class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724 
|
Post by class411 on Nov 13, 2020 12:08:03 GMT
I've started this thread because the extant thread regarding the political machinations of getting tfl to agree to driver-less trains is going round in circles, and is, anyway, now, pretty much completely off topic as I don't think anyone here has express a view that driver-less trains will happen within this or the next term of the MoL and PM.
To start off, here is the content of a post from the old thread discussing time-frames for what would possibly be the quickest and easiest line to automate.
-------------------
If you consider a realistic time frame, you'd probably be looking at something like this at the beginning.
1. Agreement to automate W&C as initial 'proving ground'. [ 1Y ]
2. Draw up detailed list of requirements for changes. [ 1Y ]
3. Pass enabling legislation and garner agreements from unions. [ 1Y ]
4. Generate detailed plans for modification or replacement of signalling, trains, and infrastructure. [ 2Y ]
5. Invite tenders for contracts for above and await submissions [ 1Y ]
6. Select contractors, negotiate detailed contracts and sign. [ 1Y ]
7. Contractors do work [ 2Y ] for most of which time the line would be closed.
8. Thorough initial and safety testing [ 6M ]
Those are generally very optimistic estimates and they take us to 2030, and it's unthinkable that there would not be significant over-runs.
At the end of this period you would have one point to point line with two stations. You would then need to go through the whole process again for the next candidate line - probably the Victoria, which would take considerably longer because it's a much bigger job and the technology would have moved on to such an extent that you would probably not gain too much from re-using existing work.
The bottom line for all of this is: Yes, go ahead and agree to potentially having fully automated lines, but don't expect it to happen over the whole system for several decades.
-------------------
Other interesting topics are:
Would it make sense to start with short open air line ends?
Would it be more sensible to allow automation to proceed in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary manner? (As that is what has been happening for some considerable time, now.)
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 16, 2020 0:27:59 GMT
I suppose Hainault - Woodford might make a good testbed. Plenty of track capacity and if there is a problem other busier services are not stuffed. This is also where fully automated trains have run before, albeit not in public service and with a human supervisor.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 16, 2020 8:17:08 GMT
I think that timescale is pessimistic. Given the will, I’d suggest that proving in one place could lead to a determined focus on roll out, and use of learnings from one place to drive the next phase somewhere else. The phases could also be run in parallel, meaning that the 10 year timescale for the first example might well be significantly shortened.
However, at the moment, the will seems absent so the rest will be too.
|
|
brigham
Posts: 2,429
Member is Online
|
Post by brigham on Nov 16, 2020 8:51:26 GMT
The will is probably absent because the cause is probably pointless.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Nov 16, 2020 10:32:02 GMT
I think that timescale is pessimistic. Given the will, I’d suggest that proving in one place could lead to a determined focus on roll out, and use of learnings from one place to drive the next phase somewhere else. The phases could also be run in parallel, meaning that the 10 year timescale for the first example might well be significantly shortened. However, at the moment, the will seems absent so the rest will be too. The figures could be optimistic or pessimistic - after all, I just pulled them from thin air. However, from observing the progress of public works, from announcement to delivery, (with the notable exception of the Olympics which had to be delivered on time), things generally move at a glacial pace, and always cost more and take longer than originally intended. At the moment there is neither the finance or the political (or any other) will for this to happen, apart from the somewhat capricious demand of a PM who is not really known for consistent behaviour, so I suggest that the figures are optimistic. Even if, at some point, you did manage to obtain finance and political agreement to go ahead, given that the project would certainly run over at least three terms of government, there is no guarantee that that will would still be there at some point in the project when the inevitable cost and timing over-runs were announced. As I said earlier, I really do believe that Underground automation will be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. We already have trains that are quite capable of driving themselves from one end of a line to the other. Once someone comes up with an automatic dispatch system that is at least as safe as current protocols, it will be entirely feasible to have sections of line where for the most part the driver is just a monitor, only taking over when something goes wrong. More and more sections would eventually be able to operate in this manner, until, at some point, LU could say that there have been no driver interventions for x years, and sections could become fully automatic. That way you would move further and further towards complete automation, without ever having to commit billions to an 'all in one go' approach, and would avoid the rather risky (in terms of finance and service availability) idea of going from driver controlled to fully automatic in a single hop. (Obviously, even if you did full automate a line as a single project, you would have driver monitoring for a considerable length of time to be 100% sure that it was safe in all circumstances.) |
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 843
|
Post by vincenture on Nov 16, 2020 10:39:25 GMT
I think the Bakerloo would be a more probable or shall I say realistic goal after the Waterloo & City. It's because it's not running at full capacity atm and it's not as intense as the Victoria line cuz if any faults there would be a serious problem on the Victoria. I have a greater suggestion though. A win-win would be that drivers are not needed during off-peak times, which still provides opportunity for these drivers to work full force during peak/rush hours. How does that sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Nov 16, 2020 11:31:05 GMT
two issues which come to mind.
Firstly can you imagine the problems getting Network Rail to agree, and secondly, what are you planning on doing with the drivers outside the peak, or are they going to work 4 hour days?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Nov 16, 2020 12:14:58 GMT
I think the Bakerloo would be a more probable or shall I say realistic goal after the Waterloo & City. It's because it's not running at full capacity atm and it's not as intense as the Victoria line cuz if any faults there would be a serious problem on the Victoria. I have a greater suggestion though. A win-win would be that drivers are not needed during off-peak times, which still provides opportunity for these drivers to work full force during peak/rush hours. How does that sound? I don't understand where you get the: "drivers are not needed during off-peak times", from. I can't see anything in the preceding text which explains that. |
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 843
|
Post by vincenture on Nov 17, 2020 22:12:33 GMT
I think the Bakerloo would be a more probable or shall I say realistic goal after the Waterloo & City. It's because it's not running at full capacity atm and it's not as intense as the Victoria line cuz if any faults there would be a serious problem on the Victoria. I have a greater suggestion though. A win-win would be that drivers are not needed during off-peak times, which still provides opportunity for these drivers to work full force during peak/rush hours. How does that sound? I don't understand where you get the: "drivers are not needed during off-peak times", from. I can't see anything in the preceding text which explains that. Sorry, I mean as in they have an option to eliminate drivers during off-peak times (or reduce their job as just monitors) since there won't be that many passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 20, 2020 22:31:11 GMT
A return to split shifts - that will not please the railway staff
Neither would reducing the working day for most drivers to just 5 hours, to cover each of the two busy periods (ie: 5 hours in the morning or 5 hours in the afternoon with drivers working one or the other of these shifts, not both). After all this would possibly see them effectively reduced to part-time status and even though their hourly rates of pay would remain the same the actual amount of money that reaches their bank accounts would be reduced.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Nov 21, 2020 2:37:59 GMT
A return to split shifts - that will not please the railway staff Neither would reducing the working day for most drivers to just 5 hours, to cover each of the two busy periods (ie: 5 hours in the morning or 5 hours in the afternoon with drivers working one or the other of these shifts, not both). After all this would possibly see them effectively reduced to part-time status and even though their hourly rates of pay would remain the same the actual amount of money that reaches their bank accounts would be reduced. I cannot see any logic behind the idea that, on any given system, automation would be less effective just because the system was busy. Have I missed something? |
|
