Autonomous trains

[aussiesteve]

Autonomous trains, is that the future for rail safety ?
With computer geeks aspiring for driverless transport, what of the future for blue collar workers.
Rio Tinto Australia have successfully operated the first driverless iron ore train.
Driverless ore dumper trucks have been rattling around mines for a while now.
Yes, Bart in the USA, and some French commuter trains are driverless.
Many airports now have driverless rubber tire trains.
The Sydney monorail was driverless.
But, these operate on closed infrastructure with no interaction from other types of trains.
Amusingly, after the first failure of the smog hollow monorail, an attendant was installed to calm the cattle.
The Bart conductor working the doors etc and monitoring progress.
Ok, the Rio Tinto ore train is not likely to encounter any other type of train either.
The newbie private commuter rail system in Sydney will be driverless.
It will spend half the journey elevated in the atmosphere, and the remainder buried in darkness.
Yes, a closed network that will not interact with the existing rail network.
During an incident, radio transmissions will direct cattle how to smash windows and install the steps to escape.
HMMM, I wonder.
Human Error is probably the major stumbling point for crewed transport.
Distraction, fatigue, and in some cases medical situations.
BUT, human error can also affect computer software.
The Mount Erebus Antarctica aeronautical accident when incorrect data was input on the flight computer comes to mind.
And, what about hacking.
If hackers can gain entry into secure Government installations, then why not transport systems.
My only exposure to ATC was the Erickson equipment being tested on SRA locomotive 8650.
The tests conducted on a short section of the Illawarra line in Sydney many years ago.
I was not involved with any testing.
But, some time later, I worked a train with 8650.
We were signed on duty engine prepared, and whistled out of Delec to run LE to collect our train at Chullora.
8650 trailed running Light Engine, but became lead when working the train home to Lithgow.
Blasting off, we had to navigate Chullora Junction running at slow speed.
However, once clear of the Junction, train speed was increased.
The minute that we reached 25 kph, the air went bringing us to a hasty halt.
My driver complaining that he could not reset the vigilance yelled for me to go back and investigate.
Oddly, the air was not escaping from the air rack, but instead from a weird box at the opposite end.
Before I could attempt to investigate the air stopped dumping, so I returned to the cab.
Away we went after the brakes pumped up.
But, again, the air dumped when reaching 25 kph.
This time, my driver complaining about the BOX on the dash blinking at him.
AH!.
The Erickson thing was alive.
No OFF switch could be found, so I again went into the engine room to investigate.
But, checking out the weird box inside making all the air noise, no switch was obvious either.
Checking out the mini-circuit breaker panel, I found a pair with texta scrawl above stating DO NOT SWITCH ON.
Flicking those off killed the Erickson thing.
We journeyed home without further incident.
At home, I went into the chargemans office to make enquiries.
Obviously, 25 kph was the default speed for the system when no track transponders could be detected.
The electrical mob said that they would install seals on those two switches to prevent further problems.
The results of those ATC tests were shelved due to the extreme cost of the system.
However, ATC is again on the agenda for the Sydney Metrop.
The Sydney Light Rail utilizes ATC.
But, I doubt that such prevents collisions with pedestrians or motorists who accidentally get in the way of a tram.
The Train Stop apparatus employed in the Sydney Metrop has worked very well for many years.
OK, it only stops the train after it has passed a Stop signal.
But, with the double overlap normally employed in the Metrop, only a slow speed collision is possible.
However, no freight locomotives are fitted with the train stop apparatus.
All suburban and interurban trains have Dead Man control.
This was found wanting in the Waterfall incident.
The driver collapsing over the T-bar throttle in full notch negated the deadman control.
Either twist the T-bar throttle to negate the deadman, or plant yer feet on the foot pedal to let go of the throttle.
Yes, the Guard could have pulled the tail to halt the train.
But, I doubt that he realized in time before the train hit the 55 kph curve and went bush.
Subsequently, all emu and dmu trains now have a vigilance system as well as the dead man control.
With all the doo-dads in the cab to monitor, will the driver ever glance out the windscreen again ?
Only time will tell if driverless trains will solve the human error dilemma.
Steve.

