Driverless Tube Poor value for money

[the sniper]

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.

You realise it was TfL who said it was poor value and the Government who seemingly stopped pursuing it?

In other news, yeah, the unions obviously aren't going to support it.

 

[bramling]

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.

I don’t think the unions are that relevant. If the powers that be want it to happen and the right technology is there, then the unions aren’t going to be massively relevant.

The bigger issue is whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and I’m not sure that case has been well made. Likewise driverless is a big step forward, and with funding more of a salient issue than ever at the moment, status quo is more likely to win the day. Even replacing the 50-year-old trains on the Bakerloo Line and completing the full scope of the SSR resignalling is proving a problem.

Going to DLR-style operation certainly doesn’t deliver that much of a benefit. Having someone rostered to be on board means duty schedules are still a necessity, which is one of the attractions of getting rid of anyone on the train.

Driverless trains is Boris bluster, and will end up being filed in the same place as Boris Island. The trouble is that he’s sufficiently bullish to start a project and leave it largely unfinished. Like the Boris buses which are another oddity which will no doubt quietly disappear off the scene in a few years time.

 

[Dieseldriver]

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.

Completely ignoring the incorrect salary you’ve stated for an LUL Driver....
However, your point about HSTs, I see where you are coming from on that one however, given the massive increase in speed (and 125mph is extremely fast compared to 90 - 100mph), I do think there was some merit in the unions push for double manning. Really, they were entering an unknown at the time trains started running at 125, when you think some 125 areas have 3 aspect signalling, all it takes is for a Driver to mess up one signal and they could find themselves barrelling towards a red at 125mph. I personally believe that having HSTs double manned was, at least initially, quite a sensible idea and although the unions stance may have been partly influenced by political ideals, I do think it was the right decision safety wise.
Now although Southall was a bit different as the AWS was isolated, it does make you think that the outcome would have probably been much different had there been a second Driver in the cab. Obviously Southall theoretically shouldn’t happen now with more stringent rules in place to deal with isolated AWS (although it’s still permitted for the Driver of a passenger train to travel at 60mph with isolated AWS).

 

[Ralph Ayres]

A second person in the cab isn't necessarily a positive thing. It can itself lead to distractions, and a possible subconscious reduction in diligence or responsibility with the driver thinking that the second person will intervene if anything gets overlooked. Granted this is in a sense the same viewpoint that in the past made railway management oppose safety improvements such as AWS, but it's not clear-cut.

 

[43096]

Obviously Southall theoretically shouldn’t happen now with more stringent rules in place to deal with isolated AWS (although it’s still permitted for the Driver of a passenger train to travel at 60mph with isolated AWS).

Southall was a pre-1910 accident in 1997.

 

[Dieseldriver]

A second person in the cab isn't necessarily a positive thing. It can itself lead to distractions, and a possible subconscious reduction in diligence or responsibility with the driver thinking that the second person will intervene if anything gets overlooked. Granted this is in a sense the same viewpoint that in the past made railway management oppose safety improvements such as AWS, but it's not clear-cut.

I disagree.
We’re all aware of incidents that occur with a second person in the cab. However, we’re not aware of any incidents that have been prevented due to a second person in the cab (basically because the Drivers involved aren’t going to report the fact that the bloke in the second man seat prevented the Driver from going through a red signal).
There is always a risk of distraction with two people in the cab I agree, but we can’t really categorically say which is the safer option. My personal gut feeling is that having an extra person has prevented more incidents than it’s caused.
I’m not saying that all trains should have two people in the cab these days, it’s largely a waste of money and with modern safety systems it’s not needed but there’s a reason why the Rule Book calls for a second competent person to be provided in the event of safety systems being isolated.

 

[Horizon22]

I disagree.
We’re all aware of incidents that occur with a second person in the cab. However, we’re not aware of any incidents that have been prevented due to a second person in the cab (basically because the Drivers involved aren’t going to report the fact that the bloke in the second man seat prevented the Driver from going through a red signal).
There is always a risk of distraction with two people in the cab I agree, but we can’t really categorically say which is the safer option. My personal gut feeling is that having an extra person has prevented more incidents than it’s caused.
I’m not saying that all trains should have two people in the cab these days, it’s largely a waste of money and with modern safety systems it’s not needed but there’s a reason why the Rule Book calls for a second competent person to be provided in the event of safety systems being isolated.

That's a bit of a logical fallacy there though - the absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence for the other side. RSSB have done a number of studies of distractions and multi-crew operations - I think it was mainly related to the DOO dispute on Southern and after some incidents - which showed that there was negligible change in risk. In fact on some occasions, the risk factor was actually reduced due to extra vigilance required and lack of distractions. Whether that increases the "stress" on the driver on the other hand is not something I'm aware has been investigated.

