Route Knowledge

[carriageline]

Each workstation "normally" has the workstation it self, and an Internet enabled PC. They are not normally one and the same

 

[TheKnightWho]

But then your basically saying we need ATO to get to 32tph in some places . but then because of inconsistencies in passenger loadings and train weight and unit performance there will be discrepancies which will threaten your 32tph .

Don't get me wrong trains driven by drivers aren't any more likely or able to achieve 32tph either , but then nobody is making such grand claims of that mode of operation .

ATO will eventually offer advantages to the railway of course and as I have acknowledged it will eventually happen no matter what the resistance . That eventuality is however a long way off and I dont think for many it is welcome you yourself have even pointed that out . What I do however wish to see is honestly in the benefits it will bring about and not just adding things in like capacity and consistency of operation without actually thinking about the issues seriously .

32tph with passenger operation is IMO not going to be possible in a consistent and reliable fashion on a timetabled service on anything other than a computer model with perfect passengers and uniform unit performance .

Units do and will continue to offer discrepancies no matter what their actual mode of operation (take the number of trains I work that cant actually achieve their maximum speed only a figure close enough to be in tolerance even when "flat out")There will always be the train that no matter how hard it is driven cannot achieve the acceleration or top speed of the model train of that class .

No no - I'm saying it can account for consistencies and smooth them out, just like a driver does today. The only one I'm not sure about is passenger behaviour.

But yes, costs are another reason ATO would be preferable, although saying that on here means you're liable to get your get lopped off. Much better to explain how it can also provide improvements of driven services in terms of performance.

 

[notadriver]

Theknightwho :

Serious question -

I just wondered : do you see train drivers as high trained responsible professionals or overpaid unionised dinosaurs that could and should be phased out by automation as soon as possible?

 

[Hyphen]

Each workstation "normally" has the workstation it self, and an Internet enabled PC. They are not normally one and the same

Thanks for the clarification! Like I say, I've only seen press images of these setups - I've never looked too deeply into it

A very good job they are keeping the 'air gap', in my opinion

 

[mrmatt]

So with that in mind, do you still think any ATO control system will be "closed" and carry minimal risk? Just because it doesn't happen much (likelihood) doesn't mean the severity of any incident would also be low (quite the opposite, I'd have said). And choosing to ignore a risk because the likelihood is low is akin to security by obscurity. And a lot of people have learned the hard way with that over the years.

There is no more risk surely of an ATO system being hacked and the signalling system today (especially modern ROC style operations). The only slight benefit of a driver in this instance is hopefully a few seconds of emergency braking when they see that the green aspect presented was in fact an override from a hacker. I'm not convinced your hacking argument has been fully thought through either.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Similarly, I'm pretty sure also that after two minutes, an LUL train can start off and go through a red proceeding at sight to the next green signal (not at all signals but most). Why do we have to have complicated systems with flashing shunt signals on Thameslink to allow this, again making manual drivers more "expensive" as a complicated proceed at sight permission system has to be paid for?

Yup, they can do that at pretty much every non-junction signal! I'm not sure if there's something of greater complexity on the Thameslink route mandating a more expensive system.

You haven't thought this answer through at all. The signalling system is not closed; by its very nature it can't be. A closed system is one which sits alone in (presumably) a guarded building, with no connections to the 'outside world'. Depending on your definition of the word, the signalling system gets "hacked" on a regular basis.

Cable thefts are an all-too common occurrence on the railway (although one which feels like it's going down in my experience), and if the cables to the signals are the ones stolen, this is a primitive Denial of Service attack (even if it wasn't necessarily the motive of those doing it). Of course, this doesn't represent taking control of the signalling system, but this has happened in the past. The most famous incident being The Great Train Robbery, where the gang covered over the green aspect and lit the red aspect up with a battery. And that was possible in the 60s!

You state in a later post that GSM-R is most likely to be used for any sort of ATO communication - I agree that it's handily placed and designed for this sort of thing. But GSM-R is a radio system - it communicates wirelessly. For any 'hacker' interested in this sort of thing, that only makes the whole game easier! No longer do you need to physically turn up at the signal or splice a cable (and risk being seen) - all you'd need is to rock up at a car park near the line and stick an antenna on the roof. GSM (not specifically -R) itself is not infallible. The early GSM (2G) encryption was broken many years ago, and researchers did prove the ability to listen into calls made on live base stations. More recent editions of GSM (3G/LTE) did provide much more complex crypto between handset and base, but I don't know if these were written into the GSM-R spec. And I couldn't tell you what they are using. But it doesn't mean the more complex ones are unbreakable either.

