RIP Great western 125mph.... (IETs to have speed limiter automatically set)

[hexagon789]

This thread is mad

Completely agree

 

[bramling]

Agree with this. Managers can make a huge difference here, the good ones allow leeway for drivers to find their own style rather than slavishly following the driving policy to the letter.

Same with training too. IMO the worst sort of trainers are those who say "step X when you pass that sign", and then tell the trainee exactly what to do. Much better to be "you need to be doing X mph by Y", and allow the trainee to do it themselves, with the trainer then giving advice afterwards on what might have been better, if necessary.

 

[irish_rail]

This thread is mad

In your opinion. I kind of doubt you are actually a driver judging by your comments.

 

[Astro_Orbiter]

In your opinion. I kind of doubt you are actually a driver judging by your comments.

Take a day off mate

 

[VP185]

Don't understand where you drivers are coming from being against this to be honest. I use a form of speed set all day long on the trains I drive, removes the risk of overspending and intervention almost completely. You set the speed control at around 5 below the max permissive speed, and then leave the power full on. The 5 tolerance allows for gradients and it creeping slightly over.
Even if you didn't want to drive like that, you can set the limit at max line speed and if you're proper keen you can try hold the speed yourself at a few below linespeed, personally I find this a tiring way to drive a train for 2+ hours at a time.

Simply, speed set removes any need for the driver to monitor thus increasing the risk of the driver just switching off.
What happens if there’s a ESR or TSR imposed (obviously not an issue with ATP). The drivers automatic driving style is just to open the power handle, switch off and let the speed set do its business. In my opinion, there’s a significant risk of over speeding through the restriction

I drive for upto nearly 4 hours at a time. Keeping active keeps you alert, the minute you allow yourself to switch off tiredness hits.

 

[Agent_Squash]

A speed set at the maximum permitted speed in day to day operation is probably one of the most common sense ideas that has come out of the railway for a while.

And surely the timetable would be based on 125mph speed set anyway?

 

[43066]

This thread is mad

Completely agree

What’s “mad” is that there are train drivers who are unable to drive their trains accurately at line speed without relying on speed limiters.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jul 2022 ==

Same with training too. IMO the worst sort of trainers are those who say "step X when you pass that sign", and then tell the trainee exactly what to do. Much better to be "you need to be doing X mph by Y", and allow the trainee to do it themselves, with the trainer then giving advice afterwards on what might have been better, if necessary.

Indeed. Unfortunately there’s a lot of variation in the quality of instructors, the job often going to those who volunteer rather than those who are necessarily naturally good at instructing.

 

[Clarence Yard]

In your opinion. I kind of doubt you are actually a driver judging by your comments.

I would look at his previous posts before making any statement like that.

The issue here is concentration risk. Some drivers will fear it will start to make them “switch off” and therefore is an unsafe way of driving. They also don’t like another part of their way of working taken away from them. Others will feel that it is one less thing to worry about and they can concentrate on other things so, to them, it has safety benefit.

There is a move to automating what the traction can do so that the potential for error is eliminated at source. This means the drivers are expected to be more similar in the way they behave, quite unlike the drivers I started with at KX in the 1970’s, who were highly individualistic in their characters, how they treated/used the traction and also their approach to the rule book!

But if a driver is expected to use a speed limiter and told that this will stop his powerful and fast accelerating unit from going over 125mph and that is what he is being told to rely on, it shouldn’t be able to be switched off by a TMS reset. So there has to be an electrical solution on the train to eliminate that risk. Not you can go 126, 127, 128 mph either - 125 is the absolute limit these days.

So training has evolved over time as the aims and the kit have evolved and so has the attitude towards safety and what is and what isn’t acceptable, not just to staff and management but also to the safety authorities, who, since my 1970’s early days on BR, now have the final say.

 

[Railperf]

This thread has identified a number of issues - some maybe good for a seperate thread.

