Driving on line of sight without route knowledge

[ExRes]

So, actually... From an outsiders point of view - It's the TOC's fault because they are not allowing their drivers to have full route knowledge, eg XC and the diversion via Barrow Hill, Woodburn, Nunnery...

Sorry, but under BR this wouldnt happen.

You don't seem to realise that under BR the seniority based link system ensured that only certain drivers signed particular traction and particular routes, there was certainly no equity for drivers in a depot under BR and most certainly no full route knowledge

 

[Egg Centric]

The summary of the research, btw, says

• Using diversionary route running with reduced levels of driver route knowledge has the potential to improve societal safety, network utilisation and the reputation of the railway. Results also indicate that network utilisation benefits are much larger than safety impacts.
• Limited investigatory trials (16 drivers driving a total of 48 trial routes) found no evidence that drivers unfamiliar with the route could not safely drive diversionary routes provided adequate safeguards were provided. The safeguards tested included lower speed running and provision of simple route information packs. In particular, unfamiliar drivers:
  • Did not exhibit a higher error rate than familiar drivers despite being tested on difficult routes and under a range of visibility conditions, trackside degraded running and train failures.
  • Drove slightly more cautiously than drivers with route knowledge when driving under 'cautionary' signals or where route features were more complex (eg diverging junctions) but the increase in overall journey time was small.
  • Had slightly higher workload ratings than drivers who signed the route. It is important to note that higher workload may not necessarily be indicative of an undesirable level of workload but may be indicative of higher physiological arousal and vigilance. That said, sustained high workload may have implications for the type and length of diversionary routes that may be considered suitable for implementation.
• Consultation with three TOCs indicated that each had potential diversionary routes that could be used in the event of disruption to give improved operational performance. It was the view of the TOC representatives that, provided appropriate safeguards were put in place, safety performance would also be improved.
• Trial measurements and feedback from drivers indicated that both the Critical Route Information pack and travelling at reduced speed conferred benefit to the drivers when driving over routes with which they are not familiar. Executive Summary iv RSSB
• Risk assessment of diversionary routes is feasible and could be used to help assess suitable routes.
• The permissible running speed for diversionary route running should be route specific and determined by the TOC following risk assessment of the route taking into account the lack of route knowledge by the driver, the risk increasing features of the route and the lowest and normal permissible speeds for the route.
• There is no common mechanism for proving RC competency within the industry. Within the sample of TOCs interviewed, there is no competency assessment for communication skills even though these have contributed to 74% of incidents where the RC is implicated in an incident.

Sounds like I should be the next fat controller!

 

[norbitonflyer]

I know this will be shot down, BUT, playing devil's advocate, as long as signals. speed restriction signs, etc., are obeyed, there SHOULD be no reason why any driver can't take a train (as long as it is traction they sign, of course) over any route. In other words, any UK rail route should be signalled and signed to permit safe operation by anyone qualified on the traction involved.

It has been known to mistake which line a signal applies to, even by drivers who have signed the route - Norton Fitzwarren (1940) being a good example (Ladbroke Grove 1999 is probably another) or to misunderstand the signal's purpose, (Darlington 1928).
It is not the same as the roads, where avoiding action is possible should two vehicles be on a collision course. This is not possible if both vehicles are running on rails.

 

[eldomtom2]

Because the line speed / distance to next signal and a whole host of other variables are different.

Of course, you can eliminate this issue by using progressive speed signalling...

 

[Nippy]

Trouble is that may not always be the TOCs fault. At London Overground we had a move across all four WCML tracks from the relief lines to Willesden TMD and vice versa. I wanted to learn it and my trainers/ instructors wanted us to learn it. I was led to believe that the signallers didn't want to block the four lines to enable it. Personally I would be happy for special circumstances , but as alluded to above you would need some rules around it. As a driver you will get in trouble if it goes awry.

Signallers generally don’t have a say. If it can be, and is timetabled that way we will do it. I would love to be able to bung you across West London Junction, especially if there is congestion on the Reliefs/Good in the Sudbury Jn area. In fact some of us will ask if you sign the ladder as it can make our life easier if you’re running late.

