Driverless Tube Poor value for money

[irish_rail]

Leaked TfL report says driverless Tube trains would be 'poor value'

Unions say the document proves the idea is a "politically-driven fantasy"

www.standard.co.uk

Boris Johnson’s ambition to change London Underground to driverless trains took a blow today with a leaked report claiming it would cost £7 billion and show “poor value for money”.

It concluded that the case for converting old lines "is not financially positive given the high capital costs", although it could make sense to include driverless capability on new lines and upgrades.

A TfL spokesman confirmed that the analysis was genuine and said it was prepared for the Government-commissioned review of TfL finances.

What most on here long suspected , driverless tube trains are an ideological driven disaster unlikely to see the light of day any time soon.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Knowing this government that probably means it’ll be full steam ahead...

 

[Chris Butler]

Leaked TfL report says driverless Tube trains would be 'poor value'

Unions say the document proves the idea is a "politically-driven fantasy"

www.standard.co.uk

What most on here long suspected , driverless tube trains are an ideological driven disaster unlikely to see the light of day any time soon.

Did Paris pay this massive a price for automation ? Have they been a disaster there ? Genuine questions.

 

[Geeves]

If you read the story Chris one of the reasons stated for staff to be in attendance on the trains is the very narrow tunnels which Paris does not suffer from, which is a good point. The majority of Paris stations are only 700m apart and for london its 1.5km making evacuation more difficult, on the Paris metro I presume they expect people could find their own way out.

 

[Ianno87]

Did Paris pay this massive a price for automation ? Have they been a disaster there ? Genuine questions.

Isn't it only Line 14 in Paris that is fully automatic - which was newly built as such rather than retro-fitted?

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't it only Line 14 in Paris that is fully automatic - which was newly built as such rather than retro-fitted?

Line 1 has been retrofitted, including the very tight curved station at Bastille. I think others are being retrofitted and may by now be complete.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So pardon my ignorance - is this politically driven or technically?

 

[Chris Butler]

... on the Paris metro I presume they expect people could find their own way out.

I'm very doubtful that they (or any metro) plans for evacuation along the line in underground tunnels.

Isn't it only Line 14 in Paris that is fully automatic - which was newly built as such rather than retro-fitted?

No. They have retrofitted Line 1 and are retrofitting line 4. They quote investment for full automation far lower than the TfL estimates.

 

[fishwomp]

A large amount of cost is included in the report for upgrading to support an immediate transition - conversion of old stock with short lifetime, and resignalling. Platform doors too are needed, although those being good for driver controlled trains too (Jubilee extension for example already so equipped). Someone wanted this report leaked..

It won't happen in 2021/2 - but when stock is replaced or lines upgraded it would be cheaper to do then. Perhaps an evens-chance wager that it hits 50% by 2030

Ultimately, when RMT said a self-driving car would go to Barnard's Castle before there were driverless trains on the circle line, that is trying to hold back the sea. Cars are doing a pretty good job in 2020 at that, and in 2025 they will be there... It's coming, whether we like it or not.

 

[bramling]

A large amount of cost is included in the report for upgrading to support an immediate transition - conversion of old stock with short lifetime, and resignalling. Platform doors too are needed, although those being good for driver controlled trains too (Jubilee extension for example already so equipped). Someone wanted this report leaked..

It won't happen in 2021/2 - but when stock is replaced or lines upgraded it would be cheaper to do then. Perhaps an evens-chance wager that it hits 50% by 2030

Ultimately, when RMT said a self-driving car would go to Barnard's Castle before there were driverless trains on the circle line, that is trying to hold back the sea. Cars are doing a pretty good job in 2020 at that, and in 2025 they will be there... It's coming, whether we like it or not.

The question of driverless on the Underground isn’t whether it can be done, it whether it’s worthwhile to do it - especially if political considerations are taken out of the equation.

There’s zero possibility by 2030. Even if they went full-steam ahead right now it’s highly unlikely we’d see any more than the Piccadilly and perhaps W&C lines done by the end of the decade. LU is still heavily mired in the sub-surface resignalling which now spans three decades and with not a massive amount of resignalled railway to show for it (to be fair progress was being made more recently, until Covid happened).

If a flagship but well-rehearsed resignalling of a third of the network has run into so many problems over the last 10-15 years, then what hope is there of half the network going driverless, which is an order of magnitude more difficult to do?

BJ is going to be a distant memory sooner rather than later, and with that will go cabless trains, filed in the same bin as the garden bridge or Boris Island. I suppose it would make a topic for the after-dinner speech circuit!

 

[Chris Butler]

Since asking the question above, I've checked and the list of metros in the world employing full driverless operation (no staff required on the train for safe operations, including evacuations) is far, far longer than I ever imagined. How many are new built and how many conversion, I don't know, but the list suggests that driverless operation is not a politically inspired fantasy.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So the unions would fight it tooth and nail then?

 

[philthetube]

I have looked at half a dozen of these at random and they all appear to be new builds, made to operate without drivers, there is a big difference between doing that and retrofitting.

I would be interested to know if any have narrow tunnels with no evacuation walkways.

 

[Bald Rick]

Since asking the question above, I've checked and the list of metros in the world employing full driverless operation (no staff required on the train for safe operations, including evacuations) is far, far longer than I ever imagined. How many are new built and how many conversion, I don't know, but the list suggests that driverless operation is not a politically inspired fantasy.

View attachment 85134

Plus the JFK airtrain (a metro in all but name), plus plenty of people movers.

 

[Vespa]

I would imagine the main reason for introducing it, is to prevent disruptions and cancellations by striking tube drivers as well as cutting the wage bill.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would imagine the main reason for introducing it, is to prevent disruptions and cancellations by striking tube drivers as well as cutting the wage bill.

So it would be in their interests if it came closer to reality to try and negotiate a no-strike agreement?

 

[Chris Butler]

I have looked at half a dozen of these at random and they all appear to be new builds, made to operate without drivers, there is a big difference between doing that and retrofitting.

I would be interested to know if any have narrow tunnels with no evacuation walkways.

That's why I asked about Paris, because two of their three are conversions with quoted costs seemingly way below the TfL numbers. At least two of the Singapore lines are conversions too.

Line 1 in Paris was (not suprisingly) the first built, so I am pretty sure it has no walkways. The cost for conversion is quoted as €600m, of which €400m was for new trains.

Completely agree that the economics of new build is different (in fact seems to be unanswerable), but the conversions do seem to tell a very different story to the TfL report.

Plus the JFK airtrain (a metro in all but name), plus plenty of people movers.

Indeed. I ignored all the airport and other people movers because they are (mostly) different in scale and would likely cloud the issue.

You're right though, it's a long trek all the way to Jamica on the Airtrain. But with 8m p.a. or so making the trip to there or Howard Beach, it's on a different scale to the larger metro lines (but not to many of the smaller ones)

 

[Vespa]

So it would be in their interests if it came closer to reality to try and negotiate a no-strike agreement?

I highly doubt any union would agree to that as it would remove one of their man leverage during a negotiation.

 

[Geeves]

I would imagine the main reason for introducing it, is to prevent disruptions and cancellations by striking tube drivers as well as cutting the wage bill.

The DLR control room is unionized and has been on strike before.

My earlier comment about the Paris metro in regards to detraining, would be that if there was a fire people could if needs be escape by themselves with the larger two track tunnels, maybe it came over wrong as being left to their own devices. Obviously this is not an option on the tube.

 

[43066]

BJ is going to be a distant memory sooner rather than later, and with that will go cabless trains, filed in the same bin as the garden bridge or Boris Island. I suppose it would make a topic for the after-dinner speech circuit!

Hopefully sooner rather than later! I wonder how many people in this country would disagree with that sentiment at the moment.

Since asking the question above, I've checked and the list of metros in the world employing full driverless operation (no staff required on the train for safe operations, including evacuations) is far, far longer than I ever imagined. How many are new built and how many conversion, I don't know, but the list suggests that driverless operation is not a politically inspired fantasy.

I suspect many in that list are either new build or “cut and cover” allowing easy evacuation etc. There’s also a difference between “driverless” and true unattended operation, and the saving on staff headcount is only really there for the second.

The DLR, for example, has been “driverless” since it was opened in the 1980s, but has also carried train captains since inception. That’s still someone who is required to be present on every train for it to operate, can go on strike, and will expect to be paid...

So the unions would fight it tooth and nail then?

That goes without saying. But what’s interesting about the leaked document the above article refers to is that it’s TfL themselves, not the unions, who are saying it doesn’t make financial sense.

 

[Jozhua]

if you want full driverless, probably best to build from new. That said, pretty sure a couple of underground lines run not far off automatically, with the driver just opening the doors?

I think for London the future is really the sinking of mainline rail under the city, Crossrail style. Tube does pretty well for local stuff and has good coverage, but in terms of capacity, it's basically at max. Another Crossrail that operates driverlessly would be good, but a lot of other major cities are desperate for any mass transportation, so figuring out priorities is going to be a challenge. We need both investment in London and regions, but decades of neglect and underfunding has put pay to that.

A large amount of cost is included in the report for upgrading to support an immediate transition - conversion of old stock with short lifetime, and resignalling. Platform doors too are needed, although those being good for driver controlled trains too (Jubilee extension for example already so equipped). Someone wanted this report leaked..

It won't happen in 2021/2 - but when stock is replaced or lines upgraded it would be cheaper to do then. Perhaps an evens-chance wager that it hits 50% by 2030

Ultimately, when RMT said a self-driving car would go to Barnard's Castle before there were driverless trains on the circle line, that is trying to hold back the sea. Cars are doing a pretty good job in 2020 at that, and in 2025 they will be there... It's coming, whether we like it or not.

