Watching the front view from my seat as we do 300km with one man crew.
^^^ Like I said, with the appropriate technological & regulatory changes that is of course entirely feasible. But the capital costs of the technology and the possible effects any regulatory changes may have with safety standards (i.e. the many specific procedures currently required by either the CROR or the operating railroads, which necessitate the need for 2 rules qualified personal to perform) will need to be weighed against the costs of future savings from a reduction of crewing. And of course there will be unionized resistance, but since we at the B are only contractors(and presumably going forward they will continue to use contractors) I don't see that as ultimately offering much if any resistance at all. In any case there's been no indication at all that they even want to go that route as evidenced by the 200+ people they've hired in the last 3 years and continuing at that rate going forward. It was also entirely their decision to expand the crewing to 3 personal in the first place with the addition of the CSA position from the 2 crew per train model that CN began to utilize and that & CP currently uses. Even with the current 3-crew model the costs are still below that of CN and CP's 2-crew operation costs.
How about looking into automated driverless EMUs for the new electric GO?
Regulations prevent automation unless a route is fully grade separated. That's political bull. There's no technological reason why a railway with level crossings can't be automated. Computers can handle level crossings for god's sake.
Heck within 10 years (when this is finally supposed to be done!) we're probably going to have fully automated cars (in mixed traffic and all) on the market. AI technology is progressing rapidly these days.
It's not only a political issue but also a liability issue. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's a single completely automated (i.e. no railway personal at all on the train) heavy railway system in the entire world. Not talking about metro's or maglev's here which are not only completely grade separated but are also well protected from trespassers, which is quite different from the typical heavy railway corridor. Aside from that, the current costs of such automation would far outweigh any benefits.
For example, the cost of installing ATC on the Yonge-University line, a completely enclosed system(meaning the technology is less involved than one required for an open and none-grade separated right-of-way) is estimated at 407$ million. And that's just for the signal system, it doesn't include the on train equipment costs for the system which is built into the TR's. That's 407$ million for just 18.8 miles of track, or
21.6$ million per mile. The GO system is currently 280 miles long and in the future will be expanding to 500+ mile. Clearly the costs for automation of the system would be an astronomical number.
Now lets weigh that against the operation costs. The current cost for train operations is about 60 million a year. To be precise GO signed a 10-year extension with the Bombarider for 927$ million(92.7$ million per year) and that includes train operations
and maintenance of the trains.
http://www.cp24.com/news/bombardier-extends-927m-contracts-with-metrolinx-1.1087873 That's exclusively the manpower costs and train operations would represent about 2/3 of that cost with its larger workforce.
At current costs an ATC system for the GO system would be equal to about 50-100 years of manned operation with the current 3-man crewing requirement. So what would be the benefits of ATC? Even if they do go with driverless trains I can assure you there will still be an on board service personal to deal with mechanical issues and for passenger assistance. For instance, I have no doubt you can program the train to stop for people/vehicles on the right of way/at a crossing. And you can program it to stop and inform the authorities if there is an incident. However, a computer and the software program that runs it is not going to be physically able to go out check to see if the pedestrian that was just struck at a crossing is still alive and initiate CPR to resuscitate them is it? Furthermore a software program/computer is not going to be able to physically unjam a door, respond to passenger alarms, intervene in on-board disputes between passengers, immediately respond to medical emergency's such as saving a passenger who's having a heart attack by using a defibrillator, go out onto the tracks to throw a switch that is physical jammed by an object or manually operate a defective power controlled switch, check to see if there is a dragging object under the train after striking an object or receiving an alarm for such, dislodging any object stuck underneath or in front of the train, replacing a damaged hose bad(flexible air pipe) connecting coaches. I could go on and on. Meaning there would be
no operational savings benefit to having ATC verses a single driver system.
It would be a safer system of course, but that exact same benefit can be provided by a less expensive system of PTC, which is what I've been advocating for. Of course the biggest benefit to automation is the ability to increase train capacity by minimize train intervals. On the Youge-University line the minimum current interval is 150 seconds with maned operation. ATC will enable that to drop to 108 seconds. But there would be no such benefit to full automation on a rail lines with a projected train intervals of
900 seconds!; the 15 minute service that is now being promised. There wouldn't even be any benefit for a line with three times that capacity and we certainly won't be needing subway-type capacity out to Oakville, Million or Oshawa any time soon, if ever. There would be only a marginal benefit in travel times, as ATC trains would be able to make use of the maximum safe braking curve at all times. So there is some time savings there. Though there would be no benefit to acceleration or speed in between stations. Why? Because acceleration is already automatically regulated. As soon as I get the 'two to go' signal I engage the throttle from 0 to 8 immediately. Power to the traction motors is entirely controlled by the software from that moment on. It automatically regulates the power and compensates for any loss in traction regardless of throttle position. It takes me perhaps a second to do this. So I suppose a computer could do it in a fraction of that, which means a time savings would be 1 second per stop, basically negligible. When needed to maintain the schedule we are in throttle 8 the entire time when acceleration between station until we reach the maximum track or train speed.
All that really needs to be done is to introduce a non-line of sight signal system and install a PTC with enforced stops, change a few regulations and train procedures and modernize the equipment. Then you can have a single operator, which would save you from any massive outlay for a heavy rail open corridor ATC system that in the foreseeable future is unnecessary and too costly with negligible benefit and basically the same operational costs considering the need for an on-board service personal remains.
Naturally some may suggest that my opinion is biased considering my vocation. However if there is a flaw in my argument, feel free to point it out. My point being we only have a limited amount of dollars to spend, it makes no sense to essentially waste something like 5 billion of that on complete automation when the cost savings would only be at about 40 million per year for 3-crew operation and basically 0$ for a single crew operation. When system installation costs are drastically reduced and when train frequencies begin to approach metro-like levels, then ATC makes perfect sense. But the GO system will still be far away from that point even after all these planned service increases.
