Windowless driver cabs?

[DanDaDriver]

From what I’ve read on here, I doubt many posters would be bothered who was driving or if the window was real or a screen as long as the train had a restaurant car.

 

[Andy25]

Underground is a special scenario as most journeys will be very short and for those who don't like them, there are alternative options such as overground and buses etc. I think most people can cope with 10/15 minutes on a tube (or whatever the average journey time is), but fewer will cope with 2-3 hours of it or longer.

For many travellers, it's the fact you get a view from the train that they choose the train in the first place, hence the complaints re lack of alignment between seats & windows and smaller windows. I think the railways would lose a lot of business (especially longer distance) if they ever made "the view" even worse as it would just drive people to air travel instead.

I don't think the majority choose rail for the view at all, they choose it because it's faster, more convenient or easier than driving. The number travelling for pleasure who want the view will be the minority.

 

[furnessvale]

I don't think the majority choose rail for the view at all, they choose it because it's faster, more convenient or easier than driving. The number travelling for pleasure who want the view will be the minority.

I don't choose rail for the view but it is a nice add on.

For that reason, I am not looking forward to HS2 with all its unnecessary additional tunnels.

 

[birchesgreen]

You might not choose rail because of the view but the lack of a view would be an issue for many.

 

[Andy25]

I don't choose rail for the view but it is a nice add on.

For that reason, I am not looking forward to HS2 with all its unnecessary additional tunnels.

Nice add on but don't think it would have a noticeable effect on passenger numbers if that's what was on offer.

Some of the plane concept images look quite good and I've seen augmented reality demos for train windows so with screen and camera improvements over the next few years could be quite effective.

 

[Andy25]

You might not choose rail because of the view but the lack of a view would be an issue for many.

But I suspect few would choose not to travel because of it, for many it's a necessary to get to work etc.

And also depends on what the windows are replaced with.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes they wouldn't be replaced by adverts we all know that.

 

[Killingworth]

The very idea of windowless trains would be used as yet another stick to attack the rail industry, so let's not get carried away.

However, many journeys take place at night. We have tunnels. Many seats offer a very poor view. Lots of travellers are working or playing with electronic gadgets. Some read and a few manage to write. Many passengers close their eyes and doze during much of the journey.

But almost of all of us want to be able to see what's outside, even if only a fleeting glance for a few seconds. It gives reassurance and a lot of expensive technology would/will be necessary to give that.

Windowless cabs for drivers is the subject of this thread. It could make trains safer, and make some operations easier, but how would the public react to there being no driver at the sharp end, even if the industry could agree?

 

[underbank]

but how would the public react to there being no driver at the sharp end, even if the industry could agree?

What's the difference between that and driverless cars which lots of people seem keen on and will be happy to use apparently?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's the difference between that and driverless cars which lots of people seem keen on and will be happy to use apparently?

Or the DLR, where the most popular activity is pretending to be the driver?

 

[Roger100]

I think people have jumped from my idea of augmenting the driver to a full on replcaement. My original post had nothing to do with driverless trains. Rather using technology to improve the safety and ease the workload of drivers.

Driverless or remotely operated trains are a completely different question.

I'm talking about using an array of cameras and on train computers to do stuff like identify and highlight signals, trackside obstructions, reduce glare, display things that would otherwise require looking down at the dashboard. And then taking advantage of modern high resolution monitors to move the driver into a safer or more efficient position.

Some of this exists now, and has existed for decades - audible warnings about the state of signals have been with us for a very long time. Modern in-cab signalling systems take this a step further. Cameras assist drivers to ensure it is safe to move off from a station. I'm not sure that cameras can give a better view of the road ahead, as they still have limited dynamic ranges and may be affected more by glare than human eyes. Ask any railway photographer.

As you add these systems, you have to bear in mind what will happen when the systems fail, or the train has to divert to a line which doesn't fully support the processes. And are you reducing the skill of the driver, which may be needed in difficult situations. I'm reminded of a recent Tesla (I think) accident where the computers alerted the driver to take control, but the driver was unable to (or just ignored the alarms).

Current systems presumably compensate for drivers not having a clear view of the road. My last two trips from Durham and Hartlepool to KGX ran through almost continuous fog, and the trains seem to run just as well at night along unlit lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a train, if the systems fail the best thing to do is to throw the brakes in. Then someone can pick up manually as and when appropriate. There is very little risk attached to stopping a train, unlike a plane (which can't) or a car (which might be rear-ended if stopped in a bad location).

