Speed limits and making up time

[contrad!ction]

Where a signal has a call-on signal as well, will there be a short seprate track circuit just by the signal?

Occasionally, though most just have a timer that counts how long the berth track circuit has been occupied - which can vary from 15-100+ seconds.

 

[ComUtoR]

I agree that there is no trickiness about it, but disagree that it is unreasonable for a driver to look (not "stare") at or near to the signal when awaiting a change

Your making a very huge assumption again about how we should be driving our trains. It IS unreasonable for a Driver to be looking at the signal constantly. That itself is another dangerous thing to do. It is an increase in risk. Your priority is to come to a stand safely and at the correct distance from the signal. I also have policies and procedures to follow once stopped at the red. They require me to be looking away from the signal.

- and also point out that these call-on lights are bright white LED ones, at driver's eye level and are accompanied by an illuminated platform number above the signal head. Even in peripheral vision, these three lights should register easily enough.

Should but often don't. Also you have to remember that there is not always an expectation of permissive working. Unless I am booked permissive then why am I looking for it ? They aren't lit, they are black and not part of my target fixing. Then if I did get called on I would absolutely 100% check my schedule and formation before releasing the DRA. Again, it an increase in risk for expectation and that you automatically take power once the signal has cleared.

Faster does not equate to better quality. If anything, the Driver who takes longer and makes additional checks before departing is the safer Driver.

 

[redbutton]

I agreed with Hounddog's view concerning route knowledge and all that entails, including it possibly being inappropriate to check a diagram or drink at such a time (if doing so compromises attention to the signal), yes, especially when so close to a terminus when there will be time during the turn-round to do these things, or when not needing to pay attention to a red signal. My peripheral vision comment also still stands - i.e. that it shouldn't be necessary to stare fixedly directly at a signal to notice a change occur.

I agree it's inappropriate to lose focus on the red signal while approaching it, however in the scenario I posed the train was stopped and the driver was awaiting clearance into the platform. By the same token, it would also be inappropriate to anticipate the change of aspect while approaching the signal. The Southern Professional Driving Policy is clear that from the moment the driver passes a single yellow aspect, he or she is to prepare to stop at the next signal.

Unless it's clearly stated on the diagram that you're booked to enter an occupied platform, it's always unusual and the professional driver will always pause for a moment to contemplate the reason for it and whether he or she can accept the signal. Some will even ring the signaller to confirm, and that's okay too. In some places (e.g. Purley 5 and 6), permissive working is only authorised for the purposes of attaching, not mere double-berthing, so it's always wise (and encouraged by the company) to check when unsure.

Also, I don't know about the Redhill services in question but Southern have a terrible habit of scheduling dwell times to the bare legal minimums, so there is barely enough time to shut down one end, walk to the other, and set up, let alone have luxuries like a drink of tea or a toilet break.

And finally, I can only speak for myself but where red signals and occupied sections are involved I care far more about safety (and covering my own behind) than I ever do about the timetable.

Ask yourself this: Do you really want tired, overworked drivers to be putting performance before safety? Do you really want the TOC to foster that environment? Shockingly, I've heard arguments similar to those in this thread coming from people in this industry, usually managers who ought to know better. Thankfully, they swiftly get corrected, but the old hands doing the correcting are getting fewer and the graduate-scheme know-it-all managers are getting more numerous, and I'm left worrying for the future of this industry.

 

[Rich McLean]

I agree it's inappropriate to lose focus on the red signal while approaching it, however in the scenario I posed the train was stopped and the driver was awaiting clearance into the platform. By the same token, it would also be inappropriate to anticipate the change of aspect while approaching the signal. The Southern Professional Driving Policy is clear that from the moment the driver passes a single yellow aspect, he or she is to prepare to stop at the next signal.

Unless it's clearly stated on the diagram that you're booked to enter an occupied platform, it's always unusual and the professional driver will always pause for a moment to contemplate the reason for it and whether he or she can accept the signal. Some will even ring the signaller to confirm, and that's okay too. In some places (e.g. Purley 5 and 6), permissive working is only authorised for the purposes of attaching, not mere double-berthing, so it's always wise (and encouraged by the company) to check when unsure.

Also, I don't know about the Redhill services in question but Southern have a terrible habit of scheduling dwell times to the bare legal minimums, so there is barely enough time to shut down one end, walk to the other, and set up, let alone have luxuries like a drink of tea or a toilet break.

