Professional driving policies

[philthetube]

For me personally on 4 aspect with 110mph linespeed and standard signal spacing

Shut off on sighting YY
Brake and aim for no more than 75mph past single yellow
Continue braking to 15mph for the magnet for the red.

If I know I'm following something I reduce the double yellow speed as required as there's no point in catching up with whatever it is.

If there are TPWS+ grids for the red, I will ensure I'm doing less than 60mph over the + grids and less than 40mph over the normal grids.

I think PDP is no more than 50mph at a single yellow but in the real world this is unrealistic, particularly in 3 aspect areas.

I don't see why you should have to make decisions like that, people who make the rules should answer to them. No thanks for breaking rules if things go well and tea no biscuits when things go wrong.
Personally I would follow the instruction, and if pulled for it ask for either an instructor to show you what you are doing wrong when you fail to keep to time.

Often people making rules like this have no concept of the real world and management improves if they are held to account.

If timings are impossible while following the rules the union should be getting involved anyway.

 

[whoosh]

The absolute worst thing is driving into a London terminal at 10mph max, with a steep down gradient, in stock with brakes which take an age to release. If you go above step 2, then you’re stopping, and if the guard releases the doors, congrats: you’ve just had an incident...

You fixate on the speedo, and the brake gauges, 10mph at the start of the platform, needing to still be below 10mph for the grids, and you can easily lose focus on how close you are to the buffers...

You should've tried the old station. You used to have to let the buffers go beneath the level of your windscreen to be in clear of the signal with the rear of the train!

 

[Bevan Price]

Are the speed "rules" decided by former drivers / instructors, or by pen-pushers whose nearest approach to practical driving is to sit in the passenger saloon, or worse , someone who never travels by train??

 

[tiptoptaff]

Are the speed "rules" decided by former drivers / instructors, or by pen-pushers whose nearest approach to practical driving is to sit in the passenger saloon, or worse , someone who never travels by train??

Ours is written by senior management who are ex-drivers and agreed with the DDC

 

[ComUtoR]

Are the speed "rules" decided by former drivers / instructors, or by pen-pushers whose nearest approach to practical driving is to sit in the passenger saloon, or worse , someone who never travels by train??

A little of everything. The guys in our Ops Safety department are ex Drivers. I couldn't tell you the last time they actually drove a train. The rulebook is written by various people and I have no doubt some of them never drove a train or have sat up the front of one. They are however, experienced safety experts and have a plethora of data and past incidents etc to build the rules.

We used to have 15 at the magnet but there were still plenty of SPADS, all of which still went 15 at the magnet. That 15 was seriously restrctive and completely impractical. Now its slightly faster and operationally more convenient. Whuich is safer ? A faster or a slower speed ?

It also used to be 15/10/5 for an approach to the buffers but that has been long removed. I can hit a platform at 25mph and as long as I'm down for the TPWS nobody cares. Remind me.. How many buffer stop collisions are there ?

PDPs tend to reflect the current set of rules and culture. They are less restrictvie that they used to be and provide more 'guidance' than absolutes. They also reflect the traction that each TOC drives. Where Drivers are multi-traction it can be impossible to have a single rule for everything they drive. An example is where our running brake tests must use 'step 2' but one unit I drove had a gradual brake so there was no specific brake steps.

I would prefer to have policies implenmented from a combined wealth of experience. I know bugger all about my train. I can drive it like a Demon but there is the technical side I know nothing about. One of our recent polices that got implemented I challenged. The response came back from an engineering perspective. What I wanted, isn't currenty possible (or at least isn't preferred) because of specific engineering issues. Everyone working together is the best way forward.

 

[Newshound Mutt]

I personally think there should only be one standard and that would be the Network Rail Standard. It is, after all, their network, their technology and their expertise. There is only one highway code, so why should the railways be any different?

 

[4F89]

I personally think there should only be one standard and that would be the Network Rail Standard. It is, after all, their network, their technology and their expertise. There is only one highway code, so why should the railways be any different?

