The wrong fight?

The ‘RMT vs The World’ dispute over the role of guards has dragged on for so long that an interesting question now arises: have the unions picked the right fight?

Autonomous Road Vehicle technology has long been seen as a threat to rail, with Lord Adonis’s fleets of self-driving trucks merely the latest iteration. What if Autonomous Vehicle Systems (AVS) technology is itself adapted for rail use?

Heavy rail routes rarely have unpredictable cars, cycles or pedestrians for the system to contend with, and are (in AVS terms) very simple routes to learn. Adaption of the technology to rail use should, in principle, be straightforward.

Unlike European Train Control System (ETCS), adapting AVS for use on railways requires no new trackside infrastructure - AVS can use both existing visual and TPWS/

AWS signalling systems. Train control equipment based on mass market road AVS technology should be significantly cheaper than rail-only ETCS.

While not offering capacity improvements, AVS-based driverless trains immediately cut operating costs and improve punctuality. Train operating companies will quickly see that Autonomous Vehicle Systems never have holidays or sick days, always turn up on time, and never strike.

Autonomous road vehicles are already in limited use, but an android version of Barry Doe checking tickets and dealing with passenger queries? Not quite yet.

Human staff with a safety role will be needed for many years to come, especially on fully autonomous trains. Such personnel (let’s call them ‘guards’) will have additional responsibilities: ‘rebooting the driver’ whenever it disengages, and taking control if the AV system says “I’m sorry Dave but I’m afraid I can’t do that” when told to make an unscheduled stop at Wimbledon.

A future for human guards? Definitely. For human train drivers? Not so sure. Steve Everett, Winchelsea