We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Tube Drivers Again.
Comments
-
my understanding is that the 'driver' on the DLR is because passengers don't like driverless trains
I'm not entirely sure but I'm sure some-one will enlighten us, that there are fewer strikes on the DLR than the london underground.0 -
No, they couldnt.
They could probably run from one end of the line to the other without a driver, but thats it. Just because a train has the ability to run its route automatically does not mean its ready for driverless operation throughout a working day.
Take it from me, even if you took union pressure out of the equation it would still be a long time before LU trains were ready to go into daily passenger service in a driverless capacity.
I'ld be interested in the information you have to explain why it wouldn't work with existing technology.0 -
But there is always a member of staff on board - during rush hour they usually do take control of the trains (and in this case can be found on the left set of seats right at the front).
The DLR was also built as an automated light railway. Its not a cramped, overcrowded, brink-of-being obsolete 19th century railway that is having to be retrofitted far beyond its original scope using only a few engineering hours per working day.
It has the remote diagnostic systems, the safety failsafes, the driverless platform/train interfaces that the tube would need fitting. Its easier to install these on a new railway than a pre existing one.
Its pretty pointless comparing the two, they're different beasts.0 -
I'ld be interested in the information you have to explain why it wouldn't work with existing technology.
To cut a long and boring story short the tube would need a remote diagnostic system similar to the DLR's, so in the event of breakdowns or faults away from the depot it can be diagnosed and remotely driven into the next place of refuge to be taken out of service and properly looked at.
Automatic platform/train interfaces would need to be developed and installed. These are what control and enable the arrival and despatch of the trains into platforms. They automatically monitor and react to crowd flow getting on and off trains, deciding when to safely close the doors, and how to react in the event of a passenger getting stuck or blocking doors etc. The system also works around unforseen circumstances such as a person going in front of the train, or an obstruction on the track, or the train stopping short of the headwall etc. Its train and station specific so would take some programming and engineering.
These are things that were built into the DLR from day one, or were left open for easy upgrade. Even the tube lines that can run automatically now would have to have them retrofitted.
Its a huge and long running job, even without union interference.0 -
I'm not entirely sure but I'm sure some-one will enlighten us, that there are fewer strikes on the DLR than the london underground.
Correct - DLR strikes are very few and far between. Been living in "DLR transport area" for around 15 years
sinbad182 wrote:The DLR was also built as an automated light railway. Its not a cramped, overcrowded, brink-of-being obsolete 19th century railway that is having to be retrofitted far beyond its original scope using only a few engineering hours per working day.
It has the remote diagnostic systems, the safety failsafes, the driverless platform/train interfaces that the tube would need fitting. Its easier to install these on a new railway than a pre existing one.
Its pretty pointless comparing the two, they're different beasts.
Totally agree that the DLR isn't a creaking ageing system like the rest of the Underground, but I beg to differ on the "cramped, overcrowded" bit obviously depending on time of day (though vastly improved with the introduction of the third carriage a few years back). Now free from the incompetence of vodafail0 -
To cut a long and boring story short the tube would need a remote diagnostic system similar to the DLR's, so in the event of breakdowns or faults away from the depot it can be diagnosed and remotely driven into the next place of refuge to be taken out of service and properly looked at.
Automatic platform/train interfaces would need to be developed and installed. These are what control and enable the arrival and despatch of the trains into platforms. They automatically monitor and react to crowd flow getting on and off trains, deciding when to safely close the doors, and how to react in the event of a passenger getting stuck or blocking doors etc. The system also works around unforseen circumstances such as a person going in front of the train, or an obstruction on the track, or the train stopping short of the headwall etc. Its train and station specific so would take some programming and engineering.
These are things that were built into the DLR from day one, or were left open for easy upgrade. Even the tube lines that can run automatically now would have to have them retrofitted.
Its a huge and long running job, even without union interference.
but both the victoria line and the central line meet these specifications?0 -
but both the victoria line and the central line meet these specifications?
No, they dont.
The signalling and drive is automated - They can run and stop at the right place but thats it.
No remote diagnostics or control.
No automation once docked in station or depot.
No automated safety failsafes for in-tunnel incidents.
Huge jobs to install any one of them on a running railway.0 -
Yes, lets put computers in sole charge of decision making and the safety of passengers. I can see that working well.I can't wait for the day of driver less tube train,"Dont expect anybody else to support you, maybe you have a trust fund, maybe you have a wealthy spouse, but you never know when each one, might run out" - Mary Schmich0 -
Yes, lets put computers in sole charge of decision making and the safety of passengers. I can see that working well.
Rather than the driver-less train, I'd like to see the Crowe-less tube system.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Yes, lets put computers in sole charge of decision making and the safety of passengers. I can see that working well.
That's a pathetic straw-man if ever I saw one.
No one is advocating letting computers be in sole control. Only that we can use computers to make things quicker, faster cheaper and more efficient rather than throwing increasing amounts of money at a labour force that are never satisfied.
The DLR does ok without very expensive drivers, why would it not be suitable for the Tubes?Thinking critically since 1996....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards