RSSB - 'New in cab display shows route ahead'

[HSTEd]

The arguments used against this technology from many of the people around here seem to be similar to the arguments that prevented trains, and especially multiple units, being fitted with speedometers for many years.
Having perfect route knowledge is not a foolproof solution, as Ladbroke Grove demonstrated.

Much of this information is a natural outgrowth of the information that will be provided by ETCS, and once the onboard equipment [as TASS already does] is calculating the train's position to a fairly high standard of accuracy then it seems reasonable to provide the driver with some form of moving map display displaying key features of the route ahead.
The computer can also use available gradient data to adjust recommended braking distances, and possibly even adjust for temperature and humidity recorded by the train.

Trying to fight these natural progressions of technology, apparently in fear for their terms and conditions, does not endear train crew to the public or anyone else for that matter.

 

[driver_m]

The arguments used against this technology from many of the people around here seem to be similar to the arguments that prevented trains, and especially multiple units, being fitted with speedometers for many years.
Having perfect route knowledge is not a foolproof solution, as Ladbroke Grove demonstrated.

Much of this information is a natural outgrowth of the information that will be provided by ETCS, and once the onboard equipment [as TASS already does] is calculating the train's position to a fairly high standard of accuracy then it seems reasonable to provide the driver with some form of moving map display displaying key features of the route ahead.
The computer can also use available gradient data to adjust recommended braking distances, and possibly even adjust for temperature and humidity recorded by the train.

Trying to fight these natural progressions of technology, apparently in fear for their terms and conditions, does not endear train crew to the public or anyone else for that matter.

Computers are not a foolproof solution either, as the Air France A320 flying itself into a wood also proved. Systems that are complementary to our knowledge help, if we still cannot use something simple like an electronic stopping pattern yet then the removal of our route knowledge is a long long time off, so to infer that t&c's are the main motivation for not wanting it is unfair. My first concern with any train I drive is making sure it keeps me safe, and therefore everyone will be safe too. Not losing terms and conditions.

 

[najaB]

...as the Air France A320 flying itself into a wood also proved....

I wish people would stop repeating this fallacy. The pilots flew it into the woods, the computer stopped it from stalling and falling from the sky like a rock.

 

[09065]

In the RAIB's report into the Wootton Bassett SPAD, it states:

90
Despite probably having adequate route knowledge, witness evidence and the
GSM-R call made to the signaller after the SPAD (paragraph 57) indicated that the
driver of train 1Z67 was unaware that he had missed signal SN43 on approach
to Wootton Bassett Junction. Had he realised that he had missed the signal, he
could have reduced the speed of his train accordingly and this may either have
avoided the SPAD or reduced the extent of the overrun.

91
There is no clear evidence as to why the driver did not apply his route knowledge
effectively on the approach to Wootton Bassett Junction on 7 March 2015,
although it may again be the case that he was distracted by the activity in the cab or because his workload was higher than normal and this may
have made it more likely that he would make an error.

If there is concern that activity in the cab can lead to a driver missing the sighting of the signal, then why are we in the railway industry so determined to introduce what is potentially more distractions in the cab?

What is more worrying is that just like Sat Nav, just like the calculator and just like the wider Internet search engine; this will simply let the drivers who take no pride in being a professional train driver become lazy and reliant on it. When it then fails, they could potentially become more dangerous than a professional driver now who has a lapse of concentration.


Note: I am not accusing any train driver of being unprofessional or having a go at the train driver community; I am merely pointing out that there are lazy people in all sections of life. I bet though the staff among us will be able to think of a lazy colleague.

 

[ComUtoR]

The arguments used against this technology from many of the people around here seem to be similar to the arguments that prevented trains, and especially multiple units, being fitted with speedometers for many years.
Having perfect route knowledge is not a foolproof solution, as Ladbroke Grove demonstrated.

(...)

Trying to fight these natural progressions of technology, apparently in fear for their terms and conditions, does not endear train crew to the public or anyone else for that matter.

I think you have grossly misinterpreted the views you mention.

Technology is a good thing but the big problem is the railways use of it. Things that "bolt on" are poorly implemented and will absolutely cause distraction. That poses more risk that any reward.

When technology is integrated into what we do on a daily basis it has huge benefits but it needs to a) have a reason for its use and b) compliment the skills we already have. I think Dave may have called this one right. It appears to be a solution looking for a problem.

