Driverless Tube Poor value for money

[Journeyman]

The systems are incomparable in scale and complexity, but the operating principles are very comparable. It is the latter that is being changed.

Exactly, that's the point I was making. You did it a bit more eloquently!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The systems are incomparable in scale and complexity, but the operating principles are very comparable. It is the latter that is being changed.

It's certainly valid to compare it with one LU line.

 

[rebmcr]

Extraordinarily quick reporting by LR, I wonder if they had advance knowledge?

The Political Myth of the Driverless Tube Train - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

 

[bramling]

The systems are incomparable in scale and complexity, but the operating principles are very comparable. It is the latter that is being changed.

I don't really get the obsession with going for GOA3, which still leaves the powers that be with a substantial proportion of all the negative things associated with Tube drivers (not least training and the need to continue having to run with duty schedules), without much in the way of positive benefits - except to an unknown extent weakening the unions simply by upsetting the apple cart.

If you're going to have someone on the train, they may as well be in a cab - and one might have thought that the last 15 months might have shown the benefit of having a cab!

I'm utterly sick of this Johnson versus Khan game of politics, it reflects badly on both of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're going to have someone on the train, they may as well be in a cab

With the deep Tube that is probably the only practical answer. But on the shallow Tube, with its big, walk-through vehicles, having the person on the train in the passenger cabin to provide assistance and reassurance to passengers is of far, far more value. People make generally not great automatons, but people are great at dealing with people.

The DLR model has to be the future for all rail in my view.

That said, the Waterloo and City (which is mentioned) could absolutely be converted to a completely unstaffed automated people mover of some kind, possibly airport style rather than conventional heavy rail.

 

[matt_world2004]

With the deep Tube that is probably the only practical answer. But on the shallow Tube, with its big, walk-through vehicles, having the person on the train in the passenger cabin to provide assistance and reassurance to passengers is of far, far more value. People make generally not great automatons, but people are great at dealing with people.

The DLR model has to be the future for all rail in my view

Until said PSA gets assaulted by a passenger and the line becomes blocked as the train is unable to move

 

[bramling]

With the deep Tube that is probably the only practical answer. But on the shallow Tube, with its big, walk-through vehicles, having the person on the train in the passenger cabin to provide assistance and reassurance to passengers is of far, far more value. People make generally not great automatons, but people are great at dealing with people.

The DLR model has to be the future for all rail in my view.

That said, the Waterloo and City (which is mentioned) could absolutely be converted to a completely unstaffed automated people mover of some kind, possibly airport style rather than conventional heavy rail.

The DLR model is a 1980s relic, which is only really there because it's been developed in the most piecemeal fashion one could possibly imagine.

Despite all this, it's worth remembering the DLR is still a relatively modern system, and is a less aggressive operating environment than LU, with generally less to go wrong. It's also far from shining beacon of perfection - they've had some nasty incidents over the years where things have happened, and I'm not sure a PSA carrying out safety-critical emergency operating procedures perched on someone's feet in a noisy vehicle is a good vision for the future, in fact I'd say it's the opposite of reassuring - it's pretty unprofessional, as (in my view) is allowing all and sundry to be able to hear safety-critical radio comms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Until said PSA gets assaulted by a passenger and the line becomes blocked as the train is unable to move

If that was a problem to a considerable extent, the DLR trains would have been converted to have enclosed cabs by now - the DLR runs through some extremely rough parts of London. They haven't, and nor have the new units on order.

The DLR model is a 1980s relic, which is only really there because it's been developed in the most piecemeal fashion one could possibly imagine.

Despite all this, it's worth remembering the DLR is still a relatively modern system, and is a less aggressive operating environment than LU, with generally less to go wrong. It's also far from shining beacon of perfection - they've had some nasty incidents over the years where things have happened, and I'm not sure a PSA carrying out safety-critical emergency operating procedures perched on someone's feet in a noisy vehicle is a good vision for the future, in fact I'd say it's the opposite of reassuring - it's pretty unprofessional, as (in my view) is allowing all and sundry to be able to hear safety-critical radio comms.

How exactly is it different to a guard on a regular passenger train?

There is no safety issue with people hearing radio comms. What do you think they are going to do with the information? Air traffic control is far more safety-critical than anything that a DLR train captain will ever do, and that's open to whoever wants to listen.

