Advantages and Disadvantages of driverless trains?

[Bletchleyite]

Potentially much easier said than done. You're not that far from describing AF449. There was a sensor issue, the 3 automated computers disagreed, and tried to fail safe by handing back control to a flight crew in a situation they weren't properly trained to deal with, who then lost control of the plane with catastrophic consequences. The wrong response at this point is to say "well, trains don't fly over water". The point that needs to be taken away is that complex systems fail in complex, unpredictable ways through chains of events. So designing a system to fail safely without failing all the time because of false positives could prove very hard to do.

The key difference between a train and a plane is that "stop, as quickly as possible, now" is just about always a safe solution to something going wrong on a train. There may be odd edge cases like a fire in a tunnel or on a viaduct, but with a trained guard on board on the DLR model they could then drive it forward out of the tunnel/off the viaduct manually at low speed. I would not anticipate or advocate totally staffless trains except in very controlled circumstances that basically equate to the present staffless airport shuttles. I'm even a *bit* dubious about the Glasgow Subway - I think it will cause big personal safety issues and while I don't object at all to automating it, a "guard" would make sense.

 

[Strat-tastic]

You aren't exactly going to run something safety-critical on Windows. Do some more research into how things like the Airbus computer systems work.

Windows 3.1 wasn't so bad

 

[Mintona]

You aren't exactly going to run something safety-critical on Windows. Do some more research into how things like the Airbus computer systems work.

Class 375s have a TMS that controls safety systems such as selective door opening that still runs on Windows 95, so I wouldn’t be so sure.

 

[387star]

The bottom line is, a computer can only make decisions on the data it has, ie what is happening. It cannot assess the build up to a situation wheras the Mk1 human eyeball can.
Drivers jobs are safe for many, many.... many years yet.

End of discussion

 

[Ken H]

Computers don't make mistakes?

And yet somehow other people are being irrational?

I'll remember that next time a software malfunction ruins my computer, or causes websites to crash, or just decides to give up because the problem is outside of its operating parameters.

when they were starting on solid state signalling interlockings, they had 3 processors given the same input. If one gave a different output the system shut down. In computing we have all sorts of redundancy to cope with disasters.

 

[Eccles1983]

And I take it all these super computer trains are unhackable.

I mean you computer buffs seem to think that the all singing all dancing software is better than a human. Well let's see how great it is when it's corrupted by a bored teenager or worse a person with ulterior motives. What happens then? I mean if banks, the pentagon and other secure systems can be got at what's stopping someone doing it to a computer - and locking the system out completely. Is it hard to think that the train could be hacked, all fail safe systems disabled and then the train put to max speed?

I've seen computers go haywire - laser guided gps bombs hitting the wrong place etc. They cost a lot of money and still get it wrong.

Forgive me for not hailing the processor as an overlord just yet.

 

[Ken H]

The bottom line is, a computer can only make decisions on the data it has, ie what is happening. It cannot assess the build up to a situation wheras the Mk1 human eyeball can.
Drivers jobs are safe for many, many.... many years yet.

but drivers have bad days
Like
The one who was fasting and caused a derailment at paddington. june 16 2016
Problems of disregarding signals at Danger when starting from stations, as occurred at Newton 21 July 1991. Not relevant at newton, but 'ding ding and away' meaning the train ready to go signal from the guard causes the driver to subconsciously think he is OK to go, even though the signal is at danger.
The driver of MU's on the Euston line sharing tracks with inter city trains. Its 4 aspect signalling, but 2 EMU's will continue at their max speed , the second following the first under double yellows. As they are not at max line speed, they will 'see' the double yellows as clear, and will get many AWS caution indications. But they only have to misread one single yellow as a double (which will have the same AWS indication) and they are suddenly approaching a red too fast.

Now the second 2 examples above dont show driver are careless, but shows that the human brain can register stuff it expects to see rather than what it actually sees. But a train driver (unlike an airline pilot) cant nip to the loo and wash his face. he is on his own.

and the first shows behaviours outside work may impair our abilities at work. We have drug and alcohol testing of drivers. But blood sugar and dehydration tests? What if Gary Hart (Who drove his car and trailer onto the ECML and cause the Great Heck accident because he had been awake all night chatting to his girlfriend by computer) had been driving a train instead of a Motor vehicle? I have been suffering from a gall bladder complaint for, i think, 3 years - they took it out earlier this month. But that stops a toxic chemical, bilirubin, from escaping the liver so it ends up in the blood causing jaundice, which just generally makes you feel crap. How many drivers are working with that or some other complaint that impairs their ability just a little bit, but not enough to go sick?

This shows we must look for ways to reduce the chance for drivers to make errors. Just like we did with signalmen with Welwyn Control, Line Clear release and sequential locking.

 

[Dave1987]

but drivers have bad days
Like
The one who was fasting and caused a derailment at paddington. june 16 2016
Problems of disregarding signals at Danger when starting from stations, as occurred at Newton 21 July 1991. Not relevant at newton, but 'ding ding and away' meaning the train ready to go signal from the guard causes the driver to subconsciously think he is OK to go, even though the signal is at danger.
The driver of MU's on the Euston line sharing tracks with inter city trains. Its 4 aspect signalling, but 2 EMU's will continue at their max speed , the second following the first under double yellows. As they are not at max line speed, they will 'see' the double yellows as clear, and will get many AWS caution indications. But they only have to misread one single yellow as a double (which will have the same AWS indication) and they are suddenly approaching a red too fast.

Now the second 2 examples above dont show driver are careless, but shows that the human brain can register stuff it expects to see rather than what it actually sees. But a train driver (unlike an airline pilot) cant nip to the loo and wash his face. he is on his own.

and the first shows behaviours outside work may impair our abilities at work. We have drug and alcohol testing of drivers. But blood sugar and dehydration tests? What if Gary Hart (Who drove his car and trailer onto the ECML and cause the Great Heck accident because he had been awake all night chatting to his girlfriend by computer) had been driving a train instead of a Motor vehicle? I have been suffering from a gall bladder complaint for, i think, 3 years - they took it out earlier this month. But that stops a toxic chemical, bilirubin, from escaping the liver so it ends up in the blood causing jaundice, which just generally makes you feel crap. How many drivers are working with that or some other complaint that impairs their ability just a little bit, but not enough to go sick?

This shows we must look for ways to reduce the chance for drivers to make errors. Just like we did with signalmen with Welwyn Control, Line Clear release and sequential locking.

Ken a point that I would like to make to you is that technology should be developed to assist the human to do their job. Except for newly qualified drivers on the whole most drivers have a wealth of experience to fall back on and you should never ever take for granted the benefits of human perception. I like some of the bits of technology that are coming along to assist drivers in doing their jobs to the best of their ability but lots of it is poorly implemented and rushed. And some of it is bloody awful. It isn't just drivers being anti progress, it's that some of the kit that is pushed out is genuinely rubbish and not fit for purpose. It makes me extremely sad and nervous to see people pushing technology to it's limits as fast as we are. I honestly think it would take an enormous crash for people to take a step back and realise that this stuff is being pushed out too fast. I remember going on a course about how wonderful GSMR would be and that we would never lose signal on it. Years later and it still loses signal regularly. I heard someone say once "and they really want to signal trains via this system" when referring to the GSMR. I have no problem with tech being brought in to assist me in doing my job better. As long as I have control at all times and when the tech inevitably gets into a situation where it simply cannot cope and cannot offer any advice, I can fall back on my own experience then I think we will have a much better railway. Human perception and experience combined with tech to assist is the best way forward.

