Driver Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't see that at all. The route a train takes is a very deterministic concept. <snip> The issues would be in converting all the trains and managing the installation of the necessary equipment, but I don't see what the major technical hurdles are. Except that when the rail ahead breaks, the overhead line equipment fails or some other unexpected event occurs, a new route is required which may not be signaled. During engineering works trains often go down the track the "wrong" way. This is possible with a driver but you now need to make your all singing all dancing computerized train system by directional on all lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 You got a real problem with people sticking to an agreement, if they are supposed to be in the inferior position. How come? I don't know aht that means. What agreement? What inferiror position? Help me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 During engineering works trains often go down the track the "wrong" way. This is possible with a driver but you now need to make your all singing all dancing computerized train system by directional on all lines. Do you have to refer back to a cetral office to do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't know aht that means. What agreement? What inferiror position? Help me. Ok, so guy x is paid by guy y to do z task. You have no problem with guy x putting conditions on guy y, but don't like it the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efdemin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't see that at all. The route a train takes is a very deterministic concept. You know in advance precisely which tracks it is going to use, and because of it being on fixed tracks it's fairly easy to know where a train is (indeed, in a more limited fashion the technology to do just that has been around for decades, if not a century, with track circuits). It is a much, much simpler task than doing the same for a road vehicle, which would almost certainly need the level of complexity, or more, that you mention. Railways are controlled environments. Conflicts between the expected and signalled routes are therefore easy to detect. What you wouldn't be able to do is spot someone sprinting for the train and just wait a few more seconds before setting off. The issues would be in converting all the trains and managing the installation of the necessary equipment, but I don't see what the major technical hurdles are. Just a first pass at technical hurdles: - Landslips on the track. Happened a few years ago near the Lake District - machine vision / intelligence is still nowhere near as good as humans with eyeballs. - Inclement weather - 'wrong leaves/snow/rain' & how to drive in it - Obstacles on the track (intentional and unintentional). It would be easy to make the systems over-safe, i.e. stopping when there is no real need and how would commuters like that? - Short-term problems like power lines being blown down (or a swan flying into them as happened recently), or even copper signalling cable being nicked. Computer systems are inflexible and don't deal with these issues well, or at all. It's a similar set of issues to 'why don't planes fly on auto-pilot all the time?'. You still need a human in the control loop to make the decisions that require intuition and experience. Even if it was technically possible, the cost would be way more than upping drivers' wages 12% or whatever. It cost billions just to put up electric wires on the west coast mainline, how much would it cost to put in all the sensors needed for an automatic system on the whole network? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperduck Quack Quack Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Just a first pass at technical hurdles: - Landslips on the track. Happened a few years ago near the Lake District - machine vision / intelligence is still nowhere near as good as humans with eyeballs. - Inclement weather - 'wrong leaves/snow/rain' & how to drive in it - Obstacles on the track (intentional and unintentional). It would be easy to make the systems over-safe, i.e. stopping when there is no real need and how would commuters like that? - Short-term problems like power lines being blown down (or a swan flying into them as happened recently), or even copper signalling cable being nicked. Computer systems are inflexible and don't deal with these issues well, or at all. It's a similar set of issues to 'why don't planes fly on auto-pilot all the time?'. You still need a human in the control loop to make the decisions that require intuition and experience. Even if it was technically possible, the cost would be way more than upping drivers' wages 12% or whatever. It cost billions just to put up electric wires on the west coast mainline, how much would it cost to put in all the sensors needed for an automatic system on the whole network? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Ok, so guy x is paid by guy y to do z task. You have no problem with guy x putting conditions on guy y, but don't like it the other way around. I think you meant it the other way around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't see that at all. The route a train takes is a very deterministic concept. You know in advance precisely which tracks it is going to use, and because of it being on fixed tracks it's fairly easy to know where a train is on a complicated railway system - no you don't (hence why the london underground IS automated, it IS that simple, but the mainlines aren't) (indeed, in a more limited fashion the technology to do just that has been around for decades, if not a century, with track circuits). It is a much, much simpler task than doing the same for a road vehicle agreed , which would almost certainly need the level of complexity, or more, that you mention. Railways are controlled environments. Conflicts between the expected and signalled routes are therefore easy to detect. not as controlled as you think, they have emergent behaviour, they are complex - to a degree What you wouldn't be able to do is spot someone sprinting for the train and just wait a few more seconds before setting off. The issues would be in converting all the trains and managing the installation of the necessary equipment, but