Speaking as someone who is also a driver on the affected route, cognitive underload can be as much of an issue as overload. Which is why the speed limiter has been set to 125, because drivers who have little to do sometimes forget to keep an eye on their speed. And why ATP warns at 128 and intervenes at 131 even when in partial supervision. It's a highly predictable human error - it's not any reflection on any individual driver or their ability or competence, it's just a fact of life that humans make mistakes. Once you accept that, why wouldn't you want an engineering control to mitigate the risk?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RIP Great western 125mph.... (IETs to have speed limiter automatically set)
- Thread starter irish_rail
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I think you've asked the wrong person because my post was addressing one that implied that not technically reaching 125mph means the railway loses it's prestige and excitement in which my response made similar points that you did, them being that most people won't know and probably won't care.
It's a bit unfair really to stick it on them. They fell foul of the issue, identified it and as far as I recall correctly reported it and it's been mitigated against.
I had a similar issue years ago with a driver accidently breaking the ton down the bank between Dronfield and Tapton in a 158. Self reported, all dealt with, slapped wrist and nothing more said.
irish_rail
Established Member
Sorry what risk? ATP would intervene at 131mph well before any damage could be caused so why do this? Totally pointless other than to cause significant cognitive underload....
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,294
That was reportedly due to Avanti insisting rather than the driver’s preference and it cost them the record, rather amusingly. You’d bet Virgin would have had a rather different attitude than WorstGroup.
The risk of a train overspeeding by a significant amount potential leading to derailment, because the driver, being a human being, didn't monitor the train's speed correctly. Hence for example, the speed limiter being at 125 (on both fitted and non-ATP fitted 80x fleets), or ATP warning at 128 and intervening at 131 (on GWR 80x prior to the speed limiter being set at 125 as a default), two examples of engineering controls that mitigate the risk of any driver being fallible.
It's not totally pointless when it will prevent a re-occurrence of the speeding incidents that have occurred on non-ATP fitted 80x.
Not much!
To be fair I’m sure this kind of thing is more frustrating for those who remember speeding and “old school” driving than for those who have only been on for a relatively short time.
I used to sign stock which had speed set and its use was specifically prohibited by the driving policy. Admittedly it was 75mph metro stock so there would have been hardly any occasions to use it even if it had been permitted.
Agreed. I’d rather actively focus on maintaining a speed than simply leave it wide open and let it mash along on a limiter.
craigybagel
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 5,081
ISTR the NMT is not fitted with ATP and is limited to 110 on the GWML?So, somewhat ironically, does that mean that the only rolling stock that can officially do 125 on the GWML now is the BR built HST, specifically the NMT?
irish_rail
Established Member
My point is the risk on GWR is minimal because thr max overspeed would be 131mph which is never going to do any damage on 125mph sections. Therefore for the risk of going 6mph over, id say the loss of concentration overall coming from the speed set, gives a greater negative overall outcome and greater liklihood of leading to more serious safety incidents.
Whether or not on none ATP fitted lines like the ECML the speed set MAY be more effective due to the potential to speed by much more than 131mph, is up for debate.
And this is what drivers will now be forced to do. I do wonder if the people coming up with these descions have ever actually driven intercity trains or not???....
I think you have misunderstood why the speed limiter is now set at 125. It's been set at 125 across the entire 80x fleet (not just the GWR fleet) as mitigation against a speeding incident where an 80x exceeds the maximum authorised speed of the train, as has happened previously because a) the speed limiter was turned off and the driver thought it was turned on, or b) the driver failed to monitor their speed for whatever reason and exceeded 125. In the case of b) it is very similar to ATP supervising to maximum train speed in partial supervision, but will act at 125 rather than 128.
The fact that you can't switch it off does not mean that you're obliged to use it, its use is not mandatory, and it's certainly not there so that you can let the train drive itself. You're not 'forced' to do anything: it's a speed limiter, not cruise control, you still have full control of power and brake even when it's set at 125. You are still responsible for controlling the train and adhering to line speeds etc.
The people who agreed to this change as part of the upgrade to TMS v84 include your safety and DDC reps (as well as reps at all the TOCs who operate 80x) so take it up with them if you have any issues with it.
CBlue
Member
I quite agree. It's patently ridiculous that we don't hold the silliness of modern "transport" and all its safety rules to account against the far more prestigious and superior standards of the 1970s railway. Because HST's, proper trains, something something end doors and droplights.....we must be the laughing stock of europe as a result of making all our trains 0.7mph slower.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,938
So, somewhat ironically, does that mean that the only rolling stock that can officially do 125 on the GWML now is the BR built HST, specifically the NMT?
Nope, the NMT doesn’t have ATP so is limited to 110mph.
irish_rail
Established Member
Hilarious. Come back when you can drive a train please sunshine. The main concern here is the liklihood of this causing safety related incidents, not the fact that the train will no longer run at 125mph.I quite agree. It's patently ridiculous that we don't hold the silliness of modern "transport" and all its safety rules to account against the far more prestigious and superior standards of the 1970s railway. Because HST's, proper trains, something something end doors and droplights.....we must be the laughing stock of europe as a result of making all our trains 0.7mph slower.
Try telling that to drivers who have got clean records and have driven in a certain way for many years. Just because a few newer drivers need a babysitter to drive from A to B, why can those of us who can actually do our job be left alone to get on with it.
The DDC have a lot on their plates at present, can't quite believe they've let this through, ill be having words with the south west DDC bloke that's for sure. This is going to be a big challenge for those of us older school drivers who know what works well for us and don't want to drive in a more automated way that in some cases will definitely lead to compromised concentration.
