Boris demands TfL agree to Driverless Trains part 2

[class411]

Mar 3, 2022 17:07:21 GMT d7666 said:

Mar 2, 2022 22:40:58 GMT class411 said:

The thing is, though, what will this achieve?

Show that a point to point line with two stations can operate fully automatically?

Gatwick's been doing that for years. Perugia (and many others) have also been doing a lot more for years.

Gatwick may be point to point but is pointless. That is, no points a.k.a. no switches and crossings.

Far simpler set-up, orders of magnitude simpler. Two completely segregated guideways, one train dedicated train to each guideway.
One train can't possibly infringe the other's movement authority except in certain derailment (deguidewayment?) scenarios but that equally applies anything driverless or crewed so a specious issue.

You may as well cite Bournemouth or Hastings etc cliff lifts as examples of driverless operation for all the relevance Gatwick has to any London heavy metro line. Or let's go fit cable haulage around the Circle line.

Doubtless pretty much true, but I very much doubt that the general public - particularly those inconvenienced - would see it that way.

In any case, the fact that it has been done with far more complicated 'heavy metro' systems abroad is far more important than simple point to point systems.

But anyway you don’t need to demonstrate driverless operation or reprove it can be done. London had a driverless tube railway in 1930s it is known it can be done. Given the ten figure sums just to do 4LM CBTC, what needs to be shown is can driverless be done AND deliver the alleged cost savings when counting EVERYTHING needed be it PEDs and or new stock and or degraded mode working with staff trained in train movement and so on and on and on.

Well, I'm assuming that being 'told to look at' fully automated operation of the W&C is more about proof of concept than the super massive savings in wages and other employment costs that such a development would bring. [\SARCASM]

My post some way above made the point that 'they' are unlikely to expend the enormous cost of full automation whilst there are always more urgent and useful things on which any spare cash TFL find could be utilised.

[jimbo]

Mar 3, 2022 13:37:44 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Mar 3, 2022 8:25:43 GMT brigham said:

With hindsight, it might have been better for the W & C to have been made driverless during the last refurbishment.

How soon AFTER the decision to close and refurb it did the 'driverless' notion appear?

W&C would need a signal upgrade to go driverless, the stuff we work on is left over from British Rail.  You'd also need new rolling stock as I doubt very much the Class 482/1992 Tube Stock could be retrofitted for a new CBTC signalling system or to work with Platform Screen Doors.  The Central Line signalling system and ATO is simply too unreliable to be used for driverless operation (90s technology)

TfL investigated the idea of driverless operation on the Piccadilly, Bakerloo, Central and Waterloo & City Lines in the New Tube for London Feasibility Report October 2014 although it concluded it wouldn't happen on the Bakerloo due to sharing track north of Queens Park.  The new trains for the Waterloo & City Line would have been delivered in 2032 but now nobody knows

As planning continued, it was realised that a lot of money would be required for conversion to driverless trains, so the first full line to be converted would be the Central Line after all the new trains on the four lines had been delivered. There was a period of years with a lull in LU renewals at that time which could provide the funds. The first trial train was expected in 2015, but now 2025 and with programme slippage the expected lull has disappeared. The Jubilee Line trains could now do with early replacement to cut maintenance costs, and then on to Northern Line renewal!

[100andthirty]

Mar 3, 2022 13:56:37 GMT johnlinford said:

Surely all they need is a short document that says "to upgrade to 'driverless' will cost X, cause Y disruption and save Z in anual running costs for reasons a, b and c. It is therefore uneconomical. If the DfT would like to proceed, please sign a blank cheque."

TfL has been talking about and estimating for driverless trains off and on for over 30 years. Many reports have been completed. The overwhelming majority of any benefit of moving from driver operated trains to driverless is delivered by the conversion to ATO. ATO delivers significant performance capacity and regularity benefits. Having unattended trains means that the whole track area needs to secure. that's one reason why platform screen doors are considered essential. Then there's a layer of systems and communication required to help manage situation where the train stops away from the platform and the passengers have to be rescued. PEDs might just be justifiable on safety benefit alone, but for the rest, keeping a train operator on the train provides a flexible, thinking presence to help sort out things if the train fails.

in short, moving to ATO has a very positive business case. Taking the next step to driverless hasn't. This is a consistent outcome of all the studies carried out by different people, including those who would enjoy the technical challenge.

