Slashdot Mirror
British Rail Moving Forward with Sat-Nav/GPS
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."
Why do fools insist on going to high tech solutions when they can't even get the low tech stuff right?
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?
Infuriate left and right
That's what I was thinking. All you need, even without an accurate timetable, is an odometer. Trains' positions can be measured in one dimension - there is no need to bring two other dimensions and a constellation of satellites into this.
I don't know why I got an "Insightful" mod - it was meant to be "Funny" or "Troll." ;)
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.
Sure high tech makes for better systems in the future. This system will make it possible to know exactly where trains are, they could have monitors at all sations, or web sites, showing expected arrival times down to the second, great stuff.
... they wasted so much money and trouble on their computerized train controls and forgot all the basics like double tracking to allow trains to pass and sidings to allow broken trains to get out of the way.
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.
Infuriate left and right
Additionally, with an odometer you need additional information, like which switches were in what setting and so on. GPS is self-sufficient.
(A stunning example of how privatisation actually works: Public funding, Private profit).
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.
Tis always interesting to read about the nightmare of the privitized British rail system and then listen to people here claim how all of Amtrak's problems could be solved if we just privitized it.