7 ms·

Works well in lots of places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automation_4_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/

Works well in lots of places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automation_4_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_... Of course people whose jobs are affected by these systems will speak ill of it, I'm sure the carriage drivers union wasn't very pleased with the automobile back in the day either. We will see the same thing for trucks and cabs real soon.

iaskwhy 12y ago
Keep in mind section "Systems and lines with ATO and human driver (Grade of Automation 2)": most tube lines are already automated (to a point), it's just that there's still someone seating there at the helm.
- masklinn 12y ago
  I'm guessing that's why danielbln linked specifically to the Grade 4 section, rather than the whole article.
ealexhudson 12y ago
Victoria, Central and Jubilee are all "driverless". But they have drivers. There are actual reasons for this.
- masklinn 12y ago
  What "actual reasons" aside from inertia? The section danielbln linked to are UTO, they're fully automated and unattended (some of the trains don't even have a driver cabin, passengers can seat at the very front of the train) and most have been running for years if not decades without incidents (that I know of).
  - vidarh 12y ago
    RMT (the union) mainly (there may be actual technical reasons too for some lines, but any technical reasons are likely to largely be a result of knowing that there's no point in investing too aggressively in enabling full automation if they won't be able to make full use of it). Notice the page takes care to point out that current drivers jobs are safe. It's likely that London Underground is basically betting it'll be easier to just hire at less than the replacement rate and gradually automate more and more rather than risk massive conflict with the RMT for years.
- simpleigh 12y ago
  Care to share any? Reasons I can think of: Existing automation may be insufficiently good to cope with adverse weather and unplanned situations. Technology has moved on considerably since the Victoria, Central and Jubilee stock. We're automating cars now, after all. The article mentions a new signalling system being rolled out in support. Lack of platform-edge doors. TfL have stated they won't run driverless trains without these. These are planned for installation on the Piccadilly line as part of the new stock rollout.
  - sthulbourn 12y ago
    The line is equipped with an Automatic Train Operation system (ATO); the train operator (driver) closes the train doors and presses a pair of "start" buttons, and if the way ahead is clear, the ATO drives the train at a safe speed to the next station and stops it there. This system has operated since the line opened in 1968, making the Victoria line the world's first full-scale automatic railway.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line
  - ealexhudson 12y ago
    Platform edge doors is definitely part of it - people get stuck in the gap, children fall through, there's few practical driverless systems that can cope with that. Yet there are some places - e.g. Central line - where the gap is almost a foot between train and platform. The doors aren't the only problem, it's the whole carriage, on those curved sections.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    One of the actual reasons is that drivers go through intensive training (er...) as first-call engineers. If a fault stops a train, it's far more useful to have someone on the scene to try emergency repairs than to wait until the train can be cleared from a tunnel - because a stopped train can literally hold up the commute of millions of people. There are also safety issues. Drivers are trained in passenger management, and every so often they need that training to deal with fights, illness, suicides, or all the other messy things that happen on a public transport system - the public part of that being at least as important as the transport part.
- gadders 12y ago
  Unions?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
    Only one Union: The mighty RMT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Maritime_and_Transport_Workers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Maritim... it was until recently headed by the late great Bob Crow http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26527325 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26527325
    - gadders 12y ago
      I work in Canary Wharf. I'm more than familiar with the RMT :-)
agumonkey 12y ago
The 14th line in Paris is driverless I believe. With automated doors on decks I don't think there was a single life critical incident. Wikipedia reports a bunch of system locks before 2007. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_14_du_m%C3%A9tro_de_Paris#Ancienne_ligne_14 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_14_du_m%C3%A9tro_de_Paris... This article says http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2007/08/29/les-suicides-du-metro-tabous-et-traumatismes http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2007/08/29/les-suicides-du-metro-... not a single incident has been reported last year. That said I wonder how much of it is due to the decks door. With added benefit that it is strike free, the line works later at night ... I wish none of the employees to be jobless or worse, but it's hard to justify using people to drive metros.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > That said I wonder how much of it is due to the decks door. I'm sure they help (if only psychologically), but the Lyon line D doesn't have quay doors and it's been running fully automatically since 1992. The only incident I know of is a drunk person falling on top of the metro (trying to jump from a mezzanine to the quay and missing) and hitting a camera in a tunnel. No death.
- pi-err 12y ago
  I get that building a _new_ automated metro is easy. Converting an _older_ line to automatic and fully driverless is what's hard. AFAIK, there's only one conversion so far to full auto: Line 1 in Paris. It took 10 years and billions of euro to deliver (it's a total success though) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Métro_Line_1#Automation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Métro_Line_1#Automation Interestingly, it seems the main obstacle is software - contractors are few, code is highly specific, ISO certification and warranty issues are very unattractive. Very interested how TfL will approach this. They're really good at what they do, even at communicating (responsive website!). Don't think anybody does it better.
  - nawitus 12y ago
    They're [trying](http://www.automaattimetro.fi/en http://www.automaattimetro.fi/en) to do that in Finland. The cost is around 170 million euros now, even though the projected cost was 100 million.
ochoseis 12y ago
On the topic of automating train functions, one of my biggest pet peeves is when the conductor is responsible for [inaudibly, or plain just not] announcing stops. DC and NYC are really irritating...NYC is automating it on some lines though.
- Deusdies 12y ago
  Wow, this is still not automated in DC and NYC? I don't remember a time when it was not automated in Vienna.
- aturek 12y ago
  London's mostly awful when the drivers are doing it, but I believe they've been automating more and more lines with stop announcements

iaskwhy 12y ago

Keep in mind section "Systems and lines with ATO and human driver (Grade of Automation 2)": most tube lines are already automated (to a point), it's just that there's still someone seating there at the helm.

