Should TrainFX be considered an acceptable PIS solution?

[py_megapixel]

The thread title previously referenced TrainFX's PRM-TSI compliance. I've changed it as I've realised that wasn't really the subject of discussion. I appreciate that it's compliant while it works - thanks to all those who clarified that for me.

With recent rush to modernise rolling stock for 2020, almost every retained fleet of rolling stock is now in the process of being fitted with TrainFX passenger information systems. I am personally of the opinion that the system is utter rubbish and should not be used. My main reasons for this are:

• The announcements are muffled, difficult to understand, and disjointed.
• The displays in the passenger saloon are either horrid flickery LED matrices or LCD panels which have incredibly poor formatting.
• The systems do not appear to be aware of the actual position of the train, instead relying on timers and the opening and closing of the doors, meaning that if a door has to be opened twice at a station for any reason, the PIS will be providing incorrect information.
• It often doesn't work at all. I think that around half of the trains I've travelled on with the system fitted have had it working.
• Apparently, it poses a distraction to the driver by playing the announcements inside the cab, and lighting up whenever a manual announcement is made. (Admittedly I don't work on the railways, but I would assume that a driver's route knowledge should be good enough that they know their train's final destination and where they should stop).
• For the above reasons, staff often (understandably!) mute the announcements and/or turn off the displays, rendering the system completely useless.

Some of these issues are only matters of comfort, but some actually do affect accessibility, which is frankly unacceptable in 2019 when far better systems are available.
In contrast, earlier PIS-retrofitted trains have had Bombardier or Siemens systems, both of which seem to work far better.

 

[Sprinter156]

I don't like the trainFX destination displays at the cab ends, the text is way too small. And yeah the displays are very flickery but the announcement sound quality isn't too bad on a ScotRail 156 (unless it's 156478), I can understand them.

 

[LowLevel]

It is total and utter rubbish. Awful for traincrew, maintenance staff and passengers. The company that produced it and the buyers that encouraged them by purchasing it should be thoroughly ashamed.

 

[Scott1]

On the EMR 156/158s that have had it fitted its been a problem since day one. It doesn't always work, sometimes gets "lost", and the way the text has been programmed flows poorly on the screens, leading to confused passengers. On EMR it doesn't make audible announcements, just the displays, so its not helpful to anyone who is blind who are still dependent on the guard. The system is hopeless and the implementation has been a bodge job for staff and passengers.

 

[aleggatta]

I don't think they have really upgraded their systems ever, the system that SN installed on the 313s is crap, and bears many similarities with the system that was installed on the 442s when they entered service (however I would put money on the 442s seeming to work reasonably reliably down to the limited routes that the system had to know!) I think the main reason TOCs go for TrainFX is that it was specifically designed to work over the existing analogue unit wiring, giving it a virtual guarantee to work(at point of sale) and allowing no modification to the couplers for units that have to run in multiple (I think it can also run with 'unmodified' units with no issue also). Whilst modern trains may still use a low train wire count for their PIS systems, they are commonly RS485 twisted pair links for the displays and separate audio lines.

 

[ainsworth74]

(I think it can also run with 'unmodified' units with no issue also)

I haven't seen this demonstrated myself (so I'm open to correction) but I am under the impression that if the announcements are enabled on a TrainFX equipped train it will play over the PA in a non-equipped train that it's coupled to. For example in a 156+142 formation when the 156's TrainFX plays an announcement it will also play in the 142.

 

[Llama]

Yes that's right, it just feeds an analogue sound signal down the PA 'train wire'. The ones on Northern seem to play announcements far too loudly on a non-TrainFX unit though, I've seen several repair book entries written by guards complaining of the PA "screaming at people".

 

[py_megapixel]

Yes that's right, it just feeds an analogue sound signal down the PA 'train wire'. The ones on Northern seem to play announcements far too loudly on a non-TrainFX unit though, I've seen several repair book entries written by guards complaining of the PA "screaming at people".

Indeed: from a 142 coupled to a modded 150 it's possible to hear the announcements from the other side of an island platform!

 

[Terry Tait]

Is it compatible with the rest of us or is it just a nuisance?

 

[ComUtoR]

• Apparently, it poses a distraction to the driver by playing the announcements inside the cab, and lighting up whenever a manual announcement is made.

There is no 'Apparently' There is an issue with it causing a distraction. It is not just TrainFX systems either. Others cause distractions too.

(Admittedly I don't work on the railways, but I would assume that a driver's route knowledge should be good enough that they know their train's final destination and where they should stop).

