4 ms·

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

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.
    - Reason077 2y ago
      > "the guy who crosses the whole city has gotten more value out of the metro system than the guy who goes one stop." Not necessarily. The value you receive from a transportation service is mostly a function how badly you want/need to be at the destination, as well as things like how comfortable and fast the ride is. If anything, the guy travelling a shorter distance got more value because his ride took less time! Or to put it another way, there is little value to me in travelling a long, laborious route all the way across the city if I don't have a pressing need to be at that destination. But if I need to be at work in 30 minutes I get huge value from taking the metro to the nearby station, even if it's only 2 stops away.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        Your analysis doesn't work. In your terms, the guy who crosses the city has paid more (by spending more time) for what he received, and so you still assess him as having valued the trip more than the one-stop guy. > But if I need to be at work in 30 minutes I get huge value from taking the metro to the nearby station, even if it's only 2 stops away. Not really; as you just noted, the subway is a very slow method of covering distance. If you're in a hurry, it's not going to beat the alternatives.
        Reason077 2y ago
        > "the guy who crosses the city has paid more (by spending more time) for what he received, and so you still assess him as having valued the trip more than the one-stop guy." No, I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote. My point is that the "value" derived from a trip is _not_ proportional to the distance travelled. > "Not really; as you just noted, the subway is a very slow method of covering distance. If you're in a hurry, it's not going to beat the alternatives." In London, the tube or train is often the fastest way to get somewhere, particularly at rush hour. But if I place a high value on comfort, perhaps I'd consider that I get more value from a taxi ride even if it takes the same amount of time: the tube can be very hot and crowded! I'd then have to consider whether the extra value gained is enough to justify the higher cost of the taxi ride.
Reason077 2y ago
And the Victoria line is already driverless in the sense that all the "driver" does during normal operation is operate the doors. More or less the same as the DLR, except the Victoria line has a permanent driver's seat/cabin where as the DLR operator can move throughout the train. (Personally I'd rather be a DLR "operator", at least you're on your feet much of the time and getting some exercise. But I bet the Victoria line "drivers" get paid more!)
Reason077 2y ago
> "I would guess that the average train has at least 1000 users an hour e.g. 500 northbound, 500 southbound using this example." Yes, seems not far off. There's something close to 500 scheduled Victoria line services per day in each direction (less on Sundays, and not all services will operate if there's disruption/delays). Annual Victoria line ridership in 2019 was 302 million, or 827k per day on average. So, roughly, 827 passengers per train service on average (but not all at once!). Each service takes around 35 minutes to do the full line from Brixton to Walthamstow, plus turnaround time at each end. Some services turn back early at Finsbury Park or Seven Sisters. So each train will be doing a bit more than 1 service per hour.
slyall 2y ago
The big thing is not the cost of the driver it is the capacity. As the article says: "The main benefit of driverless trains is capacity, as the computerised control systems can allow trains to run closer together, which increases passenger capacity on the railway." However as the article says this isn't as big a gain on the Underground since it is pretty optimized already and gains would be minimal for the cost. For most metro-type rail systems driverless is the way to go though, it can offer increased capacity and lower running cost (especially off-peak).
sofixa 2y ago
Your assumption is missing a few important points. It's a weird, stressful and depressing job, while also being inconvenient. People need transit to function early in the morning, late at night, during holidays. Having enough train drivers to serve all of those comes at a cost, and is sometimes quite hard because people aren't lining up to stay stationary and press buttons in a tunnel from 4am or during Christmas/New Years (even if they don't personally celebrate it). Automated driverless trains allow for higher frequency, reduce the need for a shitty job, and allow operations in inconvenient for humans hours and times.
- tim333 2y ago
  >people aren't lining up to stay stationary and press buttons I've always gathered there's quite a waiting list to get in. This from a tube driver: >You need to find a role within TfL. It doesn't have to be customer facing, but it has to be something within TfL. Once you're employed for 6 months with TfL, you can apply for Train Operator, when the job is available. If you pass all the interviews and assessments, you'll be entered into a queue before you start training. This could be a couple of years. In short, yes it is pretty hard to get the job of tube driver. https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonUnderground/comments/ti7skk/how_hard_is_it_to_get_a_job_as_a_tube_train_driver/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonUnderground/comments/ti7skk/h... Mostly because there aren't that many lowish skilled jobs paying £70k for a 35 hour week in London.
mmarian 2y ago
Salary is just a part of the cost like other people hinted at. Benefits, recruitment, capacity management, health and safety, performance management, training, all other sorts of HR processes.

