Talk:Automatic train operation

"Semi-skilled Driver"?

I'm wondering what this text means: "Most systems elect to maintain a Driver, or at least a Train Operator (who may have the status of a semi-skilled Driver)[.]" I know that driver is the standard UK term, and it's also used in Australia IINM, but most North American systems use "train operator" to mean what "driver" means in the UK. Thus, "a Driver, or at least a Train Operator," sets up a contrast that makes no sense (or else is misleading) to a North American reader. --Tkynerd 00:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody's commented in three months, I'm changing the text. --Tkynerd 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Train Control

Let's merge these two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.83.20 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

List split?

Should we have a separate List of driverless train file? Tabletop (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be included (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_Express) "The Expo Express was the first fully-automated rapid transit system in North America" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstcyr (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Haxor rulez

Has there ever been a hacker or cyber-attack incident on completely driverless lines? Underground railway No.4 is going to be total driverless here in Budapest, Hungary and I'm worried about safety. If anyone evil pries open a control box and attaches a laptop, he could theoretically send trains into each other. I think there should be a man and a dog left "in the loop", like on our existing Metro Line 3, not just electronics. The article does not say if anything like hacking has ever happened yet? 91.82.32.254 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think driver less introduces any new hacker risks. To cause a collision they would have to over ride more than the Automatic driving control, the underlying automatic train stop system would have to be suppressed as well. The only thing that may contribute is that with no railway staff physically on the train, some one might be more tempted to force open a control cubical and fiddle.

Note - nearly all these trains have manual driving controls anyway - if for no other reason other than to allow maintenance staff to move them around the depots. No laptops required. I watched a Singapore 'driver less' train being manually driven recently. They do so on Sunday mornings so that the staff have experience with 'degraded' operations.

Yes all of these trains have control panels installed - shunting would be difficult otherwise. I cannot say for sure to which degree each system prevents abuse. But you cannot engage the train to manual mode just by pushing one button, without a full stop by the ATS system at first nothing can be done. Besides the ATO system on Nuremberg's U2/3 underground line, which is mentioned in the article, has systems for example that feeds train status maintenance data (including occurences an open auxilliary control panel) to the traffic controller's workstation. The ATP system featured interlocks that either prevent train that should be driven by the ATO from starting if the hatch is open or preventing trains that should be supervised by a driver (for example passing through a works area in coded manual mode (ATC without ATO) from starting with the hatch closed. As you can see there are many levels of protection on such systems - not forget CCTV inside the train and outside at the stations - to prevent such thinghs.

Earliest automated train

An earlier automated train was the Grand Central / Times Square shuttle, which ran fully automatically from 1959 to 1964, when an unrelated fire on a manual train damaged the station and some of the equipment.[1]. Apparently that shuttle has had human drivers since then. One at each end, because the trip takes less time than it would take to walk through the cars to reverse.--John Nagle (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)