Driverless Train Technology in London?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RogerLocker

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2012
Messages
10
Just read an interesting peice on this:

Driverless train technology and the London Underground: the great debate
Driverless train technology might not be a new concept for the world's metro systems, but it's still something of a contentious issue in public transport circles. On one side, driverless trains are being championed as a way of avoiding human error and reaching new levels of efficiency at a time when many metro systems are operating at the very limits of their capacity. On the other, critics are concerned about entrusting public safety to a driverless system, as well as the spectre of mass job losses.


A spotlight was shone on the debate during the run-up to London's mayoral elections in early May 2012, when incumbent Conservative candidate (and now re-elected mayor) Boris Johnson pledged to introduce more driverless and automatic technologies to London Underground lines in an effort to thwart union strikes and improve punctuality. "It is time to move forward with 'train captains' - along the lines of the DLR [Docklands Light Railway] - with all the efficiency benefits it will bring and absolutely no loss of safety," stated Johnson in his transport manifesto.


Naturally, the unions disagreed....
##What does everyone think of this? Its evident that it can work really well as proven elsewhere. In my opinion they say it has the potential to remove human error but I'm really skeptical of this and the fact is what are the consequences of a technical error with no human control compared to a human error. I know what I'd feel more safe with.

Also I'm not sure whether it would work so well in the London underground with the drastic over capacity problems we deal with at certain stations.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
Victoria, Central and Jubliee are already automatically driven but with supervision. Docklands is fully Automatic but with staff on board with the passengers (doing tickets and advice)

Maybe if all stations have Platform Edge Doors it might happen though
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
A driver earns most money not for driving, but dealing with everything else - faults, emergencies etc.

So why not let the trains drive themselves, but still pay for a driver to be the eyes and ears for the unexpected, which no amount of clever technology can yet cope with.

I am sure you can add hundreds of sensors to try and spot things a driver might, like that vandal standing on a bridge with a concrete block, but it would either fail to detect things or be too quick to panic when it thought it spotted something it didn't. I am of course referring more to the ordinary railway than the tube, which already has a number of ATO trains (with a driver) anyway.

There's also the public perception and whether someone would feel safe on a driverless train doing 186mph than a DLR train doing probably no more than 30mph in a very controlled environment. The tube network sits somewhere in between (nearer the DLR end, obviously).
 

Pugwash

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
282
A driver earns most money not for driving, but dealing with everything else - faults, emergencies etc.

So why not let the trains drive themselves, but still pay for a driver to be the eyes and ears for the unexpected, which no amount of clever technology can yet cope with.

I am sure you can add hundreds of sensors to try and spot things a driver might, like that vandal standing on a bridge with a concrete block, but it would either fail to detect things or be too quick to panic when it thought it spotted something it didn't. I am of course referring more to the ordinary railway than the tube, which already has a number of ATO trains (with a driver) anyway.

There's also the public perception and whether someone would feel safe on a driverless train doing 186mph than a DLR train doing probably no more than 30mph in a very controlled environment. The tube network sits somewhere in between (nearer the DLR end, obviously).
This is essentially what happens on most airliners now.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
Yes, and I wonder how many passengers would ever accept a pilotless plane, even though they can take off and land on their own? It's when things go tits up and the flight systems say 'I give up, over to you...'.

Perception is a very important thing. Imagine an airline took the plunge (bad wording perhaps) and did such a move, then everyone refused to fly with them.

I am not sure I'd want to be on a high-speed train that might be on a closed-in track and very safe, when a driver might see something a computer wouldn't. Even if the chances of an accident are tiny on the railway, every little thing to help is welcome.

Fortunately for drivers, I don't see their days as numbered as that of guards.
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
I think generally speaking railway automation is the way to go. Really intelligent systems that monitor conditions of equipment, intelligent vehicles and systems, regulate trains and so on. That would be the way to get more capacity out of the system, less prone to breakdown, more speed and so on. Simplifying operating so much so, the network may become truly open access like a bus or plane network.

In 50 years I would expect to see most trains driving themselves, albeit with a guy still in the cab. Although on branch lines (if they still exist) a DLR style system. There would still be people in control centres, but possibly less of them. I would expect most of the ticketing to be smart cards or something even more exotic.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are completely driverless freight trains though, working between distribution centres, served by electric trucks, that may be automated themselves.

There will be people on the network in customer service duties but maybe run by a lot more companies who could genuinely buy slots run by a computer.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,483
This topic is discussed a lot for both underground and mainline.

Technology is certainly starting to advance in new build trains and automatic train operation will start to take over all uk railways in the near future. Both thameslink and cross rail will be ATO and more and more tube lines will be upgraded for automation.

BUT there is a huge difference between automatic trains and driverless trains. The later will not happen any time soon. This is what is odd about Boris selling tube automation as a way to end strikes etc. Even automatic tubes will have staff on them like the DLR. If they go on strike then no trains run. The only way to loose staff altogether is to re build all the tunnels like other human-less metro systems have to provide walkways through the tunnels for emergency. This isn't going to happen in London in our lifetimes.

The tube is different, however on the mainline around the world technology has been taking over some tasks from the human driver and will continue to. But no train designer is considering getting rid of the human driver altogether-when the record breaking TGV was developed and in all technological high speed rail developments designers have long agreed that the best solution by far is to combine human and technological elements. Neither system is perfect but by working together you get a safe and reliable combination.

The train drivers job is certainly changing again, just like it did when the change happened from steam to electric, but despite what the papers and politicians say train drivers are not on the way out-not in our lifetime anyway. The job of the train driver, and what we are paid for, isn't for making the train start and stop but to deal with emergencies, technical issues, get around infrastructure failures etc much like a pilot and it will continue like that.
 

Giugiaro

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2011
Messages
696
Location
Valongo - Portugal
Also, automated consists don't have such a defensive driving as humans can (and should) have. Can they integrate systems that can detect if a passenger has fallen into the rails and be able to decide to stop at the critical moment, just like it happened somewhere with a woman and a human driven metro in the States recently?
Normally they're programmed to attack the platform and stop right at the target so that the Consist Doors match existing Platform Edge Doors and making journeys between stations at the minimum amount of time, so having or not someone injured in the rail would be the least of concerns for the machine, unless an human controller triggers the emergency stop, inside or outside of the train.

As it was said right back, the best choice would be a man + machine system, in which each one overlooks the other, minimizing errors and casualties. An major error in the system would be easy to take control, at least if the train is programmed to stop in emergency and remain still until manual orders are given or the system returns to normal. Thinking about a power failure in the control centre, or an error between the "AWS" balise and the train, trains should stop and wait for further orders. Here in my country, everytime there's an error or flaw in the AWS communication, the inner AWS forces the train to stop at emergency and deactivates the train. The driver then has to put the train back "online".
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,432
Yes, and I wonder how many passengers would ever accept a pilotless plane, even though they can take off and land on their own? It's when things go tits up and the flight systems say 'I give up, over to you...'.
Its usually the other way round, the autopilot takes over from the pilot if it sees him doing something stupid. More problems have come from Pilots thinking they know better and overriding the autopilot than vice versa.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,398
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Its usually the other way round, the autopilot takes over from the pilot if it sees him doing something stupid. More problems have come from Pilots thinking they know better and overriding the autopilot than vice versa.
I could show you the Airbus A320 test video but it would be in bad taste...

Airliners depend on the ethos of the manufacturer Boeing and Airbus being very different in this respect...

Either way, a combination requires extensive training of operators so that they understand the limitations of these automatic systems, and can still operate without them, as well as spotting when they go wrong. (Naming no names, Central Line Westinghouse Equipment)
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,437
Location
Glasgow
I could show you the Airbus A320 test video but it would be in bad taste...

Airliners depend on the ethos of the manufacturer Boeing and Airbus being very different in this respect...
There are actually pros and cons to both approaches, and the B777 system does interpret pilot commands which is closer to the Airbus philosophy. It's hard to have a sensible debate on this though, when so many (often Americans) conveniently forget Boeing's deficiencies over the years.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,398
Location
Somewhere, not in London
There are actually pros and cons to both approaches, and the B777 system does interpret pilot commands which is closer to the Airbus philosophy. It's hard to have a sensible debate on this though, when so many (often Americans) conveniently forget Boeing's deficiencies over the years.
Hence why I'm not going to, since I've done a lot of work recently looking into aviation electronics and I have my own opinions on what should be done...
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,845
I think automation is a possible in the future. While a computer can't see what a human does, a computer doesn't have home problems, doesn't get ill, doesn't have medical problems, doesn't get drunk the night before/get drunk before work, isn't on medication, will definitely have sharper and quicker responses, and won't suffer from lapses of concentration/tiredness/be distracted (which, is a cause for some of the accidents in the UK).

It's easy enough for LUL to implement a system where it can detect something falling onto the track, could sound an alarm and a member of staff at the station can check, and give the all clear.

It seems I have been on automated trains without even realising. Like a lot of people. While a computer doesn't have the same vigilance, and awareness as a driver, it can replace a lot of things that make humans a liability.

It's not an answer, but I think it's not long untill it is. Technology is coming leaps and bounds from when the underground was first made.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,483
Location
Birmingham
It shouldn't be just about whether or not this is feasible though. Having staff means that jobs are being provided which is helping the local economy and it's not like ticket prices will be lowered in exchange.
Technology needs to be overseen and maintained. In a safety critical role this is even more important. It hasn't been able to provide a mobile signal in tunnel (some may say that's a good thing!) and the tube is still using DC for traction current.

Instead of using technology to replace drivers why not use them to create reliable signalling equipment? Would make everyone much happier
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,398
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I think automation is a possible in the future. While a computer can't see what a human does, a computer doesn't have home problems, doesn't get ill, doesn't have medical problems, doesn't get drunk the night before/get drunk before work, isn't on medication, will definitely have sharper and quicker responses, and won't suffer from lapses of concentration/tiredness/be distracted (which, is a cause for some of the accidents in the UK).

It's easy enough for LUL to implement a system where it can detect something falling onto the track, could sound an alarm and a member of staff at the station can check, and give the all clear.

It seems I have been on automated trains without even realising. Like a lot of people. While a computer doesn't have the same vigilance, and awareness as a driver, it can replace a lot of things that make humans a liability.

It's not an answer, but I think it's not long untill it is. Technology is coming leaps and bounds from when the underground was first made.
If you'll allow me to pick you to pieces on this...

a computer can't see what a human does

You're right, it can't.

computer doesn't have home problems

I can let you have this one, but the point I'll make later accounts for this.

doesn't get ill, doesn't have medical problems

Anyone who is ill or has medical problems will be on sickleave if they're in a safety critical position.

doesn't get drunk the night before/get drunk before work

This would be summary dismissal, so doesn't happen, and if it does, they're out of a job.

isn't on medication

Again, medical requirements mean that this wouldn't be a problem, anyone on meds affecting them wouldn't be a vehicle operator.

will definitely have sharper and quicker responses

Up until very recently sensor systems in robotics have had a much slower response time than a human, even in very controlled environments, if you take for example, a pancake picker on a line in Switzerland, using ABB flexipickers, they work very very quickly, but the actual response time is quite low and the environment is highly controlled, neither is it safety critical.

The response time for this system is measured in tens of seconds, because the belt moves at a known speed and images are taken 20seconds previously on the line and interprated with time to spare, and any uncertainties are just ignored. The youtube video below will show what I'm on about, it looks very quick, but actually has a very slow 'response time' to changes in the environment or flow.

[youtube]v9oeOYMRvuQ[/youtube]

You'll also find that speed of response is inversely proportional to the precision, hence why complacence is built into robotic systems.

won't suffer from lapses of concentration/tiredness/be distracted

I think you'll find that there are multiple instances of fixation or loopround fatigue suffered in detection, sensing, signal processing and decision making machines, that would require frequent resets and servicing to ensure this wouldn't happen, the same as rest breaks for human operators. This includes operation in controlled environments, I'd hate to know what would end up happening with an implementation in an uncontrolled environment such as surface rail. (Not DLR, this still has extensive human intervention)


It's easy enough for LUL to implement a system where it can detect something falling onto the track, could sound an alarm and a member of staff at the station can check, and give the all clear.