Your assumption is wrong. There are many human factors involved in any incident. Distractions play a big part.

Some of these issues are only matters of comfort, but some actually do affect accessibility, which is frankly unacceptable in 2019 when far better systems are available.
In contrast, earlier PIS-retrofitted trains have had Bombardier or Siemens systems, both of which seem to work far better.

I use Bombardier and Siemens and another one from Angel (I think). The Seimens one is awful. The Angel one is a giant piece of "$"!

The thread title is misleading. Is there an issue with it being compliant ? Can you point to where it may break the regulations please.

It is total and utter rubbish. Awful for traincrew, maintenance staff and passengers. The company that produced it and the buyers that encouraged them by purchasing it should be thoroughly ashamed.

TrainFX is evil. Kill it with fire !!

 

[jamiearmley]

There is an absolute rule that trainfx units, when coupled to units not so fitted, must not have the automatic announcements enabled and should display destination only. This is apparently due to issues with the cab to cab communication equipment which only reveal themselves when the announcer is activated. Its concerning that forum members have heard the announcements played in non modified units, given that the instruction regarding this has a full page in every "book of codes" issued, and is displayed on notice boards at all northern depots....

 

[Llama]

No such instructions are displayed at "all northern depots".

Nor has anyone at my depot been issued a book of codes. I know they exist, and even after several versions they're incomplete and inaccurate, but we don't get issued them.

It's actually the guards who put the code in nine times out of ten. And the PIS isn't the job of the guard.

 

[Scotrail314209]

The TrainFX system seems to have an issue with requests stops and splitting too.

The Oban and Mallaig service apparently terminates at Crianlarich (when it splits).

It also logs Glenfinnan as being a request stop when it isn’t. System is completely useless imo.

 

[LowLevel]

No such instructions are displayed at "all northern depots".

Nor has anyone at my depot been issued a book of codes. I know they exist, and even after several versions they're incomplete and inaccurate, but we don't get issued them.

It's actually the guards who put the code in nine times out of ten. And the PIS isn't the job of the guard.

In the East Midlands the guards ended up looking after the TrainFX for various reasons (ASLEF were not remotely interested in it, since the 170s departed the area the only trains that had a PIS on board were the 222s where the PIS is looked after by the train manager so it keeps it as a standard for the company, we also have more time to go running around the train tripping out MCBs to try and get the screens to work) - the problem being the bloody thing doesn't work properly until there is a drivers key in somewhere in the train

Most of us have gotten to be quite good at getting it to do something but blank screens and the interface units crashing and failing are regular problems.

 

[Llama]

Yes I should add that on Northern the PIS/destination blind is strictly the drivers' responsibility, and always has been.

 

[jamiearmley]

It definitely is up on the boards at Leeds and vic. It started on the new notice case as part of the general tfx instructions and then got reposted a few months back. And it definitely is in the book of codes, at the back of the book. It's not particularly prominent in either to be fair . I wasnt really aware of it until it became the subject of a discussion on the employee group, despite having seen both the various code books and the notice boards. It is the drivers sole responsibility, and I don't touch it unless my driver asks me to do so. I do, now, however, request the driver turns off the announcer if we have non tfx in the consist, which they have always been more than happy to do.

 

[LowLevel]

It's always struck me as a bit odd that the way the original DRI and CRI were written (Drivers and Conductors Restructuring Initiatives, the terms and conditions of both grades basically) the driver had responsibility for the passenger information system but the guard is the one responsible for delivering any passenger information! I assume it goes back in basic terms to blinds and headcodes on the front of trains.

When TrainFX came in both unions and the company looked at it and decided it was better to fall along the lines of the other stock and have the guard look after it as it involves passenger information (in theory, should it ever work as intended).

 

[craigybagel]

With the recent rush to modernise rolling stock for 2020, almost every retained fleet of rolling stock is now in the process of being fitted with TrainFX passenger information systems. I am personally of the opinion that the system is utter rubbish and should not be used. My main reasons for this are:

• The announcements are muffled, difficult to understand, and disjointed.
• The displays in the passenger saloon are either horrid flickery LED matrices or LCD panels which have incredibly poor formatting.
• The systems do not appear to be aware of the actual position of the train, instead relying on timers and the opening and closing of the doors, meaning that if a door has to be opened twice at a station for any reason, the PIS will be providing incorrect information.
• It often doesn't work at all. I think that around half of the trains I've travelled on with the system fitted have had it working.
• Apparently, it poses a distraction to the driver by playing the announcements inside the cab, and lighting up whenever a manual announcement is made. (Admittedly I don't work on the railways, but I would assume that a driver's route knowledge should be good enough that they know their train's final destination and where they should stop).
• For the above reasons, staff often (understandably!) mute the announcements and/or turn off the displays, rendering the system completely useless.

