FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Strikes and MSL
Strikes and MSL
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It was completely unworkable for the railways because there are not enough trained train drivers to begin with Even if drivers just “worked to rule” (did zero overtime) you would basically see in effect a Sunday service on a Saturday and no Sunday service at all! " Work to rule has proven far more effective than strikes, though it garners far fewer headlines | |||
| |||
| |||
"LNER still run a service on strike days. Tends to be a skeleton service but enough to get by with careful planning. Other operators on the line run as normal, as they aren't unionised. " All TOCS and freight operators have predominantly unionised workforces | |||
| |||
"This goes back to Unions resisting progress. We see exactly the same thing with Unions opposing the replacement of 2 old blast furnaces in Port Talbot. The UK was once the world's largest shipbuilder. We lost the industry entirely within a few decades because Unions wouldn't agree to welding steel plate in place of riveting." What progress on the railway are ASLEF resisting? | |||
"This goes back to Unions resisting progress. We see exactly the same thing with Unions opposing the replacement of 2 old blast furnaces in Port Talbot. The UK was once the world's largest shipbuilder. We lost the industry entirely within a few decades because Unions wouldn't agree to welding steel plate in place of riveting. What progress on the railway are ASLEF resisting? " Modernisation. | |||
"This goes back to Unions resisting progress. We see exactly the same thing with Unions opposing the replacement of 2 old blast furnaces in Port Talbot. The UK was once the world's largest shipbuilder. We lost the industry entirely within a few decades because Unions wouldn't agree to welding steel plate in place of riveting. What progress on the railway are ASLEF resisting? Modernisation." Explain further, please? | |||
| |||
"This goes back to Unions resisting progress. We see exactly the same thing with Unions opposing the replacement of 2 old blast furnaces in Port Talbot. The UK was once the world's largest shipbuilder. We lost the industry entirely within a few decades because Unions wouldn't agree to welding steel plate in place of riveting. What progress on the railway are ASLEF resisting? Modernisation. Explain further, please? " There are a raft of (much needed) modernisation proposals. But to pick an example : maintenance. It is common across industry these days to have multi-skill operators/technicians who perform first level fault finding and diagnosis. This avoids expensive technicians being under-utilised. But the railway unions cling to strict demarcation of trades, and resist the concept. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars." I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). | |||
"This goes back to Unions resisting progress. We see exactly the same thing with Unions opposing the replacement of 2 old blast furnaces in Port Talbot. The UK was once the world's largest shipbuilder. We lost the industry entirely within a few decades because Unions wouldn't agree to welding steel plate in place of riveting. What progress on the railway are ASLEF resisting? Modernisation. Explain further, please? There are a raft of (much needed) modernisation proposals. But to pick an example : maintenance. It is common across industry these days to have multi-skill operators/technicians who perform first level fault finding and diagnosis. This avoids expensive technicians being under-utilised. But the railway unions cling to strict demarcation of trades, and resist the concept. " Are you suggesting that the railway doesn’t have multi-skilled operators? Because that would be wrong. And that’s also not what this dispute is about. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). " So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots." Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) | |||
| |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways)" You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?  | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now? "I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end). Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening. | |||
| |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening."I'm not arguing for compelte automation. You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago. You're on one side for one and the other side for the other. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other. "I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy  | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy "Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid. As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid.
As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions. "A lot of that is that it’s cheaper to poach another train operating companies drivers than it is to train one up… The fear of the local regional company was always once you had gone to the effort of training one up.. one of the inter city big boys would come in and swoop them | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid.
As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions.
A lot of that is that it’s cheaper to poach another train operating companies drivers than it is to train one up…
The fear of the local regional company was always once you had gone to the effort of training one up.. one of the inter city big boys would come in and swoop them
"SWR are hiring but it's based in London. Training in Basingstoke. I only had a look as we're told often 'if is so cushy, sign up', you can't sign up if they aren't hiring. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid.
As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions.
A lot of that is that it’s cheaper to poach another train operating companies drivers than it is to train one up…
The fear of the local regional company was always once you had gone to the effort of training one up.. one of the inter city big boys would come in and swoop them
SWR are hiring but it's based in London. Training in Basingstoke.