And finally, I can only speak for myself but where red signals and occupied sections are involved I care far more about safety (and covering my own behind) than I ever do about the timetable.

Ask yourself this: Do you really want tired, overworked drivers to be putting performance before safety? Do you really want the TOC to foster that environment? Shockingly, I've heard arguments similar to those in this thread coming from people in this industry, usually managers who ought to know better. Thankfully, they swiftly get corrected, but the old hands doing the correcting are getting fewer and the graduate-scheme know-it-all managers are getting more numerous, and I'm left worrying for the future of this industry.

Top post.

Bottom line is a single yellow is to be treated as just that, and you should expect a red ahead every time, regardless if you are booked to pass a permissive aspect or not.

Also it's often safer to stop and double check even when the two white dots are lit (train length, or length of the train occupying the platform with the signaller and remaining space available), as incidents like at Plymouth can occur. Once you pass the permissive aspect, you then drive at a speed where you can safely stop on sight of an obstruction (e.g. train ahead stopped in wrong platform position). Time keeping can go out of the window as far as I am concerned when it comes to restrictive aspects of any kind

 

[Sunset route]

Top post.

Bottom line is a single yellow is to be treated as just that, and you should expect a red ahead every time, regardless if you are booked to pass a permissive aspect or not.

Also it's often safer to stop and double check even when the two white dots are lit (train length, or length of the train occupying the platform with the signaller and remaining space available), as incidents like at Plymouth can occur. Once you pass the permissive aspect, you then drive at a speed where you can safely stop on sight of an obstruction (e.g. train ahead stopped in wrong platform position). Time keeping can go out of the window as far as I am concerned when it comes to restrictive aspects of any kind

Some very good points above. Plymouth springs to mind here, driver given the sub route and takes it only to find a train slightly a bit longer already in the platform than expected and no room for his train. Slightly simplified but a good example of when a non booked platform share can go wrong (or even a booked one if the stock is different from what's timetabled). I know as a signaller it sometimes can be annoying wh n a driver calls in on a book d platform share but there have been occasions where that call has saved the day, even if it did end up delaying the service.

 

[Deepgreen]

OK - the thread is about speeding, so I should not have gone off-topic. However, the last several posts have, rather predictably I suppose, yielded yet more examples of drivers being defensive about their role, for no very good reason. We have claims that drivers should not be looking at a red signal when stopped at it (extraordinary - are they perhaps permitted to check it at sensible intervals or is this also too dangerous?), claims that drivers passing a yellow must be prepared to stop at the following red (I think that is already quite a well-known fact!), claims that a well-established permissive move will probably come as a surprise to most drivers (how many new drivers can there be on a route?!), and so on. There are so many generic situations quoted here that they fail to address the specific example I raised. All these seek to deflect from the fact that drivers should be as responsive as anyone else operating the railway, and inattention causes delays. I repeat - I don't seek to denigrate the driver's role and most are excellent, well-trained professional people, but, as with any other job, there are some who are not. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to take every comment as a personal insult, or to assume that anyone who is not actually a driver has no right to comment.

The long and short of it is; passengers are repeatedly told that every second counts on the railway, and this is invariably used as a defence when responding to passenger complaints for failing to allow cross-platform interchanges, etc. However, the same sometimes cannot be said for the operators of the railway.

Anyway, this element has probably run far beyond its course, and the issue of speed should perhaps return to the fore here.

 

[ComUtoR]

However, the last several posts have, rather predictably I suppose, yielded yet more examples of drivers being defensive about their role

Nobody is being defensive about their role and most of us persnoally couldn't give a toss what outsiders think but this is a forum where opinion can sway perception. You perceive something to be happening but from our perspective nothing out of the ordinary is happening and generally falls in line with our expectations of what is supposed to happen.

We have claims that drivers should not be looking at a red signal when stopped at it (extraordinary - are they perhaps permitted to check it at sensible intervals or is this also too dangerous?), claims that drivers passing a yellow must be prepared to stop at the following red (I think that is already quite a well-known fact!), claims that a well-established permissive move will probably come as a surprise to most drivers (how many new drivers can there be on a route?!),

Because you do not see the context does not mean that it isn't there. You were given a superb explanation of what is happening by redbutton but have dismissed it out of hand because it doesn't fit your perception

All these seek to deflect from the fact that drivers should be as responsive as anyone else operating the railway, and inattention causes delays. I repeat

It is NOT inattention. It is because we are taking those reds very seriously and treating permissive working as an area of risk that due time and extra attention is being given. That manifests as a delay or seen to be someone not paying attention because of that additional time being given.

It is unnecessary and unhelpful to take every comment as a personal insult, or to assume that anyone who is not actually a driver has no right to comment.

You do have a right to comment but then to dismiss the replies given as nothing more than excuses and us being defensive serves little purpose. redbutton gave an impressive reply and highlighted exactly what is happening but you still dismiss the comments as us being defensive.

Anyway, this element has probably run far beyond its course, and the issue of speed should perhaps return to the fore here.

The issue is time, delays, speed, signals, procedures, policies etc. It all contributes to how the trains run in reality compared to the timetable. It your example is not a diagrammed move then it will cause a delay. If Driver are taking a more defensive approach to safety then it will cause delays. If there is a restrictive track circuit then it will cause delays. So much of what we do and what we are taught to do will cause delays.

 

[rebmcr]

The last several posts have, rather predictably I suppose, yielded yet more examples of drivers being defensive about their role, for no very good reason.

You won't even tell us what your role is, you're being way more defensive.

 

[ComUtoR]

You won't even tell us what your role is, you're being way more defensive.

He is easily googled.

 

[neilb62]

It easily summed up, if the signals are green the time is the drivers, if they aren't then the time is someone else's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bromley boy]

OK - the thread is about speeding, so I should not have gone off-topic. However, the last several posts have, rather predictably I suppose, yielded yet more examples of drivers being defensive about their role, for no very good reason. We have claims that drivers should not be looking at a red signal when stopped at it (extraordinary - are they perhaps permitted to check it at sensible intervals or is this also too dangerous?), claims that drivers passing a yellow must be prepared to stop at the following red (I think that is already quite a well-known fact!), claims that a well-established permissive move will probably come as a surprise to most drivers (how many new drivers can there be on a route?!), and so on. There are so many generic situations quoted here that they fail to address the specific example I raised. All these seek to deflect from the fact that drivers should be as responsive as anyone else operating the railway, and inattention causes delays. I repeat - I don't seek to denigrate the driver's role and most are excellent, well-trained professional people, but, as with any other job, there are some who are not. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to take every comment as a personal insult, or to assume that anyone who is not actually a driver has no right to comment.

The long and short of it is; passengers are repeatedly told that every second counts on the railway, and this is invariably used as a defence when responding to passenger complaints for failing to allow cross-platform interchanges, etc. However, the same sometimes cannot be said for the operators of the railway.

Anyway, this element has probably run far beyond its course, and the issue of speed should perhaps return to the fore here.

In fairness, I don't think the responses have been defensive. Rather, they've pointed out good reasons why a train may not move immediately a signal clears. Reasons which may not be apparent to you as a passenger. Examples would include: driver speaking to signaller to confirm train length for permissive working; driver speaking to guard via cab to cab; driver speaking to maintenance controller, etc.

In terms of the specific scenarios you cited neither you, nor anyone else commenting, knows precisely why those drivers took the actions they did. That route may be your regular commute but it's safe to say the drivers concerned know it rather better than you do and will have had good reasons for behaving as they did.

As such, perhaps you should trust in their judgement as trained professionals in possession of the relevant facts, rather than criticising them based on your observations from the passenger saloon.

It's worth remembering the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

 

[Scott M]

As someone else in a safety critical role, I can agree with a lot of what has been said here. It is often better to check things on a belt and braces basis, as if you don't you may save time 50 times, but then the 51st time something will go wrong and on your head be it.

Out of curiosity, all the drivers saying things like "I don't give a hoot about keeping to time when safety is involved" - how strict are TOCs with keeping to time? As a statement like that suggests to me you wouldn't get told off for being late here and there.

 

[ComUtoR]

From day 1 it is drilled into us that safety comes first before anything.

Lateness is a relative term and being told off for it is also relative. Consistent lateness would be pulled up but there are some services that will ALWAYS run late regardless of what you do so it is overlooked. Not because the TOC doesn't care but PPM is an acceptable level of delay. Right time, is now more important and there is a push to make trains more towards Right Time than PPM.

It is our job to keep the train on time and many of us take pride to do that and contrary to popular belief, we don't like being delayed.

Safety > Time.

