What is ‘being able to sign a route’ and how did it come about?

[najaB]

But British exceptionalism triumphs over here....

It's not a matter of British exceptionalism as much as it is that it would take a massive amount of work and effort to change systems - basically resignalling the entire railway and retraining every single driver - for very little (if any) actual benefit.

 

[Facing Back]

It's not a matter of British exceptionalism as much as it is that it would take a massive amount of work and effort to change systems - basically resignalling the entire railway and retraining every single driver - for very little (if any) actual benefit.

Its a tiny acorn, but isn't the signalling being installed on HS2 for ETCS what is needed? I seem to recall reading the ATO on the Thameslink core is running over ETCS?

 

[zwk500]

Its a tiny acorn, but isn't the signalling being installed on HS2 for ETCS what is needed? I seem to recall reading the ATO on the Thameslink core is running over ETCS?

Yes, ETCS is speed signalling with ATP and has ATO capability. But it's going to take a very long time before it's got network wide coverage. And it doesn't do everything.

Even places like Germany with full speed signalling coverage still have some form of route knowledge.

 

[najaB]

Its a tiny acorn, but isn't the signalling being installed on HS2 for ETCS what is needed? I seem to recall reading the ATO on the Thameslink core is running over ETCS?

Yes. But it will be decades before that's rolled out network-wide.

 

[geoffk]

Is there a trend towards reducing the number of routes a driver should sign? I can see that this would reduce the number of hours each driver spends route learning and refreshing routes not driven for some time, but it also means more crew changes and therefore increases the likelihood of delay or cancellation en route. TPE's Liverpool - Newcastle route has been mentioned elsewhere. There must be a balance between the two approaches.

 

[Bevan Price]

There will come a time when both drivers and guards can be replaced by pre-programmed computers. However, that is probably at least 10-20 years away.

It will not rely on any current operating system with "open connections" accessible to the public or susceptible to easy hacking - it will need to be 100% secure, and that will take a long time to develop.

I am not saying that is a good idea - just that it will be technically feasible.

 

[TJM]

hide one of these in luggage on the train and your GPS management system will get scrambled

Car GPS Jammer - jammer4uk

Global Positioning System, also known as GPS, is defined as a satellite-based worldwide navigation system that gives out dependable location and time data in all types of weather anytime, anywhere on Earth. This satellite system has been kept by the United States government, wherein everyone can...

www.jammer4uk.com

security would stop one from being put on an aircraft

Then you simply proceed at caution until BTP permanently removes the reprobate..

 

[Llanigraham]

There will come a time when both drivers and guards can be replaced by pre-programmed computers. However, that is probably at least 10-20 years away.

It will not rely on any current operating system with "open connections" accessible to the public or susceptible to easy hacking - it will need to be 100% secure, and that will take a long time to develop.

I am not saying that is a good idea - just that it will be technically feasible.

In 10 years time there will still be mechanical signal boxes!
Your time scale is unrealistic; now if you'd said 50 years........................

 

[Greybeard33]

It's not a matter of British exceptionalism as much as it is that it would take a massive amount of work and effort to change systems - basically resignalling the entire railway and retraining every single driver - for very little (if any) actual benefit.

Better signage would be relatively easy though. E.g signs showing the turnout speeds fitted to signals that can display flashing yellows and to those with route indicators; countdown distance markers before a station rather than relying on knowledge of overbridges, buildings etc; clear advance signage of a gradient that could increase braking distance; signage of areas known to be prone to poor railhead conditions; more frequent/more informative trackside mileage markers to help report the location of an incident (as on motorways)...

If such infrastructure measures could speed up the route learning process even slightly, surely they would be well worthwhile. Considering the lost revenue from all the services that have been cancelled recently because of lack of a driver with the required route knowledge, at TOCs such as Avanti and TPE.

 

[najaB]

It will not rely on any current operating system with "open connections" accessible to the public or susceptible to easy hacking - it will need to be 100% secure, and that will take a long time to develop.

Agreed it won't rely on any current consumer OS, but there are existing real-time operating systems that meet the required level of redundancy and safety. If current-day OSes can fly aircraft and spaceships, they can be trusted to drive trains. And, in any case, it is much better to use an old system which has had its bugs worked out than a new one.

Considering the lost revenue from all the services that have been cancelled recently because of lack of a driver with the required route knowledge, at TOCs such as Avanti and TPE.

More accurately, the lack of a driver with the required route knowledge who was willing to work overtime or on a rest day.

