|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 21, 2021 13:10:25 GMT
Just spotted an article in the Railway Gazette yesterday titled "London Underground driverless train study seeks platform edge door alternatives" which states "TfL is now seeking to engage with the market to understand platform edge protection systems that could be implemented at lower cost than PEDs while offering more flexibility." And "A full business case for conversion of the self-contained two-station Waterloo & City Line to driverless operation is to be completed by June next year, and for the more complex Piccadilly Line by the end of 2022. DfT and TfL are also reviewing the potential for GoA3 on the rest of the London Underground network." www.railwaygazette.com/uk/london-underground-driverless-train-study-seeks-platform-edge-door-alternatives/59743.articleSpeaking for myself if they made the W&C GoA3 (DLR with a member of staff on board) before I retire I'd be delighted |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Aug 21, 2021 16:41:01 GMT
It's a good job TFL have such huge cash reserves available for expensive infrastructure projects such as full line automation.
Oh, wait ...
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 21, 2021 16:54:36 GMT
It's a good job TFL have such huge cash reserves available for expensive infrastructure projects such as full line automation. Oh, wait ... I think everyone who has a stake in London transport is going to get very sick of being stuck in the middle of this game of politics. Without getting too political, this sort of thing is toxic, and breeds apathy, which is all highly undesirable. Unfortunately I think we’re lumbered with it for the foreseeable. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 21, 2021 21:16:27 GMT
Just spotted an article in the Railway Gazette yesterday titled "London Underground driverless train study seeks platform edge door alternatives" which states "TfL is now seeking to engage with the market to understand platform edge protection systems that could be implemented at lower cost than PEDs while offering more flexibility." And "A full business case for conversion of the self-contained two-station Waterloo & City Line to driverless operation is to be completed by June next year, and for the more complex Piccadilly Line by the end of 2022. DfT and TfL are also reviewing the potential for GoA3 on the rest of the London Underground network." www.railwaygazette.com/uk/london-underground-driverless-train-study-seeks-platform-edge-door-alternatives/59743.articleSpeaking for myself if they made the W&C GoA3 (DLR with a member of staff on board) before I retire I'd be delighted This is part of the funding conditions for the last short-term grant deal, and was part of the previous one also! |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 21, 2021 22:19:38 GMT
Just spotted an article in the Railway Gazette yesterday titled "London Underground driverless train study seeks platform edge door alternatives" which states "TfL is now seeking to engage with the market to understand platform edge protection systems that could be implemented at lower cost than PEDs while offering more flexibility." And "A full business case for conversion of the self-contained two-station Waterloo & City Line to driverless operation is to be completed by June next year, and for the more complex Piccadilly Line by the end of 2022. DfT and TfL are also reviewing the potential for GoA3 on the rest of the London Underground network." www.railwaygazette.com/uk/london-underground-driverless-train-study-seeks-platform-edge-door-alternatives/59743.articleSpeaking for myself if they made the W&C GoA3 (DLR with a member of staff on board) before I retire I'd be delighted This is part of the funding conditions for the last short-term grant deal, and was part of the previous one also! Indeed. If they want the money they have to agree that at some point they will form a task group that will investigate the setting up of a working party that would define the broad terms of an inquiry into the feasibility of instigating a commission to consider whether of not to recommend the drafting of a report on the possibility of introducing driverless trains at some point in the future. My guess is that they will agree. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 22, 2021 5:47:22 GMT
TfL view seems to be that if that much money is available, it could provide greater benefit elsewhere, e.g. Lewisham extension. If Boris wants to show London can match Paris with driverless trains, could he take W&C away from TfL and use private operator to provide 5 new trains, new signals, and operate driverless?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 22, 2021 5:53:50 GMT
This is part of the funding conditions for the last short-term grant deal, and was part of the previous one also! Indeed. If they want the money they have to agree that at some point they will form a task group that will investigate the setting up of a working party that would define the broad terms of an inquiry into the feasibility of instigating a commission to consider whether of not to recommend the drafting of a report on the possibility of introducing driverless trains at some point in the future. My guess is that they will agree. The June TfL Board meeting was told that the requirement was "to examine the feasibility of producing a viable business case for implementing driverless trains" |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 23, 2021 7:28:29 GMT
I wonder if HM Treasury has inspired this initiative? The best way to kill off a stupid idea is to show beyond doubt just how stupidly expensive it will be. The Yes Minister reference does indeed seem pertinent especially if you are trying to dissuade a Minister hell bent on his latest pet project. Anyone remember how quickly operating the crew manned Routemaster 2 fleet became unviable - meaning TFL are stuck for years with the extra fuel maintenace and depreciation costs of operating buses lugging around extra staircases and boarding platforms - brilliant!
I really hope TFL take the brave step of doing it properly and rather than rely on in-house musings. They need to round up a selection of reputable experts from inside and outside the railway sector and including construction firms, and then armed with a full briefing of the latest HSE and accessibility rules see what they come up with.
At least from TFL's perspective the whole cost of this fruitless exercise can then be passed to HMT. As this means the cost will also be paid for by people North of Watford I wonder how long it will be before Andy Burnham and others cry foul.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 23, 2021 11:55:47 GMT
This is a Department for Transport (DfT) led and funded joint programme with TfL on the implementation of driverless trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Aug 23, 2021 12:17:31 GMT
The expression "to examine the feasibility of producing a viable business case for implementing driverless trains" sounds strangely convoluted. Clearly to "examine the feasibility for implementing driverless trains" would be pointless because it's clearly feasible, just a matter of cost and risk. I think therefore that the "feasibility" refers directly to "viable business case" and sows the seeds of doubt before the job is even started. When the PM was Mayor TfL did an immense amount of work on the feasibility of driverless trains - with no attendant. It was just about possible to make a business case. As soon as there's a guarantee of a trained person on the train, the business case fails. The overwhelming benefit of automation is delivered by ATO, and having a driver observe the closing of the doors and starting has little or no disbenefit. Having the driver open the doors avoids the need for independent systems verifying that the train has actually stopped in the right place. LU determined at one point that there was a quantifiable delay between the train stopping and the driver opening the doors. This led to a proposal for automation. When examined in detail it was found that the delay was mostly down to the delay in the ATO deciding that the train had actually stopped and the drivers were reacting very quickly once the door controls were enabled. Thus the only discernible benefit of the "driverless" the elimination of staff on the train and the flexibility to add to the service without the constraint of finding an attendant. So the 2017 study (I think I have the date correctly) that was "leaked" by ASLEF showed there was no business case. By the way, for the current study, LU is seeking methods for controlling risk at the Platform Train Interface that involves systems/technologies that might be simpler/cheaper that Platform Screen Doors. www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/017125-2021 |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 23, 2021 13:05:43 GMT
I think that the cost/benefit curve would drop dramatically once you try to move from monitored ATO to unmonitored ATO (i.e. unstaffed trains).
Quote removed. Please be selective about the part of a post you wish to quote rather than the whole post verbatim, particularly if you are replying to the previous post in the thread - Tom.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 23, 2021 13:19:55 GMT
Thus the only discernible benefit of the "driverless" the elimination of staff on the train and the flexibility to add to the service without the constraint of finding an attendant. "The DfT-led driverless train study is looking at the possible future use of Grade-of-Automation 3 trains with an onboard attendant, as is used on London’s Docklands Light Railway automated light metro network." And like the DLR the "attendant" would be able to join a union and go on strike if they felt it necessary (as they did in November 2016 and March 2018) GoA4 or UTO (Unattended Train Operation) would be a nightmare if a train got stuck in a tunnel halfway between stations (or even out on the far fling fringes of the Central or Metropolitan Line, Mile End to Stratford is 2.83km/1.76 miles, Debden to Theydon Bois 3.35km/2.08 miles |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,765
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 23, 2021 13:34:48 GMT
Unattended trains would not be safely possible without staff at every station who are trained and able to reach the train within a reasonable amount of time in the event of an emergency. I suppose in reality this means at absolute minimum two staff per gap between stations (one at each end) plus one to remain at the station. There would need to be meal relief and similar cover too unless you want to shut down the trains while meal breaks are taken (unlikely). And I think that more than one member of staff would be highly desirable if there was a need to evacuate a train. That's starting to sound like a lot of staff, all of whom could join a union. As they would all need to be fully PTS trained they couldn't easily be replaced with office staff to alleviate strikes.
There is also the possibility of more than one train being between stations, and in deep level tunnels with no walkway the only access route would be through the adjacent train, which is not going to be quick or easy (or a good sight for nervous travellers stuck below ground)
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 23, 2021 13:46:13 GMT
Thus the only discernible benefit of the "driverless" the elimination of staff on the train and the flexibility to add to the service without the constraint of finding an attendant. "The DfT-led driverless train study is looking at the possible future use of Grade-of-Automation 3 trains with an onboard attendant, as is used on London’s Docklands Light Railway automated light metro network." And like the DLR the "attendant" would be able to join a union and go on strike if they felt it necessary (as they did in November 2016 and March 2018) GoA4 or UTO (Unattended Train Operation) would be a nightmare if a train got stuck in a tunnel halfway between stations (or even out on the far fling fringes of the Central or Metropolitan Line, Mile End to Stratford is 2.83km/1.76 miles, Debden to Theydon Bois 3.35km/2.08 miles This is exactly what makes it politically motivated. As you say, there is no benefit in going for GOA3, as the member of staff requires full safety training, and most importantly of all there is still the requirement for duty schedules, which is the big thing which constrains flexibility. The only real benefit is quicker turnrounds, but again I think this is over-rated as in many cases the member of staff will still require to use facilities like the toilet, or have to detrain passengers which takes time. GOA4 would certainly bring performance benefits through the massive increase in flexibility, but this would have to be traded against a reduction in safety. There would need to be an absolutely massive step-change in the way LU operates in order to be able to address the safety issues, and I don't think we're anywhere near close to that, or indeed whether it's even possible without rebuilding the system from scratch. The question is no doubt whether anyone at TfL is strong enough to fend off being bamboozled into going down the GOA3 route by the politicians, who of course are never in power long enough to be accountable for picking up the pieces at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Aug 23, 2021 16:49:25 GMT
Unattended trains would not be safely possible without staff at every station who are trained and able to reach the train within a reasonable amount of time in the event of an emergency. I suppose in reality this means at absolute minimum two staff per gap between stations (one at each end) plus one to remain at the station. There would need to be meal relief and similar cover too unless you want to shut down the trains while meal breaks are taken (unlikely). And I think that more than one member of staff would be highly desirable if there was a need to evacuate a train. That's starting to sound like a lot of staff, all of whom could join a union. As they would all need to be fully PTS trained they couldn't easily be replaced with office staff to alleviate strikes. There is also the possibility of more than one train being between stations, and in deep level tunnels with no walkway the only access route would be through the adjacent train, which is not going to be quick or easy (or a good sight for nervous travellers stuck below ground) A lot of staff yes. I am sure I have seen somewhere on the web a similar suggestion that pointed out if instead of that armada of other staff, they provide two driving staff per train (i.e. so it is not GoA3 but remains at GoA2), one at each end, and, if both of those were full drivers, that is how you do your quick spins at terminals, which adds up to saving a whole train or more, mitigating some of the staffing costs. It also addresses the more than one stalled train in section issue, for the detrained passengers there is still one staff at each of the train they might have to walk through, all ready, all in the right place. Too simple of course. EDITED to correct typos; school taught me spelling not typing. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Aug 23, 2021 17:29:35 GMT
I'm pretty sure 'double ending' is how the New York subway operates the Times Square shuttle.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 23, 2021 17:54:13 GMT
I don't think its politically motivated, I just think a lot of people think that driverless means unstaffed
A certain Greater London Authority member went to Twitter during the Tube strike of August 2015 to declare that everyone loves the DLR, no driver, no one to go on strike. Three months later RMT called a 48 hour strike on the DLR and it was completely shut down apart from a single train with a manger on board doing shuttles between Custom House and Canning Town.
Depressingly the tweet is still there so he probably still thinks that the DLR is strike-free
BTW DLR PSAs are on £47,798, about £10k less than TO21s. So say there are about 3.5k TOps, if they were all replaced by "attendants" that would be a saving of about £35m a year. Last March TfL's operating costs were said to be £600m every four weeks so the saving would be the equivalent of one and a half days operation per year.
