Driverless trains - when?

[orpine]

I've been wondering - why do trains still have drivers and how long is this going to last? I realise this may be a bit controversial given there's a strong driver contingency here, but it's a serious question. Self-driving cars are a real thing and becoming more so in the near future (see the Google Driverless Car) so why not trains?

A few do exist across the world - some are even completely unmanned - but those are typically metros. Why aren't they on more conventional lines? Is it realistic to expect them to start appearing in the next 10 years, the timeline for the first commercial autonomous cars?

Apparently when this came up specific to the London Underground last year, the typical line of "it's not safe" came out, but given a search for "train crash driver error" brings up reams of incidents, and human error is by far the largest cause of road accidents, I'm not sure it would be hard to be safer. I'm sure there are incidences where a computer would do worse than a human in certain scenarios, but I think they'd be outweighed by increased safety overall.

I don't know anything about driving a train so figured I'd ask - would it be easy, specifically for things like regular, non-metro trains?

 

[YorkshireBear]

The main stumbling block technology wise is the technology is not yet widespread enough and it will take a long time till signalling is at the level where this can happen.

HS2 is planned to have drivers but possibly in hand over the big red emergency brake button.

 

[orpine]

The main stumbling block technology wise is the technology is not yet widespread enough and it will take a long time till signalling is at the level where this can happen.

HS2 is planned to have drivers but possibly in hand over the big red emergency brake button.

Fair point, but there's no special signalling for cars and they can already function. The car reads the road signs; could not that also work for trains? A railway track is a much tamer environment than a road.

 

[Moonshot]

As a passenger , i d feel much more confident with a driver at the hands of a train doing 125mph.....

Docklands Light Rail is another matter though.....doesnt exactly speed

 

[455driver]

A car works on line of sight, a train doesnt!
Can you spot the problem yet?

 

[Clip]

A car works on line of sight, a train doesnt!
Can you spot the problem yet?

Lets talk about our own driverless trains first. Thats your sentence out the window in reality. They can have a PSA at the back of a 3 car consist and no cameras at the front watching where they're going so the same safety issues arise for(agreeably very small) closed system.

Personally I wouldnt want it on mainline duties but for commuter routes I fail to see why it could not be implemented - the tech ios already there to do so.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't think health and safety will ever permit a high speed train to travel hundreds of miles with no one looking ahead for potential hazards

 

[Moonshot]

Clip .....would you install the equipment if it put passengers off travelling?

 

[starrymarkb]

I can see it happening on a closed system like LUL, ideally I'd want full Platform edge doors (even in the open), level crossing closed (even foot ones) and the track kept secure from trespassers before it's considered though

 

[Matt Taylor]

The last four fatal accidents would have been no better with driverless trains, if anything they would have been worse.

Grayrigg
Ufton Nervet
Potters Bar
Great Heck


Two of those were caused by driver error, specifically car driver error. How many level crossing incidents are caused by car driver error compared to train driver error?

 

[O L Leigh]

They can have a PSA at the back of a 3 car consist and no cameras at the front watching where they're going so the same safety issues arise for(agreeably very small) closed system.

No, not really. The DLR runs mostly in tunnels or elevated sections where the sections of the Tube that use Automatic Train Operation (ATO) are the deep tubes. Where these systems run on the surface there has to be human intervention either in the form of a driver up at the pointy end or some other system that ensures safety.

No matter how much you dont want it to happen, there is no need for the discussion not to happen. Personally I wouldnt want it on mainline duties but for commuter routes I fail to see why it could not be implemented - the tech ios already there to do so.

You fail to see the objection because you fail to see the issues.

The mainline railway is not a closed system. How does a driverless train know how to react to an obstruction? How can it differentiate between mowing down a deer or mowing down a human? How does a driverless train deal with stroppy passengers who all want to bail out during disruption?

This isn't a question of emotion as you suggest it is. It's a question of safety and practicality.

O L Leigh

 

[orpine]

A car works on line of sight, a train doesnt!
Can you spot the problem yet?

Really? A car can turn 90 degree corners and even hair-pins; I have yet to see a train do that. So no, I don't see the problem. That's why I'm asking.

As a passenger , i d feel much more confident with a driver at the hands of a train doing 125mph....

