I saw the Mayday episode of that one, Norman. Lack of seat of the pants flying skills was indeed identified as the problem. Any rookie pilot trained in the old days would have been able to recognize a stall by feel and sensation and take corrective action.
I happened to be reading that transcript just a few nights ago. It’s prime evidence of what can go wrong on a modern airliner when it’s suddenly the pilots and their skill and judgement that has to handle the plane instead of relying on the avionics to automatically fly the plane. They were completely lost and befuddled the moment they weren’t getting accurate air speed and even when that problem shortly afterwards resolved itself when ice cleared off the sensor, their inability to understand the situation resulted in them crashing a fully operational airliner into the ocean still not understanding what they were doing wrong.
I’d love to know why the individual that was in control most of that time kept insisting on trying to climb that day, bleeding off air speed. And the whole crew ignoring stall warnings for a couple of minutes until they finally hit the ocean with the same guy still pulling back on the stick right until the end despite not having control of the plane at that point.
And what’s amazing is that there are
Happens more than you think. But the news doesn’t usually report “Today a train didn’t hit a car!”
To test whether or not your system would work in the real world, introduce a cat into your running layout.
Driverless trucks rolling down the highway are probably 50 years off, at least, and even then the economics may not make them viable. Sure, you would save the expense of having drivers, but there’s also a cost to having much more sophisticated technology. At present some carriers are even balking at switching to automated transmissions as they are $2500.00 to $4000.00 per copy more expensive than your basic manual transmission. And have you ever heard of a manual transmission breaking down? The simple manual gearbox is probably one of the most reliable components in a truck. Same can’t be said for the computerized automated gearbox.
The Railroad industries insurance carriers would not agree with you that grade crossings are moot.
If you re-read my post I clearly stated that fully automated railroad operations are not only technically possible but have existed in some places for decades (mainly isolated heavy haul (ore,coal) operations and on some transit systems). The liability issue is real and can’t be dismissed by a hand wave.
I do have a feeling the coming of Positive Train Control systems may lead to one man operations sooner rather than later on many lines. Some of the professional railroaders on these forums have explained why that may not be such a great thing…
One person crews took a hit with the Lac Megantic accident. Many are wondering if two people on board would have prevented this. Maybe not, but it has opened up the debate.
An automated train with no crew would not have caused an accident like this, because it would not have to be parked overnight… Just keep on running.
ROAR
“Duel” (1971), directed by Steven Spielberg: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/
See the “Goofs” webpage there for several interesting railroad-related items from the grade crossing scene.
- Paul North.
Use your imagination a bit. What makes you think that just because a train is automated that it would never runaway, never spend time parked out on the line or in a siding, etc?
Like people keep telling you with your proof of concept model railroad in your bedroom, introduce some variables into the system and watch your model railroad fail to react to those conditions.
That’s the value of the human element and why automated systems largely have only existed in closed systems so far like a subway, a coal mine to power plant line without grade crossings and with identically sized trains, etc. Where there are lots of variables, the human operator remains very valuable and will be for decades to come.
Concerning the one NYC Subway line that is automated. My impression was that there remains a “motorman” in the cab and he closes the doors at each station, and is there for any emergency, including taking the appropriate action if notified by a passenger on the emergeny intercom. I also believe that the operators on the “L” are required to know how to bypass the automation and run the train manually.
The problem with “driverless” is the weather. Under fair weather conditions, a driverless vehicle should be able to equal a driver for trip time. But, what happens in foul weather? Does the driverless vehicle have to assume “worst case”? Would the vehicle have to have some system to test available adhesion on a continuous basis? Could it “see” black ice ahead? Ice under an underpass? Water laying in the grooves in the road? Would it know about leaves on the road? Recently wet and very slippery intersections after a long dry spell?
The first step for “driverless” would be as non-failsafe safety backstop, applying the brakes for you, if you fail to, warning about speed, following distances, etc. We are starting to see some of this stuff in production vehicles. But, the last problem to be solved would be the variable right of way conditions, mostly due to weather.
What you say, is of course true. But giving the train over to automation makes it safer, not less safe. In the Lac Megantic example, the train was shut down for the night. An automated train would not be shut down, even if it were held on a siding, as it would have to be, it would still be fully powered up and have plenty of air to maintain the brakes.
Yes, of course the (L) train has a crewman, yes he must operate the train from time to time, especially in the yards.
Right, because locomotives never experience problems and shut down.
As an example of automated transit applications, consider the many airport shuttles all over the world. They have superb safety records, are unmanned and very reliable, but in a very limited closed circuit. As technology improves, it seems inevitable that automated rail transit will come next, followed by automation of certain terminal to terminal freight trains, such as coal mine to utility and some solid consist container trains. But the day that happens may be quite far in the future. The key factor swill be determined by accountants.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that the future is seldom as far away as the doubters think.
In one person’s lifetime we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon. Orville Wright lived to see the dawn of jet powered aircraft.
Two person crews will be the norm for quite some time. Automating trains is very much along the lines of solving a problem that doesn’t exist.
On the other hand… it took Mankind hundreds of thousands of years to go from grunting in the woods to inventing the wheel…
Back in the 50s the experts said we’d all have flying cars by 1980. I’m still waiting for mine.
Progress doesn’t happen at a uniform rate. We’ll have a lot of progress and change, and then we’ll see stagnation for decades or even centuries. Look at space exploration. We really haven’t advanced that much in 40 years. We should have colonies on the moon by now and we should have put people on Mars by now. But progress has slowed and it might be a while yet before we even send someone to the moon again.
There have been several flying cars built. They are just not feasible in the transportation infrastructure. There are many small personal aircraft.
25 years ago a cell phone was a large device with a telephone handset attached by a coiled chord and only worked in large cities.
NASA has not stagnated, they have changed their focus. They are maintaining an orbiting space station, and sending ever more sophisticated probes to explore the entire solar system. Bases on other bodies are not yet logistically feasible. Low Earth orbit missions are being privatized.
Compare a 2014 automobile to a 1980 automobile or a 1960 automobile. Check out the Tesla…
The future is probably closer than you think.
Automated trucks and cars are much farther in the future than trains because the latter is in a more restricted access, nearly closed system.
Our resident accountancy-oriented regulars such as Sam1 could speak better to this, but it seems the railroads will decide to move to a partially automated system on PTC lines if the additional investment needed was less over a given period of time (20 years) than the savings in labor costs and savings from not having to stop for crew changes. There may well be other savings and the incremental cost of full automation may be astronomical, but all those dollars and cents factors will be the determining ones.
In the case of Amtrak, the largest component of operating expenses is labor. As a percentage, it is less for freight rails, but the numbers are huge. If the numbers are crunched and a realistic number for automation is calculated, it is likely the long-term ROI would be such to justify doing so. If not, or if the pay back period were too lengthy, then it will not be undertaken. Resistance to even considering automation sounds like the resistance to dieselization or elimination of cabooses or elimination of firemen on diesel locomotives.