10 ms·

Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1

Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.

teknopaul 5y ago
Not just any 1 person, a driver, who must have years of training, if they don't turn up to work 1000's other people don't get to work. It's not so much one person as a single point of failure. If there were enough drivers with redundancy then it would not matter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
627467 5y ago
Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions. In the city I live underground drivers hold ridiculous privileged (even compared to other underground workers) that allows positions to be effectively hereditary: children of drivers are more likely to get into the job than others.
- Zenst 5y ago
  > Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions. Very true, though equally the increased risk of automated safety system stopping the train in the middle of a long tube tunnel because one of it's sensors got dirty or a rat triggered a sensor as it went splat on the tracks are things drivers can work around easier. So if a perfectly safe and working train stops due to a sensor getting dirty quickly (which for the London tube is more likely than most places), with a driver there they could see and know that issue and safely carry on. Automation will go into health and safety mode and stop that train in the middle of nowhere needing human attention. So delays become longer. I'd rather deal with planned outages, than longer drawn out automated random ones.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > Automation will go into health and safety mode and stop that train in the middle of nowhere needing human attention. So delays become longer. In Germany, trains have a system called "Notbremsüberbrückung" / NBÜ. This system overrides the passenger emergency brake in tunnels... basically (i'm shortening it a bit here), as soon as the last carriage leaves the platform (in an underground) or the train can't fully stop before entering a tunnel, the e-brake is disabled, and only re-enabled when the train enters a platform / exits the tunnel. There's nothing preventing automated trains from using the same principle. Additionally, tunnels can be retrofit with cameras or motion detectors, to further prevent something larger than a rat from getting in a dangerous position.
    - Jenk 5y ago
      A number of tube lines in London also has this. Central Line, (parts of) Jubilee Line, both do if I recall. Those lines are "semi-automatic" where the driver is providing oversight and operates the doors whilst the train will automatically drive. Driver can override easily.
  - Mauricebranagh 5y ago
    And a driver can when some one is blocking the doors not proceed and get the blockage removed quickly. Pre covid in the rush hour this was very common.
    - cjrp 5y ago
      That's more a job for the platform staff isn't it? Apart from making (several) announcements I've never seen a driver fix this.
- crimsoneer 5y ago
  This. London's tube system is essentially stopped a day or so a year due to strikes, which is pretty dramatic for a city of 10 million people who rely on it.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Most strikes affecting the underground have not been just drivers, so making the system driverless would be unlikely to change that.
    - Zenst 5y ago
      True, and been over safty concerns/reduction in safty staff. Though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19741282 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19741282 Nicely sums up how the whole driveless tube/train aspect has been rumbling on for a while now.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    London's transport strikes have been shown to ultimately benefit the wider economy, as people have broken out of their local maximums and found more efficient ways to travel around.
    - heavenlyblue 5y ago
      Holocaust also had been shown to educate people how horrible humans can be to each other, doesn’t mean it should have happened.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      That you can identify a benefit doesn't mean it's outweighing the costs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - speapr 5y ago
    Perhaps the drivers should be paid a sum of money which closer reflects how much marginal value they add to the city, and this would convince them not to strike.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  That sounds like a corruption problem that could be fixed via regulation, investigation, and prosecution.
- dpatterbee 5y ago
  This point is well addressed in the article. There are more staff members than just drivers.
heidar 5y ago
Some tube lines in London have been closed lately due to unavailability of staff. Not sure if it’s drivers specifically but could be a reason to consider this.
Zenst 5y ago
Good point and down to cost, which is ironic as you have a system built and used mostly from people going to and from work and they are focusing upon reducing the wrong job in that equation is a very fair perspective. Does make you wonder, if years/decades later they fully automate it, turns out cost way more than just keeping human drivers. Equally even if on paper for TFL it breaks even cost wise or cheaper, those people will still need jobs/income and may well be case of shifting that problem elsewhere in the governmental chain of things.
allendoerfer 5y ago
Germany for example has about 35.000 train conductors. Subways are just an obvious first step. Add renewable energy to the equation and you can build a fantastic system running 24/7 without any waiting for trains.
- vidarh 5y ago
  Mainline trains is a non-starter for many decades, though, at least in the UK which still has a large number of level crossings, as well as stations with "fun" issues such as being too short for the longest trains. There is tech solutions in place to prevent the wrong doors from opening. Except when it doesn't work, where you really need someone on the train. And yes, it does fail. Been on trains when the doors refused to open because the system failed to recognise the station. For ages, the trains also waited for ~30 seconds to open doors at London Victoria, supposedly because the system that recognised the stations used GPS, and the station concourse at Victoria is too deep for the trains to get a signal. Don't know if that is true or not, but in any case automating even door control was a long, complex project that still has issues years later. Steps will keep being taken towards automating more of it, but there is decades old rolling stock, so any upgrades will take accordingly long to spread through the system as everything gets upgraded. Isle of Wight for example, ran on London Underground 1938 stock trains until last year, when they started upgrading to refurbished British Rail Class 484 rolling stock built in the 1970's and 1980's... With respect to renewables, not all of the UK network is even electrified yet...
  - allendoerfer 5y ago
