There are fairly automated trains but only in very controlled and low-speed environments. (e.g. "people movers" at airports).
But, to the broader point, I can't help but feel that a lot of people are conflating "able to tool down 280 with a human on board who is fully capable of taking over control--albeit not instantaneously" (or a next gen cruise control, if you would) with "a robot chauffeur who can drop the kids off at soccer practice." The second problem--which includes dealing with all the unpredictable things that happen on secondary roads--would seem to be enormously more difficult than the first.
But by and far the majority of trains are still human operated. Even though the traffic rules are very straight forward ("get out of my way, or...") and the guidance systems, robotics, CC surveillance, scheduling and logistics are 99% there in (for example) major parts of continental Europe.
So why are train services in Germany, Netherlands, France frequently canceled for lack of train drivers? I honoustly don't know the answer but I wager that return on investment plays a significant role. And I think the self-driving car rationale isn't all that different, except for the easy venture billions of the last decade(s).
They don't always. There are self-driving trains operating full time in London and Paris as well as many other cities around the world. But they are low-speed trains operating at only around 30mph. High-speed trains run in excess of 180mph and heavy goods trains are often a mile long and weigh more than 10,000 tons. While much of the signalling is automatic these days, I think it will be a long time before we could think about running something so dangerous without a skilled human in the front ready to override the controls if necessary.
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.
Given that trains require far less cognitive load to operate than a tractor trailer (sorry engineers!), and yet still require humans to operate.. I wonder if ever?
I'm actually curious why trains haven't been automated at this point (in the US at least). It seems like an ideal first step (no navigational issues, retrofit some collision avoidance mechanisms, remote control, etc, and you are up and running).
There are fully automated trains. However full automation requires not just a capable "train cockpit" but also a capable signal system (with supporting auxiliary systems). Introducing the latter is, as far as I can tell, the hard/expensive part.
As a note, not all trains have fixed speeds or fixed stops. As an example some signal systems may allow a train to enter a section where another train is already present if the driver drives slow enough to be able to stop before colliding.
All the more reason to automate operation of trains. If it is almost possible with cars (meaning, is possible in some cases, like Google's cars), surely it is possible with the many fewer degrees of freedom a train has.
Possibly late here, but why aren't more / all trains automated? The route is static; Speed should be easy to determine; AFAIK they aren't mechanically unreliable enough to warrant a full-time mechanic on-board; LIDAR and image recognition can detect hazards on the track.
It seems silly that there have been such strides in automating automobiles before trains.
In principle, railways would not be difficult to automate. But it hasn't happened at scale yet because industry regulations require that trains be manned, and railroad unions would strenuously object to any suggestion that this be changed (since it would likely put a lot of conductors out of their jobs).
Of course we can automate trains. I'm working in a research project doing that right now on a rail track between the Netherlands and Germany. It's quite a bit of work but I don't see any fundamental issues.
pfft, we’ve had self driving trains for more then half a century. What you are describing is basically that with more fancy sensors instead of the rails, and perhaps the rails are probably a superior guidance technology in most of these cases anyway... unless the purpose is to impress rather then to automate.
One of my friends is a train engineer. I can tell you that it's ABSURD how little automation is used in many train systems, and it's definitely not because of a lack of technology.
To give an example, my friend has to memorize the required speeds for each different section and turn in every train he runs, and has to manually adjust the train's speed accordingly.
Literally all of that can and should be done automatically, but the industry hasn't caught up with what is technologically possible.
You need to ask yourself exactly why it's not happening. It's not because it isn't possible, or because humans are better at operating trains. There's simply a lot of opposition to such ideas, and a lot of entrenched interests with political power that keep machines at bay - for now.
I think autonomous trains per-se could work, but even then it would be worthwhile to employ the 1 driver that would even just sit there, as lives of 100s of people are at stake.
There are always "exceptions" to a ride, where a human driver / operator would help, such as a person hitting the emergency button because of a medical condition, violence at the carriage, someone's hand got stuck between the doors etc.
What should actually be is not autonomous trains as we envision autonomous cars, but rather sophisticated signalling and emergency braking automation.
In this day and age, I can't see how come a train is allowed to drive past a red light, depart a stop without supervisor permission or scheduled departure, exceed allowed speed etc.
These are very simple things infrastructure can enforce and I don't understand how come it has not been done yet.
I guess it has been done in some train networks. My personal familiarity is with the Melbourne (Australia) train network, and it's very old and untypical to a relatively modern western city.
The control of the train itself is easy. Simulations abound for this purpose. The GE's and Siemons of this world wouldn't hesitate to implement them if there weren't other significant rail context specific issues, such as the human environment comment above. The difference is that it's not a human vs human driver problem but a schedule design and human making bad scheduling decisions now that the trains are running late, implementation problem.
Furthermore, train drivers are cheap (compared with other infrastructure investments) and relatively efficient as they can be skilfully taught to drive according to a plan (compared with your fellow road commuters). Without other investments to tell the driver or the computer that they can drive faster/closer to the train in front at most railways are only likely to see efficiency gains (lower power/diesel usage) but struggle to drive those trains to denser schedules. It will happen for non-capacity reasons such as inter network usage, and safety to prevent trains from speeding around curves and falling off.
I guess that Train technology is old enough that regulations about drivers, signals, and safety surely assume that there is a phisical person in charge of driving.
Maybe the first step towards automation is beign able to drive the train remotely. Technically feasible; but is it legally feasible?
That's a good point. When you have full control of design from the ground up it is reasonable to automate. I meant trains on existing complex tracks that were not designed from the ground up for automation. There are not trains navigating legacy systems, because that requires more uncertainty handling than our current automation is capable of. When the track and switching system and track vicinity are all controlled and designed for automation then it is a significantly less complex problem with respect to automation.
But, to the broader point, I can't help but feel that a lot of people are conflating "able to tool down 280 with a human on board who is fully capable of taking over control--albeit not instantaneously" (or a next gen cruise control, if you would) with "a robot chauffeur who can drop the kids off at soccer practice." The second problem--which includes dealing with all the unpredictable things that happen on secondary roads--would seem to be enormously more difficult than the first.
reply