Humans only seem to feel safe when another Human is involved. Yet a computer can react much faster than a Human and do so repeatedly no matter the weather, track conditions, or visibility. They don't have bad-days, a divourced/romance/job-offer/holiday to think about/distract them with. It's always paying 100% attention.

The last four fatal accidents would have been no better with driverless trains, if anything they would have been worse.

Good point, but I think that's just co-incidence/luck. Go further abroad for the recent one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment - I'm sure there are others within the last year if I knew my train wreck history.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The recent examples in Spain and New York show that a computer may be a better choice. But would a computer recognise problems as well?

 

[orpine]

The mainline railway is not a closed system. How does a driverless train know how to react to an obstruction? How can it differentiate between mowing down a deer or mowing down a human? How does a driverless train deal with stroppy passengers who all want to bail out during disruption?

Don't the driverless cars have to face the same issues? Certainly the "mowing down a deer/human" one. I don't know how they've solved it, but I imagine it's at the top of their list of things to make sure it works.

 

[O L Leigh]

Humans only seem to feel safe when another Human is involved. Yet a computer can react much faster than a Human and do so repeatedly no matter the weather, track conditions, or visibility. They don't have bad-days, a divourced/romance/job-offer/holiday to think about/distract them with. It's always paying 100% attention.

Yes, but there is more to being a driver than simply paying attention. Quite often we have to anticipate, exercise judgement and to know what rule to apply and when. Also, as I said, there are quite a few things that a driverless train wouldn't be able to do as quickly or effectively as a driver.

Don't the driverless cars have to face the same issues? Certainly the "mowing down a deer/human" one. I don't know how they've solved it, but I imagine it's at the top of their list of things to make sure it works.

Ah, but a driverless car still has a driver. If it clobbers a person there is still someone to deal with it and call out the Constable of the Parish to deal with it.

There are also questions of how a car can brake or swerve to avoid an obstruction where a train cannot. If the train detects an obstruction of whatever size it will hit it. How does it know that it's simply the local wildlife and not a big issue rather than a person and therefore a big emergency.

And what of an emergency situation? Without a driver, what happens when an emergency arises?

O L Leigh

 

[Moonshot]

Humans only seem to feel safe when another Human is involved. Yet a computer can react much faster than a Human and do so repeatedly no matter the weather, track conditions, or visibility. They don't have bad-days, a divourced/romance/job-offer/holiday to think about/distract them with. It's always paying 100% attention.

Which just goes back to the point I made......if the public failed to travel on driverless trains, it would be a complete waste of time having them even if the tech existed. The very latest Airbus 380 is capable of flying itself, but Im not sure it would fill up with passengers if pilots were made obsolete. We seem to accept failings in humans, but not in machines......which is why you often see the reaction in the news today of IT failures in the banking sector..

 

[O L Leigh]

A computer is only as smart as the person who programs it. If the programmer makes a mistake or fails to anticipate a scenario, the system will fail.

An A380 may spend the majority of it's time on autopilot, but it still has a fully-crewed cockpit with staff capable of flying the plane manually should it fail for whatever reason.

O L Leigh

 

[NotATrainspott]

Most of the unattended driverless lines in the world were built within the past few decades, so don't suffer the same level of legacy issues that the UK rail network has. If there's an evacuation needed on the DLR then there's an emergency walkway but there isn't ever going to be one on a Tube line, so passengers will need to walk on the tracks and I can't ever see that done without the presence of someone who can drive the train. On these metros it would only be less than a kilometre at most to the next intervention point or station. On the National Rail network you could be tens of kilometres away, or in the middle of nowhere, or even worse along a route where trains will be going up to 360km/h and where there will be very high-security fencing stopping people getting in or out.

When the lines are designed for it, I don't think people are put off travelling at all. It's a novelty being able to see along the tunnels where the trains have viewing windows at the front, like Nuremberg's U2 line. It is inevitable that more and more of the driver's everyday job is going to become automated as the Victoria line was designed to be but I still doubt they would convert them. Instead, any new metro lines (such as the 'proposed'-but-never-going-to-happen Metro option for Crossrail 2, any extensions of the DLR towards Euston/Victoria or any new segregated light rail for the Old Oak Common area) are going to be built for it from the start. Crossrail X services running beyond the core are always going to need a driver but I can see the possibility of driverless services for the core because the central tunnels have walkways and are isolated from other services.

