Tube Strike

[audikentman]

technodup said:

ere's the list of the various types of auto or semi auto services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_ur...

AFAIK with cars it's the legal/insurance/legislative bits that need addressed rather than the tech. But either way for anyone to deny the direction of travel (excuse the pun) is to stick their dinosaur head firmly in the sand.

They'd be better spending the time trying to find an equivalent job that pays equivalent money. Because it'll take a while.

Insurance/risk is probably the same reason for keep the driver on trains.

Out of interest I clicked on the Wikilink, a very quick read a lot seem to be Airport associated, so plenty of other staff around, along with far less trouble makers or in countries that don't have a get drunk and have a punch up at night mentality. Or are pretty new/completely refurbished railways. The railway in the UK is almost all based a system built 150 years ago. There are plenty of parts of the mainline that apart from the stock is still running based Victorian signalling.

I clicked on the link for Algiers Metro quote ''With a length of 9.5 kilometres (5.9 miles), the first section of Line 1 includes ten stations, connecting Tafourah - Grande Poste to Haï El Badr. Nine of the ten stations are underground with two central tracks flanked by two 115 metres (377 ft) long side platforms The total cost of the first phase of line 1 rose to 77 billion DZD (900m euros), consisting of DZD 30 billion for civil engineering and DZD 47 billion for the equipment''

The Airport Transit System (ATS) is an automated people mover system at Chicago The 2.7-mile (4.3 km) system was built by Matra at a cost of $127 million, and began its operation on May 6, 1993. It can accommodate up to 2,400 passengers per hour


Seems similar to the DLR Nuremberg U-Bahn, but they still need a manual facility when it all goes wrong quote ''Thirty new train units (named DT3) were ordered and have been delivered for U3 operations. Those trains are designed to operate without a driver, controlled by an ATC system from Siemens, and will provide the passengers with an unobstructed view from the front window into the tunnel. A normally locked drivers panel exists at every front window which enables service employees to drive DT3 units by hand if required''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_U-Bahn

Then you have the cost of rolling stock on top, Would LU or any rail company in the UK invest that sort of money?



If automation was introduced it would be gradual and I doubt if it would affect anyone currently working for LU, they would either retire, go to work for another train company in this country or overseas, I know freight companies in Australia will happily take a UK driver, and DBS are looking for drivers in the UAE.

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 08:52

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 09:02

[audikentman]

Chlamydia said:

Few of us however are paid as well as the drivers. None of us will be striking.

Fair enough, I have a friend in S&T on LU, he is younger than me but after a few promotions no longer gets his hands dirty as much, any reason you don't want to drive if you know they are currently on more money? I assume long term you can get promoted in your company and earn more? Or is it a stepping stone to working in a similar job but for a different company?

[PoleDriver]

The French have, obviously, decided on their preference!

(Quote) " Paris Métro Line 1 - Upgraded from manual operation."

[audikentman]

PoleDriver said:

The French have, obviously, decided on their preference!

(Quote) " Paris Métro Line 1 - Upgraded from manual operation."

I was looking to see how much it cost but couldn't see the figures. I found this article from 2011 though

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-d...

On the scale of things I would imagine the cost of staff are far less because its just looked at short term than the long term investment of driverless trains on any network in the UK. Also do the managers at LU really care if the staff go on strike? Probably not they just save on wages for a day.
There does seem to be a complete breakdown of any industrial relations on LU though and I think BJ knows this and loves stirring the pot.

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 09:31

[sidicks]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, this is a much more interactive and useful dialogue!

audikentman said:

sidicks said:

You mentioned your safety record - are you suggesting that an exemplary record is the norm for all drivers or is it much more variable than that?

Don't know tbh, I have a colleague who has done 32 years and is blemish free, yet others take the job on thinking easy money and don't last more than a year because they are not suitable for the job.

I guess this would be helpful to understand this to determine whether this is consistent across the board or not (and for those with less good records, how many are forced to leave due to those records)

audikentman said:

sidicks said:

How many incidents involving the emergency stop have you experienced? (In 15 years of daily commuting I've only experienced this happen once).

