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)

Isn't one the train and the other the system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos118 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 7 October 2014 (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)

The list on this page should be split but I don't think an another page should be created. There is obviously a significant difference to the casual operator and driverless systems have become much more prevalent. I have sorted the current list according to the given opening dates since this is what makes many of them notable. (Other dates could be added and a re-sort done). Also I added the PATCO Speedline since it was the first ATO in the US. (There was a robotic mine railroad in the US early on - IIRC 1970s - but I can't it on the web.) Tjej (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2017 (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. 87.182.216.59 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

How is it that the Victoria line is the first ATO railway? I thought that Barcelona had one from 1961 to 1970.--Marianian^(talk) 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

An even earlier GoA2 implementation than New-York and Barcelona was tested with the first rubber tire metro car in Paris on the Pré-Saint-Gervais / Porte des Lilas shuttle from 1952 to 1956 with passengers onboard. There was not a lot of passenger traffic so it was an ideal test ground. It shut down when the shuttle closed after having validated technologies it was operated for. Then other lines of the system were automated with the same system from 1967 onwards because money was lacking to install such a thing at a large scale before. [2]

Nowadays, the track is used as siding and as a small maintenance workshop for line 7bis. Jujuleju (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't London Post Office Railway the first? Dieſelmaus (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/tren/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature127703

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Robotrain hatnote

'Robotrain' redirects here per discussion at WP:RFD. Since 'Robotrain' is also a soubriquet for a New York City train, the hatnote is required to navigate readers looking for that train to the correct article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction on this page

In the section “Types of Train Automation” GoA3 is defined as 'driverless train operation (DTO)' and GoA4 is defined as 'unattended train operation (UTO)'

Two sections later, in “Records” it states “A ‘driverless’ train is defined as meeting GoA4".

Whilst this may be true and possibly reflects misnomer, misconception or simply the evolution of the subject, the apparent contradiction could usefully use some clarity (or re-writing) by someone more qualified than myself

Thanks 212.250.79.37 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Automatic train operation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021019203759/http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffhist.htm to http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffhist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701022227/http://www.railwaygazette.com:80/news_view/article/2008/05/8408/driverless_operations_start_in_nuernberg.html to http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/05/8408/driverless_operations_start_in_nuernberg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Could a train simulator be used as a form of ATO?

I recall a website that used to allow internet control of model railway trains. (Don't remember the exact website, so no link or source possible I'm afraid.)

the website had a map of the layout and images of the models being controlled so that you could track them on the virtual line as they ran on the model one. The site host and model railway itself was located somewhere in Germany, I believe, based on the train models shown. (Red electric trains in the German style.)

(I used to access it all the time for fun back in the late 90s and early 2000s from Fort Worth, trying to give orders to the models in Germany. Great fun. I kept getting errors though - with messages in red lettering with a white background and red border. The error messages were in badly-translated German, giving another clue as to the site's origin, and when I did get errors the train images would disappear from the map or end up in weird positions and I'd get locked out.)

And while simulated or even model railway operation is a lot different than full-scale (the immediate stopping of models, for example, vs. real world momentum) it might work, especially if momentum were programmed into the simulator or model.

Full-scale trains using a simulator as a control program would be at least a GOA 2, maybe a GOA 3 or even GOA 4 if the program was robust enough.

That Dragon Guy (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please verify if "Digital S-Bahn Hamburg" is the "world's first [conventional] automated, driverless train"

I added info about this project to the article as well as to 2021 in science and Timeline of transportation technology. It may also be worth a short mention at List of automated train systems and Vehicular automation#Trains.

I'm not an expert in the state of train technology worldwide and would like to ask people watchlisting this page / other editors if the statements as accurate as they stand and as was claimed in the reports. If not please propose alternative phrasing or rationale for removal (I doubt that it should be removed) or edit it. If it is correct please confirm that this your assessment according to the currently available public data and whether it should be also added to these other two articles. For instance, it seems to contradict statements there like the info about London Thameslink and Docklands Light Railway in London at Vehicular automation#Trains. (However, if it was outright false then I'd wonder why most trains still aren't yet self-driving trains or close to becoming such and why it was phrased that way in WP:RS; the content of the article should be as accurate as possible.)

Thank you. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving notable examples to the List of automated train systems

The list of examples should be in the separated article. Geysirhead (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should. This doesn't even need a formal discussion to occur, any editor can do it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)