Route Knowledge

[Tomnick]

Which other platforms do they have access to even if they cant go into them?

General comment-
Most of those listed seem to be platforms which the trains couldnt gain access to when the train approaches the station anyway so no point the drivers signing them if they cant physically get in them.

I thought Man Vic crews worked south of Picc, but that they only normally do so on through trains via P13/P14 - if so, it does seem a bit restrictive to specifically keep the rest of the station off their route card (to save a few pennies, perhaps), as it's entirely conceivable that they might be asked to take a train into the main station, e.g. for a set swap or because they've dropped onto a terminating train during disruption. Do they sign the whole station throat or are they restricted to just the one pair of lines south of Picc - indeed, can you get to the Airport (do they sign anywhere else that way?) from any other line?

It makes a lot more sense at Wimbledon (where the two are effectively two independent railways, worked from different boxes and very little reason to cross between the two!) and Watford Jn (presumably referring to the branch, which again is very much independent, and - until recently at least? - separated from the main line by a ground frame connection).

I was told that if you signed the location you signed all the shunts, I mean putting a train behind a dummy isnt rocket science is it?
I have heard of a driver refusing to do that though and another driver had to be taxied over from Woking to do it, I wont mention which depot the driver was from <cough Staines cough> or where it was <cough Ascot cough>!

I've never had to try it out, although it's certainly been one of my escape plans when something's gone wrong in the past. In this case, the dolly's quite a distance from the junction (well over ¼ mile), which might make a difference? I've heard of drivers refusing to go into loops to be regulated for following traffic, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with the fact that they were on their last trip and not far from home .

 

[455driver]

I've heard of drivers refusing to go into loops to be regulated for following traffic, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with the fact that they were on their last trip and not far from home .

LOL!

 

[CC 72100]

Yes!

They sign the route and they sign the traction that is the end of it.

I learnt the Guildford New Line solely on 455s, a few weeks after signing it there were diversions due to engineering work and I was booked to take a 444 over the route (and a 450 on the return), these were non stop and I hadnt done that either.

Thanks for that, query neatly answered!

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's very much a safety issue. And it's no good having a profile for an HST, because a 2+7 VP185 engined HST behaves very differently to a 2+9 MTU engined one.

Then you have the fun of if there is a hire in of a power car to cover for another being down. So you may end up with a VP185 at one end and an MTU at the other (as happened on EC for a while before they MTUd the ex EMT PCs)

Trains are not going to drive themselves on National Rail in my lifetime. I'm in my thirties.

It's a pipe dream that it'll happen on the tube. It's just populism push by that mop headed idiot in city hall.

Profiles of immensely complex combinations of all sorts of things already exist in numerous other industries. To make out like this kind of thing is impossible just by coming up with contrived combinations and possibilities vastly underestimates the capabilities of today's computers.

 

[driver_m]

But can you physically approach those platforms you dont sign over routes that you do sign and your traction is allowed over?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Piccadilly definitely. I've know of drivers only signing through lines only. Watford I'll have a look if the unit restrictions have changed at all with the resignalling occurring. As things stand we can't go into plat. 11 (to St Albans) but it is now possible to route us directly into it, whereas under Watford PSB it wasn't.

Someone also asked about shunts where its not your route doing shunts. It depends on the location, as shunt move knowledge is something you're questioned on at your rules. I didn't sign north of Crewe but could do shunts that involved going out via Crewe North Jn in order to cross over (say from pl.12 to pl.6)

As for this computer takeover talk, Lets put this following scenario out there.

DRS flask train. Driverless.

Good luck getting that one past the various medias. Even with 10 machine gun toting hulks on it, its not going to be ever publicly acceptable to send trains out without a full back up of a driver that knows what to do and where to go.

 

[45107]

I'm obviously referring to ERTMS.

