Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Transportation Australia

Australian Autonomous Train is Being Called The 'World's Largest Robot' (sciencealert.com) 135

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
schwit1 shares a report: Mining corporation Rio Tinto says that an autonomous rail system called AutoHaul that it's been developing in the remote Pilbara region of Australia for several years is now entirely operational -- an accomplishment the company says makes the system the "world's largest robot." "It's been a challenging journey to automate a rail network of this size and scale in a remote location like the Pilbara," Rio Tinto's managing director Ivan Vella told the Sydney Morning Herald, "but early results indicate significant potential to improve productivity, providing increased system flexibility and reducing bottlenecks." The ore-hauling train is just one part of an ambitious automation project involving robotics and driverless vehicles that Rio Tinto wants to use to automate its mining operations. The company conducted its first test of the train without a human on board last year, and it now claims that the system has completed more than a million kilometers (620,000 miles) of autonomous travel.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Autonomous Train is Being Called The 'World's Largest Robot' More

Australian Autonomous Train is Being Called The 'World's Largest Robot'

Comments Filter:

  • Mining corporation Rio Tinto says that an autonomous rail system called AutoHaul that it's been developing in the remote Pilbara region of Australia for several years is now entirely operational.

    And it has a built-in autonomous washing system called AutoWash, though the engineers refer to it as "Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina-Tchaï Ekbat De Sebat" for some reason.

  • Why is biggest interesting? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'd be more impressed if it was the smartest. But that's probably harder to prove.

    And it's a train, right? On rails? So it does't even have to steer. Just start and stop and the right places.

  • "challenging"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @01:20PM (#57888848)
    What the hell is so challenging about automating trains? I can't believe train conductors are still a thing, and they're still crashing trains. What's simpler to automate than a train? The tracks are fixed. There are very few tracks or trains in any system. The trains can only go two directions on the tracks. Why aren't all trains automated by now?

    • Nit to pick: "Conductor" is the person opening the doors and taking tickets, or "managing" a freight train. "Driver", "engineer", or "motorman" is the person actually driving the thing.

      As far as automation, it doesn't hurt to have a set of eyes out front if there's a person on the tracks or a car about to get stuck in a level crossing.

      • I agree with having an extra set of eyes, but typically a car stuck on the tracks is going to be hit simply because of how long it takes to stop a train, The average freight train is about 1 to 1.25 miles in length (90 to 120 rail cars). When it's moving at 55 MPH, it can take a mile or more to stop after the locomotive engineer fully applies the emergency brake. An 8-car passenger train moving at 80 MPH needs about a mile to stop.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )
        Conductors do more than collect tickets and open and close doors. They're responsible for safety. For example, when our commuter train comes to a dysfunctional crossing gate (stuck open) we can't pass, but the conductor will get out, close the crossing gate by hande, the train will pass and stop, the conductor will open the gate and get back on. Conductors will also inspect brakes, etc.
        Also, engineers do more than starting and stopping the train. Traditionally, they're responsible for taking care of th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mr307 ( 49185 )

      A sensor breaks down or just reports wrong values somewhere or some 'simple' logic in the programming doesn't cover an infinite number of 'unforeseeable circumstances' the new better and cheaper than a human robot will cause an accident as well.

      This is nothing new in engineering, human failures in imagination have caused innumerable disasters over history

      Cue someone coming in and blithely saying 'but bounds checking and error control you eediot11!!', and the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilit

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mr307 ( 49185 )

        Was just thinking about this some more, and I dont know if the average commercial or custom robot control system is hardened to external bit shifts, that happens often enough to be a worry.

      • the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilities, its not a controlled lab, even then surprising problems can arise that were not even considered in planning.

        There is nothing you can do about possibilities that were unforeseen. Trains don't react fast enough for that to even be a thing. You would absolutely need planning for the human in the train to be able to do anything to solve some sort of problem.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mr307 ( 49185 )

          the answer is you cannot foresee all the possibilities, its not a controlled lab, even then surprising problems can arise that were not even considered in planning.

          There is nothing you can do about possibilities that were unforeseen. Trains don't react fast enough for that to even be a thing. You would absolutely need planning for the human in the train to be able to do anything to solve some sort of problem.

          And I consider that a perfect example of lack of imagination, you are suggesting that there is 'nothing ever' that could be done? Certainly if it was the best robot 'AI' today then I agree, but a human can do orders of magnitude more than the best AI today let alone a good expert system robot.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • But you won't have engineers exceeding the speed limit causing the train to derail such as this one [cnn.com] where the train was going 80 mph in a 30 mph zone.

    • Because it's the real world, that's why.