How exactly would you implement the timings of such a system, would you dedicate a member of staff to permanently watching the platform and holding down a SAFE button whevener a train is arriving? Any other systems that spring to mind introduce a massive time delay that you're trying to avoid anyway.

Also, it's not THAT easy to detect something falling onto the track...

It's not an answer, but I think it's not long untill it is. Technology is coming leaps and bounds from when the underground was first made.

Duh! But I really don't think automation can take such an uncontrolled environment yet and actually be able to make informed decisions, such a system will have a nob you can turn to make it safer or less safe, so whenever the system fails, the first thing asked is, why wasn't it tuned to be 'safer'.

Nym BEng (Mechatronics and Robotics) AMIMechE MIET
(If you want to question if I know what I'm talking about)

PS: One of my research papers was on robotics in semi controlled environments interacting with vulnerable adults and children...

PPS: You'll notice the FlexiPicker operated in a sealed box ;)

It shouldn't be just about whether or not this is feasible though. Having staff means that jobs are being provided which is helping the local economy and it's not like ticket prices will be lowered in exchange.
Technology needs to be overseen and maintained. In a safety critical role this is even more important. It hasn't been able to provide a mobile signal in tunnel (some may say that's a good thing!) and the tube is still using DC for traction current.

Instead of using technology to replace drivers why not use them to create reliable signalling equipment? Would make everyone much happier
Oversight is always needed IMO, that or isolation and the latter isn't possible for a transport network.

DC traction is used because it has a lower peak voltage than using AC for transmission to the vehicle via 3rd and 4th rail vehicles, reducing the chance of flashover, most of the tube actually uses 10 or 20kV distribution systems in AC with localised rectifiers all around the network. (As can be noticed on "The Tube" shown on the BBC)

Better signalling systems based around the likes of ATO or ERTMS Target Speed systems IMO are looking at the best way forwards to augment (not replace) lineside signals and dedicated fixed infrastructure, implementing it atop of GSM-R with no other infrastructure IMO is a stupid idea. (I'm not going into why on a public forum)
 
Last edited:

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,337
It shouldn't be just about whether or not this is feasible though. Having staff means that jobs are being provided which is helping the local economy and it's not like ticket prices will be lowered in exchange.
Technology needs to be overseen and maintained. In a safety critical role this is even more important. It hasn't been able to provide a mobile signal in tunnel (some may say that's a good thing!) and the tube is still using DC for traction current.

Instead of using technology to replace drivers why not use them to create reliable signalling equipment? Would make everyone much happier
Actually, the proposal is not to reduce the number of staff but to replace drivers with "train captains".

The arguments being marshalled against automation often use anecdotal evidence where automation goes wrong or where a human has intervened to good effect. Fair enough but what about the numerous cases of human error being overridden by automated systems eg where the driver starts off with signals at danger? Perhaps the ideal is a system which is basically automatic but where a human can override or take over in an emergency - but is that person really a "driver" in the sense we normally understand the term?
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,483
Location
Birmingham
Actually, the proposal is not to reduce the number of staff but to replace drivers with "train captains".

The arguments being marshalled against automation often use anecdotal evidence where automation goes wrong or where a human has intervened to good effect. Fair enough but what about the numerous cases of human error being overridden by automated systems eg where the driver starts off with signals at danger? Perhaps the ideal is a system which is basically automatic but where a human can override or take over in an emergency - but is that person really a "driver" in the sense we normally understand the term?
That's a strange example to choose - let's say the signal is erroneously on danger. At the moment a human can "bump" it past but technology wouldn't.