Of course, there are then other attack vectors such as modern signalling centres - from press pictures I've seen, the workstations in there seem to have Internet access, and probably no "air gap" onto the actual underlying signalling system (even if there was, some way of remotely controlling the workstation's mouse would do it :P). There has been a lot of news in recent years about very expensive SCADA systems being vulnerable to this sort of thing. In reality this isn't much different.

So with that in mind, do you still think any ATO control system will be "closed" and carry minimal risk? Just because it doesn't happen much (likelihood) doesn't mean the severity of any incident would also be low (quite the opposite, I'd have said). And choosing to ignore a risk because the likelihood is low is akin to security by obscurity. And a lot of people have learned the hard way with that over the years.

Thanks for this
You're right about DoS attacks and the risks of that wouldn't change. I stand by what I said - while a MitM attack would be possible by terrorists splicing cables, this isn't a massive risk and not something we particularly need to worry about. ERTMS is reducing the risk of this, as while the data cables for conventional signals I believe are rather unsophisticated, modern systems can use digital signatures and encryption.

I can't find too much data about what's used in GSM-R, but it is a newer standard than mobile phone GSM and I'm sure care will have been taken. ECTS can obviously also mandate its own security requirements.

Theknightwho :

Serious question -

I just wondered : do you see train drivers as high trained responsible professionals or overpaid unionised dinosaurs that could and should be phased out by automation as soon as possible?

Nobody in this thread has said that or anything of the sort and you're just needlessly being provocative. The grown-ups among us are trying to have a sensible discussion here.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Nobody in this thread has said that or anything of the sort and you're just needlessly being provocative. The grown-ups among us are trying to have a sensible discussion here.

Let him answer the question himself, like a 'grown up'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Theknightwho :

Serious question -

I just wondered : do you see train drivers as high trained responsible professionals or overpaid unionised dinosaurs that could and should be phased out by automation as soon as possible?

To be fair to Theknightwho (and this is coming from a driver), he is taking quite a bit of flak and hasn't actually stated that he wants to see drivers replaced or otherwise. However He has pointed out (in detail) HOW drivers could be replaced. Nothing wrong with that, just clearly some knowledge of automated systems.

I don't think mass automation of the rail system will happen in my working lifetime and probably not in the working lifetime of most of the professionals on this site.

Why?

1) Because it simply isn't needed in anything like the scope that some people think it is.
2) Because the cost to benefit ratio is extremely poor given the current state of the network.
3) Because the capital outlay to get such a project running and bring the entire network up to scratch would be immense.
4) Because even in the 21st century, people don't want to hand over their safety to completely automated systems.


As I pointed out early in this thread, even the high tec airliners that can take off, fly and land themselves still need a crew. A previous poster highlighted the shortcomings the airline industry has experienced with an over reliance on technology. Crews so unskilled that they can't even perform basic flying maneuvers in emergency situations.

 

[455driver]

To be fair to Theknightwho (and this is coming from a driver), he is taking quite a bit of flak and hasn't actually stated that he wants to see drivers replaced or otherwise.

He does have history for being pro technology and anti rail staff (especially drivers)!

 

[Skoodle]

Similarly, I'm pretty sure also that after two minutes, an LUL train can start off and go through a red proceeding at sight to the next green signal (not at all signals but most). Why do we have to have complicated systems with flashing shunt signals on Thameslink to allow this, again making manual drivers more "expensive" as a complicated proceed at sight permission system has to be paid for?

We've had PoSAs for five years on the East London Line. They're not complicated and they help to get things moving again quicker after a signal failure. Unless you're the first train through you'll just pull up to the signal and see it flashing. Straight away you know that the route is set for you, points are locked and you can proceed. No stopping and calling signaller. No permission required to pass a signal at danger. Saying that though, in my four years here, I've never had the pleasure of experiencing one as they're only on signals protecting junctions and none of the signals that I've had to pass at danger have been at junctions!

 

[TheKnightWho]

He does have history for being pro technology and anti rail staff (especially drivers)!

I'm pro-technology, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-rail staff.

You've just repeatedly assumed that whenever this question's come up, and it's really frustrating.

 

[455driver]

I'm pro-technology, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-rail staff.

You've just repeatedly assumed that whenever this question's come up, and it's really frustrating.

I agree!

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

As a hypothetical discussion, good luck to anyone who takes part in it. BUT automated main line driverless rail operations will NEVER, EVER occur.

An entirely new form of transportation would replace trains first.

