct that we depend on human memory - in the form of route knowledge - as a primary safety system?

It used to be the case that pilots flew by eye and had to have route knowledge as they flew from landmark to landmark. This placed severe operational limitations on the airlines and so visual navigation was replaced by ground-based navigational aids and charts, and now even physical charts are disappearing as they are replaced by electronic flight bags.

This means that the modern airline pilot's minds are focused on the things that they do best - actually flying the plane, rather than having to be full of facts, and they aren't limited to only flying routes that they have a mental map of.

In contrast, on the railway we still depend on route knowledge as the first and most important layer of the protections that keep the railway safe. And it does do a good job of keeping the railway safe, this isn't a criticism of the men and women who do a good job of keeping the system working. It's also not an attempt to do drivers out of a job - there's already [thread=139956]a thread[/thread] about driverless trains and I agree that we're a few (many?) years away from that reality.

But there *is* an operational downside to depending on route knowledge - how many times do we hear versions of "Can't use that diversionary route, they don't have route knowledge"? Or trains have to get cancelled because a driver who signs the planned route isn't available for one reason or another.

So my question is this: we accept that it's perfectly safe for a driver to be conducted along a route that (s)he doesn't sign. Why does that conductor have to be a human being? While train positioning hasn't yet reached the point where it can reliably be used to control the train directly (one of the issues with driverless trains), I'm sure that it's accurate enough to be used as input to a virtual route conductor that could provide the same information as a human conductor - e.g. distance to signals, recommended speeds, braking points.

A system such as this would be invaluable in times of disruption, but could also be useful for regular day-to-day use as well as it would give the driver a virtual secondman if it was a near-realtime system that was updated with the WONs, ESRs, etc.

I'm interested in your thoughts?

(I've got my flame-retardant underwear on! )

Pilots are taught Aviate, Navigate and Communicate in that order for when things go wrong. I would guess things are not that different for a train driver and you have to assume a total loss of any high tech gadgets. When I say not that different I would guess the train driver is not expected to keep the train in the air but to bring it safely to a halt.

 

[DerekC]

There is already a system which provides track precise "rolling map" support for the driver. See:

http://www.rdsintl.com/driver-support-system/

The train carries a digital map of the route and tracks its positon through a combination of GPS and image analysis. GPS provides a rough position. The video stream from a forward facing CCTV camera is analysed to measure movement along the track, providing better accuracy and filling in the GPS gaps. The software can also detect which path the train has taken at a set of facing points.

 

[Agent_c]

Whenthe computer thinks it know better than people...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/goo...-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170510-gw26ae.html

 

[Dave1987]

Could pick so many holes and flaws in the arguments on here but what is the point? Starting to agree with other drivers on this forum that there is no point in posting from a drivers point of view any more because others who aren't drivers will always know best. The real world is very very different to your ideal world behind your computer screen.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Any drivers here based out of Waterloo (main)? Do you sign all traction and routes (to a certain point) out of Waterloo or do you sign just certain routes and traction (presumably lower links will sign a reduced selection of routes and/or traction)?

 

[D1009]

A cheap jibe. So EbuLa radio has caused crashes...?

News to me.

(There is certainly room for improvement in DBAG's safety recoherd - but none of it is connected with the use of EBuLa radio).

My apologies, I thought "What's not to like" referred to your post as a whole rather than the use of EBuLa radio in particular. I suspect few forum members have your detailed knowledge of German railway operating procedures. The thread is about route knowledge, and how your post came across to me is that under certain circumstances German drivers without route knowledge can drive trains by referring to a tablet or document while driving. To me that does not seem particularly safe.

There is probably a wider debate to be had on the relative merits of our signalling system compared to the speed based system common on other European railways.

 

[coppercapped]

My apologies, I thought "What's not to like" referred to your post as a whole rather than the use of EBuLa radio in particular. I suspect few forum members have your detailed knowledge of German railway operating procedures. The thread is about route knowledge, and how your post came across to me is that under certain circumstances German drivers without route knowledge can drive trains by referring to a tablet or document while driving. To me that does not seem particularly safe.

There is probably a wider debate to be had on the relative merits of our signalling system compared to the speed based system common on other European railways.

Fair enough! I thought it was clear that the EBuLa Radio only supplied the working timetable. Its main application, I've learnt in the meantime, is for freight traffic - it saves a driver having to collect a paper version and then slog out to his train at the other end of the yard or for a move from a customer's siding to be re-planned by the equivalent of control in almost real time.

