3 ms·

... except trains have humans driving them.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Actually not true, we have fully automated trains for some years now. I've ridden fully automated trains in many different cities around the world. I've actually though about this for a while, not just replace cars with light rail and have small "pods" that you can call to come to your nearest station and hop on it, kind of like on demand rail. IMO this is kind of what has been built.
- replygirl 3y ago
  that's called a PRT
arghwhat 3y ago
... except driverless trains have been around for decades is is relatively common for e.g. metros, and even trains that are decades old with drivers have been prepared for driverless operation from day one - usually just requiring a signalling upgrade. Trivial to do self-driving when the tracks are real.
- orwin 3y ago
  Driverless trains still need operators (who can be remote) and can only operate if the tracks are surveilled and kept clean (one of the huge issue of driverless trains us braking and braking distance).
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    I find this statement to be misleading, as none of the concerns relate to driverless vs. driver... ful. All train systems have remote monitoring (normally as part of the signal system), even for driverful trains. The Danish Metro has 5 "operators" passively monitoring the entire train network, but can step in if something goes wrong. Nothing is required in normal operation - the trains even schedule and execute cleaning, and return to service fully automatically. All train systems require tracks to be kept clean, with driverful trains often having issues with leaves or snow. Some 20 years back when the Metro was new, there was some issues with spurious debris detection stopping the train, but that was sorted out. All modern trains have automated signalling, brake distance management and brake control, the whole shebang. The system, not the driver, enforce safety, and driverless systems have exactly the same characteristics. This is also why some trains bought more than 2 decades ago already boasted "self-driving ready" capabilities - the signalling system was already then for all intents and purposes the operator of the train.
    - orwin 3y ago
      The first one I agree with, but 'automatic braking' works pretty well in subterranean metro, and poorly if the tracks are exposed to elements (crickets, leaves, ice although that last one is less dangerous). When trains loose friction during braking, they start their emergency braking, which is costly and sometimes not enough (trains then overshoot stations). I agree that most (or maybe all) subterranean metro/urban trains can be made driverless, but this isn't the case for countryside trains.
      - arghwhat 3y ago
        Well, all trains in Denmark are equally exposed to the elements and deal with leaves, snow, ice, bugs (we don't really have crickets though). Even our Metro is only partially underground. Emergency braking does not become more sufficient with a driver on board, so I do not understand that logic. The signal system is not less able to track occupancy on country-side, and it is much better suited to react early than a driver with their limited sight and fallibility. The signal systems have come a long way since the days of just monitoring simple track segment occupancy. I am not suggesting you just slam self-driving trains on a random track without setup - it takes a signal system overhaul if not already prepared - just that self-driving trains has been a solved problem in regular commercial operation for well over two decades.
        orwin 3y ago
        Drivers tends to slow down earlier if the tracks conditions are shitty, to avoid triggering emergency breaking. That's why in autumn in France, a 2h52 train trip like La Rochelle-Paris will be marked as taking 3h04 or 3h08 to account for the slow-downs. Snow is manageable, ice too (until a certain point i guess? In France it's manageable). Leaves though, they have to be cleaned. They are easily the worst from what i heard (although a girl from Salt Lake City told me a story about crickets on railroads, so i guess that could be worse).

Actually not true, we have fully automated trains for some years now. I've ridden fully automated trains in many different cities around the world. I've actually though about this for a while, not just replace cars with light rail and have small "pods" that you can call to come to your nearest station and hop on it, kind of like on demand rail. IMO this is kind of what has been built.

replygirl 3y ago
that's called a PRT

arghwhat 3y ago

... except driverless trains have been around for decades is is relatively common for e.g. metros, and even trains that are decades old with drivers have been prepared for driverless operation from day one - usually just requiring a signalling upgrade. Trivial to do self-driving when the tracks are real.

orwin 3y ago
Driverless trains still need operators (who can be remote) and can only operate if the tracks are surveilled and kept clean (one of the huge issue of driverless trains us braking and braking distance).
- arghwhat 3y ago
  I find this statement to be misleading, as none of the concerns relate to driverless vs. driver... ful. All train systems have remote monitoring (normally as part of the signal system), even for driverful trains. The Danish Metro has 5 "operators" passively monitoring the entire train network, but can step in if something goes wrong. Nothing is required in normal operation - the trains even schedule and execute cleaning, and return to service fully automatically. All train systems require tracks to be kept clean, with driverful trains often having issues with leaves or snow. Some 20 years back when the Metro was new, there was some issues with spurious debris detection stopping the train, but that was sorted out. All modern trains have automated signalling, brake distance management and brake control, the whole shebang. The system, not the driver, enforce safety, and driverless systems have exactly the same characteristics. This is also why some trains bought more than 2 decades ago already boasted "self-driving ready" capabilities - the signalling system was already then for all intents and purposes the operator of the train.
  - orwin 3y ago
    The first one I agree with, but 'automatic braking' works pretty well in subterranean metro, and poorly if the tracks are exposed to elements (crickets, leaves, ice although that last one is less dangerous). When trains loose friction during braking, they start their emergency braking, which is costly and sometimes not enough (trains then overshoot stations). I agree that most (or maybe all) subterranean metro/urban trains can be made driverless, but this isn't the case for countryside trains.
    - arghwhat 3y ago
      Well, all trains in Denmark are equally exposed to the elements and deal with leaves, snow, ice, bugs (we don't really have crickets though). Even our Metro is only partially underground. Emergency braking does not become more sufficient with a driver on board, so I do not understand that logic. The signal system is not less able to track occupancy on country-side, and it is much better suited to react early than a driver with their limited sight and fallibility. The signal systems have come a long way since the days of just monitoring simple track segment occupancy. I am not suggesting you just slam self-driving trains on a random track without setup - it takes a signal system overhaul if not already prepared - just that self-driving trains has been a solved problem in regular commercial operation for well over two decades.
      - orwin 3y ago
        Drivers tends to slow down earlier if the tracks conditions are shitty, to avoid triggering emergency breaking. That's why in autumn in France, a 2h52 train trip like La Rochelle-Paris will be marked as taking 3h04 or 3h08 to account for the slow-downs. Snow is manageable, ice too (until a certain point i guess? In France it's manageable). Leaves though, they have to be cleaned. They are easily the worst from what i heard (although a girl from Salt Lake City told me a story about crickets on railroads, so i guess that could be worse).