Ask HN: Why isn't literally every train automated?

Here are some ideas from the top of my head:<p>* Many trains are old (at least in the UK), and tend to be very slowly upgraded, so the trains on the network were built before it was considered practical to automate them.<p>* Signalling systems are old, UK example: the warning system (AWS) is built on electromagnets, clever and cheap, but not enough for automation.<p>* While it&#x27;s possible to design a system that works well for a normal journey if nothing goes wrong, when things do go wrong you&#x27;d need a person (for example, I once was on a train and a door was stuck, the driver got out and fixed it so we could get off), also what about level crossings?<p>* Once you&#x27;re paying someone as a failsafe, then they already know how to drive the train, then the extra automation is just extra cost, except when the railway is busy (so London Underground has partial automation, as cost of driver + automation is worth it to run all the extra trains).<p>* Places with automated systems tend to be isolated (see the DLR, it&#x27;s isolated from mainline trains, and also has no level crossings).<p>* Maybe a way to keep people to blame if things go wrong, if an automated train goes wrong, who is to blame?<p>* Who in their right mind would want to lose their job? From what I understand people enjoy it, and it pays well, and it&#x27;s not exactly a skill that can be transferred (while in an ideal world someone could get another decent job, the fact is we&#x27;re not in an ideal world, so if someone loses their job they&#x27;re going to have a hard time and not have a way to magically get something new, unless they&#x27;re lucky).

In some places (eg. London), automation is totally possible, but is resisted so hard by workers unions that all other workers on the railway would go on strike until the train operator promised to rip out automated systems and return to manual operation.<p>On some lines, all the driver does is open and close the doors. Even getting to that level of automation caused lots of strikes.

How much savings would you expect from this? And whose job should be automated? If you think about replacing one driver per train then probably the cost of automation is higher than his salary. Instead of paying one man a salary you would be forced to pay a maintenance contract to some IT&#x2F;automation company that would charge you exorbitant rates just because this is industrial automation and you have no idea how to operate it.

Numbered pages 3, 9, and 10 of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fas.org&#x2F;sgp&#x2F;crs&#x2F;misc&#x2F;R42637.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fas.org&#x2F;sgp&#x2F;crs&#x2F;misc&#x2F;R42637.pdf</a> have some info on why even positive train control (PTC) isn’t live yet:<p>&gt; The estimated capital cost of meeting the PTC mandate is thus roughly equal to the railroads’ total capital spending in a single year.”<p>… and that’s for PTC, not driverless. Successful PTC is arguably a precursor to anything more automated, with or without humans.

The Lille (north of France) metro&#x2F;subway&#x2F;underground is totally automated - there aren&#x27;t even any drivers for safety reasons. I haven&#x27;t heard of any major issues and from using it personally it&#x27;s always been flawless.

The Copenhagen metro is fully automated, but it was built like that from the start. This means that there&#x27;s no metro driver unions, and the metro stations were built in a way, where it&#x27;s generally hard to get unto the tracks. It did have some issues to begin with, but it works flawlessly today.

Somewhat unrelated but I have wondered why people are assuming the first use of automated vehicles will be for personal transport on a public road.<p>It seems a lot simpler to have a part of the road network dedicated to fully automated vehicles. And instead of immediately transporting people (which carries a high risk) it seems a lot more sensible to initially focus on the transport of goods.<p>The initial set up would be quite expensive, but once you no longer need to worry about human drivers and don&#x27;t need to worry overly about a million to 1 chance for things to go wrong, you should be able to use the road a lot more efficiently.

In the US, most of the train technology is old and not cross compatible, making each installation difficult and expensive. Looking at the NY metro area trains and driveways, there are frequent mechanical issues, both on the trains themselves and on the train instructions such as switch problems, sometimes necessitating reversing back a few stations in order to switch tracks.

Cars can stop much more easily than trains. Trains can take <i>one or two miles</i> to stop. That&#x27;s hard to do with LIDAR.<p>There have been failures of automation. BART was fully automated. Then one train misread a speed command from a trackside gadget, and sped up to over 60 MPH when it was supposed to be slowing down to 20 to prepare to stop at a station. Unfortunately, the station was the end of the line (Fremont), and the train ran off the end into the parking lot.<p>On the other hand, that was in the 1970s. Some new systems have been fully automated. The Las Vegas Monorail is fully automated. At the end of the line, it asks you to exit, but there&#x27;s nobody there to make you, so I didn&#x27;t. Then it runs out on this dead end to switch over to the other line, where it will fall off 20 or 30 feet if it doesn&#x27;t stop in time. It&#x27;s a bit scary, but it worked...

Likely unions or insurance reasons.<p>I’ve heard similar things about airplane pilots.

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.<p>Maybe the first step towards automation is beign able to drive the train remotely. Technically feasible; but is it legally feasible?

Some airports have automated, unmanned trains or trams that take passengers from terminal to terminal within the airport.<p>The example is illustrative because those are usually either elevated or underground, with virtually no possibility of people being on the tracks, and no crossings with other traffic.

it is very cheap! how many people do you need to operate a train ? 2,3 ? compare to the scale of train it is very cheap!!!

The Skytrain system in Vancouver is fully automated and works well.<p>Only time I saw a driver was when we had a lot of snow last year. He was there for safety since Vancouver isn&#x27;t so ready for snow.

On some lines where the train is automated, the metro operator still keeps someone on the train who has training for an emergency situation, I.e. Evacuating passengers.<p>So the saving is their salary compared to the train driver&#x27;s salary.<p>On big trains, we expect the driver to spot dangers like landslides, fallen trees. These happen extremely rarely, so the driver would be bored and lose concentration without having to drive the train -- within the strict parameters set by the computer, on the most modern high speed lines.

Specifically for the London Underground there&#x27;s a lot of union opposition. Some lines have mostly-automatic operation (everything except opening&#x2F;closing the doors) and keep a driver around for safety reasons.

Watch tram crash compilation for hazards where LIDAR and image recognition might not be adequate. Note the might.

Normal people don&#x27;t want automation...

I&#x27;ll go for the low hanging fruit - unions?

There was a thread about it on reddit, please go and find it. The trains do not need LIDAR or image recognition. Going in straight line on rails is simple. You don&#x27;t need to even brake (useless, stopping distance is way too big). What happens in stations and what preparations are done, that cannot (e.g. cost efficiently) be automated. Metro on other hand is mostly automated (see Europe)