Your ideal is a good one, I just don't think technology is capable yet outside of bespoke systems like the DLR.
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,845
To Nym

To be honest, I spoke to much pretending I knew what I was on about, but I really didn't it seems. I sort of presumed that computer reaction time would be much more instant than what it is, along with what you mentioned as "fatigue and loopround" (very interested to learn more about this if your keen to share)

What I meant about monitoring if something fell on the track would be something like this, again I know f all. Possibly a motion sensor, laser? Placed on the platform edge, soon as the beam is broken (maybe be size dependant, to stop rubbish causing false alarms), it sounds an alarm. Platform attendant checks said alarm, and gives all clear. While alarm is sounding, any train in platform/entering platform/scheduled to enter platform is either stopped, or run under some sort or cautionary speed.

Now, how feasible that is, with modern technology, and if it's possible then I don't know, im sure you will though!

But I am sorry, I genuinely thought I knew about what I was saying, and retract what I said! it seems technology is no way near as advance as I first thought
 

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
It's easy enough for LUL to implement a system where it can detect something falling onto the track, could sound an alarm and a member of staff at the station can check, and give the all clear.
NYm answered well on all your points but how do you implement a system thatdetects things on tracks when in some places the rats and mice are clamouring everywhere over the tracks and the signalling?
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
I am not sure how you'd best monitor for obstructions and expect you'd need a range of sensors, possibly also a camera (and then night vision) to perhaps have software analyse the 'threat'.

You might have simple radar of some sort, then perhaps thermal imaging to see if the object is perhaps a living creature, then you'd want to perhaps have an idea of what the object is (is it a large concrete block, or a branch from a nearby tree) and so on.

Of course you'd probably be able to build such sensors right now (not sure how big it would all be, especially if a series of separate devices connected together as against one single sensor with all of these features) but I doubt it would be cost-effective, and would also need months or years of 'real world testing'.

Far better to seek sensors to alert a driver, and keep the driver as the proper eyes with the ability to make an analysis of a danger far quicker than computer in most situations.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,398
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Nym answered well on all your points but how do you implement a system that detects things on tracks when in some places the rats and mice are clamouring everywhere over the tracks and the signalling?
Since I'm not going to entertain someone trying to escalate my mood as a result of my pre-emptive measure to stop people trying to turn round and personally attack "Oh, you don't know what you're on about." I'll answer Clip and jonmorris0844 who have asked valid questions rather than surrounding them within a rant.

Lasers cannot be used, the platforms are not straight and lasers have a tenancy to go in a straight line if not contained within something, that would kind of defeat the object, unless you want to bounce an array of lasers over the platform edges up and down it, but that presents the other issue that is if you want to get a clear signal from one end to the other, you'd need between 20 and 50mW of lasers to do it, and this is not safe for use around the general public, at least if they want to retain the use of their eyesight after looking at a deflected beam.

Infra Red motion detectors would not work in LUL sub surface or deep level stations due to the high wind rates and temperature differences within these airflows, this would require a dangerously low sensitivity to change to be set on any IR-M or IR-I sensors, resulting in it being unsafe.

Ultrasonic would be affected by the traction motor controllers of a service on the opposite platform. (That operate with a switching frequency between 10kHz and 40kHz, but tend to have super-harmonics all over the place up to 150kHz, and if you want to do it on the Jubilee Line with their GTO Thyristor motor controllers that operate between 100Hz and 15kHz, good luck...

To answer clip, you can detect and there is software that can be used to detect intrusion into a visualised 3D zone that can be programmed into a computer, the software exists, I've seen it in use, an evolution on it was sold as "Hawk Eye" for Tennis. But this software is not in it's maturity, and required a very high processing capability to operate, and still has a reaction time of approximately 0.5 to 5 seconds, now, in an environment such as I designated the use of this system appropriate where sudden changes are not likely and persons are usually well behaved (by means of fear or compliance) a 2 second reaction time was not inappropriate, as the system was also equipped with ultrasonic sensors for proximity that triggered an all stop.

The human reaction time to a major event is usually around 0.2 to 0.05 seconds, depending on the individual, so the lowest standard human is still twice as fast as this computer.

