There are already automated trains in Paris (one metro line), and I can think of several places in Japan with automated train lines as well (not the main ones). It's already proven technology.
There is no collision hazard in elevators (essentially each elevator is on its own dedicated track). In railway, collision hazards are everywhere because you can change track and there are multiple trains on the same track, possibly (yikes) in head to head movements.
If you want to see the specs of a real Automatic Train Protection, the European one is public [1]. And that is only the protection part. There is no automatic pilot in there.
The whole basis of signaling kind of makes it all moot. If the signal is red, the train stops. If the signal is green, you go through. Their may be yellow signals as well, generally meaning that there is train x signals ahead, proceed at caution (generally reduced speed).
A very large number of accidents are due to the operator failing to follow these very basic signals.
>incredibly varied operating environment
How many variables do you see here?
The absolute safest scenario is likely automated trains with a driver with a red button to stop the train, in case of emergency. After years go by without even having to use the button, even those operators could be removed. We're living in a world where automated driving is starting to overtake automated trains, something that literally exists on rail, and switching is controlled electronically on almost every passenger rail in the western world.
Unless we are talking metro, where I live it is not that uncommon to have some animal wonder on the tracks, people trying to commit suicide on the track, people throwing things at the train from bridges, ...
Hell, I there was even an hot air balloon that crashed on the train track a few years back in my city, blocking trains for the whole day.
> automated trains with a driver with a red button to stop the train
This is an ergonomics nightmare scenario. The operator needs to pay attention to keep situational awareness all the time while just observing the train doing its thing. Then, all of a sudden, the train starts doing something that it shouldn't be doing (due to a failed signal, another train doing something stupid, an obstruction, a malfunction...) and they need to quickly react and do a safe abort (slamming the brakes may actually be a bad idea sometimes)
This is an issue in aircraft with heavy automation - everything seems normal until it isn't and then the pilots need to quickly figure out exactly what happened, how they got where they are and how to get out.
>This is an issue in aircraft with heavy automation - everything seems normal until it isn't and then the pilots need to quickly figure out exactly what happened, how they got where they are and how to get out.
This isn't flying though, and you can stop a train by slamming the breaks, and this is perfectly fine in 99% of scenarios (and which is exactly why each train car has an emergency break cord/button).
I can't really imagine a situation where a possible derailment is better than stopping the train. If your on a narrow bridge, surely stopping is better than the possibility of being unable to stop when the bridge is out.
>> Automated trains are just like elevators, except they move horizontally.
Really? I haven't heard of any elevators killing dozens of people lately. I haven't seen many elevators crash, burst into flames and effectively remove entire city blocks from the map. I haven't heard of people studying elevator operators for PTSD.
>>Because of involuntary exposure to PUT [Person Under Train] incidents, the likelihood of train drivers to witness the violent death of a person is much higher than that of the general population, and that puts the train driver at risk of psychological trauma.
>>Of the 193 train drivers, 152 (78.75%) reported at least one PUT incident. Respondents reported as much as 14 PUT incidents/person, with a mean of 4 (SD = 2.83) incidents/train driver.
In all honesty, a train driver is more likely to see someone die violently in front of them in a given year than the average soldier.
Toronto had the demonstrator line that saw and continues to see revenue service despite its ancient age. Toronto’s cars were built with a full cab, partly because of pressure from the union, to allow an operator to push the button to close the doors. (1)
The system no longer runs in ATO (automatic train operation) because of ongoing issues around maintaining contact with the mainframe when it snowed.
In London several of the tube lines are automated. There is a driver but all they do is press a button to close the doors at stations and make announcements to passengers "for safety purposes" (i.e. unions)
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. Drivers still have actual safety and operational roles – they can drive the train manually in cases of equipment failure, deal with passenger emergencies, that kind of thing. Even the DLR, which has used automation since opening, has a staff member on each train who can take over driving if required.
That's not to say that entirely driverless services can't be done. There are a bunch of metro services globally that are grade-4 fully-autonomous and totally unattended, and some of them have been in operation for over 30 years. But like all large-scale systems, there are lots of complicating factors, system-specific conditions, and various tradeoffs to be made – a lazy Daily Mail "damn unions" argument isn't really fair.
Yep this is why they want "train captains" (kinda like the DLR has) rather than requiring a fully-trained driver in a cab at the front.
