Driverless Trains

[Bletchleyite]

Split from the thread about drivers doing tickets...

As I say, I really am uncomfortable with the idea of a Pendolino cracking along, entirely automated, even if there was a driver in the cab just in case. It may be a reluctance to accept the assurances given by the software developers, or technophobia generally. One ought to accept the unfailing reliability of technology over fallible human beings but, so long as recruitment and training remain rigorous, I prefer them to machines. It keeps people in work too, which is a good thing. I used the DLR as an example, it's speeds are relatively slow, but all it needs is for the software to 'lose' a train then run the following one straight over its path thinking the line is clear.

But why's that so different from a Pendolino cracking along at 125mph, as you put it, and it rounds a corner having passed a green to see that the signalling system has "lost" a Pacer and smashes into it, killing all on board as its flimsy structure falls to bits? Trains don't generally work in such a way that humans can do an awful lot when it goes wrong, other than pick up the bits. This is quite different to air. The key with rail is that "if in doubt, stop" is always the safest policy.

I think we do need a qualified member of staff on board DLR-style - I don't think we could have unmanned mainline trains - but I don't massively see that they have to be sitting at the front. Indeed, they're more likely to survive to "pick up the bits" if *not* at the front.

Neil

 

[ian959]

Since driverless trains already exist I don't see any problem with them, even on mainlines. Even at high speeds, there would be so many redundancies built in that accidents would be exceedingly rare. In many cases computers are already better than humans at reacting to something going wrong, and the technology is getting better all the time.

As for keeping people in work, since labour costs form a substantial part of the operating costs of a railway, it is inevitable that people will be phased out wherever possible and replaced by machines. That happens now. Technology may not be the be all and end all in ALL circumstances but for the vast majority of commuter railways and even some mainline railways, it is an inevitable way of making railways less expensive to run in theory.

 

[NSEFAN]

I would have thought that capacity is also a factor. ATO would allow trains to get much closer together than they currently do. This of course doesn't mean that trains should be unstaffed, and I'm sure most passengers would prefer a member of staff to be on the train to help with incident recovery.

 

[carriageline]

I can't believe this is the third, maybe fourth thread in the last couple of months! Do people not want to read over points raised in them threads?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Split from the thread about drivers doing tickets...



But why's that so different from a Pendolino cracking along at 125mph, as you put it, and it rounds a corner having passed a green to see that the signalling system has "lost" a Pacer and smashes into it, killing all on board as its flimsy structure falls to bits? Trains don't generally work in such a way that humans can do an awful lot when it goes wrong, other than pick up the bits. This is quite different to air. The key with rail is that "if in doubt, stop" is always the safest policy.

I think we do need a qualified member of staff on board DLR-style - I don't think we could have unmanned mainline trains - but I don't massively see that they have to be sitting at the front. Indeed, they're more likely to survive to "pick up the bits" if *not* at the front.

Neil

That's my point, there isn't a difference, one crashes into the other, multiple injuries occur.

There is a difference of scale i.e. number of passengers DLR vs Pendolino, speed - time to react / get to the cab / stop the train without collision, finally injuries at lower speed will generally be less serious than at higher speed.

The general public, of which I am one, will, I suspect, require a lot of convincing before they accept driverless express (instead of mainline) trains. Clearly they (and I) accept them on DLR and underground line/s so why not elsewhere? At one time, people wouldn't use lifts without an attendant present. Most now accept automation as normal and safe.

As a previous poster said, DLR is a closed system - no horses to run onto the track (incident in NE this week) but, were that to happen on DLR, the passengers or train captain 'may' spot the obstacle and if they didn't the risks appear lower due to the lower speeds involved. HS1 (and future HS2) are also closed systems - no level crossings, much better fencing, so perhaps that is the way forward?

Pilotless planes? If the entire cockpit crew came out of a 747 you were on, mid-Atlantic, and started doing something else - relaxing or working the hostess trolley (wrong thread, again!), would you feel entirely comfortable? What if they lock themselves out, with an 'anti-terrorist' strengthened door!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't believe this is the third, maybe fourth thread in the last couple of months! Do people not want to read over points raised in them threads?

Read it or don't read it - if people want to talk about it why shouldn't they?

Neil

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I can't believe this is the third, maybe fourth thread in the last couple of months! Do people not want to read over points raised in them threads?

Possibly, but,

1) the forum search function is sub-optimal,
2) down the pub, we go over the same topics time and time again, sometimes with new contributions! We could, but don't, simply pull the CCTV footage of the previous time and watch it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a previous poster said, DLR is a closed system - no horses to run onto the track (incident in NE this week) but, were that to happen on DLR, the passengers or train captain 'may' spot the obstacle and if they didn't the risks appear lower due to the lower speeds involved. HS1 (and future HS2) are also closed systems - no level crossings, much better fencing, so perhaps that is the way forward?

But even if they weren't closed systems, at 200+ mph, a driver who sees horses on the line isn't going to be able to do anything other than bleed off a few miles per hour by hitting emergency stop, and duck.

As for running to the cab - why? I think such trains would need to reinstate an emergency brake handle (I like the German model here - red for brake, green for passcom).

Pilotless planes? If the entire cockpit crew came out of a 747 you were on, mid-Atlantic, and started doing something else - relaxing or working the hostess trolley (wrong thread, again!), would you feel entirely comfortable? What if they lock themselves out, with an 'anti-terrorist' strengthened door!

A plane is rather different, in that the people need to be there just in case, because it has to continue flying. With a train, it's clear - if the computer doesn't get what's going on, stop now. Then the human has ample time to wander down to the cab and sort whatever it is out before pressing "go" again.

Neil

 

[Retorus]

I can't believe this is the third, maybe fourth thread in the last couple of months! Do people not want to read over points raised in them threads?

Yeah, let's only ever have one thread on every subject. That'll work.

 

[carriageline]

Yeah, let's only ever have one thread on every subject. That'll work.

But what I mean is, surely the previous threads are still on the first page of the infrastructure etc sections? Of course discussion is good, it's needed. But pretty boring because it was talked about in quite some detail about 2-3 weeks ago. I personally enjoy the subject, as I feel (as do any rail staff) I can bring a lot to the table for the 'anti' side

I will sum up previous discussions. The pro technology will state how it will work, what can be implemented and that rail staff are dinosaurs and won't accept change . The pro drivers/anti driverless will say how the railway is too much of an open system to have a true driverless system, okay the train can drive itself no problem, but when you have any form of degraded working it will struggle.

Both sides do bring good ideas, and very valid points to the table each time. But when you work at the coal face, and see and deal with what we do in a day to day basis, you see how it would struggle with a driverless system.

 

[Geezertronic]

Regarding the quote from Baxenden Bank in Neil's first post, my understanding of the newer aircraft was that they can virtually fly themselves anyway so effectively the pilot could just sit there after take off and let it fly & even land itself. There are already anti-collision and other systems onboard to monitor the aircraft so maybe the makers of trains could learn a thing or two from the aircraft industry - anyone fancy a train made by Boeing or Airbus?

 

[Nean]

Regarding the quote from Baxenden Bank in Neil's first post, my understanding of the newer aircraft was that they can virtually fly themselves anyway so effectively the pilot could just sit there after take off and let it fly & even land itself. There are already anti-collision and other systems onboard to monitor the aircraft so maybe the makers of trains could learn a thing or two from the aircraft industry - anyone fancy a train made by Boeing or Airbus?

One major difference is that landing and takeoff (The 2 hardest parts of air travel) are still done by the pilots with good knowledge of the airport, runway and handling characteristics of the plane... (Something sounds familiar).

Even autopilot works off the (co)pilot manually inputting the heading, speed and altitude that the ATC centre tells them.

 

[deltic]

One major difference is that landing and takeoff (The 2 hardest parts of air travel) are still done by the pilots with good knowledge of the airport, runway and handling characteristics of the plane... (Something sounds familiar).