But this brings me neatly round to the main reason why I would not implement one of these systems at Deep Level and Sub Surface stations; cost. I mentioned previously that it requires a great level of processing power, and the equipment used by the company designing the initial systems is not available to consumers or businesses in the UK. So it would require a bank of 1 server per camera, (I'd estimate approximately 18 high quality 100Hz cameras required for a single platform, again, costly), bvut would also require a server 'blade' for every single input to the decision making process to paralell process all variables to make a decision regarding the approach speed, or stop command to an incoming unit, including data fed from the unit it'self. You'd then need two sets of cores to make their own decision, each set consisting of five with four over five ruling internaly and different algorythms, simply for the stop/go command, but beyond that to make the system more reliable and prevent someone sticking their hand out to cause an emergency stop (that it would) an even more complex system. By this point we've filled a 64U server cabinet to handle all of this data, still with a poorer response time than a well trained human.

So is it worth implementing this system (that can be done now), due to the cost. No.

Especially when a good alternative exists anyway to prevent passengers jumping infront of trains in single stock environments, Platform Edge Doors, these cost less than the system described above. But then you come into the world of CBA (there are better things to spend £180,000 per station on) and the major assumption I have made throughout all of this...

The trains can talk to the Platforms.

Back to cost again, there aren't really any 'hot spot' station with high suicide rates, so it would need to be fitted to all or none. Pushing this up to a billions project.

Onto...
I am not sure how you'd best monitor for obstructions and expect you'd need a range of sensors, possibly also a camera (and then night vision) to perhaps have software analyse the 'threat'.

You might have simple radar of some sort, then perhaps thermal imaging to see if the object is perhaps a living creature, then you'd want to perhaps have an idea of what the object is (is it a large concrete block, or a branch from a nearby tree) and so on.

Of course you'd probably be able to build such sensors right now (not sure how big it would all be, especially if a series of separate devices connected together as against one single sensor with all of these features) but I doubt it would be cost-effective, and would also need months or years of 'real world testing'.

Far better to seek sensors to alert a driver, and keep the driver as the proper eyes with the ability to make an analysis of a danger far quicker than computer in most situations.
I've already discussed software with the associated costs so I don't need to do it again.

Radar is an interesting idea, but I can see a fair few problems with implementing a radiosensitive system on LU with the likes of 1992 and 1972/1973 stock kicking around, (also the new stock but to a lesser degree) the amount of electromagnetic interference kicking around, even from the passengers would be enough to send any such system haywire, and if it where sensitive enough, result in severe damage to any such systems within months of installation.

Thermal Imaging would require the same decision making software as the visual light sensors, but would be subject to masses more interference from the hot air flows. (As previously mentioned)

Yes, you can build all this now, and yes, you're correct, it really isn't cost effective.
And thanks to the press nowadays it's even less cost effective as any systems retro-fitted to DL or SS stations would be required to be fitted to all of them, the, "TfL chose not to fit a lifesaving peice of kit to the one station where someone jumped" is too harder hit in the press.

Last sentence is exactly my own thoughts, aside from keeping the driver in the loop, fitting something to a train is much easer (and cheaper) than fitting it to a station...

Everything we've already discussed gets much cheaper when you fit it to a train, reduced install costs, the only 'issue' is finding the space.

See...
It's not just Jay_g's posts I pick to pieces...

PS: If anyone can think of a better system I'd love to hear about it, honestly, I'm not even being sarcastic here. (So long as you're prepared to discuss it rather than just say, "Oh, this will work." for the sake of gaining virtual brownie points in a forum then not be able to stand up to scrutiny of that idea.)
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,845
Nym,

I think you have completely misunderstood me, I wasnt being sarcastic, or trying to troll or anything. Reading back on my first post I was very sure assed thinking I knew what I was saying, when it couldn't be further from the truth. I am quite fascinated by the subject, and would love to learn more about it (hence why I found your posts fascinating and very informative,, thank you)(oh and that's why I asked about loopround/fatigue, as I never even knew that was possible)

What I posted was things I had learnt from school/college/press/forums, so really it wasn't reliable knowledge and shouldn't of been so sure of my self.

