Driverless Train Technology in London?

[Manchester77]

do we really need PED at deep level stations where driver-less trains call? Stations that are underground on the DLR dont.

 

[Nym]

do we really need PED at deep level stations where driver-less trains call? Stations that are underground on the DLR dont.

I was meerly giving a price and my view on project requirements (all or nothing)

I don't currently think that PEDs are needed, but people do insist on jumping in front of the vehicles...

 

[es373]

Try reading the document I posted earlier. This shall summarise what the driverless spec is.

 

[Deerfold]

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.

Say we fit them to all underground stations - people who want to jump will then go and jump off at one above ground. Lets say we enclose all of these completely too. So then they go to a mainline station or jump off a bridge onto track in front of a train (underground or mainline)...

If someone is determined to hurt themselves they'll find a way. This is sad but not easy to do anything about.

 

[jon0844]

I wonder how many suicides are planned or just impulse. If someone has taken a decision to jump under a train before going out, they'll just go to another station as you say.

What then? Have a new requirement that at any station without entry doors, a train must approach at about 5mph just in case? Then the person will just find somewhere else.

 

[150001]

Plus if a train came in at 5mph, the journey times would be very slow!

 

[jon0844]

Well, exactly.. but who knows what new rules we'll have in the future to try and stop people doing what they'll only go and do anyway.

 

[OxtedL]

Métro line 1 really is something to behold (14 is also interesting) if you're ever in Paris.

Without wishing to seem tasteless about this, PEDs in zone 1 and perhaps zone 2 would serve to remove not only most suicides but also other incidents such as people dropping things on the track from the central zone of the Underground. Even if you're just moving the suicides elsewhere it still helps reduce disruption.

PEDs are also extremely useful for making people feel safe on crowded platforms, and we do crowded platforms quite well in London.

On the metro, though, most stations are something silly like only 2 minutes walk from the next stop, so it is very much a different environment for implementing such solutions.

 

[Clip]

do we really need PED at deep level stations where driver-less trains call? Stations that are underground on the DLR dont.

To be fair though those few DLR stations that are underground see no where near the same amount of people using them as the underground does even at peak times.

 

[Nym]

Except of course when the Jubilee goes to pot and everyone changes at Bank/Monument...

 

[Mutant Lemming]

In a world with an ever increasing population let's create even less opportunities for them to be gainfully employed.

 

[Clip]

In a world with an ever increasing population let's create even less opportunities for them to be gainfully employed.

Or the alternative to that view would be lets create a situation where public transport would be cheaper due to not having to pay percieved very high wages which should keep the fares down.

Cant have it both ways. And number one concern for the travelling public is the cost of travelling to work. Reduce that and people would not care one little bit.

 

[Nym]

But would a driverless system be cheaper than the current setup?

 

[es373]

Long term yes, short term no.

How many tube drivers are there? Multiply that by £46696 and that's your answer.
That figure does not include instructor operators.

 

[A-driver]

Cutting staff costs is a complete myth. Every automatic LUL train will still have a member of staff on board who will be paid, most probably not far off what a tube driver is currently paid as the unions will still represent them. And if these staff members strike then no trains will run-just like on the DLR.

A completely un-staffed tube will NEVER happen unless the entire system is completely re-built. You need on train staff to deal with emergencies and work the doors (that can't be automated as closing the doors has too many variables in a system as busy as the tube). Fully un-staffed trains elsewhere have evacuation walkways in tunnels etc. That isn't possible in London without widening all tunnels which will cost billions and billions. You need someone on the train in contact with control who has training to take control of situations like drivers currently do.

Cutting staff costs and preventing industrial action is not the purpose of full automation and won't happen as a result, no matter what a Tory mayor and government claims. All that has been suggested so far is that no more tune trains will be built with CONVENTIONAL driving cabs. That dosnt mean driverless, just means a change in the job description.

 

[Clip]

Cutting staff costs is a complete myth. Every automatic LUL train will still have a member of staff on board who will be paid, most probably not far off what a tube driver is currently paid as the unions will still represent them. And if these staff members strike then no trains will run-just like on the DLR.
.

