Route Knowledge

[muz379]

I'm sure someone will correct me but isn't it the case that commercial pilots cannot fly approaches or airports they don't know?

I didnt think that was the case . I thought they had to carry charts for anywhere they could possibly need to land even in an emergency and obviously part of a pilots skill is in interpreting these charts .But to actually have prior knowledge of the approaches to some remote airport they would only ever land at in the event of an emergency is a bit far id say .

 

[Tomnick]

I only worked trains on the Mainline side of Waterloo but I signed all 20 platforms (even though I very rarely worked into any platform numbered over 13 (probably 4 or 5 of them in total), maybe the case above was simply that the stock wasnt cleared for that platform or the train was over-length!

Thanks - I did wonder whether Waterloo and Vic might be exceptions, with two distinct 'sides' to each, but I'm glad to hear that at least one of them isn't! You never know when some sort of very exotic shunt move is going to be needed, after all.

Another question from me - at a junction, where the only way of turning back a train on the main line is to drop behind a dolly on the branch, would the driver generally need to sign that latter route, or would the shunt usually be covered by the main line route knowledge?

 

[GB]

I didnt think that was the case . I thought they had to carry charts for anywhere they could possibly need to land even in an emergency and obviously part of a pilots skill is in interpreting these charts .But to actually have prior knowledge of the approaches to some remote airport they would only ever land at in the event of an emergency is a bit far id say .

That sounds more logical.

 

[Murph]

With flying, you always have the checklists, quick reference handbook, charts, etc to hand, including all likely diversionary airports. It's good practice to follow the documentation actively no matter how well you know it, the knowledge is to avoid surprises or for emergencies where it's simply not practical to follow the documentation. You also have a flight plan that you study in advance, and commercial flights have a co-pilot double checking everything, in addition to ATC watching.

There is not really the equivalent of needing to know when to brake for something that's out of sight round a corner (with navigational instruments filling in for situations where vision is insufficient), or how far the red will be after a yellow.

 

[W230]

Is that because they only sign certain lines on the approach to these stations ?

Yes. I only sign P9 at Wimbledon but I would never be sent into any other platform. Likewise SWT drivers don't sign P9 and would never be sent in there. It's not so much not signing the platform but the lines leading into them!

TL drivers do all sign all platforms at London Bridge as you could theoretically be signalled into any of them (though 1-3 could only ever be for turnback moves as we don't sign the Cannon Street lines).

These questions come up simply because some people don't understand that driving trains is NOT like driving buses or flying planes. The whole assumption that buses, planes and trains are comparable because they carry large amounts of people is really annoying....

Spot on. Although to be fair to the OP, they did say that they didn't understand how it worked. I have to admit I didn't either until I started on the railway. That first day out with my driver trainer - I might as well have been blindfolded...

 

[fluff]

When driving road vehicles you should always be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. At least you should if driving appropriately. Hence you can drive anywhere without hitting things that are hidden round corners.

Train drivers don't have this luxury. Most of the time we can't stop within the distance we can see to be clear, even in daylight; more so in the dark; more again in the dark and fog; and more again in the dark and fog and falling snow.

We need to know in advance what is around the corner or out of sight in the dark or fog. Signals give us some of this information, but we need to know precisely what those signals mean. There is more to signals the red and green. They tell us other things such as how far ahead the preceding train is, whether we are gaining on it or not, what route is set at a junction ahead. Signals vary a lot depending on the type and age of the equipment. It is essential that drivers understand exactly what every possible signal aspect means on every line of every route we drive.

We need to know exactly when to start braking for the next change of speed or station stop. Again this may be in the dark with fog and falling snow. We need to know exactly where in a station platform to stop. Crawling along looking for the relevant stop mark will result in lost time. We need to know where it is in advance.

In an emergency, we need to know exactly where we are; what the likelihood is of another train approaching and what the consequences may be; who to contact and how to contact them; how to describe exactly where we are even if in the middle of a long absolute block section; how to describe where we are if an electrical isolation is needed; how we will get assistance if our train has failed.

There may be many local instructions which need to be known. Some trains may be subject to speed restrictions at specific locations due to such things as platform or tunnel clearances. Lineside signage is of limited use here due to the many variations resulting from the way our infrastructure was built without common standards. Signage would become overly complex in some areas and easily missed in poor visibility.

