|
Whether a line is deep level or sub surface has literally nothing to do with its suitability to automate. The big thing is whether the physical line has multiple services using it, and if those services go outside the physical line and so on. A line with 0 revenue services that switch onto and off the line is the most suitable to automate to start. Paris Metro Line 1 is isolated from other lines, with no connecting revenue services, so it's ideal. The other Paris Metro automated line, 14, was built to be automated from the beginning - and incidentally has plenty of its route in deeply bored tunnels not cut and cover! It is similar in automated subway conversions in other cities. The only automated service (and it isn't even full time automated yet iirc) in the NYC subway is the L which is a 2 track route that is completely isolated in revenue service, the next one will be the 7 which is similarly isolated from revenue services but has some three track stretches for expresses. The best candidate for automation in London would probably be the Waterloo & City route, what with it being the shortest and fully isolated and all. Though whether automating it would accomplish anything is a different question entirely.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
The DC metro was semi-automated (functions automatically with human on train operators to monitor operations) until it slammed into another train. The operator had enough time to use the emergency brake but not enough time to stop the train. Ultimately, 9 dead and 80 injured, there are many reasons for why it happened (maintenance) but there is a point that automatic systems are only usable if you have an extremely safe system to the point that an major accident is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately, 9 dead and 80 injured, there are many reasons for why it happened (maintenance) but there is a point that automatic systems are only usable if you have an extremely safe system to the point that an major accident is impossible. But a major accident is never impossible? You simply can never guarantee that in any system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But a major accident is never impossible? You simply can never guarantee that in any system. Eh, that isn't the point, the point is the most safe system overall considering the amount of funding available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
quote:RAIL UNION RMT today demanded that the review of franchising in the wake of the West Coast fiasco, being undertaken by Eurostar CEO Richard Brown, examine in full the cheaper and more efficient option of renationalisation. The DfT statement on the franchising review said: Got this from the RMT this morning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 09:14
|
|
|
There's even been support for nationalisation from the Metro (ewww) letters page. But there's no chance it'll happen under a Tory government, surely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Scotrail are ludicrously overpriced if nothing else. It's cheaper to fly or rail and sail from Dublin to London return than it is to take a train from the NE of Scotland to London single.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
I think driverless trains are part of the overhaul that the Glasgow Underground's receiving which is due to be finished by 2020. Given the system is just one big circle I don't see there being too many problems. Also it'll be nice having walls in colours that aren't a) brown or b) sickly seventies pastel shades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
One thing to bear in mind with train automation is that it's currently being touted by those who want to push those pesky unionised train drivers out of the cab, not modernise the railway. Train drivers have a nasty habit of doing things like standing up for unfairly dismissed workers or speaking up when safety measures are being skirted. That kind of attitude can be terribly bad for business, which is why automated trains are a big advantage. Now, I'm not saying that train automation is a bad idea because of this or that it's not going to ever be possible, but I would be suspicious that any implementation plan floated is aimed at getting it done quickly rather than getting it done correctly. penus de milo fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
I'm not sure what to think about this, but Peter Hitchens has posted a piece on his blog for the Mail on Sunday in support of nationalisation: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/10/why-nationalised-railways-would-be-better.html
Crashbee fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Isn't the DLR pretty much automated? How much additional safety do those guys pressing the button actually provide?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Isn't the DLR pretty much automated? How much additional safety do those guys pressing the button actually provide? The train captains (or whatever Serco calls them) are the problem solving element on the train that can fix poo poo on the fly, herd passengers around in emergencies and do all the other things the ancient software running the DLR can't do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:What do you do when the master computer crashes and the train you're on is stranded on a concrete elevation 30m above the ground? Or when it's icy and the ATO system can't compensate for icy rail conditions and your train slides past a station? Or when engineers leave a spanner on the track and the computer driving the train doesn't know it's hit an obstacle? I agree with all this - "driverless" trains are always a misnomer as you always need some level of human supervision. However, it's worth remembering that the only accidents on the DLR have occurred a direct result of human intervention...