UTO on mainline

[mozttp]

hello,

could anyone suggest/explain what would be the possible issues associated with an attempt to run mainline trains in a fully unattended mode (without any staff on board)

thanks a lot

 

[NSEFAN]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

In an ideal world, the railway would be a closed environment. This means there would be no (or very little) chance of any obstructions getting in the way of the train. Whilst this is mainly true for metro systems such as London Underground, it's not the same for the mainlines. Obstacle detection is not good enough yet to warrant replacing the driver / conductor with a machine.

Under normal operation, automatic driving is often more efficient than a human. You just need a responsible, trained person to be onboard for those emergencies that the computer can't handle. This is basically how the Jubilee and Victoria lines operate, as opposed to the DLR which has remote monitoring in use. For mainline usage, I support the use of ATO (Automatic Train Operation) with at least one member of staff on board to oversee its operation.

Hope this helps.

 

[mozttp]

Thanks NSEFAN

 

[Bungle73]

It's never going to happen.

Hi and welcome to the forum.

In an ideal world, the railway would be a closed environment. This means there would be no (or very little) chance of any obstructions getting in the way of the train. Whilst this is mainly true for metro systems such as London Underground, it's not the same for the mainlines. Obstacle detection is not good enough yet to warrant replacing the driver / conductor with a machine.

The LU isn't a closed system though. Not only do you have the risk of items (or people) falling onto the track at stations, vast swathes of it are actually above ground where the usual mainline railway issues still apply.

Under normal operation, automatic driving is often more efficient than a human. You just need a responsible, trained person to be onboard for those emergencies that the computer can't handle. This is basically how the Jubilee and Victoria lines operate, as opposed to the DLR which has remote monitoring in use.

The DLR has a person on board.

 

[NSEFAN]

I never said there aren't risks on LU, but the central sections are largely enclosed. You are right about the outer sections, though. The Jubilee line has the right idea in my view by using platform-edge doors. The DLR can be manually driven, and I have seen staff on board, but I thought that most trains are run fully automatically with remote monitoring?

I suspect that eventually, machines will be able to outperform humans in every task, not just on the railways. That's not for a long, long time yet, though!

 

[Bungle73]

I never said there aren't risks on LU, but the central sections are largely enclosed. You are right about the outer sections, though. The Jubilee line has the right idea in my view by using platform-edge doors. The DLR can be manually driven, and I have seen staff on board, but I thought that most trains are run fully automatically with remote monitoring?

I suspect that eventually, machines will be able to outperform humans in every task, not just on the railways. That's not for a long, long time yet, though!

The DLR has always been automatic, but they've always had a member of staff on board to take charge and drive the train if the system breaks down.

Google's driverless car probably has the sort of technology that could be used, but tbh I can't see it happening, ever. A car is a complexity different thing from a train, and I'm pretty sure passengers wouldn't like it if there were no staff at all on the train. Like with the DLR what happens if the system breaks down? You're always going to need at least someone on board who can take control.

 

[WestCoast]

I'm pretty sure passengers wouldn't like it if there were no staff at all on the train. Like with the DLR what happens if the system breaks down? You're always going to need at least someone on board who can take control.

I've been on quite a few 'enclosed 'systems where the trains are completely unattended;

-Transit Systems at/near Airports (e.g. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham Airports in the UK). AirTrain at New York's JFK is a particuarly large system.
-Lille Metro
-Paris Metro Line 14

 

[Stephen55a1960]

It's never going to happen.


The LU isn't a closed system though. Not only do you have the risk of items (or people) falling onto the track at stations, vast swathes of it are actually above ground where the usual mainline railway issues still apply.


The DLR has a person on board.

Speaking from limited experience of continental systems. The Amsterdam Metro (for example) also has a person onboard. Likewise, the Berlin,Hamburg and Munich U-Bahn systems.

 

[Bungle73]

I've been on quite a few 'enclosed 'systems where the trains are completely unattended;

-Transit Systems at/near Airports (e.g. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham Airports in the UK). AirTrain at New York's JFK is a particuarly large system.

Airport systems are a completely different thing altogether. They only have a very short section of track and few stations. Nothing like a proper railway in fact.

-Lille Metro
-Paris Metro Line 14

And how do they handle it when something goes wrong?

 

[bronzeonion]

Wont happen but if trains on the main line dont even have drivers in the future well to be honest I would support all other modes of transport but rail.

 

[WestCoast]

Airport systems are a completely different thing altogether. They only have a very short section of track and few stations. Nothing like a proper railway in fact?

There are exceptions. AirTrain at New York JFK is 8 miles long and has 10 stations (at least half outside the airport perimeter). Completely unattended.

And how do they handle it when something goes wrong?

I don't know, I imagine the systems are very closely monitored by control room staff and if anything goes wrong, someone can be dispatched quickly.

The Copenhagen Metro is also unattended, although sometimes there is also a steward onboard (IIRC they can't drive though). Apparently, Nuremberg U-Bahn Lines U2/U3 are similar, plus Barcelona Metro Lines 9/10/11.

 

[jopsuk]

Other than the depot, the Victoria line is fully underground- and has run in attended ATO since it was constructed. The presence of the opertaor is considered a safety feature; with the tight tunnels and no platform edge doors and high passenger numbers, the human is the current most reliable way of ensuring that passengers board and alight safely, and is invaluable in an emergency.
I've long been surprised that the Waterloo and City remains a manually operated line. Really, it's a prime candidate for conversion to an automatic system with human dispatch on the platforms

 

[D2022]

Whilst I can appreciate the possible benefits of an automatic system in reality, and personally speaking only, I would rather a person be present. If only incase of an emergency. Technology is cold and calculated, it can't make decisions like a human can, particularly in an emergency crisis. Think of the job cuts

 

[W230]

I think without any staff on board it would become more difficult outside the major centres.

I'm sure it doesn't happen that often but say, for example, someone lobbed an item onto the track. A train with staff onboard could see what the problem was and possibly move it off the tracks straight away. An UTO based train would (I assume) have to wait for someone to attend the location and sort the problem. I would think there would be too many permutations for a computer based system to deal efficiently (for now at least) with so any obstruction would involve the train stopping until someone came to sort out the problem. I suppose some of this could be dealt with by remote monitoring though?

What are the reasons for Crossrail to be ATO rather that UTO?

Just found this link which gives an example of the different levels of automation that are/can be implemented.

I'm assuming Level 1 equates to something similar to HS1; Level 2 - Jubilee/Victoria lines; Level 3 - DLR?

 

[rf_ioliver]

Airport systems are a completely different thing altogether. They only have a very short section of track and few stations. Nothing like a proper railway in fact.

And how do they handle it when something goes wrong?

Everything is monitored via telemetry, CCTV and various other systems. The automation is actually quite simple and any condition outside of "normal" is handed over to a human operator.

These systems are built in a very different way from, shall we say, "normal systems" in that everything is constructed to fail in a known condition and every failure can be traced in terms of its causes and effects. Software engineering for example in these environments is very different to what you see with typical application and operating system software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-safe

One of the arguments about driverless operation is the costs saved by going driverless are lost by the additional certification, safety systems, monitoring and the requirement for differently trained staff to look after these systems.

t.

Ian

 

[Waddon]

In Australia, some of the huge multi-locomotive iron ore trains on Rio Tinto's Pilbara iron ore rail network are being made driverless... I suppose the thinking behind it is that, if something does get in the way, the train is so heavy and takes so long to stop that it doesn't make any difference... of course running trains in the outback is very different from running stuff on our crowded over-regulated island

 

[Eagle]

I never said there aren't risks on LU, but the central sections are largely enclosed. You are right about the outer sections, though. The Jubilee line has the right idea in my view by using platform-edge doors.

The primary purpose of edge doors isn't to stop things falling on the track (although it's a big plus), it's to stop the large turbulent airflow (plunger effect) you get when the train enters or exits the enclosed station box.

 

[causton]

The primary purpose of edge doors isn't to stop things falling on the track (although it's a big plus), it's to stop the large turbulent airflow (plunger effect) you get when the train enters or exits the enclosed station box.

Which can be welcome on a warm day! A nice breeze that is

 

[Jonny]

The upside to UTO/ATO is that, in normal operation, the human operator is removed and this severely reduces (if not removes) the possibility of human error. Besides, machines don't join trade unions and go on strike

 

[Teaboy1]

I agree that the Australians are showing how it can be done with driver-less trains but my information is that they are driven by a driver 1000's of miles away who sits in an office behind several monitors and oversee's the progress via video-link. Its the same with monster dump trucks in Aussy mines, the too are driven from offices back in Perth or Adelaide, its far too difficult to fly men into outback for weeks on end, when they can be done remotely with modern comms. Finally think what USAF do with drones in Iraq and Afghanistan, those pilots sit in offices at USAF bases to conduct missions.

However a truck full of ore/coal is a lot different to a train full of people !! If it goes wrong a broken truck / train can be repaired, people cant! Suppose it will happen one-day!

 

[bronzeonion]

The country is just starting to come out of economically hard times and cutting staff wont speed it up! Infact they should employ more conductors/guards call em what you like!

 

[Kneedown]

The upside to UTO/ATO is that, in normal operation, the human operator is removed and this severely reduces (if not removes) the possibility of human error. Besides, machines don't join trade unions and go on strike

The downside is that i very much doubt that a computer can always react appropriately when confronted with certain infinately variable conditions, for instance anticipating the potential presence of, and severity of low adhesion conditions. When confronted with a tree across the line i imagine it'll just sit there doing nothing whereas i would (and indeed have done in the past!) raid the tool cupboard and chop it up there and then. Can a computer go outside and effect an immediate temporary repair to the train thus minimising delay, or would it sit there for hours until the fitters arrive. Does a computer go the extra mile in serving the public by imparting information or helping someone less able to carry luggage on and off.
All the above i perform fairly regulary.
U/Ato is fine for small, isolated systems which close to help in their entirety, but for long distance and rural services which are often out out in the wilds i believe that it's a long lonnnnngggggggg way off.

 

[NSEFAN]

The downside is that i very much doubt that a computer can always react appropriately when confronted with certain infinately variable conditions, for instance anticipating the potential presence of, and severity of low adhesion conditions. When confronted with a tree across the line i imagine it'll just sit there doing nothing whereas i would (and indeed have done in the past!) raid the tool cupboard and chop it up there and then. Can a computer go outside and effect an immediate temporary repair to the train thus minimising delay, or would it sit there for hours until the fitters arrive. Does a computer go the extra mile in serving the public by imparting information or helping someone less able to carry luggage on and off.

Well one approach would be to look at how the human brain assesses obstacles and try and copy it. Once you can do that, you can fine tune the process to make it as good as (and then eventually better than) a person. Whilst this may take many years to develop, I suspect it will happen eventually. Don't forget that human drivers have their downfalls, such as getting tired and having lapses of concentration.

Even if a machine was perfect, people still wouldn't trust it compared to a human. Having a person on board puts the passengers at ease. I feel that a good compromise is to have the train run fully automatically, but with a conductor on board who can help in customer service and emergency assistance roles.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't buy the computers are better argument. Granted, there are some things they can do better than humans, but again there are many things they cannot do better than humans. To use an example from a different industry, ask yourself why we still manually defibrillate despite automatic ones being available.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Bungle73]

I don't think traction conditions are a problem - we already have traction control and ABS on cars.

How does the DLR manage?

 

[Kneedown]

I don't think traction conditions are a problem - we already have traction control and ABS on cars.

How does the DLR manage?

A car isn't a train. It has nice rubber tyres which, even in poor condition and from high speeds on greasy roads, will bring it to a stop in a reasonably short distance. A train can slide for a very considerable distance indeed. Many trains are also fitted with a form of ABS (although we call it "WSP") and traction control that cuts power when slip is detected. It still takes human vision and judgement to stop the train where it needs to be stopped precisely. You can have the best computer in the world driving for you but if you ain't got the distance to stop, you ain't got the distance.

I cant comment exactly on the DLR as i'm not familiar with it, but as i understand it, it is a self contained system, with trains operating at relatively low speeds, with very little prospect for leaffall contamination of rails, and never far from help should it be needed.

 

[LE Greys]

Forgive me, but 'UTO' sounds as through someone has seen a rail-mounted flying saucer!

 

[maniacmartin]

The DLR is programmed to pull in glacially slowly into terminus platforms, presumably to guard against bad traction. For through platforms, its not as much of an issue if you overrun