Some of these issues are only matters of comfort, but some actually do affect accessibility, which is frankly unacceptable in 2019 when far better systems are available.
In contrast, earlier PIS-retrofitted trains have had Bombardier or Siemens systems, both of which seem to work far better.

When TrainFX works it complies with all the requirements of PRM TSI legislation. The fact that it is extremely unreliable and detested by almost all traincrew who have any interaction with it is besides the point - as far as the question posed in this thread goes anyway, TrainFX is compliant.

Unfortunately, for many of the reasons mentioned above and others asides, it often isn't working.

There is an absolute rule that trainfx units, when coupled to units not so fitted, must not have the automatic announcements enabled and should display destination only. This is apparently due to issues with the cab to cab communication equipment which only reveal themselves when the announcer is activated. Its concerning that forum members have heard the announcements played in non modified units, given that the instruction regarding this has a full page in every "book of codes" issued, and is displayed on notice boards at all northern depots....

There may be at your TOC, but there certainly isn't at mine so I wouldn't call it an Absolute rule. Some traincrew choose not to activate TrainFX when operating in multiple with a unit without that system, because of that issue, but there's no hard and fast rule. And incidentally ,despite using it for 6 years as a guard, I have no idea how to switch it on so that only the end destinations show.

 

[craigybagel]

It definitely is up on the boards at Leeds and vic. It started on the new notice case as part of the general tfx instructions and then got reposted a few months back. And it definitely is in the book of codes, at the back of the book. It's not particularly prominent in either to be fair . I wasnt really aware of it until it became the subject of a discussion on the employee group, despite having seen both the various code books and the notice boards. It is the drivers sole responsibility, and I don't touch it unless my driver asks me to do so. I do, now, however, request the driver turns off the announcer if we have non tfx in the consist, which they have always been more than happy to do.

It's always struck me as a bit odd that the way the original DRI and CRI were written (Drivers and Conductors Restructuring Initiatives, the terms and conditions of both grades basically) the driver had responsibility for the passenger information system but the guard is the one responsible for delivering any passenger information! I assume it goes back in basic terms to blinds and headcodes on the front of trains.

When TrainFX came in both unions and the company looked at it and decided it was better to fall along the lines of the other stock and have the guard look after it as it involves passenger information (in theory, should it ever work as intended).

It's interesting how things have worked out at different TOCs with who is responsible for operating APIS. At mine it is normally the guards responsibility to set it up, but that's a change from our class 175 units that have an older (and much more reliable) system that only the driver can operate as it's part of the TMS system controlled from the leading cab.

 

[GrimShady]

It's nothing but junk!

Which means it fits in well with most of the other junk that's on the network these days.

 

[Llama]

Agreed.

Notably on Northern's CAF units the guard has no way to set the PIS, it has to be done by the driver.

 

[samuelmorris]

With the recent rush to modernise rolling stock for 2020, almost every retained fleet of rolling stock is now in the process of being fitted with TrainFX passenger information systems. I am personally of the opinion that the system is utter rubbish and should not be used. My main reasons for this are:

• The announcements are muffled, difficult to understand, and disjointed.
• The displays in the passenger saloon are either horrid flickery LED matrices or LCD panels which have incredibly poor formatting.
• The systems do not appear to be aware of the actual position of the train, instead relying on timers and the opening and closing of the doors, meaning that if a door has to be opened twice at a station for any reason, the PIS will be providing incorrect information.
• It often doesn't work at all. I think that around half of the trains I've travelled on with the system fitted have had it working.
• Apparently, it poses a distraction to the driver by playing the announcements inside the cab, and lighting up whenever a manual announcement is made. (Admittedly I don't work on the railways, but I would assume that a driver's route knowledge should be good enough that they know their train's final destination and where they should stop).
• For the above reasons, staff often (understandably!) mute the announcements and/or turn off the displays, rendering the system completely useless.

Some of these issues are only matters of comfort, but some actually do affect accessibility, which is frankly unacceptable in 2019 when far better systems are available.
In contrast, earlier PIS-retrofitted trains have had Bombardier or Siemens systems, both of which seem to work far better.

In my opinion, although the volume should be adjustable, I do think the driver should be able to hear the announcements in the cab at least on DOO services as otherwise he would have no idea if it was wrong. PIS systems, whichever brand, often get their location mixed up and so it's valuable for the driver (or guard if present) to make corrective announcements. Can't do that if you're blissfully unaware it's putting out wrong information in the first place.

