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

61–70 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#61

Post by LatteLazy »

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

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.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#62

Post by chrisseaton »

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…

> he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally

He’s not even an MP! He’s not allowed to be the leader.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#63

Post by LatteLazy »

chrisseaton wrote: post #62
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…

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

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...

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#64

Post by KineticLensman »

dwighttk wrote: post #48
enriquto wrote: post #30

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.

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://www.nexus.org.uk/themes/custom/nexus/images/metro-ma...

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#65

Post by chrisseaton »

LatteLazy wrote: post #63
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.

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!

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#66

Post by KineticLensman »

e17 wrote: post #37
hobbes78 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 1975 Moorgate accident [0] was a single train accident that killed 43 people including the driver, who failed to brake his train as he approached a dead end.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorgate_tube_crash

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#67

Post by heavenlyblue »

teachingassist wrote: post #36
crimsoneer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#68

Post by LatteLazy »

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!

Thanks!

Agreed on the safe seats. Corbyn/Starmer has been pretty dire for Labour.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#69

Post by me_me_me »

allendoerfer wrote: post #10
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.

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 we will call it 'The Snow Piercer'

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#70

Post by me_me_me »

Y_Y wrote: post #51
revax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

You're missing the obvious solution of nuclear trains. I think it's self-evident that these would have no drawbacks. In the unlikely event of a disaster all you'd need to do is seal the tunnel and dig a new one.

rocket trains sounds better, and put them in vacuum tubes!

That would be revolutionary \s

Post reply on HN