Driverless Tube Poor value for money

[43066]

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

You don’t think TfL would love to eliminate tube drivers if they could!? It was they, not the unions, who produced the leaked document...

 

[bramling]

You don’t think TfL would love to eliminate tube drivers if they could!? It was they, not the unions, who produced the leaked document...

TFL don’t really know what they want, has there ever been such a massive resignalling project where the client has changed their mind on what system they want not once but twice? This is of course the result of being constantly stuck in the middle of political football, in TFL’s case with the further complication of the mayor.

I always take a cautionary view of the DLR. Most stations have zero staff presence (it’s interesting how TFL have no interest in staffing DLR stations, yet so heavily staff London Overground), and during disruption I find it quite unprofessional for the PSAs to be doing their business (for example safety related comms over the radio) in full view of passengers, and therefore liable to distractions. And given the nature of the Underground, with no driving cab how do you manage the frequent scenario where technical or operating staff have to be taken to a location to carry out emergency work, which is normally now done simply using the front door. Do we really want such safety-related stuff happening at the front of a crowded saloon?

All this needs filing in the same bin as Boris Island, which is quite likely where his Night Tube idea will find itself too.

 

[HSTEd]

Considering the size of the TfL driver wage bill, plus all the required managers etc and such, I don't think its even catastrophically bad value for money.

It all depends on the price of capital.
£7bn in public debt has repayments well below the pay bill for the drivers over a long time period.

Given that the wages of drivers do tend to grow above inflation.

Does anyone know where I can find an actual copy of the report rather than just editorialising.

 

[Jona26]

I always take a cautionary view of the DLR. Most stations have zero staff presence (it’s interesting how TFL have no interest in staffing DLR stations, yet so heavily staff London Overground), and during disruption I find it quite unprofessional for the PSAs to be doing their business (for example safety related comms over the radio) in full view of passengers, and therefore liable to distractions.

Would that not be down to stipulations in the concession contract? I can't see TfL deciding that themselves.

 

[bramling]

Considering the size of the TfL driver wage bill, plus all the required managers etc and such, I don't think its even catastrophically bad value for money.

It all depends on the price of capital.
£7bn in public debt has repayments well below the pay bill for the drivers over a long time period.

Given that the wages of drivers do tend to grow above inflation.

Does anyone know where I can find an actual copy of the report rather than just editorialising.

The thing is GOA3 doesn’t eliminate the driver wage bill, just reduces it a bit. So it becomes a question of the relative difference in costs versus the technical pros and cons of having a proper driver on the front of the train.

Personally a skilled and well trained driver is worth their weight in gold, but skimp on this and the benefits become less easy to justify.

 

[HSTEd]

The thing is GOA3 doesn’t eliminate the driver wage bill, just reduces it a bit. So it becomes a question of the relative difference in costs versus the technical pros and cons of having a proper driver on the front of the train.

If PEDs are installed there seems to be little reason not to pay the little extra money to go to GOA4.

 

[whoosh]

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.

Paris has no walkways, but in the case of a stalled train, one running in the other direction could be brought alongside in the twin track tunnels. Not something that can happen in the deep tube tunnels in London.

I always take a cautionary view of the DLR. Most stations have zero staff presence (it’s interesting how TFL have no interest in staffing DLR stations, yet so heavily staff London Overground), and during disruption I find it quite unprofessional for the PSAs to be doing their business (for example safety related comms over the radio) in full view of passengers, and therefore liable to distractions. And given the nature of the Underground, with no driving cab how do you manage the frequent scenario where technical or operating staff have to be taken to a location to carry out emergency work, which is normally now done simply using the front door. Do we really want such safety-related stuff happening at the front of a crowded saloon?

All this needs filing in the same bin as Boris Island, which is quite likely where his Night Tube idea will find itself too.

Really the DLR needs cabs at the front of it's trains for the staff. That would eliminate the extra dwell time at each station of them having to mess about closing their local door after all the others. More trains per hour could actually be run!
A dedicated place to head towards in an emergency to locate said staff member would be another bonus, as well as a passcom instantly going through to the member of staff rather than the member of staff having to wade through passengers to find a panel to unlock in order to respond.

When it was first built it was a little system and the trains had bus type doors. They still have the staffing arrangements suited to that rather than the busy system with much longer trains that they now have.

 

[gsnedders]

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.

Oh, sorry, my post was super unclear! I meant that the costing for London was based on replacing non-life-expired equipment; certainly some signalling will have to be replaced (lights on sticks don't work super well with computers and knowing stopping positions, etc!).

 

[philthetube]

It may be possible at some time in the future for the sub surface lines, but not on deep level, unless the tunnels are rebored to allow walkways

 

[Camden]

You don’t think TfL would love to eliminate tube drivers if they could!? It was they, not the unions, who produced the leaked document...

No I really don't. It's a reduction in headcount, a reduction in budget. I bet that going driverless is right down on the bottom of their priority list too. And they know it will eat up resource for what they do want to do. Plus the Labour mayor thrown into the mix.

