Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[najaB]

I fully expect to get flamed for this one, so here goes...

In 2017 is it right and correct that we depend on human memory - in the form of route knowledge - as a primary safety system?

It used to be the case that pilots flew by eye and had to have route knowledge as they flew from landmark to landmark. This placed severe operational limitations on the airlines and so visual navigation was replaced by ground-based navigational aids and charts, and now even physical charts are disappearing as they are replaced by electronic flight bags.

This means that the modern airline pilot's minds are focused on the things that they do best - actually flying the plane, rather than having to be full of facts, and they aren't limited to only flying routes that they have a mental map of.

In contrast, on the railway we still depend on route knowledge as the first and most important layer of the protections that keep the railway safe. And it does do a good job of keeping the railway safe, this isn't a criticism of the men and women who do a good job of keeping the system working. It's also not an attempt to do drivers out of a job - there's already [thread=139956]a thread[/thread] about driverless trains and I agree that we're a few (many?) years away from that reality.

But there *is* an operational downside to depending on route knowledge - how many times do we hear versions of "Can't use that diversionary route, they don't have route knowledge"? Or trains have to get cancelled because a driver who signs the planned route isn't available for one reason or another.

So my question is this: we accept that it's perfectly safe for a driver to be conducted along a route that (s)he doesn't sign. Why does that conductor have to be a human being? While train positioning hasn't yet reached the point where it can reliably be used to control the train directly (one of the issues with driverless trains), I'm sure that it's accurate enough to be used as input to a virtual route conductor that could provide the same information as a human conductor - e.g. distance to signals, recommended speeds, braking points.

A system such as this would be invaluable in times of disruption, but could also be useful for regular day-to-day use as well as it would give the driver a virtual secondman if it was a near-realtime system that was updated with the WONs, ESRs, etc.

I'm interested in your thoughts?

(I've got my flame-retardant underwear on! )

 

[godfreycomplex]

If something goes wrong and the "virtual route conductor" breaks in the process of that thing going wrong; how is the driver/guard going to tell the signaller where his/her train is?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

There's nothing like a Mk1 brain & eyeballs for route knowledge. DAS & C-DAS require electricity and GPS (which the yanks can switch off) or a GSM-R signal to correlate all of the information, any part of that chain goes down, DAS/C-DAS stops working, a Mk1 brain & eyeballs don't use any technology, so in this case is the better option.

 

[najaB]

If something goes wrong and the "virtual route conductor" breaks in the process of that thing going wrong; how is the driver/guard going to tell the signaller where his/her train is?

Just remember the last point of interest they were given before it broke. "We're about two miles past Bridge 234".

 

[godfreycomplex]

Just remember the last point of interest they were given before it broke. "We're about two miles past Bridge 234".

"About two miles"

 

[najaB]

...a Mk1 brain & eyeballs don't use any technology, so in this case is the better option.

If the train battery is flat and the alternator isn't running you aren't going anywhere anyway so it doesn't really matter.

And the whole 'turn off GPS' thing isn't going to happen. Besides the fact that most receivers also use GLONASS (and increasingly Galileo and BeiDou) the economic damage of turning GPS off is so great that the US government has given up on that idea.

 

[sheff1]

While train positioning hasn't yet reached the point where it can reliably be used to control the train directly (one of the issues with driverless trains), I'm sure that it's accurate enough to be used as input to a virtual route conductor that could provide the same information as a human conductor - e.g. distance to signals, recommended speeds, braking points.

That "virtual route conductor" sounds like what is already in place on various High Speed Lines.

 

[Harbon 1]

Surely even if you didn't have to know the line, eventually after driving it most days you'd know it anyway?

 

[zn1]

Route knowledge is vital - on any line, steelwork can be a fickle thing to operate on.. one day perfect next day slippery as hell and a basket....the feel of the steel work on sleeper etc, what happens when the systems fail and they fail all the time..??

 

[ComUtoR]

How much 'virtual conducting' do you want to do and at what point are you effectively just using the human for manual input ? If the route is being conducted then what's the point of the human up the front; you may as well automate it.

 

[ninja-lewis]

Route knowledge is vital - on any line, steelwork can be a fickle thing to operate on.. one day perfect next day slippery as hell and a basket....the feel of the steel work on sleeper etc, what happens when the systems fail and they fail all the time..??

Sounds like an argument for sensors on trains and rails that continuously monitor conditions and share data with the trains behind.

Why don't the same reliability and redundancy concerns apply to the human element?

 

[Hartington]

I take it none of you ever fly. And what do you do when you have to drive your car sometimes you've never been before?

Yes, I know, neither is the same as driving a train but let's concentrate on flying for a moment. How do they find their way around an airport? A map and the mark one eyeball! There are the equivalent of traffic lights and filters to tell them which way to go (sometimes). If the route changes in the air (yes it happens) they reprogram the autopilot and, you know what, they make sure they know where they're going. You know what? When they happen to misprgram they just land, safely, at another airport.

There are a few airports where you have to go with an experienced pilot your first time (Gibraltar, Madeira and San Francisco to name three) but generally speaking if you haven't been there before you just follow the chart.

