class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743 
|
Post by class411 on Mar 6, 2022 18:14:38 GMT
l have said on these boards many times before: Overseas, planners find reasons to do things and how to do them In the UK they find reasons not to do things, and how to prevent them happening. That is a complete misrepresentation of what the general consensus here is. Virtually everyone agrees that driverless is something that will eventually be achievable. Virtually everyone believes that it will not happen quickly. Virtually everyone believes that the cost to implement it would be beyond anything available at the moment, or in the foreseeable future and that there will always be better ways to spend and available money. Most people seem to agree that it is a rather pointless exercise that gives little benefit. This is not everyone wailing: "Oh, no, it can't be done." It's people taking a long, hard, look at the costs and difficulties versus the potential benefits, and (generally) realising there is no sensible case for spending money on investigating solutions which TFL will not have the means to implement for many, many, years to come. I have already said that converting short, end of line sections to driverless would be an excellent way of gaining important knowledge and expertise without incurring great costs or causing great disruption to the travelling pubic. No one has disagreed with this assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Mar 7, 2022 4:43:25 GMT
In the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme – 2016 Business Case, the case for eventual full automation, but with customer service assistant present on all trains, was reviewed and found financially worthwhile. A possible unattended train operation was less financially attractive, although a further option between the two was also considered, known as 'planned attended'. This would require staff to be rostered for all planned services but may allow operation, subject to conditions, with service disruption or staff missing, and was to be further evaluated. Of forecast capital expenditure, around a third was for rolling stock, and another third for resignalling. The third highest cost was only a tenth for station modifications to allow full train automation, including platform edge doors, gap fillers, and level access to trains.
But the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme – 2017 Business Case assessment then showed negative benefit (or dis-benefit) from attended full automation, but similar levels of benefit from either planned attended or unattended full automation. And yet it is attended full automation that is apparently now being envisaged, or is it really 'planned attended' full automation, and what would that mean?
[See Underground News Sept 2019 for 2017 Business Case, and Jan 2020 for 2016 Business Case]
|
|
|
|
Post by billbedford on Mar 7, 2022 9:11:07 GMT
"Then it's just a matter of finding a few billions of pounds slopping about to implement it all." And that in a nutshell is the problem - money - or lack of it. Sorry, but the real problem is the government's wish to micromanage everything. As long as the transport system is efficient and cost effective it shouldn't matter to the government whether it uses electric trains or strings of camels. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Mar 7, 2022 9:53:07 GMT
"Then it's just a matter of finding a few billions of pounds slopping about to implement it all." And that in a nutshell is the problem - money - or lack of it. Sorry, but the real problem is the government's wish to micromanage everything. As long as the transport system is efficient and cost effective it shouldn't matter to the government whether it uses electric trains or strings of camels. Reliability of a utility service is also important. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 7, 2022 11:35:38 GMT
From the 2014 TfL feasibility study
Page 48
Page 50
And Page 51
Of all the lines the Bakerloo is the least likely to be converted to driverless operation as it would face the most difficulties
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Mar 7, 2022 13:05:43 GMT
In the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme – 2016 Business Case, the case for eventual full automation, but with customer service assistant present on all trains, was reviewed and found financially worthwhile. A possible unattended train operation was less financially attractive, although a further option between the two was also considered, known as 'planned attended'. This would require staff to be rostered for all planned services but may allow operation, subject to conditions, with service disruption or staff missing, and was to be further evaluated. Of forecast capital expenditure, around a third was for rolling stock, and another third for resignalling. The third highest cost was only a tenth for station modifications to allow full train automation, including platform edge doors, gap fillers, and level access to trains. But the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme – 2017 Business Case assessment then showed negative benefit (or dis-benefit) from attended full automation, but similar levels of benefit from either planned attended or unattended full automation. And yet it is attended full automation that is apparently now being envisaged, or is it really 'planned attended' full automation, and what would that mean? On the financial side, this is a masterpiece of obfuscation. Five to six years out of date and extremely vague about the cost/benefits. And how they determined these is not mentioned at all. Back of an envelope? However the most worrying aspect if the mealy mouthed verbiage about attendants. It looks as if they feel they are necessary, but will be quite happy to let trains operate without them (i.e. if there's a strike, to hell with passenger safety). Either you need them or you don't, they're not a fashion accessory. Even if viewed in the most generous light, all this says is that it's a possibility for the somewhat distant future - which seems to concur with the general view here. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Mar 8, 2022 3:27:09 GMT
There is currently a step-up method of working when a Train Driver becomes incapacitated. The following driver pulls forward behind a stalled train, secures their own train and boards the preceding train to deal with its problem. This procedure continues to occur for all following trains until a spare driver can arrive on site.
Given that the new trains are designed with redundancy to avoid trains stalling between stations, and even in power failures can creep to the next station with battery power, it is unlikely that the absence of a staff member on board would usually be noticed by the public. The retention of staff on trains for such rare eventualities would provide little economy in staff costs. But if a staff member was provided only on alternate trains, staff costs could halve. If the staff member was aboard a stalled train then they would proceed to deal with it as today, but if the stalled train were unaccompanied then it would be dealt with using the current step-up method above. First and last trains would always be staffed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 8, 2022 4:19:19 GMT
There is currently a step-up method of working when a Train Driver becomes incapacitated. Termed “Leap-frog” method within the Underground. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 8, 2022 7:42:54 GMT
There is currently a step-up method of working when a Train Driver becomes incapacitated. The following driver pulls forward behind a stalled train, secures their own train and boards the preceding train to deal with its problem. This procedure continues to occur for all following trains until a spare driver can arrive on site. Given that the new trains are designed with redundancy to avoid trains stalling between stations, and even in power failures can creep to the next station with battery power, it is unlikely that the absence of a staff member on board would usually be noticed by the public. The retention of staff on trains for such rare eventualities would provide little economy in staff costs. But if a staff member was provided only on alternate trains, staff costs could halve. If the staff member was aboard a stalled train then they would proceed to deal with it as today, but if the stalled train were unaccompanied then it would be dealt with using the current step-up method above. First and last trains would always be staffed. The flaw with that idea is trains rarely stall due to power failures, in nearly 20 years of driving I can only think of two or three occasions when I've been stuck on a train without traction current. The main causes of stalled trains are faults on the train itself or faults with the signal system, neither of which could be resolved with battery power. That is one of the reasons TfL have considered GoA3 with a member of staff on board rather than unstaffed GoA4 Also there are occasions when traction current is discharged to allow access to the track to carry out repairs, to retrieve something that has fallen on the track or with "one unders". You really don't want unstaffed trains driving themselves and "creeping" to the next station on battery power when you've got staff on the track! |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Mar 8, 2022 10:28:52 GMT
There is currently a step-up method of working when a Train Driver becomes incapacitated. The following driver pulls forward behind a stalled train, secures their own train and boards the preceding train to deal with its problem. This procedure continues to occur for all following trains until a spare driver can arrive on site. Given that the new trains are designed with redundancy to avoid trains stalling between stations, and even in power failures can creep to the next station with battery power, it is unlikely that the absence of a staff member on board would usually be noticed by the public. The retention of staff on trains for such rare eventualities would provide little economy in staff costs. But if a staff member was provided only on alternate trains, staff costs could halve. If the staff member was aboard a stalled train then they would proceed to deal with it as today, but if the stalled train were unaccompanied then it would be dealt with using the current step-up method above. First and last trains would always be staffed. So, the on board staff call a strike. "Mwaa ha ha ha", go the management. "Our trains are automated so we don't need you!" Train fails in long tunnel section. Trains back up behind. The driver of the train directly behind the failed train drives his train ... oh, wait ... You would need a staff member in at least every other train so the advantage that the politicians are gunning for: Making the tube strike proof, fails to materialise. And what happens if there is a fault in the signalling system causing multiple trains to get 'stuck'? It's very likely that, at some point, a fully automated system will be developed that does not require staff, but in the meantime, positing a system which uses staff who may or may not be present is weaselly. Either they don't need to be there, in which case you've already got a fully automated system, or they do, and you have lost your 'no-strikes' advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 8, 2022 14:58:52 GMT
There is currently a step-up method of working when a Train Driver becomes incapacitated. The following driver pulls forward behind a stalled train, secures their own train and boards the preceding train to deal with its problem. This procedure continues to occur for all following trains until a spare driver can arrive on site. Given that the new trains are designed with redundancy to avoid trains stalling between stations, and even in power failures can creep to the next station with battery power, it is unlikely that the absence of a staff member on board would usually be noticed by the public. The retention of staff on trains for such rare eventualities would provide little economy in staff costs. But if a staff member was provided only on alternate trains, staff costs could halve. If the staff member was aboard a stalled train then they would proceed to deal with it as today, but if the stalled train were unaccompanied then it would be dealt with using the current step-up method above. First and last trains would always be staffed. So, the on board staff call a strike. "Mwaa ha ha ha", go the management. "Our trains are automated so we don't need you!" Train fails in long tunnel section. Trains back up behind. The driver of the train directly behind the failed train drives his train ... oh, wait ... You would need a staff member in at least every other train so the advantage that the politicians are gunning for: Making the tube strike proof, fails to materialise. And what happens if there is a fault in the signalling system causing multiple trains to get 'stuck'? It's very likely that, at some point, a fully automated system will be developed that does not require staff, but in the meantime, positing a system which uses staff who may or may not be present is weaselly. Either they don't need to be there, in which case you've already got a fully automated system, or they do, and you have lost your 'no-strikes' advantage. Agreed - but you miss the generalised point that if you can make the on board presence 'unskilled' it becomes far easier to find people to cover for strikers*.
Amongst certain sections of political thinking (and their press backers) the holy grail would be to have on train staff on the same zero hours contracts as train cleaners meaning even if they do strike its easy to recruit cover.
Now naturally on the tube this is going to be tricky - but if you were able to strip it back to a 'bare bones' situation of merely knowing how to evacuate a train via the 4ft rather than knowing how to drive the train etc, its quite possible TfL would be able to have a reserve of people it could call on and blunt the impact of union action.
Removing any requirement for 'drivers' (in any sense of the word) is thus an important step in achieving this goal - and is also why the DfT will NOT drop the idea, regardless of how many practical issues TfL (or members of this forum) raise.
*Leaving aside the hyperbole, that was really the essence of the Southern Guard dispute a few years ago where the reality was a desire by the DfT to 'de-skill' the 2nd member of on train staff, something that had it been successful would have nullified any union action and meant wages could have been slashed. The fact the the OBS grade still requires all the safety critical competences a Guard does means it has done nothing to reduce the power of the RMT to cause disruption via industrial action (particularly as the agreement which ended the dispute specified that in the event of a OBS no show then the train would be cancelled rather than run as DOO) and so the DfTs actions can (after putting staff and passengers through several years of hell) be largely said to have failed -
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Mar 8, 2022 17:27:08 GMT
So, the on board staff call a strike. "Mwaa ha ha ha", go the management. "Our trains are automated so we don't need you!" Train fails in long tunnel section. Trains back up behind. The driver of the train directly behind the failed train drives his train ... oh, wait ... You would need a staff member in at least every other train so the advantage that the politicians are gunning for: Making the tube strike proof, fails to materialise. And what happens if there is a fault in the signalling system causing multiple trains to get 'stuck'? It's very likely that, at some point, a fully automated system will be developed that does not require staff, but in the meantime, positing a system which uses staff who may or may not be present is weaselly. Either they don't need to be there, in which case you've already got a fully automated system, or they do, and you have lost your 'no-strikes' advantage. Agreed - but you miss the generalised point that if you can make the on board presence 'unskilled' it becomes far easier to find people to cover for strikers*. That wasn't the point I was addressing (although the discussion has morphed slightly). The main point I was attacking was the weird 'planned attended' nonsense that Jimbo reported. If these attendants can be present or not, according to circumstances, then it is clear that it is considered safe for trains to run without them, so they are not relevant to the primary discussion. If they are going to be entrusted with disembarking hundreds or passengers into possibly unilluminated tunnels, with responsibility for ensuring the power is off (and will stay off) and it is safe in other regards, that's not just a matter of a couple of hours in a classroom. It's a very serious training requirement, with a lot of health and safety input, and it is very unlikely that they would be able to fulfil that requirement by getting a few hundred odd bods on zero hours contracts and paying them peanuts. They may not drop the idea, but, unless they can persuade the treasury that there is some extremely good reason to spend the enormous sums required, they are likely to be banging their heads against a brick wall. The system will continue to evolve towards full automation and in a few decades that target may well be achieved. The key, though, is to allow this to happen in sensible, evolutionary, stages, concentrating on the cheapest and easiest aspects first, rather than trying to implement some absurd vanity scheme and end up with something that would make the debacle of cross-rail seem a model of efficiency and competence. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 9, 2022 3:14:05 GMT
So, the on board staff call a strike. "Mwaa ha ha ha", go the management. "Our trains are automated so we don't need you!" Train fails in long tunnel section. Trains back up behind. The driver of the train directly behind the failed train drives his train ... oh, wait ... You would need a staff member in at least every other train so the advantage that the politicians are gunning for: Making the tube strike proof, fails to materialise. And what happens if there is a fault in the signalling system causing multiple trains to get 'stuck'? It's very likely that, at some point, a fully automated system will be developed that does not require staff, but in the meantime, positing a system which uses staff who may or may not be present is weaselly. Either they don't need to be there, in which case you've already got a fully automated system, or they do, and you have lost your 'no-strikes' advantage. Agreed - but you miss the generalised point that if you can make the on board presence 'unskilled' it becomes far easier to find people to cover for strikers*.
Amongst certain sections of political thinking (and their press backers) the holy grail would be to have on train staff on the same zero hours contracts as train cleaners meaning even if they do strike its easy to recruit cover.
Now naturally on the tube this is going to be tricky - but if you were able to strip it back to a 'bare bones' situation of merely knowing how to evacuate a train via the 4ft rather than knowing how to drive the train etc, its quite possible TfL would be able to have a reserve of people it could call on and blunt the impact of union action.
Removing any requirement for 'drivers' (in any sense of the word) is thus an important step in achieving this goal - and is also why the DfT will NOT drop the idea, regardless of how many practical issues TfL (or members of this forum) raise.
*Leaving aside the hyperbole, that was really the essence of the Southern Guard dispute a few years ago where the reality was a desire by the DfT to 'de-skill' the 2nd member of on train staff, something that had it been successful would have nullified any union action and meant wages could have been slashed. The fact the the OBS grade still requires all the safety critical competences a Guard does means it has done nothing to reduce the power of the RMT to cause disruption via industrial action (particularly as the agreement which ended the dispute specified that in the event of a OBS no show then the train would be cancelled rather than run as DOO) and so the DfTs actions can (after putting staff and passengers through several years of hell) be largely said to have failed -
What you describe is Grade of Automation 4 which TfL has already rejected as unworkable. I have no idea if DfT has actually stipulated GoA4 or GoA3 but TfL is not going to accept a situation where trains have no one onboard capable of dealing with faults and driving the train if necessary as that would simply lead to massive disruption on a daily basis. Even if TfL had a "reserve of people" they would still have to be trained, hold safety critical licences, perform those duties at least once every six months in order to keep their licences in date and there would be nothing to stop them joining a union. |
|
|
|
Post by toby on Mar 9, 2022 8:51:59 GMT
its quite possible TfL would be able to have a reserve of people it could call on and blunt the impact of union action. The reserve not-drivers could be invited to the driver's union. I don't think this can be solved by attempting to guarantee a class of non-robot workers stays lower class. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 10, 2022 8:26:13 GMT
The idea that driverless trains would "blunt the impact of union action" was proved false during the two RMT strikes last week when plenty of ASLEF drivers booked on for work but there weren't enough staff in the control room to run anything more than a reduced service and a large number of stations closed due to lack of staff.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Mar 10, 2022 8:34:52 GMT
What a fascinating scenario.
Did everyone who booked on get paid?
|
|
hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Mar 10, 2022 9:03:28 GMT
What a fascinating scenario. Did everyone who booked on get paid? Oh yes. Nobody works for nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 10, 2022 10:23:05 GMT
We are all now thoroughly familiar with the west to east mainline shunt move at Liverpool Street and thankfully they'd cleaned the "Limit of Shunt" board since last time we used it so no one ending up going all the way to Bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 21, 2022 1:16:32 GMT
What a fascinating scenario. Did everyone who booked on get paid?
ASLEF were not on strike so all their staff are required BY LAW* to report for work as usual.
The fact that their employer (LU) is not able to give them any work to do once they get there due to the actions of another trade union is irrelevant - the ASLEF members have complied with their contracts of employment so must get paid acordingly.
*Taking secondary action (i.e. not turning in for work because another trade union is on strike with your employer was specifically outlawed in the 1980s by Mrs Thatchers reform of trade Union laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by nig on Mar 21, 2022 1:45:36 GMT
What a fascinating scenario. Did everyone who booked on get paid?
ASLEF were not on strike so all their staff are required BY LAW* to report for work as usual.
The fact that their employer (LU) is not able to give them any work to do once they get there due to the actions of another trade union is irrelevant - the ASLEF members have complied with their contracts of employment so must get paid acordingly.
*Taking secondary action (i.e. not turning in for work because another trade union is on strike with your employer was specifically outlawed in the 1980s by Mrs Thatchers reform of trade Union laws.
If there is a picket line you don't have to cross it and the employer can't do anything. The line your quoiting is. it’s in support of workers taking action against another employer (otherwise known as ‘sympathy’ or ‘secondary’ action) Which is totally diffent to a union taking action at your place of work and your unioin isn't so it's not against the law to strike whatever uioin your in or even if your not in a union. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 21, 2022 2:21:28 GMT
Whether you cross a picket line or not, regardless of whether you are even a member of a union or not, if you turn up for work at the time and place your employer asks you, in a fit state to work and properly attired, then you get paid whether you can do any work or not.
The only exceptions to this are (1) if your contract explicitly states otherwise,* (2) you have agreed to work without pay for some reason.
*for example, at least some airline pilots on standby don't get paid unless they are actually called on to work, even if they are required to standby at the airport. I am not aware of any examples on LU where this applies.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Mar 21, 2022 8:58:39 GMT
*for example, at least some airline pilots on standby don't get paid unless they are actually called on to work, even if they are required to standby at the airport. I am not aware of any examples on LU where this applies. Possibly because LU does not employ any airline pilots. .. .. I'll get me coat. |
|
