|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 7, 2020 11:17:04 GMT
5 pages on and it seems people here are still cautiously dancing around the underlying message which The Government are trying to seed. Namely they would love to have a totally automated railway where trains can be left to operate without any onboard staff, with the true message being they want to eliminate the prospect of strikes by train drivers. Given how brilliantly well D/Transport's franchising solution is working on the mainline railway system, perhaps it really is time for the Mayor to call there bluff and simply say - fine - over to you it is all your problem.
Except he can't
Unlike mainline railways there is no provision legally for 'operator of last resort' on TfL (apart from London Overground routes that although the responsibility of TfL have certain legal guarantees dating back to the privatisation of British Rail).
For the DfT to take back control of TfL would require new legislation at Westminster - and for as long as the Mayor is of a different political outlook there is absolutely no incentive for Central Government to do that. Far better in their eyes to let the Mayor crash and burn in confrontation with trade unions or financially enforced shutdowns than step in and take charge of a project they privately know is unaffordable, impractical and ultimately a waste of the nations cash.
That presumes that the government could afford the consequences of that collapse. Not jus in electoral terms, but also in allowing a critical part of the plumbing of the capital to collapse. This is a game of chicken, where both will be destroyed if they push it too far. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 7, 2020 11:17:12 GMT
I believe I read somewhere (it might even have the business case) that if the DLR began operations today the ORR would have made PEDS a requirement and its allowed to continue (and expand) due to "grandfather rights". Indeed
Thing is the original DLR system had straight platforms and level gradients at stations which make for the easy installation of PEDs.
Unfortunately the expansion of the system over the years has rather ruined that with several stations now on curves, gradients or both.
If the DLR ever gets a further extension though I can see them being insisted on - just as the Jubilee line extension to Stratford has them even though the earlier bits don't
PEDs were only installed on the "tunnel section" stations on the Jubilee Line Extension, not on the three "open section" stations - Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. When I was training to work on the JLE (Feb/Mar 1999) we were told that the primary reason for installing PEDS was to improve ventilation by reducing the "tunnel wind" effect (obviously not a problem in open section) and to reduce the amount of combustible materials on the track. Reducing passenger "intrusions" on the track was a secondary benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 9, 2020 2:59:11 GMT
Indeed
Thing is the original DLR system had straight platforms and level gradients at stations which make for the easy installation of PEDs.
Unfortunately the expansion of the system over the years has rather ruined that with several stations now on curves, gradients or both.
If the DLR ever gets a further extension though I can see them being insisted on - just as the Jubilee line extension to Stratford has them even though the earlier bits don't
PEDs were only installed on the "tunnel section" stations on the Jubilee Line Extension, not on the three "open section" stations - Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. When I was training to work on the JLE (Feb/Mar 1999) we were told that the primary reason for installing PEDS was to improve ventilation by reducing the "tunnel wind" effect (obviously not a problem in open section) and to reduce the amount of combustible materials on the track. Reducing passenger "intrusions" on the track was a secondary benefit. Of course, they would say that wouldn't they? They don't want to have to put them everywhere. Recovering casualties from under trains is hardest at deep level platforms where you can't easily get under either side of the train but only from either end to work along, or drop between car ends. It was easier to split trains back in the 1950s but not with modern multiple unit trains. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 9, 2020 4:49:26 GMT
PEDs were only installed on the "tunnel section" stations on the Jubilee Line Extension, not on the three "open section" stations - Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. When I was training to work on the JLE (Feb/Mar 1999) we were told that the primary reason for installing PEDS was to improve ventilation by reducing the "tunnel wind" effect (obviously not a problem in open section) and to reduce the amount of combustible materials on the track. Reducing passenger "intrusions" on the track was a secondary benefit. Of course, they would say that wouldn't they? They don't want to have to put them everywhere. Recovering casualties from under trains is hardest at deep level platforms where you can't easily get under either side of the train but only from either end to work along, or drop between car ends. It was easier to split trains back in the 1950s but not with modern multiple unit trains. Why would "they" say that? PEDs were installed on eight of the 11 JLE stations, it can't have been that much more expensive or difficult to have installed them on the three "open section" stations. "One unders" are relatively rare and no more likely at JLE stations than elsewhere, why bother to fit PEDs at all when there's a driver in the cab to activate the emergency brake? West Ham and Canning Town JLE are island platforms with the DLR (ex-Silverlink to North Woolwich) on the other side of the westbound track. If they'd wanted better track access on the JLE tunnel section stations they could have built it. Splitting units is part of driver training, we get regular refresher courses as part of CDP/ATOR/5-day block where we split a train in the depot and it doesn't take that long. The obvious problem with splitting a train during a "one under" is traction current will be discharged and you can't move trains without "juice". |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197 
|
Post by Tom on Nov 10, 2020 22:15:26 GMT
Right you lot...
