RSSB - 'New in cab display shows route ahead'

[Dave1987]

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.

But I fall to see the problem this solving. No one has yet pointed out a problem that this will solve.

 

[Skutter]

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!

If only the driver had a handy display in the cab to show there was a class 1 behind them...

To continue the aircraft crossover: the signaller says to the freight driver "if you can maintain 60mph I don't have to loop you here" and everyone knows what they're doing. Much like ATC do every day. Why can't the railway aspire to that simple level of communication?

 

[Llanigraham]

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.

How much do you know about ETCS?
Do you actually have any experience of working with or talking to those that do use ERTMS?

I think I know the answer to that from the reply above.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How similar will the info given by this be to the "realtime" info you get at the bottom of the screen when playing Train Simulator?

 

[najaB]

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

AF447 is a bad example to use as the root cause was that the crew lost situational awareness. The same accident could have (and has) happened in non-automated aircraft. If they had left the controls alone then they would have been fine. As it was, one pilot had the stick full aft all the way down trying to do the low-level recovery procedure, while the other was making forward movements.

A better example would be TK1951 or OZ214, they both were definitely caused by over-dependence on automation as the flight crew assumed the auto-throttle was in control when it wasn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think I know the answer to that from the reply above.

ETCS Level 3 requires reliable, precise position information. There's a reason that it hasn't be deployed in anger yet.

 

[455driver]

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.

I wouldn't mind doing that, as long as I have got a signed letter from somebody in authority saying they will take responsibility for any eff ups I make while working over the route I don't know or sign.

 

[Dave1987]

AF447 is a bad example to use as the root cause was that the crew lost situational awareness. The same accident could have (and has) happened in non-automated aircraft. If they had left the controls alone then they would have been fine. As it was, one pilot had the stick full aft all the way down trying to do the low-level recovery procedure, while the other was making forward movements.

What? On AF447 the pitot tubes were icing up so we're giving the ADIRU unreliable data so the auto flight system could not control the aircraft properly so the auto pilot kicked out and handed control to the flight crew who were both the most inexperienced members of crew on board. They could not figure out why the auto pilot had given up control of the aircraft. And in the end they did not do the most basic thing in aviation, fly the plane! That was arguably to do with the reliance on automation. Anyway it doesn't really have anything to do with this.

 

[carriageline]

Delete, misunderstood

 

[najaB]

What? On AF447 the pitot tubes were icing up so we're giving the ADIRU unreliable data...

The data was unreliable for something on the order of 30 seconds. The rest of the time they were providing perfectly correct data - the pilots just refused to believe that data because it didn't fit their mental model of what was happening.

And in any case, full aft stick isn't the correct procedure for flight with unreliable airspeed.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

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

What the heck has that got to do with train driving ? First time someone dumps a mountain in the four foot I'll be sure to let you know .

 

[Mintona]

I don't get this to be honest. I drive the same routes everyday, and I know exactly where I am, what the speed limit is, where the next station is etc. I just don't see how this helps?

And if this is linked up to the signalling system, it'll cause more issues. If I can see on my display that a signal a mile ahead is yellow, I'll probably start braking earlier, and cause more delays. And at some point, it will display the wrong aspect. Most likely show me the signal ahead is green when it's actually red, and then I'll have a spad.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To continue the aircraft crossover: the signaller says to the freight driver "if you can maintain 60mph I don't have to loop you here" and everyone knows what they're doing. Much like ATC do every day. Why can't the railway aspire to that simple level of communication?

A train driver can't just talk to the signaller at the drop of a hat, because he is too busy driving the train. A pilot will often have a plane on autopilot and so is free to speak to air traffic control. And if he is manually flying then his co-pilot can speak to ATC instead. However, a freight driver approaching a complex junction isn't going to speak to the signaller as he is concentrating on the route ahead.

A better solution would be the re-introduction of secondmen with appropriate route knowledge. They can work together on calling out signals and speeds, and one can answer the phone and talk to the signaller whilst the other concentrates on driving the train.

 

[najaB]

What the heck has that got to do with train driving ? First time someone dumps a mountain in the four foot I'll be sure to let you know .

