FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rail Strikes

Rail Strikes

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Watched a government minister on TV giving evidence to a parliamentary select committee.

He was asked about whether the cost so far in government subsidies to rail companies and the lost revenue from the strikes, was much more than the pay rise demands. Therefore wouldn't it have been easier to have given the pay rise and avoided the strikes.

His response was, it was as much about the introduction of safety technology on trains and inspection of tracks and reducing staff.

After the debacle of smart motorways and the safety issues there, are people happy to trust technology with such a crucial issue. My opinion is, safety should be a back up for humans not a replacement for them, in matters where any technology errors could lead to tragedies like they did on the smart motorways.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"After the debacle of smart motorways and the safety issues there, are people happy to trust technology with such a crucial issue. My opinion is, safety should be a back up for humans not a replacement for them, in matters where any technology errors could lead to tragedies like they did on the smart motorways."

The problem with smart motorways is that it's just a slogan. There are no smart systems in the motorway, the work is all done by a bunch of humans in a control centre watching things over cameras.

Humans like to think that they are the best things on the planet, but in reality we're rubbish at some activities. Humans get bored, they get tired, they slack off, and sometimes they're just incompetent.

Where safety is concerned, machines are much better than humans.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The problem with smart motorways is that it's just a slogan. There are no smart systems in the motorway, the work is all done by a bunch of humans in a control centre watching things over cameras.

Where safety is concerned, machines are much better than humans."

Maybe your right. But then again machines can cause errors with massive consequences too. For examples, there's been countless cases of false alarms of a nuclear attack by the U.S.A on the Soviet Union and vice versa. It was only humans double checking and verifying that saved the day.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ove2pleaseseukMan over a year ago

Hastings

The DLR has run problem free for years and no drivers.

Phase in tec with driers and see has to be the way.A person can miss a red light technology won't.

But the fale safe will be all stop. So there will be problems.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ackal1Couple over a year ago

Manchester

The problem with smart motorways is that it's just a slogan. There are no smart systems in the motorway, the work is all done by a bunch of humans in a control centre watching things over cameras.

Where safety is concerned, machines are much better than humans."

I think a small number of Motorways have the automatic system which detects a problem and closes a lane but due to the cost it was not rolled out on all new “smart” motorways so humans are watching instead.

Personally I think turning the hard shoulder which is a basic safety feature into a running lane is an example of the lack of long term planning ingrained in our government.

Increasing capacity on the cheap was always going to be like putting a sticking a plaster on a broken leg.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

"The DLR has run problem free for years and no drivers.

Phase in tec with driers and see has to be the way.A person can miss a red light technology won't.

But the fale safe will be all stop. So there will be problems."

Full automation is still a very long way off. And it’s questionable whether its benefits would outweigh its shortcomings, not least that of cost. It’s likely to be cheaper to continue to pay the rare kind of humans that can meet the requirements for being a train driver than it would ever be to go automated. Every feasibility study run so far on autonomous trains for just the tube puts the cost into the trillions; enough to pay human drivers for a thousand years.

The DLR is a very low speed “light railway”, with no level crossings, no open countryside, no conflicting movements, is only 24 miles long, and was built from the ground up to be automated. Although they are often run in automatic mode, every train carries a member of staff capable of driving the train.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

if you want to see what happend the last time we cut back on track inspections and relied on ultrasonic mobile testing over experianced staff walking the line on a regular basis inspecting the line with a mark one eyeball which is what the govt want google Hatfield 2005 .sobering reading

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *atssleepanywhereTV/TS over a year ago

Wolverhampton

The strikes are being encouraged by the tory government as a way to cut and cut and cut. They want people to return to work in offices and do everything they can to make commuting unaffordable and unrealistic. I've every expectation that I'll never see retirement, more likely to die in a preventable rail disaster

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The DLR has run problem free for years and no drivers.

Phase in tec with driers and see has to be the way.A person can miss a red light technology won't.

