I was on a South Eastern train that had to be rebooted, but stationary in Victoria Station.
I was not reassured when the end-of-carriage internal display said something like:
"Electrotrain version 1.0"
Everyone knows that you avoid version 1.0.....!
The Natural Philosopher wrote
The problem is that people who'd been banned would then simply drive without permission. You'd have to lock people up to stop them driving, and, as we know, there aren't enough prisons...
Absolutely. It's probably running Windows95 as well ;-)
Visions of huge box by the side of the track somewhere with a large knob on the top and a big hand operating it.....
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:05:18 +0000 someone who may be Dave wrote this:-
Not something that can be inferred from my posting, not the least because the driver has to look out for signals.
I haven't been in the cab of these trains, but I suspect that there is no dead mans handle but rather there is a dead mans pedal with vigilance device. The latter means that the driver has to release and depress the pedal every minute. I haven't noticed any cars fitted with such devices.
On the contrary, the driver will get audible and visual warnings in the cab on passing a signal that is showing a restrictive aspect, which must be acknowledged in a few seconds. Should the driver, after these warnings, continue too fast towards a signal at danger then the brakes will be applied before the driver even passes the signal. If the signal is protecting a high speed junction then the release of signal aspects is arranged so that the train will always be stopped before it reaches a point of conflict.
The track based system for the warnings is operated on a fail-safe system, where the equipment always generates a caution warning but if the signal is showing all clear this warning is cancelled and replaced with an all clear indication before the warning is issued to the driver. Thus on the rare occasions when the track equipment fails the equipment issues a caution, drivers then report the problem so it can be fixed.
The track based system for the signal at danger system is continuously monitored when it is operating. Should the system fail then the signal in the rear (the one "behind" the one where the system has failed) will automatically be placed or maintained at danger. This fact will be indicated in the signal box so that it can be fixed. The same system is used to monitor the lamps in the signals, with a few exceptions if a lamp fails then the signal in the rear will be placed or maintained at danger.
The train based equipment for these systems is also continuously monitored. If they fail then, after agreeing on a course of action, the train is driven at restricted speed to a place where the service can be terminated.
In addition on these trains the maximum permitted speed is constantly compared with the train speed. Should the driver try to exceed the maximum permitted speed then the system will first warn the driver and if that doesn't get a reaction take control of the train to reduce the speed itself.
The operation of these systems, together with much other information is constantly stored in the data recorders, one at each end of the train. These data recorders are regularly downloaded for inspectors to check how drivers are performing and disciplinary action follows if necessary. The actions of the signal staff and signalling system, together with that of the electrical system is also all stored on data recorders and all this information can be used to investigate the performance of the system. They are also used to look at crashes. If you look at the reports on recent accidents, for example the two girls killed at a crossing a year and a bit ago, you will see a subset of the data recorder information from the train, as well as references to other data recorders.
There is nothing like all of this on the roads.
It is not even similar. The signals on roads do not react immediately to inform drivers of hazards, that is what drivers have round things in their face for. Rather they are to pass on cautions about conditions ahead, messages which most motorists ignore until they can see it for themselves.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:08:21 -0000 someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-
It suddenly ran out into the middle of the road, the poor innocent driver could do nothing.
I would have added a smiley, but that is not too much of an exaggeration of the attitude of much of the road "safety" lobby. They have even had "dangerous" trees cut down.
Fortunately the road "safety" lobby are being challenged out of their 1960s complacency.
They probably would be if they treated drug offences as a medical and not a criminal problem.
The number of people who actually cause damage by driving is quite small.
Compared to teh number that routinely pay speeding fines.
Which was precisely my point in response to the person who said that any driver who couldn't stop in the distance they could see was actually in need of prosecution.
And the problem with that is ...
But there is a large pool of cheap unskilled idle labour who would benefit from being given training and work on a prison building site, building new prisons and acquiring the skills to get a job later.
They're called prisoners.
No workee, no eatee.
Owain
Congratulations Owain - you have skillfully brought the OT thread, which I started, all the way back round to a DIY theme (self-build prisons)!
Well - he is able to see the moon, so I'd say his eyesight was OK - he could stop in that distance !
Nick
Are you suggesting prinoners become CORGI or NICEIC qualified in prison so they can legally rip people off when they get out?
Adam
No change there, then !!
Nick
camerais either slam on the brakes, or look at their speedos and
No; speed cameras save lives. It's been demonstrated thoroughly and repeatedly.
And the converse has also been proved, so as usual they can prove whatever they want to prove to justify sucking more tax out of us all
Nick
Doubtless by the same mob who brought us the 'dodgy dossier'!
Wouldn't it be better than them illegally ripping people off?
Owain
Rest of a very good description of a modern train's warning systems snipped.
It's nice to see that the modern train is up there in technology with aircraft these days. It's just a pity that the goons that view the video did not pick up the fault. When the authorities said that the track was inspected regularly, I expected it would be done by a live human, using his eyes and not a camera.
Dave
Suggest you follow the threads over on UK railway re that matter it isn't quite that simple..
camerais either slam on the brakes, or look at their speedos and
It hasn't.
Agreed, with all those automatics is there a *real* need for the human "driver"? I guess they are still there because the population wouldn't like the idea of a "driverless" train (not to mention the unions...).
You mean like my Grand Father used to do? Walk the section of track he was responsible for every day? Not sure I'd like to walk a busy main line with trains doing 100mph+, not so bad 100 years ago when things were quieter, slower and noisier.
As with most railway "accidents" something that can be improved is highlighted. In this case the time it takes to look at the automatically gathered track inspection data. The obvious thing to do is have a system that pulls out the frames that cover points and other track variables for human inspection as they are passed over or at the very least a rapid access index of such places built up.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.