I don't see what the major technical hurdles are. I have just shown the major technical hurdle - simply the determination of the route and judegment vis a vis route-choice, timing, safety; I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out - having said that, I give it 10 years and I think this will start to be resolved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Do you have to refer back to a cetral office to do that? You always liase with someone, usually always the signaler. You may well be making a movement for which there is no signal control as it was completely unexpected. Note: I don't want to take this thread too far off topic but wanted to clear some misconceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I think you meant it the other way around Why do you think that? labour is also payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 When will the train drivers' wage bubble burst? £39,000 a year for what? A train has 3 main controls - power control, brake control and horn. I think they are overpaid by 20% and they will see a reversion to the mean over the next decade - that's about it really if serious automation kicks in, then their salaries will plummet much like regional airline pilots in the US Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 You always liase with someone, usually always the signaler. You may well be making a movement for which there is no signal control as it was completely unexpected. Note: I don't want to take this thread too far off topic but wanted to clear some misconceptions. it is plausible to think that could be accomplished by remote control on an as-needs basis (?), if full automation existed for normal operation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Ok, so guy x is paid by guy y to do z task. You have no problem with guy x putting conditions on guy y, but don't like it the other way around. There's an old saying used most commonly to imply corruption, but it's still useful in this regard : "he who pays the piper plays the tune." If they don't like the pay, they should give notice to quit, so that their employer can arrange alternatives. The employer does, after all, have commitments to his customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 <snip> I have just shown the major technical hurdle - simply the determination of the route and judegment vis a vis route-choice, timing, safety; I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out - having said that, I give it 10 years and I think this will start to be resolved The technology does need some work but like you i think it will get there one day. There will always be need of a human on board, probably a guard; (i) someone gets their coat trapped in the door and gets dragged down the platform as the train leaves (ii) scroats start throwing bits of the train out of the windows (seat covers, fire extinguishers) (iii) disabled person pulls the alarm cord in the disabled toilet (iv) a passing train has a motor fire on one of the bogies (v) plastic agricultural sheeting has wrapped it self around the overhead line equipment (vi) someone opens the doors using the emergency door handle so as to force the train to stop at a station it's not scheduled to stop at (vii) level crossing gates left open by mistake by a road user on a crossing manually controlled There are far more human unexpected inputs into the situation than most people realise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 You always liase with someone, usually always the signaler. You may well be making a movement for which there is no signal control as it was completely unexpected. So you need to get permission from the signaller to do the manoeuvre? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperduck Quack Quack Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The Victoria Line on the London Undergrounds has had automated trains since it opened in 1968. The 'driver' just operates the doors in stations and then presses two buttons simultaneously to start the train. It then takes itself to the next station automatically. The Post Office underground railway in London, that operated from 1927 to 2003, was completely automated. The Docklands Light Railway is completely automatic - the staff on the trains are just attendants. So automating a main line route would be theoretically possible if all trains on the route were automated and so it operated as a cohesive unit, but like others have pointed out, there would problems dealing with emergencies or break-downs on a driverless automated line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The driver is responsible for where the train goes. If the signaler sets a wrong route and the driver takes it, it is a driver error . The UK rail network is not a train set, there can be multiple routes to get to a destination, it is not as simplistic as you make it seem. Im not making anything simplistic. That list is not mine, its from a training company...Im on the wrong computer now and cant provide a link. Just how does the driver override a signalman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Surely, the only sort of 'free market' strike is one where the boss can tell them all to not bother turning up again, then promptly employ a new workforce and/or replace them with automation. The state protects the ability to strike, without risking your job. The state also supports employers in other areas of course, but if we're discussing the right to strike... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Good on them, really. nothing wrong with striking, nothing wrong with getting the best deal available. I can't see anyone getting atacked here so I fail to see any issue. So anyone could go to the train Co. and offer to do the work for less??....say £30,000 a year?? I think the union might have something to say about that. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yes he is supposed to spot the wrong route and not take it. In cab signalling is one thing, automated trains is quite another. It can be done but would require massive investment in the infrastructure which we can't afford as a nation. There will be a time when trains are automated but you will still need a person at the front. The trains will break down, there will be objects on lines nearby that will need to be reported. Planes can take off and land themselves on some routes but we have yet to see pilot less planes. We have a system whereby groups outside of the public sector set their own wages and there is a great diversification between those at the top and those at the bottom. I personally would value a good cleaner way above a professional footballer but as things stand these differences do exist. By all means advocate change but change should be based on a desire for fairness and not envy. Fair dos to the railman...but private sector, it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Just a first pass at technical hurdles: - Landslips on the track. Happened a few years ago near the Lake District - machine vision / intelligence is still nowhere near as good as humans with eyeballs. - Inclement weather - 'wrong leaves/snow/rain' & how to drive in it - Obstacles on the track (intentional and unintentional). It would be easy to make the systems over-safe, i.e. stopping when there is no real need and how would commuters like that? - Short-term problems like power lines being blown down (or a swan flying into them as happened recently), or even copper signalling cable being nicked. Computer systems are inflexible and don't deal with these issues well, or at all. It's a similar set of issues to 'why don't planes fly on auto-pilot all the time?'. You still need a human in the control loop to make the decisions that require intuition and experience. Even if it was technically possible, the cost would be way more than upping drivers' wages 12% or whatever. It cost billions just to put up electric wires on the west coast mainline, how much would it cost to put in all the sensors needed for an automatic system on the whole network? Granted computer vision isn't sufficiently good to deal with issues like landslips, but unfortunately no vision is when it comes to trains. For all but the slowest speeds stopping in time once you've seen such an obstacle is pretty much impossible. If the incident you're thinking of is one on the Settle-Carlisle line a train was derailed by the landslip, and another one ran into it. If your train is electric and the power lines go down you're not going anywhere anyway. If the failure is far enough away you'll possibly get diverted, at which point the signalling centre would upload the new route to the train. I'm not envisaging that the choice of routes, calculation of new routes, and all related decisions are made by computer, but by a human-operated signalling centre that would then transmit the appropriate instructions to trains. If you were thinking that I meant doing all of that automatically then I agree that it could be as complex as you're suggesting. Engineering trains might well still need to be manually driven. Incidentally, the railways are full of sensors, and have been for a very long time (track circuits are exactly that). Upgrading anything does, of course, carry a cost, but if that means it's an automatic "no" then we'd still be using Victorian steam trains, if we had a railway at all. In the long run it would save money. It's the same argument (and another step in the same direction) as no longer having signal boxes every few miles on main lines (although there are still a few left run that way). Changing lots of signals to be operated from a much smaller number of signalling centres probably cost quite a lot of money, no doubt more in the short term than it saved from not having to pay lots of signalmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 So what? It's a matter between them and the employer. If they get a billion quid an hour and back rubs from supermodels, the trains will soon stop running as the firsm go bust. Theres nothing wrong with this process whatsoever. Yes, and the process should not involve a rigged wage price. The wage price is not free...... and it should be. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) The technology does need some work but like you i think it will get there one day. There will always be need of a human on board, probably a guard; (i) someone gets their coat trapped in the door and gets dragged down the platform as the train leaves (ii) scroats start throwing bits of the train out of the windows (seat covers, fire extinguishers) (iii) disabled person pulls the alarm cord in the disabled toilet (iv) a passing train has a motor fire on one of the bogies (v) plastic agricultural sheeting has wrapped it self around the overhead line equipment (vi) someone opens the doors using the emergency door handle so as to force the train to stop at a station it's not scheduled to stop at (vii) level crossing gates left open by mistake by a road user on a crossing manually controlled There are far more human unexpected inputs into the situation than most people realise. this is just a typical systems analysis problem - many many human systems that people **assume** can be automated are far more difficult, and are commonly thrown out as a proposal by savvy sensible private sector companies a classic example that SHOULD have been thrown out was the NHS backbone databse, some kind of expert system, had billions of pounds thrown at it and has been costly and problematic and over-budget for its whole history - point was, there was a huge amount of human clinical judgement that simply could not be codified into a computer, much like operational judegment on a train(as yet) cannot be codified - yet Edited February 28, 2011 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Im not making anything simplistic. That list is not mine, its from a training company...Im on the wrong computer now and cant provide a link. Just how does the driver override a signalman? Someone like Driver will have a far better idea than me, but I'm under the impression that he can't, but can contact the signalman and ask him what on earth's going on. He might be able to override the signals with permission from the signalman, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Someone like Driver will have a far better idea than me, but I'm under the impression that he can't, but can contact the signalman and ask him what on earth's going on. He might be able to override the signals with permission from the signalman, I don't know. I say SPAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.