TheKnightWho
Established Member
In a way that's remarkably close to DOO, and again with obstacle detection!
You seem pretty convinced that losing drivers is pointless, but I've already explained why it isn't. I think I'm done here.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Driverless Trains
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
- Status
In a way that's remarkably close to DOO, and again with obstacle detection!
You seem pretty convinced that losing drivers is pointless, but I've already explained why it isn't. I think I'm done here.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
How is it similar? Making conscience decisions and preventing people getting trapped in doors whilst not having a 'lift door' which opens every time someone runs into it preventing the train from ever leaving?
NSEFAN
Established Member
I wouldn't underestimate how good computer vision is getting. Things have moved on a bit since PIR sensors were invented.A-driver said:
As has been said, it is not cheap to retro-fit the existing state-of-the-art technology to the railways, although as prices go down it may well become a serious prospect in the future (I'm talking in decades, here).
Quite easily as Ive explained before you wouldnt just have it on the trains but also trackside equipment to assist.
A bird analogy is a pretty poor argument for some many reason though A Driver as the equipment on board the train would be programmed to differentiate between objects such as birds/kites imaginary scenarios.
As is the 'losing jobs' argument as they will be let go through natural disposal through retirements as the technology is implemented. Would just mean that all those who want to drive a train never would again.
All futile anyway as it really will be a long time before its implemented on the mainline
There are a couple of London buses running around which count passengers on the upper deck and feed back to the lower deck how many free seats there are upstairs. They're not perfect, But they're using the standard CCTV cameras on the bus and could be better with better resolution cameras. Presumably a similar system could identify people getting on the train.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...how-many-people-are-sat-upstairs-9556933.html
(Take the article with a pinch of salt when it says "London Buses will be getting". Both are trials, with the seat counter about to have a larger one).
I am looking forward to this new world where no human needs to work because computers have automated everything. It will give me more time to get my mileage in on these free trains running about the network with no staff on them.
Why free? Well, no one works so no one has any fixed income which means no one can pay!
Utter nonsense!!!!!
Why free? Well, no one works so no one has any fixed income which means no one can pay!
Utter nonsense!!!!!
I am looking forward to this new world where no human needs to work because computers have automated everything. It will give me more time to get my mileage in on these free trains running about the network with no staff on them.
Why free? Well, no one works so no one has any fixed income which means no one can pay!
Utter nonsense!!!!!
I don't think anyone's said they're looking forward to it. But if companies are trying to cut costs (which they usually are) it's not unlikely that eventually it'll be tried. I think we're a good few years off if being possible yet, but not impossible.
How many typesetters have you met recently? At one time that was a well-paid, skilled job. Many other jobs have gone the same way.
Utter nonsense? Sadly, not.
Nor have people said they'll have no staff - obviously that makes revenue protection harder...
When was a typesetter in charge of 400+ people's safety? Quite a ridiculous comparison really.
How many out of the 400+ people would use the train if it had no human interaction at the front? We all know computers can drive trains/land planes, but that is irrelevent when it comes down to human nature and it's distrust for technology. I certainly don't trust computers going with my dodgy PC!
I am looking forward to this new world where no human needs to work because computers have automated everything. It will give me more time to get my mileage in on these free trains running about the network with no staff on them.
Why free? Well, no one works so no one has any fixed income which means no one can pay!
Utter nonsense!!!!!
You do love to post some hysterical daily mail nonsense dont you.
No one has said no one on the train just not a driver.
Im surprised you never mentioned any children to further your hysterical point as that always wins over viewers
NSEFAN
Established Member
Bodiddly said:
And yet:
Another example of a ridiculous comparison right there. Consumer PCs and safety-critical systems aren't quite in the same league, are they?Bodiddly said:
carriageline
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 1,897
How well would that work when the platforms are so packed, the pax are inches from the train? And would it stop every time a passenger went to get in? If so, when do you cut off as some trains wouldn't leave certain stations due to constant streams of last minute Charlie's?
Also, how would track/train obstacle detection work? Would it use radar/lidar? (I have no idea
) if so, I can't see that working unless they can clean themselves (not difficult really) or trackside ones have shutters and activated X amount of time before a train. Even then, a cleaner will probably be needed.Serious questions by the way, as I do have an interest in the subject.Of course these are all hypothetical, no one truly knows the answers.
Anyway, technology is capable of near on anything. But, it's the cost that could stop
It. We would also need to improve our reliability of new technology, as it doesn't have a fantastic track record!
Excuse me? Sorry Clip, are you referring me to a Daily Mail reader? I am deeply offended! All I am saying is, why stop at the driver? Surely all train movements can be automated? And indeed, why stop at the railway industry? Why not just have computers for everything? I am in my forties and I have noticed more and more people don't TALK to each other! What a totally crap existance we will all be living in 20 years time (if I'm still here!)
And yet:
Another example of a ridiculous comparison right there. Consumer PCs and safety-critical systems aren't quite in the same league, are they?
Tried a joke there, obviously backfired! Computers can do anything, yes I get it! Can they make me feel better when I've had a s**t day? As far as I'm aware, my human being missus is perfect for that!
I don't recall mentioning safety, merely mentioning a group of people who may have thought they had a safe, skilled job which has largely disappeared through technological advances.
It doesn't seem to stop people getting the Copenhagen Metro. This is a much simpler network (though it's growing) but has a large chunk of operation above ground.
There are no permanent staff on trains or at some stations.
People come to terms with things - even if not one generation, the next may accept it.
I don't see a lot of distrust of technology in today's consumer society - many people seem to have to have the next gadget, many of which make it easier to control various functions of their house.
Maybe no-one ever will develop driverless trains. It's not something I'd try and make happen but if anything's ridiculous it's thinking no-one's going to try - and with advances in technology that they won't at least make a half-decent stab at it.
Fair enough, I am in no way trying to say that computer driven vehicles will never happen and futuristic transport will have no need for human interaction but what I am trying to get across is the fact that there are over 30 million+ adults in this country alone of working age. What are all these workers actually going to be employed as? What jobs will people do if most of the employment opportunities are simply not available? What does this then do to the UK economy as a whole?
The tech experts are constantly trying to look at new ways to replace humans, maybe they should be worried as the computers will eventually do the thinking for them and they will find themselves redundant!
These are valid concerns but unlikely to be considered by someone who's developing driverless trains.
And so comes Skynet.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,274
Oh FFS, do you actually know anything about the aviation industry.
ZERO take offs are automatic. Absolutely none. From a little Cessna trainer, through to Eurofighter Typhoon and the A380, the pilot flying takes off.
Landings, probably about 10% of airliner landings are automatic to some degree.
Most landings are hand flown, it's something the pilots enjoy doing.
Taxiing is done by the pilot, pushback is the only standard tug procedure.
Anyway, driverless trains. I doubt it'll be on the mainline in my lifetime. Maybe on some select LU lines, where there are simple lines and identical stock over the whole of the line, but to put a system into national rail to take account of every factor, it's a huge cost for NR, with little benefit for them.
Last edited:
Well if you are deeply offended then stop being so deeply hysterical - it remnded me of your post here
where again you were being like the Daily Mail and blowing it all out of proportion.
yes you may ask where the jobs will go but to even imagine that as a country we wouldnt adjust to that just like we have with loss of lots of other insustries in the past. And computer technology will need someone to tell them how to do it - you see where the jobs are now?
And to even imagine that a world will be only run by computers and there will be no jobs for anyone really is verging on the ridiculous and not the sort of thing any rational 40 year old would come out with and is, like my original post - as hysterical as the Daily Mail
It is clear in this reply that you are totally devoid of a sense of humour and are actually bordering on trolling. Why would you need to bring up former posts that have nothing actually to do with this thread?