I only had a look as we're told often 'if is so cushy, sign up', you can't sign up if they aren't hiring. "Get the job, put a move in for a depot closer to home. Worth the temporary sacrifice  | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid.
As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions.
A lot of that is that it’s cheaper to poach another train operating companies drivers than it is to train one up…
The fear of the local regional company was always once you had gone to the effort of training one up.. one of the inter city big boys would come in and swoop them
SWR are hiring but it's based in London. Training in Basingstoke.
I only had a look as we're told often 'if is so cushy, sign up', you can't sign up if they aren't hiring.
Get the job, put a move in for a depot closer to home. Worth the temporary sacrifice "What am I supposed to do with my wife and kids for a year whilst in training? And then if I can't a transfer? How am I supposed to afford 2 houses whilst in training? I understand your sentiment but it's not as simple as you make out. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid.
As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions.
A lot of that is that it’s cheaper to poach another train operating companies drivers than it is to train one up…
The fear of the local regional company was always once you had gone to the effort of training one up.. one of the inter city big boys would come in and swoop them
SWR are hiring but it's based in London. Training in Basingstoke.
I only had a look as we're told often 'if is so cushy, sign up', you can't sign up if they aren't hiring.
Get the job, put a move in for a depot closer to home. Worth the temporary sacrifice
What am I supposed to do with my wife and kids for a year whilst in training? And then if I can't a transfer?
How am I supposed to afford 2 houses whilst in training?
I understand your sentiment but it's not as simple as you make out. "No, it’s not possible for all - we do get a lot of folks who travel/relocate for the job, but family is an obstacle that’s not easy to overcome. Keep your eye out, something will come up | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Fair points. I won't argue they're 'overpaid' but they are well paid.
As it happens I had a look on SWR last night for trainee drivers, there are no positions.
A lot of that is that it’s cheaper to poach another train operating companies drivers than it is to train one up…
The fear of the local regional company was always once you had gone to the effort of training one up.. one of the inter city big boys would come in and swoop them
SWR are hiring but it's based in London. Training in Basingstoke.
I only had a look as we're told often 'if is so cushy, sign up', you can't sign up if they aren't hiring.
Get the job, put a move in for a depot closer to home. Worth the temporary sacrifice
What am I supposed to do with my wife and kids for a year whilst in training? And then if I can't a transfer?
How am I supposed to afford 2 houses whilst in training?
I understand your sentiment but it's not as simple as you make out.
No, it’s not possible for all - we do get a lot of folks who travel/relocate for the job, but family is an obstacle that’s not easy to overcome.
Keep your eye out, something will come up "Oh I'm not genuinely interested, they don't pay enough. I just decided to do some research. | |||
" Two driver trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? " | |||
"So after the government run LNER attempted to enforce minimum service levels on a strike day, ASLEF said that drivers on LNER would undertake a further five days of strike action in response. The DFT/LNER backed down and removed the MSL after the TUC and ASLEF warned about the impact of enforcing the MSL, and now the five day strike has been scrapped. Anyone could have predicted that attempting to operate the MSL would backfire. It was completely unworkable." Government run you say. A great advert for re- nationalising more industries. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy "Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either."Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though? | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?"If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered. "It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages. And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains. "You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess? | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?"And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure. "Or simply stop the train? | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train? "Full of people in the middle of nowhere? | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere? "Happens today so what’s the difference? | |||
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots… | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? "does it? and if so when and how often ? | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? "You’ve got a highly skilled person communicating with control, signallers, passing info on to the public, isolating issues and fault-finding on the train, whilst talking to the maintenance team. | |||
| |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? does it? and if so when and how often ?"You could google this stuff yourself? Elizabeth line in December I will give you for free, and if you are saying they don't break down in the middle of nowhere that supports my argument. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…"Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
| |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
"Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations. It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations.
It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously. "I have no expectation of a gold standard train service in the UK any time soon, the workforce will see to that. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations.
