Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[ComUtoR]

When the track circuit clears...

Ummm......

 

[Agent_c]

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

I look forward to his justification of them...

I may not know trains, but I suspect he gets his train knowledge from the same place he gets his aviation knowledge...

 

[Bromley boy]

I may not know trains, but I suspect he gets his train knowledge from the same place he gets his aviation knowledge...

As someone with more than a passing knowledge of both subjects, I 100% agree .

 

[InOban]

I fully admit my front line ignorance. But we have a crisis in the funding of our railways. A passenger system that should less expensive to operate than, say, a bus, ends up costing far more. It is cheaper to transport oil in a succession of road tankers than in one train. And the taxpayers see a system operated using procedures and job descriptions which date back 150 years or more. No other industry that I can think of survives like that. And in many other countries they do quite well with different rules.

I believe in the future of our railways. But it doesn't exist to employ people. It exists to provide a service to those who use it, and directly or indirectly, pay the wages of everyone who works on it.

 

[ComUtoR]

I believe in the future of our railways. But it doesn't exist to employ people. It exists to provide a service to those who use it, and directly or indirectly, pay the wages of everyone who works on it.

I understand your ire but would you honestly support implementing technology that will cost an outrageous sum to tender, design, build, manufacture, implement, train to use, maintain, retro fit, etc etc. ? Or would you support simply instructing the TOC's to ensure that their Drivers have adequate route knowledge for the infrastructure they run over and ensure that their levels of competence are maintained through consistent driving over those routes or a structured program to maintain their competence. As well as instructing them to ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained to run the service they are being paid to run ?

We are discussing implementing something purely because a diversionary route doesn't run because the Driver didn't sign it. Yay, lets completely overhaul the system and push fares and more technical problems ever higher. Awesome.

 

[Bromley boy]

I fully admit my front line ignorance. But we have a crisis in the funding of our railways. A passenger system that should less expensive to operate than, say, a bus, ends up costing far more. It is cheaper to transport oil in a succession of road tankers than in one train. And the taxpayers see a system operated using procedures and job descriptions which date back 150 years or more. No other industry that I can think of survives like that. And in many other countries they do quite well with different rules.

I believe in the future of our railways. But it doesn't exist to employ people. It exists to provide a service to those who use it, and directly or indirectly, pay the wages of everyone who works on it.

Questions:
1. Why should a railway be cheaper to operate than a bus service (it isn't)?
2. Is it cheaper to ship oil, or other goods, by road than by rail? Figures please.
3. Which railway job descriptions date back 150 years +? As a driver in 2017, mine certainty don't. No firebreaks for me
4. Which countries "do well with different rules"?

I'm off to bed.

 

[dctraindriver]

I fully admit my front line ignorance. But we have a crisis in the funding of our railways. A passenger system that should less expensive to operate than, say, a bus, ends up costing far more. It is cheaper to transport oil in a succession of road tankers than in one train. And the taxpayers see a system operated using procedures and job descriptions which date back 150 years or more. No other industry that I can think of survives like that. And in many other countries they do quite well with different rules.

I believe in the future of our railways. But it doesn't exist to employ people. It exists to provide a service to those who use it, and directly or indirectly, pay the wages of everyone who works on it.

You wasted time writing this post????

 

[Agent_c]

Questions:
1. Why should a railway be cheaper to operate than a bus service (it isn't)?
2. Is it cheaper to ship oil, or other goods, by road than by rail? Figures please.
3. Which railway job descriptions date back 150 years +? As a driver in 2017, mine certainty don't. No firebreaks for me
4. Which countries "do well with different rules"?

I'm off to bed.

I had the same questions. The wording suggests someone who's followed some anti-union propaganda and taken it to heart rather than actually question its statements and conclusions.

 

[GB]

It is cheaper to transport oil in a succession of road tankers than in one train.

Bull. One of our trains carrys about 1.75 million litres of product. To carry it by road would take about 45 lorry loads and given the distance, slow roads and driving hour restrictions it's very doubtful a lorry driver could make 2 loaded trips. Explain to me how the road would be cheaper than rail.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Bull. One of our trains carrys about 1.75 million litres of product. To carry it by road would take about 45 lorry loads and given the distance, slow roads and driving hour restrictions it's very doubtful a lorry driver could make 2 loaded trips. Explain to me how the road would be cheaper than rail.

Depending on relative locations and distances sending the oil by a pipeline might even be a better option than road or rail

 

[Surreytraveller]

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

Well, apart from a select few, there aren't any drivers left with the skills to drive steam engines. Likewise, would a driver from 70 years ago be able to drive in today's modern railway? Drivers are far more monitored these days than they were up until about 15 years ago, so I would say the role is actually far more skilled than it used to be

 

[Surreytraveller]

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

Yes, but the train heading towards the train which has just made an unauthorised move at 10mph could be travelling at 125mph

 

[Surreytraveller]

Two polite questions:

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

Two polite answers:

I thought this whole thread was about doing away with drivers signing routes, so in theory no one would sign crossovers

Someone with a degree tends to assume they fully aware of everything and know better than those who have been doing a job for 20/30/40 years. Generally they are youngsters with no experience from the university of life, either. And a lot of the time someone has previously tried their suggestion in the past and failed.

