Driverless LU trains?

I don't think this will ever happen - more likely that they are trying to find a strong argument to fight RMT with.

Victoria line trains are driven manually from Seven Sisters to the depot.

As to the OP, stupid proposal. Who is going to reset PEAs, deal with infrastructure faults etc.

The memo to the Mayor states the tube is "first class", isnt that partly down to the fact that it is staffed 24-7?

It states that there will be "improved safety levels" if driverless trains are introduced. If there is no driver to deal with incidents as they occur, I cant see that assertion bearing fruit.

Re memo, referring to drivers on the Victoria and Central lines as "door openers" shows little insight into how a train operator works.

This is a deliberate lighting of the fuse by the tories in a first salvo to break the unions.

Was the person who had this idea on some sort of strong medication when they thought this up?
I did also read the 'memo', the third paragraph started with "Driverless trains offer a safer"... and I had to pause there. Could someone please explain how being trapped in a deep level tube tunnel after an incident with no driver is 'safer'? Iv'e seen people get aggitated because the train gets held at a red signal!
They go on about the fact cuts need to be made but do they think jepardising passenger safety is really worth that? surely there are better ways of cutting costs.
Then theres the fact that a vast number more people will be unemployed (something that we really don't need right now)
I know it will probably never happen but it is slightly worrying that the people who proposed this are now our goverment.
To top this off they like going on about the fact Paris and so on also has this system, don't they realise our system is alot different to the others!

IMHO - I have found that these types are folks are very frequently the government. Trust me - it is a world-wide phenomena.

Hasn't London already had enough of closures without converting the system to this, which IMHO wouldn't work.

I'd say the amount of money paid out to convert it would outweigh the benefit, and to be quite honest, I don't see a benefit.

Mod hat

Berating this Government or the previous incumbent regardless of right or wrong isn't up for debate, and we certainly don't want a political debate here.

My only comment to those who propose this is to go back and read the accident report of the guy who fell (in a fight....) from the platform on a DLR station prosecuted recently* and was killed by the incoming driverless train. Somehow it didn't get onto the front pages of the _subStandard (and I wonder why, knowing their record) but if it were to happen on LU that would be the end of that administration. And, even worse, BC would be proved right for once....


*RAIL 644 p33

No more going over parameters, alleged or actual near misses, going sick, late for pick ups, short meal reliefs, dodgy train op seats, non existing faults, driving slowly and waffling into the PA, less DMTs and higher up managers, less buildings with hundreds of computers, lockers, car parking space - good for the environment too then!

On 1967 Stock, the ATP allows the train to 50 mph in manual mode. There is a sounder that sounds continuously above 25 mph. I believe this is there for signal sighting purposes, as the driver indications of an approaching signal at danger are not adequate (they just get the code lights).

The 09 Stock currently mimics this operation in manual, as it was considered that the operating rules should be kept as close as possible to 67 TS. It will be possible to drive full speed in manual once all the 67TS are gone.

I can't see how driverless can be made safe from a PTI perspective unless they either have platform screen doors or an operator on each platform with a 'Safe to Depart' button.

Didn't LT do experiments on the Hainault Loop (NOPO?) with the Cravens stock?

One of the main drivers (pun not intended!) behind this scheme is that the system will be better protected from strikes. Surely solving the actual industrial relation problem would be cheaper and easier. And the current industrial dispute is with maintanance staff which would not be eradicated by NOPO.

I don't think they have a hope in hell of getting a system to work properly, especially with the current problems with just ATP installation, let alone NOPO. The cost would be huge as well - would a government be forward looking enough to invest billions in implementing NOPO for a return of £140m a year in later years? Governments tend to not be able to see beyond 4 years, so it is unlikely.

It would be interesting to see the reactions on this forum (had it been around) in the 1984-2000 when guards were being removed - I expect it would have attracted similar comments. Yet OPO hasn't presented many safety flaws and has produced economies for the farepayers.

I think if a new line is built then it would be a great opportunity for driverless trains to be introduced. The Victoria Line shows this in the fact that guards were removed for the first time.

interesting, saying it will save £141m a year on wages. what abut the cost to upgrade 9 lines and trains?
And then the management pay ect.

Far far more than £141m in the first few years

Running trains with no staff may be possible when the lines is almost completely underground, but get trickier when there are sections of track at ground level, as the train then has to be capable of recognising trespassers, debris blown on the line, etc. and taking appropriate action.

Paris line 14 is underground, and line 1 is nearly all underground (exceptions are the point where the line crosses the Seine at the western end and at Bastille station). The only line with similar characteristics in London would be the Victoria line, all the other lines spend a large percentage of time above ground. The Waterloo and City would also be a possibility.

Just FYI - despite the very major expansion of the Madrid Metro over the past 12-15 years (and continuing) there are no driverless lines. Of course most improvements are extensions to already existing lines - so -lke London - retrofitting may be too expensive than keeping the current driver-full method.

Just to add to the comments here...........

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mindthegap/2010/06/do_we_even_need_drivers_on_the.html

........my ATO train broke down as usual today, many times, fully loaded with well over 1000 on board, deep underground in a 12 foot sewer pipe. I fixed it, drove it, and got all safely to wherever and nobody ever knew 'cos it was all a seamless procedure born from day to day working experience.............. To Hell with the ignoramuses. I hope they get what wish for..............

My work mate now has an alternative half-way-point solution to offer.

Instead of driverless trains, how about outsourced drivers? The trains would be equiped with multiple cameras and controls that could be operated remotely via computers and the internet.

Then outsource the train operation to another country where wages are way less and then have these operators handle several trains at one time. This would give TfL the benefit of "eyes and ears" available via the operator but with minimum expense to the company.

Everything would be "fail-safe" so that in case of any equipment malfunction (cameras, controls, internet, etc) the train would safely stop.

My work mate is interested in opinions of this - I told him he may be sorry.