Northern Still Using FAX Machines

[Dai Corner]

Generally complicated messages between signaller and driver will only be given when the train is stopped, and once passed between the two and repeated there is proof of a "clear understanding". The latter is impossible to achieve if the message is only passed in a non-verbal manner.

How about a written message which the driver acknowledges as soon as it is safe to read it? Potentially avoiding an unplanned stop, reaching the driver more quickly, and avoiding the need to repeat back in case it's been misheard?

Was there any controversy when cab radio first replaced stopping and using a signal post telephone, I wonder?

 

[Djgr]

But the Secretary General of the Greater Manchester Soviet Socialist Republic wanted to do a bit of sabre-rattling...

Although to be fair he did get 63% of the vote in the Mayoral election this year and 6 times that of the Tory candidate.

And so it appears reasonable to assume his anger with Northern (and their inability to join the 21st century) is duly shared by the local population.

 

[Llanigraham]

How about a written message which the driver acknowledges as soon as it is safe to read it? Potentially avoiding an unplanned stop, reaching the driver more quickly, and avoiding the need to repeat back in case it's been misheard?

Err??
How is a signaller, say in Cardiff, going to give a train driver in Nantwich a written message? Do you realise that nowadays signal boxes/control centres can be many miles away from the lines thay control?
And I can assure you that if a driver didin't read back the message I had given him then he did not get permission to proceed, until I was happy that we had a clear understanding of any instruction.

Was there any controversy when cab radio first replaced stopping and using a signal post telephone, I wonder?

Not that I know of. In fact many drivers were much happier not having to get out into the wet, dark or cold to speak to a signaller.

 

[bengley]

Although to be fair he did get 63% of the vote in the Mayoral election this year and 6 times that of the Tory candidate.

And so it appears reasonable to assume his anger with Northern (and their inability to join the 21st century) is duly shared by the local population.

The thing is, Northern joining the 21st century isn't going to fix their problems. They need a full management shakeup and a complete change of direction, like has happened at TPE. TPE is now a much more efficient operation and the unions and management have a much better relationship.

 

[muz379]

How about a written message which the driver acknowledges as soon as it is safe to read it? Potentially avoiding an unplanned stop, reaching the driver more quickly, and avoiding the need to repeat back in case it's been misheard?

Was there any controversy when cab radio first replaced stopping and using a signal post telephone, I wonder?

In theory you could use the GSMR already for this sort of thing , indeed signallers can already use berth triggered broadcasts for certain things in some locations which the driver will acknowledge receipt of . You don't gain that much of an advantage though because you dont/can't clear signals protecting whatever the broadcast is about for the train until the driver has acknowledged the broadcast .

There shouldn't be any controversy about cab radio replacing stopping and using an SPT because the method of communicating the message remained the same , it simply removed the risk/time involved in using an SPT whilst maintaining the option to use the SPT .

The issue here is that currently most TOC's prohibit the use of portable electronic devices such as tablets in driving cabs on safety grounds , introducing them for use in driving cabs and authorising them for use in this fashion does impart some risks and changes the methods by which messages are conveyed .

 

[Dai Corner]

In theory you could use the GSMR already for this sort of thing , indeed signallers can already use berth triggered broadcasts for certain things in some locations which the driver will acknowledge receipt of . You don't gain that much of an advantage though because you dont/can't clear signals protecting whatever the broadcast is about for the train until the driver has acknowledged the broadcast .

There shouldn't be any controversy about cab radio replacing stopping and using an SPT because the method of communicating the message remained the same , it simply removed the risk/time involved in using an SPT whilst maintaining the option to use the SPT .

The issue here is that currently most TOC's prohibit the use of portable electronic devices such as tablets in driving cabs on safety grounds , introducing them for use in driving cabs and authorising them for use in this fashion does impart some risks and changes the methods by which messages are conveyed .

So receiving and acknowledging a textual message to a device using ageing technology and fixed in the cab is fine, even for safety-critical communications, but one to a more modern portable device is too distracting and potentially dangerous? I dare say the replacement for GSM-R will look more like a smartphone and the touch screens which are in the cabs of the more modern trains and used on the move. I wonder how they'll go down with drivers?

 

[43066]

My alerts take one swipe to access (or could just pop up on their own) and short ones like 'call additionally at Tweetown' maybe a second to read. Just writing down the message would take longer than that?

