Driverless Trains

[SPADTrap]

Agreed. The event started with the AP tripping off and an unreliable airspeed warning (for about 1 minute) but they didn't perform the unreliable airspeed checklist. It was the actions of the PF that caused the airplane to enter the stall (from the accident report):

"Following the autopilot disconnection, the PF very quickly applied nose-up sidestick inputs. The PF’s inputs may be classified as abrupt and excessive. The excessive amplitude of these inputs made them unsuitable and incompatible with the recommended aeroplane handling practices for high altitude flight..."

"Although the PF’s initial excessive nose-up reaction may thus be fairly easily understood, the same is not true for the persistence of this input, which generated a significant vertical flight path deviation."

Most tellingly: "With no PF inputs, the aircraft would have gradually rolled further to the left but the variations in pitch attitude and altitude would have been small."

It's day one stuff - if you have a stall warning at altitude, you push the nose down. The PF pulled the nose back and applied TOGA power and seemed to be targeting 12 degrees nose up - this is the recovery procedure for a low-altitude stall.

You won't get an argument there - the ECAM design was potentially confusing and I believe has been improved to make it clearer if the plane is stalling. More importantly the PNF missed opportunities to save the plane (as did the Captain when he returned to the cockpit). At no point did the crew come to a consensus as to what was happening - it seems from the CVR transcript that the PNF realised what the problem was "Wtch your speed" "According to all three you're going up, go back down" but he never gave clear direction to the PF.

It's also note-worthy that the Captain didn't say anything about the stall warning when he returned to the cockpit - you have a point when you say that the PF/PNF had other warnings displayed to them, but the Captain would have heard the stall warning before he even entered the cockpit so the stall should have been first and foremost in his mind.

There is no other way to put it - the crew flew a working aircraft into the ocean.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The automation didn't 'give out' - the AP disconnected and the plane reverted to alternate mode by design because the pilots are there and are supposed to do a better job. However, Airbus had already developed a system call BLISS that would have continued to provide airspeed data when the pitot tubes clogged. If it had been fitted to the accident aircraft, the AP would never have disconnected and the passengers would have safely arrived in Paris. The mistake, in this case, was letting a human get involved.

And now back to your railway-related discussions...

As an ex turboprop driver with an airbus rating I could talk at length about it but as you say that isn't the point of this thread and I certainly do not wish to get into the depths of airbus alternate control laws herehock:! Moving on, sorry op!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Theknightwho, could I just enquire as to whether you have some kind of professional or business interest in seeing driverless trains come to fruition? You seem hell bent on pushing this idea on this forum.

Yeah, I'm secretly out to fire all drivers :roll:

A healthy interest does not make me "hell bent on pushing this idea". On the other hand, the vitriol, assumptions and anger displayed by many members of this forum does reveal that a lot of people are certainly not willing to have a reasonable discussion about these things.

As I've already stated, it's about capacity and speed, and not having no driver at the front. And sure, many of you might say that's not an issue on most of the network, but when you can time things to seconds rather than minutes it opens up a whole lot of paths that would otherwise be unviable at the pinch points. This has a big impact on what you can do with the rest of the network too, even if capacity there is less of a direct issue.

(Yes, I'm aware that passengers often cause delays. This is a separate problem that also needs solving in its own right.)

 

[A-driver]

Yeah, I'm secretly out to fire all drivers :roll:

A healthy interest does not make me "hell bent on pushing this idea". On the other hand, the vitriol, assumptions and anger displayed by many members of this forum does reveal that a lot of people are certainly not willing to have a reasonable discussion about these things.

As I've already stated, it's about capacity and speed, and not having no driver at the front. And sure, many of you might say that's not an issue on most of the network, but when you can time things to seconds rather than minutes it opens up a whole lot of paths that would otherwise be unviable at the pinch points. This has a big impact on what you can do with the rest of the network too, even if capacity there is less of a direct issue.

(Yes, I'm aware that passengers often cause delays. This is a separate problem that also needs solving in its own right.)

You see you are confusing a major point here though. You are suggesting ATO which is already starting to be rolled out and ERTMS is also a step to that. It's a world away from removing the driver completely though which is far less practical.

Automatic and driverless are very different things.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You see you are confusing a major point here though. You are suggesting ATO which is already starting to be rolled out and ERTMS is also a step to that. It's a world away from removing the driver completely though which is far less practical.

Automatic and driverless are very different things.

I'm aware of that, but you can't argue that they're extremely related. To separate them to try and escape the point that there are a lot of benefits to driverless trains is disingenuous.

 

[carriageline]

Implementating ATO, and implementing driverless are two different things and are completely separate.

 

[A-driver]

I'm aware of that, but you can't argue that they're extremely related. To separate them to try and escape the point that there are a lot of benefits to driverless trains is disingenuous.

I have never stated that there are no benefits to AUTOMATIC trains, I have, however, and still do argue that there are really no benefits to DRIVERLESS trains. And completely unstaffed trains will never ever happen.

But driverless and automatic definitely need separating and this thread was about driverless trains. You still seem to be getting confused about this rather major point. It doesn't take a technology expert to say that automatic trains are possible and inevitable. But driverless is very different, far less likely and certainly not cost effective, practical or even worthwhile!

You need to understand the driverless and automatic are very, very different things.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have never stated that there are no benefits to AUTOMATIC trains, I have, however, and still do argue that there are really no benefits to DRIVERLESS trains. And completely unstaffed trains will never ever happen.

But driverless and automatic definitely need separating and this thread was about driverless trains. You still seem to be getting confused about this rather major point. It doesn't take a technology expert to say that automatic trains are possible and inevitable. But driverless is very different, far less likely and certainly not cost effective, practical or even worthwhile!

You need to understand the driverless and automatic are very, very different things.

If I'm just going to be patronised, when I've explained why separating the two is problematic, I'm just going to leave the thread :roll:

 

[Jamesb1974]

If it's a healthy interest, then fair enough.

But you can hardly be surpised by the

the vitriol, assumptions and anger displayed by many members of this forum

when the thing you are discussing will put people out of a job.

I don't know about your personal circumstances and frankly I don't wish to, but when all and sundry start to debate how your profession (assuming you have one) could be replaced then I'm sure you would be among the first to speak out. And it won't be called vitriol or anger, it will be called self defence.

Don't sound shocked or surprised that the very people who's jobs will go respond to your posts in the negative. While I admit that discussions on technology are good and promote healthy debate, I return to my previous comment. Don't be surprised when people take offence.

 

[driver_m]

If I'm just going to be patronised, when I've explained why separating the two is problematic, I'm just going to leave the thread :roll:

If you are going to persist with a controversial topic and get sarky yourself with your replies, (your berry gathering response being an example) then we are going to defend ourselves just like jamesb1974 said.

You can't have a 'sensible' debate on something that affects peoples livelihoods, you just can't. Go into Barnsley town centre and try to debate the pros and cons of the miners strike, Liverpool city centre with the shutdown of the docks in the 70s/80s. Corby/Ravenscraig with the steel plants. You'd be lucky to escape with your limbs intact if you did. This topic regularly comes up just like DOO and Ticket Offices with annoying regularity and brings nothing new to the discussion. I know that we can't stop progress and I wouldn't want us to, but the subject comes up with a reliability that NR would love the trains to achieve.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If you are going to persist with a controversial topic and get sarky yourself with your replies, (your berry gathering response being an example) then we are going to defend ourselves just like jamesb1974 said.

You can't have a 'sensible' debate on something that affects peoples livelihoods, you just can't. Go into Barnsley town centre and try to debate the pros and cons of the miners strike, Liverpool city centre with the shutdown of the docks in the 70s/80s. Corby/Ravenscraig with the steel plants. You'd be lucky to escape with your limbs intact if you did. This topic regularly comes up just like DOO and Ticket Offices with annoying regularity and brings nothing new to the discussion. I know that we can't stop progress and I wouldn't want us to, but the subject comes up with a reliability that NR would love the trains to achieve.

Yes, you absolutely can have a sensitive debate whilst being sensitive towards emotional issues! It's not like it's one or the other, and I think everyone here understands that.

I'm not sitting here advocating actual plans to put people out of a job - we're discussing ideas as to the pros and cons of driverless trains. Derailing the conversation by acting like we're witch-hunters out to rid you of your profession when this is all purely hypothetical is entirely unfair, and completely misses the point.

 

[A-driver]

To be honest I don't think people should get emotionally involved in worrying about driverless trains as it's not a realistic proposal in any way. People are still getting confused by driverless or automatic...

 

[driver_m]

Yes, you absolutely can have a sensitive debate whilst being sensitive towards emotional issues! It's not like it's one or the other, and I think everyone here understands that.