[100andthirty]

Mar 1, 2022 9:55:32 GMT rsdworker said:

well yeah why not look at glasgow subway - that has no sudewalks in tunnels its possible evacuate via front or rear doors at ends - simllar to singpore where ramps installed to allow evucation to track

As for Glasgow, it is running very late. The contract for the upgrade was placed in 2016, the first train was due for delivery by 2019 by which time the new signalling and comms had been expected to be in place to allow the new trains to run. In fact the new train only entered the tunnel for the first time last December, and the current plan is to run the new trains with the old signalling for a while. I'm not holding my breath for unattended operation any time soon.

[Tom]

I was in Glasgow last weekend and I noticed the new Eurobalises in the four foot, which weren't there the last time I visited. The contractor is a consortium of Stadler and Ansaldo - I know Ansaldo haven't had an easy time of it with other Metro resignalling contracts they've been awarded, so I wonder if they're having a few problems here too?

[aslefshrugged]

Mar 3, 2022 21:23:56 GMT Tom said:

I was in Glasgow last weekend and I noticed the new Eurobalises in the four foot, which weren't there the last time I visited. The contractor is a consortium of Stadler and Ansaldo - I know Ansaldo haven't had an easy time of it with other Metro resignalling contracts they've been awarded, so I wonder if they're having a few problems here too?

I read somewhere that the problem has been lack of space in the very restricted Victorian Glasgow tunnels to actually fit the new kit.  It sounds rather like the disaster of Bombardier overestimating the capabilities of its CityFlo 650 system when they were given the job of upgrading the Sub Surface Lines.  Maybe Glasgow did the same as TfL by taking the cheapest bid and now its running into problems

[Tom]

I was certainly surprised to see the Eurobalises obstructing the suicide pit - in London installing infrastructure that fouled the pit used to be strictly forbidden!

[dm1]

If the intention is to fit PEDs in any case, then the 'suicide pit' becomes much less relevant. Isn't their main purpose drainage anyway?

[Chris M]

Mar 3, 2022 20:50:24 GMT 100andthirty said:

keeping a train operator on the train provides a flexible, thinking presence to help sort out things if the train fails.

Having been on the Crossrail emergency evacuation exercise last weekend, having someone on the train able to talk to passengers and through conversation understand their mobility needs was an extremely important aspect. Everybody's mobility needs are complex and different - other than needing to use the handrail at the doorway when boarding and alighting (which is a trivial matter) I was effectively a fully able person for the train-to-train evacuation, but for the evacuation to the surface I needed to use the lift with the wheelchair user. Had the evacuation required walking on ballast I would have required someone to walk next to me the whole way ready to help me if I stumbled.
In that case it was a BTP officer, but you cannot guarantee that there will be anybody competent onboard as a passenger, and you especially cannot guarantee that they will be familiar with the track environment between where the train has stopped and the destination of any evacuation. And I speak as someone who is familiar with railways, knows my limits regarding things like ballast, is generally calm in emergency situations (not that I've experienced many, fortunately) and has no issues with things like claustrophobia. Imagine what it would be like if you had a nervous traveller who did not know what sort of things they might encounter on a railway track, so couldn't clearly articulate what assistance they may or may not need.

[alpinejohn]

Last September there was a report on this thread that DFT was paying for a 2 month long investigation into driverless trains.

Whilst the subsequent exchange on this forum suggested this would not produce the result some politicians were looking for, I am perplexed to hear that TFL are now being forced to spend "scare public money" on this idea, whilst we still have no idea of the findings of that earlier publicly funded research project. Has it been published?

If public money was really used to fund this research then surely the findings should have been made public? My maths suggest a 2 month study starting last September should have delivered its findings by now so where is it?

Does Department for Transport really have the right to surpress reports which do not align with their objectives?

Is there a role for the Office for Budget Responsibility to censor the Permanent Secretary of any Government Department which simply decides to ignore report after report explaining that an idea is bonkers and worse still force another semi-publicly funded body to waste yet more money on what so obviously is a totally daft idea?

Perhaps it is time for a Select Committee to step in and pose some serious questions about precisely who is accountable for the decision to continue to waste public money on this madness? Perhaps if the idea is so good the Permanent Secretary can be invited to fund all further work from their own salary?

[Chris M]

While trying to remain as apolitical as I can, the government has repeatedly demonstrated that it can just not publish reports paid for with public money if it chooses not to, without giving any reasons. It has separately demonstrated that it does not care about being censured, even when it has been demonstrated that they have clearly broken the law and used public money to commit probable fraud. Rather than comply with the law going forwards it prefers to remove the ability of the relevant body to investigate (independently) the actions of the government.

[aslefshrugged]

Reports get buried on a regular basis, we're still waiting for the full version of the report by KPMG into TfL's finances, it was completed in October 2020 but only a heavily redacted version was ever released by the DfT.

I wouldn't hold you breath on that other one...

[jimbo]

This seems a good summary of the situation near 10 years back by the late MAC Horne. here Nothing much has changed in all that time! We are no nearer or further from Driverless Trains on LU.

[class411]

I would suggest we are getting nearer as we have more and more trains that can drive themselves from A to B, and more and more miles of track that can support such trains.

That has taken years and years to achieve and was, without doubt, technically very demanding and difficult.

However, that was the easy bit! (And it's not finished.)

It's now necessary to devise a number of automatic dispatch plans for different types of location, and identify every single possible exception condition and have a robust plan to deal with it.

Then it's just a matter of finding a few billions of pounds slopping about to implement it all.

[alpinejohn]

"Then it's just a matter of finding a few billions of pounds slopping about to implement it all."


And that in a nutshell is the problem - money - or lack of it.


Thanks to Covid the UK national debt is nearly 100% of our GDP

(ref = www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/)

The highest it has been for decades and almost unsustainable - so this must surely be the time to cut back on wasteful vanity projects.


How can it make sense to squander any more money on this nonsense of driverless trains - when we are being told the TFL cupboard is already bare?

Yes if TFL were to propose a completely new line - then just like recent metro lines in Paris, you can build the trains, tunnels, tracks and stations with fully automated operation as an integral design feature. But to stand any chance of passing HSE strictures this will probably be a lot more expensive than the last completely new deep tube line (aka Victoria) which was constructed to comply with far less challenging requirements.

So yes I can see Full ATO being the norm on any totally new line, but retrofitting it to the current system would be insanely expensive and disruptive.

Perhaps TFL should apply to HM Treasury for the funds for a rolling programme of total line replacement to meet any driverless train edict, so perhaps they can start by building a completely new fully automated Bakerloo line, and when operational, close down the current one. Repeat with the other lines...

My guess it would be sometime mid 2330 before we could all be enjoying a fully driverless tube network. I feel certain I won't be around to see it.

[aslefshrugged]

Mar 5, 2022 12:09:45 GMT alpinejohn said:

Yes if TFL were to propose a completely new line - then just like recent metro lines in Paris, you can build the trains, tunnels, tracks and stations with fully automated operation as an integral design feature. But to stand any chance of passing HSE strictures this will probably be a lot more expensive than the last completely new deep tube line (aka Victoria) which was constructed to comply with far less challenging requirements.

So yes I can see Full ATO being the norm on any totally new line, but retrofitting it to the current system would be insanely expensive and disruptive.

Perhaps TFL should apply to HM Treasury for the funds for a rolling programme of total line replacement to meet any driverless train edict, so perhaps they can start by building a completely new fully automated Bakerloo line, and when operational, close down the current one. Repeat with the other lines...

My guess it would be sometime mid 2330 before we could all be enjoying a fully driverless tube network. I feel certain I won't be around to see it.

The only Paris Metro built driverless was Line 14, opened in 1998 (the year after I joined London Underground)

TfL currently can't afford a signals upgrade for the Piccadilly Line which would support driverless operations and DfT asking for £400m budget cuts by 2023

Bakerloo Line cannot go driverless as north of Queen's Park the route is owned by Network Rail and shared with London Overground

ATO (automatic train operation) is GoA2, used on Victoria, Central, Northern, Jubilee and most of the Sub Surface lines
DTO (driverless train operation) is GoA3, used on the DLR
UTO (unattended train operation) is GoA4, used on Paris Metro Lines 1 and 14 with 4 currently being converted

[spsmiler]

I know its a world apart plus these installations were built to be driverless from the outset, but here in the UK we do have some decades of experience of unstaffed driverless trains that serve multiple stations at some of our airports.

People with little idea of the complexity of the works required will ask why other urban trains cannot also be unstaffed.

What I think is also very relevant is that whilst the DLR is a new-build automated railway and hence could have been unstaffed, it was decided to always have a human member of staff onboard. This speaks volumes about the operational and human politics 'benefits' of unstaffed trains.

Mar 5, 2022 12:09:45 GMT alpinejohn said:

Perhaps TFL should apply to HM Treasury for the funds for a rolling programme of total line replacement to meet any driverless train edict, so perhaps they can start by building a completely new fully automated Bakerloo line, and when operational, close down the current one. Repeat with the other lines...

In short, I think that if our Prime Minister is so devoted to London having unstaffed UndergrounD trains then TfL should do exactly this. I also agree with the Bakerloo line being first, as it needs new trains plus has a planned extension that could be built from the outset in a way that meets the requirements of unstaffed trains.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I feel very confident that if directed by the PM then the Treasury will find the required funding.

[aslefshrugged]

Mar 5, 2022 23:19:22 GMT spsmiler said:

I know its a world apart plus these installations were built to be driverless from the outset, but here in the UK we do have some decades of experience of unstaffed driverless trains that serve multiple stations at some of our airports.

People with little idea of the complexity of the works required will ask why other urban trains cannot also be unstaffed.

What I think is also very relevant is that whilst the DLR is a new-build automated railway and hence could have been unstaffed, it was decided to always have a human member of staff onboard. This speaks volumes about the operational and human politics 'benefits' of unstaffed trains.

Mar 5, 2022 12:09:45 GMT alpinejohn said:

Perhaps TFL should apply to HM Treasury for the funds for a rolling programme of total line replacement to meet any driverless train edict, so perhaps they can start by building a completely new fully automated Bakerloo line, and when operational, close down the current one. Repeat with the other lines...

In short, I think that if our Prime Minister is so devoted to London having unstaffed UndergrounD trains then TfL should do exactly this. I also agree with the Bakerloo line being first, as it needs new trains plus has a planned extension that could be built from the outset in a way that meets the requirements of unstaffed trains.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I feel very confident that if directed by the PM then the Treasury will find the required funding.

How exactly would driverless operation work on the Bakerloo while sharing the track north of Queens Park with London Overground trains running on conventional coloured light signals and without PEDs fitted to the platforms?

[alpinejohn]

Mar 6, 2022 4:09:42 GMT aslefshrugged said:

How exactly would driverless operation work on the Bakerloo while sharing the track north of Queens Park with London Overground trains running on conventional coloured light signals and without PEDs fitted to the platforms?

Option one - (the cheapskate option which HM Treasury would push for) terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park

Option two - keep digging - in the Utopian "money no object" world Politicians are descending into, there is no reason not to tunnel all the way Harrow and Wealdstone or Watford Junction or perhaps even Glasgow Central.

Entertaining though it may be, discussing the details of such madness, it adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge - perhaps this thread and all such like it deserves a transfer to the "Fantasy Ideas" section.

[aslefshrugged]

Mar 6, 2022 7:49:00 GMT alpinejohn said:

Mar 6, 2022 4:09:42 GMT aslefshrugged said:

How exactly would driverless operation work on the Bakerloo while sharing the track north of Queens Park with London Overground trains running on conventional coloured light signals and without PEDs fitted to the platforms?