masklinn 12y ago
I'm guessing that's why danielbln linked specifically to the Grade 4 section, rather than the whole article.

ealexhudson 12y ago

Victoria, Central and Jubilee are all "driverless". But they have drivers. There are actual reasons for this.

masklinn 12y ago
What "actual reasons" aside from inertia? The section danielbln linked to are UTO, they're fully automated and unattended (some of the trains don't even have a driver cabin, passengers can seat at the very front of the train) and most have been running for years if not decades without incidents (that I know of).
- vidarh 12y ago
  RMT (the union) mainly (there may be actual technical reasons too for some lines, but any technical reasons are likely to largely be a result of knowing that there's no point in investing too aggressively in enabling full automation if they won't be able to make full use of it). Notice the page takes care to point out that current drivers jobs are safe. It's likely that London Underground is basically betting it'll be easier to just hire at less than the replacement rate and gradually automate more and more rather than risk massive conflict with the RMT for years.
simpleigh 12y ago
Care to share any? Reasons I can think of: Existing automation may be insufficiently good to cope with adverse weather and unplanned situations. Technology has moved on considerably since the Victoria, Central and Jubilee stock. We're automating cars now, after all. The article mentions a new signalling system being rolled out in support. Lack of platform-edge doors. TfL have stated they won't run driverless trains without these. These are planned for installation on the Piccadilly line as part of the new stock rollout.
- sthulbourn 12y ago
  The line is equipped with an Automatic Train Operation system (ATO); the train operator (driver) closes the train doors and presses a pair of "start" buttons, and if the way ahead is clear, the ATO drives the train at a safe speed to the next station and stops it there. This system has operated since the line opened in 1968, making the Victoria line the world's first full-scale automatic railway.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line
- ealexhudson 12y ago
  Platform edge doors is definitely part of it - people get stuck in the gap, children fall through, there's few practical driverless systems that can cope with that. Yet there are some places - e.g. Central line - where the gap is almost a foot between train and platform. The doors aren't the only problem, it's the whole carriage, on those curved sections.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  One of the actual reasons is that drivers go through intensive training (er...) as first-call engineers. If a fault stops a train, it's far more useful to have someone on the scene to try emergency repairs than to wait until the train can be cleared from a tunnel - because a stopped train can literally hold up the commute of millions of people. There are also safety issues. Drivers are trained in passenger management, and every so often they need that training to deal with fights, illness, suicides, or all the other messy things that happen on a public transport system - the public part of that being at least as important as the transport part.
gadders 12y ago
Unions?
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  Only one Union: The mighty RMT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Maritime_and_Transport_Workers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Maritim... it was until recently headed by the late great Bob Crow http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26527325 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26527325
  - gadders 12y ago
    I work in Canary Wharf. I'm more than familiar with the RMT :-)

agumonkey 12y ago

The 14th line in Paris is driverless I believe. With automated doors on decks I don't think there was a single life critical incident. Wikipedia reports a bunch of system locks before 2007. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_14_du_m%C3%A9tro_de_Paris#Ancienne_ligne_14 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_14_du_m%C3%A9tro_de_Paris... This article says http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2007/08/29/les-suicides-du-metro-tabous-et-traumatismes http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2007/08/29/les-suicides-du-metro-... not a single incident has been reported last year. That said I wonder how much of it is due to the decks door. With added benefit that it is strike free, the line works later at night ... I wish none of the employees to be jobless or worse, but it's hard to justify using people to drive metros.

masklinn 12y ago
> That said I wonder how much of it is due to the decks door. I'm sure they help (if only psychologically), but the Lyon line D doesn't have quay doors and it's been running fully automatically since 1992. The only incident I know of is a drunk person falling on top of the metro (trying to jump from a mezzanine to the quay and missing) and hitting a camera in a tunnel. No death.
pi-err 12y ago
I get that building a _new_ automated metro is easy. Converting an _older_ line to automatic and fully driverless is what's hard. AFAIK, there's only one conversion so far to full auto: Line 1 in Paris. It took 10 years and billions of euro to deliver (it's a total success though) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Métro_Line_1#Automation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Métro_Line_1#Automation Interestingly, it seems the main obstacle is software - contractors are few, code is highly specific, ISO certification and warranty issues are very unattractive. Very interested how TfL will approach this. They're really good at what they do, even at communicating (responsive website!). Don't think anybody does it better.
- nawitus 12y ago
  They're [trying](http://www.automaattimetro.fi/en http://www.automaattimetro.fi/en) to do that in Finland. The cost is around 170 million euros now, even though the projected cost was 100 million.

ochoseis 12y ago

On the topic of automating train functions, one of my biggest pet peeves is when the conductor is responsible for [inaudibly, or plain just not] announcing stops. DC and NYC are really irritating...NYC is automating it on some lines though.

Deusdies 12y ago
Wow, this is still not automated in DC and NYC? I don't remember a time when it was not automated in Vienna.
aturek 12y ago
London's mostly awful when the drivers are doing it, but I believe they've been automating more and more lines with stop announcements