 

[43066]

Something that puzzles me is why greater use isn't made of virtual simulators, rather like pilots use. These would surely be a good way to inject very realistic simulations of routes in fog/snow etc and then simulate different weather conditions and help build awareness. In the RAF simulators now make up the majority of training for fighter pilots due to the way they are both realistic and show scenarios that cannot (or for security reasons should not) be done easily in real world training.

surely simulators are a very good way forward?

In a railway context they aren’t particularly useful other than for learning signalling sequencing and potentially fault finding/rectification and cab setup. Train handling is better (and more cost effectively) learned by simply driving the route with an instructor.

There will come a time when both drivers and guards can be replaced by pre-programmed computers. However, that is probably at least 10-20 years away.

One day I’m sure there will, but I’d try 50 or 60 years, or more. In 20 years there will almost certainly still be Victorian signal boxes on the network. In 10 years there will likely still be at least some ex BR stock still knocking around.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

One day I’m sure there will. I’d try 50 or 60, or more. In 20 years there will almost certainly still be Victorian signal boxes on the network. In 10 years there will likely still be at least some ex BR stock still knocking around.

I seem to remember saying exactly this and being told I was ridiculous! While the loss of the personal touch will be sad for some, I do like to think that such advances in technologies will make for great ease of operations such as no need for complications due to differing crew knowledge of routes, stock, etc.

For example, LNER wouldn’t have the current difficulty of having to re-diagram IC225s when train planner hasn’t had his morning cappuccino and puts them down for an Edinburgh (regular occurrence), as the present day limitation of Heaton crew knowledge would be obselete.

-

I’m currently sat on a 5-158 from Fareham to Cardiff, and in order to allow these trains to work when Turbos are unavailable, GWR have three (was two) weekday diagrams on the Portsmouth route, solely to retain crew knowledge at Fratton so they can sign 158s and work them when required. They wouldn’t be able to do so without these diagrams, an example of how amendments need to be made to the “ideal” (GWR considered the ideal to be an entirely 5-16x operated route) in order to accommodate crew knowledge.

 

[43066]

I seem to remember saying exactly this and being told I was ridiculous! While the loss of the personal touch will be sad for some, I do like to think that such advances in technologies will make for great ease of operations such as no need for complications due to differing crew knowledge of routes, stock, etc.

I mean, over a long enough timescale it will happen.

I think the suggested time scales often massively underestimate how slowly things happen on the railway, and the fact replacing and upgrading old infrastructure takes far, far longer than just building something from scratch.

For example, LNER wouldn’t have the current difficulty of having to re-diagram IC225s when train planner hasn’t had his morning cappuccino and puts them down for an Edinburgh (regular occurrence), as the present day limitation of Heaton crew knowledge would be obselete.

I must admit until quite recently I had assumed train planning was already a lot more automated than is currently the case.

 

[Facing Back]

In a railway context they aren’t particularly useful other than for learning signalling sequencing and potentially fault finding/rectification and cab setup. Train handling is better (and more cost effectively) learned by simply driving the route with an instructor.



One day I’m sure there will, but I’d try 50 or 60 years, or more. In 20 years there will almost certainly still be Victorian signal boxes on the network. In 10 years there will likely still be at least some ex BR stock still knocking around.

I would assume that if it ever does happen then it would be phased in route by route over decades rather than the whole network in one go.

I am curious about the state of autonomous road vehicles at that point and whether we will be find that driverless buses are a more effective alternative for routes which are not high speed long distance or high density city center. That technology is for sure being developed at pace.

 

[craigybagel]

Simulator software has come a long way in the last few years and it is certainly now the case that some TOCs have simulators which can accurately reproduce a route right down to the pointwork, signal numbers, station buildings and even lineside buildings, features and local landmarks. CrossCountry's simulator at their training centre at Derby does exactly that.

I bet it doesn't cover the entire XC network from Penzance to Aberdeen though?

Is there a trend towards reducing the number of routes a driver should sign? I can see that this would reduce the number of hours each driver spends route learning and refreshing routes not driven for some time, but it also means more crew changes and therefore increases the likelihood of delay or cancellation en route. TPE's Liverpool - Newcastle route has been mentioned elsewhere. There must be a balance between the two approaches.

Speaking as the person who created and maintains the driver knowledge thread on this forum, I've definitely done more deleting than adding routes since the list was completed. I think this was at least partly down to Covid delaying any route learning taking place for so long causing TOCs to rethink how much route knowledge coverage they actually needed.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Fancy new systems are all well and good but one thing I have not yet seen mentioned is what happens when there is a fault with the system or equipment out in the real world? If driver's have no (or very little) route knowledge to fall back on then what happens?