And yes, it's because I want you all to lose your jobs. That's clearly what this is about. Get a grip.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whatever happened to the DLR? Of course you'd have to get rid of level crossings, but the idea that we'd need obstacle detection over the whole route is a bit ridiculous. Even then, you could install CCTV on them and have someone monitoring them.

Even then, if you end up with a situation like Great Heck then it doesn't matter if you've got a driver or not - you're **** outta luck.

Obstructions can appear anywhere. Human eyes are a touch better than obstacle detectors. Experience is that they are more 'fly detectors' than 'obstacle detectors'.
Would you be happy for a driver currently to close his/her eyes because " the idea that we'd need obstacle detection over the whole route is a bit ridiculous" ?

And how many people are going to monitoring CCTV to manage the driverless trains across the network ?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Obstructions can appear anywhere. Human eyes are a touch better than obstacle detectors. Experience is that they are more 'fly detectors' than 'obstacle detectors'.
Would you be happy for a driver currently to close his/her eyes because " the idea that we'd need obstacle detection over the whole route is a bit ridiculous" ?

And how many people are going to monitoring CCTV to manage the driverless trains across the network ?

Of course, but my point is that with many of the dangers of driving a train having a driver in charge actually wouldn't make any difference. Once it's in your line of sight it may well be far too late anyway. This is certainly the case at night.

And I meant CCTV for level crossings and other hazardous places (which is exactly how it's currently done).

Having no guards for emergencies, on the other hand, would be stupid.

 

[45107]

Of course, but my point is that with many of the dangers of driving a train having a driver in charge actually wouldn't make any difference. Once it's in your line of sight it may well be far too late anyway. This is certainly the case at night.

And I meant CCTV for level crossings and other hazardous places (which is exactly how it's currently done).

Having no guards for emergencies, on the other hand, would be stupid.

Perhaps you should gain a bit of an understanding of railway operations. 25+ years in the environment tells me that the action of the driver has a major impact on the outcome of the incident.
I accept that there are a of small number of high profile incidents where it makes no difference but in the majority of day to day matters the actions of the driver reduce the risk/impact.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Perhaps you should gain a bit of an understanding of railway operations. 25+ years in the environment tells me that the action of the driver has a major impact on the outcome of the incident.
I accept that there are a of small number of high profile incidents where it makes no difference but in the majority of day to day matters the actions of the driver reduce the risk/impact.

Yes, but when things can be done with line of sight of the driver comes a lot more technical solutions. After all, driverless cars are already being tested at quite high speeds, and are proving to work extremely well.

You can't have it both ways: you (and others) have said that the driver is needed for spotting obstructions but also obstructions on the line outside of the line of sight of technology make it unfeasible. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I'm obviously referring to ERTMS.

And yes, it's because I want you all to lose your jobs. That's clearly what this is about. Get a grip.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whatever happened to the DLR? Of course you'd have to get rid of level crossings, but the idea that we'd need obstacle detection over the whole route is a bit ridiculous. Even then, you could install CCTV on them and have someone monitoring them.

Even then, if you end up with a situation like Great Heck then it doesn't matter if you've got a driver or not - you're **** outta luck.

Both drivers at Great Heck managed to reduce the speed of their trains by a substantial amount which undoubtadly reduced the severity of the collision. Had GSMR been fitted back then it's fairly certain that had the GNER driver made a Railway Emergency Group call when collision was imminent, the freight train driver could have braked even earlier and the signallers would have been aware something had happened much sooner.

 

[muz379]

Which other platforms do they have access to even if they cant go into them?

General comment-
Most of those listed seem to be platforms which the trains couldn't gain access to when the train approaches the station anyway so no point the drivers signing them if they cant physically get in them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Aproaching Picadilly from Longsight you could be put into the bay platforms as well as through 13&14 . Coming into Picadilly from Manchester Ox Road you can only end up in 13 or 14 .