 

[455driver]

But then you'd know nothing about signals, low adhesion, braking points etc etc. For example they say that if you give a Fratton/Bournemouth driver a special stop order between Woking and Surbiton they'll lose a LOT of time.

I remember when the up fast between Woking and Hampton Court jn was handed back as diesel traction only because the overnight works had over-run so 'they' put stop orders on the 159 operated services, you could tell the ones driven by Waterloo drivers simply by how much time they lost or more likely how little time they lost compared to the other drivers.

I look forward to the day I am replaced by a ZX81 and I can retire early knowing the computer will be able to adapt to the constant changing railhead conditions much better than I, because we all know that technology is better than a human dont we!

 

[mtbox]

Well, apart from a select few, there aren't any drivers left with the skills to drive steam engines. Likewise, would a driver from 70 years ago be able to drive in today's modern railway? Drivers are far more monitored these days than they were up until about 15 years ago, so I would say the role is actually far more skilled than it used to be

No way.
I have been a mainline driver for over 20 years.
I have been steam footplate crew for over 30 years, including spells on the mainline at various times.
You cannot compare driving ANY modern traction to driving a steam locomotive (even on a heritage line). The knowledge and understanding (not forgetting experience) you need to competently handle a steam locomotive (that's the fireman as well) goes way way beyond what a modern driver gets taught about modern traction.
Also I would say route knowledge is even more important to the crew of a steam loco, you need to know much more about the gradients ahead of you (and plan accordingly) than I would need to know when driving modern traction.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Two polite answers:

I thought this whole thread was about doing away with drivers signing routes, so in theory no one would sign crossovers

Someone with a degree tends to assume they fully aware of everything and know better than those who have been doing a job for 20/30/40 years. Generally they are youngsters with no experience from the university of life, either. And a lot of the time someone has previously tried their suggestion in the past and failed.

The first answer isn't an answer at all as it doesn't explain how a load of people will get killed using an unfamilar crossover. In this context it's quite close to the matter of whether it's safe to use a crossover that a driver has never used on a route he/she signs. The OP asked about whether additional tools could be used for route information, on top of the route knowledge held in a driver's head; several posts have confirmed that most people do not advocate dispensing with route knowledge wholescale.

The second is arrant nonsense as a generalisation of how people with degrees view themselves. Most people with degrees are neither youngsters nor without experience.

 

[najaB]

The eyeball is as much use as your comparison on its own as well. Put together, as I intended, it's unbeatable for the foreseeable future. Dont try and score cheap points by isolating a bit of what I said.

No attempt to score points, cheap or otherwise. As I said, computer vision is lagging behind data storage but not by much.

There's a demo here of what is commercially available today - you can drag and drop an image and it will make a decent go of telling you what it's a picture of.

If that's what is commercially available, it's fair to say that the stuff that's still in alpha-test phase will be way more advanced.

 

[InOban]

Questions:
1. Why should a railway be cheaper to operate than a bus service (it isn't)?
2. Is it cheaper to ship oil, or other goods, by road than by rail? Figures please.
3. Which railway job descriptions date back 150 years +? As a driver in 2017, mine certainty don't. No firebreaks for me
4. Which countries "do well with different rules"?

I'm off to bed.

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.

 

[Harpers Tate]

But then you'd know nothing about signals, low adhesion, braking points etc etc. For example they say that if you give a Fratton/Bournemouth driver a special stop order between Woking and Surbiton they'll lose a LOT of time.

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

 

[ComUtoR]

1. A train carrying, say, 250 passengers will, at present, have two crew.

What about DOO ?

 

[najaB]

Great. Now try to get a decent and ACCURATE GPS fix along parts of the Cambrian route.

With commercial, rather than consumer grade, equipment? Should be trivial. Commercial grade equipment, using GPS+GLONASS and an external antenna can get a useful fix in seconds where consumer grade equipment can't even get a clear useable signal from a single satellite.

 

[najaB]

We are discussing implementing something purely because a diversionary route doesn't run because the Driver didn't sign it. Yay, lets completely overhaul the system and push fares and more technical problems ever higher. Awesome.

Two points: (a) It's not yet shown that any system would need to cost a lot - indeed, one of the reasons that airlines moved to EFBs is precisely because they cost less than keeping paper charts up to date; and (b) it's not just about diversionary routes (though that was what made me start thinking about it) - simple things like having an automated reminder of TSRs/ESRs would have a positive impact on safety during normal operation as well.

 

[ComUtoR]

Two points: (a) It's not yet shown that any system would need to cost a lot

Everything on the railway costs a fortune. They are really really bad at procurement of any description. It would be put out to tender and then multiple itterations used due to 'competition'. Seimens, Bombardier etc will each come up with their own bespoke version and nothing would be compatible.

