Driverless trains - why limited progress on the national rail network?

[jopsuk]

"lack of people willing to train as drivers/london underground style front cab operators" isn't a constraint on running more trains.

 

[najaB]

I haven't read the other thread yet, so apologies if this is covered there...

I suggest that everyone reads the other thread - this is just repeating the discussion we had not more than a few weeks ago. Nothing new has happened since, as far as I'm aware.

 

[SPADTrap]

http://news.sky.com/story/driverless-trains-could-solve-growing-rail-demand-10759195

Yes, yes, yes, there is always that age old, historical, argument that "it is not safe". What is safe?

There are already well documented examples of driverless rail systems, Vancouver Sky Train, Copenhaga, Barcelona, Turin, Paris and some portions of the Victoria line as well as a large array of American services, many of which do not have a standby driver to look for hazards and perform door closing duties. These prove that the system is possible even now.

Given the nature of modern technology advances, with collision avoidance and spatial awareness tech used by driverless cars around Milton Keynes as an example, could driverless trains over the entire network actually work?

They can't be that well documented if you think the Victoria line is driverless! It doesn't prove anything!

 

[Jonny]

As a mere passenger I would rather travel behind a qualified driver whose experience and knowledge would be better than a microprocessor, I have just bought a new PC with 'orrible windows 10 so perhaps I am a bit biased against computers!

I wouldn't judge technology in general by the current version of Windows.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There aren't enough call centre jobs going for all the driverless train drivers to go to. Once everyone is automated out of work who is going to use the driverless trains?

A remarkably small proportion of the population actually commute to work by train. This applies even in the towns you would perceive as being the most commuter-y. Commuting to work by train normally means that you're heading into a city centre for an office job that pays much more than you would be able to earn outside of a city, thus making the season ticket prices (however high!) worthwhile. Those sorts of high-value office jobs worth forking out season tickets for are in some ways less likely to be automated out of existence. Even if specific job roles ceased to exist, the people who do them should find it easier to move into one of the new jobs created by automation than a vehicle driver.

The question of what the unemployed people do has already been answered to some extent. Go and look at post-industrial regions where the economic justification for the town has disappeared. Moving from an industrial to a service-based economy has created jobs in some fields but they tend to be totally unavailable to the people left behind in the old ways of doing things. Some of the few jobs left or created in these areas are the ones which will be destroyed in the next couple of years - supermarket workers, call centre operators, logistics workers, warehouse operatives and professional drivers.

 

[fowler9]

A remarkably small proportion of the population actually commute to work by train. This applies even in the towns you would perceive as being the most commuter-y. Commuting to work by train normally means that you're heading into a city centre for an office job that pays much more than you would be able to earn outside of a city, thus making the season ticket prices (however high!) worthwhile. Those sorts of high-value office jobs worth forking out season tickets for are in some ways less likely to be automated out of existence. Even if specific job roles ceased to exist, the people who do them should find it easier to move into one of the new jobs created by automation than a vehicle driver.

The question of what the unemployed people do has already been answered to some extent. Go and look at post-industrial regions where the economic justification for the town has disappeared. Moving from an industrial to a service-based economy has created jobs in some fields but they tend to be totally unavailable to the people left behind in the old ways of doing things. Some of the few jobs left or created in these areas are the ones which will be destroyed in the next couple of years - supermarket workers, call centre operators, logistics workers, warehouse operatives and professional drivers.

Not that it proves anything but 2 of my last 3 jobs have involved commuting away from my nearest city centre by train. A new online customer interface means that the call centre I currently work on will be shedding jobs over the next year. Again I don't want to say you are wrong but in my experience you would seem to be.

 

[JDi]

This is not a discussion about the rights and wrongs of driverless trains but the technology which they require

It is nearly 50 years since driverless trains were introduced on the Victoria Line and over time they have slowly been introduced on metro lines around the world including systems such as DLR.

The automotive and software industries are investing heavily in driverless car/truck technology with breakthroughs and advances being announced all the time.

As a lay person I would have expected the rail industry to be way ahead of the automotive sector in this regard but apart from metro systems little progress seems to have been made.

What are the reasons for this and what techology is required to enable driverless trains to operate on the national rail network?

Driverless trains on the Victoria Line? I thought that the current trains had drivers? Has there ever been driverless trains on the Underground (not including the DLR).

 

[najaB]

Driverless trains on the Victoria Line? I thought that the current trains had drivers? Has there ever been driverless trains on the Underground (not including the DLR).

They do have drivers, but in the core they operate in ATO (automatic train operation) mode - which means the driver is there in a supervisory capacity.

 

[Bromley boy]

They do have drivers, but in the core they operate in ATO (automatic train operation) mode - which means the driver is there in a supervisory capacity.

This reads as though you're talking about the Elizabeth Line/Crossrail or Thameslink which will be ATO through their respective core sections.

As I understand it the LU Victoria Line is ATO throughout, other than moves in and out of the depot at Walthamstow.

 

[najaB]

As I understand it the LU Victoria Line is ATO throughout, other than moves in and out of the depot at Walthamstow.

I thought I remembered reading on the forum that the ATO is unreliable once it gets outside so the drivers do more manual driving, even though the line is ATO equipped. Probably got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't be the first time.

 

[JDi]

They do have drivers, but in the core they operate in ATO (automatic train operation) mode - which means the driver is there in a supervisory capacity.

Wow - This may seem a bit harsh, but that are getting paid more than most just to supervise? Wow.

 

[Bromley boy]

I thought I remembered reading on the forum that the ATO is unreliable once it gets outside so the drivers do more manual driving, even though the line is ATO equipped. Probably got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't be the first time.

The Victoria Line is all underground apart from the depot.

I've read similar in relation to the Jubilee, Central and Northern lines which are also ATO and have extensive outdoor sections, so it may be that you were thinking of.

 

[najaB]

Wow - This may seem a bit harsh, but that are getting paid more than most just to supervise? Wow.

Because, unlike most, the consequence of the automation failing is that people die.

Pilots get paid very well, and in most modern airlines flying between major airports they might do less than 30 hours actual hand flying in a year.

 

[fowler9]

Because, unlike most, the consequence of the automation failing is that people die.

Pilots get paid very well, and in most modern airlines flying between major airports they might do less than 30 hours actual hand flying in a year.

Yeah, I remember a documentary a few years back following a BMI 737 from Manchester (I think) to Malaga. Not long after gear up, a minute max, they turned on the autopilot. and it was literally down to inputting altitudes and directions provided by ATC until the captain took control when the runway at Malaga was in sight, and I mean very clearly in sight and pretty close.

I would have fancied my chances at doing what the flight crew did on that flight, if anything went wrong though I wouldn't have a chance at flying it manually. Brown trousers and a heart attack for me I fear.

 

[bramling]

Wow - This may seem a bit harsh, but that are getting paid more than most just to supervise? Wow.

Whether or not they're physically driving the train, the train operator is still *in charge of the train*. That's what they earn their money for, not the actual driving. A 5-year old could move a train from A to B, but it's all the other bits on top of that where the driver earns his money. Knowing, keeping up to date and applying rules and procedures, knowing the rolling stock inside out, being able to perform procedures and fault-finding under pressure, structuring one's life according to shift-work and duty-schedules, etc etc etc.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I would have fancied my chances at doing what the flight crew did on that flight, if anything went wrong though I wouldn't have a chance at flying it manually. Brown trousers and a heart attack for me I fear.

Air France 447 and AirAsia 8501 are examples of this happening to trained pilots in reality. Pilots as supervisors. Then something goes wrong, Computer says No and control unexpectedly in the hands of pilots that are not sufficiently aware of the situation. Mis-communication, mistakes and loss of control follow, with deadly consequences. Temptingly easy to blame the pilot, but training issues, human factors and the human-machine interfaces are important in the chain of events as official reports point out.

How this kind of advanced automation fails gracefully and hands control back to the driver, unplanned and with the driver being sufficiently aware of the situation seems important in any vehicle. Whether the rail industry has the appetite, culture and capability to address this issue is a question.

 

[najaB]

How this kind of advanced automation fails gracefully and hands control back to the driver, unplanned and with the driver being sufficiently aware of the situation seems important in any vehicle. Whether the rail industry has the appetite, culture and capability to address this issue is a question.

That is the crucial thing. In both of the examples you cited the automation handed the pilots perfectly controllable and in control aircraft, and the pilots flew the planes into terrain.

The Air France accident in particular is notable since it wouldn't have happened if the pilots had done exactly nothing.

 

[gsnedders]

The Air France accident in particular is notable since it wouldn't have happened if the pilots had done exactly nothing.

Wait, what?! From memory (I'm at work any not going to re-read the whole accident report!), the first thing that happened was some of the pilot tubes got blocked and then the autopilot disconnected placing the aircraft in one of the alternate laws.

With the autopilot disconnected, it is likely it would eventually have ended up in the ocean if literally nothing was done. Of course, that would happen a long distance away from where the original problem happened!

The aircraft needed some manual intervention to continue on course, just a lot less extreme than any input that was given!

 

[Dave1987]

Wait, what?! From memory (I'm at work any not going to re-read the whole accident report!), the first thing that happened was some of the pilot tubes got blocked and then the autopilot disconnected placing the aircraft in one of the alternate laws.

With the autopilot disconnected, it is likely it would eventually have ended up in the ocean if literally nothing was done. Of course, that would happen a long distance away from where the original problem happened!

The aircraft needed some manual intervention to continue on course, just a lot less extreme than any input that was given!

The aircraft was perfectly in trim, flying stable. Absolutely nothing was required apart from waiting until the data to the ADIRU was not conflicting and then engage the autopilot again. The Airbus fleet have protection systems built in to stop them from ever falling out of the sky up to a point but it relies on good data to the ADIRU which was not available due to the conflicting data from the frozen pitot tube so the crew were in full control of the aircraft which they did not realise properly. The crew had lost all situational awareness and did not believe what their instruments were telling them so tried to correct a problem that wasn't even present. The crew had become so reliant on the automation that when that automation failed they didn't know how to react, a very dangerous place to be.

 

[najaB]

The aircraft was perfectly in trim, flying stable.

This. If they had done nothing the plane would have continued in straight and level flight for ages. Certainly long enough for them to figure out what was actually happening and start a slow descent out of any icing conditions.

 

[gsnedders]

This, for example, had me have the understanding that wind meant you were unlikely to perfectly hold altitude (the air isn't totally still after all!). That said, I guess it only really affects how closely you follow the original altitude with wind blowing you around and how large your oscillation around it are before ending up back at it permanently, with the oscillations being larger at higher altitudes (and less dense air to damp the movement)?

I'm well aware of the crew's actions that followed the autopilot disengaging and their total loss of any ability to work together (AIUI, the more experienced First Officer, as well as the Captain when he finally returned, understood where they were and what was happening).

 

[najaB]

This, for example, had me have the understanding that wind meant you were unlikely to perfectly hold altitude (the air isn't totally still after all!).

At cruising altitude a thousand feet up or down isn't really anything to worry about. The aircraft was trimmed for the speed it was flying so it would naturally tend to return to straight and level in the absence of significant control inputs.

 

[gsnedders]

At cruising altitude a thousand feet up or down isn't really anything to worry about. The aircraft was trimmed for the speed it was flying so it would naturally tend to return to straight and level in the absence of significant control inputs.

Well, at cruising altitude outside of RVSM airspace, given the minimum vertical separation there is a thousand feet…

But yes, not relevant over the Atlantic, admittedly!

 

[LdnNiko]

The aircraft was perfectly in trim, flying stable.

This. If they had done nothing the plane would have continued in straight and level flight for ages.

That's clearly balls when reading the BEA accident report.

Page 172 highlights that:

When the autopilot disconnected, the roll angle increased in two seconds from 0 to +8.4 degrees without any inputs on the sidesticks. The PF was immediately absorbed by dealing with roll, whose oscillations can be explained by:

ˆ A large initial input on the sidestick under the effect of surprise;
ˆ The continuation of the oscillations, in the time it took to adapt his piloting at high altitude, while subject to an unusual flight law in roll (direct law).

Additionally, page 46 describes the meteorological conditions encountered at the time the pitot tubes froze over:

Though the analysis of the (infra-red satellite) imagery leads one to think that, towards 2 h 00, the
cumulonimbi forming this cluster had mostly already reached their stage of maturity, it is highly probable that some were the site of notable turbulence at FL350.

While I'm no fan of the crew (who through aircraft pitch and engine power settings, should've managed to maintain level flight), the aircraft dumped them into direct law control (read: manual flight, and without all pertinent information). On a dark, stormy night, situational awareness was difficult to retain given the concerns that the flight crew thought they had a inexplicably broken aeroplane.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's worth remembering that the plane had other data sources that were still working and could have been used to guide the aircraft when the pitot tubes failed. However, it's simply not possible to present all of that information at once to the pilot so that the human can decide the best course of action. A sufficiently advanced autopilot could draw upon every single data source available on the plane and have the necessary logic to detect failures of sensing equipment. You could then relay this composite, corrected information back to the cockpit but then you're putting AI in ultimate control of the situation, as the pilots can only fly based on the instrument readings they're provided. If the corrected data is enough for the autopilot to fly normally, why would there be a need to involve the human at all?

 

[Steve14]

I'm sure the topic was about driverless trains.

 

[Dave1987]

It's worth remembering that the plane had other data sources that were still working and could have been used to guide the aircraft when the pitot tubes failed. However, it's simply not possible to present all of that information at once to the pilot so that the human can decide the best course of action. A sufficiently advanced autopilot could draw upon every single data source available on the plane and have the necessary logic to detect failures of sensing equipment. You could then relay this composite, corrected information back to the cockpit but then you're putting AI in ultimate control of the situation, as the pilots can only fly based on the instrument readings they're provided. If the corrected data is enough for the autopilot to fly normally, why would there be a need to involve the human at all?

Sorry but the auto flight system just like every bit of automation relies on accurate data. In this case because some of the information being fed to the ADIRU was inaccurate the auto flight system was unable to establish what data was correct and what wasn't so it kicked out the auto pilot and handed control back to the human. They should have assessed the situation and worked out how to solve it, they failed to do the most basic task in aviation, fly the plane! Every pilot is taught to fly the plane first and foremost. The pilots still had their backup instruments and should have easily dealt with the situation. If anything the whole thing shows that automation is very very fallible if it isn't fed accurate data. That's why when people's lives are at stake you need human perception there to take over when the data fed to the automation is inaccurate.

 

[najaB]

While I'm no fan of the crew (who through aircraft pitch and engine power settings, should've managed to maintain level flight), the aircraft dumped them into direct law control (read: manual flight, and without all pertinent information). On a dark, stormy night, situational awareness was difficult to retain given the concerns that the flight crew thought they had a inexplicably broken aeroplane.

The aircraft was in trimmed straight and level flight at the moment the automation dropped out. Everything that happened subsequently was down to the crew's actions. As you said, they had reliable pitch and power information and no reason to doubt its accuracy, that was all they needed to keep the plane out of the water.

 

[455driver]

You keep trotting this out but until there are robots who can fix other robots then no one will be out of work.

So 25,000 train drivers will suddenly be qualified to fix robots, but whart about the people already fixing robots?

If you replace as many humans as possible with machines what do the humans do for work?
In a factory 1 machine replaces (lets say) 20 humans and needs 1 human to look after it, what happens to the other 19 humans?

Anyway I expect to be replace by a ZX81 next month so I am learning the phrases I will need for my new job-

Do you want fries with that mate
Do you want fries with that love

There learnt them already.

This isnt being derogatory to people who work in fast food establishments but merely pointing out that my skills (train driver) dont really transfer over to any other job, and at my age (I aint seeing 50 again) there isnt much chance of me getting a job anywhere, especially in a fast food establishment simply because there are a lot of younger people after the same jobs!

So if you want to spend £billions making me and my sort redundant (how much would it also cost in benefits to keep us all at home?) then fine but by the time you weigh up all the costs of getting rid of us is there any actually real world savings to be had?

Then there is the question of obsolescence, how long can you keep your new fangled auto train set running before it becomes obsolete and needs replacing, so yet more (ongoing) costs, where-as the redundant humans do tend to be quite proficient at learning new things during a phased changeover, something a replacement fully auto system probably wouldnt be able to cope with.

Would you be happy if the whole system shut down for a month every 15 to 20 years so the whole auto system could be replaced with new kit?

Unless of course you make the new stuff backward compatible and do a phased replacement, I mean that always works with simple signalling so what could possibly go wrong in something as complicated as full auto train operation?

 

[455driver]

As I understand it the LU Victoria Line is ATO throughout, other than moves in and out of the depot at Walthamstow.

And it is so smooth you could almost fall asleep on it, not!

It is either full acceleration or full brake, not exactly smooth at all, if that is what you want then fine but a lot of people want a smooth ride when on a mainline train.

If I was to drive mytrain the way the Viccy line does I would be getting reported every 5 minutes and rightly so, but people accept it because its an auto system and is bearable for the short time they are on it, I dont think they would be so keen if they were on it for an hour or more twice a day, do you?