Driverless trains report

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 Ltd have indicated that ATO would be a necessity to manage a full 18tph service, so the driver would be there simply for the times when things go wrong. The cost saving from removing staff from high speed services is going to be minimal though given that each train would be full of people paying InterCity fares and the few staff and trains needed will be able to do so many more revenue earning runs per day.

 

[DownSouth]

Assuming that there won't be a sudden influx of hi-tech freight stock, would a computer even be able to 'drive' a heavy freight train on a challenging route - still a task requiring a fair amount of skill, I understand.

You'd be surprised actually. The introduction of third-generation distributed power technology and AC traction motors has made a big improvement to the handling of heavy freight in North America, Australia and southern Africa.

If you're dealing with unit trains of some bulk quantity like coal or iron ore (i.e. not intermodal trains or mixed freight) it's convenient enough to use lots of DP to make handling easier. Aurizon operates 120 wagon electric coal trains on the Cape Gauge tracks in Queensland where they are effectively three loco+40 consists coupled nose to tail. As well as getting the advantages of DP, it allows for simpler routine maintenance rotations a whole loco+40 part-consist is uncoupled and simply replaced by the part-consist which has just come off the maintenance rotation.

I'm talking about proper heavy freight though, not just heavy for UK standards which is restricted by the use of chains and buffers while everywhere else has used the AAR knuckle coupler for over 50 years. UK trains simply aren't long enough or heavy enough that drivers have to worry about string lining or running in.

 

[radamfi]

Until someone comes up with a system that involves everyone getting a good wage for free every year then we need jobs to do and the people with the dollar signs in their eyes keep designing more out of the process every time despite population increases. I don't want to work in a lab or an office and as I only seem likely to have one life I want to do something I deem fulfilling, not what someone who somehow ended up in charge deems right or wrong. If we carry on down that path vive la revolution.

There is a heck of a lot more automation now than there was in the 80s, yet there isn't a corresponding increase in unemployment. Tedious jobs replaced by machines release humans to do other things. Hence economic growth. It is not in the interests of big business to make everyone unemployed and without income. There would then be no one able to buy the products/services that make money for businesses.

 

[carriageline]

I really do love HSTEd world where everything would work wonderfully 'in theory' but infact I really doubt it would work great.

Equipment failure:

For starters, I was more talking about signalling failures. What if there is a fault with the ERTMS equipment (albeit nothing will probably happen, but hey ho), or a fault develops on the train a million miles from anything close which stops it dead in it's tracks? Or if a train needs evacuating?

You wouldn't be stopping a train by tripping circuit breakers, that's just ridiculous.

If a train loses communication with the control center, how would you use cameras to react?

As for examination of the line, not being funny but watching a recorded vide of a train which is meant to be looking for a broken rail isn't brilliant, as by the time you have watched it the train is probably well past it.

Also, I'm not sure which intrusion alarms your thinking of using, but will they cover UWCs, platform ramps, level crossings, places were there is no fence/broken fence (these are probably more common than you realise), how would you detect them? Trains wouldn't work using sensors as how would it distinguish between track staff and trespassers?

And train faults, your talking about computers here. They fail. What about access doors left open leaving depots (ok, you could fit a door open sensor on everyone.., or gauge detectors in the depots),

I can't see how a dozen of people would sit watching hundreds of train screens, and then when one is used to examine the line, the other x of screens go ignored.

Is there anything in the world which is similar to what we are talking about? Also, when do they want ERTMS l3 rolled out?

I don't doubt that one day there will be driverless trains with no one on board, but not within my life time.

 

[HSTEd]

Defects on passing trains - would an on-board computer be able to (within a reasonable budget) detect a shifted or otherwise unsafe load?

Well if you had gauges fitted you could detect that the air suspension had shifted and the vehicle was no longer level.
But that would require fitting of freight trains with that equipment.

Assuming that there won't be a sudden influx of hi-tech freight stock, would a computer even be able to 'drive' a heavy freight train on a challenging route - still a task requiring a fair amount of skill, I understand.

Electronically controlled Pneumatic braking systems being trialled in the US and used on various heavy freight lines in the Americas, Australia and South Africa will significantly reduce the workload of handling a freight train.
Essentially it causes all the brakes to apply simultaneously with individually configurable force, and permits the brake reservoirs to charge irrespective of the current brake status. It even allows freight wagons to report information about themselves (which is being used in the US trials to report information about the condition of the brakes and suspension). It allows 6,000ft 15,000t Taconite trains to stop from 50mph in rather less than their own length. They appear to handle like giant EMU formations.
It is very cool.

As an aside, isolating the power supply isn't (currently - no pun intended - at least) an effective way of getting a train stopped quickly - reference to stories of electric trains coasting twenty miles or more into Euston proves that!

No, but it might at least stop the train ploughing into the buffers at 125mph

 

[455driver]

HSTEd, how much is all this stuff you are adding to the trains (so you can get rid of us horrible drivers) going to cost to design, build, install and maintain?
It all sounds bloomin expensive to me!

 

[HSTEd]

HSTEd, how much is all this stuff you are adding to the trains (so you can get rid of us horrible drivers) going to cost to design, build, install and maintain?
It all sounds bloomin expensive to me!

Well most of this equipment is already on the train or soon will be for other reasons (maintenance reduction and so on).
The actually important part is the control electronics and their software, and we all know how high power electronics have crashed in price and continue to get cheaper.

And solid state electronics don't cost very much to maintain and not much to install if put in the stock as it is built.

 

[455driver]

And solid state electronics don't cost very much to maintain and not much to install if put in the stock as it is built.

So you are going to replace all the old trains as well!

 

[DownSouth]

Electronically controlled Pneumatic braking systems being trialled in the US and used on various heavy freight lines in the Americas, Australia and South Africa will significantly reduce the workload of handling a freight train.
Essentially it causes all the brakes to apply simultaneously with individually configurable force, and permits the brake reservoirs to charge irrespective of the current brake status.
It even allows freight wagons to report information about themselves (which is being used in the US trials to report information about the condition of the brakes and suspension).
It allows 6,000ft 15,000t Taconite trains to stop from 50mph in rather less than their own length. They appear to handle like giant EMU formations.
It is very cool.

Way beyond trialling here in Oz. It's now normal for all new freight rolling stock to be at least ECP ready, if not having it fitted, and mid-life refurbs of Dash 9 vintage locos from the 1990s are seeing ECP retrofitted.

GWA operate these 1,800 metre iron ore trains at up to 14,500 tonnes (limited by maximum passing look length) on the mainline system, with the ECP data cables handling control of the rear locomotives (including starting them up for the southbound journey once loading of the wagons is complete), braking, operation of the discharge doors at the Port of Whyalla. The ore wagons themselves are married pairs, each pair has the electronics on one wagon and the pneumatic control system for the discharge doors on the other.

[youtube]ythzlC4ZdDg[/youtube]

And yes, those tanks do fuel the front pair of locos. An unfortunate consequence of having a smaller loading gauge on the mainline system here (although the need for full power in a reduced outline does mean we still have a loco-building capability locally) not allowing full-size tanks on board the locos. The rear pair don't need inline refuelling because they are only powered up for the southbound loaded run.

And train faults, your talking about computers here. They fail. What about access doors left open leaving depots (ok, you could fit a door open sensor on everyone.., or gauge detectors in the depots),

UK freight terminals don't have gauge detectors already?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HSTEd, how much is all this stuff you are adding to the trains (so you can get rid of us horrible drivers) going to cost to design, build, install and maintain?
It all sounds bloomin expensive to me!

ECP is certainly an off-the-shelf option that would have no design cost and is a standard option for any new freight rolling stock these days.

I too doubt that a mixed traffic network like Britain would see full driverless (i.e. no driver on board) operation. Driver-supervised automatic operation is certainly a very real possibility (a certainty actually – for Thameslink at least) and should allow for better energy efficiency and savings, even if you're still paying for the staff.

You might still make savings on the staff side though – an object detection system and computer-controlled best braking effort could make the difference between a near miss that leaves a driver shaken but thankful the system worked (needing a little time off before a managed return to work) and wiping out a person which would probably leave the driver suffering a significant degree of trauma (needing lots of time off and maybe not returning to work at all).

The big issue with a monolithic rail system like the UK is inertia, aka "if it ain't broke don't fix it." It's just too damn hard to bring in a good change.

 

[HSTEd]

Equipment failure:

For starters, I was more talking about signalling failures. What if there is a fault with the ERTMS equipment (albeit nothing will probably happen, but hey ho), or a fault develops on the train a million miles from anything close which stops it dead in it's tracks?

Increasingly in britain is hard to find sites truly remote.
What could happen is the train behind it (and in almost all cases there will be one) would close in behind the train under control of the central centre, couple using the standard autocouplers and shove the train to the next station. (ETCS can be calibrated for the control unit to not lead the train).

Or if a train needs evacuating?

A train with one or two crew members is not going to be significantly easier to evacuate than one without crew.
The passengers will detrain themselves and will be impossible to control, as we have seen elsewhere.

And police helicopters and ground units would arrive relatively quickly on the vast majority of the network.

If a train loses communication with the control center, how would you use cameras to react?

You would use cameras on other trains that were nearby on our rather intensively operated network or were positioned around the network for other purposes.
(This is the era of big data, we can access any IP enabled camera anywhere on the system at the touch of a few keys).
If no units were available to look you would just send someone to look, be they railway personnel or the police - since it will be a fairly rare occasion.

Also, I'm not sure which intrusion alarms your thinking of using, but will they cover UWCs, platform ramps, level crossings, places were there is no fence/broken fence (these are probably more common than you realise), how would you detect them?

Putting an eight foot high concrete wall around railway property would cost peanuts if it was required.
Platform ramps are increasingly being obliterated for the reasons you describe, and level crossings are hardly the flavour of the month and are also slowly being eliminated.
The railway's isolation is rapidly increasing. It might not yet be hermetic but it is approaching that surprisingly rapidly.

Trains wouldn't work using sensors as how would it distinguish between track staff and trespassers?

The control centre will presumably be told where the track staff are.
The train would report that it had detected people sized moving objects on the track - not that they were trespassers.
Since control knows where the people authorised to be on the track are it knows that people found at position x can't possibly be authorised.

And train faults, your talking about computers here. They fail. What about access doors left open leaving depots (ok, you could fit a door open sensor on everyone.., or gauge detectors in the depots),

Why would we not have gauge detectors?
Its relatively cheap and it avoids expensive problems when things get ripped off.
And door/hatch open sensors are very cheap to fit.

So you are going to replace all the old trains as well!

Are you proposing to keep all old trains in service forever?

 

[Tomnick]

What sort of timescale would you expect these rather ambitious ideas come to fruition?

 

[HSTEd]

What sort of timescale would you expect these rather ambitious ideas come to fruition?

Late-mid-century (~2065)
Although Thameslink-esque ATO will be rolled out very widely long before that.

 

[carriageline]

Do you work on the railways?because I'm sorry but I don't think you have much idea about the "real" railway, and how it works.

If passengers de train, how are you going to know before a train at 200mph suddenly bowls them all over, because the operator was busy dealing with something else?.

One thing, the track workers. They tend to stand very still when a train is approaching, they are not going to be acknowledging a train driving it self. And they won't know about every single track worker in the country (maintenance patrols erect), even skgnallers now don't (unless red zone working was completely abolished and these control staff somehow dealt with line blockages too?)

It all sounds very impressive, but it all sounds a bit pie in the sky if you ask me. Unless they completely rewrite the rule book

I didn't say we couldn't have gauge detectors, I said that we could.

It all does sound a bit pie in the sky for me, you do 'conveniently' only answer certain bits though.

And Thameslink will still have drivers, so not quite the same.

 

[GadgetMan]

Unless they completely rewrite the rule book.

No need to, just do away with it altogether thus saving the cost of employing whoever writes these things.

Don't forget these super dooper control staff on mega strikeless salaries are probably quite capable of making the right decision each and everytime regardless of the situation and don't need some ancient rule book holding them back.

So far we've done away with;

1) Drivers,
2) Guards,
3) Signallers,
4) Retail staff,
5) Barrier staff (they disrupt passenger journies),
6) Platform staff (remote monitoring from control from another thread),
7) Driver and Guard managers,
8) Duty Traincrew managers,
9) Passenger assistants (auto ramps attached on trains activated by disabled passengers),
10) ??????

Add your own, see how long we can make the list........

 

[Mintona]

I can't be the only one who doesn't get the point? All this automation that Ed suggests must cost an absolute fortune, and at the end of it the train will still need somebody on it anyway, surely? I'm not sure how a driverless train could distinguish between striking a person, a sheep or a buzzard, or when to brake earlier due to low adhesion. It all seems a bit pointless, and technology for technology's sake, whilst improving the journey for nobody at all.

 

[thelem]

So you are going to replace all the old trains as well!

No one was suggesting that we'd have a completely driverless network tomorrow, but I'm sure it will come in time.

There seem to be three main arguments in this thread that driverless trains won't happen.
1) The technology can't do it, especially spotting foreign objects on the track
That's actually something that computers are already better than people at. They can see further, react quicker and they never get tired or complacent. This technology is already being proven in driverless cars, where the computer has to deal with any road in the world so can't be programmed with route knowledge. For an example of how bad people can be at this sort of thing, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

2) It will mean the loss of jobs
Yes, and while you might not like that, the people making the decisions would if it meant cost savings.

3) Lack of staff in an emergency
While there's some merit in this argument, it's a separate issue, because you can still have the same number of staff on the train if it is deemed necessary. By removing their driving duties you can free them up for customer service and pay a lower salary (I realise drivers won't like that, but bosses will).

 

[carriageline]

My issue isn't the fact that we will have driverless trains (of course we will, it won't work quite as well as HSTED seems to hope though ), it's more of the fact that there won't be a single member of staff on the train.

And that video is a useless comparison by the way. If you programmed a computer to count the amount of times the balls were passed and print it all in a tidy report at the end, it wouldn't suddenly say "oh there was a dancing ape/bear half way through"

And the argument about the technology being unavailable, correct it's out there. But by the time we get our hands on it, manipulate it to work on our network, it will be broken and constantly fail like everything else we seem to try make work over here

It's not so much detecting things that's the problem (as that technology has been around a while), it's how the train/'control staff' reacts to it. Aswell as various other incidents.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

My issue isn't the fact that we will have driverless trains (of course we will, it won't work quite as well as HSTED seems to hope though ), it's more of the fact that there won't be a single member of staff on the train.

And that video is a useless comparison by the way. If you programmed a computer to count the amount of times the balls were passed and print it all in a tidy report at the end, it wouldn't suddenly say "oh there was a dancing ape/bear half way through"

And the argument about the technology being unavailable, correct it's out there. But by the time we get our hands on it, manipulate it to work on our network, it will be broken and constantly fail like everything else we seem to try make work over here

It's not so much detecting things that's the problem (as that technology has been around a while), it's how the train/'control staff' reacts to it. Aswell as various other incidents.

I doubt that any automatic trains will be completly free of staff, they'll most likely be a similar role to the "Train Captains" (or whatever they're now known as) on the DLR

 

[O L Leigh]

1) The technology can't do it, especially spotting foreign objects on the track
That's actually something that computers are already better than people at. They can see further, react quicker and they never get tired or complacent. This technology is already being proven in driverless cars, where the computer has to deal with any road in the world so can't be programmed with route knowledge. For an example of how bad people can be at this sort of thing, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

I'm sure I dealt with this point adequately well in a previous thread some months back. Click.

A driverless car only has to recognise when there is something in it's path in order to take evasive action. A driverless train will not be able to take avoiding action and, in most cases, will hit whatever the obstruction is. Therefore it needs to know exactly what it's hit in order to formulate it's next response.

Whatever you believe about the levels of advancement in computer technology the human brain is incredibly good at quickly identifying objects. We can easily tell the difference between a person and, say, a deer because we have the experience and ability to discern between the entire subset of "person" objects. Therefore we can tell that we're looking at a person whether they are large or small, standing, crouching, running, partially obscured, etc, etc, etc. We can also apply judgement based on experience. A person lurking at the side of the track could simply be waiting to cross or they could be a potential suicide. By judging their demeanour and attitude from their behaviour and facial expressions we can assess their state and calculate the risk. These are all tasks that computers are incredibly poor at doing.

O L Leigh

 

[Quickthorn]

No need to, just do away with it altogether thus saving the cost of employing whoever writes these things.

Don't forget these super dooper control staff on mega strikeless salaries are probably quite capable of making the right decision each and everytime regardless of the situation and don't need some ancient rule book holding them back.

So far we've done away with;

1) Drivers,
2) Guards,
3) Signallers,
4) Retail staff,
5) Barrier staff (they disrupt passenger journies),
6) Platform staff (remote monitoring from control from another thread),
7) Driver and Guard managers,
8) Duty Traincrew managers,
9) Passenger assistants (auto ramps attached on trains activated by disabled passengers),
10) ??????

Add your own, see how long we can make the list........

10) Passengers.

This would probably take care of itself in the world that some people here would like to see: with the vast majority of reasonably paid jobs being automated, I doubt that many people would have the money to travel by train.

 

[LowLevel]

No one was suggesting that we'd have a completely driverless network tomorrow, but I'm sure it will come in time.

There seem to be three main arguments in this thread that driverless trains won't happen.
1) The technology can't do it, especially spotting foreign objects on the track
That's actually something that computers are already better than people at. They can see further, react quicker and they never get tired or complacent. This technology is already being proven in driverless cars, where the computer has to deal with any road in the world so can't be programmed with route knowledge. For an example of how bad people can be at this sort of thing, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

2) It will mean the loss of jobs
Yes, and while you might not like that, the people making the decisions would if it meant cost savings.

3) Lack of staff in an emergency
While there's some merit in this argument, it's a separate issue, because you can still have the same number of staff on the train if it is deemed necessary. By removing their driving duties you can free them up for customer service and pay a lower salary (I realise drivers won't like that, but bosses will).

You do you realise that your merry little world is skipping along happily to disaster? Not everyone is a born brain surgeon. As we waltz along to minimum wage work for as many as possible while some sort of new ruling class emerges on 6 or 7 figures running the show, do you not think this is going to lead to civil unrest?

If it gets to the point where I can either pull a minimum wage job or run a business (there aren't many openings for train guards, customer service staff or former industrial workers as MDs or financial services types - they seem to be mostly on the dole) and even if I take the former, lose my house and car which I've worked hard for, do you not think that at some point some one will do something about it?

All through history disaster has come through an elite carving out the world for themselves and they generally result in both the ruling class and a good number of others losing their lives - French revolution, Soviet revolution, Nazi Germany etc.

I'm afraid if my future lies in either earning a pittance or doing something some 'boss' tells me to do regardless of whether I wish to, while working till I die of old age or my faculties fail me, then sorry, but getting rid of the system and those it benefits seems to suit me better.

Either give me a well paid job I enjoy or give me a fair amount of free money if we're really creating utopia. Don't expect me to go along with someone else's ideal particularly if the system is set up around moving money about. I deserve to be happy and fulfilled as well.

 

[whoosh]

A driverless car only has to recognise when there is something in it's path in order to take evasive action. A driverless train will not be able to take avoiding action and, in most cases, will hit whatever the obstruction is. Therefore it needs to know exactly what it's hit in order to formulate it's next response.

