Skip to main content

Rail Summit to discuss automated operations in Aviation and Rail, Vienna

The often repeated comparison between the levels of automation in the aviation and rail sectors will come under scrutiny at the Intelligent Rail Summit Vienna 28 – 30 November, according to a report in rail knowledge sharing platform Railtech.com. Dick Terleth, director mobility at ADSE consulting and avionics specialist Sander Van Lochem, will discuss automated operations and focus on the introduction, operation and lifecycle
October 4, 2017 Read time: 2 mins

The often repeated comparison between the levels of automation in the aviation and rail sectors will come under scrutiny at the Intelligent Rail Summit Vienna 28 – 30 November, according to a report in rail knowledge sharing platform Railtech.com.  

Dick Terleth, director mobility at ADSE consulting and avionics specialist Sander Van Lochem, will discuss automated operations and focus on the introduction, operation and lifecycle management of automated train operations. Terleth stated that the main differences is that unlike with rail, in aviation sector there is constant communication between the pilot and ground control but there is no active automated interface between the airplane and traffic control as happens with signalling and control systems in rail.

“This is completely different in the railway sector, where space is more confined to the rail track and a much higher level of interaction between the vehicle and the rail infrastructure takes place. Also, there are more factors, like people walking along the track, to take into consideration. A lot more needs to be done to successfully implement an automated driving system on rail, as the prerequisites are much harder to fulfill,” he added.

Referring to a safety culture developed to the aviation industry, he recognised that it is not as paramount in the rail industry, but a similar focus in inevitable to a successful implementation.  He added that overcoming challenges caused by system malfunctions and acceptance among passengers are two challenges that need to be overcome.

Related Content

  • Innovation Awards: A winning formula
    March 21, 2018
    The Intertraffic Innovation Awards are a major feature of this event: over 60 high-quality entries were received this year. So, what does it mean for a company that wins? Czech company Cross Zlin won the overall title at the last Intertraffic. Tomáš Juřík, chairman and CEO explained the impact it has had on the company.
  • Urban tunnel replaces viaduct, improves safety
    October 10, 2012
    Earthquake sensors, automatic barriers and real time monitoring systems are all part of a scheme to make a major Seattle traffic artery safer, by taking it underground. Huw Williams reports. Seattle’s metropolitan area of 3.5 million people, like much of the western seaboard of the United States, lies in an earthquake zone. In Seattle’s case, the city and its hinterland sit atop a complex network of interrelated active geological faults capable of severe seismic activity and posing complex considerations fo
  • Finnish transport agency (Liikennevirasto) selects Vilant GEN2 RFID system
    June 19, 2012
    Liikennevirasto, the body responsible for the management, development and maintenance of the Finnish railway network, has announced Europe's largest train identification system with passive RFID covering the whole of Finnish state rail network. Vilant has won a contract to install 120 specialised RFID reader units, and integrate them into Liikennevirasto's detector network.
  • A global standard for enforcement systems – is it necessary?
    May 30, 2013
    Jason Barnes speaks to leading figures from the automated enforcement sector about whether a truly international standard for automated enforcement systems is necessary or can ever be achieved. Recent reports of further press controversy in the US over automated enforcement (see ‘Focusing on accuracy?’, ITS International raise again the issue of standards and what constitutes ‘good enough’ in terms of system accuracy and overall solution effectiveness. Comparatively, automated enforcement has always expe