Is route knowledge an outmoded concept?

[Johncleesefan]

Not really. Storage space is cheap. I currently have the entire Sectional Appendix on my machine. It's about 300MB in total size. I own about 4TB of storage space over a few hard drives (that's a factor of 13333x as much storage space as is required), whose total cost is about £300. Compared to the cost of a single train (£4-5 million these days), £300 is pittance.

The real cost would be in the computer system to actually make the decisions and the sensors used to get the information (for adhesion etc).



I mean, that wouldn't happen unless someone programmed it to do that. I mean, that's not how trains work either...... :P Computers don't have personalities, they don't just decide to do something. When a computer does something unexpected, that's usually because it has been programmed badly (and therefore doesn't expect you to use it the way you have used it). Now that's often a risk when looking at non-safety-critical software (like most people find themselves using every day), because the testing just isn't as rigorous. But if you're creating a train control system that puts people's lives at risk, you make damn well sure it works (because if it doesn't the lawyers will make you poor). Deciding if its a suitable stopping location (to use your example), is a simple integer comparison. The train would know how big it is and know the length of the platform and go "yes, I can stop here". It's also less likely to do it than a driver who's been driving a 4 car all week getting an 8 car trying to stop at a 4 car platform, because the computer instantly knows how long the train is and keeps that data in memory.

The point where computers fall down and people are better is when the volume of input is too great. Adhesion, not a problem - some sensors could pick up things like atmospheric pressure and air humidity and apply an appropriate adhesion model. Trespassers, problem - the computer has to constantly scan for stuff it doesn't expect, which means constantly comparing data to known data etc etc - that's hard. Our brains are great at this, because that's a huge part of how animals function.

If you want to make a case for keeping train drivers in a job, making arguments based on stuff that isn't true doesn't help anyone. If something simple like comparing bits of data or figuring out how to get somewhere is your argument, computers are great at that, way, way better than people. Using sensors is a thing computers are good at too, just ask a fighter pilot who's flown a Typhoon. They have stacks of sensors that both report to the pilot and are used to modify the pilot's inputs so that the plane stays in the air. But how does a computer respond to a traction supply failure, or a component defect, or a trespasser, that's where you earn your keep as a person, and until we hit the singularity, that's where you're going to keep doing it.

There are 2 arguments going on here, one fully automated trains, the other for drivers still driving but having all knowledge revoked and trusted in someone else. Why are we talking full automation again, there's a separate thread

 

[Bromley boy]

And why shouldn't a computer be programmed with data on unsuitable locations?

And of course the train will always need someone on board who can drive it in an emergency:max speed, say, 10 mph.

But, fog - that's why we have AWS/TPWS.

Speed limits - ditto. The problem with human drivers is that their mind wanders, they start thinking about something else, and suddenly they've forgotten to slow down. (Morpeth, anyone?) And as many of the skills a driver used to need - getting the best out of a steam engine, driving an unbraked freight train - become redundant, they are more and more likely to lose concentration. (This is a well-known Safety risk in many occupations).

The core section of Thameslink will be driven under ATO because it is considered that human drivers would not be able to deliver the 24tph reliably.

I think this post (perhaps inadvertently) demonstrates that it's not a question of simply pitting human drivers against automation. It's a case of how investment can best be targeted to improve what is already a *highly* safe method of working on the antiquated infrastructure we have.

If we started from scratch it would be possible to design a railway that is completely staff-less, but that simply isn't the reality on the ground. Despite what some tech-heads on this forum may believe looking at current, incremental, modernisation plans there doesn't seem to be a movement towards investment in technology to eliminate drivers (widespread ATO is miles off and is a very long way from "driverless").

Of course the railway is not a job creation scheme and it's right that technology is implemented to enhance safety and capacity where possible (TPWS is a good example of this), and the job of a train driver is gradually changing, but the reality is that, as things stand in 2017, elimination of the human element from train driving is a very, very long way off.

It's notable that drivers at my depot drive to work in modern cars that have adaptive cruise control, can park themselves etc, yet drive trains built in the early 90s or before, with virtually no computerisation. These trains are only half way through their working lives.