The point is that relying *solely* on dead reckoning and knowledge has killed people. It's caused accidents on the railway as well, though - as you point out - less frequently due to the relatively static nature of the infrastructure.

Maybe this system is an improvement, maybe it's not - I don't do the job so can't really comment.

What interests me is that so many drivers seem to have the attitude that the current operating model is perfect and there's no way that technology can make your jobs easier or safer.

 

[Mintona]

In the old days you just had to say to the traction inspector that you were happy with a route and you would be let loose on it.

In this day and age, being allowed to drive alone on a route is far more in depth. When you sign a route, you have to do a written assessment which asks questions about every (controlled) signal, junction, tunnel, station, multispad signals, gradients, areas of known low adhesion, external factors to the railway. You also have to do a practical driver over the route, repeating the things in the written assessment as you get to them. Nobody is signing off a route unless they are absolutely spot on on it. And this knowledge is re-assessed at least once a year for senior drivers, and far more regularly for more junior drivers. I'm in my 4th year of driving and I get assessed every 2 months to make sure all my knowledge is still up to scratch.

So I can't see how this technology will aid me. I don't feel like I could know anymore about my routes, and I don't think that looking down at an iPad when I could be looking out the front of a train is any better, or safer, than proper route knowledge.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

As a poster has already said, this is a solution looking for a problem. The only benefit I could perhaps see is if there is heavy fog (Even then not always an issue) Provided TOCs actually give drivers the diversion route training, there isn't even much of an argument for its use on diversions. The Ipad would just sit there, wasted, with many drivers not needing to look at it once.

There is nothing wrong with the current setup whereby you're regularly assessed on route knowledge and have to know it inside out. Drivers driving the same routes in/out every day are not going to need a piece of equipment reminding them of said knowledge constantly. Drivers are clearly capable of remembering the vast levels of information required and execute it to a very high standard. The consistent assessments as Mintona explains reinforces the knowledge. I know an LM driver who had to do the exact same sort of regime during training, and it is very thorough and imbeds it into your head.

I think there are far more important matters that justify investment/implementation as opposed to a system that in practice is likely to make very little difference.

 

[carriageline]

I can't see it displaying signal aspects, there's no way to get that information to the in cab display.

RTT and the like use the train describer, but most of them don't have that capability, and I'm fairly sure it will only tell the system if it's a proceed or not. Even then, that's not safety critical so I doubt it can be used in this nature


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

So I can't see how this technology will aid me. I don't feel like I could know anymore about my routes, and I don't think that looking down at an iPad when I could be looking out the front of a train is any better, or safer, than proper route knowledge.

Do we know for a fact that any practical implementation would actually involve a tablet device? There was a suggestion up-thread that it could be projected onto a heads-up display or similar.

If you had your speed, position and the route ahead displayed where you could see it without having to stop looking out of the window, would you be in favor or against?

 

[Dave1987]

Do we know for a fact that any practical implementation would actually involve a tablet device? There was a suggestion up-thread that it could be projected onto a heads-up display or similar.

If you had your speed, position and the route ahead displayed where you could see it without having to stop looking out of the window, would you be in favor or against?

I would much rather see them spend the money on things like proper simulators, to the same degree as what the airline industry have.

 

[Mintona]

I wouldn't mind the speed being displayed on an HUD. I don't see how you could display the rest easily, so you could still see through it clearly. And considering that the trains I drive still dispose of toilet waste on to the tracks, I don't see them being fitted with HUDs anytime soon!

And the very first post has a picture of a tablet with a display, so I'm not sure that HUDs are even being remotely considered.

 

[GadgetMan]

Do we know for a fact that any practical implementation would actually involve a tablet device? There was a suggestion up-thread that it could be projected onto a heads-up display or similar.

If you had your speed, position and the route ahead displayed where you could see it without having to stop looking out of the window, would you be in favor or against?

There are numerous threads on this forum where people keep banging on about keeping the railway's running costs down as ultimately all costs must be passed onto the passengers through increased fares.

As a number of others have asked, what benefit would the additional £millions cost bring, over how we currently Drive?