The only VIC and indeed Wigan and probably lime street drivers I can think of who would sign 13 & 14 but none of the bays at Pic would be those that only sign Manchester airport from Piccadilly because if they are doing any of the airport services then they will exclusively only work through 13&14 even though the train can get into the bays to continue its journey towards liverpool/southport/blackpool it needs to end up in 13 or 14


Those in the link that sign Chester will sign it all because Chester work out of the bays . But also work through 13&14 on sundays when they run from southport . They also sign guide bridge round to stalybridge from Picadilly so they can bring empties off newton heath
Those that sign stockport will also probably sign it all because they take empties up to stockport to go in the sidings .


I get what you mean about not signing platforms you cant physically get into . Vic drivers who sign Leeds dont sign the east facing bays from leeds because coming into leeds from either Cottingley or Bramley you cant get into them , and working back towards Manchester you would not be in one of the eastern facing bays .

 

[The Snap]

I was on a XC Voyager from Stafford to Piccadilly recently, and due to signalling problems at Macclesfield, it was diverted at Stoke via Alsager, Crewe and Wilmslow.

Who's to say the driver of that particular train I was on signed for the Alsager route to Crewe (I know XC sign Crewe to Stockport via Wilmslow)? Would that have been checked before he was diverted at Stoke? What if he didn't? Wait at Stoke until the Macclesfield problem is sorted?

 

[GB]

I was on a XC Voyager from Stafford to Piccadilly recently, and due to signalling problems at Macclesfield, it was diverted at Stoke via Alsager, Crewe and Wilmslow.

Who's to say the driver of that particular train I was on signed for the Alsager route to Crewe (I know XC sign Crewe to Stockport via Wilmslow)? Would that have been checked before he was diverted at Stoke? What if he didn't? Wait at Stoke until the Macclesfield problem is sorted?

If the driver didn't sign the route he wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) take it. If he doesn't sign in and did take it he would be liable for disciplinary action and in the event of a serious incident, potential legal action. Route knowledge and such is there for the safety and integrity of the entire railway...employees and passengers included, its not there to be purposely awkward.

The options are...in no fixed order...

Wait for the problem to be fixed
Get a replacement driver that does sign the route
Wait for a conductor driver to attend the train
Divert to somewhere the driver does sign (within reason and if practical)
Reverse/set back to a previous point on the route (within reason and if practical)

 

[carriageline]

Thanks for that, at least somebody appreciates what is involved!

How did you feel when you got out of the simulator?



I wonder how that baying mob will feel when the computer driving the train 'has a glitch' and ploughs into the train in front?

Let's be honest, ATO will happen. But there will still be someone in the front cab looking over things. True, complete automation is a long way off yet.

 

[The Snap]

If the driver didn't sign the route he wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) take it. If he doesn't sign in and did take it he would be liable for disciplinary action and in the event of a serious incident, potential legal action. Route knowledge and such is there for the safety and integrity of the entire railway...employees and passengers included, its not there to be purposely awkward.

The options are...in no fixed order...

Wait for the problem to be fixed
Get a replacement driver that does sign the route
Wait for a conductor driver to attend the train
Divert to somewhere the driver does sign (within reason and if practical)
Reverse/set back to a previous point on the route (within reason and if practical)

Thanks for that.

So, the next question then, why would a driver sign a route that isn't part of his operator's normal working routes?

Of course it could have been fluke that that particular driver on that night used to work for say London Midland who do sign that particular route, and therefore happy days. But if he didn’t, how would he have signed that route?

I suppose my question is, are drivers trained on routes outside of their operator’s normal working routes, just in case of diversions etc?

 

[Bellbell]

Yes, as are guards. There may be empty stock movements over routes over which the toc have no passenger workings which obviously still require route knowledge and there will be some core diversionary routes that crews sign for when things go wrong, even if theh never normally go over them.

 

[TDK]

I have never heard of drivers only signing certain platforms at a station, large or small.

If the driver signs the route towards the platform then it is ridiculous if they didnt sign the platform as well.