Because you don't want the HOBC running at 25 at a red magnet, and 5 is impractical for a pendo

 

[ComUtoR]

I personally think there should only be one standard and that would be the Network Rail Standard. It is, after all, their network, their technology and their expertise. There is only one highway code, so why should the railways be any different?

The Rulebook is the Network Rail standard. Every TOC adheres to this. Its their track, follow their rules.

Bespoke rules and policies are needed because of the insane number of variables across the entire network. There are huge disparities with Traction and how each performs so you would numerous sub rules and policies each time.

20@200m from the Red is far better than 20 at the magnet. There are many magnets where if you hit it at 20, you wouldn't be able to stop for the Red.

There is also another problem of... I don't work for Network Rail. My TOC takes full responsibility for my actions. Therefore I drive to their additional set of rules and policies. If Network Rail were to implement local policy then they would have to take full responsibility for those whose polices they are setting. I'm not sure but I don't think Network Rail want to set every single policy for each TOC

 

[bengley]

I don't see why you should have to make decisions like that, people who make the rules should answer to them. No thanks for breaking rules if things go well and tea no biscuits when things go wrong.
Personally I would follow the instruction, and if pulled for it ask for either an instructor to show you what you are doing wrong when you fail to keep to time.

Often people making rules like this have no concept of the real world and management improves if they are held to account.

If timings are impossible while following the rules the union should be getting involved anyway.

They don't care if we keep to time.

I do. I take pride in doing my job well and keeping the train to time.

It's impossible to be doing 50mph past a single yellow when you are also restricted to using no more than 50% of the train's braking capability and in 3 aspect areas, where you can be doing 100mph and only see the yellow with a couple of seconds' sighting.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Its their track, follow their rules.

Except it's not Network Rail's rules. RSSB was spun out of Railtrack because it was deemed at the time, and probably quite rightly so, that there was a conflict of interest in having one part of a profit-seeking company set rules that could cost the rest of the company a lot of money (or devalue their assets, require investment etc.).

 

[al78]

As a driver, you‘re not paid to think

If that is really true, why not replace drivers with machines?

 

[hexagon789]

If that is really true, why not replace drivers with machines?

Been done on many Metros...

And German trains drive themselves at over 160km/h using LZB so...

...some degree of automation is likely at some point.

 

[43066]

Let’s not spoil an interesting, informative thread with the usual tired old arguments about automation, overpaid drivers blah blah blah. It’s tedious, predictable, and it’ll only end with the thread being locked.

 

[al78]

Been done on many Metros...

And German trains drive themselves at over 160km/h using LZB so...

...some degree of automation is likely at some point.

There was a big thread about it one here once, which led to some heated debate (doubtless emotionally fueled). The impression I got was that can be situations where a driver has to make a judgement call which a machine cannot do, which means a machine couldn't safely completely take over from a driver on the UK network, which implies there are situations where a driver does have to think. Hence the claim "you are not paid to think" is false. I suspect what it really means is you are expected to follow rules and do the physical task of driving in routine situations (most of the time), but if an abnormality occurs, you may have to use at least some initiative to resolve the problem.

 

[hexagon789]

There was a big thread about it one here once, which led to some heated debate (doubtless emotionally fueled). The impression I got was that can be situations where a driver has to make a judgement call which a machine cannot do, which means a machine couldn't safely completely take over from a driver on the UK network, which implies there are situations where a driver does have to think. Hence the claim "you are not paid to think" is false. I suspect what it really means is you are expected to follow rules and do the physical task of driving in routine situations (most of the time), but if an abnormality occurs, you may have to use at least some initiative to resolve the problem.

Oh I'm not arguing it should happen, if anything I prefer having a professional, well-trained human being up front, I was simply stating that a degree of automation has already occurred.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

If that is really true, why not replace drivers with machines?

It’s a statement some companies like to use in the context of following rules such as doing a particular speed 200m away, etc...
Any driver knows that statement is false hence I put the emoji there. Apart from the out of course situations you may encounter, there are so many factors you need to consider when stopping at a red or approaching buffer stops, etc... so whilst working instructions may seem ok on paper, it can be very different in the real world as some drivers have explained on this thread.

 

[dctraindriver]

They don't care if we keep to time.

I do. I take pride in doing my job well and keeping the train to time.

It's impossible to be doing 50mph past a single yellow when you are also restricted to using no more than 50% of the train's braking capability and in 3 aspect areas, where you can be doing 100mph and only see the yellow with a couple of seconds' sighting.

I’m a little confused, why are you restricted to using no more than 50% of the trains braking capability? Where I am we have units with 4 step brakes (one being emergency) and PBC.

I find there’s a fair bit of padding on our network so keeping to time isn’t difficult and I don’t need to hit maximum line speed to stay on time. If the speedos below a few miles an hour line speed at least it doesn’t give the manager a pop at me on a download...

 

[ComUtoR]

I’m a little confused, why are you restricted to using no more than 50% of the trains braking capability? Where I am we have units with 4 step brakes (one being emergency) and PBC.

Passenger comfort. A few of our rules are designed with passenger comfort in mind. In something like a 700 going at a fair lick, when you use 60-70% brake you tend to end up as a blob in the front window, even with their anti-jerk function. We get pulled up if we stop in brake 2. For 'passenger comfort' we are told to stop in brake 1.

Using brake 3 in normal circumstances is very much frowned upon. Suffice to say that is can result in overshoots because Drivers are more afraid of the PDP than actually having the incident :/

There used to be a technique called 'braking back' Drivers would chuck the lot in and slowly reduce the brake. Nowadays its more of a slow reduction and minimal brake for 'passenger comfort'

I can go months without using 3. 1 and 2 are pretty much the only brake steps I use.

 

[43066]

I’m a little confused, why are you restricted to using no more than 50% of the trains braking capability? Where I am we have units with 4 step brakes (one being emergency) and PBC.

I’m also curious about that.

I used to sign three step braked units. There was no restriction on using any step, up to and including emergency. The priority is killing the speed when necessary! I remember being told by a DI: “don’t be that driver who SPADs because he was afraid to use emergency”.

That said if you were downloaded and it was found that you were using step three every time you stopped, that would raise questions about how much safety margin you were leaving. Perhaps that is what the previous poster is referring to.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

Passenger comfort. A few of our rules are designed with passenger comfort in mind. In something like a 700 going at a fair lick, when you use 60-70% brake you tend to end up as a blob in the front window, even with their anti-jerk function. We get pulled up if we stop in brake 2. For 'passenger comfort' we are told to stop in brake 1.

Using brake 3 in normal circumstances is very much frowned upon. Suffice to say that is can result in overshoots because Drivers are more afraid of the PDP than actually having the incident :/

There used to be a technique called 'braking back' Drivers would chuck the lot in and slowly reduce the brake. Nowadays its more of a slow reduction and minimal brake for 'passenger comfort'

I can go months without using 3. 1 and 2 are pretty much the only brake steps I use.

I think we can all understand that in normal circumstances when braking for stations or just drops in line speed and there are some drivers that even like to avoid step 2 and use step 1 for most/all of their braking. But for cautionary aspects as the poster suggested, you shouldn't hesitate having to use step 2 or even step 3 (or 70%+ braking) to kill the speed. I don’t know what routes you or the poster below operate on but there are definitely signal sections on some routes that would require a lot more than 50% braking to comfortably stop for the red especially when the line speed is high.

It's impossible to be doing 50mph past a single yellow when you are also restricted to using no more than 50% of the train's braking capability

 

[ComUtoR]

I don’t know what routes you or the poster below operate on but there are definitely signal sections on some routes that would require a lot more than 50% braking to comfortably stop for the red especially when the line speed is high.

Which is why a national policy wouldn't work. So many routes, signals, traction etc. Way to many variables for just a single policy. If I see 2Y I stick the brake in and use route knowledge to detrmine where my Red is. Even routes I drove at 100mh I rarely used 3

I used to be step 1 all the time as that was how I was taught. A policy change a few years back mandated step 2 as the first application (always). Over the years I've just adapted and learned various techniques so I use whatever is suitable at the time. I still get moaned at for being a defensive Driver and my DM always wants me to brake later and drive faster. I'm somewhere between the old reduce by thirds rule and my early/light brake training.

Another problem with PDPs are the different interpretations between Drivers. Where PDPs are flexible they allow for interpretation. A PDP might require 20 for the magnet but not spcifically state where or how to brake for it. We don't have a specific speed for going past a single yellow. We kinda learned the hard way that setting speeds gives people a target to aim for, even when the Red is just around the corner.

 

[bengley]

The traction I drive has significantly poorer brakes than the previous.

PDP was written with the previous traction in mind (30-50% braking) and has not been amended to take into account the fact these new ones have poorer brakes.

I regularly use 60%+ brake (which if we go by step 1 = 33%, step 2 = 66% step 3 = 100%) then I'm simply using step 2 (which brings the unit down at roughly the same rate as 50% in our previous traction type)

I have, however been told to reign it in, which I an struggling to do because I'm being told to change how I have always driven


(I will add my starts and stops at stations are smooth and I never stop with more than 30% brake)

 

[dctraindriver]

Passenger comfort. A few of our rules are designed with passenger comfort in mind. In something like a 700 going at a fair lick, when you use 60-70% brake you tend to end up as a blob in the front window, even with their anti-jerk function. We get pulled up if we stop in brake 2. For 'passenger comfort' we are told to stop in brake 1.

Using brake 3 in normal circumstances is very much frowned upon. Suffice to say that is can result in overshoots because Drivers are more afraid of the PDP than actually having the incident :/

There used to be a technique called 'braking back' Drivers would chuck the lot in and slowly reduce the brake. Nowadays its more of a slow reduction and minimal brake for 'passenger comfort'

I can go months without using 3. 1 and 2 are pretty much the only brake steps I use.

The 707 I guess has similar braking to yours. And like yourself I don’t use step 3 or equivalent on the PBC but it’s there if it’s needed. It used to be taught start braking in step 3 years ago.

 

[bramling]

I’m also curious about that.

I used to sign three step braked units. There was no restriction on using any step, up to and including emergency. The priority is killing the speed when necessary! I remember being told by a DI: “don’t be that driver who SPADs because he was afraid to use emergency”.

That said if you were downloaded and it was found that you were using step three every time you stopped, that would raise questions about how much safety margin you were leaving. Perhaps that is what the previous poster is referring to.

I presumed the previous poster was referring to a method of driving where only given steps of braking were encouraged to be used. I thought some places seem to encourage something like "use step 2 for most of your braking, use step 1 for fine correction and final stop, use step 3 only if you have to, and use emergency in an emergency?

This of course differs sharply from the "old school" way of driving which is to go straight to full service (be that 100% on a stepless train or the highest step on a stepped train) and release as required. No doubt there could be fierce debate as to which method is best, but certainly some older trains types of train from times past more or less *had* to be driven using the second method due to the sheer variability of the brake between different individual trains.

 

[43066]

I presumed the previous poster was referring to a method of driving where only given steps of braking were encouraged to be used. I thought some places seem to encourage something like "use step 2 for most of your braking, use step 1 for fine correction and final stop, use step 3 only if you have to, and use emergency in an emergency?

This of course differs sharply from the "old school" way of driving which is to go straight to full service (be that 100% on a stepless train or the highest step on a stepped train) and release as required. No doubt there could be fierce debate as to which method is best, but certainly some older trains types of train from times past more or less *had* to be driven using the second method due to the sheer variability of the brake between different individual trains.

I suspect we are all talking about the same thing.

Certeinly defensive driving means leaving something in reserve. If you’re hammering around, relying on full service braking to stop each and every time, you’re leaving no margin for error, and that would be rightly frowned on. Using it once or twice per trip would be no big deal.

