Why not control future EMUs (& DMUs) from the rear cab? It would lower the risk for the driver in the event on hitting anything. The technology exists. Especially on DOO trains, the survival of the only staff member is extremely important for passenger safety in the event of a collision or derailment.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why not control future-build EMUs from the rear cab?
- Thread starter fandroid
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Snow1964
Established Member
We have lineside signals and speed boards that need to be seen, and occasional physical obstructions that need to be spotted at brakes slammed on.
There are some urban lines that the cabs are not really needed, as trains operate automatically
There are some urban lines that the cabs are not really needed, as trains operate automatically
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,020
How are they seeing everything? Via multiple screens and cameras?
gazthomas
Established Member
Why have a cab at all, just drive remotely
Western Lord
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 783
As anybody who watched Gerry Anderson's UFO will know, driving a vehicle while facing backwards is no big deal!
While driving from the back may increase the driver's chances of survival in something such as a head-on collision or derailment, the chances of such an incident happening is so unlikely that I don't even consider it worth the hassle of redesigning a train and adding so much complex engineering, and if collisions or derailments start increasing, it will definitely not be down to the design of the train's cab layout.
TrainBoy98
Member
Captain Scarlet too - maybe rearwards driving is the only bit of the "imagined future" we'll end up getting! 
You wouldn't get much sympathy from customers, the general public and media if the driver was seen to be hiding away at the back of a train because of the risk of collision to which everyone else onboard would be more exposed. Having a responsible staff member at the front of the train making key decisions even if not adjusting the controls very much between stations in this era of ATO is a big part of the psychology of safety, and there are things a set of eyeballs directly connected to a well-trained sentient brain can sometimes notice that machine systems and even the very best live video feeds to a remote operator would be hard pressed to catch, precisely because they're not very well defined: Early warning of livestock incursion or a tree that didn't actually cause a problem for the train concerned but might be leaning in a little closer than usual/comfortable for example; a group of youths messing about on a bridge; someone looking troubled at the lonely end of a fast line platform where no train is due to stop for ages, etc.
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,151
I think you mean Captain Scarlet.
But he kept crashing the SPV whenever he drove one, it was a standing joke in the series
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,776
If you have a remote driving position surely it would be positioned near the middle of the train (or wherever is convenient) and you would forget about cabs at all.
This would obviously remove the need to change ends during reversals.
This would obviously remove the need to change ends during reversals.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,498
Latency. At least with the driver on the vehicle, a physical video interface could be provided.
I recently watched a documentary on Nat Geo about a head on train crash at Paris. When the driver realised a crash was unavoidable, he left his cab and got everyone to the back of the train before the collision. Everyone on that train survived.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,490
Not sure if this is a serious post or not...
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,498
I’d be surprised if full line speed would have been permissible. Although, saying that, I’m not sure if there is a speed limit on the auxiliary ’shunting’ desk fitted to Class 90s.
dk1
Veteran Member
Once again I thought the date was 1st April 
Personally, I think having the ability to conduct low speed shunts from a remote cab via CCTV would be perfectly sensible and help operational flexibility. The train isn't going fast, it's in an area that is comparatively better secured than the lineside and with 240m trains it's potentially a reasonable time saver that could even avoid the need for some crossovers, a big money saver.
In terms of regular service driving, no thanks.
In terms of regular service driving, no thanks.
Saving a cab change for a shunt would be very useful, especially for shuffling units around depots and servicing yards. Driving from the wrong cab was routine for such purposes but seems to have fallen out of favour in the UK, although, like locos propelling, there are ways to do it safely using a second staff member at the forward end in constant radio contact with the driver, ideally with access to a brake handle for emergencies. CCTV at the leading end might avoid the additional employee. Portable control units might also be used in depots, as in some freight shunting operations. When coupling up or precisely positioning for a depot task, controlling the movement from the trackside might be more effective than from any cab.