Tube bosses 'plan to cut 1,500 jobs and ticket offices

[richardderby]

full report now available to download on rmtlondoncalling.org.uk makes interesting reading

 

[Ivo]

The DLR copes with this because the trains are manned rather than the stations, the tube is too big and crowded to have unmanned stations in the centre, not sure how that will work out in the suburbs.

Aren't some LUL stations - Upminster Bridge and Theydon Bois I believe, almost certainly Roding Valley, probably a few to the west as well - already unstaffed?

 

[Mojo]

Aren't some LUL stations - Upminster Bridge and Theydon Bois I believe, almost certainly Roding Valley, probably a few to the west as well - already unstaffed?

No. Every LU station has staff rostered throughout per day, except for a small number of stations which have a few 30 Min slots during the day for a meal relief.

 

[jon0844]

Surely we'll get something akin to how the ATO tubes are already; just on all lines? You'll need someone who has all of the training on what to do if things go wrong, as well as drive the train (but possibly at a reduced speed?).

The new role could, and most likely will, be regraded and at a lower pay scale on the basis that you're now paid the 'danger money' element, but not actually required to do much in normal operation.

I can see this as being inevitable, especially if we got signalling and rolling stock levels up to cope with the demand of the next 10-20 years. Besides a driver being slower than technology in a lot of cases, we'd also need many more drivers and that would not be sustainable.

I for one don't relish the next generations who may find many traditional jobs disappearing, but have to accept that there's little we can do to stop it when we all demand more for less (and I doubt that a highly paid banker or train driver has any intention of paying more for the things they buy day to day).

 

[WinterChief]

If ATO breaks down, what use will the driver be in the saloon?; as a matter of fact what would be the point of being in the saloon in the first place?

Similar to the DLR, he will be able to access control panels at the front/ rear/ middle for bursts, emergency driving, passenger alarms and the like.

If they are claiming the role of train operator to be 'more customer focused' where's the first place you would think that would mean?

 

[fIIsion]

In the front cab, doing the job what he/she has been trained for; not fart arsing around in saloon cars asking for tickets and asking if he/she "can be of service".

Reality check...........deep level tube lines can not be compared to the DLR.

 

[wintonian]

In the front cab, doing the job what he/she has been trained for; not fart arsing around in saloon cars asking for tickets and asking if he/she "can be of service".

Reality check...........deep level tube lines can not be compared to the DLR.

And for 1 the DLR was designed that way the tube was not and being underground there is little room for flexibility I would have thought.

Sent from my HTC Desire S

 

[tbtc]

I'm still unsure how the driverless train idea will work. I mean are we talking about completely new trains or using the existing stock ? If we get new trains won't that be expensive ? If existing stock is used what about the drivers cabs? Will they be occupied or empty? If there is an 'attendant' on board how much should they be paid?

I honestly don't know how they'd do it, but I can't blame them for looking into the technology to see what might be possible in a few years time.

AIUI the Thameslink "core" is going to be computer automated (so drivers will have nothing do to in the central section), maybe this could work on the Underground, maybe it couldn't. But its only natural that they'd look into this kind of thing.

 

[jon0844]

The DLR model could easily be adopted for all new metro/subway trains could it not? It's a far more controlled environment, so the real issue is how to deal with an emergency (one under, derailment, evacuation etc) and so I can definitely see the job changing - and the technology with it - in the next 10+ years, possibly sooner.

In fact, the only reason to delay it will be pressure from the unions, not any technical limitation.

On the open railway, where there are many more hazards, from weather to trespassers and vandals, I'd imagine you would always need someone to be the eyes ahead. But, technology could probably manage most of that - long before we get driverless cars at least!

Fortunately, while the salaries may fall a bit, I doubt it will ever become a low-skilled job or one that doesn't pay a good wage... and the workload will be lighter, so it isn't all bad. I am sure it will still be one of the few 'good' jobs to have compared to where everything else will have gone, if we've outsourced all other jobs abroad!

Perhaps one day, nobody will have a job and we won't need to travel anywhere!

 

[Zoe]

long before we get driverless cars at least!

Driverless cars are invevitable, the difference with them as that if the computer spots a hazard (and in the future computers will likely be much better at doing this than humans) then it will stop the car safely. In the case of trains even with a lightning fast reaction to the hazard it may not be possible to stop the train before it. Pilotless planes are also likely on the horizon but of course there would need to be staff on board in the event of an emergency.

 

[jon0844]

Driveless TRAINS are inevitable, but I think we'll be waiting a lot longer before we see anything like this for cars - as cars don't travel on rails and are incredibly vulnerable to loads of things that could happen to the car - regardless of how many clever sensors the vehicle has.

Something coming and crashing into a tube train, or the DLR, is rather unlikely (as in, to happen it would probably be deliberate or some major disaster). In a car, there are loads of things that could happen and no computers could sense everything, or actually take the right course of action.

 

[Dstock7080]

The DLR model could easily be adopted for all new metro/subway trains could it not? It's a far more controlled environment.
On the open railway, where there are many more hazards, from weather to trespassers and vandals, I'd imagine you would always need someone to be the eyes ahead.

The DLR is a good example of a driverless system, along with Paris Line14 and Singapore, Paris do not have staff on every train.
The DLR already runs side-by-side with c2c in an 'open railway' environment. Its' Train staff can now be at the rear of a 3-unit train.

S Stock certainly have the capability of being driverless.
The Unions are currently opposing the automatic opening of doors at stations on LU, something which is still done by Operators.