Option one - (the cheapskate option which HM Treasury would push for) terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park

Option two - keep digging - in the Utopian "money no object" world Politicians are descending into, there is no reason not to tunnel all the way Harrow and Wealdstone or Watford Junction or perhaps even Glasgow Central.

Entertaining though it may be, discussing the details of such madness, it adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge - perhaps this thread and all such like it deserves a transfer to the "Fantasy Ideas" section.

Option one - that would mean cutting the service from 31 trains to 19 as there is only room for 19 at London Road (11), Elephant & Castle (1) and Queens Park (7).  The other 12 stable at Stonebridge Park, deep in "Bandit country" (aka Network Rail).  If memory serves Stonebridge Park is also where maintenance and repairs are carried out so terminating at Queens Park would create major problems

Option two - money clearly is an object as TfL have had to cancel numerous projects due to lack of funding

Unfortunately TfL are being asked to investigate driverless operation by politicians who think that not only would conversion be relatively simple but that it would actually save money and would reduce union influence.  Ridiculously large sections of the public seem to share this view!

[Chris M]

Mar 5, 2022 21:13:47 GMT aslefshrugged said:

ATO (automatic train operation) is GoA2, used on Victoria, Central, Northern, Jubilee and most of the Sub Surface lines
DTO (driverless train operation) is GoA3, used on the DLR
UTO (unattended train operation) is GoA4, used on Paris Metro Lines 1 and 14 with 4 currently being converted

It's worth noting that, as I understand HMRI's position, the DLR would not be allowed to operate driverless without PEDs were it to be built today and they will be an absolute non-negotiable requirement for any future GoA3 railway in the UK whether new-build or converted.

[class411]

Mar 6, 2022 12:12:49 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Mar 6, 2022 7:49:00 GMT alpinejohn said:

Option one - (the cheapskate option which HM Treasury would push for) terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park

Option two - keep digging - in the Utopian "money no object" world Politicians are descending into, there is no reason not to tunnel all the way Harrow and Wealdstone or Watford Junction or perhaps even Glasgow Central.

Entertaining though it may be, discussing the details of such madness, it adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge - perhaps this thread and all such like it deserves a transfer to the "Fantasy Ideas" section.

Unfortunately TfL are being asked to investigate driverless operation by politicians who think that not only would conversion be relatively simple but that it would actually save money and would reduce union influence.  Ridiculously large sections of the public seem to share this view!

Sadly, 50% of the general public are below average (median) intelligence.

[Chris M]

Mar 6, 2022 12:29:59 GMT class411 said:

Mar 6, 2022 12:12:49 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Unfortunately TfL are being asked to investigate driverless operation by politicians who think that not only would conversion be relatively simple but that it would actually save money and would reduce union influence.  Ridiculously large sections of the public seem to share this view!

Sadly, 50% of the general public are below average (median) intelligence.

veering off-topic but this reminds me of Michael Gove, when education secretary, stated that every school should be above average: www.indy100.com/celebrities/michael-gove-might-be-prime-minister-so-people-are-resharing-this-ridiculous-exchange-7301081

[spsmiler]

Mar 6, 2022 4:09:42 GMT aslefshrugged said:

How exactly would driverless operation work on the Bakerloo while sharing the track north of Queens Park with London Overground trains running on conventional coloured light signals and without PEDs fitted to the platforms?

A very good and very reasonable question. It is also something that I have pondered.

If the Prime Minister (or a Transport Secretary) were to stand up in public and say that it is official government policy for the Bakerloo line to switch to driverless trains then solutions would have to be found that make this possible.

For a start, when he says 'driverless' clarification would be needed to know whether he means DLR style with a member of staff still on the train - or fully unstaffed?

My comments below will mostly apply to the track shared section north of Queens Park.

Firstly, the line will need to be resignalled. But I think we all know this!

I can think of only one viable solution to fitting platform doors at stations where the trains have different door configurations. That would be to have different portions of the platforms served by the different types of trains. This is a well-known solution for where trams designed for kerb height platforms share tracks with light rail vehicles designed for high level platforms. If adopted on the Bakerloo line it would also facilitate full accessibility - where at present such is simply impossible.

