Driving a train vs flying a plane
Discussion
drivin_me_nuts said:
Men in grubby overalls and years of hard earned 'road' experience, vs starched white shirts, polished glasses and years of training and experience. Are they actually that different?
For their day train drivers were possibly as skilled as commercial pilots are now but relatively speaking the systems knowledge and education required of the latter is far higher. Just because trains were then the fastest people carriers on the planet then it doesn't mean their drivers could 'compete' with a commercial pilot (ATPL for the pedants among us).I'm trying not to be biased (good CRM, see?) but I don't see it.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Not so sure about the two dimensional aspect. Certainly train movement does involve an X, Y and Z axis of movement.
OK, we'll see a train doing a barrel roll then...drivin_me_nuts said:
There are certainly a huge number of complexities involved in driving a steam loco, many of which have already been mentioned. Granted there are fewer controls, but the dynamics of human involvement are greater. Take for instance a route out of London to York running an express engine would take a considerable effort in concentration, skill and experience to make it on time - often made in the past to within seconds of the scheduled arrival times. Fewer controls, same (if not greater) risk to life and limb if a mistake is made and fewer, if no failsafe systems (other than lead plugs to drop the fire if the fireman forgets to keep the water topped up). If you get it wrong in a steam loco, indeed quite literally you do make a smoking hole in the ground!
But you could say exactly the same of somebody driving a car - although even the humble car can do left and right, two options that th etrain driver doesn't have to worry about. He will end up at his destination regardless. As for arriving on time, that is simply a matter of the correct speed. drivin_me_nuts said:
Men in grubby overalls and years of hard earned 'road' experience, vs starched white shirts, polished glasses and years of training and experience. Are they actually that different?
There is/was probably a class difference, but aprt from that, if a train gets into diffiulties it can just roll to a stop and everybody can get out and get a taxi home. Not quite so easy at 35,000 feet and 600mph over the Atlantic. In three dimensions. With an owl.Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 11th October 17:38
I've never driven a train so I can't really comment, but they aren't the easiest things in the world to drive I'd imagine, but they are very different from any aircraft. I've taught a few train drivers to fly and they do fine, but they do no better or worse than anyone else.
If there was a group who I'd say found flying the easiest, it's Engineers, particularly mechanical or automotive/aeronautical ones.
Management types like to say that flying an aircraft is as easy as driving a bus or car =, but they are I'm afraid talking b*llocks!
If there was a group who I'd say found flying the easiest, it's Engineers, particularly mechanical or automotive/aeronautical ones.
Management types like to say that flying an aircraft is as easy as driving a bus or car =, but they are I'm afraid talking b*llocks!
J T said:
Very tricky. Trees can be an issue if you try to fly it down a road like a car.FourWheelDrift said:
J T said:
Very tricky. Trees can be an issue if you try to fly it down a road like a car.Flintstone said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Men in grubby overalls and years of hard earned 'road' experience, vs starched white shirts, polished glasses and years of training and experience. Are they actually that different?
For their day train drivers were possibly as skilled as commercial pilots are now but relatively speaking the systems knowledge and education required of the latter is far higher. Just because trains were then the fastest people carriers on the planet then it doesn't mean their drivers could 'compete' with a commercial pilot (ATPL for the pedants among us).I'm trying not to be biased (good CRM, see?) but I don't see it.
hidetheelephants said:
Flintstone said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Men in grubby overalls and years of hard earned 'road' experience, vs starched white shirts, polished glasses and years of training and experience. Are they actually that different?
For their day train drivers were possibly as skilled as commercial pilots are now but relatively speaking the systems knowledge and education required of the latter is far higher. Just because trains were then the fastest people carriers on the planet then it doesn't mean their drivers could 'compete' with a commercial pilot (ATPL for the pedants among us).I'm trying not to be biased (good CRM, see?) but I don't see it.
Dr Jekyll said:
FourWheelDrift said:
J T said:
Very tricky. Trees can be an issue if you try to fly it down a road like a car."stuck in a hole in the fog in the middle of the night............WITH AN OWL" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_a1wxqloEs
Flintstone said:
hidetheelephants said:
Flintstone said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Men in grubby overalls and years of hard earned 'road' experience, vs starched white shirts, polished glasses and years of training and experience. Are they actually that different?
For their day train drivers were possibly as skilled as commercial pilots are now but relatively speaking the systems knowledge and education required of the latter is far higher. Just because trains were then the fastest people carriers on the planet then it doesn't mean their drivers could 'compete' with a commercial pilot (ATPL for the pedants among us).I'm trying not to be biased (good CRM, see?) but I don't see it.
Once airborne a plane is easy to fly. Barely any thought at all.
A steam locomotive is a continual balancing act. Even when you're not moving.
In practice, the fireman probably has the more involved job than the driver. The whole point of the fireman job, is that the locomotive driver can be like the pilot.
The driver and the pilot, they both have the same role. The point is that their job is supposed to be easy so that they can easily think about, and be observant enough, to notice problems when they arise.
A steam locomotive is a continual balancing act. Even when you're not moving.
In practice, the fireman probably has the more involved job than the driver. The whole point of the fireman job, is that the locomotive driver can be like the pilot.
The driver and the pilot, they both have the same role. The point is that their job is supposed to be easy so that they can easily think about, and be observant enough, to notice problems when they arise.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 12th October 16:34
dilbert said:
Once airborne a plane is easy to fly. Barely any thought at all.
A steam locomotive is a continual balancing act. Even when you're not moving.
In practice, the fireman probably has the more involved job than the driver. The whole point of the fireman job, is that the locomotive driver can be like the pilot.
The driver and the pilot, they both have the same role. The point is that their job is supposed to be easy so that they can easily think about, and be observant enough, to notice problems when they arise.
Right but the hard part about flying a plane is the take off and the landing not the straight and level stuff. A steam locomotive is a continual balancing act. Even when you're not moving.
In practice, the fireman probably has the more involved job than the driver. The whole point of the fireman job, is that the locomotive driver can be like the pilot.
The driver and the pilot, they both have the same role. The point is that their job is supposed to be easy so that they can easily think about, and be observant enough, to notice problems when they arise.
el stovey said:
dilbert said:
Once airborne a plane is easy to fly. Barely any thought at all.
A steam locomotive is a continual balancing act. Even when you're not moving.
In practice, the fireman probably has the more involved job than the driver. The whole point of the fireman job, is that the locomotive driver can be like the pilot.
The driver and the pilot, they both have the same role. The point is that their job is supposed to be easy so that they can easily think about, and be observant enough, to notice problems when they arise.
Right but the hard part about flying a plane is the take off and the landing not the straight and level stuff. A steam locomotive is a continual balancing act. Even when you're not moving.
In practice, the fireman probably has the more involved job than the driver. The whole point of the fireman job, is that the locomotive driver can be like the pilot.
The driver and the pilot, they both have the same role. The point is that their job is supposed to be easy so that they can easily think about, and be observant enough, to notice problems when they arise.
The aeroplane is all instant though. I guess a big one is a bit slower.
Steam locomotive, you have to predict what you're going to be doing in five minutes time. The fire can easily deteriorate, and leave you without "go", even if you frantically shovel. You can run out of water in the tender as easily as that.
If the boiler doesn't have much water in it, and you're just about to do loads of work, things are getting difficult. You put a load of water in, and it starts priming at worst, as you start working it. At best you're not making the steam you need, when you need it. Then you don't have the pressure. Then you open the firehole, to put more coal on, and the cold air makes it steam even more poorly.
If you keep it on the boil, then as soon as you stop the safety valves lift, and then you're wasting lots of water from a fairly limited supply.
If you leave the firing too late then as the engine starts working, the fresh coal you put in goes straight up the chimney without ever burning.
There are many, many, ways you can find yourself up a creek without a paddle.
The machine demands full attention, without any consideration for it doing anything, but the need for instant behaviour/response is minimal.
The steam engine, you notice that something has to happen, and you can mostly finish what you're doing first. If you forget to do it, then you're knackered. Sometimes something needs doing, and it's better to leave it and see what develops before the point of criticality.
In a plane, you can pretty much hand control to someone else in an instant. In a steam engine, it's not so easy. There's an etiquette, that you don't hand it on until it's in a fit state, or alternatively you have a few minutes of "handover".
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 12th October 21:37
dilbert said:
Once airborne a plane is easy to fly. Barely any thought at all.
I'm not being facetious, but have you ever had a flying lesson? Even on a light aircraft? I certainly didn't find it easy. It takes up almost all of your mental capacity. If you master the handling (you never truly do) then you realise that there are so many other scenarios to think about.Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 12th October 16:34
I know that it may seem like harping on, but it does not take 'barely any thought at all.' To be a truly competent pilot it takes continual thought and oodles of prior preparation. The only way to properly prepare for most eventualities it to already have thought through them on the ground. This includes flying with the autopilot engaged as well.
I have no idea of the complexities of driving a train, but I wouldn't assume that it's just two levers. I'm sure that there are many processes that occur behind the scenes of which the traveling public are not aware.
pushthebutton said:
dilbert said:
Once airborne a plane is easy to fly. Barely any thought at all.
