Andy, as you say the convention has been to improve the infrastructure, (signalling), and the tools to assist the driver. New techniques being tried out for autonomous road vehicles could easily be applied to rail vehicles. In fact I suspect it wouldn't cost very much, less than a driver's annual salary. Unlike other signalling/control improvements where the line and the train have to be fitted this approach only requires changes to the train and on an individual basis if money is tight.


While it is true that the existing system is (more than?) acceptably safe the more I think about it 'ALARP' screams out at me! Technically it seems so 'simple' to do, the problems have been solved elsewhere. If a 'speed' cameras on a motorway can capture a moving number plate surely a camera on a train can capture a (literally) fixed signal? The lateral location of the train will be known with centimetric precision and the longitudinal position can be determined by wheel revolutions, sleeper counting and GPS. Trackside structures (anything) can be used to re-calibrate the train equipment. Abnormalities in the environment (blocked level crossings?) can be identified. Given favourable conditions a camera system can see beyond any driver and can use thermal imaging too if it could be beneficial. Adding these features as driver aids would just swamp a human driver.


The problem of unexpected low adhesion is an interesting one (braking at 64 mph/3.22 miles to stop). A continuous 'mu' measure could be made by measuring the torque needed to 'slip' a non-driven wheel. That could be an automatic process. I understand that the current advice is that drivers periodically attempt a full brake application if they suspect slippy conditions. A driverless train would make the check.


While I think there is no good technical reason why we can't have driverless trains I think there should be personnel 'passenger side'. (If we have to have drivers why to we stick them in the crumple zone? Is that to 'encourage' good behaviour?).

Andy, as you say the convention has been to improve the infrastructure, (signalling), and the tools to assist the driver. New techniques being tried out for autonomous road vehicles could easily be applied to rail vehicles. In fact I suspect it wouldn't cost very much, less than a driver's annual salary. Unlike other signalling/control improvements where the line and the train have to be fitted this approach only requires changes to the train and on an individual basis if money is tight.


While it is true that the existing system is (more than?) acceptably safe the more I think about it 'ALARP' screams out at me! Technically it seems so 'simple' to do, the problems have been solved elsewhere. If a 'speed' cameras on a motorway can capture a moving number plate surely a camera on a train can capture a (literally) fixed signal? The lateral location of the train will be known with centimetric precision and the longitudinal position can be determined by wheel revolutions, sleeper counting and GPS. Trackside structures (anything) can be used to re-calibrate the train equipment. Abnormalities in the environment (blocked level crossings?) can be identified. Given favourable conditions a camera system can see beyond any driver and can use thermal imaging too if it could be beneficial. Adding these features as driver aids would just swamp a human driver.


The problem of unexpected low adhesion is an interesting one (braking at 64 mph/3.22 miles to stop). A continuous 'mu' measure could be made by measuring the torque needed to 'slip' a non-driven wheel. That could be an automatic process. I understand that the current advice is that drivers periodically attempt a full brake application if they suspect slippy conditions. A driverless train would make the check.


While I think there is no good technical reason why we can't have driverless trains I think there should be personnel 'passenger side'. (If we have to have drivers why to we stick them in the crumple zone? Is that to 'encourage' good behaviour?).