Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of the driverless tube train

londonreconnections.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#31

Post by KineticLensman »

imgabe wrote: post #15
me_me_me wrote: post #3

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.

Driverless trains can run 24/7 without anyone needing to stay up all night

The trains discussed in the article will still require an onboard attendant.

Also, track maintenance still requires service downtime, which currently happens at night.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#32

Post by KineticLensman »

e17 wrote: post #20

If something goes wrong in the middle of a 120 year old tunnel, 30 metres beneath the city, I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation. It's that simple.

> I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation

There will be. The article states that the trains will still have an onboard attendant.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#33

Post by jusssi »

e17 wrote: post #20

If something goes wrong in the middle of a 120 year old tunnel, 30 metres beneath the city, I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation. It's that simple.

Here's a list of places for you to avoid (granted, not all of them run in a tunnel): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#34

Post by AshamedCaptain »

e17 wrote: post #20

If something goes wrong in the middle of a 120 year old tunnel, 30 metres beneath the city, I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation. It's that simple.

And I want one man for each 20 people "trapped" underground. Scratch that. One man for each 5 users. All of them paid minimum wage and doing absolutely nothing for 99.9% of the time. Otherwise it's unsafe. It's that simple. (/s).

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#35

Post by e17 »

KineticLensman wrote: post #32
e17 wrote: post #20

If something goes wrong in the middle of a 120 year old tunnel, 30 metres beneath the city, I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation. It's that simple.

> I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation There will be. The article states that the trains will still have an onboard attendant.

As the article also states, there will be no point at all in moving to onboard attendants because the onboard attendants will strike just the same as drivers do.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#36

Post by teachingassist »

crimsoneer wrote: post #16
627467 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This. London's tube system is essentially stopped a day or so a year due to strikes, which is pretty dramatic for a city of 10 million people who rely on it.

London's transport strikes have been shown to ultimately benefit the wider economy, as people have broken out of their local maximums and found more efficient ways to travel around.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#37

Post by e17 »

hobbes78 wrote: post #27
e17 wrote: post #20

If something goes wrong in the middle of a 120 year old tunnel, 30 metres beneath the city, I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation. It's that simple.

In train accidents, usually the first compositions are the most badly hit. The train driver is the most susceptible to die. You're better assisted by a remote operator...

That's in the very narrow situation of a head-on collision, something I don't think has happened on the tube in my lifetime. I'm talking about any kind of general emergency. I remember 7/7/05 like it was yesterday.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#38

Post by vidarh »

thu2111 wrote: post #24

It's a reasonable sounding argument but I don't find it totally convincing. Firstly, a big deal is made about the need for PEDs. The justification given is vague - essentially that the regulator would require them, because it's now "known" that PEDs are required, and the DLR doesn't have them because, well, really it should but we don't care enough to actually upgrade it. But new stuff must. This looks like a case of…

I'm sure an automated system can be built that is safe enough - the Elizabeth Line demonstrates that. But the reality is that upgrades cost a lot of money, and nobody wants to spend that money. That is what it boils down to.

With respect to attendants, they're mostly there on the busiest times at the busiest stations. Most of the time most platforms are largely unattended, and the driver is the only person present to take action unless you want to wait for the train to alert station staff to a situation that requires intervention.

If the solution to automate is to put in place attendants permanently on every platform I'm not convinced it'd serve much purpose.

With respect to the DLR, it's less than a year since the last time someone was killed by falling onto the tracks. While the DLR overall has a great safety record, it's far less crowded than several of the other lines. I don't think you'll get anyone willing to sign off on overriding the regulator there, given people have called for safety upgrades of the DLR too despite the few fatal accidents.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#39

Post by lbriner »

me_me_me wrote: post #3

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.

4000 drivers at an average of around £70K per year is not chump change (£280M) + employer costs for staff. Out of a budget of maybe £5B per year, it is not insignificant but I would expect there are other areas where savings could more easily be gained.

Maintenance is crazy due to the short maintenance hours and therefore everyone getting paid enhanced rates to work 0:00 to 04:00. Significantly modernizing signalling and control would be expensive but would probably back back over time.

A few years back I was in a control room in a tube station and saw some steampunk looking machine that we assumed was related to the old destination boards on the station, which were long gone but the machine was still operational and left alone. Why? Because who would risk breaking something just to remove some random old piece of kit!

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#40

Post by lbriner »

e17 wrote: post #20

If something goes wrong in the middle of a 120 year old tunnel, 30 metres beneath the city, I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation. It's that simple.

This isn't really the argument though. Sure, we want a member of staff to help but they could be a £30K train manager instead of a £70K driver.
Post reply on HN