I only sign Platforms 13 & 14 at Manchester Piccadilly, they are through platforms where as the other 12 are terminus platforms, the only reason for this is that the work involved for the terminus platforms isn't in my link. This is a rare occurrence for any driver not to sign a complete station however it is basically politics that rules when it comes to links and neighbouring depots.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is that because they only sign certain lines on the approach to these stations ?

The lines on the up to Manchester Piccadilly coming from Oxford road can only access Platforms 13 & 14 but you can access them on the down from all lines

 

[455driver]

Thanks for that.

So, the next question then, why would a driver sign a route that isn't part of his operator's normal working routes?

So those routes can be used as a diversion when needed.

Of course it could have been fluke that that particular driver on that night used to work for say London Midland who do sign that particular route, and therefore happy days. But if he didn’t, how would he have signed that route?

Route knowledge doesnt normally transfer across TOCs but it wont take the driver long to sign the route up, it is more a paper exercise than anything else, of course different types of trains may require slightly different driving techniques to what the driver previously signed.

I suppose my question is, are drivers trained on routes outside of their operator’s normal working routes, just in case of diversions etc?

Yes especially XC drivers who will have many diversionary routes available to them.
Cogent para-dime-
XC Plymouth drivers sign via Westbury for example, they dont have any booked work over it but they keep they route knowledge up by travelling on FGW services, in fact those trips are in their diagrams.
I was at Exeter a few years ago and our XC HST to Plymouth was held waiting for the driver to arrive off the FGW HST which was running over half an hour late, that was the first I realised about the diversionary route retention and a bit of digging gave me all the answers to that one.

Some times an early morning or late evening service will be routed over a route just to keep the crews current on it-
http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2015.htm
Lists most (if not all) of tham.

This can also be done with ECS movements.

 

[W230]

Let's be honest, ATO will happen. But there will still be someone in the front cab looking over things. True, complete automation is a long way off yet.

A long long way off. I also don't see the drive towards it, let alone the additional cost. It's most likely to come in as a capacity improvement but in rural areas why would they bother? Retrofitting or replacing all trains would cost soooo much money - and for what benefit?

It always tickles me when people with no experience of driving trains seem to think automation will solve all the problems.

 

[The Snap]

So those routes can be used as a diversion when needed.

Route knowledge doesnt normally transfer across TOCs but it wont take the driver long to sign the route up, it is more a paper exercise than anything else, of course different types of trains may require slightly different driving techniques to what the driver previously signed.

Yes especially XC drivers who will have many diversionary routes available to them.
Cogent para-dime-
XC Plymouth drivers sign via Westbury for example, they dont have any booked work over it but they keep they route knowledge up by travelling on FGW services, in fact those trips are in their diagrams.
I was at Exeter a few years ago and our XC HST to Plymouth was held waiting for the driver to arrive off the FGW HST which was running over half an hour late, that was the first I realised about the diversionary route retention and a bit of digging gave me all the answers to that one.

Some times an early morning or late evening service will be routed over a route just to keep the crews current on it-
http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2015.htm
Lists most (if not all) of tham.

This can also be done with ECS movements.

Thanks. I am now enlightened .

 

[TheKnightWho]

A long long way off. I also don't see the drive towards it, let alone the additional cost. It's most likely to come in as a capacity improvement but in rural areas why would they bother? Retrofitting or replacing all trains would cost soooo much money - and for what benefit?

It always tickles me when people with no experience of driving trains seem to think automation will solve all the problems.

I'm not saying it will solve all problems, but I find it a stretch to argue that the costs of implementing it would be any more than the current roll-out of ERTMS. Do you really think that trains that are already controlled electronically (and in 20 years they certainly all will be) can't be easily just have a system fitted to essentially do it all automatically?

I mean, people have argued what you're arguing for years in all sorts of places, and they are always - eventually - proved wrong.

