How come self-driving trains aren't already the norm?

[Renee]

Re: the scapegoat argument. We wouldn’t have needed a scapegoat if a computer had been driving this latest train, because the computer wouldn’t have been going too fast. Also, surely the already functional self driving car technology could be fitted to trains without much, if any, modification of existing tracks.

[UncleRojelio]

@Dewey_Finn

If I’m the human and I’m just on standby, it’s going to be difficult not to fall asleep or at least be goofing off on my phone. Just standing there but not actually running the thing is gotta be really boring.

Part of the positive train control system is having the human press a button every couple of minutes. If the human falls asleep, the train stops.

[FasterThanMeerkats]

@UncleRojelio

Part of the positive train control system is having the human press a button every couple of minutes. If the human falls asleep, the train stops.

Which is why the drinking bird was invented.

[Chefguy]

The short answer is ‘money’ and the will to get it done. Republicans refuse to fund improvements to Amtrak because it sucks up so much money. Of course, if the damn thing ran well and the tracks weren’t so risky in their present condition, perhaps a lot more people would use it instead of driving or flying. Chicken-egg. As a national line, Amtrak is an embarrassment. I rode on trains in the Soviet Bloc that ran better, faster, and on time.

[Folly]

@UncleRojelio

Part of the positive train control system is having the human press a button every couple of minutes. If the human falls asleep, the train stops.

Suddenly George Jetson’s job *does *make sense.

[friedo]

@Renee

Re: the scapegoat argument. We wouldn’t have needed a scapegoat if a computer had been driving this latest train, because the computer wouldn’t have been going too fast.

A computer was driving a train on the Washington Metro that was involved in a crash that killed nine people, due to a faulty track-loop circuit without a proper failsafe.

Also, surely the already functional self driving car technology could be fitted to trains without much, if any, modification of existing tracks.

Real life does not work the way that you think things “surely” should. The engineering challenges in automated train control and self-driving cars are largely orthogonal.

[Alley_Dweller]

@Diceman

Detroit has the People Mover, but it runs on an elevated track, around a single loop in the downtown area.

Still, other people are making an excellent point. Trains are much simpler to control than cars, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. If one of the primary purposes of the engineer is to be someone to throw under the [del]bus[/del] train when something goes kablooey, then perhaps we should just automate the process, and accept that if someone wanders onto the tracks at the wrong moment, they’re fucked. I mean, applying the brakes is mostly a symbolic gesture anyway, since trains weight many many tons, and the laws of physics will be obeyed.

I imagine that if someone is standing on the tracks waiting for a train on an adjacent track to pass by (or taking pictures or enjoying the sound of the train), they might not notice that there is another train coming from the other direction. Slamming on the brakes and blowing the horn might give them a few extra seconds to come to their senses and get off the tracks. Similarly, if a vehicle is stalled on the tracks and the driver is concentrating on getting it restarted, he might not notice how close the train is. Using the brakes might give him a few extra seconds to unbuckle his seat belt, open the door, and run.

And I imagine that if a cement truck is stalled on the tracks, starting the braking process before the train has left the tracks will cause less total damage to the train and surroundings.

[scr4]

@Diceman

…perhaps we should just automate the process, and accept that if someone wanders onto the tracks at the wrong moment, they’re fucked.

There are other types of dangers signs that a human may be able to react to better. How about someone on the platform yelling at the engineer not to start the train because someone got caught by the door? Maybe a column of smoke or a crowd of people near the track ahead, which would cause a human engineer to slow down the train? Or someone near the track waving frantically at the train?

[Saturn_Dreams]

@Mnemnosyne

I suppose I phrased it poorly. What I meant was, the only relevant sensors a human brings to the table (as far as I know) are their eyes, and by the time the obstacle is close enough to be detected by human eyesight, the train is already too close to the obstacle to stop if it hasn’t already been slowing down.

Is there a particular aspect to this that I am missing, or am I wrong in some of my understanding?

I wouldn’t say eyes are the only relevant sensors on a human, (hearing far off explosions, smelling burning circuitry, etc. would be important), but that’s beside the point.

Let me make this simple for you.
Errorless operation of a train: Computer>Human
Cost efficiency: Human>Computer

@Saint_Cad

Seems to me that the safest system is where the trains run automatically with a human on stand-by if something goes wrong.

The main reasons why many ATOs that can be unmanned has an attendant is to give a sense of security to passengers, especially if there is an illness on board, and also to act as a guide in case of a train breakdown. I don’t know about other countries, but in Japan, unmanned ATO systems have to be set up so that a human can reach the train in n-minutes in case of emergencies. This is a major hurdle when travelling long distances. Why pay for ATO if you can have a conductor drive the train and act as an emergency attendant?

[Mr_Downtown]

@Saturn_Dreams

you will still need a conductor.

Union or FRA rules might require a conductor, but the engineer can advance the throttle all by himself.