This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Driverless Trains

The March 2017 Issue of E&T carries several articles about driverless cars but why haven't we got driverless mainline trains?


The technical 'problem' should be far simpler to solve than for a road vehicle. The position on the 'road' can be predicted and determined easily with precision. There is essentially no collision problem to solve, that has been done with the existing signalling system.


There is no need for communication with the train, no need for additional infrastructure. All that is needed is to observe and act on the existing fixed signals.


Of course such a basic system can be improved upon to produce a 'super driver' capable of reacting to unplanned obstructions, greasy rails etc.


The human driver is perhaps the last link to be made 'fail-safe' in the railway safety regime. Our efforts to 'improve' the driver-train interface have probably added new problems. Regular signal spacings, standard aspects and driver alerts must surely increase the boredom and inattention factor. An example of this was the Shap Roll-back in August 2010 where a driver correctly observed adverse signals, came to a stop, then allowed the train to roll-back, acknowledging the retreating adverse signals on the way, until the train exceeded 50 mph. Presumably he was half asleep?


I suspect the real 'problem' is a social one, it will be a tragedy if we can't solve that one.

Parents
  • Lynsay,

    Thanks for that. Maybe I need to put on a hard hat now!

    Sighting and stopping distances just don't apply to the situation that I have tried to describe, the existing signalling system looks after that.


    Essentially we 'solved' the safe route problem once we added track circuiting to the interlocking. The Achilles Heel is that we rely on the driver to observe the signals and line speed limits. The aproach in the UK has been to overlay devices such as AWS, which has never achieved 100% coverage and doesn't address the speed limit problem except in very rare cases. Newer systems like ERTMS ultimately require a total refit of the railway. But the information is already there! We just have to read and act on the existing signals. The route profile and speed limits are also known, just put it on the train.


    Drivers could still be retained at stations and depots where trains are prepared for use. They would be able to work fixed hours and have a fixed workplace.
Reply
  • Lynsay,

    Thanks for that. Maybe I need to put on a hard hat now!

    Sighting and stopping distances just don't apply to the situation that I have tried to describe, the existing signalling system looks after that.


    Essentially we 'solved' the safe route problem once we added track circuiting to the interlocking. The Achilles Heel is that we rely on the driver to observe the signals and line speed limits. The aproach in the UK has been to overlay devices such as AWS, which has never achieved 100% coverage and doesn't address the speed limit problem except in very rare cases. Newer systems like ERTMS ultimately require a total refit of the railway. But the information is already there! We just have to read and act on the existing signals. The route profile and speed limits are also known, just put it on the train.


    Drivers could still be retained at stations and depots where trains are prepared for use. They would be able to work fixed hours and have a fixed workplace.
Children
No Data