I always wondered why it seems we've get automated trucks pretty soon everywhere, but there is almost no one talking about self driving trains?
You'd probably be able to run more smaller trains with automation, but competing with trucks is tough, because the efficiency gains associated with getting rid of people and adding automation are blown away by the need to cross-dock and do the last mile via local truck.
If anyone else is - turns out, there's a wikipedia page which has more information on very long trains (it's true):
The cost savings from getting rid of a train driver aren’t nearly as great either since the driver:passenger ratio is different between car and train.
A handy map of projects worldwide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_con...
A little story about the MTA's experience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMT_Canarsie_Line#Automation_a...
The consequences of individual crashes is also higher, which changes the perception and consequences of mistakes, even if the number of trucks means the actual scale of the problem might be similar.
Arguable a mechanical interlocking also counts, as it prevented unsafe routes being set for a train, and made it faster to set the intended route: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking
A freight train labour cost is much smaller comparing to trucking.
> Under RSIA08, PTC is required on about 60,000 miles of railroad track. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) estimates full PTC implementation will cost approximately $14 billion. [1]
I understand that everything looks simple from the outside, and these have to be rugged, reliable, redundant, and failsafe, but that’s a lot of dollars per mile for sensors.
> PTC uses signals and sensors along the track to communicate train location, speed restrictions, and moving authority. If the locomotive is violating a speed restriction or moving authority, on- board equipment will automatically slow or stop the train. A more expansive version of PTC, called communications-based train control (CBTC), would bring additional safety benefits plus business benefits for railroad operators, such as increased capacity and reduced fuel consumption. However, CBTC is not currently being installed by any U.S. railroad, due to the additional cost and the challenge of meeting implementation deadlines.
So we’re talking about basically AEB (automatic emergency braking) for trains, and it costs $200k per mile to deploy? I don’t get it.
> Based on analysis of past PTC-preventable incidents, the FRA estimated in 2009 that $90 million in annual safety benefits will be realized after full implementation of PTC.
Oh good, breakeven without accounting for any time value of money in only 155 years. The only word that comes to mind is boondoggle.
How far ahead does AEB look? Because trains take miles to stop. The system is different to account for that.
The two dimensions being track offset (distance from start of line), and time.
This isn’t even obstacle detection. This is a) obeying the speed limit, and b) not asking two known entities to occupy the same length of track at the same time.
It does not, for example, detect a car stuck on the tracks at the next railroad crossing.
I'm going to bet for both safety and employment, trains and transport ships are orders of magnitude more efficient already. Trucks are a pretty big source of human inefficiency.