Ask HN: Why isn't literally every train automated?
Here are some ideas from the top of my head:<p>* Many trains are old (at least in the UK), and tend to be very slowly upgraded, so the trains on the network were built before it was considered practical to automate them.<p>* Signalling systems are old, UK example: the warning system (AWS) is built on electromagnets, clever and cheap, but not enough for automation.<p>* While it&#x27;s possible to design a system that works well for a normal journey if nothing goes wrong, when things do go wrong you&#x27;d need a person (for example, I once was on a train and a door was stuck, the driver got out and fixed it so we could get off), also what about level crossings?<p>* Once you&#x27;re paying someone as a failsafe, then they already know how to drive the train, then the extra automation is just extra cost, except when the railway is busy (so London Underground has partial automation, as cost of driver + automation is worth it to run all the extra trains).<p>* Places with automated systems tend to be isolated (see the DLR, it&#x27;s isolated from mainline trains, and also has no level crossings).<p>* Maybe a way to keep people to blame if things go wrong, if an automated train goes wrong, who is to blame?<p>* Who in their right mind would want to lose their job? From what I understand people enjoy it, and it pays well, and it&#x27;s not exactly a skill that can be transferred (while in an ideal world someone could get another decent job, the fact is we&#x27;re not in an ideal world, so if someone loses their job they&#x27;re going to have a hard time and not have a way to magically get something new, unless they&#x27;re lucky).