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

81–90 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#81

Post by GordonS »

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…

> The right wing government

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

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#82

Post by Jenk »

mschuster91 wrote: post #78
Zenst wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions. Very true, though equally the increased risk of automated safety system stopping the train in the middle of a long tube tunnel because one of it's sensors got dirty or a rat triggered a sensor as it went splat on the tracks are things drivers can work around easier. So if a perfectly safe and working…

> Automation will go into health and safety mode and stop that train in the middle of nowhere needing human attention. So delays become longer. In Germany, trains have a system called "Notbremsüberbrückung" / NBÜ. This system overrides the passenger emergency brake in tunnels... basically (i'm shortening it a bit here), as soon as the last carriage leaves the platform (in an underground) or the train can't fully stop…

A number of tube lines in London also has this. Central Line, (parts of) Jubilee Line, both do if I recall. Those lines are "semi-automatic" where the driver is providing oversight and operates the doors whilst the train will automatically drive. Driver can override easily.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#83

Post by Mauricebranagh »

Zenst wrote: post #14
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.

> Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions. Very true, though equally the increased risk of automated safety system stopping the train in the middle of a long tube tunnel because one of it's sensors got dirty or a rat triggered a sensor as it went splat on the tracks are things drivers can work around easier. So if a perfectly safe and working…

And a driver can when some one is blocking the doors not proceed and get the blockage removed quickly.

Pre covid in the rush hour this was very common.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#84

Post by Mauricebranagh »

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…

A few years ago my father did some consulting work for LU and he motioned that a lot of the pre war equipment had far less faults that the modern 1980's stuff.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#85

Post by Mauricebranagh »

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"?

The normal EU /ROW one :-) of course US right wingers consider Maggie Thatcher a hard leftie.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#86

Post by e17 »

Symbiote wrote: post #80
e17 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything from a more relevant era, perhaps one in which passengers aboard an underground train weren't allowed to smoke a cigar?

There's a list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_Underground_acc...

Assuming you've read the list, you will know that the answer is no. No head-on tube collisions in my lifetime or in any other relevant modern era of any definition.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#87

Post by mavhc »

tialaramex wrote: post #49
mavhc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many times when the DLR trains have no employees onboard

There aren't, although I guess in a crowded DLR train you might not realise. 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, onb…

Interesting. A very strange job then, most of the time you just close doors, and once a year you drive a train

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#88

Post by Reason077 »

passtheglass wrote: post #79

I don't understand why you can't have PEDs for multiple kinds of rolling stock. That is stated but never qualified. It seems like a tractable design problem considering there are a limited set of types of train you are serving.

It's not impossible, but it's difficult if the doors are different sizes and have different spacing. There are a lot of design compromises.

Here's an article about it (why Vancouver can't have PEDs): https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-skytrain-station-p...

This is not really a big issue for London, though. The vast majority of London Underground platforms only have one type of train serving them. The few exceptions (eg: parts of the Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines) are mostly above ground and not the busiest parts of the network, so you could just skip the PEDs there and use manual door closing.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#89

Post by e17 »

yardstick wrote: post #60
e17 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article explains, the train managers will strike just the same as drivers do, leaving us in exactly the same situation as before.

Not exactly the same situation. Less wages to pay, less pension debts to fund.

If there are still strikes then it is the same situation. Your plan solves nothing, for reasons both the article and I have outlined already. If we put you in charge tomorrow to execute your plan of moving from £70k drivers to £30k hi-vis vest-wearers, you would cause weeks of strikes, massive disruption and solve nothing.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#90

Post by KptMarchewa »

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #84
lbriner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A few years ago my father did some consulting work for LU and he motioned that a lot of the pre war equipment had far less faults that the modern 1980's stuff.

It also had much less requirements and probably required more maintanence. You can think this type of claims everywhere; and pretty nowhere those are true.
Post reply on HN