Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Mining Co. Says First Autonomous Freight Train Network Fully Operational

posted by mrpg on Wednesday January 02 2019, @08:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-choo-choose-you! dept.

upstart writes:

Submitted via IRC for takyon

Mining co. says first autonomous freight train network fully operational

On Friday, major mining corporation Rio Tinto announced that its AutoHaul autonomous train system in Western Australia had logged more than 1 million km (620,000 mi) since July 2018, S&P Global Platts reported. Rio Tinto calls its now-fully-operational autonomous train system the biggest robot in the world.

The train system serves 14 mines that deliver to four port terminals. Two mines that are closest to a port terminal will retain human engineers because they are very short lines, according to Perth Now.

The train system took ten years to build and cost Rio Tinto AUD $1.3 billion (USD $916 million) to implement. The trains are remotely monitored by a crew located 1,500 km (932 mi) away in Perth.

According to the mining company, the autonomous trains make sure the rails are clear ahead and monitor internal systems as well, checking for faulty wheels or couplers and bringing the train to a stop if there's a problem.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Mining Co. Says First Autonomous Freight Train Network Fully Operational | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 19 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Wednesday January 02 2019, @09:51AM (3 children)

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday January 02 2019, @09:51AM (#780957)
    TFA says it "took ten years to build", so the total cost presumably includes the costs of track, construction, and rolling stock, all of which would have been required anyway. The additional cost to make it fully autonomous would have been a negligable fraction of the total, especially since this is a proven tech that is even used for passenger transport (e.g. London's DLR network) so it's not like they needed to start from scratch. TFA also summarises the cost benefits - no need to shuttle train drivers around due to shift changes (some runs are 40 hours long), reduced stops to change drivers (it's going to take a LOT of energy to stop and get a 2.4km long train laden with ore), and removal of some human variation in speed enabling the trains to run routes 6% faster.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday January 02 2019, @11:29AM (2 children)

    by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday January 02 2019, @11:29AM (#780972)

    The train system took ten years to build and cost Rio Tinto AUD $1.3 billion (USD $916 million) to implement.

    That's an ambiguous statement - I should think that figure covers the whole railway (I'm using the UK terminology), not just the automation, but the phrase "train system" impies just the automation. Trouble is that most journos (like most people) know next to nothing about railways. No-one who does would refer to a railway (ie the entire system, trains, track, signals, staff) as a "train system", they would call it a "railway", or "railroad" in US speak.

    I don't undertand why it is supposed to be so hard and amazing to automate a railway. Zocalo cites the London Dockland Railway, but the London Underground Victoria line was automatic much earlier than that - 1967 - without even involving computer tech, and has run reliably ever since.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @12:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2019, @12:01PM (#780981)

      Trouble is that most journos (like most people) know next to nothing about railways. No-one who does would refer to a railway (ie the entire system, trains, track, signals, staff) as a "train system", they would call it a "railway", or "railroad" in US speak.

      The thing is that <insert name or category of publication here> writes at its readers' level of comprehension and not necessarily in the industry's nomenclature.

      Our designer (who also functions as our editor for all public facing content) reminds me of this all the time. As a programmer I naturally write content for other programmers to read rather than clients (or prospects). Our designer highlights things she feels are inaccessible to those outside of our industry so I can refine (or rewrite) them.

    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday January 02 2019, @01:32PM

      by zocalo (302) on Wednesday January 02 2019, @01:32PM (#781005)
      The TFA doesn't get into the details so it's hard to determine what's included in the bill. AUD $1.3b "just" for an autonomous train management system seems awfully high, but it also seems awfully low for a railway of this scale, even allowing for a lot of single track running at relatively slow freight speeds. For instance, the UK's HS2 (Phase 1) and Crossrail projects are both in the tens of billions (and still climbing), but the former is a true high speed rail project and involved a lot of expensive compulsory land purchases, while the latter threaded a new tunnel through the warren of existing tunnels under central London - it's pretty safe to assume the cost per KM for Rio Tinto was significantly lower, and they may also have been able to utilise some existing track.

      Finally, to clarify, I cited the DLR becase, unlike the Victoria Line (and many others since), the DLR trains are unmanned (other than an optional guard that wanders around the train), and it's a bit more complex than most unmanned airport systems where trains just shuttle back and forth on a single route or circle around a loop. All DLR train control, including movement across various interchanges and multiple branch lines, is handled using a combination of local sensors and central management, just like Rio Tinto's system. There's always an element of bespoke in this kind of project, but surely AUD $1.3b has to buy you more than smarter engines, trackside sensors, and a fancy control room?
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!