6 ms·

What they are actually seeking is "...progress towards the conversion of at least one Underground line to Grade-of-Automation 3 (driverless, but with an on-boa

What they are actually seeking is "...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." They are only aiming to do one line, which just happens to meet a complex set of constraints outlined in the article. Doing the entire network would require a massive set of changes as outlined in the article (e.g. to rolling stock, platforms and signalling) to meet the safety requirements. The requirement for an on-board attendant means that the driverless trains will still be at risk of strike action, in contrast to the line taken by some commenters here. Note that the actual title is 'political myth'. The article suggests that the main reason for the change is to demonstrate political vision rather than, say, cost savings.

mavhc 5y ago
There are many times when the DLR trains have no employees onboard
- tialaramex 5y ago
  There aren't, although I guess in a crowded DLR train you might not realise. A DLR train won't go anywhere until the operator closes the doors, which they can do from any set of doors on the train. Because the DLR is GoA 3 there doesn't need to be a plan for how central operations can co-ordinate rescue of a failed train without somebody at the scene, there will be an attendant, who is trained to drive the train, onboard somewhere.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    Interesting. A very strange job then, most of the time you just close doors, and once a year you drive a train
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      The DLR closes most nights. When it re-opens, the first train of each day on each section is driven manually to confirm that maintenance crews haven't managed to leave anything on the track. Yes there are procedures to ensure they don't do that, but no procedure is foolproof. Attendants may also choose to drive a train at other times, although doing so will generally be slower even if the computer is overseeing the journey (and the train won't accelerate above a crawl if the computer isn't overseeing) so it would be avoided in normal service. The main job of these personnel are to assist passengers. So it's more a people job than train driver. Wondering if the Stratford destination is "the Shakespeare one"? They can help. Are the lifts working at the stop you need? They can check. Is it far to walk from this next stop to the museum? Does this ticket work on a ferry or only trains?
      - mavhc 5y ago
        Does the automatic system limit where/when the manual trains can go to avoid crashes? What about syncing times multiple trains use the same track?
vladvasiliu 5y ago
> The requirement for an on-board attendant means that the driverless trains will still be at risk of strike action, in contrast to the line taken by some commenters here. That's true, although it might be a lot better than the current setup, if they're able to more easily replace that person (say, if they don't have to have specialised training). I'm not familiar with TfL and their strike habits, but over here in strike-happy Paris, where conductors decide to stop driving on a whim, the automatic lines are practically never concerned [0]. They are, however, "level 4", as in there's no human present on board. They do require people at the control centre, though. --- [0] I say "practically" because while I don't remember there ever being any reduction of traffic, even during major national strikes, I don't take the metro that often and I may have missed some. Though I'm pretty confident that it would have made the headlines.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Striking has historically been a significant problem on the Tube as well. That is partly because there is a limited supply of train drivers with the appropriate qualifications and if they strike then you can't just parachute someone untrained in to replace them. As you say, the risk of disruption to the travelling public from strikes might be reduced, though not eliminated, if the roles that still required human action had more limited responsibilities and required less skill/training. The DLR is a reasonable example of this in London, not immune to strike action, but historically less disrupted by it.
vidarh 5y ago
Note the weasel words. "Progress towards". Not conversion. Just progress.

mavhc 5y ago

There are many times when the DLR trains have no employees onboard

tialaramex 5y ago
There aren't, although I guess in a crowded DLR train you might not realise. A DLR train won't go anywhere until the operator closes the doors, which they can do from any set of doors on the train. Because the DLR is GoA 3 there doesn't need to be a plan for how central operations can co-ordinate rescue of a failed train without somebody at the scene, there will be an attendant, who is trained to drive the train, onboard somewhere.
- mavhc 5y ago
  Interesting. A very strange job then, most of the time you just close doors, and once a year you drive a train
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    The DLR closes most nights. When it re-opens, the first train of each day on each section is driven manually to confirm that maintenance crews haven't managed to leave anything on the track. Yes there are procedures to ensure they don't do that, but no procedure is foolproof. Attendants may also choose to drive a train at other times, although doing so will generally be slower even if the computer is overseeing the journey (and the train won't accelerate above a crawl if the computer isn't overseeing) so it would be avoided in normal service. The main job of these personnel are to assist passengers. So it's more a people job than train driver. Wondering if the Stratford destination is "the Shakespeare one"? They can help. Are the lifts working at the stop you need? They can check. Is it far to walk from this next stop to the museum? Does this ticket work on a ferry or only trains?
    - mavhc 5y ago
      Does the automatic system limit where/when the manual trains can go to avoid crashes? What about syncing times multiple trains use the same track?

vladvasiliu 5y ago

> The requirement for an on-board attendant means that the driverless trains will still be at risk of strike action, in contrast to the line taken by some commenters here. That's true, although it might be a lot better than the current setup, if they're able to more easily replace that person (say, if they don't have to have specialised training). I'm not familiar with TfL and their strike habits, but over here in strike-happy Paris, where conductors decide to stop driving on a whim, the automatic lines are practically never concerned [0]. They are, however, "level 4", as in there's no human present on board. They do require people at the control centre, though. --- [0] I say "practically" because while I don't remember there ever being any reduction of traffic, even during major national strikes, I don't take the metro that often and I may have missed some. Though I'm pretty confident that it would have made the headlines.

Silhouette 5y ago
Striking has historically been a significant problem on the Tube as well. That is partly because there is a limited supply of train drivers with the appropriate qualifications and if they strike then you can't just parachute someone untrained in to replace them. As you say, the risk of disruption to the travelling public from strikes might be reduced, though not eliminated, if the roles that still required human action had more limited responsibilities and required less skill/training. The DLR is a reasonable example of this in London, not immune to strike action, but historically less disrupted by it.

vidarh 5y ago

Note the weasel words. "Progress towards". Not conversion. Just progress.