4 ms·

> Train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots. Yes and that's as it should be, a fully loaded high speed intercity train has more souls on board than

> Train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots. Yes and that's as it should be, a fully loaded high speed intercity train has more souls on board than most commercial aviation planes (apologies pet peeve of mine because our media keeps banging on about how "overpaid" train drivers are when in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid). A bad day at the office for me is I break production and cost the company some money, a bad day at the office for them is considerably more serious - it's a lot of responsibility.

tome 1y ago
Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it's as it should be that train drivers can be paid as much as airline pilots, with your claim that everyone else is underpaid, including, presumably, airline pilots?
- 113 1y ago
  Where's the contradiction?
  - tome 1y ago
    See sibling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45915649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45915649
  - noir_lord 1y ago
    They are been pedantic by pointing out that the set "everyone else" excluding train drivers would still include pilots rather than reading it as intended which would conventionally and implicitly exclude pilots. It is what it is with some people.
    - tome 1y ago
      Thanks for trying to help me understand. I'm not sure if I do yet. Can I check my understanding? Did you mean, when you said > in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid that train drivers and pilots are fairly paid, whereas everyone else is underpaid?
      - nostrebored 1y ago
        You don’t get it because it doesn’t make sense. People’s understanding of money is horrible.
      - danaris 1y ago
        The "everyone else" is not meant to be read literally. Many people are well-paid, or even overpaid. CEOs, for instance. It's just that most people, in most common professions, are underpaid. It only makes sense to talk about a blanket statement like that being a "contradiction" when someone is attempting to speak in the language of formal logic or detailed argument, not colloquial speech.
        tome 1y ago
        That's fine, then the response I was looking for is simply "I didn't mean literally everyone else, I just meant simply 'most people, in most common professions, are underpaid'". That's a perfectly valid point of view. Then I would have replied that, despite perhaps being true, I don't how it's relevant to the question of whether it's fair to pay train drivers and pilots the same.
- richbell 1y ago
  > Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it's as it should be that train drivers can be paid as much as airline pilots, with your claim that everyone else is underpaid, including, presumably, airline pilots What is inconsistent about those two things? You can simultaneously believe that train drivers and airline pilots deserve to be paid more.
  - tome 1y ago
    > You can simultaneously believe that train drivers and airline pilots deserve to be paid more. But that's not what noir_lord thinks. He/she specifically said > their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid [my emphasis] which implies that train drivers are currently paid the correct amount.
    - piva00 1y ago
      It doesn't imply anything, they explicitly said they think it's fair: > how "overpaid" train drivers are when in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid You are the one who is implying something.
      - tome 1y ago
        > You are the one who is implying something. Maybe I am, so let's stick to exactly what noir_lord said > > Train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots > that's as it should be I understand this to mean that it is fair that train drivers are paid as much as airline pilots. > in reality their [train drivers'] pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid I understand this to mean that train drivers are paid fairly, and everyone else, including pilots, are underpaid, i.e. it is not fair that airline pilots don't earn more than they currently do, i.e. as much as train drivers, from which I conclude that it is not fair that train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots, in contradiction to the first claim. Where have I gone wrong?
  - universa1 1y ago
    As payment is very much a "relative" problem, giving everyone else more, means essentially giving train drivers less.
- trial3 1y ago
  Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it’s as it should be that none of us crabs should be in the bucket, with your claim that including, the crab closest to the edge of the bucket, presumably, should be climbing out of it?
  - tome 1y ago
    Sorry, what? EDIT: Oh, I think I understand what you mean. If I've got my understanding correct then my response is that noir_lord said that one of the crabs shouldn't be climbing out: > their pay is fair for the responsibility
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
amelius 1y ago
But trains are inherently safer (or at least, they should be). If the train driver falls asleep and the train is about to go where it shouldn't, then safety systems should kick in and halt the train automatically. This is not possible (to the same extent) in airplanes.
- cogman10 1y ago
  This is something I have a hard time squaring away. A train will likely always need to be manned, there are, in fact, checks that have to be made by a person and can't be made by a computer. However, it seems like the part of actually driving the train could be nearly completely automated. The train is on a rail, about the only thing a person is needed for when the train is in motion is to push a stop button if things go wrong. Things like speed and indeed even a decent amount of visual checks could be automated based on location.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    If you have a grade separated system - which you really want anyway - there is nothing that could get in the way. I'm against trams because a bus can do the same thing - and if you maintain the roads to track standards they are just as comfortable.