Typically this is done by having longer platforms so that the trains pass through the segments they are not calling at. I see longer platforms as the most practical solution for most stations as the presence of the tracks for InterCity etc trains would prevent adding new platforms alongside the existing platforms.

Ideally the different platform segments for the different trains would straddle the passenger entrance / exits between the platform and the street. I would also expect proper platform shelters.  The solution adopted at Rotherham for the tram-train is sub-optimal / passenger-unfriendly because it requires tram-train passengers to walk along the whole length of the portion of the platform served by other trains plus the 'weather protection' on the tram-train platform is inadequate.

Kensal Green (if I remember the correct station) would have to have its tube style tunnels enlarged to create London's second* station where the platforms are partially in tunnel and partially in open air.

*(after Bow Road)

Willesden Junction could have twin island platforms so that one type of train calls on the left side and the other type of train calls at the right side.

The signalling system would include blue lamps for the automated trains in addition to the normal colours for the human driven trains. This is already planned for elsewhere in London.

Of course Lewisham would be included in the project, as well as new trains and rebuilding works at existing Bakerloo line platforms.

Is all this 'do-able'? I suspect that it would be technically possible. The earthworks etc might be disruptive but so is the closure of the Northern line Bank branch for the new platform. Maybe a similar closure could see platform doors fitted to existing stations in much faster time than were it to be done over a series of weekend and evening closures. This would require a large work crew - not the proverbial 'one man and his dog' - but its how things used to be done here.

Would Network Rail be happy? I am unsure, I hope that they will realise that they are gaining real-world experience with automated plus human driven trains on the same tracks that they might wish to adopt in other British conurbations - for this reason I suspect that people like Merseyrail, Nexus (Tyne & Wear) etc., will also take an interest.

The general public would likely also support this, seeing it as a logical way forward.

However, H. M. Treasury might go into meltdown. Therefore I think that copious quantities of smelling salts (plus medical staff with defibrillators, etc) will be required when the Treasury is told what is planned and are instructed to fund it.

To my eyes the only snag is that the UK (like many other nations) is technically 'broke' and in reality cannot afford even a new kettle for the canteen. I can think of ways around this (which could fund what would be an innovative but potentially somewhat expensive project - and even help clear the national debt!) but to even begin to explain this would take me massively 'off topic'.

[class411]

Mar 6, 2022 14:10:58 GMT spsmiler said:

Mar 6, 2022 4:09:42 GMT aslefshrugged said:

How exactly would driverless operation work on the Bakerloo while sharing the track north of Queens Park with London Overground trains running on conventional coloured light signals and without PEDs fitted to the platforms?

A very good and very reasonable question. It is also something that I have pondered.

If the Prime Minister (or a Transport Secretary) were to stand up in public and say that it is official government policy for the Bakerloo line to switch to driverless trains then solutions would have to be found that make this possible.

For a start, when he says 'driverless' clarification would be needed to know whether he means DLR style with a member of staff still on the train - or fully unstaffed?

My comments below will mostly apply to the track shared section north of Queens Park.

Firstly, the line will need to be resignalled. But I think we all know this!

I can think of only one viable solution to fitting platform doors at stations where the trains have different door configurations. That would be to have different portions of the platforms served by the different types of trains. This is a well-known solution for where trams designed for kerb height platforms share tracks with light rail vehicles designed for high level platforms. If adopted on the Bakerloo line it would also facilitate full accessibility - where at present such is simply impossible.

Typically this is done by having longer platforms so that the trains pass through the segments they are not calling at. Ideally the different platform segments for the different trains would straddle the passenger platform entrance / exits between the platform and the street. For most stations the presence of the other tracks for InterCity etc trains would mean that this would be the most practical solution.

Kensal Green (if I remember the correct station) would have to have its tube style tunnels enlarged to create London's second station where the platforms are partially in tunnel and partially in open air.

Willesden Junction could have twin island platforms so that one type of train calls on the left side and the other type of train calls at the right side.

The signalling system would include blue lamps for the automated trains in addition to the normal colours for the human driven trains. This is already planned for elsewhere in London.

