|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 9, 2021 20:08:50 GMT
"new One Person Operation (OPO) cameras are a big improvement, they move" seems a bit odd to me. Surely that would mean something could be in or out of the view intermittently, making a door close and depart decision more dangerous?
I wonder whether something has got lost in the copywriting. Perhaps it just means the new camera positions are moved relative to the old ones, giving better views.
Anyone with actual knowledge or experience of the new set-up?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743 
Member is Online
|
Post by class411 on Dec 10, 2021 9:59:03 GMT
Perhaps, if, immediately before departure, the cameras swept left and right before returning to the default door view, it could improve safety. However, that would require some sort of synchronisation between the cab and the camera system, or reliance on the driver correctly synching her/his actions on each departure.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 10, 2021 11:37:44 GMT
Perhaps, if, immediately before departure, the cameras swept left and right before returning to the default door view, it could improve safety. However, that would require some sort of synchronisation between the cab and the camera system, or reliance on the driver correctly synching her/his actions on each departure. This sounds rather too advanced for 1972 stock. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
Member is Online
|
Post by class411 on Dec 10, 2021 11:55:02 GMT
Perhaps, if, immediately before departure, the cameras swept left and right before returning to the default door view, it could improve safety. However, that would require some sort of synchronisation between the cab and the camera system, or reliance on the driver correctly synching her/his actions on each departure. This sounds rather too advanced for 1972 stock. It would need to be an addition, no matter what stock, unless it could be piggybacked onto an existing system, which is, presumably, more likely with the latest stock. I would imagine the problem with older stock would be establishing a reliable communication system between the cab and the camera motion system. |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 10, 2021 12:59:45 GMT
This makes me wonder if, when it comes to serious accidents, human factors now far exceed technical failures? Have we crossed that threshold yet?
In which case rather than discussing further "patches" to the current system - which may or may not work we should seriously be considering plan B.
As it stands. this finding seems to add yet another reason for RAIB and Londoners to demand PEDs (with gap fillers where needed) on all platforms and on all lines - with the admittedly huge cost being offset by a rapid switch-over to fully driverless operation which doubtless the Treasury and Mr Johnson would be happy to fund in full, and at a stroke solve their budget problems.
In due course London ends up with a safer system with the "drivers" role being completely replaced by an "attendant" role similar to the Docklands routes. Obviously any ticket checking role would be impossible given the length of tube trains - so attendants would just sit in the leading cab and enjoy the view, whilst leaving it to the system to drive the train with the cab simply equipped with a big red emergency stop button and a radio coms system.
Attendants would not need extensive training or route knowledge as in future the computer would in future do everything(just like the lifts in my office), which pretty much eliminates human factor accidents especially those where people get tired and occasionally make mistakes(SPADS/Sandilands).
Importantly the attendant role would not be trained to operate a passenger carrying train - even in emergency. Their future role would be just to provide passenger reassurance and oversee any necessary evacuation if a unit fails - leaving it then to the back-office & maintenance people to recover any defective train if/when it all goes wrong.
This greatly changed role would reduce the level of expertise required and of course the cost to employ an "attendant" to sit in the cab. Probably the role could be taken on by pretty much anyone capable of holding a driving licence and able to demonstrate basic common sense.
This may not be what some on this forum wish to hear, but it does seem the inevitable direction of travel for at least the tube network, with it really just being a question of how long will it take? If the new Piccadilly units are now being specified with autonymous operation capability then I suspect we could see the whole system follow within 50 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 10, 2021 13:05:48 GMT
I don't think the age of 1972TS makes a difference here because the OPO CCTV system is entirely platform based with the monitors outside the cab on the platform.
Also assume nobody is suggesting the camera view be adjustable by the T/Op.
I still think that a moving scan image is fraught with problems unless it still guaranteed continuous 100% coverage of the Platform/Train Interface and didn't introduce new difficulty in interpreting the images and being able to recognise the presence of people or obstructions anywhere along the PTI.
Let's see if someone with actual Bakerloo knowledge clarifies the new scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 10, 2021 13:13:51 GMT
As it stands. this finding seems to add yet another reason for RAIB and Londoners to demand PEDs (with gap fillers where needed) on all platforms and on all lines - with the admittedly huge cost being offset by a rapid switch-over to fully driverless operation which doubtless the Treasury and Mr Johnson would be happy to fund in full, and at a stroke solve their budget problems. Fitting PEDs to a severely curved platform generates a risk of trapping between PED and train as the doors close. A new risk that would need to be addressed in some way. That space is unmonitored on the Jubilee PED platforms. It is much narrower with those straight platforms but still just about credible as a trap hazard. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 10, 2021 13:20:38 GMT
As it stands. this finding seems to add yet another reason for RAIB and Londoners to demand PEDs (with gap fillers where needed) on all platforms and on all lines - with the admittedly huge cost being offset by a rapid switch-over to fully driverless operation which doubtless the Treasury and Mr Johnson would be happy to fund in full, and at a stroke solve their budget problems. Fitting PEDs to a severely curved platform generates a risk of trapping between PED and train as the doors close. A new risk that would need to be addressed in some way. That space is unmonitored on the Jubilee PED platforms. It is much narrower with those straight platforms but still just about credible as a trap hazard. And while gap fillers could reduce but not eliminate* the falling hazard you introduce the risk of someone being trapped between the train and the PEDs with both doors closed - this is far more dangerous than the equivalent situation without PEDs, particularly if any part of the person, their clothing or anything they're carrying, is trapped in the train door. *Unless the gap fillers are wider than the maximum offset between train door and PED and either 100% reliable or there is some sort of interlocking that means neither train door nor PED can open if the gap filler is not proven extended. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Dec 10, 2021 13:48:48 GMT
A TfL report from August 2020 that was leaked to ASLEF estimated the cost of driverless trains (GoA3), PEDs, etc. would be £7bn and like the DLR the member of staff onboard would need to be able to manually drive the train in emergency situations.
The work would take years with some platforms having to be rebuilt to take the extra weight and we have East Acton as a fine example of how long that could take.
Paris Metro Line 4 is currently being converted to driverless operation (GoA4), due to be complete next year after 5 years. That is being done with the co-operation of the drivers' union CGT, no redundancies, drivers displaced to other lines and if I understand correctly huge bonuses all round
At the moment TfL can't afford a signals upgrade on the Piccadilly and the new 2024 stock will have to be fitted with tripcocks! The suggestion that the Tube will go driverless any time soon is utterly comical.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 11, 2021 11:41:32 GMT
Had a look at Waterloo SB today. The OPO cameras appear to be in normal fixed housings. The images on the side facing monitor array don't change their direction of view as the train is present and about to depart. The cameras are not moving!
The press release appears to be oddly worded and in fact what seems to have been done is a modern camera and monitor installation with the camera positions and alignments optimised to current best practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 11, 2021 12:39:17 GMT
I think LU seem to come out poorly in this report, which is all about risk assessment. LU seemed unable to justify that risks were as low as practical. The incident occurred early in the Covid pandemic with few passengers around, so no-one to see what happened and then help or raise the alarm. Quiet times are probably more of a problem, with no public to assist. Platform risks were assessed by LU on a line-wide basis, suggesting no higher risk at curved platforms. And yet platform markings, lighting within the gap and ‘mind the gap’ announcements all suggest a higher risk was recognised. LU risk assessment was also only concerned with fatalities, and therefore understated risk by ignoring non-fatal accidents. They recommend ongoing evaluation of existing safety measures at stations, and periodic risk assessment of individual locations, likely because the platform CCTV monitors, used by train drivers, date back to initial installation in the late 1980s with no requirement to update equipment to meet two subsequent upgrades of CCTV standards. They also require effective delivery of actions proposed by internal investigation recommendations, following similar incidents which apparently resulted in no changes at this platform. Probably long overdue CCTV upgrade as recommended in report. This was the original Bakerloo OPO installation! |
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 11, 2021 15:13:55 GMT
What about having Pressure plate sensors on the concrete track bed to register anyone falling onto the track if a train is present or not? It could be installed on any platform/line, sound an alarm for the driver, station supervisor, Controller etc if such event occurs. It could even be tied-into the signalling system to stop a train leaving or entering a platform if a track incursion is detected.