Even autopilot works off the (co)pilot manually inputting the heading, speed and altitude that the ATC centre tells them.

A high proportion of take-off and landings are done on auto-pilot - the only task that isnt done by auto-pilot is taxiing and to save fuel that is best done by a tug

 

[SPADTrap]

A high proportion of take-off and landings are done on auto-pilot - the only task that isnt done by auto-pilot is taxiing and to save fuel that is best done by a tug

Sorry to chime in here but take off certainly isn't done on the autopilot. No proportion of takeoffs are done on autopilot.

Taxi by tug? Again incorrect - aircraft under its own power either single engine or all...if you've seen something dragged around the airport using a tug its more than likely heading for maintenance or another stand, certainly not to take off.

Ex turboprop driver.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One major difference is that landing and takeoff (The 2 hardest parts of air travel) are still done by the pilots with good knowledge of the airport, runway and handling characteristics of the plane... (Something sounds familiar).

Even autopilot works off the (co)pilot manually inputting the heading, speed and altitude that the ATC centre tells them.

The autopilot does what the crew tell it, be it via the CDU or 'on the fly' via the FCU, so not as automated as people may believe!

 

[bavvo]

Are driverless trains at all likely on HS2 after it's completed? Since that will be a largely self contained and well isolated from potential trespass/rockfall/landslips it should at least be a much more predictable environment. Seems more likely than the conventional tracks at least. Could be something they plan to build in?

For that matter, does anywhere use driverless trains on fast/long distance routes?

 

[oversteer]

I wonder if you could run it like drones, with one driver controlling multiple trains remotely..

 

[Camden]

I think there is a fundamental question as to why we would want driverless trains, not whether it is do-able.

Is there an enhancement to safety, for example, or is it just to save a bit of money?

If it's just to save a bit of money, then we really need to have a look at our society and think about this. How long before, in industries around the world, we're all sitting at home twiddling our thumbs wondering where the next meal is coming from, where machines have taken over our jobs for the sake of saving a pound here or there?

The fact is that the only reason we run trains around cities and between them is to facilitate human society. And the only reason the people on those trains go to their paper shuffling jobs is to facilitate human society. It's all just to keep money and goods flowing around so we've got something to do, produce to buy, water to drink and a means of exchange to clothe and feed ourselves.

When you realise that, keeping drivers and lowering the profit margins of some company (that essentially funnels money out of that chain and into the 1% where the money sits idle) seems less of an issue.

 

[paul1609]

I think there is a fundamental question as to why we would want driverless trains, not whether it is do-able.

Is there an enhancement to safety, for example, or is it just to save a bit of money?

If it's just to save a bit of money, then we really need to have a look at our society and think about this. How long before, in industries around the world, we're all sitting at home twiddling our thumbs wondering where the next meal is coming from, where machines have taken over our jobs for the sake of saving a pound here or there?

The fact is that the only reason we run trains around cities and between them is to facilitate human society. And the only reason the people on those trains go to their paper shuffling jobs is to facilitate human society. It's all just to keep money and goods flowing around so we've got something to do, produce to buy, water to drink and a means of exchange to clothe and feed ourselves.

When you realise that, keeping drivers and lowering the profit margins of some company (that essentially funnels money out of that chain and into the 1% where the money sits idle) seems less of an issue.

Would increase capacity massively, reduce energy costs, Improve availability, theres no guarntee it would reduce safety either many major rail crashes have been caused by driver error.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would increase capacity massively, reduce energy costs, Improve availability, theres no guarntee it would reduce safety either many major rail crashes have been caused by driver error.

Going back to air, it has certainly been argued that if you removed the pilots you might actually save lives overall, because most air crashes are caused by human error, not computer problems.

But there's the human factor in passengers there, which is what leads to a driver being in the cab on the Victoria Line etc. Somehow, it seems acceptable that "the pilot made a human mistake but made an amazing effort to recover, and saved half the lives on board", but not that "half the people on board the aircraft were killed after it crashed due to a computer malfunction" - how do we solve that?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would increase capacity massively, reduce energy costs, Improve availability

Staffing is one of the biggest costs in public transport. If you could have a rural branch line with no staff on board at all (sounds implausible, but some of the longer Swiss funiculars are like that), you could run it far more frequently or even on demand, or overnight[1] etc.

You wouldn't run a WCML Pendolino unstaffed. But you wouldn't run it DOO either, so that's a different argument.

[1] Oddly most of the funiculars don't run overnight, probably because of noise.

Neil

 

[chris11256]

It's an interesting topic. I'm sure that if you replaced one average commuter train with an identical train that was driverless(but still had member of staff in the cab) 99% of people wouldn't know the difference.

I like them from a technological viewpoint and I think it's something that should at least be given proper thought, rather than instant dismissal. The key thing to remember is that computers only do what people tell them to do.

 

[W230]

It's an interesting topic. I'm sure that if you replaced one average commuter train with an identical train that was driverless(but still had member of staff in the cab) 99% of people wouldn't know the difference.

Deepgreen would. Either that or he'd be asking the computer to account for its slow speed into Clapham Junction...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's an interesting topic. I'm sure that if you replaced one average commuter train with an identical train that was driverless(but still had member of staff in the cab) 99% of people wouldn't know the difference.

I like them from a technological viewpoint and I think it's something that should at least be given proper thought, rather than instant dismissal. The key thing to remember is that computers only do what people tell them to do.

One of the key things about being a train driver (assuming a non-DOO train in which the guard controls the doors) is that your job is basically following a set of rules and instructions with very little discretion. Computers are very, very good at that provided you program them well. Humans rather less so, and the humans being rather less so is what causes most accidents on the vast majority of transport of all kinds.

Neil

 

[DelW]

maybe the makers of trains could learn a thing or two from the aircraft industry - anyone fancy a train made by Boeing or Airbus?

Boeing did build light-rail vehicles in the 1970s - they weren't very successful....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle

Note that a couple appear still to be extant in the UK.

 

[Tomnick]

One of the key things about being a train driver (assuming a non-DOO train in which the guard controls the doors) is that your job is basically following a set of rules and instructions with very little discretion.

Not really - railway operating, especially when things are going wrong, is all about working within the rules rather than blindly following a set of instructions. The Rules & Regs rarely adequately describe a specific situation - every situation's different, and it's important to be able to determine the best course of action, with the guidance of the rules to tell you certain things that you must do, and other things that you can't do. I'm not saying that it's beyond the capability of computers, but it's certainly not as easy as you make it sound.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Boeing did build light-rail vehicles in the 1970s - they weren't very successful....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle

Note that a couple appear still to be extant in the UK.

Metrolink bought one or two with a view to buying more, but unsuccessfully, didn't they?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really - railway operating, especially when things are going wrong, is all about working within the rules rather than blindly following a set of instructions. The Rules & Regs rarely adequately describe a specific situation - every situation's different, and it's important to be able to determine the best course of action, with the guidance of the rules to tell you certain things that you must do, and other things that you can't do. I'm not saying that it's beyond the capability of computers, but it's certainly not as easy as you make it sound.

But that's why, as with the DLR, you would most likely retain a member of staff on the train - they just needn't be sitting in the cab unless an exceptional situation has arisen.

So instead of DOO, you'd essentially have GOO.

Neil

 

[DelW]

Metrolink bought one or two with a view to buying more, but unsuccessfully, didn't they?

Neil

Indeed - this is from the 'Replacements and retirements' section of the Wikipedia page linked earlier:

In 2002 the city of Manchester, UK was host to the British Commonwealth games. Manchester has its own LRT system named Metrolink. As many of the athletic stadiums were on the route of the LRT capacity problems were foreseen, and a short term solution was required. Manchester Metrolink approached Muni about the possibility of buying redundant Boeing LRVs for use on Metrolink. Two units were purchased for US$200–US$500[2] for initial evaluation and shipped to the UK. One unit was sent to the UK Railways Inspectorate in Derby, to ensure the LRV met UK road and rail safety standards, and another to Metrolink in Manchester[11] for conversion evaluation. Units 1214, 1219,[12] 1220, 1221, 1234,[13] 1249,[14] 1268, 1288, 1305, 1308, 1312, and 1327 were stored pending the sale.