The model, to me, is and should be the future. Guard only operation is vastly superior to driver only operation, and both more financially efficient long-term (because wages are expensive) and safer than crew operation (because most accidents are caused by human error on all modes of transport). And as it'd be rolled out slowly, nobody need lose their job over it, it can simply be phased in as people retire and leave for other reasons. If there are personal safety issues on given trains, you could double them up or provide private security guards on those specific services.

I couldn't be any more strongly in favour, to be honest.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also worth remembering that the DLR only has staff on board because when it was built there were many more stations (17?) than trains in service (9/10), and it was therefore much cheaper to have people on the trains closing the doors than on the stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also worth remembering that the DLR only has staff on board because when it was built there were many more stations (17?) than trains in service (9/10), and it was therefore much cheaper to have people on the trains closing the doors than on the stations.

If it had been built as a big bang, do you think it would have had no staff on board at all? I doubt it. It might have been DOO. It would definitely not have been double-crewed.

 

[Bald Rick]

If it had been built as a big bang, do you think it would have had no staff on board at all?

Yes, I do - no onboard staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I do - no onboard staff.

I'd be surprised, British people just aren't well behaved enough to handle an evacuation. OK, airport people movers are totally unstaffed, but airports are staffed to the hilt including dedicated fire and rescue services so it's more than a little bit different.

 

[thenorthern]

Have Driverless Tube trains been approved by the Office of Rail and Road yet?

I think that may be the biggest hurdle as TfL will need to demonstrate that there is a safe way of evacuating trains in tunnels without any TfL staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have Driverless Tube trains been approved by the Office of Rail and Road yet?

I think that may be the biggest hurdle as TfL will need to demonstrate that there is a safe way of evacuating trains in tunnels without any TfL staff.

That would only be safe with side walkways as the DLR has in the tunnel sections. But we aren't talking staffless, we're talking driverless.

 

[riceuten]

I would assume in parts it's because the council are not trying to destaff and deunionise the Glasgow system.

That would only be safe with side walkways as the DLR has in the tunnel sections. But we aren't talking staffless, we're talking driverless.

Someone told me a great story when the DLR was opened, that when they were recruiting for the ludicrously entitled "Train Captains", the DLR specifically chose staff on the basis of their (lack of) union activity, and, from the outset, didn't recognise the unions. I think it was less than a year before more or less all staff had joined and, despite the anti-union legislation, DLR had to recognise them.

 

[thenorthern]

That would only be safe with side walkways as the DLR has in the tunnel sections. But we aren't talking staffless, we're talking driverless.

There is some talk about staff less trains.

 

[matt_world2004]

If that was a problem to a considerable extent, the DLR trains would have been converted to have enclosed cabs by now - the DLR runs through some extremely rough parts of London. They haven't, and nor have the new units on order.

The DLR has plenty of places where trains can pass each other or where only part of the line is suspended, A train blocking a platform in the wrong place could disrupt most of the met, hammersmith and City and district

 

[bramling]

That would only be safe with side walkways as the DLR has in the tunnel sections. But we aren't talking staffless, we're talking driverless.

Side walkways themselves aren't sufficient, as has been the case with the JLE. You run the risk of arriving people (firefighters) clashing with escaping people (passengers), hence why the walkway provided on the JLE is specifically prohibited to be used for passenger evacuation.

I believe this is partly the reason why the side walkway on the Battersea extension is considerably wider than we're used to.

How exactly is it different to a guard on a regular passenger train?

There is no safety issue with people hearing radio comms. What do you think they are going to do with the information? Air traffic control is far more safety-critical than anything that a DLR train captain will ever do, and that's open to whoever wants to listen.

The model, to me, is and should be the future. Guard only operation is vastly superior to driver only operation, and both more financially efficient long-term (because wages are expensive) and safer than crew operation (because most accidents are caused by human error on all modes of transport). And as it'd be rolled out slowly, nobody need lose their job over it, it can simply be phased in as people retire and leave for other reasons. If there are personal safety issues on given trains, you could double them up or provide private security guards on those specific services.

I couldn't be any more strongly in favour, to be honest.

Firstly, have you ever had to make a safety-critical communication when there's a significant amount of background noise? I have, and it introduces a lot of scope for things to go wrong. Remember the DLR operating model places almost total reliance on accurately made and understood verbal communication when into degraded working; by coincidence this is the same signalling system which will soon cover half of London Underground. Secondly, on the one hand we're saying that having the "person in charge of the train" on show is for reassurance, but I'm not sure hearing a panic-ridden or flustered radio dialogue is very reassuring - something I've heard on DLR a number of times during degraded working, where again due to the signalling system concerned the workload for control staff is extremely high during degraded working. Again QV with the Underground, and consider the implications of this.

Stuff like defect handling and degraded working *really* is best done without interference from passengers. There's plenty of incidents which have happened over the years when someone has been kicking off, which has ended up pressurising a member of staff into doing something unsafe, or even lethal.

You're entitled to be personally supportive of the concept, however this doesn't mean all these issues simply disappear. As I posted elsewhere, DLR has had some nasty mishaps over the years, so it isn't by any means the sweet bed of roses it's sometimes made out to be.

 

[HSTEd]

I am fully supportive of a trial conversion of a tube line, it is the only way we are getting hard data on how much things would actually cost.

Waterloo and City is an obvious testbed to start with, but not sure why you would select the Piccadilly line rather than say the Jubilee line, when a substantial fraction of the stations already have PEDs.

 

[alf]

I am fully supportive of a trial conversion of a tube line, it is the only way we are getting hard data on how much things would actually cost.

Waterloo and City is an obvious testbed to start with, but not sure why you would select the Piccadilly line rather than say the Jubilee line, when a substantial fraction of the stations already have PEDs.

The short Mill Hill branch or the Hainault shuttle(test bed for the vic line over 60 years ago) seem best to me.
If driverless can’t work on these above ground simple lines it should not be allowed anywhere else.

 

[BrianW]

I'm pretty sure that if I was a driver I would resist losing my job; similarly 'staff'.
Jobs may be scarce for a while.
'Costs' depend hugely on what and who counts.
The current PM was 4 y.o. when the Victoria Line opened in 1968, so has known auto works his whole life.
He was 11y.o. when Mrs Thatcher became PM- so he knows that union-bashing works too.
And £1Bn 'on offer', with conditions of course?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

Changing the PM doesn't change the economics of running the underground.
Finding ways of improving the efficiency of TfL is as important as the GBR changes on the main line.
They might even be related.

 

[Domh245]

Waterloo and City is an obvious testbed to start with, but not sure why you would select the Piccadilly line rather than say the Jubilee line, when a substantial fraction of the stations already have PEDs.

Piccadilly is useful as a "from scratch" gauge in requiring absolutely everything to be done. There's also the rather pertinent point of the stock being on-order for entry into service in 2025. If government decides the business case does rather miraculously add up, there's probably time to ask Siemens to pretty please don't put a conventional cab on the front without too massive a hit to delivery timescales etc

 

[Tube driver]

It’s a nonsense and only there today to appeal to the ‘sack ‘em all’ brigade and the frothers who have a heart attack at the mere mention of the word ‘unions’.

The business case is to go from GoA2 to GoA3 is pretty nonexistent as the wage savings to put the driver into the carriage á la DLR are minuscule compared to the cost of upgrading the system. The cost of resignalling the Picc alone will make them weep let alone adding all the gubbings like PEDS and this is amongst the savage cost savings that the DfT has imposed on TfL today. There simply is no money for any grand future projects that haven’t already been signed off. Saving a few grand by downgrading each driver to a PSA wont even touch the sides of what needs to be spent.

The W&C may, and I stress MAY, be given a bit more thought as a stand alone viability project as it‘s, let’s face it, pretty straightforward to convert and shouldn’t affect existing staff and by doing it may get the DfT off LUL‘s back for a while but unless the DfT are prepared to put a serious number of billions of pounds into it then it’s a non starter for, in my view, a decade at least. (That’s not to say it will never not happen - one day it will most definitely but in imposing these conditions today they have inadvertently put the actual implementation of a driverless system back years).

 

[rebmcr]

If driverless can’t work on these above ground simple lines it should not be allowed anywhere else.

You're making incorrect, human-based assumptions about what computers find easy or difficult.

Out in the open, leaf contamination of the railhead (or even just wet weather) is something that computers are particularly bad at, because it's surprisingly difficult for them to pinpoint their position with accuracy even before the wheels start sliding — this is why we already have to have lots more closely-spaced balises near stopping positions that need them for SDO.

Track complexity in a safely-enclosed tunnel is a doddle in comparison.