The audio quality being muffled / quiet is probably just the PA setup in the stock it's retrofitted to. Manual announcements are pretty much inaudible on Mk 3 EMUs for example.

 

[brad465]

If this is the system used on TL's 700s, I've not encountered them not working properly, but do have 2 issues with them: Firstly if I'm getting such a service early on its journey, considering they tend to have many calling points over a long distance the announcement is very long and unnecessarily repeated after every station. Secondly those long displays and announcement of the calling points come first, and push useful information about live population of the carriages, etc. to the back when really they should be on display when the train is in a station.

 

[Bungle965]

If this is the system used on TL's 700s, I've not encountered them not working properly, but do have 2 issues with them: Firstly if I'm getting such a service early on its journey, considering they tend to have many calling points over a long distance the announcement is very long and unnecessarily repeated after every station. Secondly those long displays and announcement of the calling points come first, and push useful information about live population of the carriages, etc. to the back when really they should be on display when the train is in a station.

It's not the system used on the Class 700s.
Sam

 

[brad465]

It's not the system used on the Class 700s.
Sam

Probably just as well given the issues being discussed, but thank you for clarifying.

 

[jon0844]

700s are going to get a pretty major software upgrade before the end of the year that should address a number of issues. Many things were disabled due to issues (most notably trying to send a hi-res image to every screen and play audio at the same time, which caused massive stuttering issues and even crashing individual displays).

 

[py_megapixel]

There is no 'Apparently' There is an issue with it causing a distraction. It is not just TrainFX systems either. Others cause distractions too.

I only said "apparently" to emphasize that I don't drive trains and therefore I'm only relaying what others have said.

The thread title is misleading. Is there an issue with it being compliant ? Can you point to where it may break the regulations please.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that not working half the time would be a good start. And I'd say the fact that everybody hates it is an issue, because it means that staff will be less inclined to actually set it at the start of a route, defeating the purpose.

I'll update the thread title. I admit that PRM compliance isn't really the issue.

TrainFX is evil. Kill it with fire !!

Completely agree with you on that one.

 

[ComUtoR]

Its an off the shelf solution. That makes it cheap and saves time investing in developing a new product. It is also something that is being retrofitted to multiple units so there is an advantage of using something both off the shelf and something that has a 'proven' track record and is able to be fitted instead of a bespoke solution.

The problem is that when it works, it works. When it breaks, you have the human as backup so it doesn't specifically need to be as robust as it should.

TrainFX is awful and personally I hated using it. However, you could just stick a code in and never think of the PIS again. In that case, it does its job and as a Driver aid, it is an improvement.

The 700s have a very poor system too. As a 'stick in a code and forget' style system its ok and just as good as any other system. However, it has operational issues and the user interface is just as bad, if not worse than TrainFX.

The one on a Networker is beyond broken and has had issues from the day it was installed. I hate that thing with a passion because it breaks so often. Compared to TrainFX I'd rather suffer with the TrainFX because whilst it wasn't user friendly, I found it more robust. I have the same distraction issues with the Networker and tbh probably worse because they are much more persistent.

The only one I like is the one attached to the Mitrac in a 376. 1. Its reliable, 2. The user interface is very good and has a few options the others don't. I only have a single issue with it.

What alternatives are out there ?

 

[craigybagel]

If this is the system used on TL's 700s, I've not encountered them not working properly, but do have 2 issues with them: Firstly if I'm getting such a service early on its journey, considering they tend to have many calling points over a long distance the announcement is very long and unnecessarily repeated after every station. Secondly those long displays and announcement of the calling points come first, and push useful information about live population of the carriages, etc. to the back when really they should be on display when the train is in a station.

As far as I'm aware, TrainFX is effectively an after market system that has only been retrofitted to older stock. I'm not aware of any new fleets that have it installed from day one?

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that not working half the time would be a good start. And I'd say the fact that everybody hates it is an issue, because it means that staff will be less inclined to actually set it at the start of a route, defeating the purpose.

Most staff are more professional then to not switch it on because they hate it. I would suggest that most of them it's switched off is because for one reason or another (and there are many) it isn't working correctly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is total and utter rubbish. Awful for traincrew, maintenance staff and passengers. The company that produced it and the buyers that encouraged them by purchasing it should be thoroughly ashamed.

I agree. The idea of it is great, the implementation - well, if it was a consumer device it'd have gone back to the shop by now.