International Railroad Discussion > Australia automated locomotives...not so good

https://www.globalrailhub.com/blogs/post/3/autohaul-or-autostall-rio-tinto-s-driverless-trains-not-running-to-schedule#.V8Is_GE1sqA.facebook

TAW

Several outlets have run stories on this.  Some more detailed than others.  But, all agree  "it ain't workin out".  Even Rio Tinto has said it will delay for another 3 years before trying again hoping technology will get better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/16 18:51 by tomstp.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Several outlets have run stories on this.  Some
> more detailed than others.  But, all agree  "it
> ain't workin out".  Even Rio Tinto has said it
> will delay for another 3 years before trying again
> hoping technology will get better.

I think I can rephrase the last sentence: "Someone sold us an unfinished product, so we'll wait 3 years to see if they can actually deliver on what they promised."

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tomstp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Several outlets have run stories on this.
>  Some
> > more detailed than others.  But, all agree
>  "it
> > ain't workin out".  Even Rio Tinto has said it
> > will delay for another 3 years before trying
> again
> > hoping technology will get better.
>
> I think I can rephrase the last sentence: "Someone
> sold us an unfinished product, so we'll wait 3
> years to see if they can actually deliver on what
> they promised."


Or, Rio Tinto rushed it out before it was ready and now they're paying for their impatience.

All,

This is another case of throwing technology at something that doesn't need it. In the end it will cost them as much or more to make this work. So, you replace a driver (engineer)... you also end up hiring techs to keep it all running at a cost that will be most likely more that the drives (engineers) cost. In the end, really really dumb.

J.

J.Ferris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All,
>
> This is another case of throwing technology at
> something that doesn't need it. In the end it will
> cost them as much or more to make this work. So,
> you replace a driver (engineer)... you also end up
> hiring techs to keep it all running at a cost that
> will be most likely more that the drives
> (engineers) cost. In the end, really really dumb.
>
> J.

You're assuming LOGIC is involved here.....

Ohhh gee, there's that word LOGIC again.

I worked for BHP a few years ago and had friends in the railway.  They were long term railroaders and employees.  They told me so many stories of "fresh faced" recent MBA's who came along with the idea that "we will do it this way".  [But we did it that way three years ago.] "Oh, but it will be different this time."

After the MBA was promoted they usually switched back or did something else that a professional railroader knew would work but the next MBA got credit for the change back. 

I recall that BHP were watching Rio's actions on driverless trains and they canned it in 2010 after spending $200 million to date when the tonne was over $120 per.  How do you recover those costs when the world price is half that?

Rick