3 ms·
> So why aren't trains automated yet? Why? The labor of a conductor is a fraction of the total cost to move the cargo, to the point it’s a rounding error.
by tw04 1y ago
> So why aren't trains automated yet?
Why? The labor of a conductor is a fraction of the total cost to move the cargo, to the point it’s a rounding error.
- aaomidi 1y agoAnd the job creates a sense of community too. At some point it’ll probably be automated, but yeah, what’s the point.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoAnd it means someone on site to react sensibly when things go wrong. Think of the Miracle on the Hudson. The pilot said "This is the captain. Brace for impact." The flight attendants picked up on that and immediately began directing the passengers on what "brace for impact" means. Without that how many would have reacted properly (the info is on the safety card, but how many have read it well enough??), how many would be asking for information, how many would just generally be panicking?
- toast0 1y agoIf a freight train is unstaffed, who would brace for impact? Anyway, labor costs to have a couple engineers aboard is much less than if the load was travelling by truck, even if the trucks have no driver in them, they're likely supervised at a ratio with more humans than it takes to operate a long freight train.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoThat was a general example, not a specific one. And in my experience conductors are passenger trains. Freight might have a driver, but no conductor.
- derektank 1y agoDidn't we almost see a national rail strike 2 years ago? It seems like reducing that risk would be an incentive enough to make the transition, even if overall costs are low.