Trains are already as “self driving” as they can safely be and with how many people a train can move compared to how few people need to manage one, there’s already not much reason to go fully automate.
I can sit in front in a “fake cockpit” and look out the front window.
But more importantly they run like clockwork, there’s often a new metro every 7min they arrive and leave exactly when scheduled.
I’m sure they also save money
realistically having a person onboard makes little difference at all to passengers (you regain a tiny bit of space at the front and end of each carriage segment where the driver usually sits - that’s about it). the argument is that they can run trains more frequently because the ongoing cost is lower so the only cost is an investment in rolling stock - generally seen as more viable because it’s an asset rather than just a cost
Trains are already as “self driving” as they can safely be and with how many people a train can move compared to how few people need to manage one, there’s already not much reason to go fully automate.
Denmark’s metro’s are fully automated and it’s amazing.
Automation is good, there’s just a teething period.
We mostly automated sewing and dishwashing which put people out of jobs, but in the long term it’s been good
how does its full automation make it amazing to you?
I can sit in front in a “fake cockpit” and look out the front window.
But more importantly they run like clockwork, there’s often a new metro every 7min they arrive and leave exactly when scheduled. I’m sure they also save money
realistically having a person onboard makes little difference at all to passengers (you regain a tiny bit of space at the front and end of each carriage segment where the driver usually sits - that’s about it). the argument is that they can run trains more frequently because the ongoing cost is lower so the only cost is an investment in rolling stock - generally seen as more viable because it’s an asset rather than just a cost