3 ms·

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

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.
  - VBprogrammer 1y ago
    Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of railway operations knows that this isn't at all true. For example, I've been on a Glasgow bound train where the driver was instructed to pass the signal at danger following a lengthy signoff process. Some scallywags had stolen wire for copper.
    - rmoriz 1y ago
      this. Railway signalling is a complex topic and totally different in Europa vs. the US. ETCS is another big step forward in terms of automation, but we don't see driverless trains. In Germany we have Linienzugbeeinflussung (LZB) since 1959 in tests and 1963 in early real life operations. LZB enforces dynamic train separation, speed limits and breaking but does not implement full automation. ETCS is the successor which does not require a cable in between the rails but balises.
bitwize 1y ago
> An automated train is better for everyone. Until the manufacturer puts DRM in your fucking train: https://www.thedrive.com/news/hackers-beat-anti-repair-software-locks-that-caused-train-breakdowns https://www.thedrive.com/news/hackers-beat-anti-repair-softw...

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.
- VBprogrammer 1y ago
  Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of railway operations knows that this isn't at all true. For example, I've been on a Glasgow bound train where the driver was instructed to pass the signal at danger following a lengthy signoff process. Some scallywags had stolen wire for copper.
  - rmoriz 1y ago
    this. Railway signalling is a complex topic and totally different in Europa vs. the US. ETCS is another big step forward in terms of automation, but we don't see driverless trains. In Germany we have Linienzugbeeinflussung (LZB) since 1959 in tests and 1963 in early real life operations. LZB enforces dynamic train separation, speed limits and breaking but does not implement full automation. ETCS is the successor which does not require a cable in between the rails but balises.

bitwize 1y ago

> An automated train is better for everyone. Until the manufacturer puts DRM in your fucking train: https://www.thedrive.com/news/hackers-beat-anti-repair-software-locks-that-caused-train-breakdowns https://www.thedrive.com/news/hackers-beat-anti-repair-softw...