    - Sharlin 1y ago
      > If you have a grade separated syste Yeah, that's not realistic in 99% of the cases. > I'm against trams because a bus can do the same thing - and if you maintain the roads to track standards they are just as comfortable. But buses can't do the same thing. The thing about LRT is capacity per driver. Even the fanciest, most expensive buses can take maybe half the passengers a standard 30-40m tram can. It's not even a competition. That alone makes trams win every time there's enough population to fill that capacity. Even if you wanted to pay for three bus drivers rather than one tram driver, you can simply not put enough buses on the same route to make up for the difference. Even if said route is independent of other traffic, which it never ever is. Rail transport always has high up-front costs but low operating costs. But a BRT system truly designed to rail standards would cost almost as much as just building a frigging LRT system. And if you do the sensible thing and choose overhead rather than battery power – well, there's a reason trolleybus rapid transit systems do not actually exist. There's zero reasons you'd want such a thing rather than light rail. Trams benefit greatly from being mature technology with economies of scale. There's a lot of knowledge in the world on how to build great rail infrastructure and how to make great LRT vehicles at a scale. There are maybe two companies in the world that make BRT vehicles, and no matter how excellent the infrastructure, the service lifespan of a bus is less than half that of a tram. There also exists this thing called "rail factor". No matter how fancy your bus system, an equivalent thing but on rails will always attract more passengers, especially from demographics that would otherwise not use transit. Whatever the reason, this effect can not be ignored given how important it is to attract new transit users. Steel on steel is simply always more popular than rubber on pavement when it comes to transit. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_track
terminalshort 1y ago
A train may have more people on it, but it does have the luxury of being able to just stop when there is a problem. Airplanes not so much. Copenhagen has had an automated metro system for decades now. Train drivers aren't even strictly necessary anymore.
- Retric 1y ago
  Each have their on individual problems. An aircraft’s ability to avoid obstacles is a massive benefit over a train’s only option being to very slowly come to a complete stop.
FuckButtons 1y ago
Well, that and people don’t keep on turning themselves into a red paste on the front of your server rack. I’ve heard some fairly harrowing stories from a train driver that made me think all the money in the world wouldn’t be enough to get me to do that job.
bluGill 1y ago
Train drivers are mostly obsolete. More than 20 years ago full self driving trains became a reality in several areas. Since a train cannot stop if something is on the tracks anyway, we can ignore safety issues. The computer tells the track to switch, and then the train to go when the track is clear. When it is time to stop the computer stops, and the doors are exactly in the right place to align with the doors on the platforms. An automated train is better for everyone. So if your system doesn't have it they should be investing in getting it. In some cases you need safety people at the platforms, or on the train, but their only useful control is the stop/go button.
- rmoriz 1y ago
  What happens if signalling or mechanical failures occur and manual intervention is required? I will collapse the network, that’s why you see conductor-less operation only in separated environments, like subways (Nürnberg) or DLR (London)
  - Starlevel004 1y ago
    Even the DLR has drivers onboard to take over in an emergency.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Drivers cannot do much to in those cases anyway. Hit the emergency stop and wait for the mechanic. - computers can do the same thing The better answer is do maintenance such that you don't have those failures in the first place.
    - noir_lord 1y ago
      We had a mass attack on a train recently, the driver radioed ahead and got his train shifted onto a different line so he could stop the train at the nearest station (which had a police station across the road). That's the kind of thing that is hard to automate because while you can automate any routine operation (eventually) it's the none routine things that get you. Planes and Trains have both had increasing levels of automation for decades and that's fantastic, humans are flawed/get tired/get distracted but you still need a human in the loop who can decide what to do when the unknown/unexpected happens and for that human to be effective they need to be able to operate large parts of the vehicle without the automation and understand the basic principles of the system as a whole well enough to decide what they should do that won't make the situation worse. In planes that's the Pilot in Command, in Trains it's the driver.
daedrdev 1y ago
I do not like this argument. Margins in most businesses are not very high. There is thus physically not enough cash to raise wages very much. Driving a train is less difficult than a plane, and trains have much worse margins due to lower ticket prices, so we should expect wages to be less.

tome 1y ago

Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it's as it should be that train drivers can be paid as much as airline pilots, with your claim that everyone else is underpaid, including, presumably, airline pilots?

113 1y ago
Where's the contradiction?
- tome 1y ago
  See sibling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45915649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45915649
- noir_lord 1y ago
  They are been pedantic by pointing out that the set "everyone else" excluding train drivers would still include pilots rather than reading it as intended which would conventionally and implicitly exclude pilots. It is what it is with some people.
  - tome 1y ago
    Thanks for trying to help me understand. I'm not sure if I do yet. Can I check my understanding? Did you mean, when you said > in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid that train drivers and pilots are fairly paid, whereas everyone else is underpaid?
    - nostrebored 1y ago
      You don’t get it because it doesn’t make sense. People’s understanding of money is horrible.
    - danaris 1y ago
      The "everyone else" is not meant to be read literally. Many people are well-paid, or even overpaid. CEOs, for instance. It's just that most people, in most common professions, are underpaid. It only makes sense to talk about a blanket statement like that being a "contradiction" when someone is attempting to speak in the language of formal logic or detailed argument, not colloquial speech.
      - tome 1y ago
        That's fine, then the response I was looking for is simply "I didn't mean literally everyone else, I just meant simply 'most people, in most common professions, are underpaid'". That's a perfectly valid point of view. Then I would have replied that, despite perhaps being true, I don't how it's relevant to the question of whether it's fair to pay train drivers and pilots the same.
richbell 1y ago
> Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it's as it should be that train drivers can be paid as much as airline pilots, with your claim that everyone else is underpaid, including, presumably, airline pilots What is inconsistent about those two things? You can simultaneously believe that train drivers and airline pilots deserve to be paid more.
- tome 1y ago
  > You can simultaneously believe that train drivers and airline pilots deserve to be paid more. But that's not what noir_lord thinks. He/she specifically said > their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid [my emphasis] which implies that train drivers are currently paid the correct amount.
  - piva00 1y ago
    It doesn't imply anything, they explicitly said they think it's fair: > how "overpaid" train drivers are when in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid You are the one who is implying something.
    - tome 1y ago
      > You are the one who is implying something. Maybe I am, so let's stick to exactly what noir_lord said > > Train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots > that's as it should be I understand this to mean that it is fair that train drivers are paid as much as airline pilots. > in reality their [train drivers'] pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid I understand this to mean that train drivers are paid fairly, and everyone else, including pilots, are underpaid, i.e. it is not fair that airline pilots don't earn more than they currently do, i.e. as much as train drivers, from which I conclude that it is not fair that train drivers can be paid as much as aircraft pilots, in contradiction to the first claim. Where have I gone wrong?
- universa1 1y ago
  As payment is very much a "relative" problem, giving everyone else more, means essentially giving train drivers less.
trial3 1y ago
Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it’s as it should be that none of us crabs should be in the bucket, with your claim that including, the crab closest to the edge of the bucket, presumably, should be climbing out of it?
- tome 1y ago
  Sorry, what? EDIT: Oh, I think I understand what you mean. If I've got my understanding correct then my response is that noir_lord said that one of the crabs shouldn't be climbing out: > their pay is fair for the responsibility

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

amelius 1y ago

But trains are inherently safer (or at least, they should be). If the train driver falls asleep and the train is about to go where it shouldn't, then safety systems should kick in and halt the train automatically. This is not possible (to the same extent) in airplanes.