Whatever you believe about the levels of advancement in computer technology the human brain is incredibly good at quickly identifying objects. We can easily tell the difference between a person and, say, a deer because we have the experience and ability to discern between the entire subset of "person" objects. Therefore we can tell that we're looking at a person whether they are large or small, standing, crouching, running, partially obscured, etc, etc, etc. We can also apply judgement based on experience. A person lurking at the side of the track could simply be waiting to cross or they could be a potential suicide. By judging their demeanour and attitude from their behaviour and facial expressions we can assess their state and calculate the risk. These are all tasks that computers are incredibly poor at doing.

O L Leigh

Twice this has happened to me. Going low speed, about 15-20mph leaving a station. I saw a large canvas bag that they use for transporting ballast/stones in, on the track. From where I was in the cab, I couldn't tell if it was full of stones and had been deliberately placed across the rail by vandals, or whether it was empty and simply blown across.

I placed the brake into emergency and stopped the train. On one of the occasions I stopped short of the obstruction. On the other, I ran over it. On both occasions I (a useless replaceable human being) climbed down from my train, pulled the empty bag off the tracks, weighed it down with lumps of ballast so it didn't blow around again, and continued with the journey.

A computer would've stopped the train, and a human being/robot would have to be sent from miles away to sort it out.
"Catching the train? Leave 'bags' of time for delays!" Screams the cleverly computer constructed headline, for us all to read on our tablets/e-books.

 

[AngusH]

I would recommend reading the report if you have the chance. The contributors include at least some serious engineers with rail specialism or background.

The following is my interpretation of it, so far.

It isn't exactly as the summaries make out, in particular there are several points about driverless trains that don't seem to appear in the actual report at all. It's offering various possible ideas for the future, rather than a single blueprint. The timescale is also a long one, they're looking at 2050.

One of the key points that they're arguing is that more people will live in cities, and this would suggest more metro like railways probably elevated or underground. Some of which are already driverless. The report only suggests "more driverless trains" are likely, which if they're brand new light rail or metro systems is probably true today anyway.

Long distance wise, they do offer an example of a driverless freight train (similar to current Australian examples I think) but it seems to be part of an entirely separate network rather than interoperating with passenger services.


With respect to the robotic repairs, it seems more about flying drones for monitoring and inspection (as seen already in early form at Dawlish by Network Rail) and robots for specific tasks. Quote: "crawling robots can test load-bearing cables and tethers of bridges, elevators and cable cars". Maybe some talk of swarms of robots doing repairs, but no specifics.

 

[radamfi]

It is widely thought that increased automation means less work for humans. Despite how much technology has moved on in the last 30 years, and how much automation has increased, it hasn't caused a corresponding increase in unemployment. The people previously doing tedious jobs that have been replaced by automation are now doing other things. So two jobs are now being done instead of one, which means increased productivity, and therefore growth in the economy.

Rich business owners do not want mass unemployment as they want people to be able to afford their products.

 

[orpine]

For anyone interested, there's actually an article in the current New Scientist about autonomous vehicles. The online article is a subset of the paper version: http://www.newscientist.com/article...iving-autonomous-vehicles-have-a-problem.html

Personally I can't see how rail (1 dimensional) is harder than driving (which is a 2 dimensional problem), or flying (which is 3d). In the case of driving you don't even have control of the network - you're surrounded by people doing random things *all* the time. There's limited control in both rail (due to rails and restricted access) and flying (Air traffic controllers etc).

I can't be the only one who doesn't get the point? All this automation that Ed suggests must cost an absolute fortune...

Off the top of my head:
- The capital costs may be higher, but maintenance will be considerably lower. No salaries, no pensions, no strikes, no rota's to co-ordinate etc. Why do you think they use super-expensive robots in car factories instead of dirt cheap labour in China etc?
- Computers will be "better" drivers, able to accelerate and decelerate in the optimal manner, thereby saving fuel.
- Safer, certainly for flights (see linked articles), most issues are pilot-error. I'd be surprised if that didn't carry over to trains.