You wouldn’t - you might just cross it of the diagram. I’d also want to know why, and might need to tell the signaller that we can’t comply for some reason - all of that is more easily doable over a two way GSMR call.

So why reinvent the wheel only to end up with something inferior?

My experience is that taking a phone call when driving a car is more distracting than glancing at a phone notification, written note or sat nav as the person the other end doesn't know when I'm approaching a hazard so carries on expecting my attention.

But, with all due respect, we’re discussing driving trains, not cars.

So receiving and acknowledging a textual message to a device using ageing technology and fixed in the cab is fine, even for safety-critical communications, but one to a more modern portable device is too distracting and potentially dangerous? I dare say the replacement for GSM-R will look more like a smartphone and the touch screens which are in the cabs of the more modern trains and used on the move. I wonder how they'll go down with drivers?

A berth triggered broadcast plays automatically over the speaker and is acknowledged by pressing a button on the terminal, as does an emergency call. No need to navigate through menus on touch screens. The other messages are generally “contact signaller” which can be done whenever, and the SG function when you’re standing at a red. Take it from someone who uses it daily, it’s not remotely comparable to a touch screen device.

It isn’t just a question of how it goes down with the drivers, it’s the policies in place and the tech used not being distracting. The GSMR replacement will need to be developed accordingly, agreed by all parties, the relevant policies amended at that time etc.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Take it from someone who uses it daily, it’s not remotely comparable to a touch screen device.

Seconded. There's a lot people on here with no background in the railway who think they know everything.

 

[12LDA28C]

My alerts take one swipe to access (or could just pop up on their own) and short ones like 'call additionally at Tweetown' maybe a second to read. Just writing down the message would take longer than that?

My experience is that taking a phone call when driving a car is more distracting than glancing at a phone notification, written note or sat nav as the person the other end doesn't know when I'm approaching a hazard so carries on expecting my attention.

If a driver can't remember a simple message like 'call additionally at Tweetown' then maybe they shouldn't be driving trains. If a train driver is likely to be distracted from their driving duties by answering a GSM-R call on the move then they simply ignore it and call the signaller back when they consider it safe to do so, or bring their train safely to a stand before taking the call. I suggest you adopt a similar approach when driving your car.

 

[InkyScrolls]

If a driver can't remember a simple message like 'call additionally at Tweetown' then maybe they shouldn't be driving trains. If a train driver is likely to be distracted from their driving duties by answering a GSM-R call on the move then they simply ignore it and call the signaller back when they consider it safe to do so. I suggest you adopt a similar approach when driving your car.

You're not a driver, are you?

 

[12LDA28C]

You're not a driver, are you?

What makes you say that? Was there anything contentious in my post? (I've amended it slightly lest you think I meant a driver would never call the signaller back - obviously I'd call the signaller back at the first opportunity)

 

[InkyScrolls]

What makes you say that? Was there anything contentious in my post?

"If a driver can't remember a simple message like 'call additionally at Tweetown' then maybe they shouldn't be driving trains."

Drivers have an immense amount to concentrate on as it is, even more so in out of course situations. Having something in writing, on physical paper, makes a huge difference to the way such an additional request lodges in the brain.

 

[12LDA28C]

"If a driver can't remember a simple message like 'call additionally at Tweetown' then maybe they shouldn't be driving trains."

Drivers have an immense amount to concentrate on as it is, even more so in out of course situations. Having something in writing, on physical paper, makes a huge difference to the way such an additional request lodges in the brain.

Indeed, which is why SSOs are issued where possible. A driver might well annotate their schedule card with the additional stop but dependent on the situation / location that may not be necessary.

 

[skyhigh]

So receiving and acknowledging a textual message to a device using ageing technology and fixed in the cab is fine

The only textual messages from a GSM-R are "Contact Signaller/Control" or "Wait". Everything else is audible.

 

[Dai Corner]

The only textual messages from a GSM-R are "Contact Signaller/Control" or "Wait". Everything else is audible.

Ok. A modern device could read out any message signallers or Control needed to send, the driver would get it without having to take his eyes off the road and it would stay on the screen until it was acknowledged and dismissed. Voice communication would still be available if needed to clarify the message, of course.

That's got to be better than picking up the phone when safe to do so, phoning the signaller, listening to the message, repeating it back, remembering it and writing it down when safe to do so?