[Beeyar Wunby]

Hi AS, you've asked the $64 million question then.

Originally Posted by aussiesteve

Autonomous trains, is that the future for rail safety ?
With computer geeks aspiring for driverless transport, what of the future for blue collar workers.

Not in my lifetime (though I only have a few years til I hand my key in).

Of course the technology is there - aircraft have been able to fly themselves since the 1960s, so getting a train to move about on its own is child's play. But you need to have a robust infrastructure for it to operate in. And ours still hasn't been fixed since it was run into the ground in WW2. "Make do and mend" was the motto then, and it hasn't changed since. Broken points, crossings, signals, temporary block working, bridge bashes, animals on the line, and trespassers are just some of the problems we deal with almost EVERY day. Then there's the endless on-train faults - we spend much of our time fixing problems and liasing with 'Control' and Fitters. Passengers think we just jump in a train and drive it - If only !!!

Actually we have a little toy train in London called the Docklands Light Rail which is autonomous and some of our London Underground lines are ATO, but these are small 'sealed' systems, much like your....

Rio Tinto Australia have successfully operated the first driverless iron ore train.
Driverless ore dumper trucks have been rattling around mines for a while now.
Yes, Bart in the USA, and some French commuter trains are driverless.
Many airports now have driverless rubber tire trains.
The Sydney monorail was driverless.
But, these operate on closed infrastructure with no interaction from other types of trains.

Exactly.

Discounting the GWR 'trial' installation, the first truly Automatic Train Operation main line installation is for the Thameslink Programme core which is due to be completed in December 2018 (stop sniggering at the back ). The section runs between Kentish Town and New Cross Gate/Loughborough Jn if I remember correctly, and has cost around a million pounds a mile to construct. So given that Network Rail is up to its neck in debt, I can't see them doing the other 10,000 miles of the UK railway any time soon.

The basis of the Thameslink Programme is that passengers no longer have to get out of a train at Kings Cross, walk 5 minutes across the road to St Pancras, and get on another train.

And ATO means that instead of a driver moving his train at 30 mph into a station, the on-board computer will do it. The driver will oversee the doors and then press a 'go' button. The train will then drive off at 30 mph again.

Surely there are more pressing needs than this ? Perhaps it's just a 'proof of concept' for future projects, but when we have a Health Service which is teetering on the brink of collapse, I think this is perverse.

Human Error is probably the major stumbling point for crewed transport.
Distraction, fatigue, and in some cases medical situations.

Fatigue is starting to be recognised here, which is nice since we've been telling them about it for the last 200 years.
And yet despite Government recommendations our '9 to 5' roster people still dish out horrendous diagrams to traincrew. We've had several serious freight SPADs that the government's own Rail Accident Investigation Branch attributed to fatigue, and recently in London a lass hit the buffer stops with a passenger train. Investigations showed that the night turn was longer than guidelines. But the government won't interfere as it wants all train operators to generate the maximum amount of cash for the treasury, so nothing will ever change until some poor people loose their lives.

The Train Stop apparatus employed in the Sydney Metrop has worked very well for many years.
OK, it only stops the train after it has passed a Stop signal.
But, with the double overlap normally employed in the Metrop, only a slow speed collision is possible.
However, no freight locomotives are fitted with the train stop apparatus.
All suburban and interurban trains have Dead Man control.
This was found wanting in the Waterfall incident.
The driver collapsing over the T-bar throttle in full notch negated the deadman control.
Subsequently, all emu and dmu trains now have a vigilance system as well as the dead man control.
With all the doo-dads in the cab to monitor, will the driver ever glance out the windscreen again ?

Well all trains on the main line here must have vigilance, Dead man's (we call it Driver's Safety Device DSD), AWS, and of course Train Protection & Warning System (DSD). Possibly this is because we're such a small country and our freight trains operate in amongst the passenger ones on the same lines for much of the time.

We are supposed to be getting ERTMS here sometime, though the date seems to keep slipping back. This is the European in-cab signalling system, and its designers reckon it will remove the need to look out the window. Personally speaking I like to look out, because you never know when a fuel tanker may be stuck on a level crossing !

When faced with 'fantastic' new technolgy I always think of the Titanic - the unsinkable ship which sank on its maiden voyage.

I'm not a Luddite and I welcome change when it's for the better. But I'm suspicious of the underlying motives here. No booking office staff, no platform staff, and in the future -no drivers.

I rather like meeting human beings and I think that removing them is not the way to go.

Only time will tell if driverless trains will solve the human error dilemma

This seems to be the tip of a very scary iceberg. There seems to be a worldwide rush to remove people's jobs and replace them with machines. This seems to being done in order to make the 1% of millionaires even richer. I don't see ANY benefit for the 99%.

Human beings have a fundamental need to interact with other human beings.

Technology should exist to help people do their jobs better - it should not put millions of people out of work. That would create a very angry and unhappy world, and yet it seems to be coming.....

Happy New Year

Cheers, BW

[aussiesteve]

G'day BW,
You have responded in detail to my posting.
I will need to peruse such off line to consume the details.
Yes, George Orwell was correct, except for the actual date.
Steve.

[aussiesteve]

G'day BW,
I am composing my response off line, so cannot utilize the forum QUOTE function.
"Broken points, crossings, signals, temporary block working, bridge bashes, animals on the line, and trespassers are just some of the problems we deal with almost EVERY day"
Wonky infrastructure would naturally pose dramas to both crewed and autonomous trains.
Broken Rails where track circuiting exists can be incorporated into the ATC system, not so with dark territory.
But, I would imagine that for autonomous trains to succeed, all track would need to be circuited.
Broken Rails encountered by drivers on non-circuited track usually results in a derailment, unless train speed is extremely slow.
Fencing and or grade separation from conflict would solve unwanted trespass.
The Japanese level crossing protection system when factored into ATC would solve conflict there.
Lasers aimed at the crossing to detect any intrusion will cause specific warning signals to advise the train driver.
OK, currently such signals are not interlocked with main running signals.
But, again such could be incorporated into ATC.
The Chunnel fire, would a driverless train have continued to clear the tunnel as per the regulations ?
The driver stopping inside the chunnel at an emergency evacuation door in contradiction to the then regulations.
Or, would a driverless train have stalled in the middle of nowhere when the overhead melted and traction ceased ?
"Passengers think we just jump in a train and drive it - If only !!!"
Well, an amusing incident in smog hollow Sydney back in the early 1990s could answer this.
The system revolved around The Shortcut.
Drivers being relieved earlier than scheduled where the diagram provided spare time allocated to the relief driver.
This was prior to the mandatory uniform.
A west suburban train continued out to terminate at Emu Plains, but it sat out there and did not return as tabled.
It transpired that a "passenger" had relieved the train driver in town and drove the train out to Emu Plains.
The driver only too happy to get The Shortcut jumped out of the cab, the run west being at the end of his shift.
Stopping at the tabled stations en route, finally arriving at Emu Plains the passenger got off and left it.
OK, this passenger was a train nutter and had managed to get into the cab a number of times, thereby learning to technique.
When questions were asked, the actual driver was discovered at home.
I was involved with the union and had suggested to management that they should offer the bloke a job.
He obviously wouldn't need too much tuition.
Management had no sense of humour.
The uniform became compulsory after that incident, and crew identity had to be worn.
The Shortcut copped banishment, but managed to return for a while.
"Fatigue is starting to be recognised here, which is nice since we've been telling them about it for the last 200 years."
Fatigue management was implemented here some years ago.
No more than three shifts incorporating the 0000 til 0600 period may be rostered without a mandatory rostered day off.
The fatigue score is calculated for each shift in sequence for the fortnight roster period.
This does have a negative impact when overtime is necessary.
Both rostering staff and train crew MUST be aware of their fatigue score before accepting overtime.
Hence a financial penalty is imposed where prior to fatigue management, employees could take advantage of overtime.
Lift Up and Lay Back, due to trains running out of course also now imposes some restrictions.
All of this is ok when sufficient excess staff are available.