During good weather with decent rail head conditions I Brake with 50%/step 2 for stations at the optimum braking point for each station. I can't see any information only system suggesting such optimum braking points, instead it would always have to allow extra distance/time. On a crowded line like the WCML it would cause chaos during peak times, think all year round leaf fall.

Some posts have mentioned Fog, I can't speak for all Drivers but even during fog I can see the route/landmarks/features played out in my head. The only part affected during thick fog is the final approach to stations where instead of hitting platforms at 30-45 mph I'll reduce speed to 25 mph as the platform doesn't become visible until you hit the platform ramp. Similarly I reduce speed earlier on the approach to a Red signal. Would a electronic device encourage me to ditch this form of defensive Driving? No.

So, as a passenger why would you want to bear this additional cost through fares?

 

[najaB]

And the very first post has a picture of a tablet with a display, so I'm not sure that HUDs are even being remotely considered.

Often times a proof of concept device bears no resemblance to the finished product - I'm trying to move the discussion past "that won't work" to get an idea of what might actually be useful.

 

[ComUtoR]

I already posted in how it could be useful. Like others, I am struggling to find another use for this. As a learning tool it could have a use. Operationally I'm not convinced yet. The only use I see is the one I posted earlier.

As a tool, these things are good but when they get mandated for use they cause more problems and are typically broken or not fit for purpose.

 

[coppercapped]

Often times a proof of concept device bears no resemblance to the finished product - I'm trying to move the discussion past "that won't work" to get an idea of what might actually be useful.

Increasingly the design of civil structures is entirely done on computers. In the case of the Crossrail tunnels and stations there is a complete three dimension model of all the structures and the type and position of kit in the various rooms as well as all the pipe and cable runs. In the case of Crossrail the built structures are scanned by laser and the 'as-built' data is stored along with the 'as-designed' data.

There are applications available for tablet computers which can display the night sky and align the display to the actual sky using a combination of GPS and the inbuilt accelerometers so the stars you are looking at can be identified. This concept is being extended to Crossrail, point the iPad at a wall and all the pipe and cable runs behind the cladding will be shown on the screen superimposed on the camera image. This is possible using GPS and, when underground, by a series of Bluetooth positioning beacons.

I can see the tablet application being extended in this way. As more of the network is recorded digitally then it can be called up and displayed in a way which is most helpful to the user. For example in fog the position of the platform could be shown on a screen enabling the driver to make a faster approach. The display device may not be a tablet, though it could be. Positions of walkways beside the tracks and signal post telephones - which are not always on the signal post! - could be stored and the position of emergency access steps on embankments and in cuttings could be shown at night by swinging the tablet around. The sky's the limit - think of it as extending route knowledge to cover additional features - and also as an aide memoire in emergencies - rather than replacing it.

 

[455driver]

So basically it will show us pretty pictures of the station we are approaching, really useful, not.

An expensive solution to a non problem, a better idea would be decent simulators with actual routes on them (instead of the made up ones we have now) would be more useful but they can't even manage that because it's too expensive and here they are about to waste millions of pound the railway can't afford on this vanity project thought up by somebody who has never done or found out what our job is all about.

 

[MrPIC]

My TOC is implementing a CAS system (still no sign yet, trying to fit an ipad bracket on 35 year old stock is proving hard!), and I was lucky enough to be involved in a trial run of it with a manager. All it did was essentially mirror what my sheila said; headcode, unit diagrams, calling pattern, timing points. The only "trick" it had was to suggest that if you were running early, you could "consider" coasting.
Now the trouble is, I know on my route where I can coast from X speed, and reach the speed change without braking and still be on time. I know this because route knowledge. Having an ipad tell me this just seems wasteful. Its a good idea having traction manuals, WONs, PONs and route atlas' on there as it cuts down what I have to lug about in my bag.
A more pressing technological improvement in the cab would be a clock! Just a little digital clock somewhere other than my wrist would be all the tech I ask for!

 

[coppercapped]

So basically it will show us pretty pictures of the station we are approaching, really useful, not.