Investigations concluded the trams were not in line with UK safety standards (in fact they would suffer more damage than a UK car in the event of accident) due to their height and width. Additionally other problems were found including the drivers seat being on the opposite side of the road (UK roads drive from the left), Conversion to remove ticket sales (Tickets are sold from the stops before boarding). LRT system requirements dictate the separation of the driver from direct passenger contact for road safety reasons. As the driver was next to the door (in order to receive fares), this wasn't possible. Given this list of changes for such a short-term solution, even though practically free to purchase the Boeing LRVs, Metrolink ultimately declined to buy the remaining stored units and they have since been scrapped.[2]

It was however noted that their ability to manage sharp curves and fast acceleration on steep hills would have been valuable in the city center of Manchester.

Today, these cars 1226 and 1326 remain intact at Derby and Manchester. The Muni trams would have fit well in Manchester as their color scheme and Muni logo were almost exact matches of the old Greater Manchester Transport color schemes (Orange and White exterior, and Wooden finish interior). Due to the large number of railway and road transport schemes in the area, the Muni trams in Manchester may end in preservation.[2]

See original page for the references.

 

[ringi]

This is not a Yes/No question.

For example a train could operate driver less on HS2, with the driver taking over at complex stations. The rest of the time the driver could have a rest room next to the cab. Therefore allowing single driver to take care of a train for 8hr without having to cover breaks for the driver.

There is nothing a driver can add to operation of a fast trains on a fast line over what a computer can do better. The driver cannot see far enough to be of any use at 200mph.

But having the driver on board, to take over when there are problem, e.g. if the signals fails, to drive on sight at a slow speed is of great value.

 

[Dave1987]

The cost of implementing such a system would be so extortionate that I doubt you will see driverless trains in the near future. A lot of airliners like the Boeing 777 are highly automated and could quite easily be flown by one pilot yet they still have to have two crew on the flight deck. The DLR was built from day one to be automated and as has been said is very low speed and has a relative simple operation compared to the mainline.

 

[A-driver]

Metrolink bought one or two with a view to buying more, but unsuccessfully, didn't they?



Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




But that's why, as with the DLR, you would most likely retain a member of staff on the train - they just needn't be sitting in the cab unless an exceptional situation has arisen.



So instead of DOO, you'd essentially have GOO.



Neil

So where does GOO save any money?!

You spend an absolute fortune building and then maintaining a driverless system including major infrastructure changes and then still pay someone who will need to know almost everything a driver does to travel on the train. That person will still need to be trained and paid and the pay wouldn't be much less really-and those staff may still choose to belong to a trade union so all its going to do is increase costs...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is not a Yes/No question.

For example a train could operate driver less on HS2, with the driver taking over at complex stations. The rest of the time the driver could have a rest room next to the cab. Therefore allowing single driver to take care of a train for 8hr without having to cover breaks for the driver.

There is nothing a driver can add to operation of a fast trains on a fast line over what a computer can do better. The driver cannot see far enough to be of any use at 200mph.

But having the driver on board, to take over when there are problem, e.g. if the signals fails, to drive on sight at a slow speed is of great value.

Not really though...as my post above States, it's still going to involve paying for well trained and paid staff to be on every train who may still be in a union and in addition will require a complete rebuild of trains and infrastructure.

Hardly financially worth it really...

 

[A-driver]

I don't think anyone has seriously considered it. It's a vote-scoring line out out by those opposing trade unions influence and strike threats. But with the obvious mistake that driverless trains will still need a large number of trained staff to operate and those staff can still join a union. If they strike then it will still bring the trains to a halt!