Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjensen | Hacker News Reader

BART was originally designed to run without train drivers. That was rethought after the automation system launched the "Fremont Flyer" into a parking lot.

You really need drivers for safety reasons.

View on HN

My uncle worked for a large railroad in Chicago, in their switching office. "You need a train engineer because that means someone not in management or the switching office is the guy whose hands were physically on the machine right before poor Mrs. Milly died. There is no other purpose to have them on the train. People like to think that having eyes on the ground stops accidents, because they think eyes on the ground stops physics, but if you are on the train track and the engineer can see you then physics says you better get off the train track because neither the engineer nor anyone save God Himself will stop the train from reaching your current location."

The train engineer's job is to hit the start button when the switching office says to. It's drive-by-wire, and he's not only just a wire, he's statistically speaking the most bug prone wire on the train.

He also had some sharp words for management on the topic of encouraging engineers to think they were responsible for accidents, claiming that it caused preventable suicides after unpreventable ones.

> You really need drivers for safety reasons.

One incident does not a point prove. There are many completely unattended trains in operation, several of which are in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains

None of the systems listed are very complex. One or two lines, or a loop of track, with very few level-grade crossings. Most of the ones in the US are just airport shuttles. Sure, that's easy to do.

I wouldn't move the subway systems in New York City to UTO operation, though. Not a chance.

You may not but the NY MTA does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_New_York_City...

What's the difference between an automated train failing to stop at the end of a line in a system with 200 stations to an automated train failing to stop at the end of a line in a system with two stations?

Of course in the rest of the system if can be incredibly complex to ensure safety, but that's not where the accident you're relying on to make your case occurred.

It's already done. The docklands light railway in London is more complicated than the metro systems of most cities and it's been driverless since the 1980's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway#Map. On the other hand, it still has a staff member, 'Passsenger Service Agent', on every train to deal with customer service. They are also trained to drive the train at very low speed (I'm guessing <10mph) when the automation fails, which it does occasionally.

"Passenger Service Agents" are on some, not all trains. And on about a third of the trains they are on, they are manually operating the train at full speed (generally for "diagnostic" (read as sanctioned joyriding) purposes, I am informed by a friend at TFL).

So we're on the cusp of having driverless cars and driverless airplanes, but driverless trains are impossible?

I've ridden the driverless train systems in Singapore, Tokyo and Copenhagen and they're all great.

The DLR in London operates fine without drivers:

http://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-aro....

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com