5 ms·

The cabin is interesting. There doesn't seem to be much visibility through the windows. I guess at such speeds the driver can only rely on information feeds fro

by gnode 7y ago

The cabin is interesting. There doesn't seem to be much visibility through the windows. I guess at such speeds the driver can only rely on information feeds from far up ahead, and there's little advantage to being able to see with the naked eye. Large windows would probably make it less safe in the event of flying debris too. It makes me wonder why not get rid of them all together and make the cabin like a tank. To get some sunlight perhaps?

themanr 7y ago
It's not always going to be running at top speed.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
That's a good point, wonder if they can even open the side windows to look out? I think the windows on trains generally serve to give situational awareness at the station, once you are up to speed reacting to unexpected impediments isn't so time critical since the train isn't likely to stop fast enough anyway.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  > wonder if they can even open the side windows to look out Almost certainly not. Open windows are terrible for aerodynamics. Even in normal cars they can cause a noticable reduction in fuel efficiency. I'd imagine the effect would be much worse at these speeds.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    I imagine aerodynamics isn't very important when you are shunting the train about on the switch yard...
- gnode 7y ago
  Reacting to things is still important and time critical. You just can't react to anything in sight. Instead the things you can react to are data and camera feeds from far up ahead. What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? I think that raises a question of: what is the point of having a driver on the train? Why not have people in a control room drive the trains, coordinating the system as a whole? Arguably this is already the case, with some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. Maybe the reason is simply that passengers would rather trust a driver whose life is invested along with theirs.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    The point is mainly to have someone trained there when something goes wrong, like a signal switch breaking down or you hitting something on the tracks. Since they have to be there anyway they might as well monitor the train.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    > What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? These are not things the train driver would react to. There will be a signal protecting the switch, which won't be "green" until the change is successful. If the driver tries to pass a red signal (or exceed the speed limit), the emergency brake is applied automatically. The driver needs to react to unexpected events -- which might mean applying the emergency brake on their own train and maybe pressing the emergency button to stop all trains in the area. Possibilities: - their own train has a serious mechanical failure - something falls of their train, like a container or (somehow) a passenger - the track has a serious failure (flooding, damaged rail, nearby fire) - foreign objects are on the track (cars, trees, people) Other trains will react automatically as necessary. The driver is then there to deal with the situation, which might include proceeding at slow speed, reversing, or waiting for assistance while keeping passengers informed. > some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. On high-speed trains like this, all of these safety systems you've heard about are standard, and most of them are considered critical for normal operation. > what is the point of having a driver on the train? A better question is why does the driver actually drive the train? (Why do they control the speed?) I think that's to help maintain situational awareness in case there is a problem they can react to.
    - gnode 7y ago
      I don't think any of these things are reasons to have the driver on the train. The train drivers could be located at a remote location and still be aware of these things. Loss of connectivity already means it's unsafe for the train to continue and must stop, as it cannot be aware of signals or hazards ahead. As far as foreign objects or track failures go, these are not promptly apparent from the cabin anyway. CCTV on the track and crossings ahead is better placed for early warning. Additionally, remote control of trains could potentially be more safe, as it would be easier for a new driver to take over in the event of e.g. the driver having a heart attack or stroke. I think the only remaining reason is the physical accountability of being on the train.
Jaruzel 7y ago
Don't forget the physiological aspect on the driver too, Just having the windows, useful or not, would contribute to better wellbeing as opposed to a windowless box. After all, the drivers cab is a workplace.

by gnode 7y ago

themanr 7y ago

It's not always going to be running at top speed.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

That's a good point, wonder if they can even open the side windows to look out? I think the windows on trains generally serve to give situational awareness at the station, once you are up to speed reacting to unexpected impediments isn't so time critical since the train isn't likely to stop fast enough anyway.

nicoburns 7y ago
> wonder if they can even open the side windows to look out Almost certainly not. Open windows are terrible for aerodynamics. Even in normal cars they can cause a noticable reduction in fuel efficiency. I'd imagine the effect would be much worse at these speeds.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  I imagine aerodynamics isn't very important when you are shunting the train about on the switch yard...
gnode 7y ago
Reacting to things is still important and time critical. You just can't react to anything in sight. Instead the things you can react to are data and camera feeds from far up ahead. What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? I think that raises a question of: what is the point of having a driver on the train? Why not have people in a control room drive the trains, coordinating the system as a whole? Arguably this is already the case, with some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. Maybe the reason is simply that passengers would rather trust a driver whose life is invested along with theirs.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  The point is mainly to have someone trained there when something goes wrong, like a signal switch breaking down or you hitting something on the tracks. Since they have to be there anyway they might as well monitor the train.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  > What are the other trains doing? Did the next junction switch successfully? These are not things the train driver would react to. There will be a signal protecting the switch, which won't be "green" until the change is successful. If the driver tries to pass a red signal (or exceed the speed limit), the emergency brake is applied automatically. The driver needs to react to unexpected events -- which might mean applying the emergency brake on their own train and maybe pressing the emergency button to stop all trains in the area. Possibilities: - their own train has a serious mechanical failure - something falls of their train, like a container or (somehow) a passenger - the track has a serious failure (flooding, damaged rail, nearby fire) - foreign objects are on the track (cars, trees, people) Other trains will react automatically as necessary. The driver is then there to deal with the situation, which might include proceeding at slow speed, reversing, or waiting for assistance while keeping passengers informed. > some trains automatically stopping in cases of signal violation. On high-speed trains like this, all of these safety systems you've heard about are standard, and most of them are considered critical for normal operation. > what is the point of having a driver on the train? A better question is why does the driver actually drive the train? (Why do they control the speed?) I think that's to help maintain situational awareness in case there is a problem they can react to.
  - gnode 7y ago
    I don't think any of these things are reasons to have the driver on the train. The train drivers could be located at a remote location and still be aware of these things. Loss of connectivity already means it's unsafe for the train to continue and must stop, as it cannot be aware of signals or hazards ahead. As far as foreign objects or track failures go, these are not promptly apparent from the cabin anyway. CCTV on the track and crossings ahead is better placed for early warning. Additionally, remote control of trains could potentially be more safe, as it would be easier for a new driver to take over in the event of e.g. the driver having a heart attack or stroke. I think the only remaining reason is the physical accountability of being on the train.

Jaruzel 7y ago

Don't forget the physiological aspect on the driver too, Just having the windows, useful or not, would contribute to better wellbeing as opposed to a windowless box. After all, the drivers cab is a workplace.