8 ms·

TfL abandons plans for driverless tube trains

29 points by edward 2y ago

ashconnor 2y ago
No doubt the RMT will take the blame for this but as the article points out: > It’s now been confirmed that the study reached the same conclusion that every other study into the issue has already reported — it’ll cost an awful lot of money for very little benefit.
- sofixa 2y ago
  I wonder if they compared with Paris which has similarly old infrastructure, but managed to automate the two most heavily used lines (1 and 4).
ggm 2y ago
I wish they'd kept conductors on buses but that ship left 3 decades ago. Some of my fondest memories are the conductors on Melbourne's ageing W class wooden trams. Trains feel like something where drivers and conductors and platform staff are a social good. We're beyond cost at this point, it's about public utility.
- arcticbull 2y ago
  Also the ratio of driver to passenger especially compared to say a taxi, is negligible so the amortized cost is basically zero. That said, they’re not exactly useful on trains, you don’t chit chat with the man in the armored cab.
  - Macha 2y ago
    You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.
    - equestria 2y ago
      Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight. Public transit is quite different. It's not as opex-intensive as flying, it's usually subsidized by the state, and it's often pretty much a monopoly.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight They also removed the roles of radio operator, navigator, flight engineer and third officer without compromising safety or capability [1]. I'd want to see studies. But single pilot + relief crew should be safe enough to start with for long-haul flights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew
      - nradov 2y ago
        Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed. > Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?
  - Rendello 2y ago
    The conductor wages over the system as a whole are a large part of operating costs. Another issue you can have is a lack of conductors, which is a big issue in the Netherlands apparently.
    - ggm 2y ago
      More to the point, staffing isn't setting the price of transport, it's subsidised almost everywhere. Sure. It's a cost. The cost:benefit here is more than just apparent budget impact because public transport is a utility function.
      - Rendello 2y ago
        I don't disagree. One thing that RMTransit on Youtube talks a lot about is that transit is a lot more expensive to build in the Anglosphere of the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and so despite these countries investing a lot of money into it recently, there's an order of magnitude less return on investment than similar projects happening in the rest of Europe and Asia. Return on investment not being profit for the transit system, but moreso a more extensive, faster network for riders.
        ggm 2y ago
        I used scotrail for the first time in years as a casual return visitor to the UK from Oz. It was ok and on time and clean, and the QR code on/off experience was fine but the confusion of choices trying to book.. complete nightmare. Privatisation has only partially been unwound and multi app multi provider timetable and ticket exposure to casual users is away with the bees.
      - blibble 2y ago
        if you look at the accounts/statistics: staff is the majority of the cost the official figures here are however misleaading as their "staff" numbers only include those directly employed by TOCs and Network Rail under "other" there's the vast army of contractors, including cleaning staff, track maintenance contractors, train maintenance contractors, private security, and so on what's left is fuel, interest payments, depreciation, premium payments to government and some capital expenditure (not much...)
- Rendello 2y ago
  I think the combination of driverless trains and automated platform screen doors is the gold-standard for new metro-like systems. The new REM in Montréal is able to have very high frequencies with much lower cost, so transit users should be able to get more transit for the same cost and the municipality isn't worried about the burden of high operating costs for the next century. The platform screen doors are great too, anyone who's taken the Metro enough has had to wait for hours because someone has fallen onto or committed suicide on the track, which feels like such a sad problem to have when the solution exists.
  - ggm 2y ago
    I do like Asian metro systems I use with screened entry to trains. But I also like seeing staff. Porque no los dos?
    - Rendello 2y ago
      Fair enough though one doesn't interact much with a subway driver.
      - thanksgiving 2y ago
        On the flip side, I've seen "funny" videos from Japan where there is staff at the stations who push passengers in to fit everyone as much as possible?
        Rendello 2y ago
        I used to think that was crazy until I started using the metro every day. There will be a hundred people packed by the doors and the few people in the middle of the car don't think to compress a little. Suddenly I wanted those staff to come in and make the ride more equitable!
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      Vancouver has driverless trains, but you pretty frequently see staff at the stations. Oddly enough, you almost never see them on the trains unless someone has pushed the silent alarm.
blibble 2y ago
they could start with the waterloo and city I can't believe that would cost billions given it has two stations and is fully underground good leverage against the unions too...
- skywhopper 2y ago
  How is it good leverage against the unions? Staff is required, even on driverless trains, and in the stations, and on maintenance. The driver is just a tiny part of the labor involved.
  - blibble 2y ago
    compare dlr "train captain" pay with that of tube drivers
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > Staff is required, even on driverless trains Why? Is that some union requirement? Staff is absolutely not required on driverless trains. There can be at stations and of course for maintenance, but there's no reason to have staff in each train.
    - tim333 2y ago
      The DLR is only partly staffed. Often the trains and or stations don't have anyone.
- petejansson 2y ago
  The first two paragraphs of the article specifically talk about a study done on Waterloo & City coming to a negative conclusion.
yardstick 2y ago
Platform edge doors could be done half-height style without massive rebuilds of platforms. I’ve seen the half-heights in Japan and Malaysia. That also then avoids the need for super precise alignment which is an issue for platforms supporting multiple lines and train types. None of the above would enable driverless trains. It’d just go towards accident reduction —maybe suicide too, depends on the individual’s determination.
- Reason077 2y ago
  In London there are platforms which are shared between lines that use trains with completely different proportions, car lengths, and door spacing. Even with half-height doors it would be difficult to come up with a system that could handle both the small deep-tube trains of the Piccadilly line and the large, sub-surface trains of the District line. Other metros around the world that have retrofitted PEDs had the advantage of having fleets of trains with standardised dimensions. Of course, this wouldn't stop them selectively installing platform edge doors at stations that do not have this issue. The most modern lines (central section of the Elizabeth line, and the eastern section of the Jubilee line) do have PEDs.
  - yardstick 2y ago
    Yes I acknowledge the differences. We could still install PEDs with imprecise doors. Ie more doors than required. Larger doors than required. The main thing is for the door to only open while a train is in front of it, and all the train doors be unobstructed. Ie won’t hurt much to have a PED open to the train wall or opens double the size of the current trains’ door.
    - Reason077 2y ago
      > "Ie won’t hurt much to have a PED open to the train wall or opens double the size of the current trains’ door." I imagine there would be safety issues with that approach since it might create an opportunity for people to get trapped between the platform doors and the train. No sense solving one safety issue just to introduce another one. You'd also need to be sure the platform doors didn't take any longer than the train doors to open. Anything that increases boarding & alighting time, even by a second or two, would likely be rejected in London.
naming_the_user 2y ago
I’ve never really understood the argument for driverless tube trains. Take the Victoria line doing approximately a full lap of the circuit in an hour, north to south and back again. That one train with one driver has a capacity of 260 seated, 1000 in total. People get on and off all of the time so the actual usage can be far higher, most people do a few stops or half the route max. Based on riding the tube I would guess that the average train has at least 1000 users an hour e.g. 500 northbound, 500 southbound using this example. If the train driver gets paid £100 an hour (feels high) then it’s 10p per person per trip or approx 30 seconds of work at the minimum wage. The entire thing feels like optimisation for the sake of it, I’m happy for my tube driver to get 10 bloody pence from my fare. Even if my assumptions are wrong then say it’s 20p or 50p or whatever that feels totally reasonable. A taxi is completely different because in that case the hourly rate of the driver is basically the entire fare, you are pretty much paying for the time of one person 1:1.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > That one train with one driver has a capacity of 260 seated, 1000 in total. People get on and off all of the time so the actual usage can be far higher You're just using the wrong units. You'd normally measure transportation in passenger-miles. (Or, as the case may be, passenger-km.)
  - naming_the_user 2y ago
    The relevant figure in my mind is per entry and exit to the system, in fairness the same person usually will take two trains so that’s two drivers to pay. Basically, per passenger served. Per mile basis is weird in a metro system because of distortions like how a mile in the centre is both slower and far more in demand than a mile at the edges.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > Per mile basis is weird in a metro system because of distortions like how a mile in the centre is both slower and far more in demand than a mile at the edges. What's the problem supposed to be? Passenger-miles automatically take that effect into account. They go down when speed goes down, and up when demand goes up. > both slower and far more in demand By the way, it sounds like you think this is something strange about a metro system, but higher demand means lower speed for every form of transportation. > Basically, per passenger served. This is a mistake; the guy who crosses the whole city has gotten more value out of the metro system than the guy who goes one stop.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sofixa 2y ago
> Despite the claims that it would prevent strikes on the tube, the reality is that it wouldn’t, as driverless trains would still have staff on board Why would they? Paris lines 1,4, 14 and soon 15 have zero staff onboard
- BadBadJellyBean 2y ago
  Same in Nuremberg. And they don't even have automated gates. It seems to work well.
Gud 2y ago
You obviously want a human competent enough on board to manage the train, even if everything is automated.

29 points by edward 2y ago

No doubt the RMT will take the blame for this but as the article points out: > It’s now been confirmed that the study reached the same conclusion that every other study into the issue has already reported — it’ll cost an awful lot of money for very little benefit.

sofixa 2y ago
I wonder if they compared with Paris which has similarly old infrastructure, but managed to automate the two most heavily used lines (1 and 4).

ggm 2y ago

I wish they'd kept conductors on buses but that ship left 3 decades ago. Some of my fondest memories are the conductors on Melbourne's ageing W class wooden trams. Trains feel like something where drivers and conductors and platform staff are a social good. We're beyond cost at this point, it's about public utility.

arcticbull 2y ago
Also the ratio of driver to passenger especially compared to say a taxi, is negligible so the amortized cost is basically zero. That said, they’re not exactly useful on trains, you don’t chit chat with the man in the armored cab.
- Macha 2y ago
  You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.
  - equestria 2y ago
    Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight. Public transit is quite different. It's not as opex-intensive as flying, it's usually subsidized by the state, and it's often pretty much a monopoly.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight They also removed the roles of radio operator, navigator, flight engineer and third officer without compromising safety or capability [1]. I'd want to see studies. But single pilot + relief crew should be safe enough to start with for long-haul flights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew
    - nradov 2y ago
      Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed. > Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?
- Rendello 2y ago
  The conductor wages over the system as a whole are a large part of operating costs. Another issue you can have is a lack of conductors, which is a big issue in the Netherlands apparently.
  - ggm 2y ago
    More to the point, staffing isn't setting the price of transport, it's subsidised almost everywhere. Sure. It's a cost. The cost:benefit here is more than just apparent budget impact because public transport is a utility function.
    - Rendello 2y ago
      I don't disagree. One thing that RMTransit on Youtube talks a lot about is that transit is a lot more expensive to build in the Anglosphere of the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and so despite these countries investing a lot of money into it recently, there's an order of magnitude less return on investment than similar projects happening in the rest of Europe and Asia. Return on investment not being profit for the transit system, but moreso a more extensive, faster network for riders.
      - ggm 2y ago
        I used scotrail for the first time in years as a casual return visitor to the UK from Oz. It was ok and on time and clean, and the QR code on/off experience was fine but the confusion of choices trying to book.. complete nightmare. Privatisation has only partially been unwound and multi app multi provider timetable and ticket exposure to casual users is away with the bees.
    - blibble 2y ago
      if you look at the accounts/statistics: staff is the majority of the cost the official figures here are however misleaading as their "staff" numbers only include those directly employed by TOCs and Network Rail under "other" there's the vast army of contractors, including cleaning staff, track maintenance contractors, train maintenance contractors, private security, and so on what's left is fuel, interest payments, depreciation, premium payments to government and some capital expenditure (not much...)
Rendello 2y ago
I think the combination of driverless trains and automated platform screen doors is the gold-standard for new metro-like systems. The new REM in Montréal is able to have very high frequencies with much lower cost, so transit users should be able to get more transit for the same cost and the municipality isn't worried about the burden of high operating costs for the next century. The platform screen doors are great too, anyone who's taken the Metro enough has had to wait for hours because someone has fallen onto or committed suicide on the track, which feels like such a sad problem to have when the solution exists.
- ggm 2y ago
  I do like Asian metro systems I use with screened entry to trains. But I also like seeing staff. Porque no los dos?
  - Rendello 2y ago
    Fair enough though one doesn't interact much with a subway driver.
    - thanksgiving 2y ago
      On the flip side, I've seen "funny" videos from Japan where there is staff at the stations who push passengers in to fit everyone as much as possible?
      - Rendello 2y ago
        I used to think that was crazy until I started using the metro every day. There will be a hundred people packed by the doors and the few people in the middle of the car don't think to compress a little. Suddenly I wanted those staff to come in and make the ride more equitable!
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Vancouver has driverless trains, but you pretty frequently see staff at the stations. Oddly enough, you almost never see them on the trains unless someone has pushed the silent alarm.

blibble 2y ago

they could start with the waterloo and city I can't believe that would cost billions given it has two stations and is fully underground good leverage against the unions too...