In complex areas we may only travel over some of the lines regularly. Other lines we may only traverse occasionally due to exceptional circumstances. We still need to understand every possible signal aspect on those lines, every change of speed, every braking point. They can't be guessed and again often can't be seen far enough in advance to stop if something unexpected happens. Many complex areas have lots of shunt signals. Drivers need to know exactly what these mean even if we don't use them frequently. Getting things wrong here is a common cause of SPADs with a potential for collisions or derailments.

We need to know about locations where poor levels of adhesion may be experienced and what times of year or weather conditions may cause problems. Getting this wrong may cause station overruns, SPADs, damage to wheels and rails. This sort of thing can't be guessed by peering ahead; it requires extensive personal experience.

Gradients may be relevant in some circumstances, lineside signage needs to be understood and acted upon, level crossings and foot crossings need to be understood and monitored, tunnel lengths need to be known, locations where trespass and vandalism are a problem need to be known; it goes on and on......

And again, darkness, bad weather and poor visibility may make all of this substantially more difficult. Ultimately all of these issues will be addressed by improvements in technology until eventually driverless trains become the norm, but that's a very long term prospect.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Why do drivers have to know every inch of the tracks they drive?

Thousands of tons of metal, travelling at speed on a low friction surface and influenced by the forces of gravity REQUIRES route knowledge.

• How far away is the next signal?
• How far away is the signal after that and is the distance between the signals the same as the one I've just passed or are the closer together or farther apart?
• Should I start braking as soon as I see two yellows due to the signals being more closely spaced or have I got distance to play with as they are spaced farther apart?
• Can I SEE the next signal or is it obscured by a lineside or geographical feature?
• Am I going up hill, downhill or both at the same time due the length of my train?
• Do I need to be increasing, decreasing or shutting the power off all together?
• What is the speed limit at the current location I'm travelling on and what is the next speed limit?
• Where is my braking point for the next junction and what is the speed limit over it?
• What is the speed limit over the next bridge which is subject to a heavy axle weight restriction?
• That signal over to the left, that looks like it doesn't apply to me (but actually does), what aspect do I need to proceed?
• What does the letter (or number) in the theatre indicator mean and where will it take me if I get a position light or a main aspect and what do I do when I get there?
• I want to go towards X, so what signal aspects do I need to take me there?
• I want to go towards X via Y, so what signal aspects do I need to take me there?
• I need to undertake a driver only run round of my freight train. Where do I stop so that I am in clear of the fouling point?

Now do it in the dark/snow/mist/fog/heavy rain/blinding sunshine.

 

[fluff]

Thousands of tons of metal, travelling at speed on a low friction surface

This is really really important. Trains have smooth steel wheels running on smooth steel rails. There is very little friction between the two surfaces. Hence stopping distances can be very long.

I think mention was made earlier of running at lower speeds such that the train would be able to stop in the distance the driver can see to be clear. In reality on twisty routes with limited visibility, i.e. much of the network, this would mean running at 15 - 20mph for very long periods. This might have a slight impact on running times and performance.

 

[zuriblue]

.

All very true, I was just using the sim as a way of showing (just a bit of) what is required, not to say it is the same thing as driving a train for real.

I know of a bloke who had a go on a TOC simulator running a fictitious route, all he had to do was set off from a station, call at another and then terminate at the 3rd.
The driver with him learnt it roughly in 4 trips, the bloke took 10 and said he could drive it, so the driver drove the route (at night) first with no real issues and then the bloke drove it unaided for the first time, have a guess what happened!
Yep a fail to call and a bit of buffer bashing

The Transport Museum at Luzern had a simulator of an SBB IC2000 set (10-12 double deck coaches hauled by an RE460 loco) which was supposed to be similar to the one the SBB use to train their drivers. I had a go, the result was 2 SPADs and I ended up going through Zürich HB and landing in the Limmat out the front.

Nothing like as easy as the pros make it look.

Try telling that to the braying idiots on the newspaper message boards who are getting all giddy at the thought of driverless trains leading to train drivers getting sacked.