      People fear automation as the next big thing that will take their jobs. But it isn't. It's been the thing that can take their jobs for atleast the last 50 years. It just hasn't for non-technical reasons. Technical ability has the most say in why something isn't automated but the least say in why something IS automated.

      When I audit business processes, I see atleast 3/5 positions or stages that could have been replaced by automation 10-20 years ago.

      Forget my personal e

      • People fear automation as the next big thing that will take their jobs. But it isn't. It's been the thing that can take their jobs for atleast the last 50 years.

        Try 250 years. Used to be almost everybody worked in agriculture, because that was the only way mankind could feed itself, and even then it wasn't enough now and then. Farm machinery eliminated the vast majority of those jobs, making it so that only a small percentage of the population could easily keep the rest fed. (yes, there are still famines

        • Machines traditionally only replaced very repetitive jobs. But over the next 50 years they are going to become much smarter.

          Sure, over the next 20 years most of the truck drivers etc. will find some sort of underpaid work elsewhere. But over the next 50 there will be very little unskilled work.

          But, as per Parkinson, bureaucracies will grow and grow to take up the slack from those with mediocre intelligence.

          And then, maybe in 200 years, computers will be able to program themselves, and will no longer need

    • What the hell is so challenging about automating trains?

      The effect of failure causes an immediate and very high risk to safety and lives. Especially an iron ore train. Rio Tinto's competitor BHP has only recently shown what needed to be done when a the automation fails: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au] After forcing the train to derail the result was 1.5km of damaged railway and a huge mess to clean up, combined with a lot of luck that in this remote part of Australia it's possible to derail a train without injuring people.

      There are many automation projects for

    • Why aren't all trains automated by now?

      Your question is a microcosm for all the idiocy behind the self-driving push.

      By the way, the answer to your [rhetorically-intended] question is "Exactly."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      What the hell is so challenging about automating trains? I can't believe train conductors are still a thing, and they're still crashing trains. What's simpler to automate than a train? The tracks are fixed. There are very few tracks or trains in any system. The trains can only go two directions on the tracks. Why aren't all trains automated by now?

      One crashed earlier this year. [abc.net.au]

      Having lived up there the challenge is in both the distance they have to travel, the sheer length and weight of the train as well as the method of loading.

      The trains are travelling through the most inhospitable places on earth. Unlike most other automated trains these are not well fenced in self contained units within easy reach of a control team. The trains will travel 400+ KM though areas that can get in excess of 40 degrees in the day and can have a temperature vari

  • Better metrics needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @01:38PM (#57888918)
    While a million automated kilometers (of automated operation) may sound impressive in a headline, I doubt that the statistic really means anything. For a train running on a track, the distance traveled isn't very interesting, particularly if the track runs through the middle of nowhere. I would think statistics on numbers of automation decisions made would be more useful, particularly decisions that would have otherwise been made by a human operator. Perhaps statistics on number of grade crossings (where roads cross the tracks) traversed; counts on how many times the train sounded the warning horn, slowed down or stopped, because there were animals or people on the tracks; statistics on how the automation handled other abnormal events such as sticking breaks, loss of cargo, or other mechanical failures.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      A robot operator does all that a lot better. Detecting obstructions and mechanical failures is a lot better with the right sensors. And even so, for a train it doesn't matter much what is on the tracks, by the time it's detected it's probably too late.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nkwe ( 604125 )

        A robot operator does all that a lot better. Detecting obstructions and mechanical failures is a lot better with the right sensors. And even so, for a train it doesn't matter much what is on the tracks, by the time it's detected it's probably too late.

        I don't disagree. My point is that to make the argument for automation, more meaningful statistics should be used.

  • does it have beam sabres? [atlasobscura.com]

  • Important Details (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This company has 400(!) train drivers with some making $240,000/Yr.(!)

    They claim to have not let anyone go(forced redundancies), yet. But, no company is going to continue paying $50million per year if they don't have to.

    I'm amazed that a train driver(engineer) is paid so much. I'm amazed that they have 400 drivers for 200 trains.

    I'm wondering how people will find 400 such highly paid jobs in the near future and forever after.

    • That's $170,000 USD & what that's worth depends on where you live. Also, bear in mind that the drivers/engineers spend a lot of time on trains travelling through the Australian outback. I bet it's a boring, lonely, & highly-skilled job. At least if you work on an oil-rig at sea, you have a large-ish crew, entertainment, cafeteria, etc.. I can't imagine the trains are very well equipped.

    • RIO Tinto does mining almost in the middle of nowhere, true dessert / wilderness stuff. The trek is probably at least 2 days if not 3 or 4 solid to get back to civilisation.

