11–20 of 152 posts
Why 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.
Interesting 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 fir…
But they get to point out they've also pushed for Piccadilly, where the business case will point out lots of cash will need to be provided for signalling upgrades first, and it will be quietly put aside.
Why 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.
Why 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.
Very true, though equally the increased risk of automated safety system stopping the train in the middle of a long tube tunnel because one of it's sensors got dirty or a rat triggered a sensor as it went splat on the tracks are things drivers can work around easier.
So if a perfectly safe and working train stops due to a sensor getting dirty quickly (which for the London tube is more likely than most places), with a driver there they could see and know that issue and safely carry on. Automation will go into health and safety mode and stop that train in the middle of nowhere needing human attention. So delays become longer.
I'd rather deal with planned outages, than longer drawn out automated random ones.
Why 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.
Why 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.
Why 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.
You'll need some storage or natural gas power plant as most renewable energy are intermittent.
Also, unless you have alternative routes, you cannot have a subway running 24/7 because maintenance needs to be done somehow.
Why 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.
And yes, it does fail. Been on trains when the doors refused to open because the system failed to recognise the station. For ages, the trains also waited for ~30 seconds to open doors at London Victoria, supposedly because the system that recognised the stations used GPS, and the station concourse at Victoria is too deep for the trains to get a signal. Don't know if that is true or not, but in any case automating even door control was a long, complex project that still has issues years later.
Steps will keep being taken towards automating more of it, but there is decades old rolling stock, so any upgrades will take accordingly long to spread through the system as everything gets upgraded.
Isle of Wight for example, ran on London Underground 1938 stock trains until last year, when they started upgrading to refurbished British Rail Class 484 rolling stock built in the 1970's and 1980's...
With respect to renewables, not all of the UK network is even electrified yet...