> Well since you've not actually shown any technical reason it's not much of a loss...
*sigh*
> Same thing the driver does. Stop the bloody train...
Nope - they proceed at caution, using their eyes to check for danger. They may even get out of the cab to check or remove obstructions. The nature of the signalling system means that signals can sometimes be at danger for some time. So that's either the line is paralysed or an upgrade costing a lot of zeros for a quiet line which was chugging along at minimal cost just fine.
> The drivers weren't consulted they were told it was safe or it wasn't.
How did they know what had happened at the scene? Did the driver of the train involved, or another one nearby, tell them?
Drivers proceed on their own judgement of safety. If they were told of a reason to proceed with caution - perhaps due to debris risk - they would be able to.
> Tell me why a light telling a human to stop is safer than a computer instruction?
It's not - which is why cab signalling is the norm for new high speed lines and an aim for the UK rail network over the next few decades. Estimated cost of an upgrade down south? 3.5m per mile.
What do you do when the signalling system fails and a red light is shown - virtually or not - in the middle of nowhere? On normal trains this is quite routine and the driver is 'talked past' the signal, slowly travelling on line of sight until the next clear signal. Even the DLR cab staff take control of the train in situations like this. How does it work without trained driving staff on the train?
What happens when there's failures/incidents/maintenance at junctions or stations where degraded working needs to be set up? Often this is managed with people on the ground using physical tokens or hand signalling. Do they need some sort of device to interface with the train? Do they just shut the line for days instead? Remember, even one extra day of disruption means more disruption than driver strikes have caused in Scotland in the last twenty years.
How do busy stations work? Currently, trains are usually 'shunt' signalled 'on top' of each other either to use up platform space or to couple. This requires drivers to drive on line of sight. It happens every day dozens of times in Edinburgh alone. Do we need to develop some kind of proximity/camera system to make this work? Is the technology there yet to make this work reliably enough to avoid massively dangerous - and disruptive - crashes?
How do depots work? Or engineering worksites? Do you upgrade them all to be 'automated' as well? How much does that cost? Do you have special local drivers to run the trains around? What if they go on strike?
You seem pretty confident that you have a cheap and easy answer to all these questions. If so, don't bother replying here - swerve the train driver job, start a rail consulting firm and become a billionaire.
If not, I'd suggest that building every train driver a brand new four bed house on the condition that they don't strike and accept involuntary overtime would end up a much quicker and cheaper solution to the strikes. It would probably miraculously solve the labour shortage too.
posts
