So the system 'offers' to run under ATO, and the driver then has to explicitly accept this and is aware they take full responsibility for this And yet in reality they have no choice but to accept if the train is booked ATO and when the full timetable is rolled out are they really being given a choice on that day whether to accept? It'd be a case of decline at your peril.
Exactly as said above by someone else. The computer is designed to drive closer to the wind than a person capably could. Yet the person has to second guess if the computer is going to make a wrong judgement and stop it in time, when it was close to the wind even before they realised?
Once again, ATO is a supportive system. It is capable of doing what a driver can do, but it doesn't "suffer" from cautious human instincts.
If a driver feels it is necessary to intervene with ATO operation, all they will have to do is operate the power/brake handle and ATO will disengage. (When driving in ATO mode, the power/brake handle is set to neutral.)
ERTMS/ETCS over a good part of the network is likely in 20 years - certainly the busier bits - but how much of the total network?
As someone who clearly knows what they’re taking about... I’d be interested to know, in support of Bletchlyite’s previous comment, how much of the current mainline network do you believe will be technologically capable of being fully (DLR style) driverless within 20 years?
Knowing our unions, I’m afraid it’ll probably be a choice between an autonomous car/bus and a manually driven train.
The busiest sections of the network will see ATO, I am positive of that. It provides opportunity for capacity increase beyond what four-aspect signaling is capable of, it can be delivered with less disruption to passengers, it's quicker to deliver, and it can be built without requiring new infrastructure (which is impossible in many places due to built-up areas).
I don't expect ATO on rural branch lines, as the business case won't be there.
Regarding unions: I am sure they will have their concerns, but I don't see them opposing to a wider roll-out of Thameslink-style ATO. A person will still be required on the pointy end, who will at all times be in full control.
Third, This is my personal view. I don’t have visibility of the details of the digital rail programme. However I know that the ATO on Thameslink is going to be a game changer, and I predict that the pull for the product from the wider industry will be significant, and very soon.
Agreed.
I wonder if HS2 will have any elements of ATO? I mean, it should absolutely have the capability for it to be useable for the entire route, but whether or not that happens is another matter...
The signalling will be ETCS and the trains are still to be built. It would surprise me if there isn't some sort of ATO.
This was true on the underground with the old Victoria line system but this is not the case with the newer systems, I don't know what the situation is through the core but I would be surprised if the driver is expected to intervene
If a train has a sped due to equipment failure the rule is the same as not, it is a spad but not attributed to the driver.
The thing I want to know is what actions are available to the driver if as he a approaches the platform there is something happening which they would normally slow down for, eg drunk on the platform. Do they have the ability to enter a platform slowly or is it full speed or stop?
The driver can always 'pull the brakes'.
It does seem a bit sad that so many people seem to be so excited about a computer program being able to drive a train far better than a human ever could or has. Just because the DFT or a TOC says its good for us doesnt mean we all have to agree. Most of us here are surely railway lovers and replacing half of a job which has always been done by a person since the start, with a computer system for rhe first time on the mainline is not exactly the railway's greatest achievement imo.
Nobody is being replaced.
It seems a bit sad that we demand a service level which is so high that we deem it impossible for a person to drive a train at the level needed and have to comission a computer to drive the train instead.
Seems another case of person can't do it fast enough for what we want so we'll automate it instead. Instead of being satisfied with the best ability of driving a person can possibly achieve we are still demanding an even higher level of performance than that a person is capable of no matter what their ability.
Thameslink's capacity needs are such that it's deemed impossible for a driver alone to drive according to the timetable through the busy Core. This is why ATO was chosen.
The alternative for getting 24tph through the TL Core is doubling the tunnel. This is eye-wateringly expensive, if it is possible at all. It's not like underground London is unexplored territory.
Will any rollout of the current form of ATO upskill our train drivers or reduce the skill of the job from where it is now?[/QUOTE]
it's a change of skill, not an upskill or a downskill.
Munich s-bahn has had ATO for years and works incredibly well, given that the frequency of their trains is nearly one per minute through their "core".
...and they still have drivers on board doing the rest of their respective routes...so it's certainly not meant to be a replacement for a driver, just a better marshalling system.
Munich's S-Bahn has LZB signalling (which is equivalent to ETCS L2) but does not have ATO (AFB in German). As far as I am aware, the Munich S-Bahn frequency through the Core isn't on Thameslink-like levels yet and thus don't need ATO.