The discussion is the prospect of driverless Underground trains as a condition of future funding; I have removed a number of posts which are not relevant to that topic.
Please stick to the subject and if you want to complain about the merits of PEDs, the ambulance-chasing antics of the legal profession, or anything else (which is permitted by our Rules) - do it in a different thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Nov 10, 2020 23:02:53 GMT
So in light of the moderation and to bring this vaguely back on track... is there any viable scheme that would deliver automation up to the level of, let alone beyond, the DLR on any underground line before 2050?
W&C should be possible to do something with but may no longer be worth the faff... Most should surely be able to achieve what exists on the DLR with some effort; maybe maintaining the very high frequencies would become more problematic but that seems more an issue of how long it takes people to get on and off a train rather than running a train now.
If we compare the massive advances in automated driving for cars, the railway is a much more controlled environment than the roads are so surely this can also feed in? However having an operator-free train seems a very unlikely proposition to me.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 10, 2020 23:20:15 GMT
So in light of the moderation and to bring this vaguely back on track... is there any viable scheme that would deliver automation up to the level of, let alone beyond, the DLR on any underground line before 2050? W&C should be possible to do something with but may no longer be worth the faff... Most should surely be able to achieve what exists on the DLR with some effort; maybe maintaining the very high frequencies would become more problematic but that seems more an issue of how long it takes people to get on and off a train rather than running a train now. If we compare the massive advances in automated driving for cars, the railway is a much more controlled environment than the roads are so surely this can also feed in? However having an operator-free train seems a very unlikely proposition to me. DLR style could probably be achieved now on the Jubilee and Northern lines. The question is whether you would want to. You’d could remove the J door and for four seats in there, change the TBC so it fits in a lockable cabinet, reconfigure all the cab buttons so they fit in cabinets like on the DLR, and fit door control panels and start buttons at each doorway. This still leaves the issue as to whether it’s safe to have a train entering a platform without a driver on the front without PEDs, and introduces some big problems over door procedures as there are a lot more doorways than on a DLR train, so one has to question whether it’s a safety improvement to have a member of staff standing in a doorway rather than in a non-distracted cab looking at specially designed camera views. Then there’s the issue over how realistic it is for the member of staff to reach the front on a crowded tube-sized train where there’s no side walkway in the tunnels. In short yes it’s possible, but I can’t for the life of me think why anyone would want to do it, save as a political vanity project. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Nov 11, 2020 10:12:09 GMT
Really, this thread is just going round and round in circles, now.
I don't think anyone here imagines that anything will happen during the current or even the next two terms of the MoL and PM.
If you consider a realistic time frame, you'd probably be looking at something like this at the beginning.
1. Agreement to automate W&C as initial 'proving ground'. [ 1Y ]
2. Draw up detailed list of requirements for changes. [ 1Y ]
3. Pass enabling legislation and garner agreements from unions. [ 1Y ]
4. Generate detailed plans for modification or replacement of signalling, trains, and infrastructure. [ 2Y ]
5. Invite tenders for contracts for above and await submissions [ 1Y ]
6. Select contractors, negotiate detailed contracts and sign. [ 1Y ]
7. Contractors do work [ 2Y ] for most of which time the line would be closed.
8. Thorough initial and safety testing [ 6M ]
Those are generally very optimistic estimates and they take us to 2030, and it's unthinkable that there would not be significant over-runs.
At the end of this period you would have one point to point line with two stations. You would then need to go through the whole process again for the next candidate line - probably the Victoria, which would take considerably longer because it's a much bigger job and the technology would have moved on to such an extent that you would probably not gain too much from re-using existing work.
