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

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#101

Post by Silhouette »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #44
KineticLensman wrote: post #22

What they are actually seeking is "...progress towards the conversion of at least one Underground line to Grade-of-Automation 3 (driverless, but with an on-board attendant, as on the Docklands Light Railway), subject to a viable business case and its statutory responsibilities." They are only aiming to do one line, which just happens to meet a complex set of constraints outlined in the article. Doing the entire netwo…

> The requirement for an on-board attendant means that the driverless trains will still be at risk of strike action, in contrast to the line taken by some commenters here. That's true, although it might be a lot better than the current setup, if they're able to more easily replace that person (say, if they don't have to have specialised training). I'm not familiar with TfL and their strike habits, but over here in st…

Striking has historically been a significant problem on the Tube as well. That is partly because there is a limited supply of train drivers with the appropriate qualifications and if they strike then you can't just parachute someone untrained in to replace them. As you say, the risk of disruption to the travelling public from strikes might be reduced, though not eliminated, if the roles that still required human action had more limited responsibilities and required less skill/training. The DLR is a reasonable example of this in London, not immune to strike action, but historically less disrupted by it.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#102

Post by [deleted] »

GordonS wrote: post #81
LatteLazy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's political. In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that. Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport. That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public…

> The right wing government I'd love to know by what scale you consider the British government "right-wing"?

[deleted]

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#103

Post by tialaramex »

chrisseaton wrote: post #65
LatteLazy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he has to be? But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. That's what they did for Boris in basically the same circumstances. Maybe Heir apparent is a bit strong? He's not defonate. But I can't think of anyone else with the name recognition...

> I don't think he has to be? Of course he does. He has to be a commoner MP. > The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Rule-Book-2... > But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. Hmmm not sure how many of those they have available right now!

The rules are made by the party, and the party can change those rules. It has before and it will again.

In this case however I think it's much more likely that if Khan is the choice, room will be found for Khan to win a byelection somewhere. Labour has plenty of London MPs still, they've struggled mostly with the North, progressive policies sell very well among socially aware people inside the M25 but aren't popular among people for whom the whole point was that the Unions ought to run the country.

In lots of Labour seats in London it really wouldn't matter who you run. That's why Vauxhall's MP used to be Kate Hoey. Nice part of London, very gay friendly, many of the people there have never eaten meat, much less gone fox hunting and of course they opposed Brexit - and yet of course Kate was pro-hunting, pro-guns, anti-gay and fiercely favoured Brexit. Why did they elect her? Because it said "Labour" next to her name and they don't do research.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#104

Post by JaumeGreen »

Point of reference.

Barcelona has two fully automated lines (AFAIK, there might be some remote control) L9 and L10. They were built already with the idea of having no driver.

Nontheless when a strike is in effect their frequency go down too. AFAIK it was negotiated this way between the unions and the subway company.

Here are a couple of articles in Catalan about different strikes and the reduction of trains in all lines.

https://beteve.cat/mobilitat/vaga-metro-10-maig-amiant/

https://www.elpuntavui.cat/societat/article/5-societat/19353...

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#105

Post by mijamo »

ElFitz wrote: post #92

Aside from the strikes, another aspect of automated subways is worth considering. Most subway lines in Paris have a few minutes interval between one train leaving and the next arriving. On the automated ones, it sometimes gets down to ~30 seconds. Seems automating the trains enables much higher frequencies, probably by eliminating human reaction times and reducing margins of error. Now, other countries have that with…

One key factor in Paris is that automated trains are more "aggressive" in closing doors right on schedule where human drivers would tend to wait one or 2 seconds because you have a lot of people getting onboard.One or 2 seconds doesn't seem much but it can ruin the whole schedule because if you do it on 2 stations then it can add to 4 seconds, and then the next train needs to brake or even stop and lose even more time, and it cascades etc. until you can't keep a super tight schedule.

It has even happened to me once that the station and trains were so packed that the train came, people barely had time to get out and the doors closed already, with not a single person able to go onboard before the doors closed. Obviously feels bad but helps train keep schedule and it is a net positive in the end, but I suppose it is psychologically tough for drivers who would have to have that kind of constraints, they would really feel like a machine.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#106

Post by Camas »

LatteLazy wrote: post #58
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.

It's political. In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that. Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport. That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public…

> hung out to dry

£1.8 billion in loans/grants

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#107

Post by jermaustin1 »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #93
vidarh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainline trains is a non-starter for many decades, though, at least in the UK which still has a large number of level crossings, as well as stations with "fun" issues such as being too short for the longest trains. There is tech solutions in place to prevent the wrong doors from opening. Except when it doesn't work, where you really need someone on the train. And yes, it does fail. Been on trains when the doors refus…

It sounds like this could be all done remotely, with cameras, and one worker physically present at each station, plus a roving maintenance team. If we can fly drones through the deserts of Arabia why can't we drive trains remotely through the suburbs of Croydon?

Losing contact with your UAV is a lot less risky than losing contact with a runaway train.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#108

Post by vidarh »

allendoerfer wrote: post #47
vidarh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainline trains is a non-starter for many decades, though, at least in the UK which still has a large number of level crossings, as well as stations with "fun" issues such as being too short for the longest trains. There is tech solutions in place to prevent the wrong doors from opening. Except when it doesn't work, where you really need someone on the train. And yes, it does fail. Been on trains when the doors refus…

Sounds overly negative to me. With those interest rates, we should really invest into any useful infrastructure project, especially when there are wins for or at least no cost to the environment. Let's generate some sustainable economic growth. We can solve the problems step by step. Starting at least brings us closer to a solution.

I'm all for investment (though not in London - I'd rather we invest in drawing business out of London, to create a more sustainable and scalable distribution of the UK economy), but that does not change the fact that these upgrades are incredibly resource intensive, not just in terms of money but also skilled staff.

There are many tens of billions of investment in prerequisites such as getting rid of level crossings and properly secure rail and upgrading stations and trains that'd be required before you can even think of upgrading mainline rail to driverless. For the London Underground, it means a rolling program of platform upgrades, signalling upgrades and rolling stock upgrades that'd similarly be in the many billions.

And yes, now would be the right time to finance it, but even if you start now this is just not happening in the next couple of decades, that was my point.

So by all means, it's worth starting to make the pre-requisite improvements, but it won't bring driverless trains on most of these lines anytime soon.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#109

Post by pydry »

lbriner wrote: post #39
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…

They'd want it even if it cost the same or more. It's the ability to break strikes they're after.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#110

Post by speapr »

lbriner wrote: post #39
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…

Frankly, it is chump change.

You put your finger on the real issue with the London Underground - the maintenance needs which are onerous and prevent the trains from running overnight on most nights.

Post reply on HN