But the fale safe will be all stop. So there will be problems."

Driverless enclosed systems like the underground and DLR are relatively simple. The national rail network os a very different beast indeed. We'll not see a fully driverless rail network in the UK in our lifetimes.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oubleswing2019Man over a year ago

Colchester

Here's a poser for you.

You have, let's say, 100 stations.

And a safety review highlights a possible risk where a train that comes in to the station might not quite align to the platform. As the doors open, the very last carriage isn't quite aligned to the platform, and a passenger can step out and fall on to the track.

A train with a guard would identify that risk and tell the driver to nudge forward a bit more.

But those extra guards are being gotten rid of, leaving just the driver.

There is no way the driver can know the train is fully on the platform. Not 100% of the time.

So the safety review identifies that risk. And the fix is, let's say, £1 million per station installing specialist signalling equipment and comms.

That's 100 million to cover the whole network.

Or..you don't upgrade the network. This means you are liable when an accident does occur and someone gets injured. You might see perhaps 1 fatality in 3 years ? That might cost you 2-3 million in damages.

It's a decision the train operators have to take in to account. Spend 100 million now or 3 million or so every few years to pay off grieving families.

You could look at it another way. By not installing the safety equipment, you have saved 100 million. When someone dies and you have to pay the family 3 million, you have still saved 97 million.

So I do stand with the rail strikers, as it's not just about pay and conditions but other elements of their jobs and passenger safety that the operators are not being completely open about.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"Here's a poser for you.

You have, let's say, 100 stations.

A train with a guard would identify that risk and tell the driver to nudge forward a bit more.

But those extra guards are being gotten rid of, leaving just the driver.

There is no way the driver can know the train is fully on the platform. Not 100% of the time.

So the safety review identifies that risk. And the fix is, let's say, £1 million per station installing specialist signalling equipment and comms.

That's 100 million to cover the whole network.

It's a decision the train operators have to take in to account. Spend 100 million now or 3 million or so every few years to pay off grieving families.

You could look at it another way. By not installing the safety equipment, you have saved 100 million. When someone dies and you have to pay the family 3 million, you have still saved 97 million.

So I do stand with the rail strikers, as it's not just about pay and conditions but other elements of their jobs and passenger safety that the operators are not being completely open about."

Platforms have "stop boards", which allow the driver to align whatever length train he has perfectly.

There has been an incident recently, where a passenger alighted and fell onto the trackside, and that was on a preserved line with many staff around!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"Here's a poser for you.

You have, let's say, 100 stations.

A train with a guard would identify that risk and tell the driver to nudge forward a bit more.

But those extra guards are being gotten rid of, leaving just the driver.

There is no way the driver can know the train is fully on the platform. Not 100% of the time.

So the safety review identifies that risk. And the fix is, let's say, £1 million per station installing specialist signalling equipment and comms.

That's 100 million to cover the whole network.

It's a decision the train operators have to take in to account. Spend 100 million now or 3 million or so every few years to pay off grieving families.

You could look at it another way. By not installing the safety equipment, you have saved 100 million. When someone dies and you have to pay the family 3 million, you have still saved 97 million.

So I do stand with the rail strikers, as it's not just about pay and conditions but other elements of their jobs and passenger safety that the operators are not being completely open about."
agree whole heartedly go and look back at the causes of the last three major rail crashes in this country Grayrigg poor maintenance and inspection of points result high speed derailment 1 death potters bar poor maintenance and inspection of pointwork highspeed derailment 7 dead hatfield gauge corner cracking due to lack of inspection and maintenance highspeed derailment four dead spotted a common theme yet ? All were at a time when Railtrack were cutting back to maximise profit for shareholders ultimatley leading to the companys demise .guess what the govt want network rail to do and the unions are fighting ? Yep a 50% cut in maintainance budget double what happend under railtrack but they will have you believe its all about greedy railworkers

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"Here's a poser for you.

