Discussion
itannum990 said:
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?
A Google driverless Car won't come to a stop for a paper bag in the road, so a train wouldn't have to either. Sensors can detect the size and weight of an object too. It's not going to be perfect, no, but it can be (and is in other areas) more accurate and reliable than the human eye Have you ever looked at the line through a station?
I don't know if the have more incidents on DLR but having no human in the front doesn't seem to help apart from cost cutting, any driver would have noticed the points were incorrectly set (basically how trains are steered) and stopped the train.
I can guarantee that this is accurate reporting its the RIAB report
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/derailment-of-a-do...
Quote ''On 10 March 2009, a Docklands Light Railway service became derailed as it travelled through a set of points at North Quay junction, just north of West India Quay station. There were no injuries to the 80 passengers or the passenger service agent on board the train.
The immediate cause of the derailment was that the train travelled through the points in a trailing direction when the points were not correctly set for this movement, and derailed.
The causal factors which led to the derailment were that the passenger service agent did not identify that the points were set reverse, or see the unlit point position indicator and stop the train; the control centre controller did not intervene to stop the movement of the train or follow the emergency procedure; and the control centre controller was not aware of the exact position of the train''
I can guarantee that this is accurate reporting its the RIAB report
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/derailment-of-a-do...
Quote ''On 10 March 2009, a Docklands Light Railway service became derailed as it travelled through a set of points at North Quay junction, just north of West India Quay station. There were no injuries to the 80 passengers or the passenger service agent on board the train.
The immediate cause of the derailment was that the train travelled through the points in a trailing direction when the points were not correctly set for this movement, and derailed.
The causal factors which led to the derailment were that the passenger service agent did not identify that the points were set reverse, or see the unlit point position indicator and stop the train; the control centre controller did not intervene to stop the movement of the train or follow the emergency procedure; and the control centre controller was not aware of the exact position of the train''
Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 11:38
itannum990 said:
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.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 train shouldn't be anywhere near 3 meters of the object. More likely to stop at 100 meters nice and gently.
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'
The cars can identify the difference between a cyclist, a pedestrian, a child, a dog, a paper bag etc. Why wouldn't a train or a station be able to?
Munter said:
itannum990 said:
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.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 train shouldn't be anywhere near 3 meters of the object. More likely to stop at 100 meters nice and gently.
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'
The cars can identify the difference between a cyclist, a pedestrian, a child, a dog, a paper bag etc. Why wouldn't a train or a station be able to?
How much would he have to be paid to risk the consequences of getting it wrong?
The only answer of course is to have fully protected lines, as per the I think it's the jubilee line? But then that's a complete rebuild of the entire network.
And most of us have seen how well the rebuild of one station, to existing standards is going..
(Sorry London Bridge commuters, only a couple more years to go..)
And under our current franchise system, why would any company make such an investment? Only to lose the franchise long before the work is done?
Re-nationalisation is the only way out, and most are against that.
Munter said:
Nope. The CCTV operator identifies it as a bag 10 minutes ago, and the train is clear to enter as per normal on time. Image recognition then ignores that object. Don't forget it's also going to consider the size and shape of the object, as well as it's observed behaviour. E.g. if it's blowing about in the wind, it's not a human or a luggage bag on the track.
How many real time CCTV cameras and dedicated operator would LU need? And what happens when the CCTV control room staff go on strike? The whole system will still grind to halt.Munter said:
The cars can identify the difference between a cyclist, a pedestrian, a child, a dog, a paper bag etc. Why wouldn't a train or a station be able to
If its that good then why isn't is being used? Oh that explains it then
Quote ''Cameras and sensors detect traffic and objects, plotting movements as the car moves, but current prototypes have had difficulty with bad weather, potholes, temporary traffic lights and recognising police officers or human signals.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dri...
Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 12:09
audikentman said:
Munter said:
Nope. The CCTV operator identifies it as a bag 10 minutes ago, and the train is clear to enter as per normal on time. Image recognition then ignores that object. Don't forget it's also going to consider the size and shape of the object, as well as it's observed behaviour. E.g. if it's blowing about in the wind, it's not a human or a luggage bag on the track.
How many real time CCTV cameras and dedicated operator would LU need? And what happens when the CCTV control room staff go on strike? The whole system will still grind to halt.Munter said:
The cars can identify the difference between a cyclist, a pedestrian, a child, a dog, a paper bag etc. Why wouldn't a train or a station be able to
If its that good then why isn't is being used? Oh that explains it then
Quote ''Cameras and sensors detect traffic and objects, plotting movements as the car moves, but current prototypes have had difficulty with bad weather, potholes, temporary traffic lights and recognising police officers or human signals.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dri...
Edited by audikentman on Wednesday 15th July 12:09
Not all prototypes are equal...
