Route Knowledge

[driver9000]

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?)

If you are route conducting and sign both traction and route then you drive (TW1). If you don't sign the traction then you give the Driver all the information they need in good time - speeds, signals, junctions, stations, gradients etc to enable them to control the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

The Reading flyover has been covered by extensive off train training sessions using maps and DVDs. The Driver will have attended this and certainly not just given it a go. I'm sure there are FGW Drivers who will be able to give a more detailed answer.

 

[swt_passenger]

...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?

Welcome to the forums.

I asked an FGW driver on the Monday and he said they had briefing packs well in advance, simulated cab ride DVDs and also practice on the driving simulator, already updated for the new routes.

Opening the viaduct on a Sunday gave it a bit of a soft start, so the initial drivers could take a bit of extra time.

A firm that does training materials has some samples of their stuff on the internet, as it turns out Reading Stage F (an earlier major change) is one of the examples: http://www.gioconda.co.uk/driver-briefing/map-books-brochures/ If you browse around their site there other examples of briefing and training materials for changes to layouts etc.

Someone will correct me if wrong, but usually the lead TOC for the area will produce briefing documents and pass them on to other TOCs, so XC may have used FGW sponsored briefing notes, rather than made up their own.

 

[driver9000]

Someone will correct me if wrong, but usually the lead TOC for the area will produce briefing documents and pass them on to other TOCs, so XC may have used FGW sponsored briefing notes, rather than made up their own.

The last remodelling brief I attended the packs were created by Network Rail (yellow peril signalling notice) the contractor (maps) and Track Access (DVD). My TOC delivered the material to us.

 

[carriageline]

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



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.



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.



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.

I never said they can't be automated, whether or not it will work is another thing.

With regards to doors,how does the DLR work? The only reason I presented it was recently watching a driver try to get a train away where the platform was so busy the passengers on the platform were centimetres from the train, the doors were struggling to close as the train was packed to the rafters, and Pax was still trying to squeeze on! If the train just tried to shut and hoped for the best it wouldn't end well. If it used some sort of camera recognition, would it work when the train is packed ASWELL as the platform?

That's what I meant with regards to examining the line, I agree the geometry (if that's the right word!!) equipment is already on some trains that report bad bumps and rough rides back to Network Rail. But, in automated land say a train reports a rough ride, that exceeds the maximum allowed. The next train would have to examine the line and see what the problem is (broken rail/voiding/poor ballast/knackered point work)

The chip thing is a very good idea actually, it could be integrated into the sentinel card etc. How that broadcasts its information, say, a mile away I don't know.

Working on a day to day basis is all well and good, but I can see problems with adverse working and infrastructure faults and problems

Trust me, I am not opposed to things like this. My job in the next year will change beyond all recognition through automation. Whenever I have had this conversation, people have suggested daft ideas. One day there will be no drivers and the network will pratically drive it self, but I can't see if ever being any time soon.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I never said they can't be automated, whether or not it will work is another thing.

With regards to doors,how does the DLR work? The only reason I presented it was recently watching a driver try to get a train away where the platform was so busy the passengers on the platform were centimetres from the train, the doors were struggling to close as the train was packed to the rafters, and Pax was still trying to squeeze on! If the train just tried to shut and hoped for the best it wouldn't end well. If it used some sort of camera recognition, would it work when the train is packed ASWELL as the platform?

That's what I meant with regards to examining the line, I agree the geometry (if that's the right word!!) equipment is already on some trains that report bad bumps and rough rides back to Network Rail. But, in automated land say a train reports a rough ride, that exceeds the maximum allowed. The next train would have to examine the line and see what the problem is (broken rail/voiding/poor ballast/knackered point work)

The chip thing is a very good idea actually, it could be integrated into the sentinel card etc. How that broadcasts its information, say, a mile away I don't know.

Working on a day to day basis is all well and good, but I can see problems with adverse working and infrastructure faults and problems

Trust me, I am not opposed to things like this. My job in the next year will change beyond all recognition through automation. Whenever I have had this conversation, people have suggested daft ideas. One day there will be no drivers and the network will pratically drive it self, but I can't see if ever being any time soon.

I think we actually agree a lot more than we both first thought.

I'm simply saying it is possible to automate the whole thing, and a lot of the technology to do so is in development and seems highly promising. That's not to say that it'll be ready anytime soon, though, and of course there will be a lot of problems to iron out as with any new system!

I wouldn't be surprised if automation comes a lot more quickly than we expect, though. A lot of the technology being developed for self-driving cars will be transferable, even if not directly.