Of course Lewisham would be included in the project, as well as new trains and rebuilding works at existing Bakerloo line platforms.



Is all this 'do-able'? I suspect that it would be technically possible. The earthworks etc might be disruptive but so is the closure of the Northern line Bank branch for the new platform. Maybe a similar closure could see platform doors fitted to existing stations in much faster time than were it to be done over a series of weekend and evening closures. This would require a large work crew - not the proverbial 'one man and his dog' - but its how things used to be done here.

Would Network Rail be happy? I am unsure, but I suspect that people like Merseyrail and Nexus (Tyne & Wear) will take an interest too, as there could well be lessons to be learnt that could be adopted in their areas too.

The general public would likely also support this too, seeing it as a logical way forward.

However, H. M. Treasury might go into meltdown. Therefore I think that copious quantities of smelling salts (plus medical staff with defibrillators, etc) will be required when the Treasury is told what is planned and are instructed to fund it.

The only snag is that the UK (like many other nations) is technically 'broke' and in reality cannot afford even a new kettle for the canteen. I can think of ways around this (which could fund what would be an innovative but somewhat expensive project) but that would take me 'off topic'.

This is all just a fantasy.

Politicians can say the 'want to see' as much as they like.

They can spend reasonable, small, amounts of money on studies.

They can do these things pretty much without interference.

However, when they start to insist that massive amounts of money are diverted to largely pointless projects, they will get hammered by the press, the opposition, the treasury, and those members of the public that suffer as funds are diverted from far more useful endeavours.

Converting a whole line as the start of a migration to driverless is absurd to the point of being brainless.

Starting by converting a single, end of line, open air, section, of a few stations, is a vastly more intelligent option. It would enable experience to be gained of the simplest problems with very little disruption, and relatively little expense. Then, further similar sections could be converted whilst the more difficult problems are mapped and (potentially) solved. The system would evolve into driverless (perhaps), with expense occurring and necessary expertise being obtained, at realistic rates.

Either way: massive vanity project or gradual evolution, it will takes decades before the entire system is converted - if it ever is.

[spsmiler]

Mar 6, 2022 14:33:44 GMT class411 said:

Politicians can say the 'want to see' as much as they like.

They can spend reasonable, small, amounts of money on studies.

They can do these things pretty much without interference.

However, when they start to insist that massive amounts of money are diverted to largely pointless projects, they will get hammered by the press, the opposition, the treasury, and those members of the public that suffer as funds are diverted from far more useful endeavours.

Converting a whole line as the start of a migration to driverless is absurd to the point of being brainless.

Starting by converting a single, end of line, open air, section, of a few stations, is a vastly more intelligent option. It would enable experience to be gained of the simplest problems with very little disruption, and relatively little expense. Then, further similar sections could be converted whilst the more difficult problems are mapped and (potentially) solved. The system would evolve into driverless (perhaps), with expense occurring and necessary expertise being obtained, at realistic rates.

Either way: massive vanity project or gradual evolution, it will takes decades before the entire system is converted - if it ever is.

btw, I did slightly re-edit my text so it is slightly different to the version in your reply.


As for it being fantasy, I do think 'outside the box' and look to see how something could be possible - even if it has not been done before.

Everything I have suggested uses technologies and techniques that already exist. Its only 'human thinking' that says its impossible.

We here in the UK are very good at saying 'not invented here - therefore its not possible'. For example: Germany has been using tram-trains very successfully for over 30 years, with them even sharing tracks used by express international Inter-City trains and all manner of freight trains - as well as travelling through pedestrianised city streets. Yet here in the UK our planners look at the Sheffield tram-train as it its something that was just invented last week.

British Rail planners did not want Thameslink to happen, because they thought it would be disruptive and difficult to manage. They had to be forced to allow it to happen - and as we know it proved to be exceptionally successful.

Brunel will be turning in his grave at how we do (and do not do) things nowadays.

edit to add:

I expect the Waterloo and City to be the first trial, and I also expect trains to stay staffed, but automated.

I suggested the Bakerloo as it needs new trains which are not funded, it has a planned southern extension which is not funded and therefore by combining these with a desire of the PM the Bakerloo could get its new trains and extension as part of a much larger project much sooner than would otherwise be possible. Its a ploy, but at the same time it suggests what could happen if our Prime Minister is serious in wanting a tube line to go driverless. 

Because of the disruption its better a lightly used line is in the project - rather than something like the Piccadilly line.

[castlebar]

l have said on these boards many times before:

Overseas, planners find reasons to do things and how to do them
In the UK they find reasons not to do things, and how to prevent them happening.

Classic example is the refusal around 1970 to even look at re-opening the WLL,
after all, it had failed 60 years earlier through lack of patronage (in those days west London ended at Earls Court), but it was still the lame excuse. The easy option.

[spsmiler]

Mar 6, 2022 14:58:26 GMT castlebar said:

l have said on these boards many times before:

Overseas, planners find reasons to do things and how to do them
In the UK they find reasons not to do things, and how to prevent them happening.

Classic example is the refusal around 1970 to even look at re-opening the WLL,
after all, it had failed 60 years earlier through lack of patronage (in those days west London ended at Earls Court), but it was still the lame excuse. The easy option.

Exactly!

That way of thinking is what needs to change.

btw, modernising the northern section of the Bakerloo line has some very unusual challenges, what I suggested includes taking proven solutions from overseas and applying them here in London - if adopted my ideas would help all the stations become fully accessible in a way that retains the 'track sharing' feature which has existed for over 110 years.

Would also work on the Uxbridge branch (most stations - not sure about Uxbridge) and at Ealing Common.

[100andthirty]

When LU was investigating driverless trains back in my day, there was a non-negotiable requirement that the track (area between boundary fences) would be maintained as a people free zone. At stations, the use of Platform Screen Doors achieved that objective. In the open, secure fencing either side of the railway and at bridge parapets was also a means of achieving that objective. Where the railway shares tracks with other lines (i.e.) north of Queen's Park, the railway is hard to make people free given the lines that leave and join. In the previous work, it was assumed that these areas would have a staff member on the train looking out.

Apropos double length platforms, both faces would need PSDs if the people free principle were maintained. Stations with obstructions at both ends are the challenge - Kensal Green, Willesden Junction as already mentioned and Stonebridge Park.

I keep returning to the cost:benefit business. Political opinions are offered on the basis that there's a good business case. As I've said before, the overwhelming benefit is derived from new trains, signalling and ATO. Driverless is worth <think of a phrase meaning "not a lot" beginning with B>. The cost of doubling the length of platforms north of Queen's Park r tunnelling would just wipe out any benefits

That said, in the current situation, if I were the Mayor, I'd be supporting the PM and telling him how much it would cost, with an incremental benefits delivery programme involving new trains, signalling ATO and then PSDs. By the time the trains signalling and ATO is delivered both the Mayor and the PM and commissioner would be long out of office, the new team can quietly forget the last part of the programme.

The other myth of driverless trains is that it "breaks the power of the unions". Even driverless lines need staff, just in different jobs. Those people are likely to be union members and if they are not in place the trains won't run.

[spsmiler]

Mar 6, 2022 16:43:35 GMT 100andthirty said:

That said, in the current situation, if I were the Mayor, I'd be supporting the PM and telling him how much it would cost, with an incremental benefits delivery programme involving new trains, signalling ATO and then PSDs. By the time the trains signalling and ATO is delivered both the Mayor and the PM and commissioner would be long out of office, the new team can quietly forget the last part of the programme.

I like the concept ... do it all incrementally and then let the last stage be done in the basis of the proverbial 'manyana' (which never comes).

However I would not be wanting unstaffed trains, especially not on deep level tube lines. I like having a member of staff responsible for door closing and station departure (as on the DLR). For instance, computers will not re-open doors should a family group become separated and a child is left on the platform. 

As I explained above, Willesden Junction would be one of the easiest stations to convert, indeed I would advocate it having four platform faces (two each LU / LO, similar to Queens Park) as a cost-effective way to make the platforms fully accessible.

Quote amended to include only the relevant parts to the post - please refrain from quoting complete posts. (Tom)