It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously.
I have no expectation of a gold standard train service in the UK any time soon, the workforce will see to that.
"I think your ire is pointed in the wrong direction. I’d look at the DFT first of all… | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations.
It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously.
I have no expectation of a gold standard train service in the UK any time soon, the workforce will see to that.
I think your ire is pointed in the wrong direction. I’d look at the DFT first of all…"Happy to add to the list, the people are always the problem | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? does it? and if so when and how often ?
You could google this stuff yourself? Elizabeth line in December I will give you for free, and if you are saying they don't break down in the middle of nowhere that supports my argument. "You never said breakdown,you said simply stop the train ,theres a big difference | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations.
It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously.
I have no expectation of a gold standard train service in the UK any time soon, the workforce will see to that.
"Id say the owners will see to that | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? does it? and if so when and how often ?
You could google this stuff yourself? Elizabeth line in December I will give you for free, and if you are saying they don't break down in the middle of nowhere that supports my argument.
You never said breakdown,you said simply stop the train ,theres a big difference "If you read again, you will see there was an idea of train driver and train supervisor, the train stopping was a breakdown under automation. I say trains breakdown today and doesn't need a train driver to resolve as the train is broken, bringing to a stop is all it needs. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations.
It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously.
I have no expectation of a gold standard train service in the UK any time soon, the workforce will see to that.
Id say the owners will see to that"By trying to run a business dominated by unions, I think you are right. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
Closed metro systems are a very different beast to mainline rail operations.
It’s not happening in the U.K in the lifetime of anyone here. Seriously.
I have no expectation of a gold standard train service in the UK any time soon, the workforce will see to that.
Id say the owners will see to that
By trying to run a business dominated by unions, I think you are right."glad you agree  | |||
"It was completely unworkable for the railways because there are not enough trained train drivers to begin with Even if drivers just “worked to rule” (did zero overtime) you would basically see in effect a Sunday service on a Saturday and no Sunday service at all! Work to rule has proven far more effective than strikes, though it garners far fewer headlines " I prefer the work to rule. Last time I went out on strike I list a shed load of pay, then got £120 strike pay from the union. Bit of a slap in the face if you ask me. The result of the strike was a joke as well. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
"If you want to use the DLR as an example.. they in theory “can” run automated, but they carry drivers on them “just in case”.. so again.. safety critical? | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
If you want to use the DLR as an example.. they in theory “can” run automated, but they carry drivers on them “just in case”.. so again.. safety critical? "Some of the trains I looked at had no drivers. The point being when the tech matures I’m sure they will need nobody, until then they will play safe with a driver, then a support person to nobody. Except in the UK. | |||
| |||
"Should we carry on using train drivers we need to recognise that they are grossly overpaid . It is the hard working members of the public who are paying their wages many of whom only earn half the salary of a train driver . We need to take advantage of automation and recognise that being a train driver is hardly a skilled job. LGV drivers get half the salary of a train driver. " Lgv driver's, silly comparison.. And you need to do some research on how much some drivers are paid.. | |||
"Should we carry on using train drivers we need to recognise that they are grossly overpaid . It is the hard working members of the public who are paying their wages many of whom only earn half the salary of a train driver . We need to take advantage of automation and recognise that being a train driver is hardly a skilled job. LGV drivers get half the salary of a train driver. Lgv driver's, silly comparison.. And you need to do some research on how much some drivers are paid.." Advice taken. Average pay for a lorry driver. £32500 Average pay train driver in London. £58,795. | |||
"Should we carry on using train drivers we need to recognise that they are grossly overpaid . It is the hard working members of the public who are paying their wages many of whom only earn half the salary of a train driver . We need to take advantage of automation and recognise that being a train driver is hardly a skilled job. LGV drivers get half the salary of a train driver. Lgv driver's, silly comparison.. And you need to do some research on how much some drivers are paid.. Advice taken. Average pay for a lorry driver. £32500 Average pay train driver in London. £58,795. " That's not an average, take off London weighting .. Plus it's still an irrelevant comparison given the differences in length of time to become qualified in either plus the levels of responsibility.. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? does it? and if so when and how often ?