 

[coppercapped]

Not really. Storage space is cheap. I currently have the entire Sectional Appendix on my machine. It's about 300MB in total size. I own about 4TB of storage space over a few hard drives (that's a factor of 13333x as much storage space as is required), whose total cost is about £300. Compared to the cost of a single train (£4-5 million these days), £300 is pittance.

The real cost would be in the computer system to actually make the decisions and the sensors used to get the information (for adhesion etc).



I mean, that wouldn't happen unless someone programmed it to do that. I mean, that's not how trains work either...... :P Computers don't have personalities, they don't just decide to do something. When a computer does something unexpected, that's usually because it has been programmed badly (and therefore doesn't expect you to use it the way you have used it). Now that's often a risk when looking at non-safety-critical software (like most people find themselves using every day), because the testing just isn't as rigorous. But if you're creating a train control system that puts people's lives at risk, you make damn well sure it works (because if it doesn't the lawyers will make you poor). Deciding if its a suitable stopping location (to use your example), is a simple integer comparison. The train would know how big it is and know the length of the platform and go "yes, I can stop here". It's also less likely to do it than a driver who's been driving a 4 car all week getting an 8 car trying to stop at a 4 car platform, because the computer instantly knows how long the train is and keeps that data in memory.

The point where computers fall down and people are better is when the volume of input is too great. Adhesion, not a problem - some sensors could pick up things like atmospheric pressure and air humidity and apply an appropriate adhesion model. Trespassers, problem - the computer has to constantly scan for stuff it doesn't expect, which means constantly comparing data to known data etc etc - that's hard. Our brains are great at this, because that's a huge part of how animals function.

If you want to make a case for keeping train drivers in a job, making arguments based on stuff that isn't true doesn't help anyone. If something simple like comparing bits of data or figuring out how to get somewhere is your argument, computers are great at that, way, way better than people. Using sensors is a thing computers are good at too, just ask a fighter pilot who's flown a Typhoon. They have stacks of sensors that both report to the pilot and are used to modify the pilot's inputs so that the plane stays in the air. But how does a computer respond to a traction supply failure, or a component defect, or a trespasser, that's where you earn your keep as a person, and until we hit the singularity, that's where you're going to keep doing it.

Reading this thread I think najaB has correctly identified an important issue. The original point then seems to have got a bit lost in the subsequent posts as to what 'route knowledge' really means. I agree with your analysis of the issues but I think it would be useful to list them. There seem to be five parts to it:

1. knowledge of the physical features of the route
2. knowledge of the operational details of the route
3. knowledge of the position of the driver/train on the route
4. knowledge of the effects of weather conditions on train handling
5. knowledge of steps to be taken when things go wrong

Then, assuming any or all of this can be made computer-friendly, how is the information to be displayed to the driver when he needs it?

The physical features of the route - curvature, gradients, S&C work, tunnel portals, bridges, the position and lengths of platforms, level crossings, access points and so on - are already documented, and most probably already in digital form. The point is that the information lies with the civil engineering function and not with the train operators.

The operational details of the route are those things covered in the Sectional Appendix, which is already in digital form but possibly not the ideal form for the use proposed by najaB. Some of the data repeats what is known to the civil and signal engineers.

The train's position is already known by the signalling system, but not to a accuracy needed by some of the operational use cases described, for example the accuracy needed to bring a train in the countryside to a stand near an access to a road or not stopping in a tunnel near New Street. Other positioning technologies exist with various degrees of accuracy which could help - GPS, balises in the track with wheel rotation count or Döppler radar distance measurement and so on. For the sort of purpose described the millimetre accuracy needed for automatic train operation in metros is not needed.

Weather effects are probably the hardest to describe electronically as they can vary quite quickly but there is no reason why monitoring of local conditions could not be improved and certainly prediction algorithms for sites with known poor conditions are a possible solution.

What to do when things go wrong? Well the aviation business uses checklists, either on paper or built into the flight management systems. In essence the Rule Book is a collection of checklists for various scenarios so it could be codified and made presentable to the driver in a useful form as needed.