 

[GusB]

So receiving and acknowledging a textual message to a device using ageing technology and fixed in the cab is fine, even for safety-critical communications, but one to a more modern portable device is too distracting and potentially dangerous? I dare say the replacement for GSM-R will look more like a smartphone and the touch screens which are in the cabs of the more modern trains and used on the move. I wonder how they'll go down with drivers?

This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, which is the use of fax machines by railway companies.

I dare say that you have absolutely zero knowledge about the equipment that exists in train cabs. I'm not an expert either, but I trust the people who use this equipment on a daily basis to have a thorough understanding of how each bit of kit works. Either way, it's well off-topic from the subject of fax machines!

Would you like to tell us where you work and what systems you use on a daily basis so that the rest of us may conduct a thorough audit of the way you work? I'm sure there would be a few people here who could offer a few suggestions for improvements, but ultimately it's not really anybody's business how anyone else's business processes work.

I've worked for a few companies that had multiple separate systems that were used for different tasks when it would have been far more efficient to bring everything together; however, integrating these systems would have cost a massive amount to develop and you have to consider the cost of taking people offline in order to ensure that everyone is suitably trained. You'd be surprised how many big companies still rely on legacy systems for certain tasks but they're generally reliable and if it ain't broke...

If I have to insert a nail somewhere, the go-to tool for the job is a hammer; if I have to insert multiple nails in quick succession, a nail gun is probably a more sensible option. We use the best tool for a given job, and if it so happens that a fax machine (or its modern equivalent) is the most effective way of sending a document from one place to another, so be it. As I said earlier on in the thread, old tech isn't necessarily bad tech.

Let's not over-think things!

 

[richw]

The reference to unhackable refers to the ability of lack of to intercept a fax enroute. For this reason they are still used for some legal agreements.

I worked for a mortgage company 2011-2016, they were the preferred method of solicitors to send urgent documents to us.
For us to fax out we could do it on the computer, we had no physical fax machine in the office. File. Print. Select the fax option. A pop up appeared and we entered the recipients fax number

 

[Dai Corner]

I dare say that you have absolutely zero knowledge about the equipment that exists in train cabs. I'm not an expert either, but I trust the people who use this equipment on a daily basis to have a thorough understanding of how each bit of kit works. Either way, it's well off-topic from the subject of fax machines!

I have a lot more knowledge than I did a few days ago when this thread started. I dare say others reading it do too. Isn't spreading knowledge and understanding what the forum is here for?

The thread has drifted into a more general discussion of the use of everyday technology on the railways. Perhaps the OP or a moderator would care to amend the title accordingly?

Would you like to tell us where you work and what systems you use on a daily basis so that the rest of us may conduct a thorough audit of the way you work? I'm sure there would be a few people here who could offer a few suggestions for improvements, but ultimately it's not really anybody's business how anyone else's business processes work.

I'm retired now but spent the early 1980s to the late 2010s analysing business processes and designing and implementing technology to improve them. I worked in the financial services and state education sectors. In the former, I'd have been disciplined if I discussed trade secrets or what developments we were working on to give us a competitive advantage. In the latter, we were open to scrutiny by parents, elected representatives and the general public as we were spending public money to provide a public service. I'm one of those who could offer a few suggestions for improvement, from a different perspective.

As I've said before in this thread nobody cares how Aldi, Barclays or GB Railfreight communicate with their staff but TOCs, especially Government owned ones, spending public money are of legitimate public interest.

I've worked for a few companies that had multiple separate systems that were used for different tasks when it would have been far more efficient to bring everything together; however, integrating these systems would have cost a massive amount to develop and you have to consider the cost of taking people offline in order to ensure that everyone is suitably trained. You'd be surprised how many big companies still rely on legacy systems for certain tasks but they're generally reliable and if it ain't broke...

That's pretty much what I spent my working life doing and I wouldn't be at all surprised.. The questions I'm asking in this thread are very much like those I used to ask at work. As are the objections being raised! Justifying the expenditure and signing the cheques was way above my pay grade though.

 

[35B]

Most companies that I am aware of still use paper diagrams, which really isn't an issue - at the end of the day what information do you really need when driving other than station stops and times?

As RAIB hasmove reported on multiple times, information on blanket ESRs. The paper based system means that the only way of communicating these to trains once underway is to bring trains to a stop and inform the driver at that time. There is not the capacity to do this, and the result has been a number of overspeed incidents.

I’ve often heard it said that railways rules are written in peoples blood. That being so, I find it strange that there is such determination that the present mode of operation is somehow impossible to improve, and should not be changed.

