The myth of the driverless tube train
londonreconnections.com
The myth of the driverless tube train
1–10 of 152 posts
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#2it seems down for me, archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210609102038/https://www.londo...
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#3Why would it matter?
You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train?
Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds.
This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#4Interesting that they are doing the "Waterloo and City line" first and for background, that is a isolated line/train that just goes from Waterloo station to the City central. I used that many times in the past and out of all the lines, was more civilised - would have commuters line up along the platform were the doors would appear once the train stopped and really a contrast to other tube/train stations.
So for a first trial/go of converting existing stock/track - that I will agree is a perfect choice.
Now when they get to the circle line - that IMHO will be the hardest and as a commuter.
I just hope they build sensors that can handle that environment. Many memories of commuting and having my ears and nose covered in a layer of black soot. But then that's best read up about here: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-tube-dust
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#5Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
Not just any 1 person, a driver, who must have years of training, if they don't turn up to work 1000's other people don't get to work. It's not so much one person as a single point of failure. If there were enough drivers with redundancy then it would not matter.
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#6Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
[deleted]
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#7Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions.
In the city I live underground drivers hold ridiculous privileged (even compared to other underground workers) that allows positions to be effectively hereditary: children of drivers are more likely to get into the job than others.
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#8Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
Some tube lines in London have been closed lately due to unavailability of staff. Not sure if it’s drivers specifically but could be a reason to consider this.
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#9Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
Good point and down to cost, which is ironic as you have a system built and used mostly from people going to and from work and they are focusing upon reducing the wrong job in that equation is a very fair perspective.
Does make you wonder, if years/decades later they fully automate it, turns out cost way more than just keeping human drivers. Equally even if on paper for TFL it breaks even cost wise or cheaper, those people will still need jobs/income and may well be case of shifting that problem elsewhere in the governmental chain of things.
Re: The myth of the driverless tube train
#10Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.
Germany for example has about 35.000 train conductors. Subways are just an obvious first step. Add renewable energy to the equation and you can build a fantastic system running 24/7 without any waiting for trains.