Quite how driverless would work to Richmond, Wimbledon, Amersham and Wealdstone is another conundrum.

 

[notadriver]

Whilst the DLR runs next to C2C both systems are really isolated from each other. There are no systems where an unmanned tube train and a main line train with a driver share the same track (yet). Line 1 on the Paris metro is an example but that will go totally driverless and is a metro not a proper mainline railway.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree driverless systems are feasible in entirely controlled environments, but I dont think the DLR is really representative of surface running on London underground lines, DLR is far less likely to have things drop off bridges or whatever due to its largely elevated or underground structure.

I think blaming the unions is primarily just the right wing press attempting to damage them

 

[tbtc]

Could "Driverless" trains work on the Jubilee Line extension, given that the underground stations have the platform edge doors (so less chance of anyone jumping/falling onto the tracks)

 

[Zoe]

Could "Driverless" trains work on the Jubilee Line extension, given that the underground stations have the platform edge doors (so less chance of anyone jumping/falling onto the tracks)

No platform edge doors between Canning Town and Stratford though and I doubt they would want to employ a driver for that short section.

 

[SteamPower]

I would feel much better knowing the train/plane/taxi I'm in has a human driving it. I don't care if it can be done automatically by a machine. 1) it's taking away jobs people enjoy doing 2) the idea/thought scares me about the direction we're heading in

 

[Deerfold]

I would feel much better knowing the train/plane/taxi I'm in has a human driving it. I don't care if it can be done automatically by a machine. 1) it's taking away jobs people enjoy doing 2) the idea/thought scares me about the direction we're heading in

You may be worried then that most planes spend most of their time on autopilot.

 

[Zoe]

I would feel much better knowing the train/plane/taxi I'm in has a human driving it.

What would be the point in having a taxi driver when any private cars (if they existed) would be self-driving?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

You need to weigh up the pros and cons all round. The Lille system was designed from the start as a fully automated driverless system. Instead of visible 'railway' staff you now have a need for visible 'security' staff (often armed). Bob Kiley always stressed the importance of having visible staff on the system and often quoted comments from visitors regarding how much safer they felt on the Underground as opposed to other systems. Having teams of armed guards roaming the system to ensure safety does not really give your average passenger the perception that it is safe (They NEED armed guards ?).
Would you prefer a system that employs staff or one that employs security ?

 

[Rational Plan]

You need to weigh up the pros and cons all round. The Lille system was designed from the start as a fully automated driverless system. Instead of visible 'railway' staff you now have a need for visible 'security' staff (often armed). Bob Kiley always stressed the importance of having visible staff on the system and often quoted comments from visitors regarding how much safer they felt on the Underground as opposed to other systems. Having teams of armed guards roaming the system to ensure safety does not really give your average passenger the perception that it is safe (They NEED armed guards ?).
Would you prefer a system that employs staff or one that employs security ?

If they don't need armed station staff now they won't if there is no drivers.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

If they don't need armed station staff now they won't if there is no drivers.

The station staff will be gone long before the drivers.

 

[exile]

I suspect most of us work for employers who take a critical look at staffing levels from time to time.

As a customer I'd prefer staff to be visible rather than in the driver's cab as long as the technology allows this. Also, staff in a central control centre using CCTV might be more useful in providing a safe environment than if behind a ticket window.

That said, I don't blame staff for defending their jobs - but an element of realism is needed.

 

[notadriver]

I dont see how tube operators can not be in the cab if they are to close the doors safely due to needing CCTV?

 

[Mojo]

I dont see how tube operators can not be in the cab if they are to close the doors safely due to needing CCTV?

The systems being investigated (and already selected, in the case of the SSR) support Unattended Train Operation, so no human involvement would be required to close the doors, although LUL management may choose should they wish to retain staff closing the doors. In which case this could be carried out in a number of ways, such as CCTV being relayed into screens in the door control panels in the saloon (I have seen this on some Southern units), or by having dispatch carried out like on the DLR, with the person on board looking out along the platform.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I dont see how tube operators can not be in the cab if they are to close the doors safely due to needing CCTV?

It is possible to operate a totally automated system (as in Lille) but you need to throw a lot of money at it initially. One gets the feeling though, that here it would be done on the cheap.

 

[notadriver]

Okay some interesting points. However the feature that the DLR and Lille systems have in common is that their trains are relatively short. On a curved platform such as Piccadilly on the Bakerloo line, you can't see both ends of the train safely.

On main line railways despatch on a curved platform needs 1 or 2 platform staff for the longest trains.

One thing ive noticed with the DLR is that the doors are closed by the PSA who only after he has checked those doors are closed safely then closes his own. If he were operating the train from the front this extra delay wouldn't happen.

Isn't the monitor in Southern trains guards panels too small to show more than one carriage at a time?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I am sure technological advances would come up with answers - as I said, if you throw enough money at it then you could come up with solutions. Look how things have progressed from the first ATO on the Victoria and the iniitial OPO introduced on the H & C. There were no such 'luxuries' as in-cab monitors - in fact many of the OPO locations just had mirrors and some were even 'look back' stations.

 

[DavyCrocket]

One thing ive noticed with the DLR is that the doors are closed by the PSA who only after he has checked those doors are closed safely then closes his own. If he were operating the train from the front this extra delay wouldn't happen.

It's for this reason that I doubt a train operator would not be in a cab.
The extra dwell time added up would eat into headways.