3 ms·
Numbered pages 3, 9, and 10 of https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42637.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42637.pdf have some info on why even positive train control
by troydavis 9y ago
Numbered pages 3, 9, and 10 of https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42637.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42637.pdf have some info on why even positive train control (PTC) isn’t live yet:
> The estimated capital cost of meeting the PTC mandate is thus roughly equal to the railroads’ total capital spending in a single year.”
… and that’s for PTC, not driverless. Successful PTC is arguably a precursor to anything more automated, with or without humans.
- repsilat 9y agoMost human-driven trains use coloured circular lights for signalling. Determining the presence of a coloured circle in a known location is about the simplest computer-vision problem known to man, so we could probably practically solve this cheaply tomorrow with an iPhone on a suction cup. Maybe there are legal issues in many/most jurisdictions getting in the way, but isn't saving "roughly ... the railroads’ total capital spending in a single year" worth a change in regulations?
- bkor 9y ago> worth a change in regulations? Why? The regulations are there for a reason. In Netherlands the rail safety system has to be heavily improved before automation is possible. What apparently is the cause of the outdated safety system is that the system was (when built) ahead of its time, but nowadays other systems are much better. They're now going to test with automated trains on specialized goods-only train lines. In this case the regulation is there to ensure safety. If improvements cost a lot it'll have to be spread out over multiple years, or e.g. not automate away drivers. What's to me seems utterly strange is immediately jump to just allowing such changes and assume regulation is the problem.