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.
  - Reason077 2y ago
    > "the guy who crosses the whole city has gotten more value out of the metro system than the guy who goes one stop." Not necessarily. The value you receive from a transportation service is mostly a function how badly you want/need to be at the destination, as well as things like how comfortable and fast the ride is. If anything, the guy travelling a shorter distance got more value because his ride took less time! Or to put it another way, there is little value to me in travelling a long, laborious route all the way across the city if I don't have a pressing need to be at that destination. But if I need to be at work in 30 minutes I get huge value from taking the metro to the nearby station, even if it's only 2 stops away.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Your analysis doesn't work. In your terms, the guy who crosses the city has paid more (by spending more time) for what he received, and so you still assess him as having valued the trip more than the one-stop guy. > But if I need to be at work in 30 minutes I get huge value from taking the metro to the nearby station, even if it's only 2 stops away. Not really; as you just noted, the subway is a very slow method of covering distance. If you're in a hurry, it's not going to beat the alternatives.
      - Reason077 2y ago
        > "the guy who crosses the city has paid more (by spending more time) for what he received, and so you still assess him as having valued the trip more than the one-stop guy." No, I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote. My point is that the "value" derived from a trip is _not_ proportional to the distance travelled. > "Not really; as you just noted, the subway is a very slow method of covering distance. If you're in a hurry, it's not going to beat the alternatives." In London, the tube or train is often the fastest way to get somewhere, particularly at rush hour. But if I place a high value on comfort, perhaps I'd consider that I get more value from a taxi ride even if it takes the same amount of time: the tube can be very hot and crowded! I'd then have to consider whether the extra value gained is enough to justify the higher cost of the taxi ride.

Reason077 2y ago

And the Victoria line is already driverless in the sense that all the "driver" does during normal operation is operate the doors. More or less the same as the DLR, except the Victoria line has a permanent driver's seat/cabin where as the DLR operator can move throughout the train. (Personally I'd rather be a DLR "operator", at least you're on your feet much of the time and getting some exercise. But I bet the Victoria line "drivers" get paid more!)

Reason077 2y ago

> "I would guess that the average train has at least 1000 users an hour e.g. 500 northbound, 500 southbound using this example." Yes, seems not far off. There's something close to 500 scheduled Victoria line services per day in each direction (less on Sundays, and not all services will operate if there's disruption/delays). Annual Victoria line ridership in 2019 was 302 million, or 827k per day on average. So, roughly, 827 passengers per train service on average (but not all at once!). Each service takes around 35 minutes to do the full line from Brixton to Walthamstow, plus turnaround time at each end. Some services turn back early at Finsbury Park or Seven Sisters. So each train will be doing a bit more than 1 service per hour.

slyall 2y ago

The big thing is not the cost of the driver it is the capacity. As the article says: "The main benefit of driverless trains is capacity, as the computerised control systems can allow trains to run closer together, which increases passenger capacity on the railway." However as the article says this isn't as big a gain on the Underground since it is pretty optimized already and gains would be minimal for the cost. For most metro-type rail systems driverless is the way to go though, it can offer increased capacity and lower running cost (especially off-peak).

sofixa 2y ago

Your assumption is missing a few important points. It's a weird, stressful and depressing job, while also being inconvenient. People need transit to function early in the morning, late at night, during holidays. Having enough train drivers to serve all of those comes at a cost, and is sometimes quite hard because people aren't lining up to stay stationary and press buttons in a tunnel from 4am or during Christmas/New Years (even if they don't personally celebrate it). Automated driverless trains allow for higher frequency, reduce the need for a shitty job, and allow operations in inconvenient for humans hours and times.

tim333 2y ago
>people aren't lining up to stay stationary and press buttons I've always gathered there's quite a waiting list to get in. This from a tube driver: >You need to find a role within TfL. It doesn't have to be customer facing, but it has to be something within TfL. Once you're employed for 6 months with TfL, you can apply for Train Operator, when the job is available. If you pass all the interviews and assessments, you'll be entered into a queue before you start training. This could be a couple of years. In short, yes it is pretty hard to get the job of tube driver. https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonUnderground/comments/ti7skk/how_hard_is_it_to_get_a_job_as_a_tube_train_driver/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonUnderground/comments/ti7skk/h... Mostly because there aren't that many lowish skilled jobs paying £70k for a 35 hour week in London.

mmarian 2y ago

Salary is just a part of the cost like other people hinted at. Benefits, recruitment, capacity management, health and safety, performance management, training, all other sorts of HR processes.