Your clearly very much behind it, great, each to their own, why not let drivers that want to use it use it and those that don't need our hands held not be forced to.
It was you who mentioned prestige and excitement, so it's a fair response....
If you believe this represents a significant safety risk, raise it internally. I'm sure your health and safety rep will support any genuine argument
On a non safety note, the percentage of people who will care about the less than 1 mph speed difference, is definitely less than such difference.
HamworthyGoods
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 3,938
Class 800s have run with the speed limiter on LNER for quite some time now, do you have some data on the increase on safety related incidents since this was put in place there to give a useful comparison of what might or might not happen on the Western? I’ve not heard anything at all about an increase in safety related incidents so am very interested to hear where you get your facts for this assertion from.
You don't need to drive any differently to how you drive now. With the speed limiter set at 125 by default, it is no different to ATP providing supervision to maximum train speed. If you don't want to use it, just ignore it. You're not being forced to do anything.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,494
Unfair rant. Nobody on TPE (or other companies on the ECML, iirc) was aware that as soon as the TMS needed resetting, that reset disconnected the speed limiter setting - a very dangerous result, especially as everyone was trained to use and rely on that (supposedly infallible) limiter. GWR, with ATP, was far better protected against any similar overspeed eventuality.
Getting this electronically sorted was pretty well mandatory and v.84 eliminates the possibility of this happening again.
irish_rail
Established Member
Agree with the first bit and I take that back, however re the second bit it couldnt happen again anyway (140mph) on ATP fitted stuff , so I just cannot agree that it will improve driver performance.
The difference is ATP ensures you don't go over 128mph therefore the driver needs to drive in order to keep speed at 125mph and not "wonder" upto 127 or 128. It is small tasks like this that aid a drivers focus and keeps him or her alert and effective. And the way the trains are tightly pathed (the Plymouth going out 2 minutes behind the Bristols) advising drivers to "play at keeping it say 122 or 123 will have negative consequences on timekeeping.
Of course I don't, but I am a driver and I do know what works for me. I've had conversations with managers who were quite happy for me not to use the limiter and even agree that it isn't helpful. I've never had safety incidents in a long career and this type of micro management isn't helpful to all drivers.
Regarding prestige, this is of course secondary to may main argument of safety, but I just find it quite sad that in the year 2022 we seem to have just given up in terms of the pushing the boundaries and what can be achieved. Where will the next generation of rail enthusiasts come from? Back in the bad old days there were often speed runs and the like, yet that all seems to have petered out, indeed I think GWR failed miserably with one they did between London and Reading a couple of years back (I've recorded better times during lockdown on that stretch myself).
Last edited:
I would use it every single day and trip if I was allowed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Personally, I'd rather the driver of my train wasn't "pushing the boundaries". in any case 200km/h is passe - HS2 is about to come close to doubling that, so who cares about a medium speed InterCity service to Cornwall in that regard?
If you don't mind me asking, why are you not allowed to use it?
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Some TOCs prohibited use on, for example Electrostars, due to increased risk of SPADs after use of Speedset was linked to a SPAD incident. (From memory the driver used the speedset to bring speed down for the signal instead of braking manually, in that particular incident.)
- Because we are 'risk averse'
- There is a lack of understanding how onboard systems work
- We are treated like children
- Lack of training
- Lack of Trust
- Unreliable speed set
- Out of date traction (many many mods later)
- Humans are idiots
- Poor implementation of technology
Probably more reasons but they are the most common reasons why we don't use speed-set.
Mintona
Established Member
Fwiw I don’t use the speed limiter ever. Keeping a train at 125 is a skill. A limiter takes that skill away, and will mean the mind is far more likely to wander onto other less important things.
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,653
It’s more often 123 mph now with an occasional 124 mph according to gps.
An interesting insight. I do hope some improvements in training will come in future though because with this move to restricting the 80x top line speeds (albeit by such a miniscule and inconsequential amount) I can't see these things being undone simply because of the potential for improved railway safety. That said only time will tell how much that may be necessary.
DanNCL
Established Member
I’m pretty sure there was something published a while ago that showed newer drivers weren’t any more likely to have such incidents than their more experienced colleagues.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
The opposite in fact, newer drivers were less likely
irish_rail
Established Member
No, I'm pretty sure most of the incidents on GWR at present are newer drivers.
Its funny out of the drivers on this thread , 3 of us are against (me, you , 43066) and 1 is in favour (turboman). Speaks volumes really. This is a dangerous thing for drivers, and most of us recognise that. Hopefully recognising the fact will help mitigate the increased risk. I just can't believe the railway is doing something that is potentially less safe and I have no doubt whatsoever this will be done away with as soon as a driver blames a SPAD or other incident on the limiter, and that WILL happen in my opinion.
What about the 90 percent of the population who couldn't give two hoots about HS2? Each to their own, many people very much enjoy the London to Cornwall trip, the public and enthusiasts alike.
Yes. I must admit with my enthusiast hat on I have a lot more interest in the classic Victorian network and how modern trains now operate safely and reliably over the same trackbeds steam engines used to use (and in some depots and sidings literally the same tracks!). The hotch-potch of “heritage” signalling systems and other line-side features from different eras adds to the interest for me.
HS1 leaves me cold despite the high speed. So much of it is in tunnels, featureless cuttings or behind noise fences and in cab signalling means there’s a lot less to see. The absence of intermediate stations means it’s also far harder for people to get access to watch trains.
I expect HS2 (at least the genuinely “high speed” bit of it) will be exactly the same.
Last edited:
- Status