      These guys with a little upskilling will be able to do a 'normal' train driver job (again?) which may be a downgrade of a full 50%, but it's still high paying work.
      With the insanely off the chart, ridiculous immigration ponzi Australia is running, surely the major cities are hiring more and more train drivers? Right?.... Surely...

    • $50 million is only a part of what it costs them. many are FIFO workers, they have flight and accommodation costs as well as all the training, you are probably looking at 75-100million a year.
  • Have they named it Blaine yet?
  • Seem to be just fine with multi-billion corporations saving a few million a year in labor costs so as to line management and investor pockets with just that little bit more. Government can to pick up the tab in increased welfare costs. Oops, after tax cuts to the wealthy we handed out last year, we just can't seem to afford to fully fund social services this year.

  • Automated Driving to the Aussies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @04:20PM (#57889420)
    It's kind of funny. While American companies fuss with the uphill battle and endless stream of edge cases that self-driving represents, the Australians will be collecting reams of useful test data because it is a case that is fully realizable and profitable. Seems they are more interested in building on top of demonstrable successes rather than making empty promises.

    • What are you talking about. There's a world of difference between autonomous cars making a decision on the go on public roads, and a set of carriages able to chose between going forwards or backwards along a 1700km of straight tracks with a couple of privately controlled and operated intersections.

      • Exactly. A train has a reasonably digestible subset of basic AI that a car would need. Get that right first and you're well on your way to going onto, maybe a bus on a closed track, then a bus on an open track, then self driving cars.

        Putting it another way, painting the Mona Lisa won't make you Leonardo Di Vinci. You have to start with the basics and work up.

        • And just when should good old Leo stop playing with his basics? We have fully autonomous rail systems all over the world and have had so for many years.

  • Not quite ready for prime time (Score:4, Informative)

    by BeaverCleaver ( 673164 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @05:03PM (#57889560)

    A "semi autonomous" large ore train had to be deliberately derailed in November, because it was actually less destructive than letting it continue driving and come close to the "real" rail network or civilisation.
    More info at https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]

    So it's probably too early to claim success for autonomous trains, even though, as stated by earlier posters above, an autonomous train in the outback is a much easier challenge than one in the city. Far fewer level crossings, obstacles or pedestrians.

    • Re:Not quite ready for prime time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @06:41PM (#57889926)

      A "semi autonomous" large ore train had to be deliberately derailed in November, because it was actually less destructive than letting it continue driving and come close to the "real" rail network or civilisation.
      More info at https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]

      So it's probably too early to claim success for autonomous trains, even though, as stated by earlier posters above, an autonomous train in the outback is a much easier challenge than one in the city. Far fewer level crossings, obstacles or pedestrians.

      Where in that article does it even mention semi-autonomous? The article talks bout a driver getting out of the cab and the train taking off. Nothing to do with the Rio Tinto trains.

    • That was a HUMAN driven train and the incident seems to have resulted from HUMAN error though the investigation is still underway. If anything this proves the need for this system, humans make mistakes.
    • than pay conductors? Then it's ready for prime time.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • A "semi autonomous" large ore train had to be deliberately derailed in November

      No it didn't. A non-autonomous runaway train with no controls and no driver had to be deliberately derailed in November.

      You're talking about a different project, different track, all run by a completely different company, and better still a completely different topic (autonomous vs driver controlled).

  • Also it's the first useful blockchain (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Transports blocks of passenger in a chain, can only add, not remove (otherwise its a split i.e. two blockchains). Also usually issues its own tockens, called tickets.

  • Remote, yes, Robot, no. (Score:3)

    by os2fan ( 254461 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @05:52AM (#57891234) Homepage

    The trains are being drive remotely, rather like the London Tube trains have been for years. There's still someone at the controls, but no one on the footplate. This means you can change staff half-way through a trip, without requiring a staff-car attached.

    Given that in the news too, is where BHP derailed a train that ran away from the driver (who was inspecting the train), they used remote signalling control to throw a set of points and run it into a passing loop with no escape, it would be interesting. But this is a run-away train, the sort that has happened many times before on suburban networks.

    I imagine that to forfill the full function of the driver, one needs to deal with the likes of hot axle boxes, cracked and broken tyres, and all sorts of other things before it would be fully remote.

  • All you folks who used to work here? G'day, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. What will you do for a living? Sorry, we don't care about that, that's got nothing to do with ROI for our CEO.

  • and their odd tendency to get off and inspect the train when they think something may be wrong.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/1... [cnn.com]

    Solution: get rid of the drivers!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close