Makes no difference, still think a lot of people would be uneasy on a high speed train with no one at the front in control.
I'm sure some people are uneasy on the DLR. But that doesn't mean that such decisions should be made on the basis of emotion - they should be made rationally.
And what if something unaccounted for happens which dosnt cause the train to stop?
Most likely it will. And it might be that while there are cases where it won't, there will also be cases where human error means it won't. So the automated system may be safer overall.
And how often is it likely to bring everything to a stop creating a highly unreliable railway?
How often does that happen on the DLR?
Things like tht are far easier for someone at the front to do on high speed rail.
Someone at the front cannot do anything about anything on HSR, things move too quickly. They can report irregularities, I suppose, but so could something like greater CCTV coverage.
And there is still away to go with automation-things like poor adhesion are still issues on ATO lines.
Wheelslip is vastly better dealt with via a computer than manual control. A computer can, for instance, control individual wheels with split-second timing. That's why ABS and traction control are hugely successful on the roads.
Plus what reason is there to actually go driverless? It's not cost effective
Evidence? The DLR is counter-evidence.
Seems a pointless waste of money, probably the reason no country in the world has seriously considered driverless heavy rail...
Evidence? Nobody has yet adopted it for heavy rail, but I would bet serious money that eventually somebody will.
Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It would require a vast array of kit to be installed to tell the computer where to stop at each station depending on what length the train is
That is not difficult.
not even touching the realms of emergency speed restrictions
Program them into the system.
A computer can handle this *vastly* better than any human.
level crossing operations
No different to now - the driver checks for a clear signal and proceeds. So the computer does that instead. If something is blocking the crossing, most likely it's getting hit. Trains don't stop like cars.
ATP is probably the only thing we lack but again the cost of installing that is huge when TPWS is just as affective and far far cheaper.
HS2 will have ERTMS without question. TPS won't even be fitted.
Considering most passengers now sit with their headphones in with their eyes staring at their smartphone or tablet I really don't see any reason why passengers would benefit from the driver being with the passengers.
Checking tickets, answering questions, controlling the doors etc?
Neil
)
