French Train Engineering Giant Alstom Testing Automated Freight Train (bbc.com) 65
French train engineering giant Alstom is to test automated freight trains in the Netherlands this year. From a report: The automated train prototype can travel for about 100km (60 miles) without driver intervention. Automation will free the train driver to focus on supervising the train's progress. The test's purpose is to provide a live demonstration that the train and the signal system can communicate effectively to drive the train. Alstom signed an agreement with the the Dutch infrastructure operator ProRail and Rotterdam Rail Feeding (RRF) to carry out the tests along the Betuweroute -- a 150km double track freight railway line connecting Rotterdam to Germany.
About time (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:3)
Very cool (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are no self-driving cars deployed yet, only test vehicles and prototypes. That problem is not yet solved.
I would expect that the deployment of both automatic trains and aircrafts would beat the automobiles to automation as they pose simpler problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Self-driving trains have been in regular deployment for many years though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
True, but they're generally on a closed line with a central point of control and don't share rails with driver-operated trains who rely on signals
Automated trains will also have a central point of control and obey signals. You cannot have SD car type radar or visual scanning ahead because trains need to begin braking long before a previous train ahead becomes visible.
So it makes no difference, since train drivers normally act as automatons anyway. They obey signals (which come up inside the cabs of many modern trains on modern lines - even if lineside ones are still there for older trains), and if they don't the brakes will apply automatically anyw
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we do have sharks with laser beams [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Surely this is a solved problem?
You're talking about an industry that was (in some places) still using coal-fired steam engines until the 1980's. You have to adjust your perspective to match the train system's general antiquity.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to adjust your perspective to match the train system's general antiquity.
In many places this is not the case. Advanced rail in Europe and elsewhere has been around for quite some time. Freight locomotives may not have the cache that the Bullet Train has, but their current iterations are every bit as advanced.
Not so antiquated! (Score:3)
Have a look at Wikipedia’s article on rail transport [wikipedia.org]; particularly, in the “history” chapter, the parts about electric and diesel locomotives. It might sway your opinion a bit. There’s been plenty of innovation and research in the railway industry, and I find it rather interesting that its early adoption of the electric motor (beginning with the 1890 underground line in London) was largely spurred by environmental concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about an industry that was (in some places) still using coal-fired steam engines until the 1980's. You have to adjust your perspective to match the train system's general antiquity.
LoL, what country are you posting from? Sounds like either Mozambique or the USA - am I right?
lot's of manual switches on rail lines still (Score:2)
lot's of manual switches on rail lines still
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the majority of guys here are from the USA, where most railways technically are far behind the rest of the world. You can tell from some of their comments that many of them have very little idea about the working of modern railways.
Re: (Score:2)
By any metric you care to pull (cost per kmton etc), America's freight rail system is better than Europe's. In no small part because the entire system is optimized for freight.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a shit if it's electrified. Freight has one job, get shit somewhere for cheap. America's freight system does that better.
Trains exist to provide jobs (Score:1)
We've been through this three years ago [slashdot.org] (and earlier, but I can't find the links).
As everybody knows, trains' primary purpose is not to haul cargo or transport passengers, but to provide jobs [aar.org]. Not just the drivers (excuse me, engineers), but even the announcers (excuse me, conductors) can not be eliminated [nytimes.com].
Automating them will causes them to fail in that primary purpose and therefor can not done. From the Socialist scum [wsws.org] to the seemingly respectable Slashdotters [slashdot.org], everyone is against that... #ResistOrSometh
Re: (Score:2)
Archaic union contracts are the problem for public sector transit, and to a certain degree commuter rail, but not private sector freight.
For freight railways it's simple cost/benefit - while there's a lot of mainline track out there with the volumes that could justify automation, many of those trains end up in places where there's dark (unsignalled) territory, or track maintained to the bare minimum (15MPH or less speed limit) that sees one train a week, where having a pair of eyes to see a washout from 100
Re: (Score:1)
I'm afraid, you are overly optimistic [railroadwo...united.org]. Luddites, empowered by bundling together, have been holding humanity's progress for centuries. The most recent battle was against Uber et al (would somebody think of the taxi drivers!) may have been lost already, but new ones are ahead.
I'm not sure... But, perhaps more importantly,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
*as he looks fondly on a photograph of a '70 Super Bee."
https://cdn2.mecum.com/auction... [mecum.com]
Mark this down: Nobody reading this page today will live to see ubiquitous self-driving personal transportation in the United States. You think people get pissed when they think you're gonna take their guns? Wait until they try to take their steering wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
By then you'll have younger people discovering their dad's Fiat 500 Abarth or 15 year old 2015 Dodge Challenger R/T.
You'd really tell me that there are Americans who would rather have a self-driving golf cart than one of these babies?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g-ItxIk... [ytimg.com]
https://youtu.be/UQuviqXoPBM [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Mark this down: Nobody reading this page today will live to see ubiquitous self-driving personal transportation in the United States.
Just FYI - I'm not planning to die, so I'll eventually see this.
Surprising... (Score:2)
I'm finding it hard to believe that this technology has not been available for a long time. Of course the system requites installation of the signaling systems. Here in the United States, major freight carriers have chaffed at even installing modern safety systems (The more we learn about Amtrak derailment the stranger it gets [thehill.com]). But then again, those are "non-revenue generating" while this certainly has the potential. But also remember that unions have a say in manning. Again here in the US, unions fought t
Re:Surprising... (Score:4, Informative)
At the commuter train/LRT level, there are many systems that are completely automated - no drivers at all. Granted, the switching isn't too complex, but they can be commanded to switch tracks and manage themselves with supervision done at a central control station.