skywhopper 2y ago
How is it good leverage against the unions? Staff is required, even on driverless trains, and in the stations, and on maintenance. The driver is just a tiny part of the labor involved.
- blibble 2y ago
  compare dlr "train captain" pay with that of tube drivers
- sofixa 2y ago
  > Staff is required, even on driverless trains Why? Is that some union requirement? Staff is absolutely not required on driverless trains. There can be at stations and of course for maintenance, but there's no reason to have staff in each train.
  - tim333 2y ago
    The DLR is only partly staffed. Often the trains and or stations don't have anyone.
petejansson 2y ago
The first two paragraphs of the article specifically talk about a study done on Waterloo & City coming to a negative conclusion.

yardstick 2y ago

Platform edge doors could be done half-height style without massive rebuilds of platforms. I’ve seen the half-heights in Japan and Malaysia. That also then avoids the need for super precise alignment which is an issue for platforms supporting multiple lines and train types. None of the above would enable driverless trains. It’d just go towards accident reduction —maybe suicide too, depends on the individual’s determination.

Reason077 2y ago
In London there are platforms which are shared between lines that use trains with completely different proportions, car lengths, and door spacing. Even with half-height doors it would be difficult to come up with a system that could handle both the small deep-tube trains of the Piccadilly line and the large, sub-surface trains of the District line. Other metros around the world that have retrofitted PEDs had the advantage of having fleets of trains with standardised dimensions. Of course, this wouldn't stop them selectively installing platform edge doors at stations that do not have this issue. The most modern lines (central section of the Elizabeth line, and the eastern section of the Jubilee line) do have PEDs.
- yardstick 2y ago
  Yes I acknowledge the differences. We could still install PEDs with imprecise doors. Ie more doors than required. Larger doors than required. The main thing is for the door to only open while a train is in front of it, and all the train doors be unobstructed. Ie won’t hurt much to have a PED open to the train wall or opens double the size of the current trains’ door.
  - Reason077 2y ago
    > "Ie won’t hurt much to have a PED open to the train wall or opens double the size of the current trains’ door." I imagine there would be safety issues with that approach since it might create an opportunity for people to get trapped between the platform doors and the train. No sense solving one safety issue just to introduce another one. You'd also need to be sure the platform doors didn't take any longer than the train doors to open. Anything that increases boarding & alighting time, even by a second or two, would likely be rejected in London.

naming_the_user 2y ago

I’ve never really understood the argument for driverless tube trains. Take the Victoria line doing approximately a full lap of the circuit in an hour, north to south and back again. That one train with one driver has a capacity of 260 seated, 1000 in total. People get on and off all of the time so the actual usage can be far higher, most people do a few stops or half the route max. Based on riding the tube I would guess that the average train has at least 1000 users an hour e.g. 500 northbound, 500 southbound using this example. If the train driver gets paid £100 an hour (feels high) then it’s 10p per person per trip or approx 30 seconds of work at the minimum wage. The entire thing feels like optimisation for the sake of it, I’m happy for my tube driver to get 10 bloody pence from my fare. Even if my assumptions are wrong then say it’s 20p or 50p or whatever that feels totally reasonable. A taxi is completely different because in that case the hourly rate of the driver is basically the entire fare, you are pretty much paying for the time of one person 1:1.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> That one train with one driver has a capacity of 260 seated, 1000 in total. People get on and off all of the time so the actual usage can be far higher You're just using the wrong units. You'd normally measure transportation in passenger-miles. (Or, as the case may be, passenger-km.)
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  The relevant figure in my mind is per entry and exit to the system, in fairness the same person usually will take two trains so that’s two drivers to pay. Basically, per passenger served. Per mile basis is weird in a metro system because of distortions like how a mile in the centre is both slower and far more in demand than a mile at the edges.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > Per mile basis is weird in a metro system because of distortions like how a mile in the centre is both slower and far more in demand than a mile at the edges. What's the problem supposed to be? Passenger-miles automatically take that effect into account. They go down when speed goes down, and up when demand goes up. > both slower and far more in demand By the way, it sounds like you think this is something strange about a metro system, but higher demand means lower speed for every form of transportation. > Basically, per passenger served. This is a mistake; the guy who crosses the whole city has gotten more value out of the metro system than the guy who goes one stop.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sofixa 2y ago

> Despite the claims that it would prevent strikes on the tube, the reality is that it wouldn’t, as driverless trains would still have staff on board Why would they? Paris lines 1,4, 14 and soon 15 have zero staff onboard

BadBadJellyBean 2y ago
Same in Nuremberg. And they don't even have automated gates. It seems to work well.

Gud 2y ago

You obviously want a human competent enough on board to manage the train, even if everything is automated.