A computerised, driverless system would NEVER cope with the realities of main line freight, passenger and OTM operation, I've done al 3 and it's never going to work.

How the heck would a computer cope with : "Here mate, that one you brought in on 4 should have been on 6, bang it together with the one on 5, one's coming in on the dots behind you so bang that one on the arse end then shunt the whole lot out in a double shunt to 4, split them off and take the west end to the depot "

"The fittings as so and so are knakered, so to get to the possession, we're going to have to run you to here, cross you over and run you bang road to there to use the crossover on the down"

Everyday occurrences, many times a day, who's going to sit there and programme all those unexpected moves into your self-coupling freight and passenger rolling stock ?

 

[PermitToTravel]

Do you really think that any of this is at all more complicated than what driverless cars have to deal with?

 

[notadriver]

As a hypothetical discussion, good luck to anyone who takes part in it. BUT automated main line driverless rail operations will NEVER, EVER occur.



An entirely new form of transportation would replace trains first.



A computerised, driverless system would NEVER cope with the realities of main line freight, passenger and OTM operation, I've done al 3 and it's never going to work.

I agree here. I would expect any new high speed monorail system to be driverless for example but there would still be someone in charge on board.

 

[Domh245]

I don't think that *complete* automation will occur, there are some things that can't be handled by the computers, which would require a human to operate the train. I doubt that any ATO system would have to be taught route knowledge in the conventional sense of "from signal XY123 the following routes are available..." but would rather just need to be taught how to operate the train in it's most basic form, ATO tends to come from the signalling system where the train simply drives as fast as possible (determined by infrastructure) as far as it can (determined by the signalling system) safely, adjusting if necessary to remain on time, or if rail conditions change. Shunting moves tend to be human operated anyway, on the already automated LUL systems, drivers go in either coded or restricted manual in the depot carrying out shunting manoeuvres, up to a depot limit, where it picks up the signalling system and switches into Automatic.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't think that *complete* automation will occur, there are some things that can't be handled by the computers, which would require a human to operate the train. I doubt that any ATO system would have to be taught route knowledge in the conventional sense of "from signal XY123 the following routes are available..." but would rather just need to be taught how to operate the train in it's most basic form, ATO tends to come from the signalling system where the train simply drives as fast as possible (determined by infrastructure) as far as it can (determined by the signalling system) safely, adjusting if necessary to remain on time, or if rail conditions change. Shunting moves tend to be human operated anyway, on the already automated LUL systems, drivers go in either coded or restricted manual in the depot carrying out shunting manoeuvres, up to a depot limit, where it picks up the signalling system and switches into Automatic.

This. Especially when you get software that can literally improve itself as things go (or what we call learning), which means that the specific software on a particular train that takes commands from the signalling system will know how to drive the specific train it's on in the most optimised way. This stuff already exists, although not to the degree it'd be needed on trains just yet.

Computers are surprisingly clever, and it's terrifying how fast they're advancing. I'm still convinced the world's all going to end due to grey goo, or because someone tells a robot to produce paperclips, so it turns the rest of the universe into paperclips and we'll have no way to stop it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

 

[W230]

We've had PoSAs for five years on the East London Line.

Interesting. They're on the TL core and are coming in between London Bridge and New Cross Gate (installed but not yet operational). A bit off topic I know, but does anywhere else GB wide have them?

 

[Latecomer]

We've had PoSAs for five years on the East London Line. They're not complicated and they help to get things moving again quicker after a signal failure. Unless you're the first train through you'll just pull up to the signal and see it flashing. Straight away you know that the route is set for you, points are locked and you can proceed. No stopping and calling signaller. No permission required to pass a signal at danger. Saying that though, in my four years here, I've never had the pleasure of experiencing one as they're only on signals protecting junctions and none of the signals that I've had to pass at danger have been at junctions!

The trouble is though that on the occasion I know about when one was used most drivers were still calling up the signaller, which completely defeats the object. The resulting delays were disrupting services so much the line got suspended anyway!

Hopefully with the subsequent briefing this wouldn't happen again and drivers will proceed according to the rulebook!

 

[glbotu]

A quick question regarding what knowledge is required. Do drivers need a "cross-product knowledge" or just knowledge of route and traction separately.

For exampe, say you sign the ECML for East Coast. Do you have to sign ECML on HST, ECML on Class 91, or do you sign ECML and then sign HST and Class 91. This makes more sense if you add in additional routes. Say you sign 3 routes and 3 types of traction, does that mean you have to sign 6 things or 9 things (ie: each type of traction and how it behaves on a particular route, or just each type of traction and each route).

Does this question make sense?

 

[PermitToTravel]

That was answered somewhere upthread - just the traction and the routes, not the traction per-route

 

[W230]

The trouble is though that on the occasion I know about when one was used most drivers were still calling up the signaller, which completely defeats the object. The resulting delays were disrupting services so much the line got suspended anyway!

Hopefully with the subsequent briefing this wouldn't happen again and drivers will proceed according to the rulebook!

The same happened through the TL core when they first came in. But now they are as common as muck (well nearly). In fact had one today due to TCF as a result of flooding in Clerkenwell number 1 tunnel. Possibly a couple of months since my last.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Do you really think that any of this is at all more complicated than what driverless cars have to deal with?

Can't move for them round my way.....

Sorry, but if you think that driverless cars mean the end of traditional motoring, then you're deluded. SOME people will buy them, just as SOME people buy hybrids (and then found out that the cost to replace the battery pack after X years was more than the car was worth at the time they needed replacing).

But back on topic...

 

[PermitToTravel]

Sorry, but if you think that driverless cars mean the end of traditional motoring, then you're deluded.

I never said anything like that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Please stop trying to drag the thread down to your level.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Please stop trying to drag the thread down to your level.

The irony!

Brilliant.

 

[455driver]

Its nice to know that all these people who have never driven a train in theirs lives feel able and confident to answer a question that only a person who has actually done the job can actually answer with any degree of certainty!

But then, they are all exprurts on all things railway arent they! :roll:
Maybe us lowly railway staff should stop answering any questions about the railways for a couple of weeks and leave it all up to these exspurts and see how it goes?

Edit-
And why do they have to drag every fullipin thread off topic so they can let us know how clever these fullipin computers they know and love (which are going to replace all us militant staff ) are?

 

[Jamesb1974]

Its nice to know that all these people who have never driven a train in theirs lives feel able and confident to answer a question that only a person who has actually done the job can actually answer with any degree of certainty!

But then, they are all exprurts on all things railway arent they! :roll:
Maybe us lowly railway staff should stop answering any questions about the railways for a couple of weeks and leave it all up to these exspurts and see how it goes?

Edit-
And why do they have to drag every fullipin thread off topic so they can let us know how clever these fullipin computers they know and love (which are going to replace all us militant staff ) are?

Agreed. Wasn't this thread initially about route knowledge? Why and when did it morph into a discussion about automating the railway? Perhaps its a plot by disgruntled number takers and photters who are angry that they don't get waved at?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Its nice to know that all these people who have never driven a train in theirs lives feel able and confident to answer a question that only a person who has actually done the job can actually answer with any degree of certainty!

But then, they are all exprurts on all things railway arent they! :roll:
Maybe us lowly railway staff should stop answering any questions about the railways for a couple of weeks and leave it all up to these exspurts and see how it goes?

Edit-
And why do they have to drag every fullipin thread off topic so they can let us know how clever these fullipin computers they know and love (which are going to replace all us militant staff ) are?

Grow up. Not everyone is out to get you, and not everything has to be about you and how great you are.

This has been an interesting discussion, and all you've done is snipe from the side and act bitter that we aren't praising and worshiping drivers. Not everything is about you.

 

[Dieseldriver]

So with 455driver's occupation and source of mortgage repayments being train driving, he is not allowed to comment on a discussion about driverless trains? Confusing stuff.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So with 455driver's occupation and source of mortgage repayments being train driving, he is not allowed to comment on a discussion about driverless trains? Confusing stuff.

No-one is saying who can comment on what and when.

What I am saying is that being rude, dismissive and insulting is not productive or helpful, and in fact is pretty insulting to a number of other people on this forum who might actually have experience with the kinds of topics at hand as much as he might want to assume otherwise. But of course this is a free speech issue :roll:

 

[Jamesb1974]

What I am saying is that being rude, dismissive and insulting is not productive or helpful, and in fact is pretty insulting to a number of other people on this forum who might actually have experience with the kinds of topics at hand as much as he might want to assume otherwise. But of course this is a free speech issue

Sorry, but I don't think that any part of 455Drivers post could be called rude or insulting. Dismissive yes, but not rude or insulting.

Just out of interest, what is your experience with automation? Genuinely interested because if you have professional interest/experience it sort of puts you in the same boat as 455Driver and all the other drivers here. Defending your own interests etc. If you don't have one and are just a tech fan, then fair dos, but I thought I'd enquire.