The big problem is that there is almost zero margin of error and any additional time and there is outrage and accusations of "padding" Its one of those no win situations for the TOC's. Personally I'd like to see each route I drive be totally re-timed for a realistic journey time but that will add time and passengers will see it as padding.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Don't forget the existence, controversially for some, of delay attribution staff. Each delay of 3 minutes or more will, after an appropriate pause, generate a "please explain" which typically is sent to the driver manager appropriate to the diagrammed driver turn. The manager will then contact the driver for their explanation. Unfortunately there can often be several days before such conversation can take place and the event may not be recalled. Equally, on non-DOO services the driver and guard may be from different depots and the delay may not be anything to do with the driver. As a guard I was always encouraged to report any delays that I was able to explain at the earliest opportunity: this could even happen while my train was stood at a red while another conflicting move passed in plain sight. GSM-R does allow drivers to make such calls themselves but only if there is a suitable chance to do so, ie not on the move.

The system can occasionally identify a timetabling conflict not picked up during the planning process. Like a platform occupation plan causing avoidable conflicting moves or insufficient station dwell times affecting just a single service (eg due to scholars). Delay attribution allows such issues to be fed back for rectification, all part of the drive towards right time running. I would suggest Deepgreen's recent issue was one such situation which happened to be difficult to avoid and was in any case just a temporary one.

 

[redbutton]

As someone else in a safety critical role, I can agree with a lot of what has been said here. It is often better to check things on a belt and braces basis, as if you don't you may save time 50 times, but then the 51st time something will go wrong and on your head be it.

Out of curiosity, all the drivers saying things like "I don't give a hoot about keeping to time when safety is involved" - how strict are TOCs with keeping to time? As a statement like that suggests to me you wouldn't get told off for being late here and there.

Usually delays under restrictive aspects will be picked up before I ever hear about it, but if a delay remains unexplained I'll get a "please explain" note in my pigeonhole. I reply with my reasoning or observations, and then I never hear about it again.

 

[W230]

The long and short of it is; passengers are repeatedly told that every second counts on the railway, and this is invariably used as a defence when responding to passenger complaints for failing to allow cross-platform interchanges, etc. However, the same sometimes cannot be said for the operators of the railway.

Having seen a few of your posts through the months good sir, I do think you have a little bit of an obsession with having us driving up to the limit in every situation just to minimise any possible delay. Whether it be driving right up to the speed limit or coming in faster on platforms when a signal has cleared/permissive working in operation etc etc.

Rushing increases the risk of a safety of the line incident. Fact.

If I feel I can reduce this risk by taking more time I will always do so. So sometimes my passengers may be delayed for a little while I recheck things. That's just how it goes...

 

[infobleep]

Jus a couple of points, signallers is prohibited from platform sharing or bringing attaching train into a platform until it's is confirms there is enough room for the second train.

The other point is that the siganl coming into Redhill from Riegate has one of the harshes approach controls when the subsidiary siganl is being used, approx nearly minutes long once the berth track circuit has been occupied.

Once they build the extra platform, would thus get resolved?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Deepgreen]

Having seen a few of your posts through the months good sir, I do think you have a little bit of an obsession with having us driving up to the limit in every situation just to minimise any possible delay. Whether it be driving right up to the speed limit or coming in faster on platforms when a signal has cleared/permissive working in operation etc etc.

Rushing increases the risk of a safety of the line incident. Fact.

If I feel I can reduce this risk by taking more time I will always do so. So sometimes my passengers may be delayed for a little while I recheck things. That's just how it goes...

"Rushing" (if defined as performing a procedure more quickly than it should be)" is not to be encouraged - that was not at all what I said. I am not advocating any excessive speed, etc., but I would expect prompt reactions to cleared signals, etc. If the argument that more time taken reduces risk is to be pursued, where does that end? Does one, to take an extreme example, take, say, five minutes to respond to a change of aspect, just in case it's wrong, or changes back to red, or to 'phone the signaller to confirm the route, and so on? Don't rush, just react efficiently. Yes, too, I would expect drivers to drive up to (not over) the speed limit in order to make up, or avoid losing, time. Not unreasonable, I think - that's what speed limits are for.

I'm afraid that this seems to be another of the numerous examples of the driving fraternity taking posts personally and being in denial about they or their colleagues being capable of anything less than perfect performance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once they build the extra platform, would thus get resolved?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

No, if those who claim that there are to be no significant changes to the signalling at the south end of Redhill are correct. Dual platform occupation will still be possible, indeed; the norm.