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Dec 11, 2021 15:59:03 GMT
This makes me wonder if, when it comes to serious accidents, human factors now far exceed technical failures? Have we crossed that threshold yet? If not, we're rapidly approaching it.
Maybe an absurd case, but consider air travel- from what I can tell, for years now the greatest risk of injury is from other passengers! (The same is likely true for rail travel in general.) We have convinced the general populace that absolute "safety" is possible so they demand it (and at no cost). We even talk about something being "safe" without qualifying what that means.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
Member is Online
|
Post by class411 on Dec 11, 2021 19:05:32 GMT
Generally speaking, in aviation, it's reckoned that it usually takes at least two malfunctions to cause an accident. Frequently one of those is human. When an aircraft suffers some malfunction, the cockpit workload increases dramatically, and even with two pilots, things can get overlooked with fatal consequences.
The nearest I ever came to an accident was on a plane with a faulty flap indicator which caused me to be looking at the wing just as the wind sheared. Fortunately nothing more than a very heavy landing (no damage), but it shows how a small malfunction, together with a not atypical outside event, coupled with a small pilot error (should have completely assured myself of flap position when originally set), all combined to cause an undesirable event.
I would assume the same goes for railways. It will usually take more that just one person or system to error to cause some bad event.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Dec 11, 2021 22:37:39 GMT
Probably long overdue CCTV upgrade as recommended in report. This was the original Bakerloo OPO installation! I don't think they are. The original OPO monitors weren't full colour (they were black and yellow/green from memory) and both monitors and cameras were bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Dec 17, 2021 15:56:13 GMT
A TfL report from August 2020 that was leaked to ASLEF estimated the cost of driverless trains (GoA3), PEDs, etc. would be £7bn and like the DLR the member of staff onboard would need to be able to manually drive the train in emergency situations. The work would take years with some platforms having to be rebuilt to take the extra weight and we have East Acton as a fine example of how long that could take. Paris Metro Line 4 is currently being converted to driverless operation (GoA4), due to be complete next year after 5 years. That is being done with the co-operation of the drivers' union CGT, no redundancies, drivers displaced to other lines and if I understand correctly huge bonuses all round At the moment TfL can't afford a signals upgrade on the Piccadilly and the new 2024 stock will have to be fitted with tripcocks! The suggestion that the Tube will go driverless any time soon is utterly comical. they projected £25B back in 2018, which would’ve been to GoA1, anything else still requires a capt or driver, and that’s not what the baying crowds want |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
Member is Online
|
Post by class411 on Dec 17, 2021 17:10:49 GMT
A TfL report from August 2020 that was leaked to ASLEF estimated the cost of driverless trains (GoA3), PEDs, etc. would be £7bn and like the DLR the member of staff onboard would need to be able to manually drive the train in emergency situations. The work would take years with some platforms having to be rebuilt to take the extra weight and we have East Acton as a fine example of how long that could take. Paris Metro Line 4 is currently being converted to driverless operation (GoA4), due to be complete next year after 5 years. That is being done with the co-operation of the drivers' union CGT, no redundancies, drivers displaced to other lines and if I understand correctly huge bonuses all round At the moment TfL can't afford a signals upgrade on the Piccadilly and the new 2024 stock will have to be fitted with tripcocks! The suggestion that the Tube will go driverless any time soon is utterly comical. they projected £25B back in 2018, which would’ve been to GoA1, anything else still requires a capt or driver, and that’s not what the baying crowds want By ‘baying crowds’, do you mean the general public, or a few rabid politicians? |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Dec 17, 2021 18:45:14 GMT
More like the majority of people who read the Evening Standard, Daily Mail, etc. who believe that all it needs is for the railway pixies to wave their magic wands and all the Tube trains would be transformed into driverless overnight!
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Dec 17, 2021 20:07:26 GMT
Folks - we appreciate this is a subject where there could easily be crossover into the 'Driverless tubes' debate, and that this could in turn become a political debate. We don't want to have to get involved moderating comments which could fall foul of our rules - so please consider this before posting.
Thanks!
|
|