 

[driver_m]

Manchester picc is a good example of not signing all platforms at a station. Watford Jn is another. I sign some of the platforms at Watford Jn but not all of them, and the same applies to my colleagues.

 

[bramling]

I think the big changes are not too far away, with the advent of cab signalling (ETCS) and automatic train operation on the national network. Once the computer tells you what speed to drive at and when, or the train effectively drives itself, the skill requirements of on train staff are going to dramatically change, whether or not the membership of this forum like it.

I wouldn't agree with that. Two lines on London Underground have just gone over to an in-cab signalling system. Route knowledge is still important, especially how to carry out particular moves.

I can think of a recent incident where a lack of route knowledge of a particular move was a contributory factor in a safety-related incident.

Drivers may not have to know speed limits for a given section of track, but they still have to know what to do in a given location if things don't go to plan. Where to change ends before reversing, what happens if the train doesn't get a limit of movement authority, who to speak to, when they need particular authority to select restricted manual mode, do you need to draw close up to that signal or marker board, etc etc etc.

 

[6Gman]

I have never heard of drivers only signing certain platforms at a station, large or small.

If the driver signs the route towards the platform then it is ridiculous if they didnt sign the platform as well.

ATW Cardiff drivers don't sign Platform 12 at Crewe (discovery made when Cardiff - Holyhead trains were diverted via Crewe a couple of years back). Caused c.20 minutes delay as it was sent into bay platform 7, reversed, reversed again and off to Chester!

 

[Class 170101]

I understand pilots are type rated for aircraft.

So a A319 trained pilot cannot fly a Boeing 747.

Similar for the railway a driver signs traction types. eg HSTs but not always 153s.

 

[fairysdad]

Thousands of tons of metal, travelling at speed on a low friction surface and influenced by the forces of gravity REQUIRES route knowledge.

• How far away is the next signal?
• How far away is the signal after that and is the distance between the signals the same as the one I've just passed or are the closer together or farther apart?
• Should I start braking as soon as I see two yellows due to the signals being more closely spaced or have I got distance to play with as they are spaced farther apart?
• Can I SEE the next signal or is it obscured by a lineside or geographical feature?
• Am I going up hill, downhill or both at the same time due the length of my train?
• Do I need to be increasing, decreasing or shutting the power off all together?
• What is the speed limit at the current location I'm travelling on and what is the next speed limit?
• Where is my braking point for the next junction and what is the speed limit over it?
• What is the speed limit over the next bridge which is subject to a heavy axle weight restriction?
• That signal over to the left, that looks like it doesn't apply to me (but actually does), what aspect do I need to proceed?
• What does the letter (or number) in the theatre indicator mean and where will it take me if I get a position light or a main aspect and what do I do when I get there?
• I want to go towards X, so what signal aspects do I need to take me there?
• I want to go towards X via Y, so what signal aspects do I need to take me there?
• I need to undertake a driver only run round of my freight train. Where do I stop so that I am in clear of the fouling point?

Now do it in the dark/snow/mist/fog/heavy rain/blinding sunshine.

Thanks for that (and all the answers)!

I realised most of that, although probably only in the back of my head, and with my limited knowledge.

My comparison with bus driving was only really brought up because it was when the thought came to me, not necessarily because of any actual thoughts of parity on my behalf - as I hope I was clear enough in my OP, I know that driving trains is far more involved than driving other vehicles, whereas a car driver can climb behind the wheel of any other road vehicle and be able to drive it; despite the differences between, say, a Mini (one of the originals, not one of those new abominations) and a double-decker bus, the actual controls for driving are pretty much the same, hence why I kept traction out of the equation.

I was really wondering not about drivers having to know every inch of the track they drive, as in knowing exactly where and why everything is, as I know (and knew before posting this thread) that it is important to do so, but more why when a driver might not be signed to pass over a bit of track (eg, using the platform scenario I mentioned in my OP, that I'm sure has come up in other threads here in the past) which might only be such a short section, why the rules have that firm 'NO' about it, rather than a 'pass at danger' type rule where a train can pass a signal at danger with permission from the signalman at a reduced speed. Not along an entire route, but only short sections where the need may arise (although I'd imagine that in these situations, a Driver will have signed these routes for such a 'need-may-arise' occurrence!).