 

[Johncleesefan]

Ni speed limits are for limiting the speed you travel on the specific line. They are not targets they are limits. And generally route knowledge tells you when you don't need to be at that limit, ie downhill gradients when coasting you wouldn't want to be at the limit others wise you are constantly braking to bring it down. Leave the driving to the drivers

 

[infobleep]

"Rushing" (if defined as performing a procedure more quickly than it should be)" is not to be encouraged - that was not at all what I said. I am not advocating any excessive speed, etc., but I would expect prompt reactions to cleared signals, etc. If the argument that more time taken reduces risk is to be pursued, where does that end? Does one, to take an extreme example, take, say, five minutes to respond to a change of aspect, just in case it's wrong, or changes back to red, or to 'phone the signaller to confirm the route, and so on? Don't rush, just react efficiently. Yes, too, I would expect drivers to drive up to (not over) the speed limit in order to make up, or avoid losing, time. Not unreasonable, I think - that's what speed limits are for.

I'm afraid that this seems to be another of the numerous examples of the driving fraternity taking posts personally and being in denial about they or their colleagues being capable of anything less than perfect performance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, if those who claim that there are to be no significant changes to the signalling at the south end of Redhill are correct. Dual platform occupation will still be possible, indeed; the norm.

So the problem of trains being late because one is in the platform will continue and people will continue to miss their connections I take it?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[321446]

Originally Posted by Deepgreen View Post
I'm afraid that this seems to be another of the numerous examples of the driving fraternity taking posts personally and being in denial about they or their colleagues being capable of anything less than perfect performance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below

I think you'll find that nobody is perfect. Sorry if that comes as earth shattering news. So therefore, not everyone can react with the level of speed and precision 100% of the time that others expect them to. In the same way that others cannot grasp that others can manage to do there jobs every day to the best of their abilities and still be seen as failures because they are incapable of reaching quite reasonable standards set by an arbiatry appointed person. Life's a pain isn't it?

Oh well, pointless me saying all that I know, but I feel better for it.

 

[Minilad]

I'm afraid that this seems to be another of the numerous examples of the driving fraternity taking posts personally and being in denial about they or their colleagues being capable of anything less than perfect performance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would say this is another of the numerous examples on here of someone who doesn't do a job thinking they know more about it than those that do. Therefore not listening to people who do do the job explaining with reasonable detail the intricacies of said job

 

[nom de guerre]

I'm afraid that this seems to be another of the numerous examples of the driving fraternity taking posts personally and being in denial about they or their colleagues being capable of anything less than perfect performance.

Oh dear - straw man alert.

When did any of the drivers or signallers contributing to this thread claim that they, or their grade, were capable of "perfect performance"?

 

[redbutton]

While most of us are certainly capable of "perfect" performance for brief periods, the reality is that such a high level of intense focus cannot be maintained reliably for long periods. Humans just can't do it. That's why air traffic controllers, for example, are required to take frequent breaks from their work stations every two hours at longest.

However, without double-manning, this is not possible for train drivers, so we are trained and encouraged to use certain strategies to maintain focus. This results in a decrease in "efficiency" but largely achieves a big reduction in the risk of safety of the line incidents.

That said, the management grades are made up more and more of people from outside the railway who have never worked in a safety-critical role. They therefore have an unrealistic expectation of human performance, that is often at odds with the best practice guidance from the RSSB. The comments from Deepgreen are reminiscent of that school of thought.

 

[ComUtoR]

While most of us are certainly capable of "perfect" performance for brief periods, the reality is that such a high level of intense focus cannot be maintained reliably for long periods. Humans just can't do it.

Precisely. Its just not possible and shouldn't be encouraged for performance reasons. Its also why we have strategies (non technical skills) in place to cope and why various policies exist to prevent such an overload.

Staring at the signal, expecting it to change, taking power seconds after it steps up, not questioning diagrams, assumption of attachments etc etc. are all increasing risk. Doing it every day and multiple times a day increases risk further.

There is an expectation from the passenger and certain passengers... want everything their way. It's unacceptable for a Driver to take their time (10-15 seconds) while waiting for a signal but they also want a service to be held for 10-15 seconds to allow a connection....

I fully agree that trains should run on time. That means that connections shouldn't be held, the timetable must reflect right time running, and driving policies, rulebook, signalling constraints, etc must help determine a robust timetable for the passenger.