You could google this stuff yourself? Elizabeth line in December I will give you for free, and if you are saying they don't break down in the middle of nowhere that supports my argument.
You never said breakdown,you said simply stop the train ,theres a big difference
If you read again, you will see there was an idea of train driver and train supervisor, the train stopping was a breakdown under automation. I say trains breakdown today and doesn't need a train driver to resolve as the train is broken, bringing to a stop is all it needs.
"Drivers are on hand and able to fix trains (to an extent - their very nature these days is akin to a computer, rebooting, simple isolations of systems and so forth) - but they’re on hand and a vital part of fault-finding and correction of failures. Drivers receive extensive traction training, including fault finding and fixing. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
If you want to use the DLR as an example.. they in theory “can” run automated, but they carry drivers on them “just in case”.. so again.. safety critical?
Some of the trains I looked at had no drivers.
The point being when the tech matures I’m sure they will need nobody, until then they will play safe with a driver, then a support person to nobody.
Except in the UK. "You’re talking, with respect, about a subject that you don’t understand. | |||
"Should we carry on using train drivers we need to recognise that they are grossly overpaid . It is the hard working members of the public who are paying their wages many of whom only earn half the salary of a train driver . We need to take advantage of automation and recognise that being a train driver is hardly a skilled job. LGV drivers get half the salary of a train driver. " The hard working members of the public are paying to enrich rail company share holders | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? does it? and if so when and how often ?
You could google this stuff yourself? Elizabeth line in December I will give you for free, and if you are saying they don't break down in the middle of nowhere that supports my argument.
You never said breakdown,you said simply stop the train ,theres a big difference
If you read again, you will see there was an idea of train driver and train supervisor, the train stopping was a breakdown under automation. I say trains breakdown today and doesn't need a train driver to resolve as the train is broken, bringing to a stop is all it needs.
Drivers are on hand and able to fix trains (to an extent - their very nature these days is akin to a computer, rebooting, simple isolations of systems and so forth) - but they’re on hand and a vital part of fault-finding and correction of failures.
Drivers receive extensive traction training, including fault finding and fixing.
"Automation will remove the need for that manual intervention in forward thinking countries. Here we will be held to ransom by the luddites who cripple the public and operators with their demands | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
If you want to use the DLR as an example.. they in theory “can” run automated, but they carry drivers on them “just in case”.. so again.. safety critical?
Some of the trains I looked at had no drivers.
The point being when the tech matures I’m sure they will need nobody, until then they will play safe with a driver, then a support person to nobody.
Except in the UK.
You’re talking, with respect, about a subject that you don’t understand. "I can't drive a train, but I know how to modernise and introduce business change. I do keep saying, that is not a problem for the UK trains services, the workforce resist change at every step, it is their right to prevent things moving forward and maintain a job for life for themselves and family. | |||
"For all the automation people want.. if you look at other countries with really good networks… France, Germany, Japan, Korea…. All use train drivers
So even they must find them “safety critical”
Yes you could absolutely upgrade signalling.. it would help
Even with you using planes as an example of automation and flying themselves once they are up… you are still relying on air traffic controllers get the up with the help of pilots…
Relying on air traffic controllers would be no different the relying on train coordinators doing the same thing, monitoring the trains are moving as per the instruction.
Looking into automated trains shows many countries running them, closest to home is DLR and Paris Metro is planning on running 5 lines totally automated , so it is already happening.
If you want to use the DLR as an example.. they in theory “can” run automated, but they carry drivers on them “just in case”.. so again.. safety critical?
Some of the trains I looked at had no drivers.
The point being when the tech matures I’m sure they will need nobody, until then they will play safe with a driver, then a support person to nobody.
Except in the UK.
You’re talking, with respect, about a subject that you don’t understand.
I can't drive a train, but I know how to modernise and introduce business change.
