The unions don't help but they reflect largely the interest of their members. Who doesn't want constantly improving pay and conditions and no possibility of redundancies? In effect you have to bribe the train union / its members to land automation that they perceive as potentially weakening their future bargaining position. They don't care about notional safety -- or at least no more than most individuals do in practice -- they care about their personal outcomes. One common bribe for drivers is time set aside for "education" that can be done at home and isn't assessed. Say you give drivers 30 minutes per week for this "education", well, now you've got 0.5 hours per driver of driving needed, you can't hire the necessary drivers quickly enough to cover that, so, you pay overtime to cover it. Lo and behold every driver is keen to do the extra overtime. Now your workers are doing the same job for more money, but when asked about it their union can say it's not that you paid more money, it's because you agreed they needed time for appropriate "education" which is quite different and will contribute to improved safety.
My favourite example of how unionised workers whose union invariably presents their preferences as "safety" care little about actual safety was signallers. Historically some mainline rail signallers (same unions) in the UK worked 12 hour shifts at outlying boxes. So you maybe do 3 x 12 hour shifts = 36 hours that's a week's work or take an extra as overtime for 48 hours. Roster maybe a dozen people to work a box and it remains open 24/7. Annoying scientists said, wait a minute, humans don't remain useful and attentive workers for 12 straight hours, especially at night which explains these incidents where a signaller makes a grave error at like 0400 after 10 hours at work. So the safety regulator wants to limit shifts to 8 hours like for air traffic. The unions are apoplectic because if you're a member working a mixture of 3x12 and 4x12 and now they want you to work 5x8 that's up to two days per week extra. Suddenly railway safety vanishes as a concern...
It is possible to make gradual progress. When I was born there were still guards on tube trains. Why? Well there had always been guards on tube trains. Today of course London Underground does not have guards. It just took a long time to make it happen, with I believe the Northern Line being last to stop having guards.
My favourite example of how unionised workers whose union invariably presents their preferences as "safety" care little about actual safety was signallers. Historically some mainline rail signallers (same unions) in the UK worked 12 hour shifts at outlying boxes. So you maybe do 3 x 12 hour shifts = 36 hours that's a week's work or take an extra as overtime for 48 hours. Roster maybe a dozen people to work a box and it remains open 24/7. Annoying scientists said, wait a minute, humans don't remain useful and attentive workers for 12 straight hours, especially at night which explains these incidents where a signaller makes a grave error at like 0400 after 10 hours at work. So the safety regulator wants to limit shifts to 8 hours like for air traffic. The unions are apoplectic because if you're a member working a mixture of 3x12 and 4x12 and now they want you to work 5x8 that's up to two days per week extra. Suddenly railway safety vanishes as a concern...
It is possible to make gradual progress. When I was born there were still guards on tube trains. Why? Well there had always been guards on tube trains. Today of course London Underground does not have guards. It just took a long time to make it happen, with I believe the Northern Line being last to stop having guards.