3 ms·
That's true of attempts to remove the guard, but I don't think it's true of automating the driver. Automatic train operation systems are expensive to design an
by pmyteh 7y ago
That's true of attempts to remove the guard, but I don't think it's true of automating the driver.
Automatic train operation systems are expensive to design and maintain, and their advantage is mainly in precision: if you're trying to put 30 trains an hour down a segment of tube tunnel, it's very helpful if the system reacts immediately to red signals and brakes at a constant predictable rate.
For longer distance services, not only is the cost of fitting ATO equipment to the track much higher (as the routes are much longer), but the schedules don't need such precise operation. It is probably cheaper to retain drivers.
In practice, even most metro systems with automatic train control still have someone on the train: it's important in an emergency and if there are degraded conditions or unusual operating needs it's helpful to have someone trained to take over.
- tialaramex 7y agoJapan and Australia both have some GoA 4 systems. There may be no employees of the operator on the train at all when it's operating. I'm sure there are or will be more of these systems (as you say, for metro services which can be grade separated and run with high service frequency) over time. In a GoA (Grade of Automation) 4 system the intent is that if things go wrong the remote team operates the train. This obviously means it can't cope with power failure, but these are invariably electric trains so they aren't going anywhere without power anyway. A mechanical fault that renders the train unable to continue safely under its own local supervision would result in a remote operator controlling it though.