Elsewhere, there’s been discussion about visitors to cabs, in which a number of drivers have been clear that they’re willing to be interrupted for non essential purposes.

30 years ago two trains collided head on at Cowden. It’s suspected that the presence of an unauthorised individual in the cab was a material factor; it’s certain that technology now in use would have made that crash much less serious, or even prevented it - as we saw at Talerdigg recently.

I don’t work in the industry, so the Luddites won’t harm me. But as a passenger, every time I pass through Sandy, I wonder about whether my driver has seen an essential message.

 

[43066]

Seconded. There's a lot people on here with no background in the railway who think they know everything.

Indeed. I assume these people also on PPRUNE asking pilots why they still use ATC rather than ACARS for everything (and similar).

If a driver can't remember a simple message like 'call additionally at Tweetown' then maybe they shouldn't be driving trains. If a train driver is likely to be distracted from their driving duties by answering a GSM-R call on the move then they simply ignore it and call the signaller back when they consider it safe to do so. I suggest you adopt a similar approach when driving your car.

What they certainly should do, though, is make a note of it on their diagram - because it is possible to get distracted and forget it - and then once again we are back to why a sheet of paper can still be better than a device.

As I've said before in this thread nobody cares how Aldi, Barclays or GB Railfreight communicate with their staff but TOCs, especially Government owned ones, spending public money are of legitimate public interest.

This discussion really isn’t anything to do with “legitimate public interest”, though, because the people asking the questions do not represent the public, and the people answering the questions are also doing so in an individual capacity.

If you really want to you can lobby your MP about why train drivers use GSMR radios and paper diagrams rather than touchscreen devices. It seems an odd thing to fixate on, though.

I’ve often heard it said that railways rules are written in peoples blood. That being so, I find it strange that there is such determination that the present mode of operation is somehow impossible to improve, and should not be changed.

There isn’t any such determination, and changes happen all the time (ETCS being rolled out, and various other aspects). What there is a few picking imaginary holes in operational aspects that work perfectly well and extremely safely, despite clearly having little to no understanding of the equipment being used, and ignoring explanations from those who actually use the equipment did procedures being discussed.

The UK railway is still as I understand it about the safest in the world, so there’s a general reluctance to reinvent the wheel at great expense, unless there’s a legitimate aim to be achieved by doing so - hence the continuing use of legacy Victorian signalling in some areas. It remains so safe that there is no business case to invest in replacing it just for safety reasons.

Elsewhere, there’s been discussion about visitors to cabs, in which a number of drivers have been clear that they’re willing to be interrupted for non essential purposes.

It’s entirely down to the discretion of the individual. Some drivers are not allowed visitors to ride in the cab with them (first years, those on a plan etc.)

I don’t work in the industry, so the Luddites won’t harm me. But as a passenger, every time I pass through Sandy, I wonder about whether my driver has seen an essential message.

The implication here appears to be that contributors to this thread, patiently explaining why things are done in a certain way, are Luddites. You can see why that won’t inspire people working in the industry to continue to engage.

 

[Dai Corner]

How is a signaller, say in Cardiff, going to give a train driver in Nantwich a written message? Do you realise that nowadays signal boxes/control centres can be many miles away from the lines thay control?

Via a mobile device in the cab.

 

[35B]

The implication here appears to be that contributors to this thread, patiently explaining why things are done in a certain way, are Luddites. You can see why that won’t inspire people working in the industry to continue to engage.

I can see that. I can also see that the arguments that we're already in the best of all possible worlds being far from convincing, and come across to those outside the industry bubble as a determination not to change. I'm aware that there are a range of agreements that govern how work is done, and appreciate that they're important. But I come at it from the perspective that they are how the railway operates, not why it operates. They've changed in the past to reflect changes, and will do again in future. If the discussion were framed in terms of "To do that, you'd need to look at x, y & z", I'd be sympathetic - I get that entirely. But instead the positioning is that things can't change. That's simply not tru, and can't be true.

The issue is not fax machines (whether or not they're really networked printers), but a working culture that presumes that information flows in a very specific way, and is frozen at the point at which it's sent. That's inflexible, it's confusing, and it's ultimately been proven to be dangerous.

The one bit that really does convince me, and fits with how I absorb information, is the use of paper diagrams as a way of noting down changes. Not because it's harder to do on a device, but because of the relationship to how information is absorbed.

 

[dk1]

Via a mobile device in the cab.