Operating at the full size train level is only a slightly more complex problem, mostly because now the tracks are owned by many people and you really need to get them all to install a common communication an d signalling system. (Right now trains can be monitored remotely).
The problem with Amtrak is also been solved - the technology has long existed and it's nowadays called Positive Control. The train will periodically beep and the driver has to hit a button. If the driver fails to hit the button, the train is brought to a stop automatically. This helps catch distracted and sleepy drivers.
Even speed limit enforcement has been automated away - if the train is coming too fast for the speed limit, the train automatically slows down. The unions generally hate this as it reduces the driver to a monkey. OTOH, the safety record of these systems is quite stellar, and most rail lines only experience it once before the system is rolled out on all the rolling stock.
Though, the Shinkasen drivers of Japan, where they not only have these systems in place but also very rigorous protocols and how they act (they lift their arms up as if to salute, then point at the control they are going to adjust, then adjust it - it looks like part of a military march) don't seem to be monkeying around, but seem to be very professional about it. Even though there is speed limit enforcement, they still can control the speed of the train, and still can get the train to be within a minute of the stated arrival time, even if weather conditions make it so the train has to slow down (it snows in Japan, too, and the trains have to operate in it at reduced speeds).
Re: (Score:2)
Its actually the signals they are pointing at. They must point at every signal they see so that the other person in the cab with them knows they are paying attention to the signage. They might point at the controls too, but that seems a bit overboard frankly. Yes, they are highly disciplined.
Re: (Score:2)
At the commuter train/LRT level, there are many systems that are completely automated - no drivers at all. Granted, the switching isn't too complex, but they can be commanded to switch tracks and manage themselves with supervision done at a central control station.
A lot of these systems, the Vancouver Skytrain being the example I'm most familiar with, are more akin to full size model train sets. Yes, the trains have a certain level of autonomy, but they're still controlled and supervised from a central control centre. The autonomy is mostly ensuring they keep the specified distance from the train ahead of them, and get the heartbeat from the control centre.
Even speed limit enforcement has been automated away - if the train is coming too fast for the speed limit, the train automatically slows down. The unions generally hate this as it reduces the driver to a monkey. OTOH, the safety record of these systems is quite stellar, and most rail lines only experience it once before the system is rolled out on all the rolling stock.
Positive Train Control, which is what you're describing, has been proposed for close to a decade now, but still
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I recall talking to a retired mechanical engineer who could not stop complaining about the unions. One example he gave was of an automated system to start the train engines. One might think that turning on a train engine isn't more complicated than starting a car but that's because we've automated starting cars for a long time. Apparently it takes quite a few steps to start a train and because of this the union got it as part of their contracts that all engineers would be paid for this time.
The time to s
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of class 1 railroads are now using remote starters for their engines so they can leave them sitting without having the idle the whole time.
Re: (Score:2)
I've often wondered how much diesel they idle away doing this?
Likely negligible amounts compared to what is consumed when there's actually some load on the engine.
Supervise progress? (Score:3)
Automation will free the train driver to focus on supervising the train's progress.
I've already done that job. Decades ago, I took a ride on a TGV. I was sitting there sipping refreshments and thinking "Are we really going as fast as they say? It sure doesn't feel like it at all". So I looked out the window at the km markers and timed it with my wristwatch. Sure enough, we really were going that fast. I was also monitoring our progress on my paper map.
The thing is, that wasn't a paying position. In fact, I had to pay them a pretty penny for the privilege to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think they're steering most of the time. Avoiding moose and cows and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Rio Tinto is doing this already in Australia (Score:1)
Rio Tinto has been working on this on their railroad serving their mines in Australia. They've already run some very long and heavy trains automatically.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing that makes you think this is rife for automation is also the reason why it has nothing at all to do with cars in the slightest (actually it more to do with batch chemical manufacturing).
The stellar record without autopilot is also why there's little reward for implementing such systems and makes it pointless to prioritise trains over cars instead of working on both side by side or rather actually focusing on the car problem first.
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing that makes you think this is rife for automation is also the reason why it has nothing at all to do with cars in the slightest (actually it more to do with batch chemical manufacturing).
Trains and cars have many of the same problems, like braking for obstacles and managing speed for turns. They lack one obvious similarity, of course.
The stellar record without autopilot is also why there's little reward for implementing such systems and makes it pointless to prioritise trains over cars instead of working on both side by side or rather actually focusing on the car problem first.
The reason why you don't automate the trains isn't the safety record, it's the ratio of crew to passengers. Since there are many passengers for each crew member, they already make sense. When you get down around buses or cars, there are massive economic gains to be made by eliminating the driver.
What's being lost in this argument is that cars are stupid and the
Re: (Score:2)
Trains and cars have many of the same problems, like braking for obstacles and managing speed for turns. They lack one obvious similarity, of course.
No they really couldn't be more different. You're either way overcomplicating train automation or way simplifying car automation. There's a reason why traditional train automation is handled by basic industrial PLCs while car automation is a box full of computers processing the whazoo out of vision and radar sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but automating any long-stretch transportation systems does have quite a few aspects in common
Actually it has very few. The only thing they have in common is going from a to be. You can consider trains over constrained versions of cars, but when you put enough constraints on any problem it gets broken down to a simple yes / no type logic. It's this massive simplification that allows automated trains and metros to run on simple industrial PLCs whereas a car has a boot full of GPUs doing real time vision analysis.
Incidentally this is also the reason why train drivers are at constant risk of falling as
Re: (Score:2)