On that note, I would of happily sat and spoke about why I was wrong, because after your post, I felt like a right idiot. Like I said, the subject fascinates me so learning more is never a bad thing.

You took my second post the wrong way it seems, I was never trying to aggravate you, I can take criticism. Sorry
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,398
Location
Somewhere, not in London
You took my second post the wrong way it seems, I was never trying to aggravate you, I can take criticism. Sorry
Fair enough, call it quits on that...

I'm busy at the moment, but if you want an example of silicon strain or fatigue, take a careful look at the video footage from the opening ceremony of the Olympics, a lot of the camera sensors there started suffering fatigue.

If you want one specific shot, look at the one from under the cauldron when it got turned up, the supporting staffs appeared to glow red, they where not glowing red, this was a tired sensor failing to distinguish what should and shouldn't be red and showing flares of deep primary red colour wherever light is flaring over (also an affect of rough treatment on the lens).

Cameras don't like lots of different light, especially CCD type sensors, and APS-C sensors (not used in video I must admit, but CCD devices are used).

The problem I believe with posts on here, and everywhere, is stemming from a cascade of people using sound-bites of saying that a system can be used (not anyone on here) and this then being replicated in other forums as cannon fact without being properly analysed.

Such as: "Video cameras can be used" without any discussion of cost.

I know of many forums where things like this are used by people who like to seem intelligent, again, not directing this any anyone here, specifically in forums where other people cannot criticise them properly, using this to make themselves feel good by sounding like much more of an expert in the field than they are. I don't claim to be an expert in robotics or sensing technology, but I do know enough to discuss it at a high level, if you want an expert you need to look to someone like Prof. John Gray at the University of Salford Robotics Department, several research companies and University of Manchester Control Systems Research Team (the guy I handed my previously mentioned research paper to) and even he doesn't claim to be an expert, hence why teams are used.

Either way, while thinking of what to write in here, a quick search of google images found these shots.


That is partly internal lighting and lighting from the flame, but it seems much brighter due to the high amount of bright flame in the shot causing damage to the sensor, this will have been replaced by RED on Saturday or Sunday.


This is a little more difficult to talk around, but you can see the bright lights of the background being picked out more than the foreground, and if you look carefully (admittedly I was watching it live in 1080p from a satellite so it's more noticeable) you can just notice an overspill of the strong colours onto the whites, the blue on the base of Sir S Redgrave is a fair amount of actual lighting, but a lot of it is lens and sensor disruption and contamination, wish I had the comparison shots from the live show to show you the difference between a fresh and abused camera (they picked up a couple of standby ones throughout the ceremony)

The looping thing is half and half software and hardware, I'll go into that later, or if you think about how Bipolar Transistor or MOSFET circuits work for a moment or ten you might gain your own insight as to why.
 
Last edited:

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
Since I'm not going to entertain someone trying to escalate my mood as a result of my pre-emptive measure to stop people trying to turn round and personally attack "Oh, you don't know what you're on about." I'll answer Clip and jonmorris0844 who have asked valid questions rather than surrounding them within a rant.
Think you should calm yourself down a bit as you come over rather arrogant in your manner of trying to explain things with a 'rant' thinking I or anyone else was in anyway trying to escalate your mood.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
I could show you the Airbus A320 test video but it would be in bad taste...

Airliners depend on the ethos of the manufacturer Boeing and Airbus being very different in this respect...
I was reading a bit about that recently and the person in question said that while a Boeing 737 (the equivalent to the A320) in the same situation would have pulled up it would probably have stalled almost immediately and hit the deck rather harder then the bus did.

Another article suggested that the Airbus Fly By Wire deserved a lot of the credit in the Hudson River incident by trimming and keeping Angle of Attack safe allowing the pilots to concentrate more on locating a landing site

Of course this does mean some pilots are putting too much faith in the flight envelope protection which fatal results when they expect it to get them out of trouble when they f**k up (See AF447). I know Easyjet aircraft will instantly email base if the aircraft hits the protections and a full investigation will be carried out.
 