You don't think twice about getting in your car to drive somewhere you've never been before and you could come across a slippery road and you deal with it. You get on a plane. Why is a train so different?

 

[Agent_c]

Just remember the last point of interest they were given before it broke. "We're about two miles past Bridge 234".

So you're about 2 miles from the bridge.

Which way is the nearest "safe place" where you don't have to worry about further rail traffic?

Which way is the best way for potentially injured people to go to meet emergency services? Is there an obstruction or some sort of other hazard between the railway line and the nearest road? Is the route suitable for the barely-walking wounded? How do you know if the other tracks are active or not?

The answer to me would be "route knowledge"...

 

[theironroad]

You don't think twice about getting in your car to drive somewhere you've never been before and you could come across a slippery road and you deal with it. You get on a plane. Why is a train so different?

I'm guessing you've never driven a train with metal wheels on metal track in leafall time or other low adhesion conditions and being expected to stop at an exact mark on a platform. It's a different ballgame to rubber on road.

 

[Agent_c]

I'm guessing you've never driven a train with metal wheels on metal track in leafall time or other low adhesion conditions and being expected to stop at an exact mark on a platform. It's a different ballgame to rubber on road.

You're also not carting around hundreds of people in a road vehicle...

 

[InOban]

And of course that autopilot can be reprogrammed from the ground. My understanding is that the only time pilots have to use their expensively acquired skills is when they are landing in a turbulent crosswind.

Unless they fly small planes into local airports without Instruments Landing Systems.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is it true, or not, that continental speed signalling removes the need for specific route knowledge?
Cab signalling (eg TVM, or ETCS) also provides the same advance route information and removes localised situations.
I'd be interested to know how SNCF or DB approach the problem.

 

[30907]

Is it true, or not, that continental speed signalling removes the need for specific route knowledge?
I'd be interested to know how SNCF or DB approach the problem.

ISTR DB drivers have to have route knowledge, but can operate at reduced speed elsewhere. Read something to that effect recently online, but don't remember detail.

 

[GB]

I take it none of you ever fly. And what do you do when you have to drive your car sometimes you've never been before?

Yes, I know, neither is the same as driving a train but let's concentrate on flying for a moment.

Road vehicles are driven on line of sight, the mass + speed are somewhat different. In a car I can slow down or pull over, not so on a train. So yes, it's not the same as driving a train so should not be compared.

 

[ExRes]

Surely even if you didn't have to know the line, eventually after driving it most days you'd know it anyway?

I thought that the suggestion was mainly to do with diversionary routes, you won't be driving those 'most days'

 

[mrmartin]

Yes once in cab signalling happens I can't see why route knowledge would be required, it can just calculate the exact breaking curves for the driver and apply them.

 

[najaB]

So you're about 2 miles from the bridge.

...

The answer to me would be "route knowledge"...

Fair points, I suppose. But, balance of probabilities, how often is that knowledge actually going to be needed in a situation where there is no communications possible with the signaller? (A genuine question, btw.)

 

[theironroad]

Is driving a vehicle on a road different to driving a train on a track - definitely.

Is increasing GPS technology and various in cab signalling /advisory systems going to reduce the need for traditional route knowledge - definitely.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes once in cab signalling happens I can't see why route knowledge would be required, it can just calculate the exact breaking curves for the driver and apply them.

In-cab signalling only gives you SIGNALLING.
It does not give you safe access points, places of limited clearance, places subject to adhesion problems, etc.

 

[Hartington]

It does not give you safe access points, places of limited clearance, places subject to adhesion problems, etc.

But a combination of GPS, balises (for where GPS reception leaves something to be desired) and specialist maps does.

 

[Hartington]

In a car I can slow down or pull over, not so on a train

Why not slow down a train? I'll grant you pulling one over is somewhat more difficult - you can't just pull over on a blind bend and put your hazard flashers on - you have to find a loop but then arguably the man on the blind bend should find the road equivalent known as a lay-by.

 

[Hartington]

"GB" if roads and railways can't be compared what about railways and aircraft?

 

[Hartington]

Agent c you may not be pulling hundreds around in a car but you can in a plane.

 

[Hartington]

theironroad - and a plane on a greasy runway or in fog or heavy rain or..... Just like an autopilot DAS and suchlike should be able to guide you to halt whatever the conditions. If the train in front has braking problems it can broadcast back to following trains and the signalling centre. Even if the train in front doesn't have problems and you might the DAS can be told it's leaf season and know how to take it into account.

 

[Chrisgr31]

theironroad - and a plane on a greasy runway or in fog or heavy rain or..... Just like an autopilot DAS and suchlike should be able to guide you to halt whatever the conditions. If the train in front has braking problems it can broadcast back to following trains and the signalling centre. Even if the train in front doesn't have problems and you might the DAS can be told it's leaf season and know how to take it into account.

Yes but trains dont have those systems so at present there is no option other than route knowledge. You can't drive slower on a train as its foggy as it holds everyone else up, and of course lets say there is fog at Uckfield, the train comes through East Croydon 10 minutes late, its now taking a slot that belongs to something else, so holding them up.