1. Is speed set a help or a hinderance to train driving - among other tools - DAS etc?
2. Has health and safety got so pedantic that train driving as a skill is being 'dumbed down' by an increasingly defensive driving policy?
3. Is current defensive driving policy becoming a hinderance to meeting the commercial requirements of faster journeys and even hindering drivers ability to keep trains running to time?
4. Is current defensive driving policy taking the enjoyment away from the job of train driving?
5. Do sectional running times need to be adjusted down to take into account slower station approaches and drivers tending to drive up to 5mph below the limit to avoid 'brushing' the limits?
6. If we are going to be pedantic about ensuring the maximum train speed limit (train not track) then why are we not taking a similar approach to enforcing speed limits on the network by the use of technology?
7. Are we really getting to the point where the industry essentially wants train operators rather than drivers?
8. Are there mixed messages here , where drivers are told to report a fault with their traction when it won't run at line speed -.i.e a unit that only does 99mph on a 100mph stretch..but now we have a situation where they are being told this is now okay, because the safety authorities demand it.
9. Why for years have we been taught that there is a safety tolerance of several percent in the infrastructure and equipment - now to be essentially be told that tolerance doesn't exist any longer?

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

A speed set at the maximum permitted speed in day to day operation is probably one of the most common sense ideas that has come out of the railway for a while.

And surely the timetable would be based on 125mph speed set anyway?

Speed set has been around for years - a standard feature on Class 91 locomotives and Class 90 locomotives from the mid 1980's. And yes the timetables on 125mph lines (for 125mph capable traction) is based on a true 125mph - not 200 km/h.

 

[northernbelle]

Don't understand where you drivers are coming from being against this to be honest. I use a form of speed set all day long on the trains I drive, removes the risk of overspending and intervention almost completely. You set the speed control at around 5 below the max permissive speed, and then leave the power full on. The 5 tolerance allows for gradients and it creeping slightly over.
Even if you didn't want to drive like that, you can set the limit at max line speed and if you're proper keen you can try hold the speed yourself at a few below linespeed, personally I find this a tiring way to drive a train for 2+ hours at a time.

Indeed - I'm not aware of any endemic problems with other stock fitted with this feature - 225 stock, Networkers, Electrostars to name but a few.

 

[Astro_Orbiter]

This sort of thing isn't an attack on drivers, nor is it an insult to suggest that speeding occurs, all drivers are fleshy human beings with imperfect brains. If technology can lend a hand and prevent speeding at the top end, it's surely a good thing in my opinion. Be glad the UK doesn't have some french KVB speed signalling type thing. As for concentration issues, you'll just have to adapt and figure out some new way not to nod off.

 

[43066]

Indeed - I'm not aware of any endemic problems with other stock fitted with this feature - 225 stock, Networkers, Electrostars to name but a few.

It’s not used on Electrostars (at least the SE and GTR ones, not sure about the others) and Networkers.

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

If technology can lend a hand and prevent speeding at the top end, it's surely a good thing in my opinion.

Not if the same technology leads to more incidents at lower speeds, which can be more damaging then going one or two mph over the top end - eg the recent Lumo overspeed.

 

[hexagon789]

Not if the same technology leads to more incidents at lower speeds, which can be more damaging then going one or two mph over the top end - eg the recent Lumo overspeed.

I don't recall reading that the LUMO incident at Peterborough was caused, directly or indirectly, by use of Speedset?

 

[Clarence Yard]

43066 - what Lumo overspeed? If you are referring to what happened at Peterborough, that had nothing to do with a 125mph limit speed set or indeed anything to do with the TMS.

Funnily enough, “Technology”, in the shape of ETCS, would probably have stopped the driver of that train accelerating up to the speed he did actually achieve.

 

[Railperf]

This sort of thing isn't an attack on drivers, nor is it an insult to suggest that speeding occurs, all drivers are fleshy human beings with imperfect brains. If technology can lend a hand and prevent speeding at the top end, it's surely a good thing in my opinion. Be glad the UK doesn't have some french KVB speed signalling type thing. As for concentration issues, you'll just have to adapt and figure out some new way not to nod off.

We do have KVB at St Pancras International to enforce the speed limits there. I'm not aware it is detrimental to driving..but there isn't much room for error if a driver does roll in there slightly too fast.

 

[bramling]

It’s not used on Electrostars (at least the SE and GTR ones, not sure about the others) and Networkers.

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



Not if the same technology leads to more incidents at lower speeds, which can be more damaging then going one or two mph over the top end - eg the recent Lumo overspeed.

If anything the TPE overspeed seems to have been caused precisely because the driver *was* relying on the train enforcing a speed cap, so the driver wasn’t observing the speed. Seems like a pretty good argument *against* using speed set to me, and instead relying on driver’s concentration, like we’ve done for nearly two centuries seemingly without incident (I struggle to recall anything relevant).

 

[zwk500]

If anything the TPE overspeed seems to have been caused precisely because the driver *was* relying on the train enforcing a speed cap, so the driver wasn’t observing the speed. Seems like a pretty good argument *against* using speed set to me, and instead relying on driver’s concentration, like we’ve done for nearly two centuries seemingly without incident (I struggle to recall anything relevant).

The Lumo overspeed being referred to by @43066 is the Peterborough incident where a train took a diverging slow-speed route at a high speed suitable for the through route. Speed Set would not have intervened in that instance, but ETCS Level 2/3 certainly would have. I'm not sure if either Chiltern or GWR-type ATP (or even SNCF's KVB or DB's LZB) would have been able to intervene for a diverging route where a higher permissible speed route does exist.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Simply, speed set removes any need for the driver to monitor thus increasing the risk of the driver just switching off.
What happens if there’s a ESR or TSR imposed (obviously not an issue with ATP). The drivers automatic driving style is just to open the power handle, switch off and let the speed set do its business. In my opinion, there’s a significant risk of over speeding through the restriction

I drive for upto nearly 4 hours at a time. Keeping active keeps you alert, the minute you allow yourself to switch off tiredness hits.

If speed set makes drivers switch off perhaps they need to rethink their career and that goes for professional road drivers too.

 

[43066]

43066 - what Lumo overspeed? If you are referring to what happened at Peterborough, that had nothing to do with a 125mph limit speed set or indeed anything to do with the TMS.

Funnily enough, “Technology”, in the shape of ETCS, would probably have stopped the driver of that train accelerating up to the speed he did actually achieve.

Yes I realise that. The point I was making (perhaps too subtly, apologies) was that this is exactly the kind of incident that results from drivers “switching off”, and will arguably be made more likely by this kit - which it will also do nothing to prevent.

ETCS may well have prevented it but we’re a long way from that being anything near network wide. In the meantime keeping drivers as actively involved as possible in the process of driving is beneficial. Actively concentrating on maintaining a speed is far better for this than letting the train drive itself on cruise control. As I noted earlier, this was the reason why my previous TOC prohibited speed set use entirely.

If anything the TPE overspeed seems to have been caused precisely because the driver *was* relying on the train enforcing a speed cap, so the driver wasn’t observing the speed. Seems like a pretty good argument *against* using speed set to me, and instead relying on driver’s concentration, like we’ve done for nearly two centuries seemingly without incident (I struggle to recall anything relevant).

Indeed. In the last few years I’d be interested to know how many passengers have been injured by speeding in excess of the maximum unit speed verses much lower speed over speed incidents due to a loss of concentration.

If speed set makes drivers switch off perhaps they need to rethink their career and that goes for professional road drivers too.

Not a particularly helpful observation,
and one which I suspect is about as well informed as my views would be on knitting, mountaineering or yoga poses!

 

[bramling]

43066 - what Lumo overspeed? If you are referring to what happened at Peterborough, that had nothing to do with a 125mph limit speed set or indeed anything to do with the TMS.

Funnily enough, “Technology”, in the shape of ETCS, would probably have stopped the driver of that train accelerating up to the speed he did actually achieve.

The point being made is that the change to the IET's software mitigates against *one* specific situation (overspeeding the maximum speed of the traction / maximum overall speed of the p/way), which arose as the result of what was - to be honest - a pretty far-fetched incident.

Meanwhile overspeeds over lower speed limits are rather more common, are probably on balance likely to lead to worse consequences (the outcome of the Lumo incident was *very* fortunate indeed) and where the only mitigation in most cases for the foreseeable future is driver concentration / awareness.

If the former (reliance on speed set) results in more risk of the latter (errors through lack of concentration) then it isn't a positive change.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It wasn’t the only overspeed incident on the ECML with these units, just the most widely reported. That’s the problem.

A colleague who has been lurking on this thread reminded me that his father and grandfather (both were drivers) used to have a similar disagreement about AWS and it leading to drivers not concentrating enough as a result! So, I guess there’s nothing new about the nature of the discussion that has been going on here.

My hope is that ETCS gets rolled out a lot quicker than hitherto, once it has been proved to work on the ECML. I must admit that trains going at 125mph, one behind the other with no physical lineside signals, is going to feel a little strange to some.

 

[Pete_uk]

ETCS will be a bigger change I *guess*.

Just remember, the optimal way to run a railway is to take the bag of meat out of the cab.

 

[43066]

A colleague who has been lurking on this thread reminded me that his father and grandfather (both were drivers) used to have a similar disagreement about AWS and it leading to drivers not concentrating enough as a result! So, I guess there’s nothing new about the nature of the discussion that has been going on here.

Not sure I’d agree that that is a particularly relevant comparison. AWS requires a positive action in response to a restrictive aspects or speed warning, so in that respect it aids concentration. A speed set/limiter does the opposite, allowing the driver to open up and switch off.

I wouldn’t hold your breath re ETCS rolling out particularly quickly, especially given the current financial backdrop. Personally I rather hope it doesn’t!

ETCS will be a bigger change I *guess*.

Just remember, the optimal way to run a railway is to take the bag of meat out of the cab.

How charming. The bags of meat in the carriages and on station platforms are the main obstacle to optimal railway performance in my experience…

We were always on time when we had no passengers in spring 2020 .

 

[Pete_uk]

We were always on time when we had no passengers in spring 2020 .

That's true. Darn the cattle in the back!

 

[Clarence Yard]

I wasn’t referring to restrictive aspects when I mentioned the AWS “debate” and that, I believe, is getting to the nub of the issue here. What are drivers supposed to be concentrating on and when? How much do you let the technology rule? What are the consequences when a drivers custom and practise takes him/her into a behaviour that wasn’t intended by the use of that technology?

They all have to balanced in making a call on something like this and it has been deemed a greater risk to let a speed limiter on an 80x set get accidentally switched off.

 

[43066]

That's true. Darn the cattle in the back!

Cattle wouldn’t get drunk and abusive and beat each other up, or hide in the loos injecting themselves with class A drugs!

What are drivers supposed to be concentrating on and when? How much do you let the technology rule? What are the consequences when a drivers custom and practise takes him/her into a behaviour that wasn’t intended by the use of that technology?

There’s a known issue of *some* automation relegating humans to a largely monitoring role and potentially detracting from overall performance of the system. Until the human can be automated out of the process entirely which is still many decades away there’s an argument for ensuring that “human centred” automation is adopted. It’s a huge subject and probably off topic to discuss deeply on this thread, but is certainly being looked at in the aviation sector given that they’re a lot further down the road of automation than the railway is.

They all have to balanced in making a call on something like this and it has been deemed a greater risk to let a speed limiter on an 80x set get accidentally switched off.

I’d like to know by whom!

 

[Randomer]

I might be missing something here but wouldn't the better solution be to fix the TMS software so the speed set remained at whatever it was set to when rebooted? So if set to say 100 mph it stayed there after a reboot, otherwise it would seem to keep the risk of resetting to a higher value unexpectedly?

Or has this been done in addition to putting a top end limit of 200 km/h and I've missed that being stated here?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, that isn’t possible - a reboot has to be a complete wipe of the settings. There is no higher limit in this case - the unit can be accelerated to the maximum it can achieve which, as we know, is way over 125mph. Hence the move to try and eliminate any risk, irrespective of the limit set.

 

[Astro_Orbiter]

We do have KVB at St Pancras International to enforce the speed limits there. I'm not aware it is detrimental to driving..but there isn't much room for error if a driver does roll in there slightly too fast.

Yes but it's not widespread is it. Yes not much room for error with KVB, which makes the driver concentrate much harder on speed and the signal aspects that create that braking curve. In my opinion KVB has a lot of plusses when compared to TPWS.

 

[Railperf]

It wasn’t the only overspeed incident on the ECML with these units, just the most widely reported. That’s the problem.

A colleague who has been lurking on this thread reminded me that his father and grandfather (both were drivers) used to have a similar disagreement about AWS and it leading to drivers not concentrating enough as a result! So, I guess there’s nothing new about the nature of the discussion that has been going on here.

My hope is that ETCS gets rolled out a lot quicker than hitherto, once it has been proved to work on the ECML. I must admit that trains going at 125mph, one behind the other with no physical lineside signals, is going to feel a little strange to some.

Yes. Drivers on suburban routes run closely behind other trains and are therefore running constantly on caution signals causing the AWS to need constant resetting. Wasnt this habitual resetting found to have been the cause of some accidents ? Didn't TPWS safeguard that risk?