Rational Plan

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2011
Messages
235
If as NYM says it's only £182,000 per platform to install platform edge doors, then I think at some point it may be worth it. Think of all the reduced delays, reduction in trauma to staff and the reduction of blown in debris onto the track.

Now that Paris has managed to install them on an existing line and not a new one, I'm sure it's got people thinking. The other main operational advantage is the reduction of staff needed at the platform levels at the busiest stations.

The main issue I think is platform space. Some of those deep tube platforms are narrow and I'm not sure how much space the doors would take. On the other hand they mainly occupy the edge of the platform where people stand back a little bit. Curved paltforms also present some problems.

I feel that they are most likely to be introduced to the subsurface lines as they have the biggest platforms and will soon have the newest trains and signalling.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
Curved platforms must cause a big problem as the 'gap' might not be so easily spotted by passengers, or indeed anyone falling noticed by staff.

I guess curved platforms can't have edge doors, without some very expensive modifications (like some way for a ledge to come out from the platform to fill the gap - adding to the dwell time considerably).
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,398
Location
Somewhere, not in London
If as NYM says it's only £182,000 per platform to install platform edge doors, then I think at some point it may be worth it. Think of all the reduced delays, reduction in trauma to staff and the reduction of blown in debris onto the track.
To be honest that is a very back of fag packet calculation for installation over a weekend closure guessed around basic possession and staffing costs etc. But I do remember reading something close to that number previously, if we work on £200,000 per platform from now on as a project wide thing it can't be far wrong.

The problem comes when you look at whole project costs, as there isn't any 'hot list' or high suicide rate stations at deep level, it's all spread out, like I said before, it's an all or nothing project, per line.

Lets just take the Jubilee Line as an example, if we where to finish this line, how many deep level platforms would need to be done, I count 10 platforms in deep level without PEDs on this route, 12 if you include Charring Cross (that isn't out of the question for re-opening and could be used as a practice station to get it right first time on the rest of the lines) taking into account economies of scale, and that the system already exists, we are still looking at a £2mil project.

But then it would be a question of "Why was the Jubilee Line done and not XXX, if it was done here then he wouldn't have died etc."

So we now have to do roughly 600 platforms on the whole LU network or it's a press and PR disaster when we have a one under after project termination, so thats what...

600 x £200,000 + Vehicle Fittment Costs comes to a ~£150mil project...(!)

Yes, I know the're spending £4bn on improvements at the moment, but there's better things to spend £150mil on at the moment, not taking into account all the other problems of PEDs.
 

Rational Plan

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2011
Messages
235
To be honest that is a very back of fag packet calculation for installation over a weekend closure guessed around basic possession and staffing costs etc. But I do remember reading something close to that number previously, if we work on £200,000 per platform from now on as a project wide thing it can't be far wrong.

The problem comes when you look at whole project costs, as there isn't any 'hot list' or high suicide rate stations at deep level, it's all spread out, like I said before, it's an all or nothing project, per line.

Lets just take the Jubilee Line as an example, if we where to finish this line, how many deep level platforms would need to be done, I count 10 platforms in deep level without PEDs on this route, 12 if you include Charring Cross (that isn't out of the question for re-opening and could be used as a practice station to get it right first time on the rest of the lines) taking into account economies of scale, and that the system already exists, we are still looking at a £2mil project.

But then it would be a question of "Why was the Jubilee Line done and not XXX, if it was done here then he wouldn't have died etc."

So we now have to do roughly 600 platforms on the whole LU network or it's a press and PR disaster when we have a one under after project termination, so thats what...

600 x £200,000 + Vehicle Fittment Costs comes to a ~£150mil project...(!)

Yes, I know the're spending £4bn on improvements at the moment, but there's better things to spend £150mil on at the moment, not taking into account all the other problems of PEDs.
I don't think we have to approach it as an all stations or nothing project.

I feel it has additional benefits other automation.

I don't think anyone is going to rush into it, but in another decade or so politics and technology may change. Other systems may have converted etc and there could be more choice in suppliers etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top