I know that actually driving a train is not easy! I don't consider myself to be an 'armchair driver', and as I said, my question is genuine curiosity rather than lessening the work of a Driver. Although it was my boyhood dream to become a driver, I doubt I'll ever get the chance to, so it's always hats off to you guys.

 

[D1009]

The Transport Museum at Luzern had a simulator of an SBB IC2000 set (10-12 double deck coaches hauled by an RE460 loco) which was supposed to be similar to the one the SBB use to train their drivers. I had a go, the result was 2 SPADs and I ended up going through Zürich HB and landing in the Limmat out the front.

They must have updated that simulator to make it more difficult since I did it. Then you had a choice of train ranging from a 140 km/h non stop IC train from Olten to Zurich, or a local stopping or freight train. Not being too brave I chose the IC train and I managed to bring it into Zurich HB without making any mistakes. The Swiss signalling system actually gives you more relevant info as the numeric indicator tells you what speed to go at rather than what actual route is set, and that certainly got me thinking about a comparison with the UK. I believe that the cab layout was of the previous standard SBB Re 4/4 III, although the RE460s were certainly about by then.

 

[455driver]

Victoria drivers mostly sign only platforms 13&14 at Piccadilly.

Which other platforms do they have access to even if they cant go into them?

General comment-
Most of those listed seem to be platforms which the trains couldnt gain access to when the train approaches the station anyway so no point the drivers signing them if they cant physically get in them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another question from me - at a junction, where the only way of turning back a train on the main line is to drop behind a dolly on the branch, would the driver generally need to sign that latter route, or would the shunt usually be covered by the main line route knowledge?

I was told that if you signed the location you signed all the shunts, I mean putting a train behind a dummy isnt rocket science is it?
I have heard of a driver refusing to do that though and another driver had to be taxied over from Woking to do it, I wont mention which depot the driver was from <cough Staines cough> or where it was <cough Ascot cough>!

 

[CC 72100]

Route knowledge related question here, and this thread looks like an opportunity.

Disclaimer: I don't believe that the following situation would ever happen in real life, as I don't know the organisation of the depot, but the same principle applies.

Say a train driver normally drives HSTs. They drive on the Plymouth to Exeter to London Paddington route, signing the route via the Berks and Hants line (ie. via Westbury and not via Bristol).

From time to time, they are also required to do short 150-worked services between Westbury and Exeter.

One day, due to a shortage, they are asked to take a 150 between Exeter and Plymouth. They sign the route - they drive it most days on the HSTs, and they sign the traction - they drive 150s occasionally, albeit on a different route.

Would they be classed as having sufficient route knowledge, as while they sign the traction and the route, they have never driven that specific traction on that specific route. Ie. they are used to HSTs on the route, and stopping marks etc. may be different for the 150?

 

[455driver]

The Transport Museum at Luzern had a simulator of an SBB IC2000 set (10-12 double deck coaches hauled by an RE460 loco) which was supposed to be similar to the one the SBB use to train their drivers. I had a go, the result was 2 SPADs and I ended up going through Zürich HB and landing in the Limmat out the front.

Nothing like as easy as the pros make it look.

Try telling that to the braying idiots on the newspaper message boards who are getting all giddy at the thought of driverless trains leading to train drivers getting sacked.

Thanks for that, at least somebody appreciates what is involved!
How did you feel when you got out of the simulator?

I wonder how that baying mob will feel when the computer driving the train 'has a glitch' and ploughs into the train in front?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester picc is a good example of not signing all platforms at a station. Watford Jn is another. I sign some of the platforms at Watford Jn but not all of them, and the same applies to my colleagues.

But can you physically approach those platforms you dont sign over routes that you do sign and your traction is allowed over?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Route knowledge related question here, and this thread looks like an opportunity.

Disclaimer: I don't believe that the following situation would ever happen in real life, as I don't know the organisation of the depot, but the same principle applies.

Say a train driver normally drives HSTs. They drive on the Plymouth to Exeter to London Paddington route, signing the route via the Berks and Hants line (ie. via Westbury and not via Bristol).

From time to time, they are also required to do short 150-worked services between Westbury and Exeter.

One day, due to a shortage, they are asked to take a 150 between Exeter and Plymouth. They sign the route - they drive it most days on the HSTs, and they sign the traction - they drive 150s occasionally, albeit on a different route.

Would they be classed as having sufficient route knowledge, as while they sign the traction and the route, they have never driven that specific traction on that specific route. Ie. they are used to HSTs on the route, and stopping marks etc. may be different for the 150?

Yes!

They sign the route and they sign the traction that is the end of it.

I learnt the Guildford New Line solely on 455s, a few weeks after signing it there were diversions due to engineering work and I was booked to take a 444 over the route (and a 450 on the return), these were non stop and I hadnt done that either.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I wonder how that baying mob will feel when the computer driving the train 'has a glitch' and ploughs into the train in front?

Automation plays an enormous number of safety critical roles all over the place. I don't see why trains will be any different in the future, especially when aeroplanes effectively fly themselves, and that requires an awful lot more human training and a lot more potential to go wrong.

If you've got computers telling you how fast you should go and when, then computers will be perfectly capable of making the trains go those speeds. Believe it or not, there are failsafes in computers, too, and they're employed all over the place where a glitch could potentially have dire consequences.

 

[455driver]

Automation plays an enormous number of safety critical roles all over the place. I don't see why trains will be any different in the future, especially when aeroplanes effectively fly themselves, and that requires an awful lot more human training and a lot more potential to go wrong.

If you've got computers telling you how fast you should go and when, then computers will be perfectly capable of making the trains go those speeds. Believe it or not, there are failsafes in computers, too, and they're employed all over the place where a glitch could potentially have dire consequences.

Not on the stuff I drive!
those wonderful computers fitted to FGW HSTs will tell you to coast at the bottom of a big hill when you should be on full power or accelerate when going down a big hill when you need to be applying the brake, if you want to entrust your life to that lot then feel free, we all know your thoughts on train drivers and getting rid of us with computers thanks! :roll:

 

[cjmillsnun]

I think the big changes are not too far away, with the advent of cab signalling (ETCS) and automatic train operation on the national network. Once the computer tells you what speed to drive at and when, or the train effectively drives itself, the skill requirements of on train staff are going to dramatically change, whether or not the membership of this forum like it.

There has been ATP on both the GWML and the Chiltern lines for two decades now.

If driven right, the ATP will not take over from the driver, and I suspect that the same will happen with ETCS (TVM 430 still has the driver in total control).

I can't see ATO happening on the mainline any time soon, particularly on complex high density areas like the former Southern Region (SE, SN, SWT). They will depend on the relationship between the Mk1 human hand, the Mk1 brain, and the Mk1 eyeball for many years to come. The main lines are not like the tube, where there are simple lines that can be easily converted to ATO.

Also the trains are faster than the tube and DLR. If something goes wrong the likelihood of death and serious injury is far greater.

All fail safes can fail wrong side (dangerously). At least with a human in the cab, you have a final fail safe. A hand on the brake and a self preservation instinct.

I don't want driverless tube trains. Even with ATO, the drivers have been needed on occasion, the very last thing I would want is driverless national rail!

Planes can effectively fly themselves, yes. However there is no chance of the pilots going anytime soon. They are needed to be there if things go wrong. They are paid the big bucks to be able to take control and deal with situations. Sometimes those computers in the planes fail, and the way they fail isn't safe.

 

[LowLevel]

Perhaps in the future at great expense with obstacle detection covering every inch of every route (and failing every 5 minutes because of a leaf or similar as per Network Rail's awful new level crossings which are worse than the humans in boxes any day).

Until then, unlike a plane, a train driven by a computer would still not know it's about to be driven into an errant car on the track. Planes don't often tend to hit things and when they do you're dead anyway so it doesn't really matter.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not on the stuff I drive!
those wonderful computers fitted to FGW HSTs will tell you to coast at the bottom of a big hill when you should be on full power or accelerate when going down a big hill when you need to be applying the brake, if you want to entrust your life to that lot then feel free, we all know your thoughts on train drivers and getting rid of us with computers thanks! :roll:

I'm obviously referring to ERTMS.

