How does a train driver know when to start slowing down...

[Mad Doug Biker]

Drivers still need to know every single inch of their routes, sometimes several hundred miles in length. They have crew changes at certain station on long distance runs, so that you wouldn't usually get the same driver from Glasgow to London.

On railtours where, for example a type of loco from an other region is visiting (say, a loco from the south of England visiting Scotland, where the type of loco does not run), then there are 2 different crews onboard. The crew trained on the type of loco, and then a 'pilot' telling them what to do over the particular route.

Also, yes, some trains do have keys, but also starting the engine on a diesel loco, you need to press the start button down for a few seconds, and even then, the engine will not just burst into life, you need to wait for it to prime, which can take the best part of about 15 or 20 seconds!
Remember, that it is an enormous engine weighing 30+ tonnes right behind!

 

[Soltydog]

You are correct, route knowledge, markers and speed indicators and distance indicators for sections of track all add to the drivers experience, plus today most trains are computer controlled, so the driver knows what section of track he's on at any given time.

The first part is correct, but not sure about most trains being computer controlled. I work for Northern & AFAIK they have no trains with computer systems to tell you where you are

 

[Soltydog]

They must have a better memory than me!

I wonder if they ever forget which service they're driving: the one that hardly stops, the one that stops at a few stations or the one that stops at every single one. Do they ever blithely whizz through a station they were supposed to stop at?

Some drivers have a tendancy to rely on memory for their stopping pattern & occasionally they get caught out & go flying through stations they are supposed to stop at I've never done that, but I've stopped when I'm not supposed to lol. It didn't used to be such a big deal, but management tend to make a bigger thing out of it nowadays, although that probably varies between TOCs

 

[Soltydog]

If your driving a steam train your an Engineer , if its a diesel train your a train driver , my mates drives trains and it takes two years to qualify and he says breaks on a train are really bad.

The current training period is about 12 months to learn all rules & traction knowledge, then you are signed off as competent Learning routes can then take several months. When I started at Leeds I think it was over 3 years from starting to learning all the routes I needed to, but at Hull the route learning is done differently & takes about 18 months from starting to being 'fully' competent with all knowledge & routes.

 

[Soltydog]

Nah, taking the wrong turning is nightmare.

That is actually very true. If you are wrong routed by signals/signaller & go on the wrong route it's tea & biscuits with management I've been offered wrong routes several times, but so far, touch wood, i've always stopped & not gone the wrong way

 

[MossCommuter]

thanks Soltydog, I think we rather hoping you'd be able to chip in

 

[Archie_tect]

The first part is correct, but not sure about most trains being computer controlled. I work for Northern & AFAIK they have no trains with computer systems to tell you where you are

At the first junction turn right.... in 200 yards take the second left... TomTom4Trains never really took off.

 

[Bigsharn]

...I work for Northern & AFAIK they have no trains with computer systems to tell you where you are

Northern don't have trains, they have buses with train bogeys on them :roll
(Not that I'm badmouthing their service, but a LOT of the rolling stock is over 5 years overdue for replacement)

 

[ASC1951]

Northern don't have trains, they have buses with train bogeys on them..)

Now that is something that has always puzzled me. Why are trains so solid and heavy - I mean, much heavier than buses? Collisions are extremely rare and in general the only things they run into are other trains, so I would have thought that if all the trains were equally light we would be just as safe and save huge quantities of fuel.

What is the engineering reason for it?

 

[Arch]

Traction, mostly I would think.

Trains are efficient because they run on smooth rails. In order to grip, they need to be heavy.

 

[MossCommuter]

Northern don't have trains, they have buses with train bogeys on them

Yebbut them rickety old bus-like trains (between Liverpool and Manchester at least) are so much easier to get a bike on.

 

[Archie_tect]

Now that is something that has always puzzled me. Why are trains so solid and heavy - I mean, much heavier than buses? Collisions are extremely rare and in general the only things they run into are other trains, so I would have thought that if all the trains were equally light we would be just as safe and save huge quantities of fuel.

What is the engineering reason for it?

The rolling stock need long, deep [and therefore heavy] beams between the bogeys which suits as the carriages must have as low a centre of gravity as possible to stop them blowing over in cross-winds on such a relatively unstable standard gauge... should have used Brunel's wide gauge but his better ldea was ditched in favour of Stephenson's.

 

[vernon]

The engineering need for heavy rolling stock is also linked to safety. Make the superstructures and undercarriages any lighter and witness the carnage on the rare occasions that collisions happen.

The current rolling stock is very robust. Look at the outcomes of the Selby and Penrith high speed derailments - do you think that superstructures of a similar build to buses would have survived with as little damage as they did?

I'm very grateful for the safety engineering that goes into the design of our rolling stock. I would be a very nervous passenger otherwise.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

The current rolling stock is very robust. do you think that superstructures of a similar build to buses would have survived with as little damage as they did?

I

Don't make me laugh, remember Ladbrooke Grove and the Networker Turbo Colliding head on with the HST?

The rescuers didn't realise that the Turbo was in fact 3 coaches long for quite a while as the front coach, made from Aluminuim, quite litterally disintegrated on impact!

Many new trains are of the same construction, and, if a coach can quite littereally disappear off the face of the earth, save for a few chunks of metal, it can happen again, and no doubt it will. No amount of 'Crumple Zones' (to avoid Telescoping) will ever be enough to stop it from happening.

Oh yes, people died in the fire within the Mark 3 Coach, but if you were in that front coach of the Turbo, then, you quite litterally would have had to have been scraped off the ballast by the emergency services and put into a small box.

In short, some stock is more robust than others, particularly in certain circumstances, and just becuase it is new(er), doesn't mean it is somehow safer, in fact, some of the safest stock out there are the Mk3 coaches from the 1970s!

 

[vernon]

In short, some stock is more robust than others, particularly in certain circumstances, and just becuase it is new(er), doesn't mean it is somehow safer, in fact, some of the safest stock out there are the Mk3 coaches from the 1970s!

And if the bodywork was of an identical construction to that of buses?

I was addressing the question of why coaches were heavier than buses not why every rail accident is survivable.

All designs are a compromise else we'd be travelling in armoured trains travelling at walking pace with a man with a red flag walking ahead.