There's no good reason to automate trains right now, aside for the sake of automating them. It would take a lot of cash to accomplish and it would put us exactly where we are now.
Fairly good reasons for passenger transport, actually. Transport authorities are reporting safer and smoother (which directly translates to "cheaper", both in power savings from optimal profile and in fewer scheduling delays) operation. For heavy cargo without a highly regular, high turnaround schedule, not so much: too many potential operating profiles.
Here's a reason: If trains were automated, low-demand lines with long headway (i.e. 2 hours and more) could be serviced more frequently (with proportionally shorter trains) with about the same amount of fuel usage. A shorter headway will make the line more attractive and increase passenger numbers.
Right, but it could cost 100's of millions of dollars to support that. You might need to buy new train engines. You might need to add more signalling, or upgrade existing signalling. You might need to build bridges over/tunnel under the tracks to avoid crossings with roads. Your staff need to be retrained or you need to bring in new people to support the new system.
All of that work to support a small rail line? It might never pay off.
1. There are plenty existing train systems where large trains are formed by coupling together multiple small trains that all have their own engines. That way, train lengths can be varied to optimize for demand. This wouldn't be happening if it were prohibitively expensive.
2. Why would you need to avoid crossings with roads just because it's autonomous? Trains use signals that only turn green when the section ahead is clear of other trains or vehicles. It's not like train conductors check road crossings by sight to decide whether to drive or brake.
reply