Not only that but if drivers have fancy software, advisory systems or any other assistive system that relies on GPS or mobile-type "Wi-Fi" in order to work, what happens when the "signal" goes down rendering the system inoperative?

I sincerely hope drivers won't become lazy or complacent relying on such systems, no matter how good they claim to be

 

[Llanigraham]

I love the way some people think that just putting some extra signs up will solve the "problem". I remember when I started in 2007 doing the cab ride through my section. On the way UP the driver was telling me that to stop at Ludlow Station, on a falling grade, he had to take into account:

If it was dry, and had been for some weeks, he knew his braking point was around a certain road bridge.
If it had started raining that day it was slightly earlier, because the tunnel would be dry but it could be slippery as he left the tunnel.
If it had been raining for some time, but had now stopped, he braked even earlier, becasue the inside of the tunnel could be wet.
And then he also had to take into account what season it was, as the approach to his normal braking point was tree lined, so a risk of leaf fall.

Was it any wonder that Ludlow Station was a low adhesion warning area?

And people thing that would be easy to alleviate by signage or aautomation??? Dream on.

 

[Zontar]

CDAS is the probably nearest thing at the moment. It works in real time with esrs and signals etc and advises accordingly

 

[12LDA28C]

I bet it doesn't cover the entire XC network from Penzance to Aberdeen though?

I never said it did. But as I've recently been involved with investigating the various current offerings from Simulator providers I have to admit to being very impressed as to what is now possible.

Whilst nothing can replace driving trains over a particular route in order to learn the road, I believe there is certainly a place for simulators in driver training and not just for refreshing on degraded and emergency working or Rules assessments, especially when routes can be so faithfully recreated in digital form.

 

[craigybagel]

I never said it did. But as I've recently been involved with investigating the various current offerings from Simulator providers I have to admit to being very impressed as to what is now possible.

Whilst nothing can replace driving trains over a particular route in order to learn the road, I believe there is certainly a place for simulators in driver training and not just for refreshing on degraded and emergency working or Rules assessments, especially when routes can be so faithfully recreated in digital form.

Indeed. But my point was that whilst simulators can indeed recreate real routes to a very high standard, it's also a very complicated and expensive process, hence why TOCs tend to only simulate part of their routes (indeed my own TOC has only just started to use SIMs programmed with real routes - the older Sims they're replacing used a generic route that was clearly influenced by various parts of our network but not in a realistic manner).

I'm all for their extended use, I'm a big fan of Sims, but in the context of the route knowledge discussion that this thread seems to mostly be about I think their use is fairly limited.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not a matter of British exceptionalism as much as it is that it would take a massive amount of work and effort to change systems - basically resignalling the entire railway and retraining every single driver - for very little (if any) actual benefit.

One reason Southern like the OBS concept is flexibility - any OBS can work any train due to the lack of required route knowledge. This can easily be extrapolated to drivers.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't believe that there's a limit to the number of routes a driver may sign but there may be a natural limit based on the number of times he can physically drive over (or refresh) the various routes.

Each route will have a certain period of time over which a driver must have driven the route, depending on the complexity of the route. A busy multi-track suburban route will need a higher frequency of driving for example than a single track branch line that only has a couple of signals installed.

Charter services will have traincrew changes en route, relating not only to the constraints of a driver's route knowledge but also Hidden requirements such as continuous driving hours, break requirements etc. Only when there is no driver available at the TOC operating the charter who signs the route the train runs over would a driver from another TOC, or conductor driver be hired in.

There also has to be a physical limit in terms of brain capacity and memory recall of an expanding array of detail for any human to a high level

 

[Gonzoiku]

Something that I have explained to people and been laughed at for, although I think I am broadly correct, is that train drivers are nearer to Formula 1 drivers than an average car driver.

Thank you, Gloster, the comparison was very appropriate. No laughing here.

GZ

 

[Facing Back]

Indeed. But my point was that whilst simulators can indeed recreate real routes to a very high standard, it's also a very complicated and expensive process, hence why TOCs tend to only simulate part of their routes (indeed my own TOC has only just started to use SIMs programmed with real routes - the older Sims they're replacing used a generic route that was clearly influenced by various parts of our network but not in a realistic manner).

I'm all for their extended use, I'm a big fan of Sims, but in the context of the route knowledge discussion that this thread seems to mostly be about I think their use is fairly limited.

Outside of the rail industry, the cost of producing and training simulators has dropped like a stone - especially if you don't want all of the hydraulic to simulate inclines. The hardware is now mainstream, effectively a normal PC and 1 - 3 monitors. Plus of course the cost to simulate the train controls. Training sims is also becoming increasingly mainstream, with machine learning adding a huge amount of value - as well as the deterministic inputting of "rules" which can often be done in one flight or one lap or one run-through. If the industry thought sims added value, I suspect that cost would no longer be the prohibiting factor

 

[contrex]

My impression from cab ride videos is that lineside signage, e.g for speed restrictions, is generally clearer and more informative in other European countries, thereby reducing reliance on detailed route knowledge. Together with speed based signalling, I presume this must significantly reduce the amount of route learning time needed for a new driver to become productive.

But British exceptionalism triumphs over here....

Surely, big or small, the point about lineside signage (among other things), perhaps especially including speed restrictions (Morpeth anyone?) is that they are there so the driver knows where they are beforehand? I will always remember the Railway Magazine freebie DVD of the 2005 London Bridge to Brighton record run. The driver, Peter Mantell, really impressed me. He had someone (a manager?) in the cab, and he was reeling off the landmarks and so on ('Forest Hill in the distance - down to 70 midway through the platform at the crossover' - 'Norwood Junction in the distance - braking point is just before the overbridge before the points' - 'speed restriction, north end East Croydon: 55'). I am not willing to get in any train not being driven with that level of detailed route and traction knowledge. I am tempted to wonder if there is some kind of agenda in some peoples' minds, not necessarily on here, that railway operating staff's devotion to, and insistence on, professionalism and knowledge is some kind of 'Spanish practice' and that maybe we could sack them all and get a load of ex-bus drivers and people off the street as agency workers, give them a week on Train Sim and... what could possibly go wrong? They'd need a special 500-page edition of 'Red for Danger' every year.

 

[Dieseldriver]

One reason Southern like the OBS concept is flexibility - any OBS can work any train due to the lack of required route knowledge. This can easily be extrapolated to drivers.

‘Can easily be extrapolated to drivers’.
Easily? Really?

 

[craigybagel]

Outside of the rail industry, the cost of producing and training simulators has dropped like a stone - especially if you don't want all of the hydraulic to simulate inclines. The hardware is now mainstream, effectively a normal PC and 1 - 3 monitors. Plus of course the cost to simulate the train controls. Training sims is also becoming increasingly mainstream, with machine learning adding a huge amount of value - as well as the deterministic inputting of "rules" which can often be done in one flight or one lap or one run-through. If the industry thought sims added value, I suspect that cost would no longer be the prohibiting factor

I was thinking more the cost of recreating individual routes to a high enough standard so as to be able to simulate the knowledge a driver would need to be able to safely drive the real world version.

 

[Fred Dinenage]

Surely, big or small, the point about lineside signage (among other things), perhaps especially including speed restrictions (Morpeth anyone?) is that they are there so the driver knows where they are beforehand? I will always remember the Railway Magazine freebie DVD of the 2005 London Bridge to Brighton record run. The driver, Peter Mantell, really impressed me. He had someone (a manager?) in the cab, and he was reeling off the landmarks and so on ('Forest Hill in the distance - down to 70 midway through the platform at the crossover' - 'Norwood Junction in the distance - braking point is just before the overbridge before the points' - 'speed restriction, north end East Croydon: 55'). I am not willing to get in any train that was not being driven by someone who did not have that level of detailed route and traction knowledge. I am tempted to wonder if there is some kind of agenda in some peoples' minds, not necessarily on here, that railway operating staff's devotion to, and insistence on, professionalism and knowledge is some kind of 'Spanish practice' and that maybe we could sack them all and get a load of ex-bus drivers and people off the street as agency workers, give them a week on Train Sim and... what could possibly go wrong? They'd need a special 500-page edition of 'Red for Danger' every year.

It‘s constant on this forum, people who don’t actually work on the railway seem to know what would be best for drivers, conductors, etc. Tedious.

 

[Llanigraham]

I was thinking more the cost of recreating individual routes to a high enough standard so as to be able to simulate the knowledge a driver would need to be able to safely drive the real world version.

Can you imagine having to replicate the complete Cambrian, for example?
I spent an afternoon on the ERTMS simulator that was at Machy and that was incredibly basic and almost cartoon like in places. Whilst it was good to show me, a meer signaller, how the system worked just on the Machy - Aberystwyth section I couldn't see it making me a driver.
I do wonder how those suggesting this actually realise the complexity both of driving a train and the infrastructure involved.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Northern still uses physical cards which must be signed and initialled.

Which side or do both do it?