I drive 4 different traction. Each has a different DRA and a different AWS reset button. Its ****ing stupid. (pardon my language)

and (b) it's not just about diversionary routes (though that was what made me start thinking about it)

This is what I can't agree with. Thinking up something to remove a non problem and to then completely remove route knowledge just feels ludicrus.

- simple things like having an automated reminder of TSRs/ESRs would have a positive impact on safety during normal operation as well.

100% agree with any Driver support aids. I can see a real benefit to something like this. Sadly naja, everyone jumps to the first one and ignores the second. Apart form a couple of us.

 

[najaB]

I thought this whole thread was about doing away with drivers signing routes, so in theory no one would sign crossovers.

No, at least that wasn't the intention. The idea was about making information about routes available in an electronic form, presented to the driver on an as-needed basis so that lack of traditional route knowledge wouldn't prevent a competent driver from driving a given route.

I would expect that the driver would still sign the routes that they normally drive and their normal day-to-day routine would be largely unchanged from today, the only difference being that they would get an automated reminder of any TSR/ESRs in force.

During out of course running, they would be able to drive routes that they don't normally sign under guidance.

 

[ComUtoR]

No, at least that wasn't the intention. The idea was about making information about routes available in an electronic form, presented to the driver on an as-needed basis so that lack of traditional route knowledge wouldn't prevent a competent driver from driving a given route.

During out of course running, they would be able to drive routes that they don't normally sign under guidance.

But the natural extension to that is the removal of the need for route knowledge. Your very concept is that it would not be required. How far would you allow a diversionary ?

The diversionary for Vic from Bromley South is :

Junction signal that cannot display a main aspect (sorta unique to that location)
2 stations
Sidings (protecting signals + shunts)
station
change of speed (TPWS protected)
Currently with TSR
station (interchange)
Change of speed
station with low rail adhesion + down gradient
Signal with poor sighting (recently spadded) (protects junction)
2 changes of speed
station with horrid gradient (considered difficult stop)
change of speed
obscured and out of date whistle board (NR please remove it FFS)
station (down gradient)
then it gets more complicated as you can go multiple directions to Vic (up atlantic, up catford loop, up chatham, up stewarts lane)

Would you allow all of that to be driven by a Driver who had never been that way before ? If you can allow anyone to drive it, why train anyone to do so when the computer would navigate ?

I've left out the route restrictions, stop markers, number of signals and their aspects, GSMR panel and where it changes ...

I would expect that the driver would still sign the routes that they normally drive and their normal day-to-day routine would be largely unchanged from today, the only difference being that they would get an automated reminder of any TSR/ESRs in force.

A Driver aid is very different from complete navigation.

If you just trained Drivers on their routes then this entire system would not be needed.

During out of course running, they would be able to drive routes that they don't normally sign under guidance.

One of the reasons why we sign the route is to prove competence. Should anything go wrong then the Driver is liable. If the computer is navigating who is liable if something went wrong ?

I examined the line a couple of days ago. I was given very specific information by the Signaller. I'm not sure if I didn't have route knowledge I would be able to have done it. I can see a way but that is with experience and driving skills. How would the system deal with degraded working. ?

 

[Llanigraham]

When the track circuit clears...

And not everywhere is track circuited to that degree!

 

[theblackwatch]

I recently had the privilege of being offered a cab ride on a train in Hungary. I tried to work out the route knowledge and signalling, and from what I could tell, the driver/secondman had a printout for the route detailing the speed restrictions, and the 'redcaps' on the platform (even at station where the train wasn't booked to stop) formed an integral part of the signalling process.

Does anyone know the full route knowledge procedures for other European countries?

 

[Llanigraham]

With commercial, rather than consumer grade, equipment? Should be trivial. Commercial grade equipment, using GPS+GLONASS and an external antenna can get a useful fix in seconds where consumer grade equipment can't even get a clear useable signal from a single satellite.

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.

 

[D1009]

simple things like having an automated reminder of TSRs/ESRs would have a positive imopact on safety during normal operation as well.

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?

 

[Tomnick]

All this talk of inflexibility arising from drivers hypothetically not signing crossovers and sidings is an irrelevant distraction from the main discussion. If a driver signs the route, they sign the route - crossovers, sidings and all. The exceptions will be complex groups of sidings, where the knowledge required is much greater and the risks are much higher, and they'll often have their own entry on a driver's route card, distinct from the main line beyond the outlet signal.

Those risks are very different to the risks out on the main line, and the knowledge required possibly even harder to impart electronically - with all sorts of local instructions applicable, depot protection procedures, shunters controlling movements with handsignals, vehicles potentially left foul with no signalling system to protect them, staff walking all over the place and so on.

The whole discussion around crossovers seems to stem from a single example of a train being unable to use the depot reception lines at one location to turn back because the driver didn't sign the depot. Two possible solutions - either make sure that everyone signs the whole depot (unnecessary and probably impractical) or make sure that the reception lines, at least enough to perform the turnback shunt, are included in the 'main line' route knowledge (probably not much more than a paper exercise). Letting drivers trundle off into a depot that they're totally unfamiliar with isn't a solution, even at 5mph (which is generally as fast as things move on depots anyway).