Only mobile device I am permitted to switch on in the cab is a portable GSMR if the main radio has failed.

 

[muz379]

I dare say the replacement for GSM-R will look more like a smartphone and the touch screens which are in the cabs of the more modern trains and used on the move. I wonder how they'll go down with drivers?

I wouldn't bank on that replacement for GSM-R coming any time soon , in relative terms in the industry it is still 'new" .

Anyway , I think all those extolling the virtues of drivers having a tablet in the cab are missing another point . The GSM-R network is a private network owned/operated by the railway .And even that in places has areas without coverage .

An off the shelf tablet isn't going to be able to recieve notifications in a lot of places anyway because of lacking mobile network coverage .

I suppose if the industry wanted and agreement could be reached between relevant parties, it could deploy tablets that connect to the GSM-R network But then you are talking about huge costs for a bespoke solution , for what benefit ?

 

[Dai Corner]

Only mobile device I am permitted to switch on in the cab is a portable GSMR if the main radio has failed.

That's what the discussion is about. Whether everyday technology like smartphones/tablet notifications, SMS and emails or voicemails would be a better way of getting messages to drivers than asking them to make a phone call either on the move or after making an unscheduled stop.

 

[43066]

Bbv

I can see that. I can also see that the arguments that we're already in the best of all possible worlds being far from convincing, and come across to those outside the industry bubble as a determination not to change. I'm aware that there are a range of agreements that govern how work is done, and appreciate that they're important. But I come at it from the perspective that they are how the railway operates, not why it operates. They've changed in the past to reflect changes, and will do again in future. If the discussion were framed in terms of "To do that, you'd need to look at x, y & z", I'd be sympathetic - I get that entirely. But instead the positioning is that things can't change. That's simply not tru, and can't be true.

The “fax machine” premise of the thread was debunked fairly quickly, but that seemed to go unnoticed.

In terms of the later discussion I don’t think anyone has argued that the current system is the best of all possible worlds. Similarly nobody has argued it can’t change. The issue is with trite simplistic solutions such as “can’t the driver just look at a device” which won’t work better than the current arrangements. It’s a bit like the tedious arguments over why sat nav can’t just replace route knowledge, with some posters unable to accept that what they do in their car has no bearing on driving a train.

It’s also clear from the early posts in this thread that the real issue many have is with why agreements with unions are necessary at all, and the usual obsession with technology payments, which are inconsequential in the scheme of things.

The issue is not fax machines (whether or not they're really networked printers), but a working culture that presumes that information flows in a very specific way, and is frozen at the point at which it's sent. That's inflexible, it's confusing, and it's ultimately been proven to be dangerous.

There are good reasons for information to be sent in a particular and uniform format (see also concerns around how blanket speed restrictions are communicated). There have been modifications to LNER’s procedures since Sandy from what is said in the RAIB report. I don’t think we can really say the current system is overall “dangerous” just because it doesn’t work perfectly on a few occasions.

Eventually the current system will be superseded by ETCS (and very soon where the Sandy incident occurred) - although even that is not infallible, as there have been overspeeds on the Cambrian where it was incorrectly configured.

The one bit that really does convince me, and fits with how I absorb information, is the use of paper diagrams as a way of noting down changes. Not because it's harder to do on a device, but because of the relationship to how information is absorbed.

Agreed.

 

[Dai Corner]

for what benefit ?

For all the benefits those of us outside the railway bubble have been suggesting. With the technology behind GSM-R rapidly becoming obsolete it may well be cheaper to modernise anyway.

 

[muz379]

For all the benefits those of us outside the railway bubble have been suggesting. With the technology behind GSM-R rapidly becoming obsolete it may well be cheaper to modernise anyway.

Do go on ? what are these benefits ?

 

[Dai Corner]

Eventually the current system will be superseded by ETCS (and very soon where the Sandy incident occurred) - although even that is not infallible, as there have been overspeeds on the Cambrian where it was incorrectly configured.

How are information and instructions presented to drivers under ETCS?

 

[dosxuk]

I suppose if the industry wanted and agreement could be reached between relevant parties, it could deploy tablets that connect to the GSM-R network But then you are talking about huge costs for a bespoke solution , for what benefit ?

Because then somebody can complain that the railway has spend millions of pounds of taxpayer money on shiny new equipment that doesn't work 10% of the time, when they could have just put a printer at the signing on point and handed out some biro's.