3 ms·
I think there's less incentive for automating trains because of the cargo:driver ratio. The cost of the human at the helm is a much smaller portion of the cost
by arebop 10y ago
I think there's less incentive for automating trains because of the cargo:driver ratio. The cost of the human at the helm is a much smaller portion of the cost of operating the railroad.
- seansmccullough 10y agoTotally agree, they only need a handful of people to operate a multi-mile long train.
- Cshelton 10y agoActually not true; the total number of people it requires to move a train, with all the other trains on the track, and then taking in every safety precaution, track monitoring, etc. The operation involves many people on a highly coordinated level...they don't have a lot of room for error with the number of trains on the small amount of track.
- Cshelton 10y agoI was just saying it from a standpoint of that is has been mandated by the government (U.S.) and the date has had to be pushed back multiple times because the railroads are having a tough time implementing it. It's actually a much harder problem then you might initially think. The cost of the human is negligible; it's about the cost of the cargo, and not needing to stop unnecessarily to change the humans out. Either way, if we can't accomplish automated long distance rail...automated trucking freight doesn't look to be that close.