    Sounds overly negative to me. With those interest rates, we should really invest into any useful infrastructure project, especially when there are wins for or at least no cost to the environment. Let's generate some sustainable economic growth. We can solve the problems step by step. Starting at least brings us closer to a solution.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      I'm all for investment (though not in London - I'd rather we invest in drawing business out of London, to create a more sustainable and scalable distribution of the UK economy), but that does not change the fact that these upgrades are incredibly resource intensive, not just in terms of money but also skilled staff. There are many tens of billions of investment in prerequisites such as getting rid of level crossings and properly secure rail and upgrading stations and trains that'd be required before you can even think of upgrading mainline rail to driverless. For the London Underground, it means a rolling program of platform upgrades, signalling upgrades and rolling stock upgrades that'd similarly be in the many billions. And yes, now would be the right time to finance it, but even if you start now this is just not happening in the next couple of decades, that was my point. So by all means, it's worth starting to make the pre-requisite improvements, but it won't bring driverless trains on most of these lines anytime soon.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rocqua 5y ago
The stated reason in the article is largely: to avoid strikes. Though the article also argues that this just pushes the power to strike on to other places.
- pydry 5y ago
  They're not just trying to de-skill driving the trains though, they're trying to de-skill all aspects of running the network.
imgabe 5y ago
Driverless trains can run 24/7 without anyone needing to stay up all night
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  The trains discussed in the article will still require an onboard attendant. Also, track maintenance still requires service downtime, which currently happens at night.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  It's rail maintenance that stops trains running 24/7 in London. The rails are too old, often not fit for purpose and no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need polishing (literally), grinding, replacing, checking, etc.
  - Ichthypresbyter 5y ago
    >no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing Not sure how that works. More seriously, I am unaware of the Tube tracks being unusually old, or requiring unusual amounts of maintenance because of their age compared to other comparable systems. Have you got a source on that? There's also the fact that the deep Tube lines only have one track per direction, in contrast to the New York Subway where there are express and local tracks so trains can be rerouted via one set of tracks while maintenance is done on the other set. Plus, of course, the equipment needed to do maintenance on the lines usually needs to be carried by hand through stations and into the tunnels.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      You're quite right to ask for a citation. Sadly I can't give you one as the TFL rail condition assessments aren't public. Instead I'll point out that Metronet and Tubelines spend billions trying to dig out of the backlog and failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Lines >no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing Yeah, stupid right? Imagine a signal is broken (and TFL still used vaccume tubes for its signal systems as recently as 2010). So you have to reduce speed on the line. So now the centra-pedal forces on the corner after the speed restriction aren't enough to counter the camber of that curve. So the wheels on ever train grind down the railhead. So now you have the replace the rail (or polish it etc) much sooner than expected. Failing to replace one part forces you to replace another part. Replacing that part uses up the time/money you have so you can't now replace the first part. Take the central line anywhere between Bank and Stratford some time. The screaming of the wheels isn't just deafening noise. It's the actual rail being turned into dust because no one has invested a weeks closure and money to fix the rest of the infrastructure. So instead every night someone has to go check it and make sure it hasn't cracked yet...
lbriner 5y ago
4000 drivers at an average of around £70K per year is not chump change (£280M) + employer costs for staff. Out of a budget of maybe £5B per year, it is not insignificant but I would expect there are other areas where savings could more easily be gained. Maintenance is crazy due to the short maintenance hours and therefore everyone getting paid enhanced rates to work 0:00 to 04:00. Significantly modernizing signalling and control would be expensive but would probably back back over time. A few years back I was in a control room in a tube station and saw some steampunk looking machine that we assumed was related to the old destination boards on the station, which were long gone but the machine was still operational and left alone. Why? Because who would risk breaking something just to remove some random old piece of kit!
- Mauricebranagh 5y ago
  A few years ago my father did some consulting work for LU and he motioned that a lot of the pre war equipment had far less faults that the modern 1980's stuff.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    It also had much less requirements and probably required more maintanence. You can think this type of claims everywhere; and pretty nowhere those are true.
    - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
      For what it’s worth you ought to be careful arguing your position considering that GP has a second-hand account and you only have a general principle. I see that you hedged your point, and I'm not even disagreeing with you at all. Just an interesting thing to consider.
- pydry 5y ago
  They'd want it even if it cost the same or more. It's the ability to break strikes they're after.
- speapr 5y ago
LatteLazy 5y ago
It's political. In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that. Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport. That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public TfL was been hung out to dry...
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally He’s not even an MP! He’s not allowed to be the leader.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I don't think he has to be? But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. That's what they did for Boris in basically the same circumstances. Maybe Heir apparent is a bit strong? He's not defonate. But I can't think of anyone else with the name recognition...
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > I don't think he has to be? Of course he does. He has to be a commoner MP. > The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Rule-Book-2019.pdf https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Rule-Book-2... > But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. Hmmm not sure how many of those they have available right now!
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        Thanks! Agreed on the safe seats. Corbyn/Starmer has been pretty dire for Labour.
      - tialaramex 5y ago
        The rules are made by the party, and the party can change those rules. It has before and it will again. In this case however I think it's much more likely that if Khan is the choice, room will be found for Khan to win a byelection somewhere. Labour has plenty of London MPs still, they've struggled mostly with the North, progressive policies sell very well among socially aware people inside the M25 but aren't popular among people for whom the whole point was that the Unions ought to run the country. In lots of Labour seats in London it really wouldn't matter who you run. That's why Vauxhall's MP used to be Kate Hoey. Nice part of London, very gay friendly, many of the people there have never eaten meat, much less gone fox hunting and of course they opposed Brexit - and yet of course Kate was pro-hunting, pro-guns, anti-gay and fiercely favoured Brexit. Why did they elect her? Because it said "Labour" next to her name and they don't do research.

teknopaul 5y ago

Not just any 1 person, a driver, who must have years of training, if they don't turn up to work 1000's other people don't get to work. It's not so much one person as a single point of failure. If there were enough drivers with redundancy then it would not matter.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

627467 5y ago

Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions. In the city I live underground drivers hold ridiculous privileged (even compared to other underground workers) that allows positions to be effectively hereditary: children of drivers are more likely to get into the job than others.

Zenst 5y ago
> Won't be popular opinion but, one benefit of driverless subway is: decreased risk of industrial action disruptions. Very true, though equally the increased risk of automated safety system stopping the train in the middle of a long tube tunnel because one of it's sensors got dirty or a rat triggered a sensor as it went splat on the tracks are things drivers can work around easier. So if a perfectly safe and working train stops due to a sensor getting dirty quickly (which for the London tube is more likely than most places), with a driver there they could see and know that issue and safely carry on. Automation will go into health and safety mode and stop that train in the middle of nowhere needing human attention. So delays become longer. I'd rather deal with planned outages, than longer drawn out automated random ones.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Automation will go into health and safety mode and stop that train in the middle of nowhere needing human attention. So delays become longer. In Germany, trains have a system called "Notbremsüberbrückung" / NBÜ. This system overrides the passenger emergency brake in tunnels... basically (i'm shortening it a bit here), as soon as the last carriage leaves the platform (in an underground) or the train can't fully stop before entering a tunnel, the e-brake is disabled, and only re-enabled when the train enters a platform / exits the tunnel. There's nothing preventing automated trains from using the same principle. Additionally, tunnels can be retrofit with cameras or motion detectors, to further prevent something larger than a rat from getting in a dangerous position.
  - Jenk 5y ago
    A number of tube lines in London also has this. Central Line, (parts of) Jubilee Line, both do if I recall. Those lines are "semi-automatic" where the driver is providing oversight and operates the doors whilst the train will automatically drive. Driver can override easily.
- Mauricebranagh 5y ago
  And a driver can when some one is blocking the doors not proceed and get the blockage removed quickly. Pre covid in the rush hour this was very common.
  - cjrp 5y ago
    That's more a job for the platform staff isn't it? Apart from making (several) announcements I've never seen a driver fix this.
crimsoneer 5y ago
This. London's tube system is essentially stopped a day or so a year due to strikes, which is pretty dramatic for a city of 10 million people who rely on it.
- vidarh 5y ago
  Most strikes affecting the underground have not been just drivers, so making the system driverless would be unlikely to change that.
  - Zenst 5y ago
    True, and been over safty concerns/reduction in safty staff. Though: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19741282 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19741282 Nicely sums up how the whole driveless tube/train aspect has been rumbling on for a while now.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  London's transport strikes have been shown to ultimately benefit the wider economy, as people have broken out of their local maximums and found more efficient ways to travel around.
  - heavenlyblue 5y ago
    Holocaust also had been shown to educate people how horrible humans can be to each other, doesn’t mean it should have happened.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    That you can identify a benefit doesn't mean it's outweighing the costs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- speapr 5y ago
  Perhaps the drivers should be paid a sum of money which closer reflects how much marginal value they add to the city, and this would convince them not to strike.
dsr_ 5y ago
That sounds like a corruption problem that could be fixed via regulation, investigation, and prosecution.
dpatterbee 5y ago
This point is well addressed in the article. There are more staff members than just drivers.

heidar 5y ago

Some tube lines in London have been closed lately due to unavailability of staff. Not sure if it’s drivers specifically but could be a reason to consider this.

Zenst 5y ago

Good point and down to cost, which is ironic as you have a system built and used mostly from people going to and from work and they are focusing upon reducing the wrong job in that equation is a very fair perspective. Does make you wonder, if years/decades later they fully automate it, turns out cost way more than just keeping human drivers. Equally even if on paper for TFL it breaks even cost wise or cheaper, those people will still need jobs/income and may well be case of shifting that problem elsewhere in the governmental chain of things.

allendoerfer 5y ago

Germany for example has about 35.000 train conductors. Subways are just an obvious first step. Add renewable energy to the equation and you can build a fantastic system running 24/7 without any waiting for trains.

vidarh 5y ago
Mainline trains is a non-starter for many decades, though, at least in the UK which still has a large number of level crossings, as well as stations with "fun" issues such as being too short for the longest trains. There is tech solutions in place to prevent the wrong doors from opening. Except when it doesn't work, where you really need someone on the train. And yes, it does fail. Been on trains when the doors refused to open because the system failed to recognise the station. For ages, the trains also waited for ~30 seconds to open doors at London Victoria, supposedly because the system that recognised the stations used GPS, and the station concourse at Victoria is too deep for the trains to get a signal. Don't know if that is true or not, but in any case automating even door control was a long, complex project that still has issues years later. Steps will keep being taken towards automating more of it, but there is decades old rolling stock, so any upgrades will take accordingly long to spread through the system as everything gets upgraded. Isle of Wight for example, ran on London Underground 1938 stock trains until last year, when they started upgrading to refurbished British Rail Class 484 rolling stock built in the 1970's and 1980's... With respect to renewables, not all of the UK network is even electrified yet...
- allendoerfer 5y ago
  Sounds overly negative to me. With those interest rates, we should really invest into any useful infrastructure project, especially when there are wins for or at least no cost to the environment. Let's generate some sustainable economic growth. We can solve the problems step by step. Starting at least brings us closer to a solution.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    I'm all for investment (though not in London - I'd rather we invest in drawing business out of London, to create a more sustainable and scalable distribution of the UK economy), but that does not change the fact that these upgrades are incredibly resource intensive, not just in terms of money but also skilled staff. There are many tens of billions of investment in prerequisites such as getting rid of level crossings and properly secure rail and upgrading stations and trains that'd be required before you can even think of upgrading mainline rail to driverless. For the London Underground, it means a rolling program of platform upgrades, signalling upgrades and rolling stock upgrades that'd similarly be in the many billions. And yes, now would be the right time to finance it, but even if you start now this is just not happening in the next couple of decades, that was my point. So by all means, it's worth starting to make the pre-requisite improvements, but it won't bring driverless trains on most of these lines anytime soon.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rocqua 5y ago

The stated reason in the article is largely: to avoid strikes. Though the article also argues that this just pushes the power to strike on to other places.

pydry 5y ago
They're not just trying to de-skill driving the trains though, they're trying to de-skill all aspects of running the network.