I do keep saying, that is not a problem for the UK trains services, the workforce resist change at every step, it is their right to prevent things moving forward and maintain a job for life for themselves and family. "You’ve already displayed how little you understand about rail operations, though. It’s not a supermarket or a mechanic’s workshop. | |||
"Train drivers are overpaid anyway so pay rises aren't justified. It is a job ripe for automation. Much easier than self driving cars. I understand why people have this viewpoint. It’s incorrect, but understandable. The rail network is massively complex, some of it band up to date and 21st century, some of it still using Victorian tech. We have trains that range from brand new to 1960’s vintage (and older for special trains!). We have miles and miles of network, much of it in the middle of nowhere, including countless level crossings, foot crossings, farm gates and myriad other obstructions and hazards. Not to mention inclement weather causing landslides and fallen trees etc If you want a safe network, it would be possible to automate it, though the costs would *far* outweigh the cost of those ‘overpaid’ dricers. And at the end of it, you’d still need someone at the front of the train for safety reasons (just as you still have pilots even though planes can fly themselves). So how are trains running on tracks (therefore not needing to be steered) more complicated than the totally random road system? Trains should have exclusive use of the track, roads are full of random idiots. Trains are not without outside influences, as I’ve just pointed out. Two driverless trains heading towards each other at 100mph+ on separate tracks. One hits a tree/landslide/car and is derailed into the path of the other. What’s the outcome? The biggest factor is cost though. Drivers are *far* cheaper than automation of the whole network (and we’ll still have them at the front of the train anyways) You normally push for advancement of industry regardless of cost. What's different here? Surely if we have the will and started advancing technology 30-40 years ago we'd be in a place now?
I’m all for advancement, in-cab signalling is wonderful and hopefully will be network-wide within the next couple of decades. But we’re always gonna have drivers (or at least, a safety critical person sat at the pointy end).
Governments ignore mass investment that they don’t see a prompt return on, and the railway realistically needs 2-3 decades of *serious* money thrown at it before we can consider total automation. Ergo, it ain’t happening.
I'm not arguing for compelte automation.
You say it needs 2-3 decades of serious investment (you'd know better than I), I'm just trying to understand the difference here to renewable energy which you needed investment decades ago.
You're on one side for one and the other side for the other.
I’m not anti-automation per se, I’m just aware that it’s not a simple process that some think, as per the poster above. I also take umbrage at those who think train driving is easy and the drivers are overpaid (again, per the poster above). They’re free to apply for a job if it’s that cushy
Most flights are upwards of 90% automation, last time I looked they were not on tracks either.
Agreed. Not sure what your point is, though?
If it can be automated for flying planes, it should be relatively simple for trains. There will be complexity of course, but nothing that I would expect to be a show stopper, other than the existing employees disrupting services until the automated services can be delivered.
It’s vastly more expensive to do to for trains, because they require greater infrastructure than cars or indeed planes. That’s the biggest hurdle - it’s simply cheaper to pay drivers wages.
And we still have very highly paid pilots in planes, as we still would in automated trains.
You will still need a train supervisor, not driver I guess?
And they’d have to be safety critical, work shifts, and have the ability to drive the train in event of a system failure.
Or simply stop the train?
Full of people in the middle of nowhere?
Happens today so what’s the difference? does it? and if so when and how often ?
You could google this stuff yourself? Elizabeth line in December I will give you for free, and if you are saying they don't break down in the middle of nowhere that supports my argument.
You never said breakdown,you said simply stop the train ,theres a big difference
If you read again, you will see there was an idea of train driver and train supervisor, the train stopping was a breakdown under automation. I say trains breakdown today and doesn't need a train driver to resolve as the train is broken, bringing to a stop is all it needs.
Drivers are on hand and able to fix trains (to an extent - their very nature these days is akin to a computer, rebooting, simple isolations of systems and so forth) - but they’re on hand and a vital part of fault-finding and correction of failures.
Drivers receive extensive traction training, including fault finding and fixing.
Automation will remove the need for that manual intervention in forward thinking countries. Here we will be held to ransom by the luddites who cripple the public and operators with their demands"Probably. But not in our lifetime, nor the lifetime of our kids. And still, we’ll have a little chap or chapess at the front of the train for safety. | |||
| |||
