Will trains be gone in 2020-2040, or will the locomotive engineer job be replaced with electronics .?

Question

I hope it's not but I have a feeling it will. I think trains will be replaced with something electronic that can move faster and don't require fuel. I also have a feeling the job of locomotive engineer will be replaced with electronic engineers like I said before, will it be like that I hope it's not please tell me the honest answer what it will be like for trains in 2020-2040. I worry a lot about this question.

Answer 1

There is always a need of human to run a machine, to look after it and keep eye on whats going on. No machine can run on its own without a trigger from a human. So, jobs for locomotive engineers will always be there. Electronic engineer will be helpful to fix a fault in electronic part of a train. But he won't be able to run a train. It requires training and skills.



Trains won't be gone. In fact, these will be replaced by faster and more safer trains. Everybody can not afford the airplane ticket. So, trains are still cheaper source of transportation. Besides, these are also required to move heavy loads from one place to other which is not possible through airplane due to space and weight limitation.

Answer 2

I would say trains themselves will definitely still be here in 2040 - 2140 as well and probably much much longer. They are such an efficient system, far more than road or air, that I doubt they will vanish for a long long time. And as fossil fuels diminish that will only increase the comparative efficiency.



As to the other side of the question though, i am speculating of course but i think it is very unlikely that driverless trains would have taken over completely by then either. Or even be particularly common. In the cities and metro systems they might be increasing, but it is less easy to imagine the technology taking over more obscure branch lines any time soon - or even the long intercity mainlines. They are only just getting round to electrifying some of them here in the UK after all, and the USA is considerably behind and considerably larger! It's not so many years until 2040, and installing driverless on even one long mainline would be a huge project. Heck - they'd probably not even get beyond arguing about it by 2040!



I'd guess things then would be fairly similar to what we have now really - just a few more driverless trains introduced on the urban metro systems as I say. Trains will be faster, more efficient, squeezing in more people and running more frequently - and no doubt better technology in the cabs as well . . . but still a driver.

Answer 3

As long as there is profit in it, the trains will run. The machine is too massive for total remote control. It appears they could be moving in that direction, but for safety sake there will always have to be someone to oversee on board. The crew size has shrunk from 5 people to only two now. And electric commuters have only one, usually. They would be the easiest to totally remote control, but still again for safety, a good person is still the best looking out, live in the window with a hand on the break valve.

Answer 4

The most energy-efficient means of transport by land is by railway/railroad, due to the minimum rolling friction of smooth steel wheels on smooth steel rails. The down-side is that this makes it impossible to stop a train quickly or steer it clear of obstructions, and thus the need for sophisticated signalling systems, and fences or other impedimenta to stop animals, vehicles, pedestrians and others from getting on to the tracks. When you consider how many trucks or buses (and their drivers) that would be needed just to replace one train journey, it can be seen that - short of inventing Star Trek-type teleportation - nothing is ever going to replace the railways.



Air travel is of course a lot faster over distances of around 600 miles or more, but less energy efficient, and only of use for small loads of passengers or freight.



As to automated trains, most of the London Underground system is already 'automatic', in the sense that the driver 'tells' the train when it is safe to drive itself to the next station, but only after he/she has checked that the train has stopped correctly, opened the doors to let the passengers on and off, closed the doors and again checked that it is safe to depart. The driver still has to remain in the cab depressing the 'Drivers Safety Device' (to indicate that he/she is still conscious/alive!), and ready to take over when the automatic equipment fails. The Dockland Light Railway system operated by London Underground takes it a step further in that - between stops - the train operator is free to roam the train, assisting passengers and checking tickets. This is because the trains are light-weight, relatively slow-moving, and quick to stop in emergency.



Automatic control of main line trains is much more problematic where stopping patterns differ from one train to another, as do their top speeds, acceleration rates, stopping distances, number of cars etc. etc.



Other than short end-to-end systems, such as airport shuttles, I do not think that the general travelling public would ever feel safe travelling on a deep-level 'tube' line or even a sub-surface subway train with out there being a trained member of staff on board. The same remark goes for long-distance main line trains thundering down the main lines at 100 mph and more.

Answer 5

trains are the most efficent and economical way to move large amounts of freight , and will be around for many , many years to come . Im sure when diesel locomotives took over from steam , some sixty ago , the designers and builders would just not believe that some of them are still working the rails 60 years later . the steel highway will be around for a long . long time .

Answer 6

Certainly not Britain where our railways are enjoying their highest ridership since the 1920s and we are constructing new lines www.nationalrail.co.uk