German drivers do have route knowledge, but it is supported by the EBuLa concept - originally paper and now electronic - to which the driver refers whilst driving and which lists things like temporary speed restrictions. The radio extension to EBuLa supplies short term planned working timetables.

(Sent from my Mac not far from the Hamburg - Lübeck - Travemunde line...!)

EDIT: The debate about the advantages and disadvantages of speed or route based signalling will eventually fade away with the spread of ERTMS (if it is affordable) as this is essentially a speed-based system. The driver may be given indications of the route to be taken but ERTMS/ETCS essentially gives movement authority to a given point and therefore gives the driver indications of target speeds to be met at various points before the point where the movement authority expires.

 

[dk1]

Gosh it would be awful to stop route refresh days when we've not passed over them for 6 months or more. Can't beat Felixstowe on a nice sunny summer morning. Trip down, off for breakfast near the beach & back on the next up train an hour later & job done for the day

 

[InOban]

And by my calculations, you 'earn' over £100 for this jaunt.

By the way I heard a story yesterday which illustrates the advantages of both old (Mk1eyes) and new technology. The incipient landslip on the Maryhill line in Glasgow was observed by the driver of an outbound train, who able to use the emergency button on his radio to get the inbound train halted - the actual slip occurred as the first train passed, and the two trains usually pass about there.
Without the GSM-R radio system there would have been no way to stop the inbound train before it hits the debris.

 

[dk1]

And by my calculations, you 'earn' over £100 for this jaunt.

And the rest I would hope but it's only done on a spare day or if another spare can cover my turn so would only be cutting other drivers out, drinking copious amounts of coffee or watching TV in the messroom so it's a zero cost to the company.

 

[455driver]

And by my calculations, you 'earn' over £100 for this jaunt.

Pah, I wouldnt set the alarm for £100 a day never mind get out of bed!

 

[InOban]

You mean your company has surplus drivers? Although I suppose that with the collapse of the coal business, some freight operators will have spare; but I wouldn't have thought that would affect your area.

 

[ComUtoR]

And by my calculations, you 'earn' over £100 for this jaunt.

I hope he/she spent it well.

Without the GSM-R radio system there would have been no way to stop the inbound train before it hits the debris.

So before GSMR how would they have stopped the train ?

 

[Tomnick]

You mean your company has surplus drivers? Although I suppose that with the collapse of the coal business, some freight operators will have spare; but I wouldn't have thought that would affect your area.

Pretty much every passenger operator, at least, will have 'surplus' drivers - 'surplus' in that the excess capacity exists to provide the flexibility to cover annual leave, sickness, investigations, safety briefs etc.. On some days, there still won't be enough spares - on other days, there'll be a few sitting spare. Better to have that spare capacity than to be in a situation where you're immediately relying on (or at least hoping to rely on) short-notice overtime as soon as someone phones in sick?

 

[InOban]

I hope he/she spent it well.



So before GSMR how would they have stopped the train ?

The driver would have had to alert the guard, who would have had to get down a walk along the track to place detonators? I'm sure there is someone on this thread who will tell us the correct procedure. However in this case, the second train was due in seconds - it had already left the previous station. As I understood it, it was modern technology which made it possible to stop the other train in seconds. But it was old tech which spotted the imminent danger.

 

[InOban]

While they should have spare for these purposes, we keep hearing that they run on voluntary overtime, rather than bear the cost of training enough drivers. Which brings us back to the idea behind this thread- are all areas of a driver's training still as vital as they once were.

 

[Tomnick]

The driver would have had to alert the guard, who would have had to get down a walk along the track to place detonators? I'm sure there is someone on this thread who will tell us the correct procedure. However in this case, the second train was due in seconds - it had already left the previous station. As I understood it, it was modern technology which made it possible to stop the other train in seconds. But it was old tech which spotted the imminent danger.

There's no doubt that GSM-R has made it quicker to get the job stopped - a very good example of new technology bringing benefits to the current way of working (which, necessarily, remains otherwise unchanged - GSM-R isn't infallible!). Previously, reds/hazard lights displayed forward, anything to attract the attention of the oncoming driver, emergency call to the signalman, emergency protection with detonators - GSM-R just provides another method, and one that can save valuable seconds in certain circumstances.

While they should have spare for these purposes, we keep hearing that they run on voluntary overtime, rather than bear the cost of training enough drivers. Which brings us back to the idea behind this thread- are all areas of a driver's training still as vital as they once were.

It's not just to save the cost of training drivers - that's only a small part of their overall cost of employment. It's still generally more expensive to employ an extra body than it is to cover the equivalent work with overtime (more annual leave to cover, potentially more sick pay, more management time, more admin time etc.).

 

[ComUtoR]

The driver would have had to alert the guard, who would have had to get down a walk along the track to place detonators? I'm sure there is someone on this thread who will tell us the correct procedure.

My issue is this :

Without the GSM-R radio system there would have been no way to stop the inbound train before it hits the debris.

That's a massive statement to make. Especially when you are not aware of how to stop a train by other means or are unaware of the procedure for doing so.

I drive without a Guard. So that's the first part debunked. I'm not aware of the location so the rest is difficult to ascertain a specific outcome. Could the Driver had seen it in time ? Was there braking room when it could be sighted ? Did the track circuit trip ? What were the signals showing etc etc. I certainly would say either way if the train would have hit it. Quite possibly the Driver could have stopped in time.

Also we have TCOC's, Hazard Lights, Horns, and even ye olde handsignal to another Driver. Plenty of way to stop the unit without GSMR. Even the Old CSR it would have taken minimal time.

However in this case, the second train was due in seconds - it had already left the previous station. As I understood it, it was modern technology which made it possible to stop the other train in seconds. But it was old tech which spotted the imminent danger.

The GSMR is very good for the big red button but relies on the human to make that decision. The GSMR is also very fallible as has been shown at Chilham and various anecdotal evidence from Drivers. I myself missed a stop message from the GSMR.

As Tom points out. It is very good as saving time in that situation. However; the GSMR isn't a replacement technology. Its a small improvement over CSR in terms of communication and the big red button and it compliments what we do.

 

[InOban]

I don't wish to debate the details of this as I only know what I was told by a senior officer in NR Scotland, who basically said that the first driver deserved a medal. I believe that the second train had already passed the last signal, and therefore the section would already show as occupied, and anyway the rubble didn't cover the whole track.

It is possible that the second train (which was fortunately a few moments late) could have stopped in time. The track is gently curved but in a cutting. I don't know the visible distance. I can only repeat that my informant believed that the first driver's use of his GSM-R emergency button saved a major incident. I am inclined to believe him.

 

[fowler9]

Serious question, does any of this have anything to do with if route knowledge is obsolete?

This in a world where parts of the NHS ground to a halt when the IT did pretty recently.

 

[Agent_c]

Serious question, does any of this have anything to do with if route knowledge is obsolete?

This in a world where parts of the NHS ground to a halt when the IT did pretty recently.

I should like to think that Railway infrastructure is airgapped from the public internet. If its not, it should be.

 

[fowler9]

I should like to think that Railway infrastructure is airgapped from the public internet. If its not, it should be.

I would kind of hope the NHS would be to but you know!!! Stuff happens. My point, if I had one, was that I think that route knowledge without relying on IT is important.

 

[ComUtoR]

It is possible that the second train (which was fortunately a few moments late) could have stopped in time.

Which is why your previous statement needs to be retracted. You blindly said it wouldn't be possible.

The track is gently curved but in a cutting. I don't know the visible distance. I can only repeat that my informant believed that the first driver's use of his GSM-R emergency button saved a major incident. I am inclined to believe him.

Without a shadow of a doubt the GSMR big red button did a brilliant job (as its designed to) and hopefully will continue to do so in the future.

 

[LETHLFH]

Interesting topic, I'm currently studying principles of route learning which consists of completing front end turns and drawing a map of my Home Depot core route, the main purpose I believe is to help identify risks on the route such as low adhesion areas, poorly sighted signals, complex areas before being set this task my DTM stressed the importance of route knowledge and stated excellent route knowledge significantly reduces incidents. He seemed to believe route knowledge was vital.

 

[dk1]

While they should have spare for these purposes, we keep hearing that they run on voluntary overtime, rather than bear the cost of training enough drivers. Which brings us back to the idea behind this thread- are all areas of a driver's training still as vital as they once were.

There are standby and spare drivers depending on the roster & jobs open. Traincrew rostering is very complicated. We sometimes have 5 or more drivers spare yet 8 working their Free Days plus jobs uncovered which need to be covered on the day on overtime or by the standby/spare drivers with turns split up. It all depends on route, traction knowledge & of course a driver at my depot only moves 3hrs either way from a spare turn. If there is a job open at 05.05 & a spare driver at 08.15 he/she cannot be moved to that turn so it has to be covered with a FDW or on overtime as per the agreed rostering minutes.

 

[InOban]

Thanks for all that info.