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree.
We’re all aware of incidents that occur with a second person in the cab. However, we’re not aware of any incidents that have been prevented due to a second person in the cab (basically because the Drivers involved aren’t going to report the fact that the bloke in the second man seat prevented the Driver from going through a red signal).
There is always a risk of distraction with two people in the cab I agree, but we can’t really categorically say which is the safer option. My personal gut feeling is that having an extra person has prevented more incidents than it’s caused.
I’m not saying that all trains should have two people in the cab these days, it’s largely a waste of money and with modern safety systems it’s not needed but there’s a reason why the Rule Book calls for a second competent person to be provided in the event of safety systems being isolated.

In principle it would be possible to study the safety records of two operators, or one operator in two time periods, who had one and two people in the cab and were otherwise comparable. But it would need a lot of data to give a statistically significant answer, because accidents are so rare.

When there is a second person to cover for absence of some safety system, that probably doesn't have quite the same impact as having someone there all the time, because it may reinforce the fact that something unusual is going on and extra care needs to be taken.

 

[Austriantrain]

Platform doors are definitely needed!

Nuremberg’s metro is (partly) driverless without platform doors.

 

[Journeyman]

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.

But how many years of drivers' salaries would it cost to implement?

 

[DorkingMain]

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.

Complaints about the unions not liking change are not really relevant here - time and time again if the railway has wanted to make changes, they've found a way to do so, whether the unions like it or not. The examples you provide in your post (and many others) are proof of that.

The point is here that while train drivers are expensive (60k a year) they're still one of the cheaper parts of the system compared to maintaining and operating infrastructure. The DLR is "driverless" but still has to have staff on board, at a cost of around 45k a year. Operating a large system like the Underground completely unstaffed is (imo) not viable. I think over time the role of a "driver" might change slightly and salaries / conditions etc. might be adjusted in line with that, but I'm very doubtful we'll get a completely unstaffed railway in the UK for a very long time.

 

[Journeyman]

Complaints about the unions not liking change are not really relevant here - time and time again if the railway has wanted to make changes, they've found a way to do so, whether the unions like it or not. The examples you provide in your post (and many others) are proof of that.

The point is here that while train drivers are expensive (60k a year) they're still one of the cheaper parts of the system compared to maintaining and operating infrastructure. The DLR is "driverless" but still has to have staff on board, at a cost of around 45k a year. Operating a large system like the Underground completely unstaffed is (imo) not viable. I think over time the role of a "driver" might change slightly and salaries / conditions etc. might be adjusted in line with that, but I'm very doubtful we'll get a completely unstaffed railway in the UK for a very long time.

I suspect the role of on-board staff on the tube might be de-skilled slightly as ATO spreads and becomes more sophisticated, which might result in salaries increasing at a slower rate, but I doubt any major changes are on the way any time soon.

 

[mark-h]

I suspect the role of on-board staff on the tube might be de-skilled slightly as ATO spreads and becomes more sophisticated

Are there currently any differences in salary between the manually driven and ATO lines?

 

[Dstock7080]

Are there currently any differences in salary between the manually driven and ATO lines?

No.
The pay differential was abolished in the late-80s after the H&C District MET had gone to OPO, the Victoria Line had Automatic Train Operators on a higher rate and the new grade of Train Operator was introduced as the Lines went to OPO. Migration was high from the Victoria and crew Lines to the new OPO grade.
Salaries, rather than weekly pay was introduced in 1992.

 

[Bayum]

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.

Unions do the job they do to keep their members safe and in work. Whether you like that or not is a different matter.

A second person in the cab isn't necessarily a positive thing. It can itself lead to distractions, and a possible subconscious reduction in diligence or responsibility with the driver thinking that the second person will intervene if anything gets overlooked. Granted this is in a sense the same viewpoint that in the past made railway management oppose safety improvements such as AWS, but it's not clear-cut.

It works well elsewhere. Why couldn’t it work on the railway?

 

[Windandsea]

The fact remains that the unions, who are strongly politicised, have been wrong on so many things over time. The 1982 train strike was a pointless political exercise. 7 to 9 hour shifts were going to ruin drivers' lives, apparently! Rubbish!
Unions take an awful lot of money from drivers and need to modernise as they are stuck in the 50s and 60s.
Quit the left wing ideology and get real. I obeyed 5 strikes in my time and supported the union in many ways outside of the weekly fee.
But i am honest enough to say that they are a bit of a fossil nowadays.

 

[Jozhua]

The fact remains that the unions, who are strongly politicised, have been wrong on so many things over time. The 1982 train strike was a pointless political exercise. 7 to 9 hour shifts were going to ruin drivers' lives, apparently! Rubbish!
Unions take an awful lot of money from drivers and need to modernise as they are stuck in the 50s and 60s.
Quit the left wing ideology and get real. I obeyed 5 strikes in my time and supported the union in many ways outside of the weekly fee.
But i am honest enough to say that they are a bit of a fossil nowadays.

I think as long as the moves are safe and don't involve cutting jobs or compromising work conditions, unions could be more flexible.

I was going to mention the DOO debate, and it's a complicated issue, certainly no panacea. There are many legitimate concerns. However if the government was trying to run more trains, versus cutting jobs, I think that would be good.

In this case, I don't think unions are the problem. The problem is with the government's ideology of wanting to try and reduce labour where it doesn't make sense. At least not in terms of improving service.

 

[Tim M]

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.

The Singapore North-South and East-West lines have recently been resignalled from the original 1980’s Westinghouse ATP/ATO system (the Central Line is a clone). Conversion to unattended operation would have been straightforward as Platform Screen Doors (underground)/Gates (above ground and added later) exist.

Note the term ‘unattended’ as used in the industry where no member of staff is on-board. I was involved in the successful Tender for Singapore DownTown Line signalling. A great deal of effort was put in to mitigate failure situations, with alternative systems to provide backup. Train rescue was a particular issue with remote manual driving from the Operations Control Centre with forward facing camera images being transmitted from the train considered, however I’m not sure what was commissioned as the job was transferred to Westinghouse sister company Dimetronic of Madrid..

Unattended operation was a requirement for Helsinki Metro about 15 years ago, this would have been a retrofit. Platform Screen Doors weren’t originally envisaged with object detectors proposed in platform areas. How well this would have worked is debatable, for example how to distinguish between an empty cardboard box vs. a small person. In above ground areas weather, rain, fog or snow might have been a challenge. What happened I don’t know, but Siemens (before buying Westinghouse) ran into serious Contractual problems, maybe this line is not in the list as unattended operation didn’t in the event happen.

The reason why Helsinki wanted to go for unattended operation was to increase operational flexibility. It would be possible to bring a train into service from the fully automated depot at a moments notice without having to find a driver/attendant. This feature was fundamental to Singapore DownTown Line and has been Singapore Land Transport Authority policy for many years.

Incidentally, I have never seen such a clean depot as that in Helsinki, you could have eaten your dinner off the floor under the trains.

 

[riceuten]

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

Where no strike agreements are struck elsewhere, they tend to involve an element of binding pendulum arbitration that I imagine would be very unattractive for your average bloated plutocrat, who just wants to make the biggest profit with the most flexible workforce at the lowest cost.

 

[doorhanger93]

A second person in the cab isn't necessarily a positive thing. It can itself lead to distractions, and a possible subconscious reduction in diligence or responsibility with the driver thinking that the second person will intervene if anything gets overlooked.

Boredom and isolation are their own forms of distraction though, and generally aren't a particularly good working environment for safety-critical staff. Obviously it's one thing for a quick-stopping metro to do away with a guard or ticketman, but for anything on the main line it's probably safer and easier to have a second member of staff.
In the US they'd absolutely have you for running single man freight trains like we do, and there is hardly a labour paradise.

 

[Iliketrains123]

Waterloo & City line should be driverless. Not sure about the other more complicated lines.

 

[Carlisle]

I obeyed 5 strikes in my time and supported the union in many ways outside of the weekly fee.
But i am honest enough to say that they are a bit of a fossil nowadays.

I can see where your coming from, but alternatively consider the recent scandal of sub postmasters doing jail time & ask whether a similar miscarriage of justice could’ve gone remotely as far as that on the railway, given the unions would’ve likely intervened in a big way .

 

[Simon11]

I can see where your coming from, but alternatively consider the recent scandal of sub postmasters doing jail time & ask whether a similar miscarriage of justice could’ve gone remotely as far as that on the railway, given the unions would’ve likely intervened in a big way .

But there are also unions in the postal industries and while they helped a bit, these poor people have been left out to dry for far too long!

 

[HSTEd]

Waterloo & City line should be driverless. Not sure about the other more complicated lines.

If nothing else it would make an interesting testbed to get some experience of what it might be like to convert Underground lines!

 

[Journeyman]

It's interesting that the Glasgow Subway is going driverless with, apparently, virtually no protests from staff. They're represented by local government unions, not rail unions.

 

[jfollows]

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

So it would seem.
Today's Guardian is reporting that TFl gets money based on an obligation to produce business cases for driverless trains on the Piccadilly and W&C lines. As well as an obligation to make £300m of annual cuts, which means "large" fare rises, and to "slash pensions".

London Underground

TfL cash boost made dependent on driverless tube trains

London mayor reluctantly agrees to gauge business case for driverless trains in return for £1bn

Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent

@GwynTopham

Tue 1 Jun 2021 12.19 BST

Work to introduce driverless tube trains has been demanded by ministers as part of an emergency funding agreement for Transport for London, with the government injecting just over £1bn to help the capital recover from the pandemic.

TfL will be obliged to produce business cases for driverless trains on the Piccadilly and Waterloo and City lines in return for the latest funding, which also comes with a requirement to make £300m of annual cuts and slash pensions.

The mayor, Sadiq Khan, said the short-term settlement was a “sticking plaster” and that he had reluctantly agreed to the conditions.

However, he pledged to fight any further moves to introduce driverless trains, which he said would cost billions of pounds and be a “gross misuse of taxpayers’ money”.

The settlement is designed to provide financial support until 11 December and will take total government support to TfL since March 2020 to over £4bn.

The transport secretary Grant Shapps said: “This £1.08bn financial package will support London and its transport network through the pandemic, and ensure it is a modern, efficient and viable network for the future.

“Throughout this process the government has maintained that these support packages must be fair to taxpayers across the UK and on the condition that action is taken to put TfL on the path to long-term financial sustainability. As part of today’s settlement, the mayor has agreed to further measures that will help ensure that.”

The bitter stand-off between the Labour mayor and the Conservative government does not appear to have abated, with ministers still affirming that TfL mismanagement, rather than the multibillion pound revenue losswhen passengers were told to avoid public transport during the pandemic, is responsible for its parlous financial situation.

On top of the pensions review and £300m of annual savings, TfL must find increased revenue of £500m-£1bn each year from 2023 – potentially spelling large fare rises and carry out a joint review with government of service levels on its transport network.

Unions threatened strikes over the attacks on pensions, as well as the moves towards taking drivers from Tube lines, to be replaced by an on-board attendant.

The RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, said it was “a disgraceful stitch up of a deal and it will be resisted by our members whether it comes from Whitehall or City Hall through London wide industrial action if necessary”. He said driverless trains were “unwanted, unaffordable and unsafe”.

Khan said he had “seen off the worst of the conditions the government wanted to impose on London, which would not only have required huge cuts to transport services equivalent to cancelling one in five bus routes or closing a tube line, but would have hampered London’s economic recovery as well as the national recovery”.

He added: “I want to be honest with Londoners: this is not the deal we wanted.”

He said he was hopeful that returning passenger revenue, the bulk of which comes from the underground, would grow enough to avoid introducing “unfair measures”. Tube use fell to 4% of normal levels during the first lockdown and is now around 40% of pre-Covid numbers.

TfL will also have to stump up funds for the repair of Hammersmith Bridge, led by the borough, with the government also contributing up to a third of the costs of fixing the Thames crossing.

The bridge has been closed for just over nine months – and two years to traffic – after cracks were found in the structure.

 

[Snow1964]

The details of the TfL settlement with Government is now published
Includes section on W+C and Piccadilly driverless trains

Driverless Trains
11.TfL's record of modernisation and innovation should not leave it behind other European networks, which are achieving significant operational efficiencies through Driverless Trains. Accordingly, DfT will lead a joint programme with TfL on the implementation of Driverless Trains on the London Underground.
12.Working with DfT, TfL will make sufficient progress towards the conversion of at least one Underground line to Grade-of-Automation 3 (driverless, but with an on-board attendant, as on the Docklands Light Railway), subject to a viable business case and its statutory responsibilities. To achieve this DfT and TfL will produce a Full Business Case for the Waterloo & City Line within 12 months and for the Piccadilly Line within 18 months. Progress towards this milestone during the 2021 Funding Period will be measured by the Oversight Group and will be as follows:

a. Delivery of at least interim OBC on Waterloo and City line by the end of the 2021 funding period.
b. Delivery of at least interim SOBC on Piccadilly line by the end of the 2021 funding period.
c. Market engagement into alternative platform edge protection technology, to be led by TfL and completed by 30 November 2021.
d. Design work on rolling stock specification, new signalling, and Platform Edge Doors (PEDs).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/990488/tfl-extraordinary-funding-and-financing-settlement-letter-1-june-2021.pdf

 

[riceuten]

It's interesting that the Glasgow Subway is going driverless with, apparently, virtually no protests from staff. They're represented by local government unions, not rail unions.

Comparing the Clockwork Orange with the Underground system is hardly fair.

 

[Journeyman]

Comparing the Clockwork Orange with the Underground system is hardly fair.

Well, I know, I wasn't comparing it in terms of complexity, just that the unions haven't batted an eyelid over it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Comparing the Clockwork Orange with the Underground system is hardly fair.

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