I haven't mentioned anything I haven't seen demonstrated online by one or other of the companies designing the cars. Of course they could be lying...
All I'm seeing is a lot of excuses that don't stand up when a little thought is put into how to automate the problem.
What if CCTV go's on strike. Given they are paid significantly less and there are less of them...just move people in to do it from other areas / get the trains to go into stations slower so they don't have to rely on the stations systems. Reduced service but not as bad as cancelling the day.
Cost is the only reason not to automate. But at £300m a day, more strikes = more incentive to do it.
I haven't mentioned anything I haven't seen demonstrated online by one or other of the companies designing the cars. Of course they could be lying...
All I'm seeing is a lot of excuses that don't stand up when a little thought is put into how to automate the problem.
What if CCTV go's on strike. Given they are paid significantly less and there are less of them...just move people in to do it from other areas / get the trains to go into stations slower so they don't have to rely on the stations systems. Reduced service but not as bad as cancelling the day.
Cost is the only reason not to automate. But at £300m a day, more strikes = more incentive to do it.
Munter said:
Not all prototypes are equal...
I haven't mentioned anything I haven't seen demonstrated online by one or other of the companies designing the cars. Of course they could be lying...
All I'm seeing is a lot of excuses that don't stand up when a little thought is put into how to automate the problem.
What if CCTV go's on strike. Given they are paid significantly less and there are less of them...just move people in to do it from other areas / get the trains to go into stations slower so they don't have to rely on the stations systems. Reduced service but not as bad as cancelling the day.
Cost is the only reason not to automate. But at £300m a day, more strikes = more incentive to do it.
Except that running slow into stations causes so many knock on delays, half the service ends up needing cancelled anyway.I haven't mentioned anything I haven't seen demonstrated online by one or other of the companies designing the cars. Of course they could be lying...
All I'm seeing is a lot of excuses that don't stand up when a little thought is put into how to automate the problem.
What if CCTV go's on strike. Given they are paid significantly less and there are less of them...just move people in to do it from other areas / get the trains to go into stations slower so they don't have to rely on the stations systems. Reduced service but not as bad as cancelling the day.
Cost is the only reason not to automate. But at £300m a day, more strikes = more incentive to do it.
You've seen the chaos that the wrong type of rain, snow or heat causes, it's just trains needing to run a teeny weeny bit slower to run safely, and causing huge traffic jams at every juntion and station across the network.
We run so many trains that a 30 delay through a set of points WILL delay the the next, the train after that, the train that reaches it's terminal late, and leaves late, holding up all the other teains leaving and arriving, who do the same to all the others, at every station, at every juntion..
So run less trains? Ermm no thanks, they're already overcrowded enough. Longer trains.. we're doing that, but not all station can accommodate them, and many stations cannot be extended. Double decker trains not possible, tunnels and bridges etc
The main underlying issue is that because of decades of gross underinvestment and lack of future planning the railway is stuck in the current sorry state of bodges and make-do's.
Believe me, if it was possible to replace drivers, it would be done. Management dislike us far more than the public do.
I've no doubt that eventually it will be done, probably not in my lifetime, and someone will have to pay for it, it will be a gradual de-skilling of the grade rather than an overnight/decade switch.
Edited by itannum990 on Wednesday 15th July 12:39
sidicks said:
Fair enough.
The is a thread about tube drivers...
.
The is a thread about tube drivers...
.
sidicks said:
Audikentman, who the question was addressed to, isn't a tube driver in London.
HTH
HTH
sidicks said:
Yes, my commute is 1 hour (each way), probably on the same network you work for!
So, London based with a salary that should be compared to the London average no?You're right, this 'economics' thing is difficult to grasp.
Cyder said:
Odd how the more militant posters on this thread have chosen to ignore your very sensible post. 
Can't speak for others but I ignored it simply because he would soon change his tune if his T&C's were ignored so readily.Or maybe his branch of the RMT are more inclined to roll over and take it?
audikentman said:
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.
I'm not sure if that's true anymore.Naturally, every incident is looked at individually and the drivers safety record taken into account but I'm sure you're aware of the recent GSMR incident where the driver received a suspended prison sentence, the debacle involving West Coast and the sheer lunacy of the DCR light engine.
Then there's the Northern guard (still in prison) involved with the drunk teenager that died and the TPE(?) guard unfairly dismissed for a similar incident (without the death of the passenger luckily).
On at least two of these occasions the staff involved weren't known for taking a risk now and again and had fairly decent SOL records.
There are numerous incidents like this every week, month and year - like you, I get to hear about most through safety briefing but the PH experts don't seem to be aware of it.
itannum990 said:
Except that running slow into stations causes so many knock on delays,
As I said, a reduced service is better than no service. Which would only come about IF the automated system needed more help than the stand in CCTV operators could provide during a strike.I didn't read the rest of your post. If you're not going to read and/or comprehend the basics of what I'm typing. There is little point. It's bound to be more poorly thought though excuses about the need for drivers.
