G-o-o

[rebmcr]

I was thinking about Driver Only Operation (DOO) and the DLR sprang to mind. When the computer is driving, you have a single staff member on board, who is safety-critical and responsible for the Platform-Train Interface (PTI or 'doors'). That could be accurately described as Guard-Only Operation, right?

As technology advances, maybe we will see the model become more widespread - the benefits to the operators are as with DOO, but retaining the customer interaction of a guard. Often on the DLR the local door is held open for late stragglers, which exemplifies how important having a member of staff in the passenger saloon is. It would even remove the headache of non-gangwayed stock running in multiple: just have a guard per unit, with the robot unable to depart until each unit has given its own Right/Away!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

But would a computer be able to drive safely?
A human can possibly see a car speeding towards the Level Crossing on the nearby road and slow down, or see that someone has lost their balance near the platform edge and brake early. I will never trust a computer over the highly trained drivers we have, a driver gave lots of advice on the Lincoln to Leicester service, including a suggestion that we go to get the HST in the 8 mins we wait to get to Leicester faster. The driver can interact with the passengers just as much as the conductor.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It works on DLR which is totally segregated, and on the Victoria line (and soon on the Thameslink core) with a driver present to intervene if required. In the future it could work on a wider scale but ASLEF would not be happy!

 

[Domh245]

G-O-O will likely only be seen on enclosed light railways like the DLR. As often posted, 'proper' trains don't have the necessary handling characteristics, nor are they enclosed. You are more likely to find somebody wandering around the tracks on the mainline than on the DLR, so there ought to be someone up front to observe for this.

 

[theironroad]

I was thinking about Driver Only Operation (DOO) and the DLR sprang to mind. When the computer is driving, you have a single staff member on board, who is safety-critical and responsible for the Platform-Train Interface (PTI or 'doors'). That could be accurately described as Guard-Only Operation, right?

As technology advances, maybe we will see the model become more widespread - the benefits to the operators are as with DOO, but retaining the customer interaction of a guard. Often on the DLR the local door is held open for late stragglers, which exemplifies how important having a member of staff in the passenger saloon is. It would even remove the headache of non-gangwayed stock running in multiple: just have a guard per unit, with the robot unable to depart until each unit has given its own Right/Away!

Haha, I'm a driver and have often joked about in the mess about goo coming in before doo on some lines.

The tech is there and when the ato in Thamelink core is running, who knows the future for the mainline, but I'm sure I'll be retired by then 20+ years!

 

[Antman]

G-O-O will likely only be seen on enclosed light railways like the DLR. As often posted, 'proper' trains don't have the necessary handling characteristics, nor are they enclosed. You are more likely to find somebody wandering around the tracks on the mainline than on the DLR, so there ought to be someone up front to observe for this.

Trespassers on the DLR are not exactly unheard of and the 'guard' takes the controls in such circumstances.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Haha, I'm a driver and have often joked about in the mess about goo coming in before doo on some lines.

The tech is there and when the ato in Thamelink core is running, who knows the future for the mainline, but I'm sure I'll be retired by then 20+ years!

To expand on my previous post, I don't doubt that the technology will make such a thing possible, after all who would have believed driverless cars would be a realistic proposition in the next decade or so? However, whilst I'm not railway staff so have no particular axe to grind, the idea of an entirely automated railway makes me feel uneasy, not from a safety point of view but from a human point of view. For example if someone developed software that could make management decisions automatically and productively it would never get off the drawing board! Those in charge wouldn't push for "advances" that would render their jobs redundant but would be quite happy to dispense with the rank and file. If such a proposal emerges in the future the unions will rightly oppose it. I will stand with them just as I will on any further expansion of DOO.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Trespassers on the DLR are not exactly unheard of and the 'guard' takes the controls in such circumstances.

Pretty sure the "guard" (not sure what they are called these days) can drive manually if required. Such as to the next station to let everybody off. There are a set of controls under the "lid" at the ends of each unit.

 

[yorkie]

But would a computer be able to drive safely?

I consider the DLR safe.

A human can possibly see a car speeding towards the Level Crossing on the nearby road and slow down

Trains can travel at up to 125mph through fully barriered level crossings (up to the required standard for the speed). It would be ludicrous for trains to reduce to speeds at which a driver could stop the train short of any obstruction. Journey times between Grantham and Peterborough would be huge compared to today.

or see that someone has lost their balance near the platform edge and brake early.

Trains do not have to slow down for platforms for this reason, again it would be ludicrous for them to do so. Yellow lines exist for this reason,

I will never trust a computer over the highly trained drivers we have, a driver gave lots of advice on the Lincoln to Leicester service, including a suggestion that we go to get the HST in the 8 mins we wait to get to Leicester faster. The driver can interact with the passengers just as much as the conductor.

I think not!

 

[Antman]

Pretty sure the "guard" (not sure what they are called these days) can drive manually if required. Such as to the next station to let everybody off. There are a set of controls under the "lid" at the ends of each unit.

Yes they can and do drive manually when required. I think train captain is their official title?

 

[Via Bank]

But would a computer be able to drive safely?

Yes.

A human can possibly see a car speeding towards the Level Crossing on the nearby road and slow down,

…and this is why level crossing barriers, bridges and tunnels exist. Although in the vast majority of cases, unless the road was parallel to the railway track for a good stretch of the journey and the train matched speed with the car, let's be honest: the train would hit the car, human driver or no, which then also puts the human driver in the crumple zone in danger.

or see that someone has lost their balance near the platform edge and brake early. I will never trust a computer over the highly trained drivers we have,

With modern computer vision technology, and if cameras were placed at every platform-train/road-railway interface (not only on the trains themselves), I am certain that a computer could not only react faster, but also more predictably in different lighting conditions (since you could also use infra-red to see potential obstacles at night.) You can also have multiple vantage points and reduced blind spots, whereas a human train driver only has one set of eyes.

Driverless car technology is currently at the stage where it can not only detect whether a cyclist is stopping, accelerating or braking, but it can also see if they are preparing to set off (for instance at a set of lights) by looking at what their arms and legs are doing. It can also read arm signals and avoid pedestrians.

There is also computer vision research going into using the CCTV at tube stations to detect people who might be thinking of jumping in front of a train. So I genuinely struggle to believe such a system would fail to detect when a platform is overcrowded, or when a figure teetering close to the platform edge begins to fall.

a driver gave lots of advice on the Lincoln to Leicester service, including a suggestion that we go to get the HST in the 8 mins we wait to get to Leicester faster. The driver can interact with the passengers just as much as the conductor.

Unless the passenger wants to buy a ticket. Or needs to be told where the toilet is. Or is having a medical and requires first aid.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Yes they can and do drive manually when required. I think train captain is their official title?

Thanks Antman.

Yes Train Captain seems right. I've used the DLR since 1994 including regular comuting but have never seen a train needing to be driven manually. Seems to be a pretty reliable system.

 

[glbotu]

I've seen them drive manually a non-trivial distance too (I want to say Bank to Lewisham, but it was a while back). There was some issue with the automation, so they just got the people out of the front left seat and drove manually.

The "Train Captain", is effectively a fully trained DLR driver, who just doesn't sit at the front. A major point about the DLR is the "L" part. It's light rail. This allows it to stop hard and sharp from speed if it needs to. It's very different from even a Victoria line train, which is part of the reason there's a driver at the front of those.

Level crossings also wouldn't be an issue. There's still signalmen. If you had CCTV controlled crossings, the signalman could easily set a signal to red (target speed = 0, or some emergency status that says full brake application) were there time to stop a train before ploughing into the muppet who's plonked his car on the level crossing. Hell, a computer could probably figure out if there were something/someone on the crossing and set target speed across the crossing to 0 until it cleared. Google cars are getting ever better at the whole, "figuring out what stuff is and how to respond".

Computers can also see around corners, which people can't do.

The problem is not in the ability of technology to operate a vehicle. Even in complex situations. It's the ability to

a) Report information to relevant people.
b) Act in an emergency in every way but the operation of the vehicle.
c) Resolve issues.

that computers don't do.

"But", I hear you cry, "why does this person have to be at the front of the train?". Well, segregating the "driver" from passengers means they can focus on the more important aspects of keeping the train safe, rather than answering whether they're going to catch the 10:25 to Luton. The front is where the train is going, which does allow pre-emptive action to be taken, even if it's not in the scope of operating the train.

 

[3141]

Thanks Antman.

Yes Train Captain seems right. I've used the DLR since 1994 including regular comuting but have never seen a train needing to be driven manually. Seems to be a pretty reliable system.

I've seen manual driving several times. One example is when people are working on the track and the Train Captain takes control of the train through the section that's affected.

Train Captain is an excellent title, but there was a period in the late 1990s when another name was introduced. I can't recall exactly what it was, but it was something on the lines of "railway/customer interface manager". Fortunately common sense prevailed and it was dropped.

 

[talltim]

Perhaps drivers should be at the back, like a narrow boat

 

[edwin_m]

A major point about the DLR is the "L" part. It's light rail. This allows it to stop hard and sharp from speed if it needs to. It's very different from even a Victoria line train, which is part of the reason there's a driver at the front of those.

There are plenty of heavy metros that operate without drivers or indeed any staff at all. The best known to us in the UK would probably be the two lines in Paris.

 

[67018]

Perhaps drivers should be at the back, like a narrow boat

Might not be as daft as it sounds. Taking the driver our of the crumple zone would be safer for them and make it more likely that they could deal with the situation and assist passengers if the worst happened. (This has previously been used as an argument as to why it's beneficial to have a guard as well as a driver).

In fact, even if the driver is still required to look out the front, these days there doesn't appear to be any technical reason why they couldn't do that from a centre cab with appropriate monitors, which would also save space (only one cab needed) and allow for quicker turnarounds (no need to change ends).