 

[SynthD]

It sounds like TfL could dust off, and maybe expand, their previous brief on why it's poor value for money. The LR article ends with a quote they could use. Submit that and get on with the practical GOA2 work.

 

[Carlisle]

Saving a few grand by downgrading each driver to a PSA wont even touch the sides of what needs to be spent.

.

Absolutely, I remember reading quite a detailed article on all this a few years ago in Modern Railways which reached an identical conclusion.

 

[HSTEd]

The business case of such schemes depends overwhelmingly on assumptions about the future.

Especially cost of capital and projected future real wage growth of staff.

 

[bramling]

It’s a nonsense and only there today to appeal to the ‘sack ‘em all’ brigade and the frothers who have a heart attack at the mere mention of the word ‘unions’.

The business case is to go from GoA2 to GoA3 is pretty nonexistent as the wage savings to put the driver into the carriage á la DLR are minuscule compared to the cost of upgrading the system. The cost of resignalling the Picc alone will make them weep let alone adding all the gubbings like PEDS and this is amongst the savage cost savings that the DfT has imposed on TfL today. There simply is no money for any grand future projects that haven’t already been signed off. Saving a few grand by downgrading each driver to a PSA wont even touch the sides of what needs to be spent.

The W&C may, and I stress MAY, be given a bit more thought as a stand alone viability project as it‘s, let’s face it, pretty straightforward to convert and shouldn’t affect existing staff and by doing it may get the DfT off LUL‘s back for a while but unless the DfT are prepared to put a serious number of billions of pounds into it then it’s a non starter for, in my view, a decade at least. (That’s not to say it will never not happen - one day it will most definitely but in imposing these conditions today they have inadvertently put the actual implementation of a driverless system back years).

I think this hits the nail on the head. The money is barely there for the replacement Piccadilly Line fleet, and the flagship SSR resignalling has already been descoped - it would probably have been descoped even more if it wasn’t for the fact that much of the old signalling was planned to have been replaced approaching a decade ago and is at the point where it really is life-expired (without significant surgery to stuff like cabling, at least).

Boris may have spent the last year writing out cheques like proverbial confetti, but there is going to come a point where reality is going to have to dawn. As regards London Underground, spending on the infrastructure to enable cabless trains simply isn't a priority when you have near 50-year-old trains running on two lines, one of which doesn’t have a replacement programme even drawn up yet, another fleet of not-quite-so-old trains with a list of issues as long as your arm, another fleet of trains where problems are starting to flag up, Northern Line which couldn't afford new trains to have enough for its imminent extension, whole lines suspended because control rooms can’t be staffed, a line about to be extended where one generation of signalling required for its imminent extension won’t talk to the generation installed on the rest of the line, and another line whose 1990s signalling is increasingly both obsolete and unreliable, and requires a load of spending on electronics just to keep it going.

GOA3 is a vanity project, and the fact that to achieve it will mean committing to things which extend many orders of magnitude longer than the shelf-life of a politician, let alone Boris Johnson who famously "doesn't do detail", guarantees it won't happen. We might waste a load of time and money in the process though, SSR resignalling took three goes to get right, with quite a bit of money pee'd up the wall in the process.

Absolutely, I remember reading quite a detailed article on all this a few years ago in Modern Railways which reached an identical conclusion.

Quite so.

 

[whoosh]

With the deep Tube that is probably the only practical answer. But on the shallow Tube, with its big, walk-through vehicles, having the person on the train in the passenger cabin to provide assistance and reassurance to passengers is of far, far more value. People make generally not great automatons, but people are great at dealing with people.

The DLR model has to be the future for all rail in my view.

But having the "Train Captain/Passenger Customer Service Agent" in the passenger cabin means that trains take longer to be dispatched at stations as after closing the doors and checking they are all shut with no-one trapped, they then have to close their own local door - another door close cycle at every station.
Plus you'll then get last minute runners wanting to be let on at that door - just like the Guard's used to years ago, with potential for disagreements.

The Waterloo & City would avoid stepping back and could depart more quickly - but all the other lines, it's going to add extra time and extra hassle.

Also, Pascomms pulled - better to be in the cab and see on CCTV screens the area concerned, which car the passcomm has been pulled, and able to communicate with the person who's pulled the passcomm, and control and the signaller. Being inside the train, means having to wade through people to an operating panel - far better to be in a cab which is a quiet place to make important decisions.