imgabe 5y ago

Driverless trains can run 24/7 without anyone needing to stay up all night

KineticLensman 5y ago
The trains discussed in the article will still require an onboard attendant. Also, track maintenance still requires service downtime, which currently happens at night.
LatteLazy 5y ago
It's rail maintenance that stops trains running 24/7 in London. The rails are too old, often not fit for purpose and no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need polishing (literally), grinding, replacing, checking, etc.
- Ichthypresbyter 5y ago
  >no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing Not sure how that works. More seriously, I am unaware of the Tube tracks being unusually old, or requiring unusual amounts of maintenance because of their age compared to other comparable systems. Have you got a source on that? There's also the fact that the deep Tube lines only have one track per direction, in contrast to the New York Subway where there are express and local tracks so trains can be rerouted via one set of tracks while maintenance is done on the other set. Plus, of course, the equipment needed to do maintenance on the lines usually needs to be carried by hand through stations and into the tunnels.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    You're quite right to ask for a citation. Sadly I can't give you one as the TFL rail condition assessments aren't public. Instead I'll point out that Metronet and Tubelines spend billions trying to dig out of the backlog and failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Lines >no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing Yeah, stupid right? Imagine a signal is broken (and TFL still used vaccume tubes for its signal systems as recently as 2010). So you have to reduce speed on the line. So now the centra-pedal forces on the corner after the speed restriction aren't enough to counter the camber of that curve. So the wheels on ever train grind down the railhead. So now you have the replace the rail (or polish it etc) much sooner than expected. Failing to replace one part forces you to replace another part. Replacing that part uses up the time/money you have so you can't now replace the first part. Take the central line anywhere between Bank and Stratford some time. The screaming of the wheels isn't just deafening noise. It's the actual rail being turned into dust because no one has invested a weeks closure and money to fix the rest of the infrastructure. So instead every night someone has to go check it and make sure it hasn't cracked yet...

lbriner 5y ago

4000 drivers at an average of around £70K per year is not chump change (£280M) + employer costs for staff. Out of a budget of maybe £5B per year, it is not insignificant but I would expect there are other areas where savings could more easily be gained. Maintenance is crazy due to the short maintenance hours and therefore everyone getting paid enhanced rates to work 0:00 to 04:00. Significantly modernizing signalling and control would be expensive but would probably back back over time. A few years back I was in a control room in a tube station and saw some steampunk looking machine that we assumed was related to the old destination boards on the station, which were long gone but the machine was still operational and left alone. Why? Because who would risk breaking something just to remove some random old piece of kit!

Mauricebranagh 5y ago
A few years ago my father did some consulting work for LU and he motioned that a lot of the pre war equipment had far less faults that the modern 1980's stuff.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  It also had much less requirements and probably required more maintanence. You can think this type of claims everywhere; and pretty nowhere those are true.
  - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    For what it’s worth you ought to be careful arguing your position considering that GP has a second-hand account and you only have a general principle. I see that you hedged your point, and I'm not even disagreeing with you at all. Just an interesting thing to consider.
pydry 5y ago
They'd want it even if it cost the same or more. It's the ability to break strikes they're after.
speapr 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago

It's political. In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that. Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport. That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public TfL was been hung out to dry...

chrisseaton 5y ago
> he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally He’s not even an MP! He’s not allowed to be the leader.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I don't think he has to be? But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. That's what they did for Boris in basically the same circumstances. Maybe Heir apparent is a bit strong? He's not defonate. But I can't think of anyone else with the name recognition...
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > I don't think he has to be? Of course he does. He has to be a commoner MP. > The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Rule-Book-2019.pdf https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Rule-Book-2... > But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. Hmmm not sure how many of those they have available right now!
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Thanks! Agreed on the safe seats. Corbyn/Starmer has been pretty dire for Labour.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      The rules are made by the party, and the party can change those rules. It has before and it will again. In this case however I think it's much more likely that if Khan is the choice, room will be found for Khan to win a byelection somewhere. Labour has plenty of London MPs still, they've struggled mostly with the North, progressive policies sell very well among socially aware people inside the M25 but aren't popular among people for whom the whole point was that the Unions ought to run the country. In lots of Labour seats in London it really wouldn't matter who you run. That's why Vauxhall's MP used to be Kate Hoey. Nice part of London, very gay friendly, many of the people there have never eaten meat, much less gone fox hunting and of course they opposed Brexit - and yet of course Kate was pro-hunting, pro-guns, anti-gay and fiercely favoured Brexit. Why did they elect her? Because it said "Labour" next to her name and they don't do research.