 

[mpthomson]

Are these metal windowless boxes going to cart robots about, because there's only going to be those who can use them. Humans won't have any money to do anything.

Jobs change as technology evolves, rather than disappear, in terms of total number.

 

[underbank]

And are you reducing the skill of the driver, which may be needed in difficult situations.

Considering aircraft virtually fly themselves these days, I don't think we're seeing pilots with reduced skills are we? If anything, the "computerised" planes need better skilled pilots as they not only have to fly the thing sometimes, but also control the computers, and more importantly, understand & recognise when the computers are doing something wrong so they can either take manual control or reset the computers. Pilots also communicate with passengers.

 

[Roger100]

Considering aircraft virtually fly themselves these days, I don't think we're seeing pilots with reduced skills are we? If anything, the "computerised" planes need better skilled pilots as they not only have to fly the thing sometimes, but also control the computers, and more importantly, understand & recognise when the computers are doing something wrong so they can either take manual control or reset the computers. Pilots also communicate with passengers.

Aircraft pilots are trained to fly planes manually, they rehearse this regularly on simulators and actually keep their skills up on the job. Train drivers could do this, but they would be severely limited if their trains had windowless driver cabs as this thread asks.

In the case of failures, trains would have to stop and wait to be rescued. There are enough failures as it is, whether this would increase the number I hazard to guess. Aircraft have duplicate and even triplicate systems, two or more pilots, several engines, and are designed to be flyable even if there are many failures. Which happens. I spent the last 10 years of employment repairing such systems.

I'm not opposing such advances, my main thoughts are about the costs involved, which may not benefit the passengers for whom the trains are run.

 

[Roger100]

I think developing a radio system that enables large numbers of vehicles to communicate instantly with one another is not an easy task. And to enable this to steer vehicles at junctions like the M4/M25 requires such a level of cooperation that I'd prefer not to be around while this is perfected. Two vehicles talking to each other is easy, but 200 presents a huge problem, especially as it's a different 200 every few seconds.

With trains it's generally easier because they are not doing 70+ mph a few metres apart. But even so, dealing with, say, the GWML at the London end will be a task as there is quite high utilisation of the tracks. One might think this would be easier for a computer to sort out, but failures are not always logical. And automatic failure reporting systems do go wrong as well. The House of Lords yesterday reported a shortage of technicians in the UK - these are the people who understand the frailty of the system and ultimately find the problems and fix them - machines are very poor at this.

 

[Dave1987]

Jobs change as technology evolves, rather than disappear, in terms of total number.

As I said previously I’ve yet to see any evidence that technology is creating as many jobs as it is replacing. Until I see evidence of this I will be of the belief that jobs will disappear and wages will get worse as people struggle to stay employed in the years to come.

 

[47802]

Hate to break it to you, but driverless cars are actually extremely close:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...es-of-testing-putting-it-far-ahead-of-rivals/

American roads are certainly easier to drive on, and busy cities are going to take much longer (harder to deal with the pedestrians/cyclists/etc), but actual driverless cars are very close to coming into operation across the pond.

// Edit: a more significant article: Lyft will actually begin operating self-driving cars in commercial service in the coming months:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/07/way...-with-its-fleet-of-self-driving-minivans.html

Yeh I think we will wait and see on that as far as the UK is concerned, all very well driving around Milton Keynes but try some of the roads around Huddersfield and Halifax for instance. Also having had a short spell as a delivery driver you see the accuracy or rather in accuracy of the current generation of Sat Navs.

As far as travelling on a train without windows I wouldn't fancy that, I mean we already having something close to that its called a 390 and I tend to avoid them.

 

[James James]

As I said previously I’ve yet to see any evidence that technology is creating as many jobs as it is replacing. Until I see evidence of this I will be of the belief that jobs will disappear and wages will get worse as people struggle to stay employed in the years to come.

Did wages get worse when trains got introduced, reducing jobs for horse & cart workers?

Did wages get worse and unemployment rise when aeroplanes lost their Flight Engineers?

Did wages get worse and unemployment rise when we switched away from steam, meaning firemen were no longer needed?

Did wages get worse and unemployment rise with industrialisation?

 

[bastien]

Did wages get worse when trains got introduced, reducing jobs for horse & cart workers?

Did wages get worse and unemployment rise when aeroplanes lost their Flight Engineers?

Did wages get worse and unemployment rise when we switched away from steam, meaning firemen were no longer needed?

Did wages get worse and unemployment rise with industrialisation?

I don't think industrialisation is a very good example. Unless life expectancy dropping to ~25 years is your bag.

 

[Roast Veg]

I think developing a radio system that enables large numbers of vehicles to communicate instantly with one another is not an easy task. And to enable this to steer vehicles at junctions like the M4/M25 requires such a level of cooperation that I'd prefer not to be around while this is perfected. Two vehicles talking to each other is easy, but 200 presents a huge problem, especially as it's a different 200 every few seconds.

I would argue otherwise. Once you have 2 agents working cooperatively in any distributed system it is much easier to add further agents by following the design pattern.

 

[bastien]

From what I’ve read on here, I doubt many posters would be bothered who was driving or if the window was real or a screen as long as the train had a restaurant car.

And six-inch thick cushions on the seats.

 

[GreatAuk]

I would argue otherwise. Once you have 2 agents working cooperatively in any distributed system it is much easier to add further agents by following the design pattern.

Unfortunately I think it would be a rather complex system to design... I fully expect driverless cars within 10 years, but wouldn't bet any money on when we'll have a working safety critical car to car communication system...

Issues include what to do if a car drops out, increased security concerns (including spoofed cars), and how to persuade people to transition from whatever vehicle they drive at the moment to a new 'swarm enabled' car.

Also, I don't know whether the benefits would be that great over a system which relies only on traffic signals and in-car sensors, using the existing highway code. Fully automatic cars could still drive pretty close to each other thanks to (potentially) lightning fast reflexes, and improve safety purely by having better-than-eyesight cameras/radar, mapping software, and 100% concentration which human can't hope to match. The main benefit I'd see would be optimised traffic flow at junctions, but I doubt the capacity benefits would be that massive...

Cars would essentially need a decentralised ERTMS equivalent, but without the advantages the railway has in terms of controlling what traffic runs on the railway, and reduced complexity of the network. That's where trains are further ahead - they already operate on a paradigm that requires an external system to grant them authority to move, and necessarily so due to braking distances that go past the line of sight, speed, requirement to prove points etc.... (All of those are things which cars don't really have to worry about).

Trains would essentially need ERTMS plus obstacle detection, which to me sounds a lot closer to reality, given how advanced both technologies are already.

 

[takno]

I would argue otherwise. Once you have 2 agents working cooperatively in any distributed system it is much easier to add further agents by following the design pattern.

And there was me thinking you'd need to build out a network topology and effective agent discovery mechanism, and that there was a risk of complexity increasing exponentially.

 

[bastien]

And there was me thinking you'd need to build out a network topology and effective agent discovery mechanism, and that there was a risk of complexity increasing exponentially.

So handwavy isn't it? Like, do people think the internet "just works" without intervention or someting? (Clue - it doesn't)

 

[driver_m]

Sometimes after reading these threads, I think the best option would to be to pray for a giant meteor strike and let the ants and cockroaches have a crack at ruling the world.

 

[DanDaDriver]

So what we’re saying is, we want a human to check tickets and serve coffee (things a robot can do perfectly adequately already) but we’re hoping for some unproven and quite far off technology to replace the driver on a network that still uses 1960’s diesel trains and has guys in boxes pulling levers to move semaphore arms? I love railforums.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what we’re saying is, we want a human to check tickets and serve coffee (things a robot can do perfectly adequately already) but we’re hoping for some unproven and quite far off technology to replace the driver on a network that still uses 1960’s diesel trains and has guys in boxes pulling levers to move semaphore arms? I love railforums.

You used the DLR lately?

 

[DanDaDriver]

You used the DLR lately?

Yes, I have. The stand-alone network of one type of relatively slow moving train in a geographically limited area.

Been round Melton Mowbray recently? Blown up for the bobby in Ashwell box so he knows which line you want?

#DigitalRailway

I don’t doubt that it is possible, I doubt it’s ten or twenty years off though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You used the DLR lately?

And I am assuming you've noticed it is totally self contained without any other conflicting traffic, fairly small, has slow speeds, uses the same rolling stock used everywhere on the system and doesn't have traffic or pedestrian crossings. Very very different to the national network.

As the reply above said, I don't think anyone is saying it is not possible. But it is probably further off than some people here want to think, and holding up something like the DLR as "proof" it could happen quickly isn't proof at all.