The bottom line for all of this is: Yes, go ahead and agree to potentially having fully automated lines, but don't expect it to happen over the whole system for several decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 11, 2020 18:47:52 GMT
Will Glasgow provide a precedent next year? They have trains in single bore tunnels. Are they intending a DLR type operation, or full automation?
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Nov 11, 2020 21:39:36 GMT
Will Glasgow provide a precedent next year? They have trains in single bore tunnels. Are they intending a DLR type operation, or full automation? Glasgow Subway plans full automation with "half height" platform screen doors. But....I would be very surprised if we see fully automatic trains on the anytime soon though I' guessthere may be a few new trains in service next year operating under the existing signalling/ATO system. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Nov 11, 2020 22:22:11 GMT
Will Glasgow provide a precedent next year? They have trains in single bore tunnels. Are they intending a DLR type operation, or full automation? It’s not really a matter of ‘precedent’. We already have that with, for example, the Gatwick shuffle. It’s more a matter of going through the grind of all the steps mentioned a couple of posts back. Probably on a line by line basis. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 13, 2020 0:23:31 GMT
The 2014 Kings Cross exhibition for the New Train for London (NTfL) revealed that these trains could be fully automatic without a driver's cab, although Mayor Boris pledged that a member of staff would remain aboard. The first fleet arrives on the Picc 2024-26, but with resignalling not expected before 2030 they will be driven as the current trains. With a staff member on board, TfL have already shown that costly precautions for driverless trains makes them uneconomic. So accepting a staff member in deep level single bore tunnels, why not remain as current auto lines do with someone at the front of the train. But out in the open where access is easily available, could an unstaffed train demonstration project operate east of Arnos Grove for the 30 minute run to Cockfosters and back? That would be a proving ground for west of Hammersmith, although the local tunnels west of Hatton Cross and interworking west of South Harrow would require local teams of drivers to join trains there. This would mean around 40% of each trip would be unaccompanied, so providing staff savings to compensate for additional equipment costs on outdoor sections. Would this be sufficient to make such conversion worthwhile? New trains planned for the Jubilee, Bakerloo and Central lines would run on current signalling, so probably uneconomic to modify, with no further lines in the coming decade.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Nov 13, 2020 8:50:06 GMT
The 2014 Kings Cross exhibition for the New Train for London (NTfL) revealed that these trains could be fully automatic without a driver's cab, although Mayor Boris pledged that a member of staff would remain aboard. The first fleet arrives on the Picc 2024-26, but with resignalling not expected before 2030 they will be driven as the current trains. With a staff member on board, TfL have already shown that costly precautions for driverless trains makes them uneconomic. So accepting a staff member in deep level single bore tunnels, why not remain as current auto lines do with someone at the front of the train. But out in the open where access is easily available, could an unstaffed train demonstration project operate east of Arnos Grove for the 30 minute run to Cockfosters and back? That would be a proving ground for west of Hammersmith, although the local tunnels west of Hatton Cross and interworking west of South Harrow would require local teams of drivers to join trains there. This would mean around 40% of each trip would be unaccompanied, so providing staff savings to compensate for additional equipment costs on outdoor sections. Would this be sufficient to make such conversion worthwhile? New trains planned for the Jubilee, Bakerloo and Central lines would run on current signalling, so probably uneconomic to modify, with no further lines in the coming decade. As I said, this thread is just going round in circles, now. I already suggested that they could start with open air line ends, in a post that got culled in amongst some off topic stuff. Even if you did that, it's almost certain that you would start with one, as proof that the concept worked on LU. You'd still be subject to the time scales I mentioned in my 11th November post and end up with one partially automatic line sometime in the 2030's. This merely reinforces what many people have already said: Boris's demands are virtually meaningless and can easily be agree to. I would suggest that full automation will be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary process. When we end up with a situation where the drivers are just monitors, and LU can say: "We haven't had a single driver intervention for x years", that will be the time that they can seriously talk about removing them. Multi billion pound projects that will suffer form political interference, and cost and time over-runs, are unlikely to be the way to go. |
|