An aviation equivalent to the type of data needed for the railway case is that supplied by Jeppesen which company's maps and other services are used by many airlines as well as the military and general aviation. The maps can be supplied on paper, built into the aircraft's navigational and flight control systems or as applications for tablet computers. Each has its place, an example of their use can be seen in this video. There is no reason why such technology cannot, or should not, be used by railways to improve the service to the customer and reduce the cost of, and delays caused by, out-of-course operations.

Note that none of this replaces the driver - it simply relieves him of the need to remember lots of stuff and allows him to concentrate on operating the train and decision making.

 

[chriskeene]

I've thought about this in the past, but never dared ask. I think it's a question that's interesting to explore, so thanks for asking it.

 

[InOban]

I agree, an interesting discussion. However some things do go over the top, I think. There have been two occasions recently when a line has been closed after a landslide ( Eden valley, and the case area years ago in Lincolnshire, I think). In both cases the line was reinstated exactly as before. However because it had been closed for more than 6 months, every driver had to relearn the route, which in Eden valley case was entirely​ plain track, I think.

Re a previous poster, I would be interested in knowing many car drivers with a self parking car actually use the facility, thereby admitting their poor car-handling skills.

I can't imagine any train driver ever admitting that his train could drive itself better than he can.

 

[daikilo]

When najaB opened the thread he specifically asked "is route-knoledge and out-moded concept" then gave the example of e.g. a diversion where a second person will provide the route information whilst the driver 'just' drives.

I believe the answer to the question is that route knowledge is needed somewhere (driver, second person, machine) so the question is actually whether that knowledge can only be with the driver (or another human). In my opinion, the answer is generally "no", the technology does exist, but there may be exceptions. I have no idea whether the equipment would be more or less expensive than or even as reliable as the human brain.

Note: for those who may think otherwise, there are occasions on aircraft where the several channels of the automatic flight systems disagree amongst themselves and hand control back to the pilots. The latter's role then becomes important as, unlike a train, stopping to sort out the issue is not an option, but that is not related to route knowledge per se.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

This, FWIW, is precisely what the DB Buchfahrplan (and electronic version) does. They have used it for years. It was traditionally a loose leaf ring or spiral-bound book that the driver turned pages over as he went, but AIUI it is now done electronically.

 

[Hartington]

Having been a bit provocative earlier in the discussion I can accept that we are not currently able to move to a situation where route knowledge is a thing of the past. That is not to say that I believe it will be required in the future. I've seen nothing in the discussion so far that convinces me route knowledge will always be a requirement.

Let me take you back a good few years to the very early 1970s when I became a travel agent. In those days all fares, be they air, rail, coach or ferry were delivered to me in a paper based form. The air fares were in several books printed in small type on very thin paper. The books covered not only the values but the rules pertaining to the use of those fares (only on a tuesday, only on this flight etc. etc.). By the early '80s you could look them up on a computer screen but the rules were still in plain type. By the late '80s you were able to ask the computer to work the fare out for you provided it was simple e.g. A-B-A or A-B-C-B-A. These days most fares can be calculated by the computer; but not all. The process of turning those words that describe the rules into codes that a computer can read is surprisingly complex (I sat in on meetings in the 2000s where some fares were still waiting to be automated and I don't believe that work is finished even now). If you'd asked me in the early 70s if computer fare construction was feasible I'd probably have accepted that simple constructions would be created but I'd have questioned the most complex (such as round the world) but that's what's happening now.

Whilst the data pertaining to the track, clearances, where signals are, what speed limits are in force (and TSRs) etc etc etc are not yet available in a form that a computer can read and use to make decisions they will be. Indeed enough is already available to allows the various DAS (be they connected or not) to advise the driver. One day, in the future (and I suspect not too distant future) the various elements will come together to allow drivers to drive any route without route knowledge. All the things that make route knowledge important today will be available to you on an interface (I was going to say screen but Head up Displays and even Virtual Reality will come into the equation). Aircraft already use synthetic vision systems to aid landing in poor visibility.

More to the point the approach to several Himalayan airports like Paro (Bhutan) and Lhasa (Tibet) is guided by a GPS driven system where the pilot is hands off. Prior to 9/11 I was able to visit cockpits and I've been in 2 zero visibility (what the airlines call category 3C) approaches where the plane landed itself.

