Will self-driving vehicles kill rail?

daveharnett

Fast forward to a point in the not-too-distant future where self driving cars (and buses) are ubiquitous.

Outside of high-speed inter city lines, is there any case left for vehicles on rails?

karma_coma

Very interesting question. I think public rail transport would continue to serve a different demographic to that of driverless cars. While driverless cars would in ones mind provide the reduced time wasted in commuting, there's still going to be the issue of paying for parking spaces and vehicle charging etc.
Then there's the fact that cars in general, as they are now, are still a luxury good for many people and aren't financially viable for budgets of lower income persons.

Unless governments decide to invest in buying driverless cars for everyone & building multi-storey parking facilities, I can't see them tearing up any railways..

Off-topic already, but is the only reason modern fully road segregated rail networks aren't already driverless down to drivers unions?

savagethegoat

two points in addition to a driverless facility will occur to overcome the problems you state. Common usage cars on demand and solar charging.

To answer your point, yes I think the revolution in road transport on the horizon will kill rail, with the exception probably of mass rapid transport

daveharnett

karma_coma wrote: »

there's still going to be the issue of paying for parking spaces and vehicle charging

I see the cars parking themselves miles out of town in a depot with chargers galore. The need for parking spaces near city centers will vanish. If all the cars in a depot can talk to one another and move out of one another's way, they can occupy up to 90% of the space, rather than leave 30-50% empty for access lanes.

karma_coma wrote: »

cars ... are still a luxury good for many people.

Why own a car when you can summon a fleet car to your door as needed? Outside of peak hours, using a taxi/fleet service to get around should be ridiculously cheap by today's standards.

karma_coma wrote: »

Unless governments decide to invest in buying driverless cars for everyone & building multi-storey parking facilities...

On this front, I'm certain that google, apple, uber, volkswagen etc will be years ahead of governments, and better positioned to raise the capital needed.

karma_coma wrote: »

Off-topic already, but is the only reason modern fully road segregated rail networks aren't already driverless down to drivers unions?

I guess there hasn't been enough economic pressure to push past the labor relations and legislative obstacles. The cost of the drivers' labor must be pretty trivial in the overall cost of building/operating a rail service.

Losty Dublin

daveharnett wrote: »

Fast forward to a point in the not-too-distant future where self driving cars (and buses) are ubiquitous.

Outside of high-speed inter city lines, is there any case left for vehicles on rails?

A bus or train will always need somebody on board to override the controls or to take charge of the scene in the case of an emergency or a systems failure. It need not be a driver but it has to be a competent person should the worst arise.

daveharnett

Losty Dublin wrote: »

A bus or train will always need somebody on board to override the controls or to take charge of the scene in the case of an emergency or a systems failure. It need not be a driver but it has to be a competent person should the worst arise.

In the case of buses, I disagree. "Always" and "never" are words that seldom stand up to technological progress.

In the case of trains, I disagree even more strongly. They are the easiest and safest vehicles imaginable to make autonomous. Passengers are already considered "competent" enough to operate an emergency stop handle. What other manual intervention would you expect/want?

savagethegoat

Losty Dublin wrote: »

A bus or train will always need somebody on board to override the controls or to take charge of the scene in the case of an emergency or a systems failure. It need not be a driver but it has to be a competent person should the worst arise.

why so? If a car is safe driverless, then so is a bus. Driverless trains are for another thread.

Del.Monte

savagethegoat wrote: »

why so? If a car is safe driverless, then so is a bus. Driverless trains are for another thread.

Who the hell says a driverless car is safe?

savagethegoat

well it hasn't been developed yet, so the answer there is "no one". But it surely will be before it is introduced.


I didn't say it is safe, I said if it is safe then so will a bus be.

Losty Dublin

daveharnett wrote: »

In the case of buses, I disagree. "Always" and "never" are words that seldom stand up to technological progress.

In the case of trains, I disagree even more strongly. They are the easiest and safest vehicles imaginable to make autonomous. Passengers are already considered "competent" enough to operate an emergency stop handle. What other manual intervention would you expect/want?

So who takes charge when a car crashes into a driverless vehicle?

Who evacuates passenger in the event of an incident? Reports incidents to the signalman that happen en route? Performs safety checks such as door and brake tests before and during the trip? Perforns minor repairs and checks in the event of breakdowns? Sound horns as required?

Apply brakes, adhere to temporary speed limits, monitor assist passengers to board and trains and to see that a train or bus is safe to move off again, check for hot axles if sensors go off or, heaven forbid, obstructions that a train may hit en route.

