|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 12, 2014 12:30:05 GMT
There is no doubt that it is physically possible to operate driverless trains without PEDs. Many lines throughout Europe do so. However with the number of issues that LU faces with customers dropping things on to the track, and other much more serious incursions into the track space, it concluded that a safe AND RELIABLE driverless train operation needed PEDS given the business of the lines and the comparatively narrow platforms. Paris concluded the same. Both are comparably busy. DLR has no plans to fit PEDS but as east London grow and DLR gets even busier I predict they will come in time.
As to half height or full height PEDS, experience is showing that half height PEDs are no easier to install and are not as reliable as full height PEDs. Being able to accommodate the operating mechanism above the doors (full height) and not at the bottom of the doors (half height) also helps with space management. At curved platforms - even Bank - fitting the PEDs is not an issue (think threepenny bit facets!). The problem is to fill the gaps between the train and platform. Paris has already fitted detection devices at curved platforms to detect anyone stuck in the gap between train and platform. However moving devices to physically fill the gap are the ideal solution and a number of suppliers are developing such devices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 20:54:42 GMT
I am now of the opinion that a Borisless London is preferable to a driverless tube train!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Oct 13, 2014 14:11:30 GMT
Such things have existed in New York for a very long time. Fitting PEDS to surface stations just seems to be an unnecessary cost and complication, and the solutions to the Chiswick/Acton/Ealing area problems caused by total segregation are all undesirable one way or another. This wouldnt be suggested or proposed unless somehow, somewhere, it results in a fiscal saving. How do things like insurance and public liability work for a company like LUL? Are the increased maintanence costs and monitized reliability risks of PEDs less than the reduction in insurance costs? grahamhewett perhaps one for you!  |
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 13, 2014 15:58:26 GMT
Why are the unions so opposed to driverless operation? They will still have staff on trains to evacuate them in an emergency and which is surely better as they can deal with incidents rather than sitting in their car perhaps not aware of what is happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 19:07:38 GMT
Why are the unions so opposed to driverless operation? They will still have staff on trains to evacuate them in an emergency and which is surely better as they can deal with incidents rather than sitting in their car perhaps not aware of what is happening. Because their job will be down skilled and so will their pay! |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 15, 2014 17:05:57 GMT
The moving platform extenders in New York (which I haven't seen since 2006) were/are very large and unwieldy weighing in at some 7 tons each. NY themselves were not keen to extend them anywhere else. What has been developed more recently is comparatively compact and can fit more or less in the space of a nosing stone (actually a number of nosing stones to cover the required length)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 18:30:04 GMT
An added complication at heavily curved platforms such as Bank (Central), Embankment (Northern) and Piccadilly Circus (Bakerloo) is the degree of cant, meaning the train is not only a long way from the platform edge but also considerably higher than on the straight. So the platform would need to slope accordingly (as indeed it does now where level boarding is selective). However, the train itself is on a substantial list, so wheelchairs will roll in and hit the far doors; and have quite a struggle to climb out. Which means, I suppose, copious notices to wheelchair users not to use those parts of the train. Apart from Embankment, which is uniformly curved thanks to the original turning circle.
Of course a far better solution would be to re-route the offending lines, which a few years ago I would have instantly dismissed as pie-in-the-sky fantasy, but now with the reprofiling of Euston, Angel, London Bridge and soon Bank on the Northern, the relentless imperative of universal accessibility and TfL's driverless objective, I'm not so sure. The business case must be beginning to stack up or at least be worthy of consideration. Although I wouldn't like to contemplate all the hidden gubbins lurking along a potential route for any of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 15, 2014 19:46:47 GMT
An added complication at heavily curved platforms is the degree of cant, meaning the train is not only a long way from the platform edge but also considerably higher than on the straight. So the platform would need to slope accordingly). However, the train itself is on a substantial list, . Why do they need to be canted if all trains stop? And even if they are, it's perfectly possible to make the platform edge level with the bottom (or top) edge of the sloping train floor. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 15, 2014 22:44:09 GMT
Why do they need to be canted if all trains stop? I'm not a track engineer, but AIUI cant is an important part of making a flanged wheel go around a corner. Yes, all trains stop, but they also move too - zero cant would result in lots of flange squeal and excessive track wear, potentially increasing the risk of flange-climb and subsequently derailment. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 16, 2014 7:27:24 GMT
The moving platform extenders in New York (which I haven't seen since 2006) were/are very large and unwieldy weighing in at some 7 tons each. NY themselves were not keen to extend them anywhere else. Gap fillers remain at Union Square station. The ones at South Ferry station were initially abandoned when the new South Ferry station opened in March 2009. Sadly with the after effects of Hurricane Sandy, in October 2012, the new station was severely damaged by floodwater and failed to reopen on 29/10. As a contingency the old South Ferry station was pressed back into use, reopening April 2013, with its gap-fillers refurbished for further use. It is currently expected to remain operational until 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by danwoodhouse on Oct 30, 2014 10:27:57 GMT
im surprised that no one has yet coined an acronym to describe trains without a driver or anyone on board
well I have
you've heard of OPO for "one person operation" - so what about NOPO "no person operation"
remember where you heard it first people!
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Oct 30, 2014 10:43:42 GMT
I think that the term UTO "Unattended train operation" is the currently used term, but I will admit, NOPO does sound better.
|
|
|
|
Post by danwoodhouse on Oct 30, 2014 11:27:51 GMT
I think that the term UTO "Unattended train operation" is the currently used term, but I will admit, NOPO does sound better. UTO?
isn't that a pop group?
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Oct 30, 2014 11:32:40 GMT
I think that the term UTO "Unattended train operation" is the currently used term, but I will admit, NOPO does sound better. UTO?
isn't that a pop group?
I prefer UTO Dom........NOPO sounds like a gastrointestinal affliction.  |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 30, 2014 15:34:46 GMT
Has anyone actually asked the travelling public about this?
Does anyone know how the idea will enhance passenger comfort, convenience or safety, or even maintain these at their present levels?
|
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 30, 2014 18:34:55 GMT
Has anyone actually asked the travelling public about this? Does anyone know how the idea will enhance passenger comfort, convenience or safety, or even maintain these at their present levels? Faster journey times, increased capacity, more reliable service, safety improved (PEDs, no SPADs, no staff errors), more flexible response to customer flows... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 21:59:45 GMT
I'm not sure that PEDs will work, manly because some of not most of the platforms on the line are on a corner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 2:34:08 GMT
im surprised that no one has yet coined an acronym to describe trains without a driver or anyone on board well I have you've heard of OPO for "one person operation" - so what about NOPO "no person operation" remember where you heard it first people! Sorry to disappoint you but the word NOPO has been around in LU circles for quite a few years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 2:52:48 GMT
im surprised that no one has yet coined an acronym to describe trains without a driver or anyone on board well I have you've heard of OPO for "one person operation" - so what about NOPO "no person operation" remember where you heard it first people! Sorry to disappoint you but the word NOPO has been around in LU circles for quite a few years. Indeed it has, but - correct me if I'm wrong ('cause I don't move in LU circles) - generally for DLR-style "driverless" trains with train captains/passenger service agents on board. I.e. there is no person operating the train (when everything is operating normally), but it's still attended. As opposed to Unattended Train Operation (UTO) where it's just HAL and its poor passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 3, 2014 10:45:12 GMT
Several decades ago the acronym was FACT - Fully Automatic Control of Trains. This was an evolution of the Victoria line ATO, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Nov 3, 2014 19:31:18 GMT
Several decades ago the acronym was FACT - Fully Automatic Control of Trains. This was an evolution of the Victoria line ATO, I believe.
Lowering the tone for a moment, some wags tweaked that to fully automatic railway train. I won't capitalise or abbreviate....
Quite a bit of testing was done with a modified 1960TS test train on Woodford-Hainault. It was only a test train and fully manned for tests but I think they got as far as demonstrating principles of quite a bit of what has to be automated. I don't recall that anything serious was demonstrated about safe PTI assessment and departure though. I seem to recall there was some 'forward thinking' about intelligent CCTV looking for obstructed PTI, but I don't recall PED's being pushed forward at that time, late 70s? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 3, 2014 21:10:53 GMT
Quite a bit of testing was done with a modified 1960TS test train on Woodford-Hainault. .............. I know Woodford-Hainault was used as a test bed for ATO on the Victoria Line, and continued to used the Victoria Line system in normal service until the 1992 stock took over - indeed 1967 stock units were used to augment the small 1960 stock fleet. But is some other experimental system using the 1960 stock and the same line? |
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Nov 4, 2014 6:00:42 GMT
I only saw it once or twice. I recall a big bank of relays automating the Control Switch, DBVIC and so on. I think it was doing station stops on a simple timer and doing 'auto turn around' at each end of the line. All this overlaid on the existing ATO somehow. Perhaps someone more involved with it can add more accurate info.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Nov 4, 2014 9:14:20 GMT
Several decades ago the acronym was FACT - Fully Automatic Control of Trains. This was an evolution of the Victoria line ATO, I believe.
Lowering the tone for a moment, some wags tweaked that to fully automatic railway train. I won't capitalise or abbreviate....
Quite a bit of testing was done with a modified 1960TS test train on Woodford-Hainault. It was only a test train and fully manned for tests but I think they got as far as demonstrating principles of quite a bit of what has to be automated. I don't recall that anything serious was demonstrated about safe PTI assessment and departure though. I seem to recall there was some 'forward thinking' about intelligent CCTV looking for obstructed PTI, but I don't recall PED's being pushed forward at that time, late 70s? IIRC the 1960 stock was used to test 'chopper' control and the cars so fitted carried the electrical symbol for chopper control on the cab fronts. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by towerman on Nov 7, 2014 13:50:48 GMT
Several decades ago the acronym was FACT - Fully Automatic Control of Trains. This was an evolution of the Victoria line ATO, I believe.
Lowering the tone for a moment, some wags tweaked that to fully automatic railway train. I won't capitalise or abbreviate....
Quite a bit of testing was done with a modified 1960TS test train on Woodford-Hainault. It was only a test train and fully manned for tests but I think they got as far as demonstrating principles of quite a bit of what has to be automated. I don't recall that anything serious was demonstrated about safe PTI assessment and departure though. I seem to recall there was some 'forward thinking' about intelligent CCTV looking for obstructed PTI, but I don't recall PED's being pushed forward at that time, late 70s? Yes unit 3902/3 it even had a command to blow the whistle as the train started up at stations.After the FACT trials were over it became the chopper equipment test train. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 17:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 10, 2014 15:09:00 GMT
It's a good article. Presumably what made LT change their minds about main line v loop through running issues was that the LCC were building a huge council estate at Debden, north of Loughton where they had originally reckoned to terminate most through trains from London (as the LNER had a high proportion). The LCC Hainault estate was likely to be served best by Hainault. Also, the Green Belts Act of 1938 had preserved a lot of open space by the loop stations (save that the LCC had already grabbed). So traffic would be best catered for by the two main lines |
|