You have, let's say, 100 stations.

A train with a guard would identify that risk and tell the driver to nudge forward a bit more.

But those extra guards are being gotten rid of, leaving just the driver.

There is no way the driver can know the train is fully on the platform. Not 100% of the time.

So the safety review identifies that risk. And the fix is, let's say, £1 million per station installing specialist signalling equipment and comms.

That's 100 million to cover the whole network.

It's a decision the train operators have to take in to account. Spend 100 million now or 3 million or so every few years to pay off grieving families.

You could look at it another way. By not installing the safety equipment, you have saved 100 million. When someone dies and you have to pay the family 3 million, you have still saved 97 million.

So I do stand with the rail strikers, as it's not just about pay and conditions but other elements of their jobs and passenger safety that the operators are not being completely open about."

That's not a great example. You only need a simple sensor or as another poster said simple stop boards to align with. You can use this from the smallest to the longest train that the station will fit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think you are correct OP, New safety enhancing technology should be an aid / backup to humans not to replace them.

Technology is great until it doesnt work.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"I think you are correct OP, New safety enhancing technology should be an aid / backup to humans not to replace them.

Technology is great until it doesnt work."

Perhaps you should start looking at how well humans manage safety critical tasks. They really aren't very good at it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you are correct OP, New safety enhancing technology should be an aid / backup to humans not to replace them.

Technology is great until it doesnt work."

Exactly, technology is only as good as the person using it

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uddy laneMan over a year ago

dudley

I trust in technology every time I get on a plane.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

"I think you are correct OP, New safety enhancing technology should be an aid / backup to humans not to replace them.

Technology is great until it doesnt work.

Perhaps you should start looking at how well humans manage safety critical tasks. They really aren't very good at it."

The kind of individuals that satisfy the requirements needed to be a train driver are exceptionally good at it…

…they’re often not very good at all the things “normal” people manage with ease mind you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"I think you are correct OP, New safety enhancing technology should be an aid / backup to humans not to replace them.

Technology is great until it doesnt work."

"Perhaps you should start looking at how well humans manage safety critical tasks. They really aren't very good at it."

"The kind of individuals that satisfy the requirements needed to be a train driver are exceptionally good at it…

…they’re often not very good at all the things “normal” people manage with ease mind you. "

I agree that the sort of person employed as a train driver is much better at safety critical working than the average person.

However the last set of figures shows that there were 241 incidents of a driver passing a red signal on the mainline. In that same year there were zero incidents with automated systems.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you are correct OP, New safety enhancing technology should be an aid / backup to humans not to replace them.

Technology is great until it doesnt work.

Perhaps you should start looking at how well humans manage safety critical tasks. They really aren't very good at it.

The kind of individuals that satisfy the requirements needed to be a train driver are exceptionally good at it…

…they’re often not very good at all the things “normal” people manage with ease mind you.

I agree that the sort of person employed as a train driver is much better at safety critical working than the average person.

However the last set of figures shows that there were 241 incidents of a driver passing a red signal on the mainline. In that same year there were zero incidents with automated systems."
interesting. Do you know how many miles were done by drivers v automated ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

"Do you know how many miles were done by drivers v automated ?"

Automated systems do make mistakes. Particularly as they are often used to tighten signal sections, and drive much more aggressively than a human driver ever would. The “core” through London can only maintain the frequency of trains by having the automated system driving significantly harder (going much faster, and braking much later and harder) against restrictive signals than human drivers do. The cab of an automated train is not a nice place to be. By the time you realise that something has gone wrong, there’s no time left to react; you are just a passenger sat in the crumple-zone.

The criteria used to recruit train drivers specifically targets the risk averse and those able to remain focused for exceptional periods of time. It’s why the number of successful applicants is so low, less than 5% of people tested pass.

The incident rate compared to the event rate is staggering. That number of signals passed at danger sounds horrific until you consider that the 21,000 train drivers in the UK pass, between them, something like 3 billion signals a year.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Do you know how many miles were done by drivers v automated ?

I don't doubt that train drivers are highly skilled individuals but you seem to be using sensationalist language to argue against automated systems. Why?

Could you tell me how many automated trains have crashed and crushed someone in the 'crumple-zone'?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

Sensationalist? That wasn’t my intention; I merely wanted to provide some context.

Why am I not enamoured with automated systems, particularly on the railway? Well, mainly I suppose it’s because I’m a little bit closer to the issue than most people.

Almost every piece of safety equipment introduced onto the railway in my working lifetime has been compromised either by cost-cutting or by the physical limitations of an industry that pretty inescapably has one foot firmly in the past. Those compromises have pretty much always been overcome by the human beings left to actually carry out the work after their implementation. After a couple of decades in the industry I have absolutely zero faith that the necessary level of investment into automation is ever likely to materialise, and absolute faith that whatever we end up with will be a cut-price mishmash of by then obsolete technologies that will still heavily rely on human input.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

[Removed by poster at 15/05/23 16:54:16]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Sensationalist? That wasn’t my intention; I merely wanted to provide some context.

Why am I not enamoured with automated systems, particularly on the railway? Well, mainly I suppose it’s because I’m a little bit closer to the issue than most people.

I get that you're passionate about it but that offers no answer to the question I asked.

The railway, along with every other industry needs to move with the times and technology plays a massive part in that, of course humans are still important but it doesn't need to be one or the other.

Do you mind me asking what you do on the railways?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

“Moving with the times” is an easy four words to say.

For the railway though, in this country, it would mean investment in line with sending a man to the moon. Nearly the whole network would require replacement or significant reworking ; tracks, bridges, crossings, signalling systems, rolling stock. The chances of that happening simultaneously are below zero. To do any one single part individually means that the new technology has to be capable of coexisting with the old for however long the transition period lasts.

At the moment, the UK’s mainline railway, operated by people, is the safest in the world. The investment necessary for full automation is predicted to run into the tens of trillions; money that would be so much better spent on other infrastructure rather than putting a few thousand train drivers on the dole.

As for what I do; well it might come as no surprise that I drive trains.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"“Moving with the times” is an easy four words to say.

As for what I do; well it might come as no surprise that I drive trains. "

I never said anything about full automation, in fact I said 'humans are important'.

'Moving with the times' is an easy 4 words to say, I don't have the answers but im sure others way more qualified than me have some ideas. Or maybe a better idea is to not 'move with the times'.

I respect your thoughts on it, being that you'll know more than me but I'd also suggest you have a vested interest.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"“Moving with the times” is an easy four words to say.

As for what I do; well it might come as no surprise that I drive trains. "

I'm not fully understanding your argument.

A train is on a fixed line, therefore forward and backward are the only 2 directions it can travel, making automation far easier, in comparison to a plane which is full automated and has 360 degrees of movement.

If trains are travelling over the network today they will travel automated with little problems, they will obviously still needed to be manned and I think the impact of automation for tomorrows train driver will be a lessening of the skills that are needed today.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

I'm not fully understanding your argument.

When you have a packed 12-coach passenger train, with a thousand people on board a vehicle that has a gross weight of around 600 tonnes, moving at high speeds at ground level between houses, roads, crossings, fields full of livestock etc, on rails that have variable coefficients of friction depending on the time of year (and the time of day), that can be switched between routes over crossings that require brake applications a mile away from them, it’s a lot more complicated than keeping a plane straight and level on a given heading at 30,000 feet when you don’t have any conflicting traffic.

Making a train start and stop is easy. Making it stop in the right place isn’t easy at all. Driving one to maintain a timetable, that’s what takes trainees the longest time to master. Managing your lifestyle so you can drive incident free for your entire career, well that’s another thing altogether.

If we were going to start again from scratch then yes, maybe we would have a fully automated system, but I would suggest that if we were going to start again from scratch there simply wouldn’t be the investment to do so. Look at the furore over HS2, which is still not going to be automated.

And yes, I have no issues with admitting that I am very close to the issue. My view though, is that the money automation will cost is way better spent elsewhere than trying to replace a handful of highly skilled individuals. You could end homelessness, fund the NHS, treat sewage properly, build a big wall around Boris Johnson, pay teachers properly… the possibilities are endless.

You could even (dare I say it) use the money to subsidise the existing railway and run it as a service for the population rather than a cash cow for hedge fund investors, because the level of money we’re talking about would cover existing subsidies for two hundred years.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"However the last set of figures shows that there were 241 incidents of a driver passing a red signal on the mainline. In that same year there were zero incidents with automated systems."

"interesting. Do you know how many miles were done by drivers v automated ?"

I'm afraid I don't. It'll be orders of magnitude less than those driven manually.

But zero is zero.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"The “core” through London can only maintain the frequency of trains by having the automated system driving significantly harder (going much faster, and braking much later and harder) against restrictive signals than human drivers do."

I seem to be making my point for me. Automated systems are faster reacting and more reliable than humans.

Again, I don't want to diss train drivers, they do a difficult job, and they do it well. I'm just saying that an automated system is better from a safety point of view. Humans are more flexible and more adaptable, but automation is safer.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"The investment necessary for full automation is predicted to run into the tens of trillions"

Well then you're safe. There's no way the train companies would spend all that money if it was cheaper and more PR-friendly to employ some drivers.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oah VailMan over a year ago

Dover

I seem to be making my point for me. Automated systems are faster reacting and more reliable than humans.

They’re not necessarily faster reacting, they simply act as they are programmed to do.

It’s the unexpected that makes automation difficult. Was that bang a pheasant, or a person? Is that person on a platform acting unusually? Which side of the boundary fence is that horse? That’s not the normal signalling sequence, do I need to stop and challenge it, or is it an official diversionary route? Things that require the driver to be actively driving the train in order to maintain their focus and be able to react when needed. “Underload” is a real risk if there’s not enough to do to stay “on it”.

And trains going faster into stations, as the automated systems make them do, makes for a much less comfortable ride for the passengers, as well as increasing the risk for those on the platform.

Regardless, I doubt very much indeed that automation in any kind of valid form will be operational on our railways in what is left of my career; or even my lifetime.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"“Moving with the times” is an easy four words to say.

As for what I do; well it might come as no surprise that I drive trains.

I'm not fully understanding your argument.

Some parts of the rail network still rely on Victorian technology. There are differing types of traction with differing braking characteristics. We have level crossings, farm crossings, areas of low adhesion, enormous gradients and unsighted bends. Trespassers and objects interfering with trains.

Yes, theoretically the whole network could be automated. But the cost, the complexity and the timescale required to do so (not to mention the negotiations with staff/unions) mean that it’s just not feasible even in the long term. Trains being rolled out today will be expected to run for the next 20-30 years and they have no driverless capability installed.

I’ve got 20 years railway experience and hopefully another 20 before I retire. I don’t anticipate driverless maintain trains before I call it a day.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"“Moving with the times” is an easy four words to say.

As for what I do; well it might come as no surprise that I drive trains.

I'm not fully understanding your argument.

I’ve got 20 years railway experience and hopefully another 20 before I retire. I don’t anticipate driverless maintain trains before I call it a day. "

You have hit the nail on the head with the negotiations with staff / unions making the timelines not feasible in the longterm.

That reason is why automation will be pushed hard to succeed. The drivers are skilled, and hold all the cards, no drivers no moving trains. Remove the level of skill, bring in the next generation of train supervisors (for want of a better word) who are there to watch over but not drive the train and you have removed the union / staff blocks. It will obviously be bumpy ride as is every step in this process and I can understand your view being on the coal face

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic