Boris demands TfL agree to Driverless Trains part 2

It's a good job TFL have such huge cash reserves available for expensive infrastructure projects such as full line automation.

Oh, wait ...

This is part of the funding conditions for the last short-term grant deal, and was part of the previous one also!

TfL view seems to be that if that much money is available, it could provide greater benefit elsewhere, e.g. Lewisham extension. If Boris wants to show London can match Paris with driverless trains, could he take W&C away from TfL and use private operator to provide 5 new trains, new signals, and operate driverless?

I wonder if HM Treasury has inspired this initiative? The best way to kill off a stupid idea is to show beyond doubt just how stupidly expensive it will be. The Yes Minister reference does indeed seem pertinent especially if you are trying to dissuade a Minister hell bent on his latest pet project. Anyone remember how quickly operating the crew manned Routemaster 2 fleet became unviable - meaning TFL are stuck for years with the extra fuel maintenace and depreciation costs of operating buses lugging around extra staircases and boarding platforms - brilliant!

I really hope TFL take the brave step of doing it properly and rather than rely on in-house musings. They need to round up a selection of reputable experts from inside and outside the railway sector and including construction firms, and then armed with a full briefing of the latest HSE and accessibility rules see what they come up with.

At least from TFL's perspective the whole cost of this fruitless exercise can then be passed to HMT. As this means the cost will also be paid for by people North of Watford I wonder how long it will be before Andy Burnham and others cry foul.

The expression "to examine the feasibility of producing a viable business case for implementing driverless trains" sounds strangely convoluted. Clearly to "examine the feasibility for implementing driverless trains" would be pointless because it's clearly feasible, just a matter of cost and risk. I think therefore that the "feasibility" refers directly to "viable business case" and sows the seeds of doubt before the job is even started.

When the PM was Mayor TfL did an immense amount of work on the feasibility of driverless trains - with no attendant. It was just about possible to make a business case. As soon as there's a guarantee of a trained person on the train, the business case fails. The overwhelming benefit of automation is delivered by ATO, and having a driver observe the closing of the doors and starting has little or no disbenefit. Having the driver open the doors avoids the need for independent systems verifying that the train has actually stopped in the right place. LU determined at one point that there was a quantifiable delay between the train stopping and the driver opening the doors. This led to a proposal for automation. When examined in detail it was found that the delay was mostly down to the delay in the ATO deciding that the train had actually stopped and the drivers were reacting very quickly once the door controls were enabled.

Thus the only discernible benefit of the "driverless" the elimination of staff on the train and the flexibility to add to the service without the constraint of finding an attendant.

So the 2017 study (I think I have the date correctly) that was "leaked" by ASLEF showed there was no business case.

By the way, for the current study, LU is seeking methods for controlling risk at the Platform Train Interface that involves systems/technologies that might be simpler/cheaper that Platform Screen Doors. www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/017125-2021

"The DfT-led driverless train study is looking at the possible future use of Grade-of-Automation 3 trains with an onboard attendant, as is used on London’s Docklands Light Railway automated light metro network."

And like the DLR the "attendant" would be able to join a union and go on strike if they felt it necessary (as they did in November 2016 and March 2018)

GoA4 or UTO (Unattended Train Operation) would be a nightmare if a train got stuck in a tunnel halfway between stations (or even out on the far fling fringes of the Central or Metropolitan Line,  Mile End to Stratford is 2.83km/1.76 miles, Debden to Theydon Bois 3.35km/2.08 miles

This is exactly what makes it politically motivated. As you say, there is no benefit in going for GOA3, as the member of staff requires full safety training, and most importantly of all there is still the requirement for duty schedules, which is the big thing which constrains flexibility. The only real benefit is quicker turnrounds, but again I think this is over-rated as in many cases the member of staff will still require to use facilities like the toilet, or have to detrain passengers which takes time.

GOA4 would certainly bring performance benefits through the massive increase in flexibility, but this would have to be traded against a reduction in safety. There would need to be an absolutely massive step-change in the way LU operates in order to be able to address the safety issues, and I don't think we're anywhere near close to that, or indeed whether it's even possible without rebuilding the system from scratch.

The question is no doubt whether anyone at TfL is strong enough to fend off being bamboozled into going down the GOA3 route by the politicians, who of course are never in power long enough to be accountable for picking up the pieces at the end.

I'm pretty sure 'double ending' is how the New York subway operates the Times Square shuttle.

Thanks for the link. What does TfL do?: I.6) Main activity - Urban railway, tramway, trolleybus or bus services. Is that still to come, or are they looking back a while?

I wrote this Tuesday, 2 February 2016 (https://aslefshrugged.blogspot.com/)

Battery trolleybuses are a thing, and as it stands by far the most cost efficient and environmentally friendly bus option in many cases, especially in places like London.

The batteries are smaller (less environmental impact during assembly and also far lighter), can be charged on the move (fewer vehicles and drivers required, lower strain on the power grid) and the buses have far more passenger capacity than battery equivalents (due to axle limits). Trolley poles can drop and rise at the push of a button and within the dwell time of a single stop, giving them far more flexibility than a lot of other e-bus types

Battery trolleybuses can have up to 50% of the route off-wire, meaning only straight, cheap-to-wire sections need to be wired up, without any complex junctions.

You can even power them using the same transformers and substations as the underground.

Personally I think the main reason they haven't long since made a return to London is ideological opposition within TfL and the DfT, and them not realising just how far trolleybus technology has come (as there are no working systems in the UK). A small amount of infrastructure on a few central streets in London (at probably a similar or lower cost than the opportunity charging stations being built everywhere) would enable massive, rapid electrification of nearly all bus routes in Central London, without lots of the negatives of opportunity charging or depot charging buses.

The problem there, surely, is that you would need a vast number of buses (because that's a piece of road that forms a part of many routes), equipped with pick ups and batteries, that would also need to be prime movers, because the rest of their route is not electrified, and all battery buses are not yet practical.

Given there's something like 450-odd electric buses in regular daily operation in London alone, with at least one all-electric depot, not to mention electric buses in other UK towns and cities as well as across the world, this statement could probably do with some qualification or clarification.

Anyway, wasn't this supposed to be about driverless trains?

Regarding platform screens, a few years ago I came across a system that had been implemented somewhere in Japan. The "screen" consisted effectively of a "fence" of ropes strung along the platform edge. The mechanism worked a bit like a roller-shutter garage door, and the "screen" of ropes rolled up when a train arrived.

Because there weren't any doors at fixed locations along the platform, the system would be better able to deal with variable door positions at shared platforms, as happens in a few places on LU. It also looked more "lightweight" that traditional PEDs so would perhaps be easier/cheaper to install on a large scale across the system than "traditional" platform edge doors.

It's hard to see such thing being considered for the UK, though.

EDIT: Here's a video of a variant of said system in use: link