 

[robk23oxf]

If we look at aviation, computers have already done away with navigators and flight engineers so the flight deck crew has already been halved. The computers can near enough fly the plane themselves while the captain and the first officer are the troubleshooters, for this is where the computer struggles. Computers aren't good at 'thinking outside the box' and will do what they're programmed to do, even if that turns out to be fatal. I'm not saying automation is entirely a bad thing but in a society that seems to be rendering itself obsolete with the obsession to automate just about everything, we're forgetting how amazing the human mind is and how in some aspects it simply can't be matched by a computer. For this reason I think we'll always have a person at the controls of cars, planes, trains, buses, ships etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

we're forgetting how amazing the human mind is and how in some aspects it simply can't be matched by a computer. For this reason I think we'll always have a person at the controls of cars, planes, trains, buses, ships etc.

I think you're picking the wrong aspects there. The human brain is an utterly awful automaton. It's good at troubleshooting, though, and at dealing with the complex aspects of what people want and do.

So why have a person you have to phone up/go to speak in in person to do a BACS transfer when I can do this myself? Why not have that person there at the end of the phone for when I need to discuss whether the bank can perhaps offer me a short-term overdraft due to some temporary, very human issues instead?

Similarly, why have a person in the cab at the front of a train pulling and pushing a lever obeying posted speed limits and signals with nobody in the cabin (i.e. DOO)? Why not instead have them wandering around the train helping people with their much more human questions, but also able to open a panel and slowly move the train into a station to safely evacuate it if it all goes awry?

Planes are different, because they can't just stop when it goes wrong ("aviate, navigate, communicate", in that order, or people die). When a train's automated driving system detects something's gone a bit awry, it can whack the anchors in. The guard can then walk through the train with a bit of reassurance before taking his time to contact the signaller and see what's to be done about the issue, and doing some manual driving if necessary.

I still take the view that DOO is a blip, and GOO is the way forward long-term.

 

[Kneedown]

I think you're picking the wrong aspects there. The human brain is an utterly awful automaton. It's good at troubleshooting, though, and at dealing with the complex aspects of what people want and do.

But no two human brains are the same. It takes a particular kind of brain to be a good Driver, hence all the psychometric and other tests during selection.

Similarly, why have a person in the cab at the front of a train pulling and pushing a lever obeying posted speed limits and signals with nobody in the cabin.

Because, contrary to popular belief, there is more to driving a train than pushing and pulling a lever. It's about how, where and when you manipulate that lever, and by how much according to many variable conditions, both internal and external.

 

[edwin_m]

And also how you deal with incidents where pulling the lever doesn't do anything or could actually make things worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But no two human brains are the same. It takes a particular kind of brain to be a good Driver, hence all the psychometric and other tests during selection.

Agreed, some people make better automatons than others (that is more visible than anywhere on the roads). But no person makes a better automaton than, er, an automaton, provided it is properly coded.

 

[Kneedown]

Agreed, some people make better automatons than others (that is more visible than anywhere on the roads). But no person makes a better automaton than, er, an automaton, provided it is properly coded.

The thing is, the person doing the coding has to think of every possible scenario out there, frkm all different angles, and one thing i've learn't from 28yrs as a Driver is that there is always something you never expect.
As I said earlier, a computer can deal with what is happening (mostly) but it cannot percieve what is happening before something happens. A brain can. AI has a long way to go before automated trains on current, non self contained railways are feasible.

 

[philthetube]

The thing is, the person doing the coding has to think of every possible scenario out there, frkm all different angles, and one thing i've learn't from 28yrs as a Driver is that there is always something you never expect.
As I said earlier, a computer can deal with what is happening (mostly) but it cannot percieve what is happening before something happens. A brain can. AI has a long way to go before automated trains on current, non self contained railways are feasible.

It is interesting to stand at Finchley Rd. station and watch the Met and Jubilee line trains arrive on the south, the Met regularly arrive doing higher speeds because the Jub cannot work out track conditions and know if it is necessary to approach slowly.