Whilst true they will still have a 'Train Captain' if you like they will probably paid considerably less then drivers do now. PSA's on DLR are on circa £37K

A completely un-staffed tube will NEVER happen unless the entire system is completely re-built. You need on train staff to deal with emergencies and work the doors (that can't be automated as closing the doors has too many variables in a system as busy as the tube). Fully un-staffed trains elsewhere have evacuation walkways in tunnels etc. That isn't possible in London without widening all tunnels which will cost billions and billions. You need someone on the train in contact with control who has training to take control of situations like drivers currently do.

Cutting staff costs and preventing industrial action is not the purpose of full automation and won't happen as a result, no matter what a Tory mayor and government claims. All that has been suggested so far is that no more tune trains will be built with CONVENTIONAL driving cabs. That dosnt mean driverless, just means a change in the job description.

I dont think anyone thinks nor wants a completely unstaffed tube system as we realise you have to have some staff to do some jobs.But thats not to say they shouldnt look at such a system to reduce costs..You could even go as far as not even having the train captain having to close the doors through the main city as you could have each stations control or even a platform member of staff doing it for them.And despatch staff are cheaper and if the role is reduced as such then they dont have to pay the train captain as much either.

There are loads ofpossibilities to switch roles and that you just have to think about it a bit.

Whether I would actually agree to go to extremes is another matter of course depending on the idea.

 

[A-driver]

I understand what you are saying but what I mean is that the unions will still get all train captains and will have the same ammo they have at the moment with drivers to cause disruption and demand higher pay. If the captains strike no trains move.

Even if TfL start recruiting people who, as people who send texts into newspapers say, 'would be grateful for a job' the unions will still get hold of them.

You recruit train captains on 20k a week for a 5 day week, 12 hour shifts etc etc. The union then turns around to the new recruits and says 'we can double your wage, get you a 4 day week, 9 hour max shift, better holiday allowance, better pension etc' and these new recruits will take them up on it. After all unions like the RMT and aslef have a proven track record of being successful with these things.

I'm just saying that this isn't going to make the staff costs that much cheaper and I can assure 100% that none of any savings made will be passed on to the public.

 

[Nym]

OK, a side from half of what you'd have as their conditions are illegal, such as continuous 12 hour shifts in a safety critical role.

And no-one has actually considered the increased maintenance and initial development of any fully automatic operating system, in combination with the required train captains. Then of course what would happen the second there is an accidental one under, see a couple of pages ago as to why an automated system wouldn't work here, I'm not typing it again.

 

[WinterChief]

Bombardier blokes at Neasden do 5, 12 hour shifts. I do 2, 12 hour days followed by 2, 12 hour nights. We are both safety critical. I believe you have to have 2 days off a fortnight but that is as much as I know of that field.

It would be unwise to assume that trains will be manned for an eternity. Especially London Underground. New laws will be passed, etc. If there is a good case for no staff on board and all the alternatives have been considered then there is no reason why they shouldn't. And I agree with it.

Planned maintenance can only be done at night on ATO driver less lines, so an increase of **** workers doing nights would also increase the cost (but marginally). Emergency engineering works are of course the exception. But with track become more and more efficient, requiring less and less checks, and with a reduced amount of signals to check, who knows. (can anyone who works on track confirm that new installations of track require less maintenance or not?)

Lets take a de-trainment for example. At the moment we have a one hour target to start to get people off the train (dStock7080 will confirm the details of this no doubt). This is because of an emergency. But what if in the future trains will be able to automatically couple up and drag out within 20 minutes. They will have systems on board which will be able to share multiple air systems. The word "emergency" is quite flexible depending on a person's opinion or a board of directors opinions and if they present it to H&S and HMRI with a good strong well thought out case then I see no reason why they would decline it.

If there is a fire (so the above cannot be done). Smoke detection on various places on the train and in the tunnel and bring it to an emergency stop, a short circuiting device will be automatically lowered, a front and rear door (depending on the circumstance) will release allowing people to scram.