On a side note regarding the chips: I think it would work similarly to contactless stuff at the moment - contactless cards don't broadcast anything (as far as I'm aware), so it would just need a higher-powered scanner. I could be wrong on this, though. Alternatively, another system could be tiny GPS trackers in the vests which broadcast to the signalling centre, and the train receives an update of the location of all trackside workers on the line from the signalling centre so it knows not to report them as trespassers. This seems a bit more complex, though.

 

[The Planner]

The last remodelling brief I attended the packs were created by Network Rail (yellow peril signalling notice) the contractor (maps) and Track Access (DVD). My TOC delivered the material to us.

All gets dealt with by NR as its a requirement of the project normally. We pay for it all and pass it on.

 

[Jamesb1974]

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.

Whilst I'm sure you are correct that the technology is coming, I don't think it is coming quite as fast as you think it is. I will wager you a small fortune that in 30 years time, drivers will still be sat the front of trains controlling them.

As a kick off, what would the cost be to convert the entire UK rail network (20,000+ route miles) and EVERY station, junction, crossing point, bridge and tunnel to ATO? What about freight handling facilities? What about locations where complex train moves are required (I'm talking shunting, marshalling etc etc)?

It would be a phenomenal cost to convert the entire network to ATO and one I would argue, that the government and the TOCs/FOCs would baulk at. While I'm sure that new build trains could incorporate ATO technology into the design, older designs would either require massive expense to make them compatible or not be compatible at all. Given that in 2015 we are still seeing the 40 and 50 year old traction on the mainline, what makes you think that the position will be any different 30 years from now? Perhaps there will be a time when people turn out to see the last few 66's or 68's working trains!

Which then means that if older designs are NOT compatible with ATO, then EVERYTHING has to be replaced from scratch. Track, trains, the lot. A lot of the smaller operators (and probably a few of the larger ones as well) wouldn't be able to finance such an expensive project and would go under. And what happens when trains leave Network Rail maintained lines and enter privately controlled sidings/terminals/depots? What then?

And lets be frank, whatever the theoretical capabilities of modern technology, a full scale replacement of every train on the network AND the network itself just isn't going to happen any time soon. Yes, I'm sure that the technology is there but, as we have seen with the Airline industry the people at the front are still required. Modern airliners may be able to fly themselves, but they still require a crew on megabucks sat at the front of it. Hardly a cost saving!

I think when it comes to modernising the system, removing drivers is going to be well down the list of priorities and one that would probably be opposed by more than just the unions.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Whilst I'm sure you are correct that the technology is coming, I don't think it is coming quite as fast as you think it is. I will wager you a small fortune that in 30 years time, drivers will still be sat the front of trains controlling them.

As a kick off, what would the cost be to convert the entire UK rail network (20,000+ route miles) and EVERY station, junction, crossing point, bridge and tunnel to ATO? What about freight handling facilities? What about locations where complex train moves are required (I'm talking shunting, marshalling etc etc)?

It would be a phenomenal cost to convert the entire network to ATO and one I would argue, that the government and the TOCs/FOCs would baulk at. While I'm sure that new build trains could incorporate ATO technology into the design, older designs would either require massive expense to make them compatible or not be compatible at all. Given that in 2015 we are still seeing the 40 and 50 year old traction on the mainline, what makes you think that the position will be any different 30 years from now? Perhaps there will be a time when people turn out to see the last few 66's or 68's working trains!

Which then means that if older designs are NOT compatible with ATO, then EVERYTHING has to be replaced from scratch. Track, trains, the lot. A lot of the smaller operators (and probably a few of the larger ones as well) wouldn't be able to finance such an expensive project and would go under. And what happens when trains leave Network Rail maintained lines and enter privately controlled sidings/terminals/depots? What then?

And lets be frank, whatever the theoretical capabilities of modern technology, a full scale replacement of every train on the network AND the network itself just isn't going to happen any time soon. Yes, I'm sure that the technology is there but, as we have seen with the Airline industry the people at the front are still required. Modern airliners may be able to fly themselves, but they still require a crew on megabucks sat at the front of it. Hardly a cost saving!

I think when it comes to modernising the system, removing drivers is going to be well down the list of priorities and one that would probably be opposed by more than just the unions.

I'm not sure that everything would have to be ATO at once. ATO would have to be able work 'on the fly', as unexpected things may well happen to another train on the line, and so it wouldn't just be working on a set routine, if that makes sense? Therefore it would also be able to react to the less predictable movements of a driven train.

So having a driven train and an ATO train on the same line wouldn't actually be too much of a problem. Although with the capacity improvements provided by ATO, I'd expect to see driven trains phased out on certain lines to provide capacity improvements, and only allowed on under special circumstances. Similarly to how the Thameslink core works (will work?).

 

[Murph]

Yes, I'm sure that the technology is there but, as we have seen with the Airline industry the people at the front are still required. Modern airliners may be able to fly themselves, but they still require a crew on megabucks sat at the front of it. Hardly a cost saving!

In the case of flying, automation has some serious negative safety implications, which could easily apply to railway automation. It's all great when the automation is running, but some airlines have let fundamental skills be lost because of the automation and the result has been fatalities. OZ214 at SFO is a prime example of the negative side of automation, where the crew had become so reliant on it that they were unable to fly a very easy basic visual approach with PAPI in essentially perfect conditions. AF447 was another relatively recent example, the automatics had a problem, and the crew then manually crashed the plane because their combined manual skills were seriously lacking. (If you don't share my view on either of those 2 air accidents, probably best not to derail this thread.)

The rail industry should take great care to learn from the various airline incidents where safety was compromised as a direct result of the automation and over-reliance on it.

 

[SussexMan]

I used to sign half the UK, (I now sign a minimal amount in comparison)< and to understand why route knowledge is so important, it is THE most important part of train driving.

I fully get the bit about knowing the road but given everything people have said, how could someone safely know half the UK network? That seems like an amazing memory. Is there a maximum time allowed before route knowledge expires if you haven't actually been along the track for x months/years - or is it simply up to the driver to determine this?

 

[Elwyn]

As a regular air and rail passenger, I really wouldn't want to travel with an airline or rail service that did not have a pilot or driver on board. Technology can never deal with every unexpected problem, and though pilot and driver error has undoubtedly contributed to some accidents, many many more have been avoided due to the driver or pilot's vigilance and skills.

I don't want to be travelling at 125 mph or more in a train with no driver. I suspect the vast majority of the public would feel the same way. That commercial reality will hopefully park the idea of driverless trains (save in very limited situations) for years to come.

 

[Class 170101]

My first post, so please be gentle with me.

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

Firstly welcome to the madhouse

Hull Trains have done this diversion before and as most of it is low speed it probably was done by video / DVD. Hull Trains already signed Doncaster to St Pancras via the Midland Mainline but that would have been through actual on the spot route learning in the cab of other services so therefore they already had the last bit from West Hampstead to St Pancras (unless it had expired).

 

[Tomnick]

Were they route conducted over the last bit on this occasion?

 

[Jamesb1974]

I'm not sure that everything would have to be ATO at once. ATO would have to be able work 'on the fly', as unexpected things may well happen to another train on the line, and so it wouldn't just be working on a set routine, if that makes sense? Therefore it would also be able to react to the less predictable movements of a driven train.

So having a driven train and an ATO train on the same line wouldn't actually be too much of a problem. Although with the capacity improvements provided by ATO, I'd expect to see driven trains phased out on certain lines to provide capacity improvements, and only allowed on under special circumstances. Similarly to how the Thameslink core works (will work?).

Unpredictable movements of a driven train will also apply to unpredictable movements on an ATO train as well. Especially variables like exceptional rail conditions. No automated system in the world is going to get around the fact that leaves, frost, grease etc play havoc with a steel wheel on a steel rail.

I would love to see the clusterf**k caused by an overloaded, ATO freight train stuck on a greasy rail and no one there to resort to the 'old fashioned' methods to get it going again.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

From London Reconnections
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/northern-line-timetable-for-the-future/

I have quoted the specific part below

To get beyond 30tph through Camden Town probably requires some kind of centralised supervising software (generally known as Automatic Train Control – ATC) to optimise train speed on approach to junctions to ensure maximum throughput. The current signalling contract for the Northern Line did not include ATC which has yet to exist on this manufacturer’s product.

So perhaps computers aren't entirely up to the task yet.

 

[driver_m]

As a regular air and rail passenger, I really wouldn't want to travel with an airline or rail service that did not have a pilot or driver on board. Technology can never deal with every unexpected problem, and though pilot and driver error has undoubtedly contributed to some accidents, many many more have been avoided due to the driver or pilot's vigilance and skills.

I don't want to be travelling at 125 mph or more in a train with no driver. I suspect the vast majority of the public would feel the same way. That commercial reality will hopefully park the idea of driverless trains (save in very limited situations) for years to come.

Can you imagine if a computer was controlling a train, then I'd imagine the hacking community would be itching to try and find a way of taking control. For the lulz of course.

 

[Murph]

Unpredictable movements of a driven train will also apply to unpredictable movements on an ATO train as well. Especially variables like exceptional rail conditions. No automated system in the world is going to get around the fact that leaves, frost, grease etc play havoc with a steel wheel on a steel rail.