This list goes on and on here and are all safety critical tasks that can't be performed remotely, at least to an adequate level of competence. Even if they could, signal staff aren't trained to drive trains at all and will be clueless about the many ins and outs of train or bus driving.

Oh and for the record, the emergency cords and handles on trains don't actually apply a train brake fully. What they do is that they lower braking pressure enough for a partial brake application. Once this happens it alerts train staff that an issue is on hand and they can take it from there. The only person who can fully stop the train or bus in the event of an emergency is the driver.

end of the road

daveharnett wrote: »

In the case of buses, I disagree. "Always" and "never" are words that seldom stand up to technological progress.

In the case of trains, I disagree even more strongly. They are the easiest and safest vehicles imaginable to make autonomous. Passengers are already considered "competent" enough to operate an emergency stop handle. What other manual intervention would you expect/want?

heavy rail systems with level crossings and the rest are certainly not easy to make automated. underground and completely segregated systems are mostly automated all ready.
being able to operate an emergency stop handle definitely doesn't make one competent enough to take control of a train.

the_syco

It's a tough one. I'd say driverless car "trains" will be the norm, where the train lines will be on the dual carriageways and motorways leading into the main towns.

But rail could be used to move the cars in large numbers away from the city, as I can't see multi-storey carparks ever being built in Dublin; it's too much of a good idea.

savagethegoat

Thread is not about driverless trains, it's about the inevitable rise of driverless cars and their effect on trains.

It will take years but eventually all road vehicles will be driverless, rented by the hour or the day and powered by solar energy.

It will have an effect on rail imo, it wouldn't take much of an effect to make rail uncompetitive.

spacetweek

Railways are going to be much more popular in future, not less.
Trains are far more space efficient than cars will ever be, automated or not.
Many people cannot afford a car and never will.
As cities become ever larger and denser their transport space becomes more and more valuable and needs to be converted from space-wasting cars to efficient rail both for intracity and intercity journeys.

As for multistorey car parks, the sooner they're all demolished the better. They waste space and encourage space-wasting cars to come right into city centres.

Infini

Agree with the above poster. Cities are congested as it is because theres too many cars. Driverless or not Rail will get more popular because one train can carry alot more people and is dramatically more efficient than a fleet of cars. Paet of the reason transport is so bad here is because of an overreliance on cars and roads.

savagethegoat

I don't think you are grasping the concept. Think past what a car is now, and think what could be.

Driverless cars on a pool basis would mean less cars would be needed and no car parks in City centres would be required. Working on this basis , rail would thus become less popular as there would be more road capacity.

Sam Russell

Driverless cars would replace taxis not cars. They will not replace trains, trams or cars due to cost.

savagethegoat

they will need to replace ALL cars to make the roads work as they should, but that's not the point. Will they replace trains is the question.

Many people myself included would not use a train (or bus) to commute in preference to a nice comfy personal transport.

If you think about it, what a fleet of driverless cars will replace is the rail line itself. Perfectly feasible to join a few dozen vehicles together to form a road train and rails wont be needed for guidance as now.

spacetweek

savagethegoat wrote: »

Many people myself included would not use a train (or bus) to commute in preference to a nice comfy personal transport.

You aren't being rational. If your personal transport is comfy but takes ages and is stressful due to congestion, then why do it?

savagethegoat wrote:

If you think about it, what a fleet of driverless cars will replace is the rail line itself. Perfectly feasible to join a few dozen vehicles together to form a road train and rails wont be needed for guidance as now.

No, no, no. Those cars would still have the average of one 1 occupant and so would take up a massive amount of space compared with every other mode. There is no way around this. At rush hour, trying to replace traffic with other modes is the goal.

savagethegoat

yes and that other mode is the driverless car. We aren't asking about the effect on road transport here though, we are asking about the effect on rail transport.

Sam Russell

I think the driverless train will save the railways.

Nermal

daveharnett wrote: »

Fast forward to a point in the not-too-distant future where self driving cars (and buses) are ubiquitous.

Outside of high-speed inter city lines, is there any case left for vehicles on rails?

Not for short mass journeys in densely packed cities, nor for long distance high speed travel over distances of say, 300-1500km. But it kills everything in-between.

So it will kill intercity in Ireland but wouldn't kill the Luas/Dart.

Del.Monte

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the driverless train will save the railways.

Why? Getting rid of a few hundred coal face employees isn't going to save much.

MGWR

daveharnett wrote: »

Fast forward to a point in the not-too-distant future where self driving cars (and buses) are ubiquitous.

Outside of high-speed inter city lines, is there any case left for vehicles on rails?

What unique characteristic(s) of "self-driving" road vehicles could possibly "kill rail"? There are things that rail can do that road transport simply cannot, especially in certain weather conditions; and a properly-signalled rail system that is not a tramway will always fly past the traffic jams on city streets and motorways during the peak hours.

And why will robot-driven cars ever be "ubiquitous"? i.e. what could their appeal possibly be, when the automobile (which has been around for over a century now) offered autonomy?

Given what's happened with Tesla's "self-driving" cars of late, I'd expect a rational population to flee automation as quickly as possible.

MGWR

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the driverless train will save the railways.

Not more than privatisation.

And "driverless" trains still have accidents.

savagethegoat

MGWR wrote: »

What unique characteristic(s) of "self-driving" road vehicles could possibly "kill rail"? There are things that rail can do that road transport simply cannot, especially in certain weather conditions; and a properly-signalled rail system that is not a tramway will always fly past the traffic jams on city streets and motorways during the peak hours.

And why will robot-driven cars ever be "ubiquitous"? i.e. what could their appeal possibly be, when the automobile (which has been around for over a century now) offered autonomy?

Given what's happened with Tesla's "self-driving" cars of late, I'd expect a rational population to flee automation as quickly as possible.

I think they will render the actual rails redundant.

The driver of that Tesla car was I believe reading a book, when he should have been, hands on the wheel ready to take over in an emergency. It's in it's infancy bit all the various systems are there now to do this, it will happen.

Sam Russell

MGWR wrote: »

Not more than privatisation.

And "driverless" trains still have accidents.

I do not think the privatisation of British Rail is going all that well. Few new investments with most of the infrastructure in the hands of government. London Cross Rail is the only major rail project, with HS2 being long fingered.

spacetweek

Sam Russell wrote: »

with HS2 being long fingered.

What? Ground is being broken at Euston Station in a couple of months.

Sam Russell

spacetweek wrote: »

What? Ground is being broken at Euston Station in a couple of months.

I am talking about phase two.

MGWR

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not think the privatisation of British Rail is going all that well. Few new investments with most of the infrastructure in the hands of government. London Cross Rail is the only major rail project, with HS2 being long fingered.

That's due to the bad habit of not privatising all the way and the urge of government to continue interfering and micromanaging, as noted.

HS2 problems could have been solved by using the GCML.

MGWR

savagethegoat wrote: »

I think they will render the actual rails redundant

How? Rail still has the distinct advantage (when properly executed) of carrying the most passengers and goods on the smallest footprint, at higher speeds with greater safety than asphalt roadways. Also, with the use of steel-on-steel traction versus the increased oil dependency to make rubber tyres, the savings purely in heat energy is not being taken advantage of.

Europe at large has been engaging in the utterly mad practice of having freight over land being transported by road by an average of 90-95 percent. Each lorry tyre consumes about a half-barrel of crude oil to make. So to "kill rail" means to at least double or treble those tyres on the roadways, never mind the expanded road footprints necessary to carry them.

savagethegoat wrote: »

The driver of that Tesla car was I believe reading a book, when he should have been, hands on the wheel ready to take over in an emergency. It's in it's infancy bit all the various systems are there now to do this, it will happen.

Get ready for hacked road vehicles, then. Such technology ought to be done by demand rather than socially-engineered into place, besides.

Dravokivich

MGWR wrote: »

Given what's happened with Tesla's "self-driving" cars of late, I'd expect a rational population to flee automation as quickly as possible.

Blame people who reviewed it, instead of Tesla. Every amatuer "Look I see a new technology thing a record a video of it" showed it off by driving for miles with their hands off the wheel doing other tasks. It set the expectation in other people who didn't critique it, that it's how they were meant to use the car.

MGWR wrote: »

Get ready for hacked road vehicles, then. Such technology ought to be done by demand rather than socially-engineered into place, besides.

It already happens if a car has networking capabilites. It doesn't need to be able to drive by itself. A lot parameters could be controlled remotely.


With regards to sustainability of Rail long term, I always thought it was Freight that was the bigger part of the business?

dowlingm

trains and trams are over said the acolytes of Dr Beeching and the fellas who killed trams in Dublin. Streetcars are going into or have gone into American cities as disparate as Cincinnati, Kansas City, El Paso and Washington DC, and one is even proposed for NYC.

Time will tell.