Discussion»Questions»Science and Technology» Is the recent train derailment up in Washington being used to accelerate automation and the elimination of human control&decision making?
It was a horrible accident. And I had been thinking about a long train trip. I read that the train was going 79 when it should have been going 30. They were talking about the many reasons that the conductor (or whatever you call the driver today) failed to slow it down. One investigator said a few people he could name predicted something horrible happening on this new route. We used to never hear about train accidents and how it seems we hear of them much more often...............and people ride them less that in days past...for trips anyway. The local commuter trains are probably increasing. I would not ride a high-speed train. I do prefer not to be up in the sky, but I also do not want to be moving at 150 mph. I also just read that hundreds of bridges that Amtrac crosses are beyond their safe lifetime............they need to be closed and replaced....not repaired. That's very scary, but the same is true about many many of the bridges we drive across as well. Trump is right when he talks about infrastructure needing attention. The country is crumbling.
It would seem to me in 2017 that at the very least alarms should go off if a train is traveling too fast approaching a curve. That would be a good compromise to taking away human control. I believe I want a person driving the train I'm on.....one that is inside the train, not at a console on the other side of the country. And no, I do not want it driven by automation either. Technology that doesn't improve life should be ignored. Why isn't that happening?
There should be control limits on how fast it can go through speed zones but then again we build automobiles to travel up to 120mph when the speed limit never exceeds 70.
Yes, but couldn't the speed limit signs make an alarm go off for the driver if the train is speeding as it passes the sign. This train had been on an 80 mph stretch but there were signs to slow to 30 mph prior to the curve. The conductor did not slow down the train. Seems to me a good use of tech would be an alarm to slow down.
I don't know if I could really trust automation, at least not yet. It's hard for me to trust computers when they can randomly malfunction. I think there should always be a person at the controls as a backup at least. That way if something goes wrong with the computer, they can take control. Sort of like how they still need human pilots on planes even if there's autopilot.
Brand new untested rails. Automation wouldn't help in this instance, running an unmanned train over it at night to ensure they'd been bedded in properly would have.
The driver, not the conductor, is the person actually controlling a train.
I understand the particular line was already due to be fitted with some form of automatic speed-limiter but this had yet to be done. Essentially such accidents are down to human error - exceeding the speed limit.
There was a similar accident in Northern Spain a few years ago, when a train entered a curve far too fast, and was thrown off against a high retaining wall.
And in the British town, Croydon, more recently, when a tram crashed due to being driven into a very sharp curve much faster than the signed limit. The Inquiry into that recommended some form of automatic safety system be installed to prevent excessive speeds.
London Underground installed similar systems on its termini after the Moorgate disaster, when for reasons that cannot be determined, a train ran at speed straight through Moorgate Station and rammed the blank end wall of the tunnel just beyond.
I can think of only one widely-reported rail accident that suggests poor inherent safety compounding human error. A few years ago in Germany, a train was released onto a single-line section already occupied from the opposite direction. The signalman realised he'd erred and tried to do something about it, too late; and was prosecuted for negligence. I think the real negligence lay elsewhere, as to my knowledge no-one publicly asked, Were there no point and signal interlocks to prevent conflicting settings? If there were, surely the second driver would have been presented with a STOP signal telling him to wait safely on the double-track section.
Thriftymaid says we never used to hear of train accidents. Actually we did, but they are statistically very rare although potentially disasters thanks to the number of people who may be involved. It's probably that rarity which distorts the perception by attracting much greater national and international publicity than the near-daily toll of road accidents which rarely rate more than a local newspaper or radio-station report. The Washington incident has been reported in detail in Britain - we don't hear about American road accidents unless very severe, such as a major bus crash with many fatalities. Railway accidents were far more common in the early days, but experience over the years brought vast improvements in safety overall; and generally you are far safer in a 100+mph train on properly-maintained, fully-signalled track, than in a car on a road carrying a lot of traffic at 70mph.
Thriftymaid 