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

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#121

Post by Symbiote »

KineticLensman wrote: post #64
dwighttk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tube is in the title, not subway. I think the author is talking about London’s system.

Yes, the author is totally talking about the London underground railway system. Most Brits - at least people in London and the surrounding area - call this 'the tube' and use the term 'subway' to mean underground pedestrian tunnels. [Edit] We also never use the phrase 'the metro' to mean 'the tube' (i.e. the London underground') although some UK regions call have named their transport systems 'metro', e.g. https://ww…

"Metro" (short for "metropolitan railway") is the clearest generic, English term.

I always use it when I'm not in the UK, since subway is ambiguous, and underground / tube are more-or-less specific to London.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#122

Post by LeanderK »

I don't get why the train attendant has to be able to move the train. That's not required in the driverless systems I know. Either the train is unable to move and has to stop immediately, or it tries to drive to the next station, right? The only job then for the attendant is to guide the passengers to safety and watch out for unruly passengers. I know Nurembergs underground quite well and it just works. No platform doors and no attendants.

For the exceptional case that the train is unable to drive itself without an accident occurs a special team should be enough. I don't remember that it happened for the nuremberg underground.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#123

Post by advisedwang »

bob_theslob646 wrote: post #23
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.

Lol, what are they going to do? Keep you calm? The situation would most likely be outside of their control.

During the July 7 bombings the train drivers led passengers out of trains and out exits. I would be glad to have someone familiar with that process on hand in the middle of that situation.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#124

Post by johannes1234321 »

LeanderK wrote: post #122

I don't get why the train attendant has to be able to move the train. That's not required in the driverless systems I know. Either the train is unable to move and has to stop immediately, or it tries to drive to the next station, right? The only job then for the attendant is to guide the passengers to safety and watch out for unruly passengers. I know Nurembergs underground quite well and it just works. No platform d…

Nuremberg is a small town where emergency personal, which can drive the train can be deployed quickly to all locations, without having lots of on call staff ready. Deploying this in London is a different challenge.

However I agree that with remote control the need should be mostly avoidable.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#125

Post by vidarh »

tialaramex wrote: post #46

I'll note that the actual title is (now?) "The Political Myth of the Driverless Tube Train" not merely "The Myth of the Driverless Tube Train" And I'm sure that as a claim about politics "myth" may feel about right, but it clearly doesn't work as a technical claim and the article seems to hedge about whether that's what it wants to say. It pokes Boris, former mayor (a role for which I felt he was well suited) and pre…

The point of bringing up the technical issues is not that they are unsurmountable, but that they require political will to fund upgrades.

The RMT would be easy enough to deal with if there was political will to offer them a suitably lucrative agreement for their present drivers to accept that their numbers will steadily decline.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#126

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

LatteLazy wrote: post #61
imgabe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's rail maintenance that stops trains running 24/7 in London. The rails are too old, often not fit for purpose and no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need polishing (literally), grinding, replacing, checking, etc.

>no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing

Not sure how that works. More seriously, I am unaware of the Tube tracks being unusually old, or requiring unusual amounts of maintenance because of their age compared to other comparable systems. Have you got a source on that?

There's also the fact that the deep Tube lines only have one track per direction, in contrast to the New York Subway where there are express and local tracks so trains can be rerouted via one set of tracks while maintenance is done on the other set.

Plus, of course, the equipment needed to do maintenance on the lines usually needs to be carried by hand through stations and into the tunnels.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#127

Post by e17 »

KineticLensman wrote: post #113
e17 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This subthread you are commenting on is about head-on collisions. There have been none since 1975 and I think you will agree that given that passengers on that train were wearing hats and smoking pipes, it's not particularly relevant to any kind of modern railway.

>> I'm talking about any kind of general emergency. Hence me posting the list of general accidents

> The train driver is the most susceptible to die. You're better assisted by a remote operator

The driver didn't die in any of the recent incidents, so they would still be in place to manage the situation.

Interestingly, 7/7/05 isn't on the list, presumably because it wasn't an accident. That's exactly the kind of incident that is relevant in the context of this parent thread.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#128

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #107
ArkanExplorer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on where and how the UAV goes down.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#129

Post by i_am_andy »

pydry wrote: post #118
lbriner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How badly paid do you want the people responsible for your safety to be?

A 30K train manager is still more than a 25K bus driver.

And there are a lot more road accidents than train accidents.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#130

Post by vidarh »

tialaramex wrote: post #99
chrisseaton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally He’s not even an MP! He’s not allowed to be the leader.

The Party can have whatever rules it wants. If it should even prefer for its leader to be a Hampster, it can do that. As you might expect the political parties in the UK are organised differently according to their principles, so the Labour Party is an unincorporated association which only owns companies for purposes for which an informal group would be illegal (e.g. "People who come to our meetings" cannot legally o…

But Labours rules prevents him from being leader without being an MP.

Labour could change that, but if they were to be changed, it would not be for Sadiq Khan. Maybe for Andy Burnham. Khan doesn't have enough support among Labour members. Realistically it won't be changed for either, as it would cause too many difficulties.

Post reply on HN