None of that is directly related to the railway but put that with the driverless systems that exist already and the plans for the Thameslink core and systems to aid and improve driving so that you don't need route knowledge will come to the railway. What is important to remember is that once the train has stopped the crew still have a critical safety role.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For unsuitable places beacons could be used marking the start and end of an unsuitable location to stop

 

[najaB]

Simplest answer to that is that a computer won't really know what's an unsuitable location should a major problem occur. One thing we are tested on, with our simulator, is to be given a fire scenario. A computer would likely just stop.

As per my OP, I'm not talking about automatic train control. It would still be a human driver making the decisions.

 

[Crossover]

I've thought about this in the past, but never dared ask. I think it's a question that's interesting to explore, so thanks for asking it.

Agreed and I have found a great deal of interest reading through the responses.

Having been a bit provocative earlier in the discussion I can accept that we are not currently able to move to a situation where route knowledge is a thing of the past. That is not to say that I believe it will be required in the future. I've seen nothing in the discussion so far that convinces me route knowledge will always be a requirement.

Let me take you back a good few years to the very early 1970s when I became a travel agent. In those days all fares, be they air, rail, coach or ferry were delivered to me in a paper based form. The air fares were in several books printed in small type on very thin paper. The books covered not only the values but the rules pertaining to the use of those fares (only on a tuesday, only on this flight etc. etc.). By the early '80s you could look them up on a computer screen but the rules were still in plain type. By the late '80s you were able to ask the computer to work the fare out for you provided it was simple e.g. A-B-A or A-B-C-B-A. These days most fares can be calculated by the computer; but not all. The process of turning those words that describe the rules into codes that a computer can read is surprisingly complex (I sat in on meetings in the 2000s where some fares were still waiting to be automated and I don't believe that work is finished even now). If you'd asked me in the early 70s if computer fare construction was feasible I'd probably have accepted that simple constructions would be created but I'd have questioned the most complex (such as round the world) but that's what's happening now.

Whilst the data pertaining to the track, clearances, where signals are, what speed limits are in force (and TSRs) etc etc etc are not yet available in a form that a computer can read and use to make decisions they will be. Indeed enough is already available to allows the various DAS (be they connected or not) to advise the driver. One day, in the future (and I suspect not too distant future) the various elements will come together to allow drivers to drive any route without route knowledge. All the things that make route knowledge important today will be available to you on an interface (I was going to say screen but Head up Displays and even Virtual Reality will come into the equation). Aircraft already use synthetic vision systems to aid landing in poor visibility.

More to the point the approach to several Himalayan airports like Paro (Bhutan) and Lhasa (Tibet) is guided by a GPS driven system where the pilot is hands off. Prior to 9/11 I was able to visit cockpits and I've been in 2 zero visibility (what the airlines call category 3C) approaches where the plane landed itself.

None of that is directly related to the railway but put that with the driverless systems that exist already and the plans for the Thameslink core and systems to aid and improve driving so that you don't need route knowledge will come to the railway. What is important to remember is that once the train has stopped the crew still have a critical safety role.

An interesting point and having a vague idea of what goes into the likes of the ticketing sites shows how complex it can be (especially when, for example, digital data doesn't match up with the non-digital. On the idea of ticketing, whilst as a human we can look at a set of maps and decipher what seems reasonable etc etc, programming it into a machine is tricky.

I work in the IT industry, but I am not a programmer - I just don't seem to have the mind for turning a set of instructions into something the computer can understand. I have colleagues, however, who can program entire systems with the eyes shut, so to speak

 

[najaB]

I think the drivers in this thread are doing themselves a disservice. The reason that you are worth your salaries isn't because you are able to regurgitate arbitrary lists of information (which is essentially what route knowledge is), it's your skills in applying that information to deliver safe and reliable operation of trains.

I understand that we're years away from being able to replace you, what I'm thinking about is if there are ways to make your job easier.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Sorry I'm not buying that, put the knowledge in the head of the person driving to make the decisions about wrong routing. Not some geek in control.

So you get wrong routed, now you have to make a wrong direction movement to return to the junction. Something else the driver probably knows nothing about since a computer seems to be spoon feeding him. Does this sound safer to you?

Calling the person in control "some geek" in order to belittle his potential knowledge or effectiveness doesn't actually mean the knowledge couldn't be handled there. I haven't said that drivers don't need route knowledge or that unsafe practices should be allowed or that the driver becomes some dummy who is "spoon fed" - another pejorative term - everything about the job. I'm just saying that simple factual pieces of information don't necessarily need to be held and used exclusively by the driver, i.e. something else must be the driver-centred element of route knowledge that thus makes it important.

The situation in which driver route knowledge could be changed would be quite a bit different from what the railway looks and works like at present. If you happen to think that people in control at present are "geeks" but that drivers (I presume) are not then it means that there needs to be a different recruitment and selection strategy for control, if they were to be moving towards taking a joint responsibility for route knowledge, not that control could never be involved.

As for wrong routes, does the evidence suggest that wrong routes set up by the signaller, i.e a human error, are particularly prevalent compared with the corresponding driver errors of accepting wrong routes, failing to stop at stations, going over speed etc? If not then there is no reason to suppose that other people couldn't ever be playing a different part in making sure the train gets through safely.

 

[ComUtoR]

I understand that we're years away from being able to replace you, what I'm thinking about is if there are ways to make your job easier.

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.

What can't or shouldn't happen is that technology is used as a shortcut to achieve a cost-cutting exercise or provide solutions to non existent problems. The problem of diversionary routes need not be solved by spending millions on tech that creates more issues than solves. Give Drivers the route knowledge and save yourselves millions.

The answer to the OP is simple. Is Route Knowledge outdated ? No.
Can it be improved with technological solutions ? Of course.

Should we spend millions doing it ? I'll let the beancounters decide but ultimately passengers will pay for it.

Is there a really really simple solution, staring you in the face, that everyone seems to have overlooked ? Yep

 

[ComUtoR]

As for wrong routes, does the evidence suggest that wrong routes set up by the signaller, i.e a human error, are particularly prevalent compared with the corresponding driver errors of accepting wrong routes, failing to stop at stations, going over speed etc? If not then there is no reason to suppose that other people couldn't ever be playing a different part in making sure the train gets through safely.

Would you remove the Signaller from the equation and let Automatic Route setting do the entire routing for the trains and the Signaller just sits and watches 'Just in case' ?

 

[najaB]

The problem of diversionary routes need not be solved by spending millions on tech that creates more issues than solves. Give Drivers the route knowledge and save yourselves millions.

There's no reason that it needs to cost millions of pounds. I'm not suggesting a complex system, linked to signalling, etc. You could use COTS (commercial off the shelf) hardware - it's worth noting that airline pilots use iPads for their electronic flight bags.

 

[driver_m]

Not really. Storage space is cheap. I currently have the entire Sectional Appendix on my machine. It's about 300MB in total size. I own about 4TB of storage space over a few hard drives (that's a factor of 13333x as much storage space as is required), whose total cost is about £300. Compared to the cost of a single train (£4-5 million these days), £300 is pittance.

The real cost would be in the computer system to actually make the decisions and the sensors used to get the information (for adhesion etc).



I mean, that wouldn't happen unless someone programmed it to do that. I mean, that's not how trains work either...... :P Computers don't have personalities, they don't just decide to do something. When a computer does something unexpected, that's usually because it has been programmed badly (and therefore doesn't expect you to use it the way you have used it). Now that's often a risk when looking at non-safety-critical software (like most people find themselves using every day), because the testing just isn't as rigorous. But if you're creating a train control system that puts people's lives at risk, you make damn well sure it works (because if it doesn't the lawyers will make you poor). Deciding if its a suitable stopping location (to use your example), is a simple integer comparison. The train would know how big it is and know the length of the platform and go "yes, I can stop here". It's also less likely to do it than a driver who's been driving a 4 car all week getting an 8 car trying to stop at a 4 car platform, because the computer instantly knows how long the train is and keeps that data in memory.

The point where computers fall down and people are better is when the volume of input is too great. Adhesion, not a problem - some sensors could pick up things like atmospheric pressure and air humidity and apply an appropriate adhesion model. Trespassers, problem - the computer has to constantly scan for stuff it doesn't expect, which means constantly comparing data to known data etc etc - that's hard. Our brains are great at this, because that's a huge part of how animals function.

If you want to make a case for keeping train drivers in a job, making arguments based on stuff that isn't true doesn't help anyone. If something simple like comparing bits of data or figuring out how to get somewhere is your argument, computers are great at that, way, way better than people. Using sensors is a thing computers are good at too, just ask a fighter pilot who's flown a Typhoon. They have stacks of sensors that both report to the pilot and are used to modify the pilot's inputs so that the plane stays in the air. But how does a computer respond to a traction supply failure, or a component defect, or a trespasser, that's where you earn your keep as a person, and until we hit the singularity, that's where you're going to keep doing it.

I refer you to the 2 buffer stop collisions at Liverpool Lime St involving pendos. Not the infamous 142 runaway. . I shall say no more on the subject.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would something based on part of train simulator be viable (the bit of the hud that shows the gradient profile, signals and speed limits (counts down the time to arrival at them). It probably wouldn't need a data connection, just a GPS location. Would something like that be of any use to drivers (possibly more usefull for diversions)?

 

[Eccles1983]

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

Gps and sensors? Get real.

Im using trains that are older than nearly every vehicle on the roads, with newspaper blocking holes in the roof and toilets that if allowed to run out of water stop the train.

And yet here we are talking about an advanced digitalised network. I'll remember that when passing the signal boxes today with men still pulling levers to set signals.

 

[ComUtoR]

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

Gps and sensors? Get real.

3/4 traction I sign; have GPS.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Gps and sensors? Get real.

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

And yet here we are talking about an advanced digitalised network. I'll remember that when passing the signal boxes today with men still pulling levers to set signals.

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))

 

[Eccles1983]

3/4 traction I sign; have GPS.

Working in conjunction with sensors?

Lucky you. Half of our otdrs wont even record accurately.

The point being, there is an unrealistic view that all this magic equipment has any chance of finding its way on trains any time soon. Its cheaper and more effective for a driver to learn the routes instead of trying to retrofit equipment to trains older than some drivers.

 

[ComUtoR]

The point being, there is an unrealistic view that all this magic equipment has any chance of finding its way on trains any time soon. Its cheaper and more effective for a driver to learn the routes instead of trying to retrofit equipment to trains older than some drivers.

I agree and that's what I posted earlier. We live in an age where people want to jump to the most technical solution to non problems. The problem, and I don't doubt you suffer the same, is that all these new fangled systems have over complicated the trains and fail at an alarming rate. You end up with more cancellations and more train faults. I've cancelled trains because of some system failing when I know I could easily drive the train in service but due to regulations and policies the service gets cancelled.

I'm not a luddite by any means and I prefer new to old every time but there is a lot to be said for simpler units.

 

[Eccles1983]

When I was in the forces we had gps etc.

We still needed and relied on maps and compasses as you always need a fall back.

Take away the need for route knowledge, I wont keep it up and no one would. A hacked system (very likely) means the entire network collapses. No trains until it gets back up.

The cost alone would be astronomical.

 

[glbotu]

I agree and that's what I posted earlier. We live in an age where people want to jump to the most technical solution to non problems. The problem, and I don't doubt you suffer the same, is that all these new fangled systems have over complicated the trains and fail at an alarming rate. You end up with more cancellations and more train faults. I've cancelled trains because of some system failing when I know I could easily drive the train in service but due to regulations and policies the service gets cancelled.

I'm not a luddite by any means and I prefer new to old every time but there is a lot to be said for simpler units.

But that's a different problem, which is caused in great deal by the management culture in this country; chiefly that you prescribe rules, however ridiculous on inappropriate they may be, rather than letting people who know what they're doing do the thing they've been employed to do. That happens in all industries (I've worked in a few of them).

We could do a simple calculation to see which is the bigger problem. How many train services have been cancelled because of a failure in the TMS (or other train software where the train could still be safely driven), versus how many train services have been cancelled because of drivers not able to sign a route? I don't know the answer to that question, but it could be a bit of thread killer.

The "how much would it cost" question, is also a bit misleading. Yes, retrofitting all the 150s wouldn't be cost-effective, but what if we simply had a requirement new trains are fitted with GPS and some "traction assistant" software, which relayed to the driver things like suggested target speeds, distances to next stop (which is close to ETCS Level 3, lest I be mistaken) expected adhesion conditions etc.

Now this wouldn't even have to be as complex as ETCS Level 3, because ETCS actually provides a signalling solution on top of everything (which would be expensive and require that level of retrofit). This just needs to use the existing signalling system and some simple sensors (as well as a data store and GPS connection - or hell track circuit detectors if we're so keen to not rely on GPS) to provide that information. (ie: route knowledge is phased out as new trains come on board, not made obsolete instantly).

 

[AlterEgo]

When I was in the forces we had gps etc.

We still needed and relied on maps and compasses as you always need a fall back.

Take away the need for route knowledge, I wont keep it up and no one would. A hacked system (very likely) means the entire network collapses. No trains until it gets back up.

The cost alone would be astronomical.

Sensationalist hyperbole.

Humans and "route knowledge" digitisation work perfectly well on aircraft and it's only a similar principle being discussed here (despite the depressing temptation for some posters to assume that this is a discussion about automated and driverless trains AGAIN!).

A pilot's route knowledge is in their iPad with a ring binder for backup. Works great, in an industry not be given to "the old way of doing things, and don't dare change anything!".

 

[GW43125]

Would something based on part of train simulator be viable (the bit of the hud that shows the gradient profile, signals and speed limits (counts down the time to arrival at them). It probably wouldn't need a data connection, just a GPS location. Would something like that be of any use to drivers (possibly more usefull for diversions)?

But then you'd know nothing about signals, low adhesion, braking points etc etc. For example they say that if you give a Fratton/Bournemouth driver a special stop order between Woking and Surbiton they'll lose a LOT of time.

 

[ComUtoR]

We could do a simple calculation to see which is the bigger problem. How many train services have been cancelled because of a failure in the TMS (or other train software where the train could still be safely driven), versus how many train services have been cancelled because of drivers not able to sign a route? I don't know the answer to that question, but it could be a bit of thread killer.

It would be a thread killer. Think of this simple premise. Every single day I work I am booked over routes and traction I sign. Therefore none of my trains are cancelled because I don't sign the road.

We do have issues internally where a Driver can't be booked to a turn but then someone else will be so there is still not really an issue. When the service breaks or you need to be diverted you still sign most diversionaries and then the root cause is not because of the Driver not signing the route but another issue. Even then its rare that we don't sign the diversionaries. It's part of route knowledge to be able to divert.

. (ie: route knowledge is phased out as new trains come on board, not made obsolete instantly).

But you are deskilling an entire grade for no gain. Project forward to where all units have this new system. No Drivers have route knowledge because its been phased out. What happens when the system fails ? There is no backup. We are already at a point at my TOC where new Drivers have been deskilled and knowledge is being lost. Phone x and do what they say is the new method for every fault and problem.

I would support any new system but to then go to deskill and remove route knowledge is detrimental.

As to ATO through the core being a common example of automation etc. I do wonder what will happen if the ATO is not working on Prep. Will the unit remain in service ? It is currently designed to be driven if the system is not operational (being an overlayed system) but knowing the railway as I do, I have that nagging feeling that you will end up out of service.

 

[driver_m]

Sensationalist hyperbole.

Humans and "route knowledge" digitisation work perfectly well on aircraft and it's only a similar principle being discussed here (despite the depressing temptation for some posters to assume that this is a discussion about automated and driverless trains AGAIN!).

A pilot's route knowledge is in their iPad with a ring binder for backup. Works great, in an industry not be given to "the old way of doing things, and don't dare change anything!".

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.

 

[misterredmist]

Sensationalist hyperbole.

Humans and "route knowledge" digitisation work perfectly well on aircraft and it's only a similar principle being discussed here (despite the depressing temptation for some posters to assume that this is a discussion about automated and driverless trains AGAIN!).

A pilot's route knowledge is in their iPad with a ring binder for backup. Works great, in an industry not be given to "the old way of doing things, and don't dare change anything!".

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.