Lets take passing a red signal. At the moment a train will not pass one at danger in automatic. Well if there is a manual override monitored by camera by a control room assistant, who knows what could be done? Whilst I don't know the ins and outs of systems of the future, doors in technology seem to be opening very fast and I am certain it is something the Underground and other metros will think about.

Lets say we get a main line air burst. Trains will be designed so that two, three or four air systems on train will be in use. They will all be constantly monitored so that if any one fails it goes straight into the depot to be repaired. Even if it does fail on the way, at least only 1 out of 2/3/4 will be broken.

The Underground and other metros are constantly exploring these options to reduce overheads. Whilst these examples might not be chosen or considered it will still be things that will have to be thought about within this debate.

And yes, IMO, stage 1 would be PED's - everywhere!

Employment doesn't matter as long as a tube system transports people safely you can employ as many as you like (as long as all the legal points are thought about and implemented). The only thing I could think of would be that if a government (probably labour!) would make the Underground employ people because of the employment factor within the economy or funding through trade unionism.

Our first automatic railway was in 1967 - The Victoria Line. Yet 45 years later we only have the Jubilee, Central and Victoria Line as AUTO. Why? Underinvestment. Now we are getting the investment from the mayor - things will change, not just yet. I predict that the next generation of trains (EVO will have an attendant).

The generation after the EVO (replacement of 96/95 Stock-ish) won't, the technology and force from the directors will have gotten to it then.

 

[Clip]

OK, a side from half of what you'd have as their conditions are illegal, such as continuous 12 hour shifts in a safety critical role.

And no-one has actually considered the increased maintenance and initial development of any fully automatic operating system, in combination with the required train captains. Then of course what would happen the second there is an accidental one under, see a couple of pages ago as to why an automated system wouldn't work here, I'm not typing it again.

There is no increased maintenence though*. From what I know of the DLR and how they plan it out they have small exams during the day and bigger ones at night but only ever one or 2 on a H or I exam at a time. They have 149 vehicles and at most during normal service they deploy around 136 per day mon-fri with an increase in the peaks and then reduced availability for a sat/sun.

The infrastructure still gets its inspections as does normal heavy rail of an night time during shut down hours and other possessions as normal. They seem to manage it so why couldnt the underground?

Though the intial cost of transferring to ATO itself would be expensive - though how much did it cost Paris? That would be a good indication on the initial cost.


* I am only asking this as a question.

 

[Nym]

To rebuttal the maintenance thing, there may be the same maintenance hours, but there is more to maintain than on either the DLR or current LU SSR or DL sections, the signalling system will contain a lot more aspects and complex electronics than previously.

And any faults will likely result in direct replacement of part modules, that will then be repaired by engineers elsewhere off site, tested and ready for re-installation (what already happens with complex systems in place), this would increase the contingent of repair engineers required on and off site as there is simply "More to fix".

I won't get into the complexities of implementing such a system as I feel at the moment it's irrelevant, but if you'd like to know some potential implementation methods, I would be happy to discuss them.

(Not trying to be snide or anything here, but there are increased maintenance costs, as there is simply, more to maintain)

When a system hasn't been designed for ATO from the outset, adapting it is very, very difficult as you need to add the required control elements rather then simply designing them into the system in the first place. (Captain's monitors on the DLR being an example)

 

[notadriver]

Just as a note all of the Paris metro with the exception of Ligne 10 is ATO operated. I think Paris metro driver salaries are considerably less than those of the main line.

 

[Clip]

To rebuttal the maintenance thing, there may be the same maintenance hours, but there is more to maintain than on either the DLR or current LU SSR or DL sections, the signalling system will contain a lot more aspects and complex electronics than previously.

And any faults will likely result in direct replacement of part modules, that will then be repaired by engineers elsewhere off site, tested and ready for re-installation (what already happens with complex systems in place), this would increase the contingent of repair engineers required on and off site as there is simply "More to fix".

I won't get into the complexities of implementing such a system as I feel at the moment it's irrelevant, but if you'd like to know some potential implementation methods, I would be happy to discuss them.