Technology is needed and the railway does need to push forward. I can see a new problem where they appear to have opened up the floodgates to everyone and anyone and that these tech companies are throwing random tech at the railway in the hope of the big payday the railway offers. The rail industry appears to be like a child at Christmas playing with new shiny stuff. What they NEED is to bring the people who the tech affects into the development and procurement of this technology. The tech we do have is either way under utilised or totally bloated. We need to find a balance and to have tech that is useful and will reduce risks.

As to terms and conditions... Mine already have a clause to reflect new technology and I suspect other TOC's will too.

There is no fear. WE just know what we are talking about.

 

[driver_m]

I wish people would stop repeating this fallacy. The pilots flew it into the woods, the computer stopped it from stalling and falling from the sky like a rock.

Hardly a fallacy of the computer refused to allow them to override it. If it's a fallacy, why were procedures changed after it?

 

[Dave1987]

Deleted

 

[HSTEd]

Computers are not a foolproof solution either, as the Air France A320 flying itself into a wood also proved.

The Pilot commanded the plane fly into the wood, the computer simply prevented the plane from stalling out. It is not designed to normally override pilot inputs to prevent the pilot doing something bad outside of specific circumstances.
Indeed if the computer had not intervened it is likely that everyone would have died, instead of only three people.

Hardly a fallacy of the computer refused to allow them to override it. If it's a fallacy, why were procedures changed after it?

Computer doesn't intervene, pilot attempts climb, stalls and belly flops onto the deck.
Everyone dies.

 

[455driver]

Might stop all the fail to calls and other incidents though..

First post and its a dig at drivers competency, you will fit in well on here! :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Samsung Tab 4's with a DB specific app that shows timing points and how you are running compared to the schedule.

And the signallers love it when they give a 60mph freight a run in front of some class 1s only to see it tootle along at 30mph hitting the class 1s big time because the computer says its early and the company driving policy on saving fuel kicks in!

 

[Dave1987]

The Pilot commanded the plane fly into the wood, the computer simply prevented the plane from stalling out. It is not designed to normally override pilot inputs to prevent the pilot doing something bad outside of specific circumstances.
Indeed if the computer had not intervened it is likely that everyone would have died, instead of only three people.



Computer doesn't intervene, pilot attempts climb, stalls and belly flops onto the deck.
Everyone dies.

There was a lot lot more to that crash than that! It wasn't simply a pilot flying his aircraft into the wood. And at the time the A320 family were pretty new aircraft and fly-by wire flight envelope protection was in its infancy. And as has been shown numerous times in aviation the computer is only as good as the data it is provided with. This is definitely lots of money on a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. HSTEd I would love to know what problem you believe this solves?

 

[455driver]

The computer can also use available gradient data to adjust recommended braking distances, and possibly even adjust for temperature and humidity recorded by the train.

Yeah of course it will!
Will it allow for leaf fall, shaded areas, the glue factory beside the track etc?
No thought not, your high opinion of technological solutions to non problems is immense!

Trying to fight these natural progressions of technology, apparently in fear for their terms and conditions, does not endear train crew to the public or anyone else for that matter.

What exactly is the improvement over and above what is in my head?
It only tells me what I already know!

DAS is such a brilliant system, telling us to coast at the bottom of hills (Hemerdon for one), accelerate before descending hills, and nottelling us anything when the train is running late!

 

[infobleep]

First post and its a dig at drivers competency, you will fit in well on here! :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the signallers love it when they give a 60mph freight a run in front of some class 1s only to see it tootle along at 30mph hitting the class 1s big time because the computer says its early and the company driving policy on saving fuel kicks in!

Perhaps in time they will learn not to give the freight the first path and me them wait.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The arguments used against this technology from many of the people around here seem to be similar to the arguments that prevented trains, and especially multiple units, being fitted with speedometers for many years.
Having perfect route knowledge is not a foolproof solution, as Ladbroke Grove demonstrated.

Much of this information is a natural outgrowth of the information that will be provided by ETCS, and once the onboard equipment [as TASS already does] is calculating the train's position to a fairly high standard of accuracy then it seems reasonable to provide the driver with some form of moving map display displaying key features of the route ahead.
The computer can also use available gradient data to adjust recommended braking distances, and possibly even adjust for temperature and humidity recorded by the train.

Trying to fight these natural progressions of technology, apparently in fear for their terms and conditions, does not endear train crew to the public or anyone else for that matter.