Cost is the only reason. Technically it can be done. It can be done cheaper this year than it could last year. The more strikes (and a poor service compared to an automated system), put up the cost of not doing it, and the cheaper it gets to do it, then the sooner it will happen. But it could be done with todays technology.
Munter said:
As I said, a reduced service is better than no service. Which would only come about IF the automated system needed more help than the stand in CCTV operators could provide during a strike.
I didn't read the rest of your post. If you're not going to read and/or comprehend the basics of what I'm typing. There is little point. It's bound to be more poorly thought though excuses about the need for drivers.
Cost is the only reason. Technically it can be done. It can be done cheaper this year than it could last year. The more strikes (and a poor service compared to an automated system), put up the cost of not doing it, and the cheaper it gets to do it, then the sooner it will happen. But it could be done with todays technology.
How much and how long would it take do you think?I didn't read the rest of your post. If you're not going to read and/or comprehend the basics of what I'm typing. There is little point. It's bound to be more poorly thought though excuses about the need for drivers.
Cost is the only reason. Technically it can be done. It can be done cheaper this year than it could last year. The more strikes (and a poor service compared to an automated system), put up the cost of not doing it, and the cheaper it gets to do it, then the sooner it will happen. But it could be done with todays technology.
legzr1 said:
How much and how long would it take do you think?
How many sports balls does it take to fill a swimming pool?Even if I had access to numbers there are way too many variables to say.
Just because I can understand the technology that exists, and that technology get's cheaper the more it's developed and used for more applications. Doesn't mean I know the price.
The only answer is:
Lots and some time.
I'll give you a formula if you like.
When (lots - benefit gained) < (existing costs of a militant, overpaid, over skilled workforce + cost of strikes on the economy) then automate
audikentman said:
The causal factors which led to the derailment were that the passenger service agent did not identify that the points were set reverse, or see the unlit point position indicator and stop the train; the control centre controller did not intervene to stop the movement of the train or follow the emergency procedure; and the control centre controller was not aware of the exact position of the train''
So human error? Automating their jobs might help?Munter said:
legzr1 said:
How much and how long would it take do you think?
How many sports balls does it take to fill a swimming pool?Even if I had access to numbers there are way too many variables to say.
Just because I can understand the technology that exists, and that technology get's cheaper the more it's developed and used for more applications. Doesn't mean I know the price.
The only answer is:
Lots and some time.
I'll give you a formula if you like.
When (lots - benefit gained) < (existing costs of a militant, overpaid, over skilled workforce + cost of strikes on the economy) then automate
Checking something on the track... get some type of sensor that sees IR and objects and relays the info to the train, then you don't need to think about people waving etc.
Same goes for people too close to the track, sensors mean that people leaning too far would not be hit as they would break the field created and this would stop the train before it gets to them, helpful in cases like the Stockwell incident recently, I doubt any human foresight would have saved that fella, but a computer system would have.
Then comes the calculations, I have been involved with theoretical modelling, algorithmic decisions and many more that automatically make a decision based upon the parameters involved, how quick is this? Quick enough to make a trade and execute the actions before a human has time to blink.
Yes there are guardians to check the system and reverse the trade if need be (happens once in blue moon), generally they have boring jobs.
Does it cost? How long is a piece of string?
Everything is entirely doable, so when I read some people disputing areas that are my expertise, I find it laughable that they are doing so when when know nothing of tech, etc.
The main stumbling block would be getting companies in to retro fit the cabs of current trains and upgrade the semi auto cabs of others and not try and f
k about, by fleecing companies for extras and then it would be reasonable.But as we can watch £10 billion in the NHS system go up in smoke thanks to the public sector not knowing its arse from its elbow and changing the system every 5 minutes, I would not trust any public sectors member to explain what they want and sensibly... I watched the NHS screw up first hand as a friend was change manager, when the public sector changed any of their management, the new manager would come in and scrap 6 months of work to do it 'their way' and this happened half a dozen times.
Private sector contractors couldn't complain as if they did, they were removed from the project so it kept snowballing until it was scrapped.
Hey ho what do I know, Im just a code monkey.
Legzr1 said:
sidicks said:
Yes, my commute ids 1 hour (each way), probably on the same network you work for!
So, London based with a salary that should be compared to the London average no?You're right, this 'economics' thing is difficult to grasp.
Legzr1 said:
Can't speak for others....
Unfortunately you repeatedly do try and 'speak for others' when you deliberately seek to misrepresent those who disagree with you.Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 15th July 14:00
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff