Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The idea is usually to de-skill workers and also to try to make their contractual terms worse.

In one very small way I actually sympathise on the railways, let me be specific, this is a long story:

The person driving the train clearly needs to learn how to drive that particular model of train, I think that's likely true basically everywhere. The UK's railway systems are however also reliant on drivers knowing the route. A driver must be familiar with exactly the rails their train will pass over to get from A to B, knowing what to expect ahead for some distance at all times. So it's possible that Jim, who is sat in a coffee room right now can drive a 450, but he doesn't know the Waterloo to Portsmouth via Southampton crazy bypass that's in place due to track work, so he is not able to drive the Portsmouth train that's right there, full of passengers and will now instead be cancelled because the scheduled driver did not arrive. In many of the world's railway systems route knowledge is not crucial (it might be good but it's not required).

However, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-ding,_and_away the modern rulebook also requires that the Guard have route knowledge. In contrast to the driver this is much less valuable, but it means that now your Portsmouth train maybe has to be cancelled because although the driver intended was available or the standby could do your route, the only available Guard knows the ordinary Portsmouth route, not the weird one.

I think this is a situation where we should fix systems instead rather than hoping that route knowledge for guards makes it work. But this means the guard is arguably de-skilled and less valuable than before.

Most European railways require a driver to have done some route familiarization for most routes, which tends to work fairly well. What does not work very well is that the UK has very patchy and antiquated train safety systems (AWS / TPWS are somewhat rudimentary and deployed - by far - not everywhere) and signaling. Even speed restrictions in the UK are placed very, very tightly and you better know them by heart because they didn't get placed with the idea that the driver must have sufficient time to reduce speed / react between where they get a warning signal and where the restriction comes into effect.

I suspect the move from public to private ownership did adversely affect the upgrades of those, as well as electrification on several key routes.

If I remember correctly they do not even have something as basic as an electronic coursebook - which became mandatory in Germany in the 90s already. And at least in NL if you have a set of routes in a certain direction / route set - drivers would get route familiarization both for the main routes and for the bypasses.

It's pretty much global fwiw. I wrote route qualification software for places outside of Europe.

It should also be made clear that you don't need to get an actual qualification from a bureaucratic org. You basically just need to document the last time the driver drove the route with another qualified driver and then document that they've kept the qualification up to date. It's a documentation process and just not that onerous. Also absolutely required for any railway since trains don't stop or accelerate quickly. You need the drivers to know what's coming ahead and no amount of signage or signalling can beat knowing the route.

The only concern i have is the guard qualification. That does seem overboard but... i don't know the UK and chances are there's nuance to this. So i'd have concern with anyone reading GPs post and thinking this is the cause of UKs railway inefficiency.

> AWS / TPWS are somewhat rudimentary and deployed - by far - not everywhere

I don't think that's quite true. AWS is rudimentary, true (only forces acknowledgement of warning signals, but otherwise no speed supervision, braking curves or trainstop functionality), but AFAIK deployed almost everywhere, the only major exception I'm aware of being some complex but slow-speed station layouts.

And TPWS… while it doesn't do everything that a truly modern train protection system could do, together with the British practice of long enough overlaps (i.e. an additional safety distance beyond a stop signal that needs to be kept clear, too, in case of an overrun) it's still quite reasonably effective at preventing dangerous overruns. And its deployment has been indeed more gappy, but AFAIK junctions and major speed restrictions, where the biggest risks are, are still quite comprehensively fitted. The biggest gap are automatic signals on the plain line, but then again there haven't been many accidents at those.

> If I remember correctly they do not even have something as basic as an electronic coursebook - which became mandatory in Germany in the 90s already.

Part of that goes a long way back. One of the most fundamental differences is that the UK still does route signalling, whereas Germany completely switched to speed signalling at the beginning of the 1930s.

Route signalling means that the signals indicate the route the train will take, but not the exact speed, so if you want trains to operate safely but without excessive dawdling, route knowledge is a must.