 

[pne]

I'm sure someone will correct me but isn't it the case that commercial pilots cannot fly approaches or airports they don't know?

I think this is only true for certain specific airports with particularly tricky approaches or other similarly extraordinary requirements.

For example, I had heard that Hong Kong's old Kai Tak airport could only be approached by pilots that had been cleared for that airport specifically. The approach was basically "fly towards checkerboard pattern painted on a mountainside, then turn right just before you hit it and descend over the rooftops into the airport" -- the geography (mountains) made it impossible to approach the airport from behind the runway in a straight line and by the time you turned you were so low that you had to be pretty careful - and have good Route Knowledge, as it were.

Hong Kong now uses a different airport for international flights, so that's one fewer special case.

 

[Crossover]

As an associated query, if a driver is route conducted, what sort of conversations would be had between the two of them? Would I be right in thinking that a route conductor won't necessarily sign the specific traction they are route conducting? (presumably if they did, it would be as well for them to just drive it in the first place?)

 

[W230]

I'm not saying it will solve all problems

What problems will it solve? Apart from capacity...

I find it a stretch to argue that the costs of implementing it would be any more than the current roll-out of ERTMS.

Making everything compatible - don't these sorts of things often spiral out of control? Though I agree in principle, ERTMS isn't exactly coming in everywhere that soon.

Do you really think that trains that are already controlled electronically (and in 20 years they certainly all will be) can't be easily just have a system fitted to essentially do it all automatically?

What do you mean by "controlled electrically"? As in modern stock I assume. I'm sure it can be fitted - anything can be done if there is the drive to do it

I mean, people have argued what you're arguing for years in all sorts of places, and they are always - eventually - proved wrong.

What sorts of places? I'm intrigued now! I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying that I can't see the drive for it. I agree in terms of resignalling schemes for example, ERTMS will take over. But we're talking about full ATO here.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What problems will it solve? Apart from capacity...

Being controversial, it could also drive down the costs of running the railway. Obviously I'm not arguing in favour of sacking all drivers, but passive downsizing (not rehiring when someone retires) could be a way to do this, especially when this would obviously have to be phased in.

Making everything compatible - don't these sorts of things often spiral out of control? Though I agree in principle, ERTMS isn't exactly coming in everywhere that soon.

Sure, but I don't see it being a bigger issue than phasing in ERTMS. You certainly couldn't switch over overnight.

What do you mean by "controlled electrically"? As in modern stock I assume. I'm sure it can be fitted - anything can be done if there is the drive to do it

What I mean is controlled electronically in the way that in modern trains, that lever that you push forwards and backwards on a Pendolino (or whatever) sends electronic signals which control the relevant parts of the train. These wouldn't necessarily have to be controlled by a lever.

What sorts of places? I'm intrigued now! I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying that I can't see the drive for it. I agree in terms of resignalling schemes for example, ERTMS will take over. But we're talking about full ATO here.

Well, automation has for years been phased in all over the world in all sorts of industries. 3D printing is already presenting a huge threat to many manufacturers, but even aside from new technology, people have always argued that human skills are just not replicable by machines, and they always are.

Although in terms of driving in line of sight, take a look at this. Of course I'm not arguing that driving cars and trains is the same, but in terms of obstacle detection and being aware of numerous important factors at once, machines are already getting there.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_thrun_google_s_driverless_car?language=en

 

[bramling]

A long long way off. I also don't see the drive towards it, let alone the additional cost. It's most likely to come in as a capacity improvement but in rural areas why would they bother? Retrofitting or replacing all trains would cost soooo much money - and for what benefit?

It always tickles me when people with no experience of driving trains seem to think automation will solve all the problems.

Agreed entirely.

ATO on London Underground is far from being the solution to all problems. Whilst it generally works very well in the tunnels, none of the ATO systems in use have yet produced a solution that copes with differing railhead conditions in the open.

The Victoria Line is all tunnel, the Jubilee and Northern lines cope by imposing a very, very, very gentle brake rate in the open sections (almost the minimum the train will allow), and the Central Line mitigates by running numerous sandite trains in autumn, having quite a bit of manual driving during rain etc, and tolerating a fair few ATO operating incidents. I don't believe any of these 'solutions' would work well on the mainline -- you would either have loads of operating incidents (unacceptable) or lose time all over the place due to unnecessarily low brake rates.

Also I don't believe the gains are worthwhile, for particularly in recent years driving on the mainline has become so regimented that most drivers are pretty consistent in their driving styles, which is one of the benefits of ATO.

 

[notadriver]

thats an excellent post bramling

 

[carriageline]

Being controversial, it could also drive down the costs of running the railway. Obviously I'm not arguing in favour of sacking all drivers, but passive downsizing (not rehiring when someone retires) could be a way to do this, especially when this would obviously have to be phased in.







Sure, but I don't see it being a bigger issue than phasing in ERTMS. You certainly couldn't switch over overnight.









What I mean is controlled electronically in the way that in modern trains, that lever that you push forwards and backwards on a Pendolino (or whatever) sends electronic signals which control the relevant parts of the train. These wouldn't necessarily have to be controlled by a lever.







Well, automation has for years been phased in all over the world in all sorts of industries. 3D printing is already presenting a huge threat to many manufacturers, but even aside from new technology, people have always argued that human skills are just not replicable by machines, and they always are.



Although in terms of driving in line of sight, take a look at this. Of course I'm not arguing that driving cars and trains is the same, but in terms of obstacle detection and being aware of numerous important factors at once, machines are already getting there.



http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_thrun_google_s_driverless_car?language=en

I don't deny, automating the driving part is possible and will probably happen. But the train will not be driverless, for plenty of reasons. To name a few:

Door control, how do you get a machine to open and close doors automatically without trapping people?

Degraded working, will need a driver to do that.

Examining the line with regards to failures/reports of problems

Reporting trespassers/differentiating between track workers.

That is too name a few. I have had this conversation on here before, and the answers given were hilarious and frankly would not work.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Door control, how do you get a machine to open and close doors automatically without trapping people?

The way it works currently on ATO, such as the DLR. Not quite sure why this is presented as an issue.

Examining the line with regards to failures/reports of problems

I don't really know enough about this to comment. However, with technology such as that on the NMT, and the way this is already fitted to high-speed trains around the world (seeing track faults at 186mph is difficult with your eyes), then I see no reason why this can't be rolled out more generally.

Reporting trespassers/differentiating between track workers.

Easy. Person recognition technology is already pretty advanced, as shown in that video I linked above. If the train did the detection automatically (which would be necessary for any ATO), then it could easily report these to the signalling centre, as a human profile is pretty easy to recognise. If trackside workers had a small electronic token embedded in their vest this could easily provide an exemption. Obviously trespassers would not have this, and if they did then it's the same problem as those who wear fake hi-vis vests these days.

I could be wrong, but I think these sorts of systems are already in place where electronic driving is used at large mines and the like.

That is too name a few. I have had this conversation on here before, and the answers given were hilarious and frankly would not work.

I really don't see why everyone seems to think that the few issues they can think of can somehow never, ever be automated. I get that people don't want drivers to lose their jobs, and I don't either, but frankly this technology is coming whether we like it or not.

 

[Trailfinder]

My first post, so please be gentle with me.

An interesting thread, I hope my questions are pertinent.

At the New Year, both the new Reading Viaduct and the new viaduct at Heathrow Airport junction, with their associated track layouts, opened for use. These are obviously new routes to all drivers.

What information is given to drivers in these instances? The first service HST over the Reading viaduct was the 08:00 from Paddington, did the driver with this honour, just give it a go?

Also, during the Kings Cross blockade, Hull Trains operated services into St Pancras, how much route knowledge would the drivers have had and how would they have gained it?

Trailfinder