I toiled in excess of 30 years under governmental employ, and 5 years under private sector employ.
I definitely know which I prefer.
NO way would I have agreed to work in contravention of the Stable Rostering Code while under government operation.
But, as private sector operations go, I worked a shift comprising 15 hours one time.
This due to a derailment and my being required to go to the derailment to assist with re-railing.
Fatigue management reigns supreme, except when insufficient staff exist.
"Well all trains on the main line here must have vigilance, Dead man's (we call it Driver's Safety Device DSD), AWS, and of course Train Protection & Warning System (DSD). Possibly this is because we're such a small country and our freight trains operate in amongst the passenger ones on the same lines for much of the time."
Here in the Sydney Metrop, freighters travel amongst pas trains, excepting for the specially built freight road on the short south.
The Metrop signal system is designed for pas trains, not the monster length freighters of today.
Hence additional signal indications have been implemented where braking distance is no longer sufficient.
When running within the Inner Metrop region, freight train speed is reduced.
Yes, SPADs occur frequently in the Sydney Metrop.
But, these are mostly pas trains not freighters.
Originally we had the Curfew.
Between the hours of 0600 til 0900, and 1500 til 1800, no freighters were permitted to run within the Metrop.
But, today with privatization, all trains have a PATH.
Some freight paths now exist within those periods.
The train radio system implemented here was a nightmare.
I was involved with testing of the first Countrynet system back in the early 1990s.
The SRA was divided up into four distinct operating segments, this in preparation for the sale of the freight component.
The Countrynet radio system was being implemented for the Countrylink pas and eventually freight operations.
Cityrail then began hunting for a radio system for the Metrop.
The resulting Metronet radio system was not compatible with the Countrynet system.
This incompatibility being a factor in the Glenbrook incident.
The interurban crew were in radio communication with Penrith signal box via Metronet.
But, the Indian Pacific crew did not have radio communication with Penrith, and had to rely on the signal circuit phone system.
The Train Stop apparatus did not extend beyond Emu Plains in those days.
Subsequent to Glenbrook, the Train Stop apparatus was extended to Lithgow and the end of the West Outer Metrop.
Regardless, locomotives are still not fitted with Train Stop apparatus.
So, when rattling through the Metrop on a freighter and espying anything other than Green over Green you had better slam on the brakes.
Sydney Transport are again trialing ATC (ETCS).
But, I do wonder if implemented whether freight locomotives will be required to also implement the system.
I had argued for the introduction of the End Of Train Monitor, after having experienced such on a trip to New Zealand.
But, I was howled down by both management and the union.
Management winced at the cost factor, and the union ranted that such would permit the introduction of Driver Only Operation.
Freighters here continue to operate with just the red flashing tail light.
Tasrail being Driver Only Operation do have the ETU.
Though, with the introduction of ECP brake system, some NSW coalies do have a pseudo ETU.
The Electronically Controlled Pneumatic brake system providing an end of train brake pipe pressure sensor.
The ECP system providing graduated release for freight train brakes does improve the sectional running times.
I would image that for autonomous freight trains to succeed, the ECP system would be necessary.
I am not sure just what brake system is being utilized on the driverless Rio Tinto trains.
But, as the Pilbara iron ore railways were built to provide minimum grades facing loaded trains, dynamic brake is capable of controlling most situations.
EPIC brake system was introduced by Hamersley Iron back in 1995.
This electronic in the cab air brake was supposed to provide more efficient braking performance.
But, there were numerous problems with the EPIC software, and trains failed regularly.
I have been stunned while viewing cab video featuring the DB Automatische Fahr und Bremssteuerung system.
E loks fitted with the dual control throttles.
Select the AFB throttle and set it for the maximum permitted section speed.
The locomotive then automatically adjusting the power or engaging dynamic brake depending upon the circumstances encountered.
OK, I was impressed.
BUT, I transferred into Loco many moons ago to become a train driver and actually DRIVE the thing.
Not to sit there watching some computer.
So, BW, I handed in my keys 10 years ago when I got fed up with privatization.
Driverless trains were not on the horizon here back then.
Steve.