 

[snookertam]

To answer the original question, the answer is a resounding no, and even if anyone in a train or freight operating company attempted to agree such a policy of driving over unsigned routes, even at low speed, you can be sure that strike action would quickly follow if there was the slightest suggestion that policy would be introduced.

As others have said, this is not comparable to driving cars along roads. It does not matter how inconvenient issues arising from lack of route knowledge might be for passengers, or those interested in the railway, safety must come first, always.

 

[LowLevel]

Funnily enough, you'll find a Northern unit in a South facing bay quite often. There are drivers at Piccadilly who sign Kidsgrove - Crewe and I assume they're the ones involved in the moves - sometimes the units come in from Kidsgrove and sometimes they shunt from platform 1 via the Kidsgrove line.

That said, I would say there's no chance that EMR sign the northern end. Station shunts are extremely complicated, and in this example you can't get from Kidsgrove to a North facing bay without using a permissive signal at some point - and you really don't want to be messing around with one of them without knowing the full implications.

To continue using your example, at the South end of Crewe you can get "P", "L", "F", "S" or "W" on main aspect signals, and all of those and also "cs", "ts", "sg", "sy" or "nk" if you're on shunt signals. Good luck working out how far you can go with all of them.....

This is why I will always maintain that short shunts around a station are a lot more complicated than driving at line speed on the mainline.

EMR don't do anything at the Northern end of Crewe and I'd be most surprised if a driver agreed to move a train any further than into the through platforms - they do occasionally have a foray over to the downside platforms though!

 

[Krokodil]

You don't seem to realise that under BR the seniority based link system ensured that only certain drivers signed particular traction and particular routes, there was certainly no equity for drivers in a depot under BR and most certainly no full route knowledge

But importantly a DMMU was a DMMU and if the spare driver who signed the diversion didn’t sign the loco on the front (or if that loco was electric and the diversion was unwired) there was probably another loco in the yard that he did sign. Route conducting was also an option - not all TOCs allow it these days.

 

[Falcon1200]

Sorry, but under BR this wouldnt happen.

I don't dispute that finding route conductors is more difficult now than in the pass, but lack of route knowledge was certainly an issue under BR too; For example, in Scotland only some of the Drivers of Lanark services signed the West Coast Main Line (WCML) to Carstairs, so if the points at Lanark Junction failed preventing access to the Lanark branch and the Driver of first train affected did not sign to Carstairs, the Up WCML was blocked until the fault could be rectified.

To answer the original question, the answer is a resounding no, and even if anyone in a train or freight operating company attempted to agree such a policy of driving over unsigned routes, even at low speed, you can be sure that strike action would quickly follow if there was the slightest suggestion that policy would be introduced.

Any such derogation would have to meet the strict conditions I specified earlier, and would only be introduced after consultation and agreement with the Unions. I would add a further condition, that there should be a maximum distance for such movements, and to use an example mentioned above, the 6 miles between Beighton Junction and Rotherham Masborough would definitely be too long for a derogation.

 

[physics34]

The unions wouldnt allow it. And it opens the door to imminent accidents.. unless there is some tech such as front of train sensors to activate an emergency break.

Rather than water down route knowledge,,it needs to go the other way.

 

[Falcon1200]

The unions wouldnt allow it. And it opens the door to imminent accidents.. unless there is some tech such as front of train sensors to activate an emergency break.

What greater need would there be for an emergency brake any more than on a signed route? Proceeding, as I suggested, at a maximum speed of no more than 10mph, would eliminate risk.

 

[jfowkes]

The unions wouldnt allow it.

The unions wouldn't allow it without it being a very safe system of work and having proper training and compensation for staff. These are things we should all want if trains were to be driven on sight through unfamiliar areas.

 

[Krokodil]

Proceeding, as I suggested, at a maximum speed of no more than 10mph, would eliminate risk.

It wouldn't eliminate risk. You could SPAD a shunt signal and continue into the path of another train if flank protection isn't in place. Plenty of SPADs happen on shunt moves.