cogman10 1y ago
This is something I have a hard time squaring away. A train will likely always need to be manned, there are, in fact, checks that have to be made by a person and can't be made by a computer. However, it seems like the part of actually driving the train could be nearly completely automated. The train is on a rail, about the only thing a person is needed for when the train is in motion is to push a stop button if things go wrong. Things like speed and indeed even a decent amount of visual checks could be automated based on location.
- bluGill 1y ago
  If you have a grade separated system - which you really want anyway - there is nothing that could get in the way. I'm against trams because a bus can do the same thing - and if you maintain the roads to track standards they are just as comfortable.
  - Sharlin 1y ago
    > If you have a grade separated syste Yeah, that's not realistic in 99% of the cases. > I'm against trams because a bus can do the same thing - and if you maintain the roads to track standards they are just as comfortable. But buses can't do the same thing. The thing about LRT is capacity per driver. Even the fanciest, most expensive buses can take maybe half the passengers a standard 30-40m tram can. It's not even a competition. That alone makes trams win every time there's enough population to fill that capacity. Even if you wanted to pay for three bus drivers rather than one tram driver, you can simply not put enough buses on the same route to make up for the difference. Even if said route is independent of other traffic, which it never ever is. Rail transport always has high up-front costs but low operating costs. But a BRT system truly designed to rail standards would cost almost as much as just building a frigging LRT system. And if you do the sensible thing and choose overhead rather than battery power – well, there's a reason trolleybus rapid transit systems do not actually exist. There's zero reasons you'd want such a thing rather than light rail. Trams benefit greatly from being mature technology with economies of scale. There's a lot of knowledge in the world on how to build great rail infrastructure and how to make great LRT vehicles at a scale. There are maybe two companies in the world that make BRT vehicles, and no matter how excellent the infrastructure, the service lifespan of a bus is less than half that of a tram. There also exists this thing called "rail factor". No matter how fancy your bus system, an equivalent thing but on rails will always attract more passengers, especially from demographics that would otherwise not use transit. Whatever the reason, this effect can not be ignored given how important it is to attract new transit users. Steel on steel is simply always more popular than rubber on pavement when it comes to transit. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_track

terminalshort 1y ago

A train may have more people on it, but it does have the luxury of being able to just stop when there is a problem. Airplanes not so much. Copenhagen has had an automated metro system for decades now. Train drivers aren't even strictly necessary anymore.

Retric 1y ago
Each have their on individual problems. An aircraft’s ability to avoid obstacles is a massive benefit over a train’s only option being to very slowly come to a complete stop.

FuckButtons 1y ago

Well, that and people don’t keep on turning themselves into a red paste on the front of your server rack. I’ve heard some fairly harrowing stories from a train driver that made me think all the money in the world wouldn’t be enough to get me to do that job.

bluGill 1y ago

Train drivers are mostly obsolete. More than 20 years ago full self driving trains became a reality in several areas. Since a train cannot stop if something is on the tracks anyway, we can ignore safety issues. The computer tells the track to switch, and then the train to go when the track is clear. When it is time to stop the computer stops, and the doors are exactly in the right place to align with the doors on the platforms. An automated train is better for everyone. So if your system doesn't have it they should be investing in getting it. In some cases you need safety people at the platforms, or on the train, but their only useful control is the stop/go button.

rmoriz 1y ago
What happens if signalling or mechanical failures occur and manual intervention is required? I will collapse the network, that’s why you see conductor-less operation only in separated environments, like subways (Nürnberg) or DLR (London)
- Starlevel004 1y ago
  Even the DLR has drivers onboard to take over in an emergency.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Drivers cannot do much to in those cases anyway. Hit the emergency stop and wait for the mechanic. - computers can do the same thing The better answer is do maintenance such that you don't have those failures in the first place.
  - noir_lord 1y ago
    We had a mass attack on a train recently, the driver radioed ahead and got his train shifted onto a different line so he could stop the train at the nearest station (which had a police station across the road). That's the kind of thing that is hard to automate because while you can automate any routine operation (eventually) it's the none routine things that get you. Planes and Trains have both had increasing levels of automation for decades and that's fantastic, humans are flawed/get tired/get distracted but you still need a human in the loop who can decide what to do when the unknown/unexpected happens and for that human to be effective they need to be able to operate large parts of the vehicle without the automation and understand the basic principles of the system as a whole well enough to decide what they should do that won't make the situation worse. In planes that's the Pilot in Command, in Trains it's the driver.

daedrdev 1y ago

I do not like this argument. Margins in most businesses are not very high. There is thus physically not enough cash to raise wages very much. Driving a train is less difficult than a plane, and trains have much worse margins due to lower ticket prices, so we should expect wages to be less.