Trains are a completely different beast: they can't stop in line-of-sight so the complexities are mostly in engineering a safe (and failsafe) path for the train, rather than the driver watching for obstacles. There are self-driving systems, but they look quite different from self-driving cars and likely have zero AI.
Fascinating article, thanks! It didn't touch on why people want driverless trains. Personally, and I'm not a train engineer, but I think driverless trains would let them run trains every 15 minutes at all times of the day, not just rush hour.
There are advantages in things like braking consistency that will let you pack more trains per hour down a tunnel with automated systems. London's underground rail network increasingly has this kind of automation, where the driver presses a 'go' button and the train takes itself to the next stop, in the key bits under the city centre. It has a fairly high capital cost, though, and doesn't save you the driver, as the LonRec article shows.
The main people who want fully driverless systems are politicians who hope that no drivers == no strikes and lower salaries. Though honestly that would just move the labour power to the control room operators, even if there were a good financial case for the upgrade (which there isn't).
Buses, on the other hand, maybe.
reply