Time for your cocoa bud!
Not really just pointing out that you seem a little hysterical with all things driverless and considering the other post wasn't that long ago and was about the effect of driverless cars on trains and such like then it stuck in my memory.
This whole conversation on here reminds me of the US attempts at trying to get a pen working in space, spending gods knows how much, and the Russians just using a tried and tested pencil. Sure its do-able, but is there an actual point to it?
Great point.
I think a lot of technology nowadays is more about people trying making their gadgets and wizardry out to be super clever rather than for it to serve any real purpose. Nobody here is saying that you couldn't automate most workplaces, it's just why would you want to? Making millions of people redundant makes no economic sense. Who would have any money to buy gadgets!
I'd just like to make some points without really coming down on one side. From a technical perspective, I'll say driverless trains are reasonably interesting, but that's just coming from the geek in me, trying to figure out how to make them work, rather than actually feeling like they should be implemented.
1. Purpose of "Driverless" trains:
The thing is, with ERTMS and ATO, the major benefits of automation will have been achieved. Those being increased capacity, shorter headways, operational/energy efficiency improvements and speed increases. The only "saving" that I can see would be not having a driver, but instead having a more expensive guard-driver hybrid. On DOO lines (which are increasing in number) this would make train operation more expensive.
This is different from cars, whereby full automation would have HUGE safety implications, because a car can be told to stop on a sixpence and get out of the way easily. If a machine can figure out well enough when to do it, it's better than a person. ATO in trains already does this as much as is feasible given the limitations of trains. The person's job is about the human interaction and dealing with faults/problems/unprogrammed inputs.
2. Technical Barriers
I see these more as hills. They're can all be climbed, just some are steeper/taller than others and over time, they get weathered down to small mounds. If there's a genuine need for "driverless" trains, we'll figure out how to do it. If we can split the atom* and go to the moon, we can get trains to drive themselves...............
3. How the economy/job markets work
I've seen a lot of "everything will be automatic and no one will have a job anymore" posts. As a professional software developer, I would suggest that the more things are automated, the more software will need to be written to automate them, the more people will be hired to write the software/make collisions detectors, write increasingly complex laws to give machines rights, fight in the inevitable cylon uprising...............
* We can split protons now too, how cool is that!!!!!
1. Purpose of "Driverless" trains:
The thing is, with ERTMS and ATO, the major benefits of automation will have been achieved. Those being increased capacity, shorter headways, operational/energy efficiency improvements and speed increases. The only "saving" that I can see would be not having a driver, but instead having a more expensive guard-driver hybrid. On DOO lines (which are increasing in number) this would make train operation more expensive.
This is different from cars, whereby full automation would have HUGE safety implications, because a car can be told to stop on a sixpence and get out of the way easily. If a machine can figure out well enough when to do it, it's better than a person. ATO in trains already does this as much as is feasible given the limitations of trains. The person's job is about the human interaction and dealing with faults/problems/unprogrammed inputs.
2. Technical Barriers
I see these more as hills. They're can all be climbed, just some are steeper/taller than others and over time, they get weathered down to small mounds. If there's a genuine need for "driverless" trains, we'll figure out how to do it. If we can split the atom* and go to the moon, we can get trains to drive themselves...............
3. How the economy/job markets work
I've seen a lot of "everything will be automatic and no one will have a job anymore" posts. As a professional software developer, I would suggest that the more things are automated, the more software will need to be written to automate them, the more people will be hired to write the software/make collisions detectors, write increasingly complex laws to give machines rights, fight in the inevitable cylon uprising...............
* We can split protons now too, how cool is that!!!!!
TheKnightWho
Established Member
There is a genuine concern that once computers have been taught how to design and teach each other - which is something we're actually working on now with some success - that we won't actually have much left to do for ourselves.
However, by that point the economy would probably be so different to how it is now that it would make no sense to try and imagine what would happen if that happened tomorrow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Great point.