 

[bb21]

They don't have bad-days

This I beg to disagree.

 

[Monty]

Technology lacks judgment, and has no ability to look into a situation and see beyond the obvious. I would argue the technology is not yet mature enough to see widespread introduction to heavy rail (for the purpose of this post the LUL does not count) and high speed trains.

 

[bb21]

Can I reiterate the requirement that members report things they find objectionable rather than reply to them please. This helps keep any potential issue in a more localised environment and means it is less likely for matters to escalate. Thanks.

 

[Jonny]

The last four fatal accidents would have been no better with driverless trains, if anything they would have been worse.

Grayrigg
Ufton Nervet
Potters Bar
Great Heck


Two of those were caused by driver error, specifically car driver error. How many level crossing incidents are caused by car driver error compared to train driver error?

The irony is, that both those attributable to car drivers (Ufton Nervet, Great Heck) could have been at least mitigated by permanently on obstacle detection systems, similar to those at the new MCB-OD level crossings but sweeping the whole track. It wouldn't necessarily replace drivers or render their job redundant, but it would provide an extra set of 'eyes' ahead.

 

[Clip]

Clip .....would you install the equipment if it put passengers off travelling?

Why should it put off people from travelling? Most people know the DLR doesnt have drivers and they love that fact - seeing how they like to sit at the front pretending to be drivers. And do most people know about the ATO aspect of some of the tube lines? Probably not which is why you get people tweeting and such like saying they saw a driver doing something else rather than driving it.

No, not really. The DLR runs mostly in tunnels or elevated sections where the sections of the Tube that use Automatic Train Operation (ATO) are the deep tubes. Where these systems run on the surface there has to be human intervention either in the form of a driver up at the pointy end or some other system that ensures safety.



You fail to see the objection because you fail to see the issues.
The mainline railway is not a closed system. How does a driverless train know how to react to an obstruction? How can it differentiate between mowing down a deer or mowing down a human? How does a driverless train deal with stroppy passengers who all want to bail out during disruption?

This isn't a question of emotion as you suggest it is. It's a question of safety and practicality.

O L Leigh

Oh I do see the issues - but I dont see them in the ssame way that you do, as you are a driver and see your job as under threat from ATO - which is fair enough and I respect you for that. The DLR only has 3 tunnels on its system and quite a lot of it now runs on normal street level and is subject to exactly the same problems the mainline does - albeity without deer - in fact theres been a few instances this week already where they have had to shut a section due to unathorised access on the track. And it deals with hitting someone by stopping and then clearing it up. How is that any different to the mainline then when they dont have a driver?


In fact, the possibility of mainline runnig and the subject of obstructions could easily be solved - albeit expensiveley - by using the existing OHLE infrastructure to have some form of infrared grid system between each gantry looking at the track between the two all the way up the line. Any obstruction which has not moved for say more than 10 seconds would lead to say an amber aspect on the preceeding signals so the train slows down, the person on board moves to the front to take up driving position and to inspect the track ahead and then take necessary action.


The solutions to all your arguments for not having it are out there but for some, because of the loss of a drivers job, it is too hard to actually sit and think of solutions and its easier for them to slag anyone off who dares to question or discuss the future.

And lets face it, how many times on here and in the press have you seen stuff about drivers getting paid too much blah blah blah whilst sat on their arse's, or as one poster claimed ot have seen - looking at their iPod and then you have all had to justify it? Many times.

What you may not actually understand is that those very same passengers are the ones that come up to me and whinge about it and your salaries and trains being late - the majority of them blame it on you lot - and wonder why we cannot go to ATO on a lot of lines. Public perception may not be clued up on these things but time and time again they point to the DLR as the prime example. And once public opinion is going one way then the bosses and the Govt of the day will take this on board as they will claim it will make the railway cheaper and thats what the public want mainly - along with it being safe.


I agree, your job is more about just being sat there pushing buttons to open doors and all that - the public dont and more and more of them speak to people like me all over the country about it an dhow we could cut the cost of their ticket by getting rid of you lot.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Anyone who thinks that DOO or ATO will result in fares coming down is deluded I'm afraid.

 

[Latecomer]

Why should it put off people from travelling? Most people know the DLR doesnt have drivers and they love that fact - seeing how they like to sit at the front pretending to be drivers. And do most people know about the ATO aspect of some of the tube lines? Probably not which is why you get people tweeting and such like saying they saw a driver doing something else rather than driving it.



Oh I do see the issues - but I dont see them in the ssame way that you do, as you are a driver and see your job as under threat from ATO - which is fair enough and I respect you for that. The DLR only has 3 tunnels on its system and quite a lot of it now runs on normal street level and is subject to exactly the same problems the mainline does - albeity without deer - in fact theres been a few instances this week already where they have had to shut a section due to unathorised access on the track. And it deals with hitting someone by stopping and then clearing it up. How is that any different to the mainline then when they dont have a driver?


In fact, the possibility of mainline runnig and the subject of obstructions could easily be solved - albeit expensiveley - by using the existing OHLE infrastructure to have some form of infrared grid system between each gantry looking at the track between the two all the way up the line. Any obstruction which has not moved for say more than 10 seconds would lead to say an amber aspect on the preceeding signals so the train slows down, the person on board moves to the front to take up driving position and to inspect the track ahead and then take necessary action.


The solutions to all your arguments for not having it are out there but for some, because of the loss of a drivers job, it is too hard to actually sit and think of solutions and its easier for them to slag anyone off who dares to question or discuss the future.

And lets face it, how many times on here and in the press have you seen stuff about drivers getting paid too much blah blah blah whilst sat on their arse's, or as one poster claimed ot have seen - looking at their iPod and then you have all had to justify it? Many times.

What you may not actually understand is that those very same passengers are the ones that come up to me and whinge about it and your salaries and trains being late - the majority of them blame it on you lot - and wonder why we cannot go to ATO on a lot of lines. Public perception may not be clued up on these things but time and time again they point to the DLR as the prime example. And once public opinion is going one way then the bosses and the Govt of the day will take this on board as they will claim it will make the railway cheaper and thats what the public want mainly - along with it being safe.


I agree, your job is more about just being sat there pushing buttons to open doors and all that - the public dont and more and more of them speak to people like me all over the country about it an dhow we could cut the cost of their ticket by getting rid of you lot.

Referring to us (drivers) twice in your post as "you lot" says it all really. As you say drivers do far more than push buttons. We make decisions based on knowledge and experience and on occasion deal with complex scenarios involving human behaviour that computer programs wouldn't be able to interpret.

 

[Carlisle]

Anyone who thinks that DOO or ATO will result in fares coming down is deluded I'm afraid.

They are 2 entirely different concepts ,whilst not always popular DOO has operated for a fair while now in quite a number of countries worldwide whereas driverless ATO on mainline heavy rail is only hypothetical anywhere for the foreseeable future

 

[notadriver]

Great post latecomer. The other issue that ATO might have trouble with is the weather - low adhesion. If ATO adopts an overcautious driving style it will lose time compared with a human driver and could still overshoot stations. What would it do then ?

(I've got the answer. Convert all railways to monorail using magnetic levitation). Easy

 

[rdeez]

Technically I think it's already within the realm of possibility. Obstacle detection is fairly trivial, clearly the track ahead should be clear and it isn't hard to detect this. Obviously on curves it would be too late for the system to react; but it would be the same for a human driver.

But...the bigger question is, should we want this? The fact we can doesn't necessarily mean we should. I can think of two very good reasons why we shouldn't want this: 1) Edge cases where a human driver can exercise judgement in a way a computer can't; 2) We're shooting ourselves in the foot by putting people out of work by means of automation. Increasing population, decreasing pool of jobs...

 

[dysonsphere]

A computer is only as smart as the person who programs it. If the programmer makes a mistake or fails to anticipate a scenario, the system will fail.

An A380 may spend the majority of it's time on autopilot, but it still has a fully-crewed cockpit with staff capable of flying the plane manually should it fail for whatever reason.

O L Leigh

Quite the point I was going to make. also if you have sensor problems feeding the computer duff info then what. That is why even the A380 has "old fashioned" analouge instruments for those wonderfull moments when the computers go t*** up.

 

[notadriver]

All the newest high speed lines are not driverless despite the technology being available. There must be something in that.