I'm not being facetious, but have you ever had a flying lesson? Even on a light aircraft? I certainly didn't find it easy. It takes up almost all of your mental capacity. If you master the handling (you never truly do) then you realise that there are so many other scenarios to think about.Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 12th October 16:34
I know that it may seem like harping on, but it does not take 'barely any thought at all.' To be a truly competent pilot it takes continual thought and oodles of prior preparation. The only way to properly prepare for most eventualities it to already have thought through them on the ground. This includes flying with the autopilot engaged as well.
I have no idea of the complexities of driving a train, but I wouldn't assume that it's just two levers. I'm sure that there are many processes that occur behind the scenes of which the traveling public are not aware.
A steam engine is great, it takes over a bit of your brain for the afternoon, and you can't let it go. On top of it all, there's no significant risk of bad weather, or impossible to recover spins.
With the steam engine you only have to "do" as much as the engine does. But you have a model of what's happening in your head, and you just have to keep updating it, because it's never constant. It always wanders off from whatever you're thinking. To get it back on track, there aren't really any rules, just various strategies that you can apply.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 12th October 21:51
So I guess that you mean that the handling whilst straight and level is easy. I'd agree with that, but the instructor(?) sat in the other seat would have been doing all of the work to ensure that the flight progressed smoothly and safely. Even the radio calls can take away a fair part of your capacity.
I'd hazard a guess that if you had done the radios as well then the straight and level flying would have been a bit harder. Then add in navigation, lookout, contingencies, weather, fuel etc and it all becomes a touch harder.
In terms of control, you could hand it over in an instant during the cruise. It'd be a bit harder on a dark, wet, gusty night. Give your mate a jet out of trim, in a bank and with an abnormal amount of power and it won't be easy at all.
Steam engine sounds fun though
I'd hazard a guess that if you had done the radios as well then the straight and level flying would have been a bit harder. Then add in navigation, lookout, contingencies, weather, fuel etc and it all becomes a touch harder.
In terms of control, you could hand it over in an instant during the cruise. It'd be a bit harder on a dark, wet, gusty night. Give your mate a jet out of trim, in a bank and with an abnormal amount of power and it won't be easy at all.
Steam engine sounds fun though
Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 12th October 21:53
pushthebutton said:
So I guess that you mean that the handling whilst straight and level is easy. I'd agree with that, but the instructor(?) sat in the other seat would have been doing all of the work to ensure that the flight progressed smoothly and safely. Even the radio calls can take away a fair part of your capacity.
I'd hazard a guess that if you had done the radios as well then the straight and level flying would have been a bit harder. Then add in navigation, lookout, contingencies, weather, fuel etc and it all becomes a touch harder.
Steam engine sounds fun though
No, not at all. We had to do some balanced turns. We started off just doing small turns on the column, to demonstrate the way that you put a turn in, and then take it out again. It also showed how the height washes off, as the plane slides. Then balanced turns to help stop it sliding with the rudder.I'd hazard a guess that if you had done the radios as well then the straight and level flying would have been a bit harder. Then add in navigation, lookout, contingencies, weather, fuel etc and it all becomes a touch harder.
Steam engine sounds fun though
Then we did some practice lining up for a "practice" airfield over Bognor.
Then he showed how you have to keep an eye on carb heat for clouds.
By that time we were back at Shoreham and the instructor guy got me to do a circuit. He wanted me to land the thing but I gave it back over the threshold. I didn't want to slam it into the ground, and since I'd not put the plane in the sky, I had no feeling for steering with my feet.
The other thing that could be good is flying by numbers "IMC". I'd imagine that's pretty cool, and certainly hard work, but that's not why people fly.
With a steam engine you get a bit of that "IMC" thing without the stress. You can chat with your mate or have a cuppa whist you keep an eye on the engine. I suppose the big difference that people might not appreciate is that there's way more feedback than just the pressure and water guages.
Snifters and safety valves, the sucking sound of the injectors, the way smoke comes out of the chimney, the way the fire lies on the grate. Lots of things to think about. If you could find the controls without burning yourself, you could probably drive a steam locomotive with your eyes shut. You need to use your nose and ears too!
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 12th October 22:12
dilbert said:
No, not at all. We had to do some balanced turns. We started off just doing small turns on the column, to demonstrate the way that you put a turn in, and then take it out again. It also showed how the height washes off, as the plane slides. Then balanced turns to help stop it sliding with the rudder.
You need a bit of string taped to the cockpit 
Not something that train drivers have to worry about of course, they just sit there.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff