DanDaDriver
Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2018
- Messages
- 338
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.
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.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 choose rail for the view but it is a nice add on.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.
Nice add on but don't think it would have a noticeable effect on passenger numbers if that's what was on offer.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.
But I suspect few would choose not to travel because of it, for many it's a necessary to get to work etc.You might not choose rail because of the view but the lack of a view would be an issue for many.
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?
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.
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.
And are you reducing the skill of the driver, which may be needed in difficult situations.
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.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.
Jobs change as technology evolves, rather than disappear, in terms of total number.
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
Did wages get worse when trains got introduced, reducing jobs for horse & cart workers?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?
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.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.
And six-inch thick cushions on the seats.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.
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...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.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.
So handwavy isn't it? Like, do people think the internet "just works" without intervention or someting? (Clue - it doesn't)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 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?
You used the DLR lately?