Why were they against speedometers? Perhaps we should go back to not having them? Just because we have something, doesn't mean it's right!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[hounddog]

What exactly is the improvement over and above what is in my head?
It only tells me what I already know!

And of course you are 100% infallible and never ever make a mistake. It must be great being perfect.

That's your normal response when someone picks up on a driver's error isn't it?

 

[455driver]

And of course you are 100% infallible and never ever make a mistake. It must be great being perfect.

That's your normal response when someone picks up on a driver's error isn't it?

Answer the question instead of just bitching will you, assuming you understood the question and have an answer of course!

How exactly will this help me do my job, I have a bit of paper with the stops on it so what can this Tablet do better than that, they both have to be looked at?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And of course you are 100% infallible and never ever make a mistake. It must be great being perfect.

As I have been driving for <cough> years and have never made a mistake I must be!

That's your normal response when someone picks up on a driver's error isn't it?

I am all for improvements and driver aids but I fail to see where this is either, its just another distraction and source of light pollution in the cab!

 

[Dave1987]

And of course you are 100% infallible and never ever make a mistake. It must be great being perfect.

That's your normal response when someone picks up on a driver's error isn't it?

Without wanting to turn this into a giant argument, could you please explain what problem you believe this solves? If there is an issue that I or others have over looked then fine.

 

[hounddog]

Without wanting to turn this into a giant argument, could you please explain what problem you believe this solves? If there is an issue that I or others have over looked then fine.

I can't believe that no driver has ever forgotten briefly where they are. A system that backs up the route knowledge has to be a good thing, surely?

 

[Dave1987]

I can't believe that no driver has ever forgotten briefly where they are. A system that backs up the route knowledge has to be a good thing, surely?

Well considering how much I drive my route then I know it pretty dam well. Even in the dark I know exactly where I am. I don't believe that this system could give me much info that I don't already know except maybe what every single bridge and foot crossing is called but considering most Signallers only know where the main level crossings, bridges and neutral sections are that doesn't really have much practical use. The only time I can see it being of use is for routes you rarely use but do sign.

 

[najaB]

I may have missed something, but isn't this system intended to interface with the signalling and also show the route set ahead as well?

 

[cjmillsnun]

That worries me. It then becomes a safety critical piece of equipment and drivers will probably be let through with route knowledge that isn't quite as thorough as it should be.

Should it fail, and drivers route knowledge is not as good as it could be doesn't bear thinking about to me.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

Well as a driver, of a train, I'd ask the following questions :

1) As a qualified driver, with route knowledge would I use any form of "sat nav" even if it was provided ?

Answer : NO

2) As a dumbed down or less trained driver without route knowledge, could "sat nav" be used and relied upon without major incidents occuring ?

Answer NO

Ergo, what's the point on spending huge amounts of dosh on a system that's not required and could not be relied upon.

Enough lorries drive into ponds using satnav, and driving on the roads bears no resemblance to driving a train !

spend the money on something more useful, like decent traction !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well considering how much I drive my route then I know it pretty dam well. Even in the dark I know exactly where I am. I don't believe that this system could give me much info that I don't already know except maybe what every single bridge and foot crossing is called but considering most Signallers only know where the main level crossings, bridges and neutral sections are that doesn't really have much practical use. The only time I can see it being of use is for routes you rarely use but do sign.

There is already a thing that gives you the name of every foot crossing if you need it once every 10,000 trips, it cost 50 pence to print and lives in the bottom of your bag, it's made of paper and called a route map

Why spend x zillion £ on an electronic version of a 50 pence bit of paper ?

 

[Bromley boy]

Solution looking for a problem?

Absolutely right. Technology for technology's sake.

I can't see that this offers anything over and above route knowledge, and could very well serve as a distraction. Drivers drive the same core routes day in day out and know them intimately. Therefore information like where the next signal is, junctions etc. should be in their heads.

On the other hand it's easy to see how this type of technology could be cynically exploited by TOCs to reduce training costs and justify sending drivers to drive routes they lack the requisite knowledge of. Of course none of these "savings" would be passed to fare payers.

We already have the safest railway in Europe, largely because of the high quality knowledge and training of safety critical staff. What could this possibly do to improve that situation?

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah of course it will!
Will it allow for leaf fall, shaded areas, the glue factory beside the track etc?
No thought not, your high opinion of technological solutions to non problems is immense!

