41–50 of 152 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol, what are they going to do? Keep you calm? The situation would most likely be outside of their control.
Yes, one of the reasons would be to keep the 1200 people on the train calm. It's important in an emergency for someone to be in charge of the situation. What's wrong with that? Using a rough number for a yearly travel card, 1200 * £2000 = £2.4m yearly revenue from those passengers aboard that train. I think we can spare £60k for the driver.
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…
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…
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 strike-happy Paris, where conductors decide to stop driving on a whim, the automatic lines are practically never concerned [0]. They are, however, "level 4", as in there's no human present on board. They do require people at the control centre, though.
---
[0] I say "practically" because while I don't remember there ever being any reduction of traffic, even during major national strikes, I don't take the metro that often and I may have missed some. Though I'm pretty confident that it would have made the headlines.
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.
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 present Prime Minister (a role in which he's incapable) which is politics, but then it also talks about Grades of Automation, rolling stock upgrades, signalling, and Platform Edge Doors, which are technology not politics.
The sort of contradictions shown are effective for making Boris look foolish (compare Thatcher's pun "You Turn if you want to. The Lady's Not For Turning" to Boris having difficulty remembering what he answered on the same question yesterday...) but they have the reverse effect on matters of fact.
For example, we're reminded repeatedly that the London Underground is very old. But then we're also told, for a different reason, that the Docklands Light Railway is old too. A GoA 3 system, right there in London, operating very safely for decades. Complexity, we're told, is the enemy of automation, but the DLR has only become more complex, adding more branches, longer trains, newer service patterns.
Of course automation of the London Underground is also very old, it had one of the first GoA 2 automated railways in the world. When I was a child the Tube still had guards. If you're a New Yorker this probably seems unremarkable, but that guard is completely unnecessary in ordinary service there's barely enough work for a driver, let alone also needing a guard, and this role was abolished in the London Underground last century.
Safety considerations will make GoA 4 operation of the Deep Tube very difficult to deliver cost effectively in my lifetime. But in practice the objections to automation aren't about some hypothetical unsafe GoA 4 proposal, they're mostly about trying to ensure the RMT retains power in the capital by delaying real, practical projects that would mean London doesn't need so many of their extremely well compensated members.
Turnham Green is a particular red herring. If you've used Turnham Green you may not even be aware that Picadilly trains stop there, because in practice for most purposes they don't. They pass through but most don't stop. A future upgrade might make it practical to have all Picadilly trains once again stop at Turnham Green some day. Or not. Hardly the sort of show-stopper it's presented as in this piece.
In other places where there could be a clash, Selective Door Operation might resolve it. SDO is already used extensively on the London Underground for S-stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
They speak of "myth", but there are many cities with driverless subway trains (e.g., in neighboring Paris, but definitely in more than the four "exceptions" that they mention). Instead of such grandiose philosophical statements, which are ultimately empty, they could make an argument based on facts and observations from the reality.
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…
There are many times when the DLR trains have no employees onboard
A DLR train won't go anywhere until the operator closes the doors, which they can do from any set of doors on the train.
Because the DLR is GoA 3 there doesn't need to be a plan for how central operations can co-ordinate rescue of a failed train without somebody at the scene, there will be an attendant, who is trained to drive the train, onboard somewhere.
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.