The thing about leaked reports is that someone needs to have leaked them. You say the report was produced by TfL, so go figure.

This is a PR exercise designed to damage the government's ability to require the change.

 

[Chris Butler]

Paris has no walkways, but in the case of a stalled train, one running in the other direction could be brought alongside in the twin track tunnels. Not something that can happen in the deep tube tunnels in London.

Yes, but ....

... that's not really a solution in case of fire etc.,

... the gap is too big to step across

... more fundamentally to this discussion, I don't see how the presence of a single driver in the distressed train would be sufficient to enable that process. The situation seems to be the same for with-driver or driverless operation, namely the rescue train needs to be staffed and equipped to conduct the evacuation.

... access and egress via the front/end of a train (given there is no need for cabs) would seems a better design/plan for evacuation in the case of driverless trains regardless of twin or single track tunnels, and that would be possible in the London context.

I don't know, and can't find what Paris actually plans in case of evacuation but there is mention of teams (distributed along the line), including ex-drivers ready to respond in case of emergency. The idea of well equipped rescue trains may be part of that plan.

Finally, even if deep tube tunnels do compromise the concept of driverless operation (which may be the case, but I doubt it) then they comprise less than a quarter of the London Underground network. The H&C, Met, Circle and District are all unaffected throughout their length and additional on-train staffing could be arranged for the in-tunnel parts of lines with a larger proportion of above ground route.

Oh, sorry, my post was super unclear! I meant that the costing for London was based on replacing non-life-expired equipment; certainly some signalling will have to be replaced (lights on sticks don't work super well with computers and knowing stopping positions, etc!).

Ah. Got it.

Paris does seem to be following your approach by doing it quite slowly.

Just to be clear though, my understanding is that in Paris the physical signals remain and the (Siemens) automatic signalling superimposed, such that both modes of operation are (simultaneously) possible. For some reason they have changed the lenses from 'red' to 'blue'. It seems a slight oddity, but it allowed the introduction of driverless operation to be done without closing the line. My guess is that this prevents fully optimised automatic operation, but I don't know that for sure.

 

[philthetube]

reason for red to blue is that it is save for trains using ato to pass them but not using colour light signalling, because of the length of overlaps, and you would never want a train passing a red signal.

 

[gsnedders]

Just to be clear though, my understanding is that in Paris the physical signals remain and the (Siemens) automatic signalling superimposed, such that both modes of operation are (simultaneously) possible. For some reason they have changed the lenses from 'red' to 'blue'. It seems a slight oddity, but it allowed the introduction of driverless operation to be done without closing the line. My guess is that this prevents fully optimised automatic operation, but I don't know that for sure.

Right, there's no necessity to get rid of lights-on-sticks, but the system that controls the physical signals needs to be capable of supporting the granularity and accuracy required for automated operation; in many cases (and I believe this is true of the LU lines that still rely on physical signals) the only practical route there is to replace the signalling, even if you keep physical signals as part of that transition. A clear British (main line) example is the ETCS L2 deployment on Thameslink, which likewise still has physical signals (albeit with longer blocks than the in-cab signalling provides).

 

[bluegoblin7]

I think it's worth mentioning at this juncture that LUL has recently 'descoped' (abandoned) plans to equip existing signalling, between Fulham Broadway and Wimbledon and Turnham Green and Richmond, with the relevant equipment to allow trains to operate automatically in those areas.

Make of that what you will, in terms of technical challenges, cost and complexity.

 

[philthetube]

and Moor Park to all stations North

 

[Dstock7080]

and Moor Park to all stations North

SMA13 5 February 2023
Moor Pk-Amersham/Chesham/Watford
hasn’t yet been descoped

 

[philthetube]

in that case I am wrong, sorry, I saw a list somewhere which said it had.

 

[bramling]

in that case I am wrong, sorry, I saw a list somewhere which said it had.

I think the general view is that whilst descoping this section is logical from the point of view that the capacity benefits of CBTC aren't really essential on this section and that it simplifies the Chiltern interface, the snag is that the existing signalling on that section is life expired, especially the cabling - remember it was supposed to have been replaced some years ago now. So do nothing is possibly not an option.

Presumably a refurbishment of the existing signalling could happen, but would it be worthwhile?

 

[philthetube]

I notice that there has been some new equipment installed North of Moor Park, but have not noticed anything North of the South Curve.

 

[gsnedders]

I think the general view is that whilst descoping this section is logical from the point of view that the capacity benefits of CBTC aren't really essential on this section and that it simplifies the Chiltern interface, the snag is that the existing signalling on that section is life expired, especially the cabling - remember it was supposed to have been replaced some years ago now. So do nothing is possibly not an option.

Presumably a refurbishment of the existing signalling could happen, but would it be worthwhile?

For East Putney to Wimbledon, Seltrac is being overlaid on top of the existing NR signalling on that section AIUI, thereby preserving lineside signals for NR services. I wonder if we could see something similar for Chiltern? I also don't know if there's any precedent for lineside signals directly controlled by Seltrac.