Whereas with speed signalling, the signals directly indicate the safe speed for proceeding, so route knowledge, while still useful and necessary for other purposes, is no longer quite as crucially relevant. Consequently, in the UK ad-hoc diversions without route knowledge are quite taboo, whereas in Germany, emergency diversions due to short-notice incidents are mostly (except for some specific lines with more complex requirements) allowed, albeit with a speed restriction of 100 km/h.

That is an interesting difference. Also, from what I know, the German signaling is configured in such a way that there always be sufficient braking distance between signals - including speed reductions, whereas if you look at how tightly the UK speed signs are placed it seems that they do not give any "warning", they state the fact - and you better be prepared.

Assuming it’s similar to every other country; Route qualifications simply require first driving the route with another qualified driver. Once that is done you need to drive the route once every 6 months (this is in Australia ut i assume it’s the same) to keep that qualification up to date.

It’s not particularly onerous and understandably helpful for vehicles that take a long time to adjust speed.

The guard requirement does seem unnecessary though and is not a universal practice globally.

What makes knowing this route any more difficult than knowing the route you are driving on a road? Copenhagen has an automated metro system, so this doesn't seem like a particularly difficult problem.

So e.g. the UK does not have speed signalling. One yellow lamp illuminated means "Prepare to find the next signal at danger". OK, so, how fast can I go? Well, it depends, your route knowledge might tell you that the "next signal" is up a steep rise, you can go pretty fast, even if it is at danger that rise will scrub off all the speed and normal braking is enough. Or, you might know that there's a sharp bend soon and so even moderate speed is excessive because you'll de-rail on that bend.

In daylight there are speed signs but, trains accelerate and brake much more slowly than your car, so while they're a useful reminder you cannot correctly drive the train based on observing these signs. At night you may not see them at all.

Then does your route diverge? In some cases the intent to diverge is signalled, unlike speed, Flashing double yellow for example means "Prepare to find the next signal at: Prepare to find the next signal at danger" plus "Your route will diverge". However you really need to prepare some distance in advance of this information anyway in some cases, so you need to know, long before the signals and certainly long before being able to actually see it, that you will make a turn.

The UK also has unsignalled stations - places where a passenger train will ordinarily stop, and must obey signals, but there are no starting signals, so you need to remember whether you were under a cautionary signal say five minutes ago, which still applies now, even though meanwhile a dog escaped, some idiot threw yoghurt at people and then two hundred soccer fans boarded your train.

The "Driver's Reminder Appliance" is meant to help with this last part, it's basically just a button you can push, to remind you that you pushed the button and restore your mental state...

> In daylight there are speed signs but, trains accelerate and brake much more slowly than your car, so while they're a useful reminder you cannot correctly drive the train based on observing these signs.

Did the time it takes trains to accelerate and brake change recently? The time it takes to accelerate and brake should have been considered when placing the signs in the first place.

I imagine it's different for different types of trains. Freight trains probably stop a lot slower than small passenger trains.

That ding, ding and away issue seems straightforwardly solvable with a small amount of technology (the train could refuse to go without the signal saying it’s okay) or something like the Japanese pointing and calling system, or even both.

Frankly, something like positive train control or the European Train Control System should be table stakes at this point. It should be difficult or impossible for a driver unfamiliar with a route to cause a crash.

> It should be difficult or impossible for a driver unfamiliar with a route to cause a crash.

This is a question that's occurred to me in a different context. In Shanghai, there are subway stations where the passenger area is separated from the tracks by a floor-to-ceiling wall, making it impossible to drop something onto the tracks, fall onto the tracks, or get pushed onto the tracks.

There are also stations where there's no wall, and anyone can just shove you onto the tracks at any time.

The presence of a wall is highly predictable: newer stations have them, and older stations don't.

Should the older stations be renovated? That would be an increase in safety. It would also be a pretty substantial expense to address a mostly nonexistent problem. The wall is a good idea and it makes sense to include it when you're constructing a new station. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to add it to an existing station.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com