An expensive solution to a non problem, a better idea would be decent simulators with actual routes on them (instead of the made up ones we have now) would be more useful but they can't even manage that because it's too expensive and here they are about to waste millions of pound the railway can't afford on this vanity project thought up by somebody who has never done or found out what our job is all about.

You obviously can't read what is written. I did not write that "it will show us pretty pictures" but I tried to explain what the technology could do using examples already in existence. I was contributing an answer to najaB's question "to get an idea of what might actually be useful."

And where did the "millions of pounds" come from? Another straw man.

If you want to be snide, do it elsewhere.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So basically it will show us pretty pictures of the station we are approaching, really useful, not.

An expensive solution to a non problem, a better idea would be decent simulators with actual routes on them (instead of the made up ones we have now) would be more useful but they can't even manage that because it's too expensive and here they are about to waste millions of pound the railway can't afford on this vanity project thought up by somebody who has never done or found out what our job is all about.

It does start to solve a problem, the value of a train driver. Drivers get used to watching their route on a screen, then it becomes like satnav and route knowledge goes out the window, it becomes "an essential bit of kit", then anyone can be a train driver with little or no training.

 

[TheKnightWho]

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, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Yeah, because I'm sure they'd implement it like that.

And your comment about lorries driving into ponds is ridiculous: that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore now that the technology has matured.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So basically it will show us pretty pictures of the station we are approaching, really useful, not.

An expensive solution to a non problem, a better idea would be decent simulators with actual routes on them (instead of the made up ones we have now) would be more useful but they can't even manage that because it's too expensive and here they are about to waste millions of pound the railway can't afford on this vanity project thought up by somebody who has never done or found out what our job is all about.

Because "pretty pictures" are the only way that data could be used?

I notice in these kinds of threads you always conjure up an incredibly sub-optimal implementation of these kinds of systems and then explain all the problems with it, instead of using an ounce of imagination to see how it could be used in a way that is genuinely useful to you.

And on your comment earlier about slighting drivers: if all drivers' route knowledge is perfect, then there would be no missed stops, overspeeds or driver-fault SPADs. That is not the case. It doesn't matter if you think your knowledge is perfect - even if it is, you can't speak for everyone.

 

[carriageline]

I do love people's optimism at times. I've seen plenty of scheme plans, ideas of things etc etc that looks great on paper. By the time we get the real things, it's been hacked to pieces, dumbed down and in reality doesn't offer much improvement as the railway decided it's too expensive and wants a cheaper version!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ComUtoR]

And on your comment earlier about slighting drivers: if all drivers' route knowledge is perfect, then there would be no missed stops, overspeeds or driver-fault SPADs. That is not the case. It doesn't matter if you think your knowledge is perfect - even if it is, you can't speak for everyone.

Those incidents are typically NOT down to route knowledge. If anything, route knowledge doesn't have many incidents attributed to it.

The problem is that those who know that can't see how this would be a benefit or how it will try to reduce incident. This is telling people what they already know.

If they do want to go down the route of removing route knowledge and that this becomes a "satnav" then I would certainly question the safety aspect. I would also like, as 455 rightly said, total absolution in the event of the computer making a mistake or if I followed the computer to the letter then whatever the outcome then there is no liability.

Those that are in support of this should be telling us why this is a good thing and how it will help rather than criticising the naysayers. So far good reasons have been given against this "satnav" but nothing that I see has supported it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Those incidents are typically NOT down to route knowledge. If anything, route knowledge doesn't have many incidents attributed to it.

The problem is that those who know that can't see how this would be a benefit or how it will try to reduce incident. This is telling people what they already know.

If they do want to go down the route of removing route knowledge and that this becomes a "satnav" then I would certainly question the safety aspect. I would also like, as 455 rightly said, total absolution in the event of the computer making a mistake or if I followed the computer to the letter then whatever the outcome then there is no liability.

Those that are in support of this should be telling us why this is a good thing and how it will help rather than criticising the naysayers. So far good reasons have been given against this "satnav" but nothing that I see has supported it.

So the most important part is in the original post: it allows drivers to retain a greater quantity of route knowledge than they otherwise would do, which would improve operational flexibility. That's from even the quickest skim of the details.