3 ms·
> 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 comme
by 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 agoStriking 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.