3 ms·

I work in rail software. One reason NA is moving slower than expected is software standards. No, really. Europe does rail pretty well, all things considered. W

I work in rail software. One reason NA is moving slower than expected is software standards. No, really. Europe does rail pretty well, all things considered. Well enough that companies (like mine) eventually get subcontracted to build things for the North American market as well. Problem is, rail is a highly regulated industry, which means lots of mandatory software documentation. European countries all use the EN documentation standards. The US and Canada tend to use the IEEE-1558 and its ilk. Neither document is a subset of the other; there exists no easy list of differences between the two standards to allow compatibility. So the actual software development goes pretty smoothly -- then someone realizes there's no standard-conforming documentation and the whole project grinds to a halt. Often for years, because the number of people who are fluent in writing docs for/translating docs between both standards in any given country, you can count on one hand. I am rumored to be one of them.

414techie 3y ago
Is this something that could be automated?
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  Maybe with a substantial investment into ML. I'm looking into this possibility myself, with a Django backend and a zillion possible fields to fill out.
bobthepanda 3y ago
There’s also the other way around it, which is just allowing both regulatory regimes. The FRA basically just did this for European rail vehicle standards, which are different than US ones significantly. The issue is that the US market is generally too thin to support US-specific passenger rail manufacturers who would happily comply.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  Really! I could use a link if you have one.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Here's the final rule: https://railroads.dot.gov/regulations/federal-register-documents/2018-25020 https://railroads.dot.gov/regulations/federal-register-docum... It mostly legalizes European trainsets with minor adjustments, though Japanese sets would need significant reworking since they follow yet another standard. But this is important, because an FRA-compliant vehicle at 220MPH basically does not exist, and those have become legal if in their own exclusive right-of-way; and alternative compliance trainsets can now operate with regular American freight trains below 125MPH, which is basically the entirety of the network today anyways.

414techie 3y ago

Is this something that could be automated?

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Maybe with a substantial investment into ML. I'm looking into this possibility myself, with a Django backend and a zillion possible fields to fill out.

bobthepanda 3y ago

There’s also the other way around it, which is just allowing both regulatory regimes. The FRA basically just did this for European rail vehicle standards, which are different than US ones significantly. The issue is that the US market is generally too thin to support US-specific passenger rail manufacturers who would happily comply.

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Really! I could use a link if you have one.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Here's the final rule: https://railroads.dot.gov/regulations/federal-register-documents/2018-25020 https://railroads.dot.gov/regulations/federal-register-docum... It mostly legalizes European trainsets with minor adjustments, though Japanese sets would need significant reworking since they follow yet another standard. But this is important, because an FRA-compliant vehicle at 220MPH basically does not exist, and those have become legal if in their own exclusive right-of-way; and alternative compliance trainsets can now operate with regular American freight trains below 125MPH, which is basically the entirety of the network today anyways.