 

[The exile]

As a layperson the only circumstances in which I can see this as being desirable are a) where the alternative would be more dangerous (ie drawing a train forward to get it out of a burning trainshed or similar rather than trying to evacuate the passengers with bits of burning roof falling around them) or where the unsigned “route” is simply into a siding directly off a signed route - ie the signal for leaving the known route is itself known and there are no signals thereafter. Can’t, however, see why that would not be included in route knowledge anyway.

 

[Belperpete]

A very relevant comparison to this thread is the situation in Central Europe - in Germany if you don't have route knowledge ("Streckenkenntnis") and can't find someone who does to ride with you, you can still drive at 60mph assuming local regulations don't prohibit it...

And how do they avoid trains taking an inappropriate route in such situations? Such as an electric train taking a non-wired route. Or a passenger train taking a freight only track. Admittedly the signaller has to have made a mistake for that to happen. But at 60mph, the driver may not be able to stop in time by the time he realises, if he realises at all if on a line he is totally unfamiliar with.

Something not mentioned previously is also the issue of stopping the train in the correct place. On some stations the stopping markers are not obvious, particularly with all the platform clutter and plethora of stopping markers for umpteen different types of stock. If you stop the train in the wrong place that can have consequences, particularly if the guard is also unfamiliar with the route. Most obvious is if all the doors are not platformed. But also if you stop overhanging pointwork in rear, or stop with the AWS receiver over the magnet. Stopping too short can also sometimes cause problems with signalling controls.

At the very minimum I would expect the driver to have some kind of route information sheet/card with route specific information on it.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Germany also seems to suffer a lot more in the way of serious incidents than we do, whether that is down to route knowledge or other reasons.

 

[craigybagel]

Don’t forget you can also have signals that don’t give a route indication. Wouldn’t get very far on an electric train leaving platform 11 or 12 heading north with just main aspect.

Very good point!

I also love the run from Manchester Oxford Road to the Chat Moss at Eccles. Very bendy, lots of junctions, and yet as per the signalling you're going straight every time.

Of course, you can eliminate this issue by using progressive speed signalling...

Which I suspect is a large part of why it's allowed in Germany

- they do occasionally have a foray over to the downside platforms though!

Sounds exciting

What greater need would there be for an emergency brake any more than on a signed route? Proceeding, as I suggested, at a maximum speed of no more than 10mph, would eliminate risk.

Only if you install TPWS and some form of overlap on literally every signal, including shunt signals. You can do a lot of damage at 10mph if you end up at the wrong place - and even a modern passenger train doesn't stop all that quickly.

 

[jfowkes]

And how do they avoid trains taking an inappropriate route in such situations? Such as an electric train taking a non-wired route. Or a passenger train taking a freight only track. Admittedly the signaller has to have made a mistake for that to happen. But at 60mph, the driver may not be able to stop in time by the time he realises, if he realises at all if on a line he is totally unfamiliar with.

Something not mentioned previously is also the issue of stopping the train in the correct place. On some stations the stopping markers are not obvious, particularly with all the platform clutter and plethora of stopping markers for umpteen different types of stock. If you stop the train in the wrong place that can have consequences, particularly if the guard is also unfamiliar with the route. Most obvious is if all the doors are not platformed. But also if you stop overhanging pointwork in rear, or stop with the AWS receiver over the magnet. Stopping too short can also sometimes cause problems with signalling controls.

At the very minimum I would expect the driver to have some kind of route information sheet/card with route specific information on it.

This is wild speculation on my part, but I doubt that in Germany you would be allowed down a completely unfamiliar route (or that drivers would be willing to do so). I suspect it's something more like "I know this route well enough, but not to the level where I have formal route knowledge. I feel comfortable driving it at an appropriate reduced speed."

 

[zwk500]

This is wild speculation on my part, but I doubt that in Germany you would be allowed down a completely unfamiliar route (or that drivers would be willing to do so). I suspect it's something more like "I know this route well enough, but not to the level where I have formal route knowledge. I feel comfortable driving it at an appropriate reduced speed."

There is a paper looking at alternative methods of training route knowledge in Germany here: https://www.static.tu.berlin/fileadmin/www/10002264/aktuelles/2020/HF_2017_030_266.pdf

2. What is route knowledge in Germany?
Route knowledge is a prerequisite before a train driver can start travelling. In the Triebfahrzeugführschein-Verordnung (2016) route knowledge is defined as “…by looking at the route and studying the operational documents obtained knowledge of such characteristics of a route that a train driver needs additionally to signal information and timetable information to drive safely, on schedule and economically.” In the VDV-Schrift 755 (2016) is also gives an open list of what aspects can be important for route knowledge. Listed examples are:
- Operating procedures, e.g. where procedures change,
- Signals and signalling systems, e.g. position of signals, end of switch area,
- Route infrastructure, e.g. route topography, train radio, stopping place,
- Knowledge about stations, e.g. speed, possible routes.

The fact it is described as a prerequisite suggests that you are correct that drivers with zero knowledge would not be allowed to travel on a route. The inclusion of 'on time' suggests that a driver is either comfortable to drive the route properly, or they are not.
However this is only one paper, and I am not familiar on a technical level with the German regulations and practices. So it's entirely possible there is a lower level of knowledge permissible in certain situations.

 

[Senex]

I thought the German position used to be (on both DB and DR) that (a) all drivers were required to have the Buchfahrplan, the Geschwindigkeitsheft, and the La open on the desk in front of them while driving, and (b) that taking account of the presence of this information they were allowed to drive over a line without previous route knowledge, but subject to a prescribed maximum speed limit. (Of course the documentation would now be in electronic form, I think.) I must see if I can still find teh relevant documentation .....

 

[Belperpete]

I thought the German position used to be (on both DB and DR) that (a) all drivers were required to have the Buchfahrplan, the Geschwindigkeitsheft, and the La open on the desk in front of them while driving, and (b) that taking account of the presence of this information they were allowed to drive over a line without previous route knowledge, but subject to a prescribed maximum speed limit. (Of course the documentation would now be in electronic form, I think.) I must see if I can still find teh relevant documentation .....

That does seem a much more reasonable situation, than just allowing them to drive at 60 blind to any local requirements as implied by the earlier poster.

Out of interest, does (a) always apply, even when driving over lines that the driver does have route knowledge?

 

[eldomtom2]

At the very minimum I would expect the driver to have some kind of route information sheet/card with route specific information on it.

Yes, they would have the EBuLa - a digital screen that is effectively a combined working timetable and sectional appendix. This is what I was getting at - in Germany drivers can drive without route knowledge in more situations than they can in the UK because things are set up for them to do so safely.

 

[Tomnick]

EMR don't do anything at the Northern end of Crewe and I'd be most surprised if a driver agreed to move a train any further than into the through platforms - they do occasionally have a foray over to the downside platforms though!

It's always been a bit of an interesting question though – what exactly are we signing for?! There'll always be a significant element of driver discretion involved. Some of the shunts at Ely, for example, seem to take you halfway to Cambridge! I'd imagine that a lot of drivers would refuse those, not unreasonably so either. Yet we are expected to be shunt at the south end to get out of the way when turning back there in disruption. There's no real definitive source of information to say exactly what the limits of any particular element of route knowledge are.

 

[dk1]

It's always been a bit of an interesting question though – what exactly are we signing for?! There'll always be a significant element of driver discretion involved. Some of the shunts at Ely, for example, seem to take you halfway to Cambridge! I'd imagine that a lot of drivers would refuse those, not unreasonably so either. Yet we are expected to be shunt at the south end to get out of the way when turning back there in disruption. There's no real definitive source of information to say exactly what the limits of any particular element of route knowledge are.

It never really bothers me, in fact I quite enjoy it. The signallers will always help and advise if we make unusual moves.

 

[Tomnick]

It never really bothers me, in fact I quite enjoy it. The signallers will always help and advise if we make unusual moves.

No, I'm pretty relaxed about it too. As far as I'm concerned, if it's on my maps, it's a shunt within the knowledge that I've signed for. It's my responsibility, ultimately, to know what I'm signing for and to make sure that I keep myself familiar with it. Others take a different view though and it's hard to argue with that.

 

[philthetube]

What do drivers think they should be allowed to do in the case of a medical emergency, should they be allowed to move a train to the next access point assuming they are capable to do so.

If I had a heart attack and the train ended up stopped in a tunnel id would appreciate someone taking it to a point where an ambulance could reach.

 

[Senex]

That does seem a much more reasonable situation, than just allowing them to drive at 60 blind to any local requirements as implied by the earlier poster.

Out of interest, does (a) always apply, even when driving over lines that the driver does have route knowledge?

I've had a quick check. Basically, if a driver doesn't have the formally-acquired route knowledge themself, then there should be a conductor, but if there isn't, then they can drive alone as long as that specific route isn't barred for such activity. It comes in the successor to DS/DV 408, Ril 408:
"Bahnbetrieb Fahrdienstvorschrift / Züge fahren; Ohne Streckenkenntnis fahren, Ortskenntnis 408.2301 / Seite 1 / .... / 1 Ohne Streckenkenntnis des Triebfahrzeugführers fahren / (1) Wenn der Triebfahrzeugführer ausnahmsweise nicht streckenkundig ist, muss er fahren, wenn ihm ein streckenkundiger Mitarbeiter beigegeben wird. / (2) Darüber hinaus gilt: / a) Wenn ein streckenkundiger Mitarbeiter nicht zur Verfügung steht, darf der Triebfahrzeugführer auf Weisung seiner Auftrag gebenden Stelle fahren, ohne dass ein streckenkundiger Mitarbeiter beigegeben wird, soweit es im Streckenbuch nicht verboten ist. Er hat dann seine Fahrweise den Strecken- und Sichtverhältnissen anzupassen. / b) Die zulässige Geschwindigkeit beträgt auf Hauptbahnen 100 km/h, auf Nebenbahnen 40 km/h. Im Streckenbuch sind die Nebenbahnen und die zulässigen höheren Geschwindigkeiten bekanntgegeben."
(I don't know of an English translation. The key bit is (2), which says that if no colleague with route-knowledge is available, then if instructed his superior and if the line isn't barred for such an action, the driver can drive without a colleague with route-knowledge, adjusting his driving to line and visibility conditions, and not exceeding 100 km/h on main lines and 40 km/h on secondary lines.)
I'm pretty sure the requirement always to have the route documents in front of you was also in DV 408, but I can't find at a quick look in the completely re-organised Ril 408. However, the fact that all modern cabs have provision for the electronic display of the information (eBuLa) and you routinely see that it's in use suggests that the requirement is still there — and regarded as important, as the screens are immediately alongside the speedos in the ICEs.

 

[D6130]

If I had a heart attack and the train ended up stopped in a tunnel id would appreciate someone taking it to a point where an ambulance could reach.

I would think it very unlikely that if a passenger train were stopped in a tunnel, the driver wouldn't have the route knowledge to drive it out of the other end if and when it were safe to do so!

 

[baz962]

What do drivers think they should be allowed to do in the case of a medical emergency, should they be allowed to move a train to the next access point assuming they are capable to do so.

If I had a heart attack and the train ended up stopped in a tunnel id would appreciate someone taking it to a point where an ambulance could reach.

To be fair though , route knowledge wouldn't end in a tunnel. It would end usually at a station or depot so you would get the help you need. And actually that's a good reason to have route knowledge. Imagine I'm on a track I don't know and in an area I don't know and I'm pottering around just hoping I stumble across a station.

 

[Topological]

Perhaps the question needs rewording slightly.

What if the train with the medical emergency was stuck in the tunnel because a train in the station in front had a driver without route knowledge.

In that case, one would hope the front train could be talked forward one signal to allow the train that was stuck to be brought to the station.