Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[6Gman]

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

How do they know it's Bridge 234 if they don't have route knowledge?

 

[jj1314]

Those who advocate a GPS/GNSS solution, what accuracy do you think you'd need for some form of electronic 'flight bag'-style system?

Those who have GNSS hardware in their locos/MUs, what's the typical accuracy as it stands?

I don't work in the industry but I work with GPS receivers. I wouldn't trust the Garmin 600 in my pocket to help me navigate a ridge in inclement weather, but I know a £16,000 Leica GS16 would be overkill if I merely need to know when to sound the whistle as I approach a level crossing.

 

[chriskeene]

To me this thread is around exploring how the railways can operate without a strict route knowledge requirement. it wasn't - as I read it - a calling for no drivers, or zombie drivers or mass deskilling. In any event the driver of a train will normally have run the route thousands of times in the past, so formal route knowledge or not, will have excellent knowledge of the route.

However, it doesn't hurt to discuss the options other than the status quo. and I find the defensive tone of some comments disappointing.

the first generation of boeing 747s had an engineer's post as well the two pilots. I'm sure when the next generation of 747s - which removed the engineer post - were met with skepticism but today we wouldn't consider going back.

I wonder how much information can help the driver, both through technology but even things like signage. While a sign informing a station is x miles away [where x is where you would normally break based on line speed] which be of no use to those who drive the route ever day, but may be useful for a new driver, driving at night. Of course, drivers (new or otherwise) have managed without this, but that doesn't mean it does hurt. And if an in cab system can display the same, all the better.

 

[coppercapped]

There are loads of ways to make our jobs easier but deskilling us isn't the way forward. Automation will deskill the Driver. We need complimentary technology that will augment our skills or provide a safety backup for when things go wrong or our workload just increases too much or where there is a deficiency.

Think simple, thinks what is currently available and think how that can compliment a Drivers skill.

SNIP

I don't accept the 'de-skilling' argument at all.

Aviation has moved on from flying down the Brighton Line from Croydon, turning left at Redhill and following the line to Ashford, hopping the Channel and doing the same on the other side to reach Paris. The era of navigating at night by taking sights of Arcturus and Aldebaran are passed. Pilots now use electronic aids both to navigate and to control the aircraft - are you implying that their job has in any way been 'de-skilled'?

Their jobs are just as skilled as before - it's just that they use a different set of tools.

This is all the thread is about. The need for 'route knowledge' is not in question, but the question is whether it should reside in people's heads - where it can vary from person to person - or be formalised in a way that presents the information needed to a driver in a form which is most useful to him at the time and place for making decisions.

This is not about automatic train operation, but all about driver support.

To some other posters. Any such development is probably 5 years away at least and is highly unlikely to be retro-fitted to existing stock. This has not been the case in the aviation industry - with one or two exceptions; the new facilities are built into new aircraft and eventually the older ones are retired. Issues of reliability will be addressed - it's amazing the effect that long production runs can have on reliability and cost.

As has been suggested - it's not even clear that formalised Route Knowledge has to be held in electronic form, although much speaks for it. As Neil Williams has pointed out until recently the German railways presented such information as a book. I can see that in future a range of different presentation technologies being used depending on the application.

But at some point there will be a single version of 'the truth'.

 

[PeterC]

However, it doesn't hurt to discuss the options other than the status quo. and I find the defensive tone of some comments disappointing.

An attitude that I have found in other fields, "this is the way we do it so it is the only way it can be done".

What really struck me was a statement on another forum about an incident where trains couldn't reverse at a convenient point in emergency because drivers from that depot weren't signed for the reversing siding. Surely a one off slow speed manouvre like that could be covered by an external source of information?

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't accept the 'de-skilling' argument at all.

How can you not accept its deskilling ? The post I quoted stated that route knowledge would eventually be phased out. That is removing the route knowledge skill. Under what people are proposing there will be no requirement for it. You could run trains wherever you like and the Driver would just sit there obeying the instructions whatever system would give. I could therefore sign on for duty and take any train, anywhere.

This is all the thread is about. The need for 'route knowledge' is not in question,

It is in question. The question is it needed, outmoded, or even required. The thread seemed to be born out of something that came from another thread where a diversionary was needed but no one signed it. If the route knowledge requirement was removed then you could run a train route the route and the Driver never needed to have been on that route before.

but the question is whether it should reside in people's heads - where it can vary from person to person - or be formalised in a way that presents the information needed to a driver in a form which is most useful to him at the time and place for making decisions.

Which is what I would agree with but that still requires the Driver to have route knowledge in some form or they are presented with information that doesn't make sense other than generic information.

This is not about automatic train operation, but all about driver support.

This confuses me. It clearly is a form of automation. Certainly not 'automated train operation' but it is still automating part of the system. We used to make manual announcements. Pick up handset and speak into it. Now we have a system where you type in a number and the system is then automated. It's automation. It is a system that supports the Driver but it is still a form of automation. We even have an onboard system that tells you what MCB tripped and where its located. In some cases it tells you the associated rule too. I also now sign a unit that turns the lights to red when I remove the key. Its a form of automation.

With what has been suggested the Driver simply follows the instruction the unit tells it. If we went down that route, pardon the pun, then you may as well automate the train. When I conduct someone over the route. I am effectively driving and they are just operating the controls. Wether I'm there in person or it is being done by a 'virtual assistant' in all honesty doesn't matter.

 

[InOban]

Just as people who have never flown a plane have been 'talked down' successfully after the pilot has been incapacitated.

 

[driver_m]

An attitude that I have found in other fields, "this is the way we do it so it is the only way it can be done".

What really struck me was a statement on another forum about an incident where trains couldn't reverse at a convenient point in emergency because drivers from that depot weren't signed for the reversing siding. Surely a one off slow speed manouvre like that could be covered by an external source of information?

And where does that end? You either sign a route or don't. At least the current system doesn't really allow grey areas. Otherwise we have no clear boundaries and that's where your accidents can happen.

That avherald is a very good source of info for planes and it has a lot of aviation staff, not just pilots, who do complain about the de-skilling, the monitoring rather than the act of flying and maintenance. Funnily enough the thing that enrages them, is the amount of armchair experts that they have to put up with too. Wearily familiar at times to on here.

My point is that, taking the route knowledge requirement is another way of de-skilling us. We have depots out there with maintenance companies that would be more than happy to fetch trains off depots rather than the drivers for that TOC. By taking the route knowledge away, it doesn't take a genius to see that work that is currently done by a regular driver can be done someone else who doesn't have the requisite skills as we do, for a lot less money. We know where that will end. Small ECS move becomes long ECS move. And so on and so on.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Im convinced 95% of this forum lives in cloud nine, and has never been in a cab.

I'd hazard a guess that 95% of this forum would love to have the chance to be in a cab and see what it's like

 

[ComUtoR]

TIn any event the driver of a train will normally have run the route thousands of times in the past, so formal route knowledge or not, will have excellent knowledge of the route.

If they have excellent route knowledge then why do you need the system to give the route knowledge. The point is to allow a route to be driven WITHOUT the route knowledge. It's no longer needed as the system tells you what, and where everything is.

However, it doesn't hurt to discuss the options other than the status quo.

It doesn't but those who do drive trains can see various limitations and also various options. However, when that is attempted to be discussed...

and I find the defensive tone of some comments disappointing.

Someone posts that. They themselves only see their side and dismiss everything else as 'defensive'

I wonder how much information can help the driver, both through technology but even things like signage. While a sign informing a station is x miles away [where x is where you would normally break based on line speed]

But that becomes very meaningless quite quickly. It needs to be able to adapt on the fly to the ever changing conditions. Telling me the station is in x miles doesn't help me. I don't think in terms of specific distance when driving.

which be of no use to those who drive the route ever day, but may be useful for a new driver, driving at night. Of course, drivers (new or otherwise) have managed without this, but that doesn't mean it does hurt. And if an in cab system can display the same, all the better.

I'd agree. I would ask what do you believe would be the extent of the system. Would you allow a route to be driven at any time, under any conditions for any Driver even if they have never been that way before or do you envision this system as something that supports the Driver rather than replace the entire need to learn or sign the route before its driven. I'd also ask where you believe the liability should be in the case of incident. If I have never driven the route before and go flying through a signal; who is liable ? Me or the computer ?

Consider also that if you would allow a route to be driven without prior knowledge. What do you suggest for when it breaks down in the middle of nowhere ? How does the Driver then continue ?

Also ask that if you do want a system where it is in a support role only and the Drivers continue to require route knowledge. What would then be the point of the system and do you really believe the cost would be worth it ?

 

[GB]

Route knowledge does not exist unless it is in the drivers head. If it's not in the head then it isn't knowledge.

In any case, no one has seemed to answer what would happen if technology fails? How does it cope with temporary block or single line working? It can't be paper based as you can't expect a driver to drive a train and read maps at the same time any more then you would expect him/her to drive and be reading Harry Potter.

 

[najaB]

As things stand, our MK1 eyeball and memory tech is still better and more reliable than anything out there.

That is objectively not true. While computer vision is a bit of a black art, when it comes to pure recall of information computers exceeded human capabilities a couple of decades ago. It is possible now for me to have a petabyte or more of instantly accessible data stored in a device I can carry in a backpack.

 

[coppercapped]

Route knowledge does not exist unless it is in the drivers head. If it's not in the head then it isn't knowledge.

In any case, no one has seemed to answer what would happen if technology fails? How does it cope with temporary block or single line working? It can't be paper based as you can't expect a driver to drive a train and read maps at the same time any more then you would expect him/her to drive and be reading Harry Potter.

So, something written in a book isn't knowledge?

If what is written in a book is not knowledge, what is it then?

Drivers do in Germany as has already been posted. See here (in German).

 

[najaB]

Route knowledge does not exist unless it is in the drivers head. If it's not in the head then it isn't knowledge.

Agreed. It is data or possibly information.

In any case, no one has seemed to answer what would happen if technology fails?

Then you conduct if there's a driver who does know the route, or use a portable unit if there isn't. Again, I'm not talking about anything linked to the controls of the train or the signalling - it's basically assisted navigation in the same vein as pacenotes for a rally driver.

 

[najaB]

A quick look on avherald would suggest that your actually wrong. Judging by the number of errors that are made when landing on the wrong runway, taxiways in some cases, and even the wrong airports.

It's interesting you mention this as the only way to land at the wrong airport or on a taxiway is to not use the automation (or grossly misuse it). If you tune the ILS to the correct frequency and follow the guidance there is no way you can land on a taxiway or at the wrong airport.

 

[Surreytraveller]

In any event the driver of a train will normally have run the route thousands of times in the past, so formal route knowledge or not, will have excellent knowledge of the route.

Doesn't matter how many thousands of times a driver has driven a route, if they've never used a particular cross-over before to reverse a train, they could end up killing a load of people when they do it wrong.
Or what about having to call at a station on the fast lines that they've only ever called at on the slow lines before? Its bad enough with retail staff in the railway industry not being trained properly - I'm sure once we get managers with degrees in charge of drivers too, they'll be getting rid of the requirement for route knowledge.

 

[GW43125]

It's interesting you mention this as the only way to land at the wrong airport or on a taxiway is to not use the automation (or grossly misuse it). If you tune the ILS to the correct frequency and follow the guidance there is no way you can land on a taxiway or at the wrong airport.

Unfortunately not everywhere has ILS (and there are some places prone to fog with only Cat I ILS, which is absolutely hopeless in fog)

 

[GW43125]

Doesn't matter how many thousands of times a driver has driven a route, if they've never used a particular cross-over before to reverse a train, they could end up killing a load of people when they do it wrong.
Or what about having to call at a station on the fast lines that they've only ever called at on the slow lines before? Its bad enough with retail staff in the railway industry not being trained properly - I'm sure once we get managers with degrees in charge of drivers too, they'll be getting rid of the requirement for route knowledge.

There's a story of a driver at Effingham Jn who missed the Limit of Shunt and nearly had a head-on with another 455. And another story somewhere of a driver missing the reversing board... Apparently he got some 8 miles wrong line before he was stopped.

 

[6Gman]

Just as people who have never flown a plane have been 'talked down' successfully after the pilot has been incapacitated.

Have people ever been "talked down" in that way? Thought it was something of an urban myth.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The railway is a business and would only adopt a technology if it is likely to have a positive effect on their revenue. Having seen how technology has been adopted and used in the ticket office, and it's affects in the longer term, I can only hope train drivers do not get any sort of 'satnav' style aids and must learn the route in order to drive a train over it.

I know the thread is about route knowledge rather than satnavs, but no railway company is going to settle for route knowledge on a tablet when the same technology would lead to satnavs and further automation.

Don't get me wrong here, in the right hands, and for the right reasons, technology can be very useful and worthwhile, but here we are talking about the railway, and more specifically businesses and a Government who want to spend less and profit more.

Any sort of 'Satnav' technology will lead to less route knowledge amongst drivers and a reliance on technology, and probably, in time, even (yes I'm going to say it) agency drivers and driverless trains.

I'm sure many of us have played on some sort of train simulator. The one I have shows me how far away various signals, speed limits, stations and so on, actually are, allowing me to stop at every station first time, avoid spads and so on. I can turn that information off, but if I did I'd be glad its only a simulator, my route knowledge sucks on most of the routes.

Imagine we now we have a railway with a satnav and manuals stored electronically on a tablet and updated automatically without even a word said. Feel safe with that? 'Cause that's the day I stop getting on a train.

Lets not forget that lack of route knowledge and experience was noted as a contributing factor in the Ladbroke Grove accident back in 2000.

As for the idea that the cost to retrofit the existing trains on our railway would make it uneconomic, my motorbike mobile phone holder cost me £1. At that price even retrofitting 20,000 trains comes in at less than the cost of one driver's annual wage.

I also dislike the aircraft pilot analogy, don't get me wrong, I think both jobs are skilled, but to suggest aircraft pilots are in the same league as train drivers is naive at best. Put me in the cab of a train with a 'satnav' and the keys and there's a good chance I'll run the service to time. Put me in the pilot's seat of a plane with a satnav and you can be fairly certain that I'll either be there for a long while or very soon I'll be 6ft under.

 

[GB]

So, something written in a book isn't knowledge?

If what is written in a book is not knowledge, what is it then?

Drivers do in Germany as has already been posted. See here (in German).

It maybe written with knowledge but until it is read and understood it is just information. I could download the full works of Shakespeare, doesn't mean I have knowledge of it.

Just becuase another country does it one way doesn't mean it is the right way or even the safest way.

 

[GW43125]

It maybe written with knowledge but until it is read and understood it is just information. I could download the full works of Shakespeare, doesn't mean I have knowledge of it.

Like me with my maths A levels. I've got everything in textbooks in front of me, doesn't necessarily mean I understand it!

 

[driver_m]

That is objectively not true. While computer vision is a bit of a black art, when it comes to pure recall of information computers exceeded human capabilities a couple of decades ago. It is possible now for me to have a petabyte or more of instantly accessible data stored in a device I can carry in a backpack.

The eyeball is as much use as your comparison on its own as well. Put together, as I intended, it's unbeatable for the foreseeable future. Dont try and score cheap points by isolating a bit of what I said.

 

[Dave1987]

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.

Wrong!

 

[GW43125]

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.

Or any manner of technical issues, or something doesn't feel right to them and they want to get it checked out

 

[Llanigraham]

GPS and sensors can easily be fitted to any rolling stock or loco. If GPS could be fitted to a watch around the year 2000, then I can't see why it can't be fitted to locos/multiple units today

Great. Now try to get a decent and ACCURATE GPS fix along parts of the Cambrian route.
Oink Oink Flutter Flutter.

They are being phased out around the country by Area Signalling Centres (are places like Basingstoke correctly known as Area Signalling Centres (ASCs) or as Regional Signalling Centres (RSCs))

And phased out how quickly? My Box was due to close next year and having dropped in there today they have now been told 2022+, and I've seen dates of 2030 for some Boxes.

 

[GW43125]

Great. Now try to get a decent and ACCURATE GPS fix along parts of the Cambrian route.
Oink Oink Flutter Flutter.

Even a lot of the Northern WCML struggles, as does Woking-Basingstoke or anywhere else in a fairly deep cutting, really.

 

[AlterEgo]

A quick look on avherald would suggest that your actually wrong. Judging by the number of errors that are made when landing on the wrong runway, taxiways in some cases, and even the wrong airports.

The simple depressing truth is that, this forum is trying to find solutions for a problem that doesn't exist. As things stand, our MK1 eyeball and memory tech is still better and more reliable than anything out there. The cost benefit of changing this would have a BCR of less than 1 probably if we were to use that often quoted measurement to justify spending or not.

I notice the poster who accused me of making up stuff that's not true about computers hasn't replied yet.

Sounds just like "operational incidents" that we get on the railway when drivers fail to stop at stations, signallers wrongly route trains, drivers have SPARs, buffer stop collisions, and so on.

The question is why there is no backup. Why, if a person can conduct a driver over a route the driver doesn't know, for operational convenience, can this function not exist in a different and more flexible format? There's almost no such thing as "no route knowledge" in the maritime or aviation worlds.

 

[Dave1987]

Always makes me laugh when threads like this come up. What do us drivers know eh? We only actually drive and use route knowledge day in day out.

 

[AlterEgo]

Firstly, commercial flights in the 'western world' are conducted in 'controlled CAT A airspace' and are therefore subject to ATC. There have been instances, sadly, where private flights, conducted in 'uncontrolled' airspace have come a cropper using GPS aids, that were missing vital beacons and minimum safe altitude info. I recall such a controlled flight into terrain, in cloud, whilst an aircraft was approaching Dundee Airport a few years back and the AAIB sited the pilot's reliance on his GPS as a major factor in the accident.

Trains already exist in a "Cat A" environment - that traffic is separated from each other via a moderating person (ATC/signaller) and nobody is suggesting that be removed.

Red herring!