British Rail Moving Forward with Sat-Nav/GPS 192
de1orean writes "The BBC is reporting that after a successful limited trial using GPS satellite navigation to improve train safety and efficiency, British Rail is committed to instituting sat-nav throughout the system. It may be in operation as early as 2008."
Low tech incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no personal experience with British rails, but I have read about the numerous nasty accidents they have had recently.
I do have experience with San Francisco's BART and the Tokyo subways about the same time, mid 1970s.
BART had fancy computer controlled trains which sometimes left the station without the operator in the cab. They actually stopped correctly at the next station, usually, but sometimes the trains stopped past the station, or shot off the end of the rails for the last station, and sometimes they opened doors on the wrong side of the train, right over the third rail. They were having one heck of a time even running the trains as close as 5 minutes apart.
Meanwhile, Tokyo's Ginza line, built just after the 1923 earthquake I believe, a completely manual system, had been running trains every minute or two without problems for years. That line was so funky that car lights would go off for a second or two as they crossed junctions; you could watch this light blanking travel down the train towards you.
Why do these idiots insist on spending a fortune on high tech solutions when low tech solutions have been around for a hundred years and yet they can't get it right, even with examples around the world of making them work? Is it just empire building?
Re:First impression (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Low tech incompetence (Score:4, Insightful)
> when low tech solutions have been around for a hundred years
Today's idiot is tomorrow's visionary.
The low-tech solutions are pretty expensive too, especially once unions get involved - and the cost of human labor rising is a GOOD thing, in the long run. (A comedian friend of mine suggests that presidents should campaign on a platform of promising "100% unemployment" - after all, who WANTS to work?)
I agree that the high-tech solutions tend to be trouble-prone, at least in the early years, but give 'em time. They didn't even let people dial their own telephone numbers for the first ~50 years or so of phone service, if I recall correctly...
Re:First impression (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem believing that train controllers have more stress than ATC. With ATC, you have three dimensions to deal with, meaning that, statistically speaking, it's far less likely that they'll run into each other, anyhow. Add to that that you have three degrees of freedom to solve any impending collisions, and it's relatively stress-free, compared to train control where the ability to correct errors is extremely limited.
Yes, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
But when they can't even get basic block controls down right, and guarantee switches are in the right position, why waste time on this? It's like putting power windows in cars when you can't even keep the doors from falling off the hinges, or worrying about computerized anti-lock brakes back when they still had mechanical cable brakes.
Just like BART
That's what's wrong here. If they can't get basic safety standards in place, high tech GPS position reporting and timely web sites aren't worth beans.
Re:Low tech incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they can't even get the low tech stuff right. The key failure points on rail systems are the switches & signals that control which section of rail the train is on, and the locomotives themselves which can stop, speed up or slow down.
Knowing precisely where a loco is on the track is the single most important aspect of rail safety, so that train control can switch a train onto another section of track, or into a siding to avoid collision, or can warn the driver to speed up or slow down to achieve the same result. In non-gps systems is this is done with trackside transponders and dead reckoning. A modern positive train separation (PTS) system based on GPS is simpler and more reliable than the transponders it replaces, and allows for more sophisticated controls such as automatic speed limiting.
It's also far from uncommon. Similar systems have been available for years.
Re:Yes, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, it is quite clearly beneficial for both efficiency and safety to be able to pinpoint not just each train, but each item of rolling stock in the system. Now if you are going to do that these days, then GPS is the simplest and least expensive way of doing it.
It doesn't mean that they can't also improve other things.
Re:Low tech incompetence (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just on the BART system two weeks ago, and it was wonderful. The trains were always on time. The computer announcement were completely audible, and the trains felt modern and safe.
On the other hand, I took the NYC subway for years, and while it gets you anywhere in the city, it runs on the older systems of fixed length signals. There was a fire in one of the stations and trains actually had to be coordinated by flaggers with walkie-talkies. They were running at less than a third the normal rate. Even when all is going well, trains can't run more than once a minute or two. A full installation of modern technology in NY would allow twice as many trains on the track, and by eliminating the need for conductors, save a fortune as well.
And please, nobody tell me that trains are safer because a conductor is hiding in his little booth--conductors don't come out if something dangerous is going on. If you want to protect trains, have police officers ride, in the cars with the passengers. One police officer per ten trains is far more effective than a conductor on every train.
Re:First impression (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, with an odometer you need additional information, like which switches were in what setting and so on. GPS is self-sufficient.
Re:It's not British Rail (Score:1, Insightful)
Socialize costs, privatize profits.
Taxpayers cough up for the capital costs, private entities reap the benefits.
Somehow, Soviet communism and Western capitalism don't sound all that different.
Re:Low tech incompetence (Score:2, Insightful)
Currently the UK runs on a fixed block system whereby the maximum speed on the line determines the separation in terms of blocks. This is inefficient and causes corners to be cut. Moving to a 'Moving block system' whereby the speed and location of the train is used to work out where is safe gives a much higher utilisation rate of track and as a result saves money and reduces the risks of corners being cut.
France have had it right for a long time, if only we British could swallow our pride and use their system.
Re:Modernisation - British Style (Score:4, Insightful)