And yes, it's because I want you all to lose your jobs. That's clearly what this is about. Get a grip.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps in the future at great expense with obstacle detection covering every inch of every route (and failing every 5 minutes because of a leaf or similar as per Network Rail's awful new level crossings which are worse than the humans in boxes any day).

Until then, unlike a plane, a train driven by a computer would still not know it's about to be driven into an errant car on the track. Planes don't often tend to hit things and when they do you're dead anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Whatever happened to the DLR? Of course you'd have to get rid of level crossings, but the idea that we'd need obstacle detection over the whole route is a bit ridiculous. Even then, you could install CCTV on them and have someone monitoring them.

Even then, if you end up with a situation like Great Heck then it doesn't matter if you've got a driver or not - you're **** outta luck.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Perhaps in the future at great expense with obstacle detection covering every inch of every route (and failing every 5 minutes because of a leaf or similar as per Network Rail's awful new level crossings which are worse than the humans in boxes any day).

Until then, unlike a plane, a train driven by a computer would still not know it's about to be driven into an errant car on the track. Planes don't often tend to hit things and when they do you're dead anyway so it doesn't really matter.

The reason planes don't hit things very often is generally down to the interaction between the Mk1 eyeball and the Mk1 brain. A human, whether that be ATC who advises pilots of traffic and guides the pilots away after seeing collisions on the radar screen, or a pilot who is aware of the sky around them.

TCAS triggers, even nowadays are rare, and even then, they don't take control of the plane. It is left to the pilot.

 

[WCMLaddict]

Which other platforms do they have access to even if they cant go into them?

General comment-
Most of those listed seem to be platforms which the trains couldnt gain access to when the train approaches the station anyway so no point the drivers signing them if they cant physically get in them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was told that if you signed the location you signed all the shunts, I mean putting a train behind a dummy isnt rocket science is it?
I have heard of a driver refusing to do that though and another driver had to be taxied over from Woking to do it, I wont mention which depot the driver was from <cough Staines cough> or where it was <cough Ascot cough>!

Coming back from the Airport to Blackpool you have access into any platform and when s*** hits the fan anywhere between Pic and Salford if you don't sign the main station you have to wait for 13 or 14 to clear rather than go into the others.
I think only link with Chester jobs signs the whole lot.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'm obviously referring to ERTMS.

And yes, it's because I want you all to lose your jobs. That's clearly what this is about. Get a grip.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whatever happened to the DLR? Of course you'd have to get rid of level crossings, but the idea that we'd need obstacle detection over the whole route is a bit ridiculous.

The DLR is a very simple system with every train having the same performance profile. A computer knows exactly how every single train will accelerate and brake. Because they all do so in exactly the same way.

National rail is a VERY different beast.

 

[455driver]

Coming back from the Airport to Blackpool you have access into any platform and when s*** hits the fan anywhere between Pic and Salford if you don't sign the main station you have to wait for 13 or 14 to clear rather than go into the others.
I think only link with Chester jobs signs the whole lot.

Arent 13 and 14 the through platforms though?
You cant really enter any of the other platforms and carry on to Blackpool can you!

 

[TheKnightWho]

The DLR is a very simple system with every train having the same performance profile. A computer knows exactly how every single train will accelerate and brake. Because they all do so in exactly the same way.

National rail is a VERY different beast.

Of course, but that's a computational problem, not a safety issue which is what I was referring to.

 

[WCMLaddict]

Arent 13 and 14 the through platforms though?
You cant really enter any of the other platforms and carry on to Blackpool can you!

You're right there sir. When everything runs as it should, there's no need to go into bays. In our Northern land it often doesn't

 

[cjmillsnun]

Of course, but that's a computational problem, not a safety issue which is what I was referring to.

It's very much a safety issue. And it's no good having a profile for an HST, because a 2+7 VP185 engined HST behaves very differently to a 2+9 MTU engined one.

Then you have the fun of if there is a hire in of a power car to cover for another being down. So you may end up with a VP185 at one end and an MTU at the other (as happened on EC for a while before they MTUd the ex EMT PCs)

Trains are not going to drive themselves on National Rail in my lifetime. I'm in my thirties.

It's a pipe dream that it'll happen on the tube. It's just populism push by that mop headed idiot in city hall.