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

91–100 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#91

Post by masklinn »

mschuster91 wrote: post #75

> There are over 100 metro systems in the world built before 2000. Of those, why have only four been converted to full automation? Because the retrofits that the article details, no matter if installing platform doors, re-wiring infrastructure or replacing old carriages to actually enable consistent door positions, costs a lot of money, and public transport isn't at the top of public spending priority - car infrastru…

And FWIW the platform doors are really only required for scare-mongering reasons.

I don’t know if that changed by now but Lyon’s Line D went GoA4 in 1992 with no platform doors (for the longest time there weren’t even turnstiles, you could just walk walk / run from the entrance to the train with no stops).

The only accident I’ve heard of is someone falling on the train from a mezzanine above the carriage (they were drunk and apparently tried to jump to the quay, but managed to land on the train itself).

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#92

Post by ElFitz »

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 without automation… but I’m not sure I’ll ever live to see the day when people over here run their trains as efficiently as it is done in, say, Japan.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#93

Post by ArkanExplorer »

vidarh wrote: post #19
allendoerfer wrote: post #10

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…

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?

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#94

Post by davidhyde »

I think the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) model is fine. The author seems to be as ignorant of "machine learning" as he claims the general public to be of the concept of "driverless trains". For those unaware of what the DLR is, it's a 35 year old driverless train system in London with a human "train captain" who is basically like any other passenger but that can also operate the doors and override things if needed. You don't need machine learning and AI to drive a train on a one dimensional track, just a half decent team of Engineers to design something properly.

Yes the "train captains" can strike but they are far more replaceable than highly trained and very highly paid human train drivers. The evidence is clear, the DLR is far less affected by industrial action than regular tubes. Industrial action is so rare on the DLR that it becomes delicious news when it does happen: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/strike-proof-do...

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#95

Post by KineticLensman »

e17 wrote: post #72
KineticLensman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

> Anything from a more relevant era

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_Underground_acc...

Incidentally, I narrowly avoided one of these accidents: The Kings Cross fire of 1987 [1] which killed 31 people. This was caused by a fire under a (wooden) escalator that hadn't been cleaned. I passed through about an hour before the fire started. I was returning from a conference in London. A friend and I had planned to have a quick pint before travelling back but he felt ill so we didn't. Otherwise we would have been right in it. This was before mobile phones so my wife saw the event on the news and was of course desperately concerned that I had been it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Cross_fire

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#96

Post by AshamedCaptain »

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.

Even on a derailment, the driver seems also likely to die. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_Metro_derailment

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#97

Post by e17 »

KineticLensman wrote: post #95
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?

> Anything from a more relevant era Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_Underground_acc... Incidentally, I narrowly avoided one of these accidents: The Kings Cross fire of 1987 [1] which killed 31 people. This was caused by a fire under a (wooden) escalator that hadn't been cleaned. I passed through about an hour before the fire started. I was returning from a conference in London. A friend and…

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.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#98

Post by Silhouette »

davidhyde wrote: post #94

I think the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) model is fine. The author seems to be as ignorant of "machine learning" as he claims the general public to be of the concept of "driverless trains". For those unaware of what the DLR is, it's a 35 year old driverless train system in London with a human "train captain" who is basically like any other passenger but that can also operate the doors and override things if needed.…

You don't need machine learning and AI to drive a train on a one dimensional track, just a half decent team of Engineers to design something properly.

Most of the article was about the reasons "designing something properly" is an almost impossible task in this situation, once you take into account the reality of what is there right now, the goal(s) you might actually want to achieve, and the likely costs of doing so.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#99

Post by tialaramex »

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.

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 own a plot of land, but "Labour Party Meetings Limited" could) while whatever the current Nigel Farage vehicle is (Reform? Brexit Party? Whatever he's calling it now) is a private company entirely owned and controlled by Nigel and his friends.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#100

Post by chrisseaton »

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…

> The Party can have whatever rules it wants.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes they can have whatever rules they want... and the rule they want is that the leader must be a commoner MP.

Post reply on HN