Could Route Knowledge be done away with?

[Iskra]

From time to time we see on these forums examples of drivers/guards not signing x route and this sometimes affecting the reliability of the railway, services cancelled due to shortages of trained drivers as they can't be trained fast enough, operational incidents where a driver has taken a route they don't sign etc.

So, in this modern age, could the concept of route knowledge be done away with completely in order to improve the efficiency and reliability of the railway?

When I played Train Simulator, a HUD display was provided that showed you your upcoming route in realtime including the speed limits, the gradient changes, stations approaching, signals coming up etc. If this can be done in a simulator, why can't trains be driven with an in-cab monitor that shows this information to the driver? Doing this could reduce driver/guard training times (and cost), reduce the workload of the driver, prevent mistakes, reduce instances of driver unavailability because they don't sign route x, reduce operational incidents and let any driver take any train anywhere.

Now, I'm aware train simulators aren't always realistic, and I'm not questioning the skill involved in driving trains, but what is realistically preventing this from happening when it could be such a game-changer in terms of efficiency, cost reduction and reliability?

 

[Ken H]

I think each driver should have a tablet. At the start of a journey he enters the headcode and it loads the data for the journey. As the train goes along it shows the target distance to the next signal/station/change of speed restriction/whatever, driven by GPS. All the time it shows the ruling speed limit. A bit like driving with Google Maps on. It could even have an ability to announce the upcoming points. Less dependant on human memory.

 

[D365]

When I played Train Simulator, a HUD display was provided that showed you your upcoming route in realtime including the speed limits, the gradient changes, stations approaching, signals coming up etc. If this can be done in a simulator, why can't trains be driven with an in-cab monitor that shows this information to the driver?

In-cab signalling will come as part of ETCS. This will provide movement authority directly to the train, but will not replace the driver's core knowledge. The technology simply isn't ready for that.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

From time to time we see on these forums examples of drivers/guards not signing x route and this sometimes affecting the reliability of the railway, services cancelled due to shortages of trained drivers as they can't be trained fast enough, operational incidents where a driver has taken a route they don't sign etc.

So, in this modern age, could the concept of route knowledge be done away with completely in order to improve the efficiency and reliability of the railway?

When I played Train Simulator, a HUD display was provided that showed you your upcoming route in realtime including the speed limits, the gradient changes, stations approaching, signals coming up etc. If this can be done in a simulator, why can't trains be driven with an in-cab monitor that shows this information to the driver? Doing this could reduce driver/guard training times (and cost), reduce the workload of the driver, prevent mistakes, reduce instances of driver unavailability because they don't sign route x, reduce operational incidents and let any driver take any train anywhere.

Now, I'm aware train simulators aren't always realistic, and I'm not questioning the skill involved in driving trains, but what is realistically preventing this from happening when it could be such a game-changer in terms of efficiency, cost reduction and reliability?

The simple answer is that HUD technology is still expensive. It could be highly beneficial in aviation but thus far its use outside of military aviation is minimal. And as with any computerised system relying on a database the question would arise as to how such a database would be kept up to date and transmitted to all traction units in a timely and reliable manner without compromising safety. The alternative might be to have signalling based on speed control but with ETCS gradually making progress it would be an absolute folly to go down that path now. It's worth remembering that however impressive IT based systems may be the fact is that the human brain is incredibly powerful when considered in computing terms and the speed advantage of computers is not much help in this case.

 

[whoosh]

Read across risk, read through risk, wrong route risk.
All of these things come with knowledge of a route, and cannot be replaced or counteracted with a HUD.

However, ETCS will reduce the amount of knowledge required and reduce the time spent learning.

 

[SynthD]

What are we comparing? Would a mile of city rail line take up 20 lines in an instructors notebook but only have five points in ETCS? I wouldn’t want everything on Google maps announced as I went by, but if my car broke down and my phone was out of battery it would be useful to know some of it.

Even if you removed the need for route knowledge, traction knowledge would be a limiting factor.