It’s just a little concerning when a driver talks about being “restricted” to a level of braking and this affecting how quickly they are passing signals. If you trip a set of grids/overrun a station in step two, that you wouldn’t have done if you’d used step three, nobody will thank you for it.

There are still trains in use on the network with very inconsistent braking performance between sets/units, and even from each end of the same unit in some cases!

 

[iphone76]

Passenger comfort. A few of our rules are designed with passenger comfort in mind. In something like a 700 going at a fair lick, when you use 60-70% brake you tend to end up as a blob in the front window, even with their anti-jerk function. We get pulled up if we stop in brake 2. For 'passenger comfort' we are told to stop in brake 1.

Using brake 3 in normal circumstances is very much frowned upon. Suffice to say that is can result in overshoots because Drivers are more afraid of the PDP than actually having the incident :/

There used to be a technique called 'braking back' Drivers would chuck the lot in and slowly reduce the brake. Nowadays its more of a slow reduction and minimal brake for 'passenger comfort'

I can go months without using 3. 1 and 2 are pretty much the only brake steps I use.

Our new updated policy says we have to use at least 70% initial breaking. Even for just a second. This is in a similar unit to a 700 so I try to be as gentle as possible. Sounds similar to braking back mentioned above.

We still have the old units around due to well known delays in a major infrastructure project and its very rare I have to use step 3. I find the old trains much more relaxing to drive.

 

[bengley]

'Braking back' makes the braking performance a little better on our units so I tend to add an initial brake of 50% and reel it back

 

[43066]

A quirk of the three step brake I was taught was that, if the train is heavily loaded, emergency wont’t necessarily give you any more brake force than step 3. The air suspension varies the brake force in each step according to weight so that braking performance remains consistent. Once you’re packed to the gunnels, and max pressure is being delivered in step 3, that’s your lot!

Having worked with both, I must say I much prefer using a continuously variable brake, which allows a lot more control and finesse, than just having the three steps.

 

[bramling]

Certeinly defensive driving means leaving something in reserve. If you’re hammering around, relying on full service braking to stop each and every time, you’re leaving no margin for error, and that would be rightly frowned on.

Yes there's LU for that! It's not uncommon there for drivers, especially more old-hand types, to use markers for station braking which will rely on a significant amount of full service braking, e.g. "at the EP board go straight to full service from 40 mph, start releasing about a car's length (18 metres!) before the stopping mark".

Having said that, such driving is absolutely no longer encouraged - however equally there are people who are quite adept at driving whole careers in that way, to whom nothing will be said unless they were to start having incidents.

It goes without saying that this type of driving is only really viable in tunnels where adhesion isn't an issue!

There are still trains in use on the network with very inconsistent braking performance between sets/units, and even from each end of the same unit in some cases!

It's interesting how the latter is so true. On ours the power/brake controller is stepless and has an optical device inside which judges what position the driver has selected. I *presume* most stepless ones on modern trains work on the same basis, with certain positions (e.g. emergency) hardwired? I've always assumed that accounts for at least some variability.

 

[bramling]

A quirk of the three step brake I was taught was that, if the train is heavily loaded, emergency wont’t necessarily give you any more brake force than step 3. The air suspension varies the brake force in each step according to weight so that braking performance remains consistent. Once you’re packed to the gunnels, and max pressure is being delivered in step 3, that’s your lot!

Does that apply on a train with dynamic brakes? We have the situation that going from full service to emergency will inhibit any rheo/regen braking and switch to full EP braking, which can result in a notable lag when the train doesn't seem to slow down at all. Likewise it always feels like the friction brakes then take time to take hold (especially if the train has been being driven gently up to that moment).

We had a period on ours when the rheo braking was completely isolated for testing purposes, which was shall we say interesting! Apart from regular instances of burning smells or in some cases reports of smoke spewing out from under the trains or even inside, braking performance became *extremely* variable.