 

[bluegoblin7]

The Wimbledon (and Richmond) branches are now officially descoped from 4LM.

The plan for the top end of the Met remains for new signalling (much of which is installed) directly controlled by Seltrac. Realistically converting the existing signalling to work with Seltrac would not be a particularly beneficial move; as noted many of the assets, and particularly the cabling, is reaching life expiry.

There's plenty of speculation flying around about the top end of the Met but right now, officially, 4LM continues up the Met.

 

[387star]

TfL has also agreed to work with the government on a politically contentious study into the issue.

The Grant Shapps letter commits TfL to “work with a government-led expert review on the possible implementation of driverless trains” despite reports it's poor value for money. Clearly Boris is very keen on replacing Train Drivers and defeating unions but at what cost?

 

[edwin_m]

TfL has also agreed to work with the government on a politically contentious study into the issue.

The Grant Shapps letter commits TfL to “work with a government-led expert review on the possible implementation of driverless trains” despite reports it's poor value for money. Clearly Boris is very keen on replacing Train Drivers and defeating unions but at what cost?

They probably didn't have any alternative if they wanted to avoid shutting down. If it doesn't recommend abolition of drivers then Boris can argue that nasty Labour Sadiq nobbled it, and if it does and for whatever reason isn't implemented (for example it would take decades to bring in the technology) then Boris can argue that nasty Labour Sadiq is responsible for perpetuating the misery of Londoners etc etc.

Another factor that probably influences the Mayor but less so the Government is that the drivers work and many live in London, so a lot of their wages goes back into the London economy. That isn't so for the money spent on a technological replacement.

 

[mark-h]

TfL has also agreed to work with the government on a politically contentious study into the issue.

If they are clever TfL could plan the work towards driverless trains to include the work that they were planning/hoping to do anyway but getting the government to help fund it.

Starting with the lines with the most need for new trains and signalling (initially manually driven or ATO with a driver in the cab) would get them the improvements they need. By the time they are ready to move onto the next stage of planning for driverless operation (platform screen doors etc) many years/general elections will have passed and it is highly likely that there will have been a change of government/PM allowing the move to driverless operation to be reevaluated.

 

[387star]

The Government have dropped the push for Driverless Trains in a TFL funding settlement citing prohibitive cost.

 

[bramling]

The Government have dropped the push for Driverless Trains in a TFL funding settlement citing prohibitive cost.

The whole thing was only ever a daft Boris-led distraction.

“We will probably never again buy a train with a driver’s cab” was always a stupid thing to come out with.

 

[DorkingMain]

The whole thing was only ever a daft Boris-led distraction.

“We will probably never again buy a train with a driver’s cab” was always a stupid thing to come out with.

The unions make a very easy target when they want to create a distraction - they're immensely unpopular, even when making a perfectly reasonable point.

 

[Jozhua]

Driverless trains can be good in a system built for them from day one, and sometimes on grandfathered systems. But it's certainly not something magical that will drastically cut labour costs and increase service. Tube trains are honestly long enough where I don't think it makes a huge difference to operational costs wether they are driverless or not. The biggest issue is frankly their ability to provide good speed and capacity, which with cross-rail coming online, is probably a little less pressing.

 

[Windandsea]

Of course it is possible and with drivers on £70,000 a year of course it makes sense.
But like Turkeys and Christmas no union is going to admit it would be a sensible cost cutting move.
I am old enough to recall when we went from 2 drivers to 1 on HSTs. The unions said it would be dangerous and we needed 2 drivers above 100 mph and all sorts of nonsense. We all know that trains are fine with 1 in the cab. They said the same when driver's assistants were removed from trains and the same again there.
Unions have always hated change and sometimes we have to be honest about unions. They are very politically motivated and on the left wing. I willingly paid my dues as a driver to my union from starting day to retirement 30 years later so i did my bit, but i have to be honest, there were many things i did not agree with that the union were fully in favour of. One of them was the fearmongering that every change was going to be dangerous.

 

[Mawkie]

Of course it is possible and with drivers on £70,000 a year of course it makes sense.
But like Turkeys and Christmas no union is going to admit it would be a sensible cost cutting move.
I am old enough to recall when we went from 2 drivers to 1 on HSTs. The unions said it would be dangerous and we needed 2 drivers above 100 mph and all sorts of nonsense. We all know that trains are fine with 1 in the cab. They said the same when driver's assistants were removed from trains and the same again there.
Unions have always hated change and sometimes we have to be honest about unions. They are very politically motivated and on the left wing. I willingly paid my dues as a driver to my union from starting day to retirement 30 years later so i did my bit, but i have to be honest, there were many things i did not agree with that the union were fully in favour of. One of them was the fearmongering that every change was going to be dangerous.

£58,011 for a TO21 tube driver.

Anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it - but everything is done on a cost benefit analysis and this is too much cost for not enough benefit.