 

[quantinghome]

Do other countries have the same route knowledge requirement?

 

[Energy]

However, ETCS will reduce the amount of knowledge required and reduce the time spent learning.

Indeed, ETCS should be a training reducer not replacer. The driver should still know what will happen on the route (e.g where it will be fast lines, slow lines etc.) so it can judge whether the computer is wrong.

 

[30907]

Do other countries have the same route knowledge requirement?

AIUI those that use some form of speed-based signalling (ie the "Germanic" ones) still have it but it is much less onerous. Don't know about the others (France being the nearest!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

AIUI those that use some form of speed-based signalling (ie the "Germanic" ones) still have it but it is much less onerous. Don't know about the others (France being the nearest!).

Germany also has the "Buchfahrplan", which was traditionally a ring-bound book the driver would have on the desk in front of them, turning over pages as they went, showing stations, speeds and other notable features. It's been electronic since about 2000 (the "elektronische Buchfahrplan", unsurprisingly).

 

[NoRoute]

I'm curious how this route knowledge is delivered, I'd imagine 20 years ago when video recording systems and IT system were more limited, that delivering the training would be quite a challenge and probably a very manual process.

But given the huge advances in digital video recording and capabilities for delivering video training online, is it not just an online training package?

 

[skyhigh]

is it not just an online training package?

Generally no, other than for very short diversionary routes.

 

[43066]

So, in this modern age, could the concept of route knowledge be done away with completely in order to improve the efficiency and reliability of the railway?

When I played Train Simulator, a HUD display was provided that showed you your upcoming route in realtime including the speed limits, the gradient changes, stations approaching, signals coming up etc. If this can be done in a simulator, why can't trains be driven with an in-cab monitor that shows this information to the driver? Doing this could reduce driver/guard training times (and cost), reduce the workload of the driver, prevent mistakes, reduce instances of driver unavailability because they don't sign route x, reduce operational incidents and let any driver take any train anywhere.

Now, I'm aware train simulators aren't always realistic, and I'm not questioning the skill involved in driving trains, but what is realistically preventing this from happening when it could be such a game-changer in terms of efficiency, cost reduction and reliability?

GPS isn’t accurate enough for one thing, route knowledge also relies on route indications (so as to identify a wrong route), braking points which vary by stock, season, weather conditions. It also covers things like: “can the train I’m in (stock swapped for a longer unit at the last minute) fit into X platform, can it fit into Y platform on top of something?”

Once you sign a route and drive it you know it well enough for this assistance not to be necessary or useful. Efficiencies can be gained through better utilisation of route knowledge - for example route specific depots (albeit this has drawbacks in terms of inability for depots to cross cover work).

A whole host of reasons basically. The DAS devices some TOCs have introduced generally get a pretty poor write up from those who have used them.

ETCS will be a game changer, but even that still relies on a good level of core traditional route knowledge. The implementation also seems to keep slipping back.

I'm curious how this route knowledge is delivered, I'd imagine 20 years ago when video recording systems and IT system were more limited, that delivering the training would be quite a challenge and probably a very manual process.

But given the huge advances in digital video recording and capabilities for delivering video training online, is it not just an online training package?

You can’t properly learn a route by just watching a video, it really does need to be driven. The videos and online training I’ve seen have covered resignalling schemes and I’m sorry to say have been generally appalling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Generally no, other than for very short diversionary routes.

There is a route learning video for Merseyrail knocking about on the Internet, I downloaded a copy of it in case it went away. Won't suffice alone, though, I expect.

 

[D365]

Indeed, ETCS should be a training reducer not replacer. The driver should still know what will happen on the route (e.g where it will be fast lines, slow lines etc.) so it can judge whether the computer is wrong.

Bingo. Plus the knowledge will be needed for instances where the onboard ETCS is faulty and has been isolated.

 

[2192]

I'd sooner not travel behind a driver who didn't know there was a sharp curve approaching Morpeth from the south.

 

[Falcon1200]

I'd sooner not travel behind a driver who didn't know there was a sharp curve approaching Morpeth from the south.

Although that has happened, more than once, even with route knowledge !

To answer the original question, I would say no, for the reasons very well explained above, except in very limited circumstances which would have to be specified in the Sectional Appendix, such as the cases below, all of which have occurred:

Where a Loop runs parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where a Loop exists but does not run immediately parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where at a junction, a station is served by separate tracks away from, but adjacent to, the main line, but certain Drivers sign the main line line only.

In each case the following conditions would apply:
The Signaller would set the route onto, throughout and off the un-signed route, and;
The movement would be made at 5mph maximum.

IMHO such measures would help reduce delay during disruption without compromising safety.

 

[Ken H]

Although that has happened, more than once, even with route knowledge !

To answer the original question, I would say no, for the reasons very well explained above, except in very limited circumstances which would have to be specified in the Sectional Appendix, such as the cases below, all of which have occurred:

Where a Loop runs parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where a Loop exists but does not run immediately parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where at a junction, a station is served by separate tracks away from, but adjacent to, the main line, but certain Drivers sign the main line line only.

In each case the following conditions would apply:
The Signaller would set the route onto, throughout and off the un-signed route, and;
The movement would be made at 5mph maximum.

IMHO such measures would help reduce delay during disruption without compromising safety.

Sorry?? You mean drivers sign a route but not the loops. Does that really happen?

 

[Falcon1200]

Sorry?? You mean drivers sign a route but not the loops. Does that really happen?

Yes - not particularly common, but it has happened.

 

[Tomnick]

...

Where a Loop runs parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where a Loop exists but does not run immediately parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where at a junction, a station is served by separate tracks away from, but adjacent to, the main line, but certain Drivers sign the main line line only.

...

How many locations is that actually applicable at, though? As far as I'm concerned, with very few exceptions, if I sign the route then I sign the route in its entirety, including sidings and loops, and shunts onto a different route at junctions. The latter could probably do with being clarified - I mean, for example, just going onto a route that I don't sign for far enough beyond the junction to clear a dolly to come back out again - but it's always been my understanding and I'd generally be happy to do it.

The exceptions on my route card are where there's a depot or a large complex of sidings, which exists as an entity in its own right, and necessarily so because there are often all sorts of local instructions and special methods of working to comply with, and there are a number of significant risks associated with such places. The same really applies to Man Picc main shed for some drivers, I understand, where they only ever work through 13/14 to/from the north.

 

[43066]

Where a Loop runs parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where a Loop exists but does not run immediately parallel to the running line, but the Driver only signs the running line;
Where at a junction, a station is served by separate tracks away from, but adjacent to, the main line, but certain Drivers sign the main line line only.

In each case the following conditions would apply:
The Signaller would set the route onto, throughout and off the un-signed route, and;
The movement would be made at 5mph maximum.

IMHO such measures would help reduce delay during disruption without compromising safety.

There are basically no situations where this would ever occur. If you sign the route you sign loops.

There have been rare instances of slows but not fasts being signed (GTR drivers on the southern WCML rings a bell) but very few and far between, and moving a train onto fast lines at slow speed because the driver didn’t sign it would be far, far more disruptive than simply cancelling it and making alternative arrangements.

The exceptions on my route card are where there's a depot or a large complex of sidings, which exists as an entity in its own right, and necessarily so because there are often all sorts of local instructions and special methods of working to comply with, and there are a number of significant risks associated with such places.

Indeed and taking trains through depots in passenger service to avoid disruption generally isn’t permitted, due to degraded safety systems in these areas.

 

[Falcon1200]

How many locations is that actually applicable at, though?

There are basically no situations where this would ever occur. If you sign the route you sign loops.

I can assure you both that all three of the examples I quoted are taken from real life experience. To be fair, the first, Driver not signing for a loop entirely alongside the running line, only occurred once (in my experience), but the other two were in busy areas and were the cause of great frustration and delay when incidents occurred.

 

[6Gman]

How many locations is that actually applicable at, though? As far as I'm concerned, with very few exceptions, if I sign the route then I sign the route in its entirety, including sidings and loops, and shunts onto a different route at junctions. The latter could probably do with being clarified - I mean, for example, just going onto a route that I don't sign for far enough beyond the junction to clear a dolly to come back out again - but it's always been my understanding and I'd generally be happy to do it.

The exceptions on my route card are where there's a depot or a large complex of sidings, which exists as an entity in its own right, and necessarily so because there are often all sorts of local instructions and special methods of working to comply with, and there are a number of significant risks associated with such places. The same really applies to Man Picc main shed for some drivers, I understand, where they only ever work through 13/14 to/from the north.

This raises some interesting points on which I'd appreciate some professional input. They relate to Crewe.

The Birmingham - Liverpool Desiros (at that time) used 6 northbound and 5 southbound. Very occasionally, and for no obvious reason, the southbound would use 6 (which is bi-directional). Would this be to retain route knowledge?

On one occasion South Wales - North Wales services were diverted via Crewe (and called). We went to catch one, advertised to use Platform 12. The PIS showed "on time", but arrival time passed with no sign of said train. Turned out the driver had seen '12' lit up and stopped because he only signed 6, 7, 8 and 11 (possibly 5 as well?). So, after some delay, he ran into 7 (a bay). His relieving driver then took the train past South Junction, changed ends, then came through on the Down Main - where we could admire Platform 12 where we had stood 20 minutes earlier. So this seems a clear example of only signing certain platforms.

 

[Class800]

There are basically no situations where this would ever occur. If you sign the route you sign loops.

There have been rare instances of slows but not fasts being signed (GTR drivers on the southern WCML rings a bell) but very few and far between, and moving a train onto fast lines at slow speed because the driver didn’t sign it would be far, far more disruptive than simply cancelling it and making alternative arrangements.



Indeed and taking trains through depots in passenger service to avoid disruption generally isn’t permitted, due to degraded safety systems in these areas.

I was in the depot at Queen's Park on a Bakerloo line train the other day waiting for a signal. It seemed the holding point

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2022 ==

How does the situation with train driver route knowledge differ from coach and bus driver requirements in the UK?

 

[Tomnick]

I can assure you both that all three of the examples I quoted are taken from real life experience. To be fair, the first, Driver not signing for a loop entirely alongside the running line, only occurred once (in my experience), but the other two were in busy areas and were the cause of great frustration and delay when incidents occurred.

Was it confirmed with the TOC/FOC that the driver didn't sign it, or was it just taken on the driver's word alone? The reason I ask is that, from when I was in the signalling grade, I know of a couple of instances where a freight driver heading home inexplicably "didn't sign" the loop that he was being regulated into - "you'll have to keep me going along the main instead".

Thankfully I never came across this personally, but I'm told that the solution on at least one of those occasions was to give in, take the signal back and run the train along the main...

...as far as the next signal, where it was held to let the trains that needed to pass it trundle straight through the loop instead!

This raises some interesting points on which I'd appreciate some professional input. They relate to Crewe.

The Birmingham - Liverpool Desiros (at that time) used 6 northbound and 5 southbound. Very occasionally, and for no obvious reason, the southbound would use 6 (which is bi-directional). Would this be to retain route knowledge?

On one occasion South Wales - North Wales services were diverted via Crewe (and called). We went to catch one, advertised to use Platform 12. The PIS showed "on time", but arrival time passed with no sign of said train. Turned out the driver had seen '12' lit up and stopped because he only signed 6, 7, 8 and 11 (possibly 5 as well?). So, after some delay, he ran into 7 (a bay). His relieving driver then took the train past South Junction, changed ends, then came through on the Down Main - where we could admire Platform 12 where we had stood 20 minutes earlier. So this seems a clear example of only signing certain platforms.

You certainly don't need to go into each and every platform on a regular basis to retain specific route knowledge. There are a number of platforms on my routes that I've never been into, but I'm still expected to be able to take a train into and out of each if necessary.

