I would think that technology would be less of an impediment to self-driving trains than to highway vehicles. Trains already have their own mechanical guidance system and PTC takes a big step toward the technology to control self-diving trains.
This biggest impediment to self-driving trains will be the labor unions and their interest in railroad employee job security. They will argue that self-driving trains are unsafe and endanger the public. But at the same time, self-driving cars are being promoted by the claim that they will make driving much safer. That same view could be applied to self-driving trains.
So with self-driving cars, trucks, and trains, replacing an imperfect human operator with an infallible machine will be the promotion thrust. Technology will be the only limitation and it will apply mostly to road vehicles, and hardly at all to trains.
I think the railroad industry will enthusiastically welcome self-driving trains because it will save money, and they are already getting half the concept foisted on them in the form of PTC. Self-driving trains can also be blended into human operation train traffic, so there is no need for a national system conversion as is the case with ECP brakes, for instance.
More likelty the unions have PR spinmeisters who figured that saying it won’t happen because of [flaws, IT limitations, etc.] plays better than saying because we don’t want to lose dues.
Well psychologically you have to ask yourself which type of accident is more excusible by society. Human error or automated computer error. I would definitely argue the former as society seems to think computers should be less error prone than humans, especially if it is safety related.
Regarding the union argument that the recent test is not real world conditions: That’s right, it’s not. But one test will lead to another, and eventually, the tests will be with real world conditions. Testing always begins with just limited examples of the intended full application. Test data is gathered and analyzed. Design is improved, and then retested. Eventually it is deemed ready to be put to work and still the testing and revisions continue. So, I don’t think the unions’ argument that self-driving trains are not possible will prevent them from happening.
The only argument that the unions have is that self-driving trains will compromise safety. But that is going come right up against the counterargument that self-driving trains will be safer because they will eliminate human error. In this sense, self-driving trains are just like PTC, and nobody is arguing that PTC will compromise safety.
It really boils down to economics. Labor represents a relatively small portion (compared to most other industries) of overall spend. Why fix what ain’t broken? Two people on a ten thousand foot long train sounds pretty economical to me. Sure… cut that back to one where feasible… but we’re pointlessly bumping up against the law of diminishing returns when limited cerebral resources would be better deployed elsewhere (such as increasing that all important top line through greater sales)…
The way I interpreted the remarks is that the Union was saying the technology is not ready today at this moment, I don’t think they said it would never be ready…at least I did not read that in their comments.
I work with PTC every time I go to work on a train. EMS almost every time, much of our fleet is equipped with integrated PTC/EMS.
I’m sure the railroad bean counters would employe autonomous systems today, proven or not. All they see is (what they think will be) cost savings. The reality of it is that while the technology is good, it’s not there yet. There are a lot of failures of both PTC and EMS. Sometimes it is a minor issue, sometimes a major issue where trains have to run with out using them. (My train today, the PTC wouldn’t pass a departure test. That is, it wouldn’t make a penalty brake application during the test. I don’t know how it left it’s originating terminal in that condition. Even though the law doesn’t require a PTC equipped leader yet, our rules have progressed to that point on my territory. Someone’s using a very broad definition of ‘enroute failure’. I was able to log into the EMS -Trip Optimizer- but it never became active.)
The EMS auto throttle works fairly well much of the time. LEADER has improved, but from what I hear it doesn’t save as much fuel as was originally promised. Trip Optimizer has been reprogrammed
Jeff, do you have any idea as to how much disemploying (yes, another way of saying “firing”) the utility mechancal department trouble shooter has cost over the cost of continuing to use his services?
Around here the garbage is picked-up by a truck with semi-automated ‘arms’ that reach out, grab the can, lift it up and dump it, then return it. Called a ‘Toter’ system - trade name. Everyone has to have a standardized can. Only 1 man on the truck - the driver/ operator, so no more need for the ‘runner’ on the ground. Saves quite a bit on worker’s comp claims, I’m told. Easier to find people to drive/ operate the truck than be the runner. Safer in winter conditions or when it’s still dark, too. And definitely cheaper when the cost of the cans and the specialized truck is spread out over 5 years.
I live in a small hamlet - your choice is to hire a garbage pickup firm or take it to the town transfer site (in special bags). I hire a firm.
Once a week the truck comes by and dumps my container - there’s a spot to lift and dump it, but a human has to put the container in the right spot for the lift.
Some weeks, there’s two guys on the truck - one drives, the other handles the containers. Other weeks, the driver dismounts and handles the containers himself.
I couldn’t say. I do know that wait times for help to arrive have doubled or tripled, depending on where the help has to come out of. I like to read our company’s recrew report. It’s prepared in the dispatcher’s offices. It gives the reasons, more or less, why a train had to be recrewed. One time two or three trains had to be recrewed, the first had the problem, the others were trapped behind it. The first train broke down with a mechanical issue, I don’t remember what the problem was. The location was near where the utility mechanical position had recently been eliminated. The nearest available was now two or three hours away. The entry for this recrew emphasized that fact.
I wonder if anyone has gone beyond looking at the fuel savings on individual trains for Trip Optimizer and other systems. Fuel can be saved by running slow but what does that do to the overall velocity of the railroad. I’ve been in situations where a slow train ahead will have several following trains running on restrictive signals. Trip Optimizer would not even let the train run at maximum authorized speed going down grade.
We have a feedback computer form to fill out for both PTC and EMS. It’s required for reporting any problems, but optional otherwise. I always fill it out, problem or no.
The other day I wrote on it about Trip Optimizer’s normal slow operation. I stated, “Saving fuel by lowering velocity.”
When they started implementing this PSR crap around here, it was all about speed. All fuel conservation measures were off - and engineers were expected to maintain track speed.
Then they must have gotten the fuel bill.
Just like that, they pulled a 180, and re-issued horsepower per ton and throttle notch restrictions. They can’t make up their minds anymore.
A number of years ago - CSX limited coal trains to 40 MPH PERIOD. Atlanta Division leadership chaffed at the limitation between Atlanta and Waycross and prevailed to get a measured test performed. Identically sized trains with identical class power were operated from Atlanta to Waycross - one observing the 40 MPH max speed and one observing a 50 MPH max speed. Fuel situation was measured both at the start in Atlanta and upon arrival in Waycross.
The 50 MPH train used 150 gallons per unit less fuel.
The general geography between Atlanta is a series of rolling hills. The 50 MPH train was able to make use of the kinetic energy of the down grade train to assist it up the next grade. The 40 MPH train had to brake to hold it’s speed in check and thus dissipated the kinetic engergy potential of the train. At 50 MPH that kinetic energy potential could be utilized and fuel saved.