I think a lot of technology nowadays is more about people trying making their gadgets and wizardry out to be super clever rather than for it to serve any real purpose. Nobody here is saying that you couldn't automate most workplaces, it's just why would you want to? Making millions of people redundant makes no economic sense. Who would have any money to buy gadgets!
This post and the one before it just smack of not really understanding the economics of the industry.
If it didn't make money people wouldn't do it - simple as that! Implicitly having a go at scientists et al. for developing this stuff by calling it pointless wizardry is a bit, well, pointless!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In the same way a driver apparently manages it!
Drivers can't see round corners, but neither can the technology. Equally, if the technology is as good as drivers (as it is approaching in technology at the moment) then even if it's not perfect it's no worse than current drivers. You can't have it both ways!
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
Agree, and it's also a case of knowing and choosing when and which procedure to apply.
All the talk of driverless trains is still a little ahead of time, for whilst we have had ATO on London Underground since the 1960s, it's worth remembering that not one of the various ATO systems we have in Britain today is fully effective at coping with differing weather and railhead conditions.
The original Victoria Line system was 100% tunnel. The Central Line often reverts to manual driving even during such common conditions as rainfall, runs dedicated sandite trains in the autumn, and tolerates an amount of overshoots or occasions when the driver intervenes to prevent one. The Jubilee and Northern Lines currently utilise a *very* gentle brake rate in the open at all times, which is tolerable because this only accounts for a small part of both lines. The DLR mitigate by varying the brake rate from the control room, which is possible because their railway is fairly small and doesn't tend to run through areas of potentially poor adhesion. It would have been interesting to see how the (generally excellent) replacement Victoria Line system might have coped in the open-air had it been installed on the Sub-Surface lines as originally planned.
Sure the technology is there, but in order to get the supposed benefits there will be a trade-off. With the systems currently available that trade off is likely to be either gentle brake rates, which on the mainline would be even more of a handicap when braking from high speeds, or tolerating a certain amount of operating incidents. Bearing in mind today's safety culture, I can't see the latter being acceptable. So whilst there may be benefits for certain 'metro' situations, I'm not sure the scales currently tip in favour of country-wide ATO.
It's also worth mentioning that for all ATO is cracked up to be, on the Northern Line, the most recent UK railway to go ATO, it's still more than possible to place the train into manual driving mode and match or even slightly better ATO run times. I have train download data that proves this.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not clear why a guard-driver hybrid should be more expensive than just a driver; I would expect the pay to be similar. Different duties, but not more onerous ones (and regular guards are paid far less than drivers).
Is it worth bothering in DOO areas? Probably not. But we're possibly talking here about things like HS2 which is certain not to be DOO.
Neil
I work in the industry though and have a degree of understanding of it. From different perspectives too as I have worked in different sections of it. (Not as a guard or caterer/platform staff) As you are a student I fail to see what makes you such an expert that you have to try and belittle my postings by saying I lack understanding.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Because I am sick and tired of having to repeat myself.
Going on and on about how pointless this all is misses the point entirely, and I'm getting sick of having my opinion belittled "for being a student" (one who actually works with these things, you know), and having them ignored so you can make amusing analogies that don't really apply.
FYI - the reason the US used a pen was because graphite shards from pencils would float in low-gravity environments and get into important equipment, causing short circuits etc. The reason I'm bringing this up? Not everything is as simple as it seems, and popular ideas about stuff often fails to see the bigger picture. That's what I've been trying to argue here, only to have it ignored.
Last edited:
So how will the computer distinguish between track workers, trespassers and animals on the line? How will it cope with trains on the opposite line? How will it cope with people or animals within the boundary but not actually on the line? How will it cope with degraded working? What about level crossings where a driver can instinctively sense someone is about to cross or nudge onto the crossing?
A driver is only as good as his experience and training, but a computer is only as good as the person that programmed it.
- Status