Your first example - was there anything around on the Down Fast at the time, or was there planned to be anything? It might make sense for an Up train destined for the Up Slow to cross before making its station stop rather than after, if that avoided a conflict with a through train that'd otherwise arise.

I really don't understand the second one. It's not even like 12's on the other side of the station! I know that at least one EMT (as was) driver has taken a train into 12 from the Stoke direction, without argument, and others have been into the bays on the Down side too.

It does sound to me more like individual drivers refusing a move because they're not comfortable with it for whatever reason, than a wider route knowledge issue.

 

[43066]

I was in the depot at Queen's Park on a Bakerloo line train the other day waiting for a signal. It seemed the holding point

There is a stabling point at Queens Park and many Bakerloo trains are turned around there. Definitely one of the most characterful of the LU lines!

How does the situation with train driver route knowledge differ from coach and bus driver requirements in the UK?

Buses and coaches are road vehicles, driven on line of sight, so their drivers don’t require route knowledge in the same way a train driver does. As a car license holder I could do a PCV license in a couple of weeks and effectively then drive a coach anywhere with a sat nav!

No disrespect to bus drivers but it’s a completely different job with completely different training requirements and it’s a mystery to me as to why these jobs are so often spoken about on here as if they’re somehow equivalent. In fact train drivers take about the same length of time to train up as airline pilots and the training also costs a similar amount, so comparisons with jobs you can learn to do with a few days’ training really are massively wide of the mark.

Trams are obviously also railed vehicles but are also driven on line of sight with lower training requirements than heavy rail (but a fair bit higher than buses and coaches).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2022 ==

It does sound to me more like individual drivers refusing a move because they're not comfortable with it for whatever reason, than a wider route knowledge issue.

Yes I wondered that too re the loops point.

Re drivers not signing stations but signing avoiding lines - could this apply to open access operators who only have a set stopping pattern and never stop at certain stations on the routes they traverse? One example might be Lumo not signing Darlington, for example?

I’d have thought it would still make sense for them to sign as a way to get out of trouble, but of course there is a cost involved.

 

[Falcon1200]

Was it confirmed with the TOC/FOC that the driver didn't sign it, or was it just taken on the driver's word alone?

It was actually both ! The Driver would be offered the diversion route only to refuse it, but it was also known in Control that Drivers from certain Depots did not sign the diversion (although it was still worth asking).

 

[Class800]

Buses and coaches are road vehicles, driven on line of sight, so their drivers don’t require route knowledge in the same way a train driver does. As a car license holder I could do a PCV license in a couple of weeks and effectively then drive a coach anywhere with a sat nav!

No disrespect to bus drivers but it’s a completely different job with completely different training requirements and it’s a mystery to me as to why these jobs are so often spoken about on here as if they’re somehow equivalent.

It's difficult to get full insight into any job one doesn't do - and I am not a train driver. The perceived similarity is that both are driving roles, hence why I thought if a coach driver doesn't have to sign the M1 as opposed to the M6, why would a train driver have to sign the ECML as opposed to the WCML. But there are probably good reasons, just ones hard to understand for an outsider

 

[Ken H]

Re the discussion about Crewe up thread.
Some years ago they relaid/resignalled Crewe station. Trains didnt stop there at all, but were diverted vis the independent lines.
Anyone remember if there were problems with drivers not signing the independant lines back then?
And would suck a blockade and diversion be possible today without a massive route learning programme?

This was a different time pre-sectorisation. So I imagine an AC loco driver would drive freight and passenger trains, maybe in the same shift!

 

[Lewlew]

I was in the depot at Queen's Park on a Bakerloo line train the other day waiting for a signal. It seemed the holding point

That's technically not a depot, it just happens to be under cover. The line you were on is the through northbound road. The two middle roads are reversing roads.

You were held either because an Overground had just gone through and was waiting for it to clear the section or waiting for one to pass in front.