Platform doors are definitely needed!

Driverless cars will not be here by 2025 lol, regardless of what silicon valley says when they're trying to soften up politicians to trying out their death machines on public roads.

 

[DorkingMain]

The project is as much of a non-starter as anyone expected.

Spending £7 billion during a TfL funding crisis on retrofitting the existing network for absolutely no tangible benefit to passengers, other than averting the odd Tube strike, is something even this current government isn't stupid enough to do.

Even then as others have said - it still relies on control and other staff to make the network actually able to run. If those staff go on strike the effects are exactly the same.

 

[gsnedders]

Aside from the obvious question of why are the TfL estimates so far beyond the cost touted for the Parisian cases where several lines have been retrofitted (from the sound of it, it's the fact it's replacing non-life-expired infrastructure and stock to do it soon, so they're writing off the cost of the current infrastructure). It does sound like it's still quite likely to happen (and we're seeing most of the technical work happening with NTfL on the lines it covers), though it does note for the tube lines especially they're never going to be unattended, and I guess whether they move beyond having the attendant in the cab will be figured out over time.

 

[Camden]

Surprise surprise, cost estimates for thing that isn't wanted are astronomical.

 

[Chris Butler]

... Parisian cases where several lines have been retrofitted (from the sound of it, it's the fact it's replacing non-life-expired infrastructure and stock to do it soon, so they're writing off the cost of the current infrastructure).

Why do you say that ? That's not my understanding, but I could be wrong.

RATP has taken over 20 years between the first and the latest line to be automated, so they are not doing it in a hurry.

The latest, Line 1, was the oldest and most overcrowded on the network and that drove the choice. The current signalling was retained (manual operation is still possible and mixed mode operation was essential to the 'seamless' transition). The cost of the signalling work was €150m, about one fifth of what TfL are spending on upgrading just Bank station. The stock was cascaded to Line 4 to allow retirement of the remaing MP 59 stock. Since the digits refer to the year of design, it's pretty clear they were life expired.

 

[Domh245]

Surprise surprise, cost estimates for thing that isn't wanted are astronomical.

Surprise surprise, "obvious" cost savings fail to survive interaction with reality

 

[Camden]

Surprise surprise, "obvious" cost savings fail to survive interaction with reality

Maybe, maybe not. But I can recount more than one incident where a plan was deemed poor value for money, only for digging to reveal that the plan as investigated was simply gold plated, the benefits understated, and a ton of phoney objections invented.

Basically the opposite to what happens when politicians and their ilk want something to happen.

 

[Domh245]

Maybe, maybe not. But I can recount more than one incident where a plan was deemed poor value for money, only for digging to reveal that the plan as investigated was simply gold plated, the benefits understated, and a ton of phoney objections invented.

Basically the opposite to what happens when politicians and their ilk want something to happen.

Naturally, the reality will no doubt be somewhere in the middle - some of the gold plating costed in the report will turn out to be unnecessary, but the benefits put forward by the proponents will remain unrealisable. In this case, so long as staff are required to be on the train (which given the safety attitudes in this country + infrastructure, they will be) the cost savings will be negligible

 

[notverydeep]

Maybe, maybe not. But I can recount more than one incident where a plan was deemed poor value for money, only for digging to reveal that the plan as investigated was simply gold plated, the benefits understated, and a ton of phoney objections invented.

Basically the opposite to what happens when politicians and their ilk want something to happen.

Another issue that has stalled projects across the rail industry is that of 'standards'. This is where the engineering function [of the organisation] mandates that infrastructure must be set up in a particular way or else it is not acceptable and cannot be used. Often, there are possible solutions that do not comply with the standard, but are accepted elsewhere and would be viable solutions - with costs and benefits.

A key example of this in this context is whether a fully automated (GOA4) railway, must have a complete barrier between the track and the train, such as platform edge doors. These are often described as essential, but could be considered as a trade off between safety of such a system and the cost / resilience [of full automation]. Sure they would presumably improve platform safety, but a manual driver cannot and is not expected to be able to stop short of every obstruction - and some other obstacle detection system might be sufficeintly effective and cheaper.*

There are other examples of such standards amounting to an 'engineering' rather than political veto on a project, often presumably unintentionally, such as the issues that have stopped much of the follow up electrification after the Great Western route. As with cost 'exaggeration', this is another way in which a project that was not enthusiastically embraced across an organisation might be impeded...

*this is not an assertion that such as system is available and I'm not stating that platform edge doors are not necessary, merely noting that the question is a trade off!

 

[rebmcr]

A key example of this in this context is whether a fully automated (GOA4) railway, must have a complete barrier between the track and the train, such as platform edge doors.

You're right, the DLR lacks them and I don't really see much difference in the desirability of PEDs between GOA3 and GOA4.