IIRC there is something like a 6 year waiting list to become a tube driver because they do a 36 hour week for £55k a year (up to £100+k for some) with over 40 days paid holiday, and can retire on a full pension at 50 years old (1)
It seems like a ludicrously cushy job and I 100% put it down to those "damn unions" essentially blackmailing TFL by always threatening to strike at the busiest times. I don't blame them,but I don't think that the "damn unions" argument is unjustified when it comes to Tube drivers and there near-constant threats to go on strike for the most rediculous things that any reasonable person would agree were legitimate reasons (such as when a driver was sacked for repeatedly failing drink-driving tests (2), or another for a driver who repeatedly drove through red signals (3)). These are potential disaster near-misses, yet the tube driver's unions use them as more leverage to threaten a strike and squeak out a bit more pay and a bit more holiday. And when they are not doing that, they're frankly taking the piss and threatening to strike over not being able to make a cup of tea (4)
>a 36 hour week for £55k (up to £100+k for some) a year
An ok-ish middle class salary. Not outrageous in its own right and i suspect if you compared it to the lifestyle of train drivers 50 years ago it might allow them to live the same sort of lifestyle?
It's no secret that our expectations and the job market have changed dramatically but it is telling that jobs with hard fought inflation adjusted wages have wait lists for those jobs. We're like a frog slowly being boiled and we need posts like the above that cause us to think "Hang on didn't train drivers of yesteryear support a wife and three kids? Could you do that on £55k?".
As tech workers we all likely earn so much that we could live the middle class lifestyle of yesteryear (paying off the mortgage before retirement, supporting a partner and kids, taking regular family vacations, etc.). I mean we like to think we're all super rich but really we're only where we should be. Perhaps we shouldn't be directing hate downwards here? The wealth gap above us has increased, whilst the wealth controlled by the bottom 50% is lower than ever.
The only way the disparity here can be corrected is to accept those below us in salary will fight for more. It's pretty understandable really.
Twice to four times the median salary in the UK (and three to six times the salary of a bus driver who is usually far more skilled), for a low-skilled job that requires neither education nor physical exertion. There is a reason why there are massive waiting lists.
Lots of bubbles to go around. Average entry level software developer job in Germany pays 40-45k€ (35-40k£). 60-70k would already be well-paid senior positions. No developer or dev manager earns six figures. These numbers also roughly apply to most engineering disciplines.
The wages and costs of train drivers are pretty insignificant in the costs of running the London Underground, so tiny a percentage of the running costs, yet people focus on them because they earn a relatively good wage (how dare they have a pension that might keep them fed in their retirement! Ban those greedy unions! etc etc ...) Shame on all you haters.
I just skimmed a few search results and the wage quoted here is within the upper end of a London average - depending on how you define it. There are obviously a lot of fudge factors and things that skew results due to various factors.
Having seen and read of things that tube staff have to put up with, they seem to me to earn their wage.
Below is a link to the story about the railway worker who died from Covid after being spat in by someone claiming to have Covid.
Note that staff appear to have been sent out unwillingly and were not allowed to wear masks.
Used to be, and probably is still on some of the smaller lines like Bakerloo or Circle. But on the main lines like Victoria and Northern they're all automated now. Often you see the train coming in to the platform and the driver is just sitting there reading their phone/playing candy crush etc.
For some lines that go above ground (Northern, Jubilee, Central), the driver sometimes had to put it into manual mode to compensate for the worse breaking when it's raining outside.
I don't ever recall seeing a train driver in my trips on Singapore's MRT either now that I think of it. Is this relatively new technology? Some of the older trains on the North East and Downtown MRT lines are at least a decade old, if not older. It would seem like that such tech should be ubiquitous in most cities with a good public transit system.
I would be very happy to see automated trains, I often see an immediate jump to tackling the hardest cases in engineering before thinking about simple and efficient solutions. Almost everything about the Japanese rail system is something I want to see in the US
I've been on the metro in Toulouse as well, which is fully automated. Kind of cool because you can sit in the front where normally the cockpit would be. Toulouse is of course a major Airbus city.
Same in Milan. The M5 line is completely autonomous (you can also sit in front and look at the tunnel through a large window). The next line, the M4 (no, not a typo) will be autonomous too.
