Boris demands TfL agree to Driverless Trains

Rain on its own isn’t really a problem on the Northern, the system is set to drive slower than even the slowest manual drivers used to, so it just loses time instead which has to be made up by drivers doing quick turnarounds.

Leaf fall is more of an issue, especially a wet and windy day, and in sleet or snow forget it!

One thing though, manual driving doesn’t necessarily help, as because there isn’t always much warning when the target speed drops this means the driver can’t always anticipate in the way a conventional driver would, even the Central setup gives the driver plenty of clues as to where the train ahead is, what’s likely to happen next et cetera. Seltrac doesn’t really, and even a fully on-the-ball driver can miss something and find they have then had a speed violation.

I presume same applies to the Jubilee.

To be fair the Jubilee is pretty good in the wet, or at least I've not heard of too many problems. I remember my first experience of ATO was back when involved in testing when it was absolutely chucking it down with rain. The train was probably still doing 35-40 mph as it entered the platform and I was convinced an overshoot was inevitable, but with much noise from the WSP (Wheel slip protection) it stopped bang on the mark.

Fully wet braking isn't usually a problem. The lowest adhesion occurs on damp leaves and where the rail is initially wetted after a dry spell. It has been shown both scientifically and practically that a small amount of water together with normal contaminants such as iron oxide tiny amounts of lubricant (eg carry over from rail lubricators) can deliver adhesion as poor as with damp leaves. Generally though, this phase doesn't last long. Dew is quickly dispersed and more water (eg as a rain shower really gets going) rapidly improves adhesion, albeit not to the dry values.

Trials have been carried out, sponsored by RSSB on a variety of methods to clean the rail head to improve adhesion and one of these was to add more water. The principle was "if very small amounts of water (ie microlitres per metre) cause adhesion problems, then adding more water (ie a few millilitres per metre) adhesion is improved. This is referred to in August's Modern Railways.

Someone has leaked TfL's driverless trains business case from August to ASLEF. Estimated cost £7bn which I will admit isn't as much as I thought it would but even so it doesn't provide "value for money".

www.itv.com/news/london/2020-10-26/driverless-tube-trains-would-cost-7-billion-claims-leaked-document


PDF of business case here on Twitter, it would cost £41.643m to convert the Waterloo & City (I'm starting  a whip round at Leytonstone TCD)

GOA4 is Grade of Automation level 4 - essentially completely unattended train operation. The different grades of automation are defined by the International Association of Public Transport as a standard system so that everyone knows what each other means - "automatic train operation" and "automatic train control" can mean quite different things internationally, for example.

The page of the document that explains the various grades of automation levels has been tweeted now:

(backup link)

But see benefits on page 24 include: Faster schedule recovery, independent of the recovery of train operators to rosters or ‘duty sheets’. This suggests that Train Attendants are envisaged to not have a duty allocated to particular trains, but supervisor still needs to allocate staff to individual trains, and monitor their meal break requirement and end of duty relief. There will still be training, leave cover, etc to manage. The real advantage of full automation is operation like station lifts, rather than the staffed operation they once had. Perhaps that is not possible on LU trains.

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.

If the Government then want to buy fully automatic trains - it won't be cheap but the cost will fall to D/Transport and in future come from central tax revenue. If they really want to upgrade all lines so trains do not need any onboard staff, then that will cost a bit more, and again it will come out of D/Transports budget. Finally any decision to fund this by increasing fares and congestion charge rates/extent will be clearly down to the Government.

At the moment this looks more like political kite flying intended to go down well with their political supporters, but will fail miserably once the Treasury start adding up all the costs.

Meantime it stirs up totally unnecessary concern over future job security among so many hard working railway staff, even though there is no realistic prospect of a totally automated (staff free) tube service within my life-time or indeed probably within the lifetime of every existing member of parliament.

Yes if UK plc was massively cash rich, then perhaps it might be a long term objective, but against the backdrop of a country running up massive debts to cover the economic impact of COVID, I cannot see the Treasury being keen to spend a penny more than really needs to be spent on Transport projects for many many years to come.

I would go further and say even if The Government insist D/Transport push ahead to fully automated operation of the easiest line - the Waterloo and City, then it would perhaps make them realise this dream is not easy, and is definitely not going to payback the upfront costs, within any realistic timeframe.

Can we please ignore this madness.

Every DLR train has a staff member on board at all times. In normal times they operate the doors and carry out customer service duties such as checking tickets. At busy times, when there are staff on or about the track, in high winds, first trains of the day and at any other time so instructed (and all the time at the moment) they sit at the front observing the road ahead and operate the doors from that position - effectively GOA2. When required they can also drive the train manually from the front seat, although this is very rare in passenger service it is the only mode of operation in depots AIUI.

Do the DLR train attendants always remain on the leading car? They cannot walk between cars on a moving train.

There is a position on the the control unit adjacent to the doors marked "I" (which I've always assumed stands for "inhibit") that the PSAs select before moving between units.

I don't think the DLR train attendant is relevant: they operate the doors and drive when required, like former tube train guards. The proposed new auto-train attendant will do none of that. The doors are said to be automatic, and train driving during failures will be remote from line control centre or from a failures supervisor making their way to the train. The future train attendant will be more like a platform attendant, and paid accordingly I should think. It is a fully auto train with a staff member to reassure passengers in the event of failure. Passengers will be assured there is a member of staff on a train somewhere, but unless they are in the same car they are unlikely to see them. So to say they will deal with passenger enquiries and tickets is just to pretend they have a purpose other than reassurance, since most travellers will not come across them. What assistance can they provide to 800 passengers on the train, as mentioned elsewhere in the presentation. It is intended that the failure rate will be far lower than on current trains. Who will want these pointless jobs? Riding all day without a seat or cab.