4 ms·

> Your incredulity at the fact that trains still have human operators involved in any capacity at all, on the other hand, is spot-on. I'm with you 100% there. E

by wtbob 10y ago

> Your incredulity at the fact that trains still have human operators involved in any capacity at all, on the other hand, is spot-on. I'm with you 100% there. Every time somebody wrecks a train because they were asleep or distracted or texting or otherwise had better things to do, there is always a giant thread on HN full of postings from train experts explaining why the world would end if humans weren't involved in fixed rail operations. I figure it's probably a low-rent version of the reason that the Space Shuttle had to be landed by people: just like astronauts wanted to feel useful, so too do the rail engineers.

daveguy 10y ago
> I figure it's probably a low-rent version of the reason that the Space Shuttle had to be landed by people: just like astronauts wanted to feel useful, so too do the rail engineers. I assure you that is not the reason the Space Shuttle, Trains or Planes require a human operator. It is the same reason cars do -- automated control is not sufficient that anyone is willing to put lives at risk to the automation. Especially when something abnormal could happen (most likely in a landing).
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Well there are plenty of driverless trains and I've never heard of anyone avoiding them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automation_4_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_... Although they're still generally all self-contained systems either underground or grade-separated (SkyTrains)
  - daveguy 10y ago
    That's a good point. When you have full control of design from the ground up it is reasonable to automate. I meant trains on existing complex tracks that were not designed from the ground up for automation. There are not trains navigating legacy systems, because that requires more uncertainty handling than our current automation is capable of. When the track and switching system and track vicinity are all controlled and designed for automation then it is a significantly less complex problem with respect to automation.

by wtbob 10y ago

daveguy 10y ago

> I figure it's probably a low-rent version of the reason that the Space Shuttle had to be landed by people: just like astronauts wanted to feel useful, so too do the rail engineers. I assure you that is not the reason the Space Shuttle, Trains or Planes require a human operator. It is the same reason cars do -- automated control is not sufficient that anyone is willing to put lives at risk to the automation. Especially when something abnormal could happen (most likely in a landing).

kalleboo 10y ago
Well there are plenty of driverless trains and I've never heard of anyone avoiding them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automation_4_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_... Although they're still generally all self-contained systems either underground or grade-separated (SkyTrains)
- daveguy 10y ago
  That's a good point. When you have full control of design from the ground up it is reasonable to automate. I meant trains on existing complex tracks that were not designed from the ground up for automation. There are not trains navigating legacy systems, because that requires more uncertainty handling than our current automation is capable of. When the track and switching system and track vicinity are all controlled and designed for automation then it is a significantly less complex problem with respect to automation.