An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

Actually if we did re-nationalise them, the power of the trade unions to affect the service is much less, and would be even less if the trains were converted to being automatic and so driverless.

I agree with regard to your point about automatic and driverless trains. However, wasn't the crippling mess that the unions created in Britain in the 1970s at a time when quite a bit of industry was nationalised? I think it would only work if there was increased form of control over what unions could and couldn't do when it came to public services. We simply cannot have unions holding the country to ransom, which affects people's lives and the economy to a great extent.

ukcarper

Sapphire wrote: »

I agree with regard to your point about automatic and driverless trains. However, wasn't the crippling mess that the unions created in Britain in the 1970s at a time when quite a bit of industry was nationalised? I think it would only work if there was increased form of control over what unions could and couldn't do when it came to public services. We simply cannot have unions holding the country to ransom, which affects people's lives and the economy to a great extent.

The rules governing the way unions can take industrial action have change considerably sonce the 1970s, not all strikes were in public sector or sole caused by the unions.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Actually if we did re-nationalise them, the power of the trade unions to affect the service is much less, and would be even less if the trains were converted to being automatic and so driverless.

the only thing stopping driverless trains is the unions
why will that change if the unions run rhe run the railways?

ruggedtoast

There are no driverless trains. You are just substituting a human driver for an electronic one. One that can't react to anything it wasn't programmed for, help any of the passengers, or slam on the brakes because the woman on the bridge coming up looks like she might be about to jump.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

ruggedtoast wrote: »

or slam on the brakes because the woman on the bridge coming up looks like she might be about to jump.

You don't know very much about trains, do you? Trains take at least a quarter of a mile to stop under emergency braking - high speed trains three times that. The driver can't see anything from that distance.

ruggedtoast

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

You don't know very much about trains, do you? Trains take at least a quarter of a mile to stop under emergency braking - high speed trains three times that. The driver can't see anything from that distance.

I know your Hornby set only has two speeds, stop and fast, because you were too tight to spring for the variable throttle, Eric.

But out in the real world trains have these things called drivers who can make their locomotives go at all the speeds inbetween these two states, from quite slow, to pretty fast, back to idling along.

Some tracks even have different speed limits. Fancy.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There are no driverless trains. You are just substituting a human driver for an electronic one. One that can't react to anything it wasn't programmed for, help any of the passengers, or slam on the brakes because the woman on the bridge coming up looks like she might be about to jump.

Computer driven cars could one day be 10x as safe as hunanbdriveb cars why would that not be possible for trains? The computer might not realise a woman is about to jump onto the line (nor could a human do much with a train driving at 120mph) but computers don't have fits or strokes or come to work drunk or high or have other things on their mind etc.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

the only thing stopping driverless trains is the unions
why will that change if the unions run rhe run the railways?

The point is that the unions are less powerful than when the railways were last publically owned. It is not unreasonable for a workforce to resist changes that will abolsh their jobs, it is human nature. Blaming the unions is too easy, it is the staff that object and the unions are just the means through which they do it.

But staff cannot resist change for ever. If the trains are designed not to have driving cabs then there is little the staff can do about it.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There are no driverless trains. You are just substituting a human driver for an electronic one. One that can't react to anything it wasn't programmed for, help any of the passengers, or slam on the brakes because the woman on the bridge coming up looks like she might be about to jump.

Of course you are just substituting a human driver for an electronic one. This is what automation does. It is just a matter of what safety systems you implement for each and their cost-effectiveness, and what level of risk to are willing to accept.

Actually an electronic driver can be programmed to respond to unexpected events but not all conceivable ones. Equally a human driver cannot reliably assess the intent of a bridge user or notice all unexpected events.

ruggedtoast

BobQ wrote: »

The point is that the unions are less powerful than when the railways were last publically owned. It is not unreasonable for a workforce to resist changes that will abolsh their jobs, it is human nature. Blaming the unions is too easy, it is the staff that object and the unions are just the means through which they do it.

But staff cannot resist change for ever. If the trains are designed not to have driving cabs then there is little the staff can do about it.



Of course you are just substituting a human driver for an electronic one. This is what automation does. It is just a matter of what safety systems you implement for each and their cost-effectiveness, and what level of risk to are willing to accept.

Actually an electronic driver can be programmed to respond to unexpected events but not all conceivable ones. Equally a human driver cannot reliably assess the intent of a bridge user or notice all unexpected events.

If you want to be driven around at high speed by Windows 7 then be my guest. I think most of us would pass.

mwpt

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you want to be driven around at high speed by Windows 7 then be my guest. I think most of us would pass.

Automation will continue and computers will be doing more and more jobs. Luddites will continue to deny it but it will happen. The end.