Does the traction knowledge you learn tell you about this?
Are these problems recorded anywhere for the purpose of helping with teaching or does everyone learn them by overshooting at least once

There is no reason a section of track cannot be marked as having degraded adhesion factors like a glue factory - although are there any of those left thanks to glorious free market economics? :P

DAS is such a brilliant system, telling us to coast at the bottom of hills (Hemerdon for one), accelerate before descending hills, and nottelling us anything when the train is running late!

Those systems are horrible bodge jobs without adequate interface to the signalling system.
Since ETCS is coming it will be possible to engineer a system that won't suffer the same issues. As it will know to an absolute certainty where you are.

Why were they against speedometers? Perhaps we should go back to not having them? Just because we have something, doesn't mean it's right!

The union declared that a true railwayman had no need of a speedometer since he should be able to feel how fast the train was moving.
Speedometers were merely the tools of the strikebreakers and scabs.

And since traction knowledge is perfect and apparently infallible, clearly there is no need to spend money putting up all the signage we currently have on the track side.

Since it is just telling people what they already know and distracts the drivers.
The fact remains that faulty route knowledge has got people killed before and it almost certainly will again.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

does the traction knowledge you learn tell you about this?
Are these problems recorded anywhere for the purpose of helping with teaching or does everyone learn them by overshooting at least once



How does traction knowledge tell me about that ? It tells me where mrpic is, not where the glue factory is ?




There is no reason a section of track cannot be marked as having degraded adhesion factors like a glue factory - although are there any of those left thanks to glorious free market economics?

it is marked, on the sectional appendix, on your route maps, and in the route knowledge of the drivers who instruct new drivers over the route


those systems are horrible bodge jobs without adequate interface to the signalling system.
Since etcs is coming it will be possible to engineer a system that won't suffer the same issues. As it will know to an absolute certainty where you are.

i know with absolute certainty where i am, it's called route knowledge, i don't need to think ; "hang on is there a 30 prs near here, hold on, scroll to page 50, yes there is at 30m 40c, oh ballox i'm at 31 m 10c, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

 

[najaB]

And since traction knowledge is perfect and apparently infallible, clearly there is no need to spend money putting up all the signage we currently have on the track side.

Since it is just telling people what they already know and distracts the drivers.
The fact remains that faulty route knowledge has got people killed before and it almost certainly will again.

I must confess I'm a bit surprised by the 'there is no way technology can be useful' attitude displayed by some members. I can totally understand rejecting something once tests show it to be impractical, but the level of pre-judgement is quite shocking.

 

[Domh245]

Does the traction knowledge you learn tell you about this?
Are these problems recorded anywhere for the purpose of helping with teaching or does everyone learn them by overshooting at least once

Instructors tend to be quite knowledgeable about the routes that they instruct, including places with typically low adhesion

There is no reason a section of track cannot be marked as having degraded adhesion factors like a glue factory - although are there any of those left thanks to glorious free market economics? :P

Like having relatively cheap signs to indicate them? (Halfway or so down the page)

Those systems are horrible bodge jobs without adequate interface to the signalling system.
Since ETCS is coming it will be possible to engineer a system that won't suffer the same issues. As it will know to an absolute certainty where you are.

Agreed, but is it really necessary for these current systems to be used if ETCS is soon to replace them?

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

I must confess I'm a bit surprised by the 'there is no way technology can be useful' attitude displayed by some members. I can totally understand rejecting something once tests show it to be impractical, but the level of pre-judgement is quite shocking.

Who's against technology, FFS improve our ancient traction, but don't spend the money on some pointless system that adds to risk

 

[najaB]

i know with absolute certainty where i am, it's called route knowledge...

Just like pilots who knew exactly where they were, it was the hill/mountain that wasn't where it was supposed to be. :roll:

 

[Bromley boy]

Just like pilots who knew exactly where they were, it was the hill/mountain that wasn't where it was supposed to be. :roll:

Or the ones so reliant on technology, they forgot basic flying skills. Air France 447.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Potentially I can see a deviation applied in degraded working where you could, if fitted with DSS, take a route you don't sign. The usual speed caveats would apply.

That was my first thought, that if this were introduced it might be possible for a driver whose train is stuck behind a blockage to be given authorisation to use a diversion route he/she doesn't sign, at a reduced speed, to keep things moving.

Although I can't imagine drivers or their unions being too keen on that idea though, understandably.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted