3 ms·

The negative feedback loop on faulty signals should be a read for anyone doing engineering, including software engineering. If the workers go the proper speed,

The negative feedback loop on faulty signals should be a read for anyone doing engineering, including software engineering. If the workers go the proper speed, the faulty signal will trip an emergency break. This actually threatens their jobs because they'll be blamed for tripping the e-brake as if the signals worked perfectly. 1. The management trusts the automation too much without proper checks or tests proving the automation is accurate. 2. These workers are still blamed, even after signals are known to be bad. 3. People, even in here, blame the workers (and the union) for the fault of the system's quality being garbage. 4. Workers try to preserve their jobs by just working around the problem and reducing productivity all-around.

jrockway 8y ago
I'm not sure. The incentives could go either way. If the incentive is "on time performance is a must and the signal system is not going to check your speed", then people would drive the trains over the recommended speed to make the schedule, and thus derail the train around curves or not keep the speed low enough for the block system to provide adequate train protection. As it stands now, the incentive is to not get "tripped", so people drive the trains well below the speed at which the signalling system will trip the train... doing anything else runs the risk of getting yelled at or worse, and nobody wants that, so they play it safe. A computer can be programmed to take into account both concerns and drive the train at the exact speed to satisfy all the constraints of the signalling system. If a computer gets tripped for travelling through a block too quickly, a meeting is had and a fix is checked in. The software doesn't care if you're mad at it. You just fix it and move on. Humans are more fragile, and if you don't align the incentives correctly you will not get the right result.

jrockway 8y ago

I'm not sure. The incentives could go either way. If the incentive is "on time performance is a must and the signal system is not going to check your speed", then people would drive the trains over the recommended speed to make the schedule, and thus derail the train around curves or not keep the speed low enough for the block system to provide adequate train protection. As it stands now, the incentive is to not get "tripped", so people drive the trains well below the speed at which the signalling system will trip the train... doing anything else runs the risk of getting yelled at or worse, and nobody wants that, so they play it safe. A computer can be programmed to take into account both concerns and drive the train at the exact speed to satisfy all the constraints of the signalling system. If a computer gets tripped for travelling through a block too quickly, a meeting is had and a fix is checked in. The software doesn't care if you're mad at it. You just fix it and move on. Humans are more fragile, and if you don't align the incentives correctly you will not get the right result.