 

[Tomnick]

If the ATO on the Underground is meant to be a better 'driver' than a human, then I don't hold out much hope. It was certainly one of the roughest rides that I've ever experienced! I accept that it might make better use of capacity where things are tight, but is it really more efficient than a real driver who knows where he's got time to shut off and coast for a bit and where he needs to push it a bit? Certainly on LU it seems to be a case of full power - no power - full brake.

 

[Goggy02]

My issue isn't the fact that we will have driverless trains (of course we will, it won't work quite as well as HSTED seems to hope though ), it's more of the fact that there won't be a single member of staff on the train.

And that video is a useless comparison by the way. If you programmed a computer to count the amount of times the balls were passed and print it all in a tidy report at the end, it wouldn't suddenly say "oh there was a dancing ape/bear half way through"

And the argument about the technology being unavailable, correct it's out there. But by the time we get our hands on it, manipulate it to work on our network, it will be broken and constantly fail like everything else we seem to try make work over here :
It's not so much detecting things that's the problem (as that technology has been around a while), it's how the train/'control staff' reacts to it. Aswell as various other incidents.

Carriageline, how are you? Tried to PM you over the last few months to see how you are getting on as a Signaller but never a reply so thought I'd get hold of you on here

 

[carriageline]

Carriageline, how are you? Tried to PM you over the last few months to see how you are getting on as a Signaller but never a reply so thought I'd get hold of you on here

Sorry mate I never see PMs because I only use the app, I'll reply to you now buddy!

 

[Tio Terry]

You do you realise that your merry little world is skipping along happily to disaster? Not everyone is a born brain surgeon. As we waltz along to minimum wage work for as many as possible while some sort of new ruling class emerges on 6 or 7 figures running the show, do you not think this is going to lead to civil unrest?

If it gets to the point where I can either pull a minimum wage job or run a business (there aren't many openings for train guards, customer service staff or former industrial workers as MDs or financial services types - they seem to be mostly on the dole) and even if I take the former, lose my house and car which I've worked hard for, do you not think that at some point some one will do something about it?

All through history disaster has come through an elite carving out the world for themselves and they generally result in both the ruling class and a good number of others losing their lives - French revolution, Soviet revolution, Nazi Germany etc.

I'm afraid if my future lies in either earning a pittance or doing something some 'boss' tells me to do regardless of whether I wish to, while working till I die of old age or my faculties fail me, then sorry, but getting rid of the system and those it benefits seems to suit me better.

Either give me a well paid job I enjoy or give me a fair amount of free money if we're really creating utopia. Don't expect me to go along with someone else's ideal particularly if the system is set up around moving money about. I deserve to be happy and fulfilled as well.

Whilst I have huge sympathy with your personal views I'm afraid history does not support you.

We have no Lamp Lighters because technology did away with gas lighting replacing it with remote controlled electricity. The number of Blacksmiths was decimated by the Railways and the Omnibus. Weaving was revolutionised by mechanical weavers. All through history technology has changed working practices. In general, any occupation that tried to get it's self in to a position where it could hold it's employers to ransom - and did -has seen the march of technology overtake it. Look at Mining, Newspapers, Car Manufacture - all decimated because they thought they could dictate to their employers. Civil unrest? Think of the Miners strikes, just look what's happened there.

I've passed 65 with over 50 years or Railway Industry service and have no intention of retiring, but I do know that eventually Drivers will be replaced by technology - it's not that difficult actually - but also that there will always be the need for staff on a train to deal with emergencies.

The march of progress will not be halted!

 

[thelem]

You do you realise that your merry little world is skipping along happily to disaster? Not everyone is a born brain surgeon. As we waltz along to minimum wage work for as many as possible while some sort of new ruling class emerges on 6 or 7 figures running the show, do you not think this is going to lead to civil unrest?

I didn't comment about whether I thought the world would be a better place with driverless trains or not, I was just commenting about whether it was technically possible and desirable from the point of view of the decision makers (who are not drivers).

Whether endless automation is a good thing for society is a much harder question, but one better answered on an economics forum (where I'm sure you still wouldn't get agreement).