General Discussion

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)

13. Sure it does...

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 01:24 PM

Jan 2013

...until something goes wrong.

Please explain how the technology will repair a damaged brake line if that should occur. Please explain how it can inspect that train before restarting its journey after repairs. Please explain what happens if there is an accident, and there is not even one crew member on that train.

So sure, maybe in some theoretical la-la land, it makes sense to run a train with NO crew, because technology enables it. Out here in the real world, though, it makes no sense at all. Two crew members seems to me a bare minimum -- allowing some redundancy in case one is incapacitated.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should a 15,000-Ton Train Be Operated Single-Handed? [View all] HiPointDem Jan 2013 OP

This is a terrible idea and is introduced in every bargaining session. Brickbat Jan 2013 #1

I mean, the switch to a two-person crew is bad enough. Brickbat Jan 2013 #2

It's a crazy idea. TheCowsCameHome Jan 2013 #3

The technology exists to do just that. n/t A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #5

Sure it does... ljm2002 Jan 2013 #13

All I did was state a fact, and you want me to answer a questionnaire? A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #14

They're already doing that here in Fort Worth BlueCollar Jan 2013 #8

Remote control is nothing new TheCowsCameHome Jan 2013 #12

I don't think two hands will stop it. NCTraveler Jan 2013 #4

We now have cars that drive themselves. Get ready for robot trains Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #6

Explains why they're trying to make them all engineers right at the outset. New hires no longer TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #7

Human error, medical emergency hootinholler Jan 2013 #10

Oh I thought the question was literal... Taverner Jan 2013 #9

The only way this will be stopped is by legislation. MicaelS Jan 2013 #11