I'm not sitting here advocating actual plans to put people out of a job - we're discussing ideas as to the pros and cons of driverless trains. Derailing the conversation by acting like we're witch-hunters out to rid you of your profession when this is all purely hypothetical is entirely unfair, and completely misses the point.

I'm advocating a pretty huge con of driverless trains. The human cost. How is that unfair? Or have you got a problem with people disagreeing with your point of view. If you don't like people questioning a response of yours then don't post! I accept I'll get my view questioned on here.

My other point is that this subject crops up so often it is ridiculous. Its up there with smelly toilets on voyagers, 142s being crap, THAT petition. Nothing new gets brought to the discussion.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

And completely unstaffed trains will never ever happen.

Paris Metro, Line 1 and Line 14 run with completely unstaffed trains.

OK, that's another country though...

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm advocating a pretty huge con of driverless trains. The human cost. How is that unfair? Or have you got a problem with people disagreeing with your point of view. If you don't like people questioning a response of yours then don't post! I accept I'll get my view questioned on here.

My other point is that this subject crops up so often it is ridiculous. Its up there with smelly toilets on voyagers, 142s being crap, THAT petition. Nothing new gets brought to the discussion.

I dislike people

a) implying I have a vested interest.
b) implying that I want people to lose their jobs.
c) implying that anyone here is ignoring safety concerns.
d) demonising me by ignoring what I'm saying.

Need I go on?

Do you really think I'm saying this because I don't like people disagreeing with me? Or do you seriously think that hysterical shouting and screaming >>that has nothing to do with the actual points being made<< is particularly helpful to anyone? I have no problem being disagreed with, but I've already stated my issue with certain posters. Ignoring that post and then doing exactly what I said I didn't like under the pretention that I'm somehow unable to cope with people disagreeing with me is just rude, apart from being completely unfair.

Of course there is an issue with people's jobs, but as has been said several million times already this is not a new phenomenon. There are ways of automating jobs that don't involve laying off thousands of people and setting them completely adrift. However, talking about Union arrangements and fair employment opportunities aren't particularly relevant to the discussion. We all understand them, so can we talk about something else regarding driverless trains? Because currently it feels like every time the conversation is started about ten people barge in with the same old points that everyone already knows, and they tend to talk completely over anyone trying to talk about anything else. It's getting extremely tiresome.

But yes, you keep derailing as though that's actually going to change anyone's mind on the matter.

 

[A-driver]

Paris Metro, Line 1 and Line 14 run with completely unstaffed trains.



OK, that's another country though...

Nothing to do with country but once again, like the dlr, a metro is in no way whatsoever comparable to a mainline.

Staff and passengers can walk between stations in a few minutes. Not possible on an inaccessible mainline in the middle of a hostile mountain range in winter to access a failed train or some locations with 10+miles between stations (or civilisation).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm advocating a pretty huge con of driverless trains. The human cost. How is that unfair?

It certainly is a big con, though it also leads to the difficult question of whether the railway's primary purpose is to transport passengers and freight, whether it is to make money or whether it is to create employment.

It sort-of does all three at present, of course.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can't have a 'sensible' debate on something that affects peoples livelihoods, you just can't. Go into Barnsley town centre and try to debate the pros and cons of the miners strike, Liverpool city centre with the shutdown of the docks in the 70s/80s. Corby/Ravenscraig with the steel plants. You'd be lucky to escape with your limbs intact if you did.

This is a very good point - but it's in a way sad, because a sensible debate (including the human factors) is very useful on such things.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest I don't think people should get emotionally involved in worrying about driverless trains as it's not a realistic proposal in any way. People are still getting confused by driverless or automatic...

The difference being whether a driver is sitting up front supervising or not, you mean?

You've then got the confusing third way of a skilled guard who can intervene in some issues (but as rightly pointed out not others) when needed (see DLR).

Neil

 

[A-driver]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




The difference being whether a driver is sitting up front supervising or not, you mean?



You've then got the confusing third way of a skilled guard who can intervene in some issues (but as rightly pointed out not others) when needed (see DLR).



Neil

which works on the dlr or any other metro system but would be far more problematic on the mainline...for reasons stated already in this thread.

 

[driver_m]

I dislike people

a) implying I have a vested interest.
b) implying that I want people to lose their jobs.
c) implying that anyone here is ignoring safety concerns.
d) demonising me by ignoring what I'm saying.

Need I go on?

Do you really think I'm saying this because I don't like people disagreeing with me? Or do you seriously think that hysterical shouting and screaming >>that has nothing to do with the actual points being made<< is particularly helpful to anyone? I have no problem being disagreed with, but I've already stated my issue with certain posters. Ignoring that post and then doing exactly what I said I didn't like under the pretention that I'm somehow unable to cope with people disagreeing with me is just rude, apart from being completely unfair.

Of course there is an issue with people's jobs, but as has been said several million times already this is not a new phenomenon. There are ways of automating jobs that don't involve laying off thousands of people and setting them completely adrift. However, talking about Union arrangements and fair employment opportunities aren't particularly relevant to the discussion. We all understand them, so can we talk about something else regarding driverless trains? Because currently it feels like every time the conversation is started about ten people barge in with the same old points that everyone already knows, and they tend to talk completely over anyone trying to talk about anything else. It's getting extremely tiresome.

But yes, you keep derailing as though that's actually going to change anyone's mind on the matter.

Its unfortunate isn't it that you want to talk about a subject about removing a driver, yet you want us to stay out of the conversation, and not 'derail' it with trivialities like union involvement. Tough. Threads go in different directions. Theres enough examples all over this forum. Drivers will continue to jump in on a debate that affects us.

I'll add a point that you may have not thought of. (Its a con - sorry

 

[TheKnightWho]

Its unfortunate isn't it that you want to talk about a subject about removing a driver, yet you want us to stay out of the conversation, and not 'derail' it with trivialities like union involvement. Tough. Threads go in different directions. Theres enough examples all over this forum. Drivers will continue to jump in on a debate that affects us.

I'll add a point that you may have not thought of. (Its a con - sorry ��)

We have a number of signalling systems that are notoriously difficult at 'speaking' to one another when getting rid of older boxes (ie fringe ones like Blackrod) , the ROC renewals appear to be stalling significantly in areas. How is adding driverless trains tech going to fit in with the system both now and in future, bearing in mind that some mechanical boxes have long futures ahead. Look at the trouble Manchester South box had being brought in as an example of a new technology.

Obviously threads go in different directions, but derailing by forcing the issue is what I've complained about. That really isn't difficult to understand, but you just refuse to accept that your opinion is not the only opinion, and it's also not fair to speak over and above other people when they aren't even talking about what you insist on talking about. Capiche?

I have no issue with discussing the cons of driverless trains. I have every issue with shoehorning in emotional arguments about drivers when that have nothing to do with what people are currently discussing. Is that really so difficult to understand?

And to address your point, it's the same issue that will exist between having driven and driverless cars simultaneously: obviously the technology can't be fully implemented all in one go, and obviously you can't expect driven vehicles to behave like driverless ones. However, just as with arguments about problems from switching over from miles to kilometres, they're hiccups and not reasons not to change. A system such as ERTMS will help in any switch-over, but except for isolated branch lines the entire network would need to be on ERTMS before any driverless trains could be deployed, or at least any other trains they would come into contact with would have to be on such a system.

 

[A-driver]

Obviously threads go in different directions, but derailing by forcing the issue is what I've complained about. That really isn't difficult to understand, but you just refuse to accept that your opinion is not the only opinion, and it's also not fair to speak over and above other people when they aren't even talking about what you insist on talking about. Capiche?

I have no issue with discussing the cons of driverless trains. I have every issue with shoehorning in emotional arguments about drivers when that have nothing to do with what people are currently discussing. Is that really so difficult to understand?

And to address your point, it's the same issue that will exist between having driven and driverless cars simultaneously: obviously the technology can't be fully implemented all in one go, and obviously you can't expect driven vehicles to behave like driverless ones. However, just as with arguments about problems from switching over from miles to kilometres, they're hiccups and not reasons not to change. A system such as ERTMS will help in any switch-over, but except for isolated branch lines the entire network would need to be on ERTMS before any driverless trains could be deployed, or at least any other trains they would come into contact with would have to be on such a system.

No, you have still missed a BIG point here!

ERTMS will pave the way for introduction of ATO, that is automatic trains but still supervised. ERTMS will in no way help achieve driverless trains. Obviously you need ERTMS & ATO to get to a stage of considering driverless trains but that isn't a simple step.

You still miss the main point that it's dead easy to make a train go and stop automatically, get it to run at varying speeds, stop at certain locations etc etc but all that is a small part of what a driver actually does on a train. Even after those boys have been fully automated leaving the driving cab with a chair and a 'go' button there will still be a long, long way to go before moving the driver away from a chair in front of the windscreen!

 

[TheKnightWho]

No, you have still missed a BIG point here!

ERTMS will pave the way for introduction of ATO, that is automatic trains but still supervised. ERTMS will in no way help achieve driverless trains. Obviously you need ERTMS & ATO to get to a stage of considering driverless trains but that isn't a simple step.

You still miss the main point that it's dead easy to make a train go and stop automatically, get it to run at varying speeds, stop at certain locations etc etc but all that is a small part of what a driver actually does on a train. Even after those boys have been fully automated leaving the driving cab with a chair and a 'go' button there will still be a long, long way to go before moving the driver away from a chair in front of the windscreen!

Argh! I give up!

That is absolutely not what I said! Of course ERTMS doesn't allow driverless trains, and I never said that! I'm making the point that it's a gradual process, and that no-one proposing we introduce driverless trains right now, or that doing so would even be possible.

And yes, I am aware that you can have ATO whilst having someone at the front. Please stop making this point over and over when I've already acknowledged it repeatedly! As I've already said, I've laid out various ways that driverless trains could be implemented on another thread not too long ago, and I'm not typing it all out again. This involves collision detection, door operation, emergency situations etc. etc. etc.

Also, no-one has argued that this technology is easy or that it will happen in the near-future. Of course there's a long way to go, but patronising people by assuming they aren't aware of the problems that need to be overcome is extremely unhelpful.

 

[A-driver]

Argh! I give up!

That is absolutely not what I said! Of course ERTMS doesn't allow driverless trains, and I never said that! I'm making the point that it's a gradual process, and that no-one proposing we introduce driverless trains right now, or that doing so would even be possible.

And yes, I am aware that you can have ATO whilst having someone at the front. Please stop making this point over and over when I've already acknowledged it repeatedly! As I've already said, I've laid out various ways that driverless trains could be implemented on another thread not too long ago, and I'm not typing it all out again.

This involves collision detection, door operation, emergency situations etc. etc. etc.

I've read your other threads and your view is far too simplistic and missing any actual knowledge of day to day basic railway operation. Even closing doors, detecting obstacles etc is hugely complicated. These things are dead easy for a human to do as they can easily work with unexpected and I programmed events. Technology would struggle more and realistically those things srnt an option for technology.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I've read your other threads and your view is far too simplistic and missing any actual knowledge of day to day basic railway operation. Even closing doors, detecting obstacles etc is hugely complicated. These things are dead easy for a human to do as they can easily work with unexpected and I programmed events. Technology would struggle more and realistically those things srnt an option for technology.

Yes, it is hugely complicated. However, collision detection systems already do operate extremely well in many other industries, some of which are equally (if not more) complex than the railway. You've managed to say a whole lot of words without saying much more than "this is obviously very complicated! I can't see how technology could do this!"

Calling it simplistic as a way to try and dismiss what I'm saying feels like a cop-out when all you're doing is trying to make it all sound as complicated as possible, whilst demonstrating a pretty poor knowledge of what is already possible.

 

[A-driver]

Yes, it is hugely complicated. However, collision detection systems already do operate extremely well in many other industries, some of which are equally (if not more) complex than the railway. You've managed to say a whole lot of words without saying much more than "this is obviously very complicated! I can't see how technology could do this!"

Calling it simplistic as a way to try and dismiss what I'm saying feels like a cop-out when all you're doing is trying to make it all sound as complicated as possible, whilst demonstrating a pretty poor knowledge of what is already possible.

I'm not dismissing it but pointing out that there won't be any real desire to go driverless being that drivers are cheaper and easier than the amount of technology required for those kind of things. And those areas wouldn't do anything to help capacity/speed/safety etc plus they won't reduce the cost so it would be a complete non starter.

I have said it before, if driverless trains were even remotely possible on the mainline then they would have been put to use somewhere in the world by now but the fact that no mainline railway has gone down that route simply proves it's not viable.

Yes in the future it may be the way things go but to have the amount of sensors etc installed to do a task as simple to a human being as closing doors on a constant passenger flow to depart on time or tell weather the train is about to hit a bird, car, stones thrown from a bridge, shopping trolley pushed over fence etc and take appropriate action (sometimes no action needed, sometimes report it, sometimes stop) won't be realistic until we live in a world of Star Trek and thunderbirds! It's certainly not going to happen anytime soon as it would have absolutely no benifit whatsoever.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm not dismissing it but pointing out that there won't be any real desire to go driverless being that drivers are cheaper and easier than the amount of technology required for those kind of things. And those areas wouldn't do anything to help capacity/speed/safety etc plus they won't reduce the cost so it would be a complete non starter.

I have said it before, if driverless trains were even remotely possible on the mainline then they would have been put to use somewhere in the world by now but the fact that no mainline railway has gone down that route simply proves it's not viable.

Yes in the future it may be the way things go but to have the amount of sensors etc installed to do a task as simple to a human being as closing doors on a constant passenger flow to depart on time or tell weather the train is about to hit a bird, car, stones thrown from a bridge, shopping trolley pushed over fence etc and take appropriate action (sometimes no action needed, sometimes report it, sometimes stop) won't be realistic until we live in a world of Star Trek and thunderbirds! It's certainly not going to happen anytime soon as it would have absolutely no benifit whatsoever.

No-one is stating that they're possible now, but they are discussing the feasibility in the future. Collision detection *can* already do those things, as Google's driverless car technology, as well as various automatic mining operations in Australia, already use it to a high degree of precision! Acting like this is all so far away and therefore pointless to discuss only shows that you don't really understand the technology involved. If you actually had read the other threads in which I've stated this before, you would already know this...

There's a middle-ground between science fiction and something that can be deployed right this second!

 

[A-driver]

No-one is stating that they're possible now, but they are discussing the feasibility in the future. Collision detection *can* already do those things, as Google's driverless car technology, as well as various automatic mining operations in Australia, already use it to a high degree of precision! Acting like this is all so far away and therefore pointless to discuss only shows that you don't really understand the technology involved. If you actually had read the other threads in which I've stated this before, you would already know this...

There's a middle-ground between science fiction and something that can be deployed right this second!

I'm fully aware obstacle detection is now possible and very advanced but why would you install it along thousands of miles or track, over thousands of trains etc when it's still easier and cheaper to have a human at the front who can do the same thing they can? There is no call for that kind of technology on the railway.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm fully aware obstacle detection is now possible and very advanced but why would you install it along thousands of miles or track, over thousands of trains etc when it's still easier and cheaper to have a human at the front who can do the same thing they can? There is no call for that kind of technology on the railway.

It's something that you install on trains.

And, again, using words like "thousands" to try and make it seem like it's going to be incredibly expensive* and therefore not doing is, again, disingenuous. We'll have to do it for ERTMS, and we'll have to do it for many other things. It's part and parcel of modernising the railway system, and once the technology has been developed actually deploying it is unlikely to be all that expensive compared to other upgrades.

And frankly, that person is much better being actually on board the main cabin of the train, with the capability to go to the cabin to drive if needed (such as in an emergency). I'm not suggesting we fire people, but repurposing them would be useful. Plus you're forgetting all of that useful potential seating space that's so valuable on trains (especially in the south-east), but that's a much more minor point.

* Yes, I know it's not an exaggeration but it's emphasising the point you're making.

 

[A-driver]

It's something that you install on trains.



And, again, using words like "thousands" to try and make it seem like it's going to be incredibly expensive* and therefore not doing is, again, disingenuous. We'll have to do it for ERTMS, and we'll have to do it for many other things. It's part and parcel of modernising the railway system, and once the technology has been developed actually deploying it is unlikely to be all that expensive compared to other upgrades.



* Yes, I know it's not an exaggeration but it's emphasising the point you're making.

You still haven't given any benefits of installing such things though...a driver can do exactly what an obstacle detector can.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You still haven't given any benefits of installing such things though...a driver can do exactly what an obstacle detector can.

Except they can't do it as efficiently (the technology would never be installed if it wasn't an improvement), and the driver can be repurposed for when they would otherwise be doing mundane, day-to-day duties.

Plus if all they're there for is to press the big red STOP button in the case of an emergency, that's not a great job really.

(Yes, I know there are other things not involved with actually driving the train itself, but you see my point.)

 

[A-driver]

Except they can't do it as efficiently (the technology would never be installed if it wasn't an improvement), and the driver can be repurposed for when they would otherwise be doing mundane, day-to-day duties.

Plus if all they're there for is to press the big red STOP button in the case of an emergency, that's not a great job really.

(Yes, I know there are other things not involved with actually driving the train itself, but you see my point.)

But obstacle detectors are only one thing that would be needed to pointlessly loose drivers. How on earth do you start on closing the doors safely and punctually on a busy rush hour train? Again, something very simple for a human, complicated for a machine...