As a guess on average 1 every 6months, you have had it once on your commute which is 1 hour? we on average do 8 1 hour trips a day but it depends on a lot of factors, the area, the time of year and the time of day, this time of year it trespassers on the line, anyone with kids at home alone during the summer holidays, do you really know what they are doing? But come Autumn and high winds its obstructions on the line, the past couple of years there have been a lot of trees down and landslips The daily commute is probably the easiest time for a driver, not that much unexpected tends to happen apart form infrastructure problems and the knock on effects.

Yes, my commute is 1 hour (each way), probably on the same network you work for!

audikentman said:

sidicks said:

I agree that automation is not likely to be feasible for national rail, but fhe issues for the tube are somewhat different.

You would be suprised how much of 'The Underground' is actually above ground. But as an example on the mainline the current rebuilding of London Bridge station and the Thameslink track is costing £10 Billion, for this you will be getting a new station and trains that will run automatically at the push of a button between the signal sections, they will also need new rolling stock to run on the signalling at £1million a coach.

I'm faced with the London Bridge development every day!!

[audikentman]

sidicks said:

I guess this would be helpful to understand this to determine whether this is consistent across the board or not (and for those with less good records, how many are forced to leave due to those records

3 serious incidents and you are out of driving a train ever at any rail company. A lot of minor incidents can also lead to the same. The standards are not set by any Union or rail company but the RSSB and the OOR.

[Munter]

audikentman said:

PoleDriver said:

The French have, obviously, decided on their preference!

(Quote) " Paris Métro Line 1 - Upgraded from manual operation."

I was looking to see how much it cost but couldn't see the figures. I found this article from 2011 though

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-d...

On the scale of things I would imagine the cost of staff are far less because its just looked at short term than the long term investment of driverless trains on any network in the UK. Also do the managers at LU really care if the staff go on strike? Probably not they just save on wages for a day.
There does seem to be a complete breakdown of any industrial relations on LU though and I think BJ knows this and loves stirring the pot.

Don't forget to include the costs of strikes on the economy into the calculation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-tube-...
That's £300m a day. Say a strike every year on average (i can't find a number for that but we'll have at least 2 days this year by the look of it). Over a 10 year period that's £3,000m that could have been spent on getting a better service, rather than simply lost.

[walm]

Munter said:

Don't forget to include the costs of strikes on the economy into the calculation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-tube-...
That's £300m a day. Say a strike every year on average (i can't find a number for that but we'll have at least 2 days this year by the look of it). Over a 10 year period that's £3,000m that could have been spent on getting a better service, rather than simply lost.

In fairness that £3bn would go to the general economy rather than to TFL.
It isn't like the tube drivers took £3bn that belonged to TFL and burned it.

So unless we all agreed to work for free and donate the profits to TFL if they didn't strike - I am not sure you have a particularly valid point about upgrading the network.

[Munter]

walm said:

Munter said:

Don't forget to include the costs of strikes on the economy into the calculation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-tube-...
That's £300m a day. Say a strike every year on average (i can't find a number for that but we'll have at least 2 days this year by the look of it). Over a 10 year period that's £3,000m that could have been spent on getting a better service, rather than simply lost.

In fairness that £3bn would go to the general economy rather than to TFL.
It isn't like the tube drivers took £3bn that belonged to TFL and burned it.

So unless we all agreed to work for free and donate the profits to TFL if they didn't strike - I am not sure you have a particularly valid point about upgrading the network.

The money lost because of strikes could have been collected (via taxation), and spent on improving the network with no impact on the economy compared to strikes. So we'd be better off collecting £300m a year in extra business tax, and spending it on automating the tube.

[walm]

Munter said:

walm said:

Munter said:

Don't forget to include the costs of strikes on the economy into the calculation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-tube-...
That's £300m a day. Say a strike every year on average (i can't find a number for that but we'll have at least 2 days this year by the look of it). Over a 10 year period that's £3,000m that could have been spent on getting a better service, rather than simply lost.

In fairness that £3bn would go to the general economy rather than to TFL.
It isn't like the tube drivers took £3bn that belonged to TFL and burned it.

So unless we all agreed to work for free and donate the profits to TFL if they didn't strike - I am not sure you have a particularly valid point about upgrading the network.

The money lost because of strikes could have been collected (via taxation), and spent on improving the network with no impact on the economy compared to strikes. So we'd be better off collecting £300m a year in extra business tax, and spending it on automating the tube.

That's the same thing as working for free and giving the profits to TFL.
And clearly isn't what happens.

You seem to be saying that without the strikes TFL would have had more money to upgrade the network and that's not true (other than a tiny amount from the day's fares I suppose).

[audikentman]

The 300m estimate is not a direct cost to LU though so they don't factor it in.
£300m a year doesn't go far on the railway, probably go to a few 'consultants and surveys' as I said London Bridge is costing £10 billion, for that a new station, and the ability for Thameslink to run their new 700 stock in automatic mode for a couple of miles.
Cross rail is going to cost £15 billion and they will still have drivers, why? because at each end they will be running on existing infrastructure, and I would guess that if things go wrong with the brand new 9 coach 345 stock (65 trains £1 billion) then they want someone to step in.
HS1 when it was opened in 2007 cost almost £6 billion and this a fairly easy build as there was not too much tunnelling and no need to close and rebuild existing infrastructure.

What ever it is in the UK no one wants to invest we have a culture of big profits now.

[BJG1]

audikentman said:

A computer can't detect a tree falling in front of a train, someone running across the track when the train is doing 100 mph, someone on a platform who drops a phone on the track and decides to jump down and pick it up as the train is coming into the station, someone who crosses on the track from 1 platform to the other because using the footbridge is too much effort, someone who wants to jump in front of a train because they think at that time in their life its so bad they don't want to see tomorrow. Kids who have jumped over the fence to get their football back to stop it being run over by the train that runs at the end of the garden. People who jump the level crossing barriers because they don't want to wait and think they can beat the approaching train.

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 04:49

A computer can do all of those things and with more accuracy than a human

[audikentman]

BJG1 said:

A computer can do all of those things and with more accuracy than a human

Not well enough it would seem

04/2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278039/Ra...
Quote ''Sercos boss Boss Chris Hyman is paid £1.6million a year - the equivalent of more than £4,300 a day'' I wonder what he is paid 5 years on and if everyone thinks he is worth it?


2 March 2015
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/man-critica...

Apr 23, 2015
http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/04/23/student-killed-...

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 10:57

[BJG1]

audikentman said:

Not well enough it would seem

04/2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278039/Ra...

2 March 2015
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/man-critica...

Apr 23, 2015
http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/04/23/student-killed-...

Does the DLR kill more people than other lines? I don't know what tech they're fitted out with anyway, my point was that computers are capable of doing the things you said they weren't so it is possible to replace drivers and maintain the advantages you perceived as being unique to a human driver - not that our current driverless trains ha that tech.

[PoleDriver]

audikentman said:

Not well enough it would seem

04/2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278039/Ra...
Quote ''Sercos boss Boss Chris Hyman is paid £1.6million a year - the equivalent of more than £4,300 a day'' I wonder what he is paid 5 years on and if everyone thinks he is worth it?


2 March 2015
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/man-critica...

Apr 23, 2015
http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/04/23/student-killed-...

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 10:57

Very accurate reporting!

Travel.aol said:

"The DLR trains are an automated metro system that have minimal staff and steered by computers."

[itannum990]

BJG1 said:

audikentman said:

A computer can't detect a tree falling in front of a train, someone running across the track when the train is doing 100 mph, someone on a platform who drops a phone on the track and decides to jump down and pick it up as the train is coming into the station, someone who crosses on the track from 1 platform to the other because using the footbridge is too much effort, someone who wants to jump in front of a train because they think at that time in their life its so bad they don't want to see tomorrow. Kids who have jumped over the fence to get their football back to stop it being run over by the train that runs at the end of the garden. People who jump the level crossing barriers because they don't want to wait and think they can beat the approaching train.

Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 04:49

A computer can do all of those things and with more accuracy than a human

Coming into a platform at speed of 20 mph, stopping right at the far end (12 car platform) because of train length so obviously brakes not applied at this point, nor would they be for a hundred metres or so.
Platform is heavily curved, hence low line speed so visibility up the line is virtually nill.
At my end of platform, couple of school kids are waving at me.
Now would a computer wave back, or think to itself, hang on, these kids are nearer 13 than 3, why would they be waving at me at 8.15 on a Tuesday morning?
Computer wouldn't brake.
Driver would.
Fortunately as it turned out, for the poor bugger who'd collapsed and toppled over the edge on to the line. Who woke up to see a train stop rather noisily 3 metres from his head.
We aren't payed to make the train open and close doors.

[guru_1071]

itannum990 said:

Fortunately as it turned out, for the poor bugger who'd collapsed and toppled over the edge on to the line. Who woke up to see a train stop rather noisily 3 metres from his head.

lucky bloke!

[Munter]

itannum990 said:

Coming into a platform at speed of 20 mph, stopping right at the far end (12 car platform) because of train length so obviously brakes not applied at this point, nor would they be for a hundred metres or so.
Platform is heavily curved, hence low line speed so visibility up the line is virtually nill.
At my end of platform, couple of school kids are waving at me.
Now would a computer wave back, or think to itself, hang on, these kids are nearer 13 than 3, why would they be waving at me at 8.15 on a Tuesday morning?
Computer wouldn't brake.
Driver would.
Fortunately as it turned out, for the poor bugger who'd collapsed and toppled over the edge on to the line. Who woke up to see a train stop rather noisily 3 metres from his head.
We aren't payed to make the train open and close doors.

The station would be fitted with sensors to identify foreign objects on the track, that are out of the field of vision of the train. As the train approaches the station tells the train to wait outside the station while the object is identified/removed by the platform staff.

The train shouldn't be anywhere near 3 meters of the object. More likely to stop at 100 meters nice and gently.

[itannum990]

Munter said:

itannum990 said:

Coming into a platform at speed of 20 mph, stopping right at the far end (12 car platform) because of train length so obviously brakes not applied at this point, nor would they be for a hundred metres or so.
Platform is heavily curved, hence low line speed so visibility up the line is virtually nill.
At my end of platform, couple of school kids are waving at me.
Now would a computer wave back, or think to itself, hang on, these kids are nearer 13 than 3, why would they be waving at me at 8.15 on a Tuesday morning?
Computer wouldn't brake.
Driver would.
Fortunately as it turned out, for the poor bugger who'd collapsed and toppled over the edge on to the line. Who woke up to see a train stop rather noisily 3 metres from his head.
We aren't payed to make the train open and close doors.

The station would be fitted with sensors to identify foreign objects on the track, that are out of the field of vision of the train. As the train approaches the station tells the train to wait outside the station while the object is identified/removed by the platform staff.

The train shouldn't be anywhere near 3 meters of the object. More likely to stop at 100 meters nice and gently.

So service grinds to a halt every time a newspaper, bag, fox, bundle of balloons strung together (seriously) leaves, snow (ok ok not helping my cause now) finds the line?
Have you ever looked at the line through a station?
And how many stations are staffed now? How many will be for much longer? There's already a push towards cctv remote 'staffing'

[BJG1]

itannum990 said:

Coming into a platform at speed of 20 mph, stopping right at the far end (12 car platform) because of train length so obviously brakes not applied at this point, nor would they be for a hundred metres or so.
Platform is heavily curved, hence low line speed so visibility up the line is virtually nill.
At my end of platform, couple of school kids are waving at me.
Now would a computer wave back, or think to itself, hang on, these kids are nearer 13 than 3, why would they be waving at me at 8.15 on a Tuesday morning?
Computer wouldn't brake.
Driver would.
Fortunately as it turned out, for the poor bugger who'd collapsed and toppled over the edge on to the line. Who woke up to see a train stop rather noisily 3 metres from his head.
We aren't payed to make the train open and close doors.

In that scenario, maybe the guy'd head gets squished or maybe there's a solution, such as having emergency alarms at the station (and the station can be staffed too) so that a human can warn the train of a hazard. A train might need human supervision approaching stations, doesn't mean it needs a driver.

Regardless, there will be specific scenarios where a driver would prevent an accident and computer wouldn't, but there may be 5 where the computer would and the human wouldn't for every 1 of those.