OT: Steering a train?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:19:38 +0000 someone who may be Dave wrote this:-

It is.

However, there are also other ways of inspecting track, because humans don't see everything. One obvious example is that humans don't see cracks inside things, until the crack reaches the surface.

One of these other ways of inspecting the track are high speed measurement trains, which run along the major lines to a regular programme. These are looking for many things, including measuring accelerations to see if there is a bad spot. The video is recorded so that if a bad spot is detected the video of the area can be looked at to see if there is a visible problem. It would take a long time for a human to study the video from just one day thoroughly and they probably wouldn't detect much due to boredom.

Reply to
David Hansen
Loading thread data ...

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:58:49 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-

The public and the trade unions have accepted driverless trains for decades. For example the Victoria Line in London was opened in the

1960s.

However, extending automatic driving to a railway where more than one sort of train is running for long distances in the open air is another matter altogether, though British Rail did look at it in the

1970s with the wiggly wire system. One of the problems in the open air is the wide variety of things the driver spots which machines will not.

Anyway, there still has to be someone on the train to deal with emergencies and less dramatic incidents. One of the things this someone needs to be able to do is drive the train if the automatic system fails. If their driving is rusty because they haven't done it for months then this may not be good. Thus there is a reason to keep drivers driving, with an automatic system simply keeping an eye on them. If it doesn't like the driving the automatic system will at first tap them on the shoulder and if they don't respond to that it will take over control.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:58:41 GMT someone who may be "Nick" wrote this:-

The converse has been asserted. Whether one believes these assertions is another matter.

Reply to
David Hansen

There has been no marked reduction in overall road deaths since all this stuff was introduced

The greatest reduction in road deaths has been due to improvements in car design.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

With 'drivers' because even if capable of automatic operation the public preferred to see a driver in the cab. And there's still one today.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:05:53 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Incorrect. The reduction was largely due to improved medical facilities and procedures.

The reduction also hides the question of who is being killed. As cars have been made safer and more comfortable for those inside them so drivers have become less bothered about crashing, which means that those outside cars have been killed in greater numbers than would otherwise be the case.

Consider two sorts of theoretical car. One is the invulnerability car, no matter what the driver does they will walk away without a scratch. The other one is the reverse, a car made out of thin glass with a spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Which of these cars is the safest?

Reply to
David Hansen

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:38:32 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

Evidence for this assertion?

Indeed. The operator opens and closes the doors. When the doors (and the cab window) are closed the operator can press two buttons. If conditions permit this will allow the train to start, from where it is automatically driven to the next station. The operator can also drive the train where there are failures of parts of the automatic system.

The operator could be anywhere, but the cab was seen as a good place to deal with failures. Walking through a crowded train to get to the cab to deal with a failure would be difficult.

In the Docklands Light Railway the operator does much the same thing but is not confined to a cab, indeed there is no cab. The public don't seem to have avoided using the line as a result and it has been open for decades now. Trains are shorter and it was initially assumed that they would be less crowded, hence it was considered operators would be able to walk to the control panel at the front should they need to use it.

On the Central Line there is still a driver. The intention was that the driver would drive the train at all times, other than the central section in peak hours. This would keep their driving skills brushed up while the automatic system kept an eye on them. In peak periods in the central section the train would be driven automatically because that would maximise the throughput of trains.

Reply to
David Hansen

Same comment for the DLR. Even though they aren't really "drivers" in any meaningful sense.

Reply to
Huge

I was around at the time and it was common knowledge and reported in the meja. I'm sure some Googling would confirm it. They did dispense with the guard, though. But the original idea was to have no human involvement.

If the train can 'drive itself' opening and closing doors should be a minor issue. This was probably just to keep the operator awake.

The DLR is quite a few years down the line from the Victoria and public perceptions change. Besides, an automatic overground system isn't quite as scary...

Indeed. There's no reason these days not to have the entire tube network automated. Provided they don't use Windows, of course.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:46:12 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

Fair enough, though not particularly convincing evidence that it featured to any great extent in the decision to have drivers on the trains.

At first glance opening the doors seems a minor issue. However, the questions to be asked before opening the doors include has the train stopped in the right place and if not can the doors still be opened? The automatic control systems of the time were not as precise as current systems.

Closing the doors involves the question of whether someone's coat, umbrella or other thin thing is trapped in the doors. There is the occasional injury (and on rarer occasions death) when this happens. Having the driver at the back of the train would improve this situation as they could look out as the train departs, like guards used to do. It is unlikely that a machine could do better and yet still work on a busy railway, though I suspect that eventually machines will become good enough to do this more reliably than humans.

The DLR runs underground these days, the Bank and Greenwich extensions involve tube tunnels.

It hasn't been used on railway signalling systems. Far too complicated and unreliable. However, I have occasionally seen Windows error messages on the money printing machines outside banks.

Reply to
David Hansen

There are (apparently) *increases* in road deaths in those counties with the largest numbers of speed cameras. However whether this is directly related to the speed cameras is, of course, debateable.

The statistics published by the government (or one of their agencies) show this quite clearly, if you *really* want chapter and verse I can possibly find it though I'm pretty certain I have thrown away the magazine it was in now.

Reply to
tinnews

Entering the Bank tunnel is pretty scary.

Reply to
Huge

The unions of course wanted both driver and guard.

I'd not have thought that much of a problem to overcome. For many years only suitable doors will open if the train stops slightly short of the platform, etc.

Given how close many are to a departing train on a busy station I doubt a visual check is all that useful.

Indeed. But not originally.

And on some cars...

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I would, if I had the time :-)

Dave

Reply to
Dave

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:52:37 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

Did they?

For all their faults the railway unions have accepted a massive reduction in staff with relatively little industrial action. For instance a freight train would typically be operated by a crew of three in the early 1970s, by the early 1990s that was a crew of one.

Assuming you are talking about the London underground there have been occasions when services have been planned around the doors of one coach not being opened at some stations, or half the doors of the end coaches not being opened. This operation was controlled by humans pressing the appropriate buttons.

Reply to
David Hansen

Plasterers then?

Adam

Reply to
ARWadsworth

The government does it....

Reply to
Andy Hall

camerais either slam on the brakes, or look at their speedos and

Coo... Does this entail them being fitted with the paramedic option?

That must be expensive. Most don't even have any camera inside..

Reply to
Andy Hall

The Iraqi secret service?

Reply to
Andy Hall

That would be spreading the blame quite wide

Reply to
Andy Hall

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.