(Not trying to be snide or anything here, but there are increased maintenance costs, as there is simply, more to maintain)

When a system hasn't been designed for ATO from the outset, adapting it is very, very difficult as you need to add the required control elements rather then simply designing them into the system in the first place. (Captain's monitors on the DLR being an example)

Cheers for the info.

The signalling on the DLR though is nothing like the coloured light system on the LUL. Its basically a couple of light boxes with directional arrows in it from what I can see and I use it quite often too.

But I guess a full change over from one to the other would be expensive but it is a one off cost and then maintenence of them is only going to be the parts as the labour is already paid for isnt it?

Though there are actually not many captains monitors in use on the DLR - think they are only at stations where they have to use selective door operation at places like Royal Albert and Gallions reach.

 

[Nym]

Cheers for the info.

Right, now I'm awake, I can tap up a decent reply, hopefully without being too, errr, much like what I am with students...

The signalling on the DLR though is nothing like the coloured light system on the LUL. Its basically a couple of light boxes with directional arrows in it from what I can see and I use it quite often too.

The signalling heads on LU are all the same, or very similar, but a lot of them back onto very different signalling systems, interlocking, etc.
The new systems on the SSR Resignalling when in place will support ATO, but it will likely be a similar system to before with "Authorisation to move" being issued and an operator in the leading end of the vehicle looking forwards.

But I guess a full change over from one to the other would be expensive but it is a one off cost and then maintenence of them is only going to be the parts as the labour is already paid for isnt it?

There is still an increased cost of maintenance if you move over to an ATO system, since coloured lights will likely remain in place (but possibly not tripcocks) the volume of equipment to maintain will increase, as well as, previously mentioned, the complexity of maintenance for the equipment.

The systems would need to sit atop of each other because changing from one to the other would not be able to be gradual within the core sections, as changing from one signalling system to the other takes a fair whack of time..

When it was implemented, it wouldn't be likely that the old systems would be removed, and if they are, the maintenance of the new equipment would be more complex than the old equipment anyway.

Though there are actually not many captains monitors in use on the DLR - think they are only at stations where they have to use selective door operation at places like Royal Albert and Gallions reach.

I've not been round all of the DLR network, but from what I remember the majority of platforms are in a dead straight line so the captain can have line of sight down the whole unit at any station, obviously this wouldn't be possible on LU...

 

[Dstock7080]

The Bombardier CityFlo650 system to be installed on the SSR does not require lineside signals.
The SSR is divided in 12 areas for resignalling to ATO, with area1 (Rayners Lane-Uxbridge) converting in November 2015. When each area is ready it will switch straight over to ATO. The whole of SSR is planed to be finished in August 2017.

 

[Clip]

Cheers for the info Nym.

 

[OxtedL]

The Bombardier CityFlo650 system to be installed on the SSR does not require lineside signals.
The SSR is divided in 12 areas for resignalling to ATO, with area1 (Rayners Lane-Uxbridge) converting in November 2015. When each area is ready it will switch straight over to ATO. The whole of SSR is planed to be finished in August 2017.

How are they fitting the Picc in with the ATO?

 

[Dstock7080]

How are they fitting the Picc in with the ATO?

The Piccadilly Line, which will also be fully controlled from Hammersmith SCC, will have ATP and in-cab signalling fitted for use between Barons Court-Uxbridge/South Ealing.

 

[bronzeonion]

Driverless trains? No thanks. Jobs are scarce as it is, I am also totally against DOO on the mainline down to this and when something goes wrong you have the conductor there to deal with the passengers and make announcements and the driver to deal with the incident.

 

[OxtedL]

The Piccadilly Line, which will also be fully controlled from Hammersmith SCC, will have ATP and in-cab signalling fitted for use between Barons Court-Uxbridge/South Ealing.

That makes a lot of sense, I was half wondering if it would end up the same way as the Met/Jubilee but this is much more sensible.

Presumably that also makes this system a strong candidate for the rest of the Picc if/when that comes round for upgrade?