I would love to see the clusterf**k caused by an overloaded, ATO freight train stuck on a greasy rail and no one there to resort to the 'old fashioned' methods to get it going again.

Maybe something like this (rails burned almost completely through by prolonged stationary wheel spinning from a CoCo loco):

(No idea what actually happened to cause the destruction shown in that picture, or if any form of ATO was involved, it's just a possible outcome from a suitably confused ATO trying to restart a heavy freight.)

 

[CyrusWuff]

I never said they can't be automated, whether or not it will work is another thing.

With regards to doors,how does the DLR work?

They're released automatically when the train is detected as fully berthed in the platform. For closure, the Passenger Service Assistant (or whatever their job title is this week) "keys in" to one of the door control panels (or the emergency driving position at the front of the leading unit), waits for the "Ready to Depart" light to illuminate (accompanied by a chime), presses the "Close Doors" buttons (repeat for the other side at Canary Wharf, where doors on both sides open). Once interlock is obtained (indicated by the "All Doors Closed" light illuminating), the train moves off and they can key out.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Our job destroying posters on here obviou

And that, I think, is the real reason a lot of people here call it impossible.

As I have repeatedly stated, I'm not in favour of people losing their jobs. That being said, if we never automated anything we'd all still be stuck in fields.

 

[455driver]

What problems will it solve? Apart from capacity.

I bet its to get rid of us drivers/make things cheaper!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I see I was right! :roll:
Its nice to know you wont sack us all at once, just most of us!

 

[muz379]

Whilst I'm sure you are correct that the technology is coming, I don't think it is coming quite as fast as you think it is.

Completely agree with this .
No doubt eventually its going to happen like with almost all jobs . But its certainly not even close at the moment .

I fully get the bit about knowing the road but given everything people have said, how could someone safely know half the UK network? That seems like an amazing memory. Is there a maximum time allowed before route knowledge expires if you haven't actually been along the track for x months/years - or is it simply up to the driver to determine this?

6 months then you either have to have a road refresh or get it taken off your card .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

It will solve capacity , and non compliant drivers doing things they shouldnt be . Which is not exactly a very regular occurrence

In its infancy it will cause many more problems than that .

Capacity is arguably going to always be a problem anyway . Even with computers driving trains . Take two 390's 350's 156's or whatever traction type is booked , and you might find that they attain slightly different top speeds , they take slightly different amounts of time to get there and the brakes offer slightly differing performance

 

[DownSouth]

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.

A similar rule gets applied to heavy vehicles on certain roads. There is a tricky descent on one of the main highways leading into Perth (Western Australia, not Scotland) where truck drivers are required to be taken through as an observer with an accredited instructor driving and have the instructor accompany them the first time they drive it themselves.

There is a push for the South Australian state government to introduce a similar scheme on the main highway heading into Adelaide from the Adelaide Hills and the direction of Melbourne.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I see I was right! :roll:
Its nice to know you wont sack us all at once, just most of us!

I love how you actually ignore what I said and just zoned in on drivers losing jobs.

I've tried, repeatedly, to be reasonable throughout this thread. However, I've been accused of being on drugs, of wanting people to be sacked and of being insane. No wonder no-one ever brings up this topic, when it clearly inspires such vitriolic hatred in some of you.

But sure, let's never automate anything. It's such a shame all those cotton-spinners lost their jobs 200 years ago! It's not like automation has allowed thousands of new industries to be created, making millions of new jobs. No, it's obviously more important to keep things exactly how they are.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Can you imagine if a computer was controlling a train, then I'd imagine the hacking community would be itching to try and find a way of taking control. For the lulz of course.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't think it could be - I work on automation

Self-improving computers are already a thing. Don't be so sure

http://www.wired.com/2013/03/darpa-machine-learning-2/

But yes, it is funny how people think we're being hypocritical, when in reality if everything was automated the economy would be drastically different anyway. Not that I think that's likely to happen anytime soon, of course, but it is interesting to think about.

 

[W230]

I love how you actually ignore what I said and just zoned in on drivers losing jobs.

With respect m'lord, I simply asked what is the drive to go to full ATO? And I don't really feel that you've answered it. I've certainly not been vitriolic in my replies!

You mention driving down the cost of the railways (through replacing drivers). It doesn't trouble me that you suggest I will be replaced by a computer - far from it. I feel maybe you misunderstand what a driver does (I certainly did before joining the railways so it is no criticism).

But there will still need to be someone at the pointy end (or flat end in my case ) in case of problems. I can't imagine the Victoria line is any cheaper to run for an example being full ATO. Certainly talking to a Northern line driver who has recently been through the process of automation, pay and conditions are remain the same. So like I said ATO, will improve problems with capacity. But what is the drive elsewhere? I still don't see it - let alone with the immense costs involved!

An interesting thread, I hope my questions are pertinent.
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?

I believe they were conducted by freight drivers who did sign the route.

If you are route conducting and sign both traction and route then you drive (TW1). If you don't sign the traction then you give the Driver all the information they need in good time - speeds, signals, junctions, stations, gradients etc to enable them to control the train.

This is what I understood. But when we had the Southern 377s running between Tulse Hill and Blackfriars in August , we were told to conduct because we didn't sign the /1 or /4. Roll on January and we now drive Southern 377/1 or /4's into London Bridge Low Level without any training (not saying we need it, more that FCC were just looking for reasons for us not to drive Southern units in August!)

I fully get the bit about knowing the road but given everything people have said, how could someone safely know half the UK network? That seems like an amazing memory. Is there a maximum time allowed before route knowledge expires if you haven't actually been along the track for x months/years - or is it simply up to the driver to determine this?

Yes. 6 months. In reality not many drivers do cover half the UK. Some freight drivers will be right up there but I think they often get a fair few days route learning helping to refresh stuff as it gets up to the limits of route retention and won't need to know quite the same information as passenger drivers will.

 

[PermitToTravel]

With respect m'lord, I simply asked what is the drive to go to full ATO? And I don't really feel that you've answered it. I've certainly not been vitriolic in my replies!

You mention driving down the cost of the railways (through replacing drivers). It doesn't trouble me that you suggest I will be replaced by a computer - far from it. I feel maybe you misunderstand what a driver does (I certainly did before joining the railways so it is no criticism).

But there will still need to be someone at the pointy end (or flat end in my case ) in case of problems. I can't imagine the Victoria line is any cheaper to run for an example being full ATO. Certainly talking to a Northern line driver who has recently been through the process of automation, pay and conditions are remain the same. So like I said ATO, will improve problems with capacity. But what is the drive elsewhere? I still don't see it - let alone with the immense costs involved!

ATO can ensure consistent uniform train operation, beneficial on very high frequency routes like the Thameslink or ELL cores.

LU drivers on automatic lines aren't paid less than their colleagues - in fact in the 1960s and 1970s they were paid more (although now it's all one grade).

I can't foresee trains being run without any on-board staff this century. What would hopefully be eventually possible on National Rail is Guard Only Operation, much like the DLR has. Moving the on-board member of staff into the passenger saloon would be a boon for customer service and safety.

To bring it back to the subject of the thread, if the number of things that the on-board member of staff needs to know for each route are reduced then they can learn more routes making diversions easier.

 

[W230]

To bring it back to the subject of the thread, if the number of things that the on-board member of staff needs to know for each route are reduced then they can learn more routes making diversions easier.

Agreed. Though I don't think diversionary routes are that much of an issue I can see in some cases they could be.

Someone highlighted one of the big differences between UK signalling/rest of Europe way up thread when they mentioned driving a sim train to somewhere or other. The speed signalling system used abroad (compared to the route signalling system we use here). I would imagine if we had a similar system (drivers being told how fast to drive and then being routed wherever, instead of which route to take and having learnt the speed) then the problems with diverted routes not being known could be minimised. I can also see how ERTMS could be used with benfit in this setup

But I would think you would still need to know the routes to some extent (lesser, admittedly). I certainly wouldn't fancy not knowing what was round the next corner! And again the cost of introducing it, retraining everybody etc etc. Why bother?

 

[TheKnightWho]

With respect m'lord, I simply asked what is the drive to go to full ATO? And I don't really feel that you've answered it. I've certainly not been vitriolic in my replies!

I wasn't referring to everyone. Just certain people on this thread.

And to answer the rest, Fahad has it. That being said, it would also open up the possibility of more paths, which we certainly do need on more than just Thameslink core etc.

 

[455driver]

ATO can ensure consistent uniform train operation, beneficial on very high frequency routes like the Thameslink or ELL cores.

LU drivers on automatic lines aren't paid less than their colleagues - in fact in the 1960s and 1970s they were paid more (although now it's all one grade).

I can't foresee trains being run without any on-board staff this century. What would hopefully be eventually possible on National Rail is Guard Only Operation, much like the DLR has. Moving the on-board member of staff into the passenger saloon would be a boon for customer service and safety.

To bring it back to the subject of the thread, if the number of things that the on-board member of staff needs to know for each route are reduced then they can learn more routes making diversions easier.

Are you going to Automate the passengers as well?
They are the cause of most small delays with their one door syndrome!
How will automation deal with that?