Party time in Palestra House!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 24, 2021 5:03:49 GMT
..... By the way, for the current study, LU is seeking methods for controlling risk at the Platform Train Interface that involves systems/technologies that might be simpler/cheaper that Platform Screen Doors. www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/017125-2021Thanks for the link. What does TfL do?: I.6) Main activity - Urban railway, tramway, trolleybus or bus services. Is that still to come, or are they looking back a while? |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 25, 2021 7:58:13 GMT
"... Thanks for the link. What does TfL do?: I.6) Main activity - Urban railway, tramway, trolleybus or bus services. Is that still to come, or are they looking back a while?..." Don't write off the trolley bus. They are still alive and well liked in many countries - but OK I am not aware of any remaining TFL systems. Like most things a trolley bus has plusses and minuses - yes the wires are unsightly but require much less disruption than trams and with regular maintenance are as reliable as most trains, and are of course emission free and probably more energy efficient as you are not lugging around batteries, or an onboard power station with gallons of fuel. Certainly the ones I use occasionally over in Switzerland seem far less prone to disconnecting from the cable requiring manual intervention with a pole vault pole. www.sustainable-bus.com/trolleybus-tramway/12-double-articulated-trolleybuses-hess-lausanne-switzerland/Progress... perhaps we need trolleybuses after all - the benefits of a full electric vehicle without lugging around batteries. As for considering lower platform edge doors - I think the French are now thinking of moving back to full height PEDs as it seems idiots still conspire to drop mobile phones (and other stuff) onto the tracks and some go to absurd lengths to retrieve the damn things. Here are just a few examples (there are many more) of why - driverless trains or not - there is perhaps a case for PEDs everywhere... abc7chicago.com/walks-onto-train-video-distrcacter-walker-woman-falls/5662895/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3183969/The-shocking-moment-man-jumps-rail-platform-tracks-risking-life-retrieve-mobile-phone.htmlI wish someone did a study to work out how much disruption would be avoided if TFL actually removed all wifi and 4G 5G signal reception in their network - at least for the general public. Hopefully without the distraction of endless FacePage posts, people will finally decide to look where they are going and stop dropping phone onto the tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 25, 2021 10:17:24 GMT
I wrote this Tuesday, 2 February 2016 (https://aslefshrugged.blogspot.com/)
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 25, 2021 10:30:09 GMT
". Don't write off the trolley bus. They are still alive and well liked in many countries - but OK I am not aware of any remaining TFL systems. Battery technology has come on in leaps and bounds recently. It is unlikely that new trolleybus systems will be developed in the near future, given the e capital cost and inflexibility. There are, however, proposals for heavy trucks to use external as batteries are not (yet) an option there. If the infrastructure exists, perhaps buses or coaches could make use of it too? |
|
|
|
Post by dm1 on Aug 25, 2021 13:53:44 GMT
". Don't write off the trolley bus. They are still alive and well liked in many countries - but OK I am not aware of any remaining TFL systems. Battery technology has come on in leaps and bounds recently. It is unlikely that new trolleybus systems will be developed in the near future, given the e capital cost and inflexibility. There are, however, proposals for heavy trucks to use external as batteries are not (yet) an option there. If the infrastructure exists, perhaps buses or coaches could make use of it too? Battery trolleybuses are a thing, and as it stands by far the most cost efficient and environmentally friendly bus option in many cases, especially in places like London. The batteries are smaller (less environmental impact during assembly and also far lighter), can be charged on the move (fewer vehicles and drivers required, lower strain on the power grid) and the buses have far more passenger capacity than battery equivalents (due to axle limits). Trolley poles can drop and rise at the push of a button and within the dwell time of a single stop, giving them far more flexibility than a lot of other e-bus types Battery trolleybuses can have up to 50% of the route off-wire, meaning only straight, cheap-to-wire sections need to be wired up, without any complex junctions. You can even power them using the same transformers and substations as the underground. Personally I think the main reason they haven't long since made a return to London is ideological opposition within TfL and the DfT, and them not realising just how far trolleybus technology has come (as there are no working systems in the UK). A small amount of infrastructure on a few central streets in London (at probably a similar or lower cost than the opportunity charging stations being built everywhere) would enable massive, rapid electrification of nearly all bus routes in Central London, without lots of the negatives of opportunity charging or depot charging buses. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Aug 25, 2021 15:40:14 GMT
Battery technology has come on in leaps and bounds recently. It is unlikely that new trolleybus systems will be developed in the near future, given the e capital cost and inflexibility. There are, however, proposals for heavy trucks to use external as batteries are not (yet) an option there. If the infrastructure exists, perhaps buses or coaches could make use of it too? Battery trolleybuses are a thing, and as it stands by far the most cost efficient and environmentally friendly bus option in many cases, especially in places like London. The batteries are smaller (less environmental impact during assembly and also far lighter), can be charged on the move (fewer vehicles and drivers required, lower strain on the power grid) and the buses have far more passenger capacity than battery equivalents (due to axle limits). Trolley poles can drop and rise at the push of a button and within the dwell time of a single stop, giving them far more flexibility than a lot of other e-bus types Battery trolleybuses can have up to 50% of the route off-wire, meaning only straight, cheap-to-wire sections need to be wired up, without any complex junctions. You can even power them using the same transformers and substations as the underground. Personally I think the main reason they haven't long since made a return to London is ideological opposition within TfL and the DfT, and them not realising just how far trolleybus technology has come (as there are no working systems in the UK). A small amount of infrastructure on a few central streets in London (at probably a similar or lower cost than the opportunity charging stations being built everywhere) would enable massive, rapid electrification of nearly all bus routes in Central London, without lots of the negatives of opportunity charging or depot charging buses. Agree on almost all the points about battery trolleybuses. Politics more than anything else. Plus the way bus licencing and tendering etc works these days does not take into account infrastructure - this needs addressing. A good start is to just wire along Oxford Street, and require that any bus that runs anywhere along it must be a trolley equipped battery bus, and it must run under the wires (except to overtake***). If you start at that point, you then get the critical mass bus fleet to justify further wiring further afield. *** overtaking : by which I mean one tbus overtaking another tbus, which with traditional trollies is impractical. If your vehicle does have batteries, it can disconnect from traction supply, move away from the wires, and, these days, a detection system for the booms or pans or whatever contacts are used to locate the wires for reconnectioning to tration without any more intervention than driver activating a "repower" function. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 25, 2021 17:16:23 GMT
A good start is to just wire along Oxford Street, and require that any bus that runs anywhere along it must be a trolley equipped battery bus, and it must run under the wires (except to overtake***). The problem there, surely, is that you would need a vast number of buses (because that's a piece of road that forms a part of many routes), equipped with pick ups and batteries, that would also need to be prime movers, because the rest of their route is not electrified, and all battery buses are not yet practical. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 25, 2021 17:19:11 GMT
A good start is to just wire along Oxford Street, and require that any bus that runs anywhere along it must be a trolley equipped battery bus, and it must run under the wires (except to overtake***). The problem there, surely, is that you would need a vast number of buses (because that's a piece of road that forms a part of many routes), equipped with pick ups and batteries, that would also need to be prime movers, because the rest of their route is not electrified, and all battery buses are not yet practical. It would/will be wonderful if/when an all electric solution becomes practical. Then we just need electric taxies. |
|
|
|
Post by quex on Aug 25, 2021 18:08:15 GMT
...all battery buses are not yet practical. Given there's something like 450-odd electric buses in regular daily operation in London alone, with at least one all-electric depot, not to mention electric buses in other UK towns and cities as well as across the world, this statement could probably do with some qualification or clarification. Anyway, wasn't this supposed to be about driverless trains? Regarding platform screens, a few years ago I came across a system that had been implemented somewhere in Japan. The "screen" consisted effectively of a "fence" of ropes strung along the platform edge. The mechanism worked a bit like a roller-shutter garage door, and the "screen" of ropes rolled up when a train arrived. Because there weren't any doors at fixed locations along the platform, the system would be better able to deal with variable door positions at shared platforms, as happens in a few places on LU. It also looked more "lightweight" that traditional PEDs so would perhaps be easier/cheaper to install on a large scale across the system than "traditional" platform edge doors. It's hard to see such thing being considered for the UK, though. EDIT: Here's a video of a variant of said system in use: link |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 25, 2021 19:10:29 GMT
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Aug 25, 2021 19:15:47 GMT
Folks, can I just remind everyone that this is District Dave's London Underground forum, and Dave considered buses to be out of the forum's scope. I'm sure there are plenty of bus forums available if you want to debate the merits of electric buses.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 26, 2021 7:39:49 GMT
EDIT: Here's a video of a variant of said system in use: link" They're under starter's Orders... ...and they're off!" |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Aug 26, 2021 7:46:58 GMT
EDIT: Here's a video of a variant of said system in use: link" They're under starter's Orders... ...and they're off!" Imagine that on the already narrow Victoria line platforms. (The lighting runs above the platform edge might get in the way.) |
|
