Tube Drivers get £50k Deal.

ILW

crazyguy wrote: »

1984 Docklands light Railway cost, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway

£77 Million ( Take note of the amount of track on this route and other systems that are in place it is a lot smaller )


1987 Dubai cost, http://urbanpeek.com/2011/06/07/dubai-metro/

$7.6 Billion Dollars


Combine the cost's as whole that are required as of today to replace tracks, points , signals and trains would run into a very high figure indeed, not to mention disruption.

More info here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground

http://www.railway-technology.com/

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/2625.aspx

What are you going on about?

The costs quoted seem to be for building a complete system from scratch, not just converting an existing system to unmanned operation.

harz99

ILW wrote: »

You still haven't said what they actualy DO beyond stop and start the train. (And much of that is now automated).

It is not just what a tube driver does in a normal days work though.

They have to know how on train equipment works to be able to problem solve in the case of breakdowns, know procedures, rules& regulations, where speed restrictions are and a host of other things, even in the case of the Victoria line the Train Operators have always had to be able to drive manually and correctly interpret codes on a line which did not have conventional signalling.

So the job is not just about starting the train, getting from a-b, stopping the train, opening/closing the doors et al. A lot of it is what you know, more than what you do.

ILW

harz99 wrote: »

It is not just what a tube driver does in a normal days work though.

They have to know how on train equipment works to be able to problem solve in the case of breakdowns, know procedures, rules& regulations, where speed restrictions are and a host of other things, even in the case of the Victoria line the Train Operators have always had to be able to drive manually and correctly interpret codes on a line which did not have conventional signalling.

So the job is not just about starting the train, getting from a-b, stopping the train, opening/closing the doors et al. A lot of it is what you know, more than what you do.

All of that could be done automatically. Take the human side out of things and there is no need to enforce regulations and interpret codes etc. Machines tend to do things like that better than people.

nicko33

crazyguy wrote: »

ah, the manual for negotiating with Bob Crowe

ILW

nicko33 wrote: »

ah, the manual for negotiating with Bob Crowe

He always seems to win though.

harz99

ILW wrote: »

All of that could be done automatically. Take the human side out of things and there is no need to enforce regulations and interpret codes etc. Machines tend to do things like that better than people.

I don't think you know much about railway operation and railway safety - I didn't say "enforce regulations", rather "rules and regulations" which are the bible that governs everything that happens on any railway.

I don't disagree that machines are often better than people, but when a machine stops working for whatever reason, 99% of the time it is a human that sorts the problem out. Even the DLR has a member of staff on board.

Picture yourself on an unmanned train that comes to an unexpected halt in a deep level tunnel between stations with a load to 110% of seating capacity and has lost power to its traction motors thus will not move. Who will sort this out?

Certainly not the failed train, nor the following unmanned train. The same problem when a driver is on board has two potential solutions; firstly the driver finds the problem, sorts it and gets underway, or secondly the driver of the following train uses their train to move the failed one to a place where passengers can at least be got off and the failed train got out of the way.

Automation is not good at solving problems, which is why you will always need a competent person on train, bus, plane etc.

ILW

harz99 wrote: »

I don't think you know much about railway operation and railway safety - I didn't say "enforce regulations", rather "rules and regulations" which are the bible that governs everything that happens on any railway.

I don't disagree that machines are often better than people, but when a machine stops working for whatever reason, 99% of the time it is a human that sorts the problem out. Even the DLR has a member of staff on board.

Picture yourself on an unmanned train that comes to an unexpected halt in a deep level tunnel between stations with a load to 110% of seating capacity and has lost power to its traction motors thus will not move. Who will sort this out?

Certainly not the failed train, nor the following unmanned train. The same problem when a driver is on board has two potential solutions; firstly the driver finds the problem, sorts it and gets underway, or secondly the driver of the following train uses their train to move the failed one to a place where passengers can at least be got off and the failed train got out of the way.

Automation is not good at solving problems, which is why you will always need a competent person on train, bus, plane etc.

That is my point, the driver is not going to sort a burnt out engine. A £20k official could be on each train selling sandwiches or checking tickets to pay his way and if such a situation arises would then be able to sort it out.

harz99

ILW wrote: »

That is my point, the driver is not going to sort a burnt out engine. A £20k official could be on each train selling sandwiches or checking tickets to pay his way and if such a situation arises would then be able to sort it out.

So now you will have a person on each train who is capable of all the following; driving the train in emergency, problem solving, understanding all the rules and regulations pertaining to the railway he/she is working on, competent in food hygiene regualtions, competent in stock control and rotation, competent in ticket validity and regulations, is happy to spend a large part of each day underground in London and at the Public beck and call, and all for the princely sum of £20k a year - not a hope in hell.

BTW, London Underground trains don't have "engines" they have traction motors and several of them, and yes the driver IS going to take action to sort out a burnt out traction motor, even if only in the initial stages of the problem.

Like I said before, you really don't know much about railway operation and safety do you.

IronWolf

Come on guys, you're never going to convince folk like this. They're the people who said the printing press would over heat and blow up. If we listened to people like this we'd still be living in the stone age.

Whoever talks of pilotless planes, just lol. Most of the planes nowadays would not stay in the air if it wasn't for the computer systems underneath which correct imbalances within milli seconds. The Euro fighter can't even physically fly unless a computer continually adjusts its wings.

The whole world is reliant on machines and computers doing the jobs of millions of workers and they do a better job.

harz99

IronWolf wrote: »

Come on guys, you're never going to convince folk like this. They're the people who said the printing press would over heat and blow up. If we listened to people like this we'd still be living in the stone age.

Whoever talks of pilotless planes, just lol. Most of the planes nowadays would not stay in the air if it wasn't for the computer systems underneath which correct imbalances within milli seconds. The Euro fighter can't even physically fly unless a computer continually adjusts its wings.

The whole world is reliant on machines and computers doing the jobs of millions of workers and they do a better job.

And what was the name of the American pilot who landed an all singing all dancing new plane on the Hudson River when its computer systems failed to cope with a problem?

No loss of life due to human intervention...............................