3 ms·
Self driving trains would be far more achievable and practical…more tiny engines and smaller cars means latency and switching delays would go down. I don’t thin
by hasmanean 4y ago
Self driving trains would be far more achievable and practical…more tiny engines and smaller cars means latency and switching delays would go down. I don’t think it even needs much technology.
- micwag 4y agoThere are already many self driving trains operating around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...
- MrDresden 4y ago> "more tiny engines and smaller cars means latency and switching delays would go down." Thorougly disagree. The whole reason why trains are so efficient is due to their ability to haul so much weight in one go without practically any other traffic being in the way. Train track infrastructure could not handle multiple mini trains without more track which, as we know from the excessive road construction for car traffice, does not solve the congestion issue.
- hasmanean 4y agoYeah, efficiency for a train means cargo divided by the cost of the driver and the costs of the locomotive. Take the driver out of the equation, and suddenly making the train longer doesn’t provide any savings. You might as well switch to smaller and cheaper engines and divide one train into 10. There are a lot of variables that affect efficiency but new technology alters the landscape. Self driving public transit is one such thing. Would you rather be on a bus with one driver or a self driving taxi that costs the same?