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:What do you do when the master computer crashes and the train you're on is stranded on a concrete elevation 30m above the ground? Or when it's icy and the ATO system can't compensate for icy rail conditions and your train slides past a station? Or when engineers leave a spanner on the track and the computer driving the train doesn't know it's hit an obstacle? In most automated system they just shut down the trains and send out personnel to escort passengers to safety. In some others they can send out personnel to use normally concealed controls, similar to this on the JFK AirTrain:   For clarity this is what that area of the train normally looks like  There is literally no driver on these trains, and many other systems also completely lack a driver. Some examples are on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Advanced_Rapid_Transit Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Crashbee posted:I'm not sure what to think about this, but Peter Hitchens has posted a piece on his blog for the Mail on Sunday in support of nationalisation: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/10/why-nationalised-railways-would-be-better.html Holy poo poo, Peter Hitchens has a good opinion for once? I'm guessing his blind patriotism overcame his blind fellating of the free market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:What do you do when the master computer crashes and the train you're on is stranded on a concrete elevation 30m above the ground? Or when it's icy and the ATO system can't compensate for icy rail conditions and your train slides past a station? Or when engineers leave a spanner on the track and the computer driving the train doesn't know it's hit an obstacle? I hadn't thought of it in that way, those are good points. It's more a matter of having sufficient staff though than driven/automatic train systems. OTOH moves towards driverless trains are probably motivated by a desire to cut staffing levels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Yeah but in certain situations automatic trains can be just as safe as regular ones. The copenhagen metro system is tiny but fantastic. There should be no safety issues automating a line like Waterloo and City.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
The shuttle train between the two terminals at Gatwick is automated, too. Like the Waterloo and City line it just runs between two stations. Pretty sure there are no staff on it to supervise it - early in the morning when there's three people in the train total, none of them looks like a driver, they all look like jet-lagged travellers. edit: I can't get that daily mail blog to render properly in Firefox, can someone c/p it if it's actually worth reading? Zephro fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
Well, a quote from it would be:Hitchens posted:He asks ‘What makes him (me) so confident that the poor service, lame apologies, closures at every possible turn, would cease under a government that manages public services incompetently and at enormous expense?’
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
Munin posted:Well, a quote from it would be: Bozza is Peter Hitchens, I claim my five pounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Bozza is Peter Hitchens, I claim my five pounds. You can get to gently caress. I'll only be happy when he goes the way of his brother. Anyway, I've been doing a bit of learning about this new fangled ATO stuff this week and I now find myself in favour of automation in high density situations. ATO provides a high level of integrity with consistent braking rates and stopping positions, along with far more aggressive driving styles which will produce far better trains per hour in core operations of metros. Does this mean I'm suddenly now on message with Boris? No it does loving not. I think there is a large distortion between ATO and driverless as concepts. The step change from automatic operation (acceleration and decceleration of the train) to no staff on board is absolutely huge. In theory, we should not be opposed to the concept of automation, but we should be against driverless. Making a train go and stop (under normal circumstances) is fairly easy, and modern monitoring systems can judge adhesion etc fairly well, but the skill of the driver is not when things are going to plan, rather when they are going to cock. If this was any other system, driverless would be inevitable, but the construction of London Underground is such that it simply cannot support Platform Screen Doors and we cannot do without forward facing drivers, particularly in areas that are not down a closed off tunnel. May at some point do that ATO post, once I've finished level crossings...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Don't say things you can't take back. Bozza, you're breaking my heart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
We've got quite a lot of automated rail in this country including the whole of the DLR, the Victoria Line, the Jubilee line and a bunch of airport shuttles. The only thing a Victoria line driver does is open and close the doors... and the only reason that's not automated is to avoid them not paying attention at all I believe? My favourite one is the Ultra personal rapid transit system at Heathrow which has bun running for a year and a half now. You get in and choose your destination yourself. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:We've got quite a lot of automated rail in this country including the whole of the DLR, the Victoria Line, the Jubilee line and a bunch of airport shuttles. The only thing a Victoria line driver does is open and close the doors... and the only reason that's not automated is to avoid them not paying attention at all I believe? Sounds a lot like the Morgantown "Personal Rapid Transit" in West Virginia. Though that system only runs choose-your-destination part of the time, during peak it runs fixed schedules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:and the only reason that's not automated is to avoid them not paying attention at all I believe? Or, you know, to make sure they're not closed into people's faces or so that they drag people along the platform when they leave. The Heathrow thing is pretty awesome though - I reckon PRT must be the future of transport in this country if anything close to what roads are like now are to still exist in 50 years. With driverless cars you might not even need to do any infrastructure modifications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Or, you know, to make sure they're not closed into people's faces or so that they drag people along the platform when they leave. Aren't the doors automated to reopen if they get stuck on something anyway? You see it all the time on the tube where people or their bags get trapped by the closing doors, which promptly reopen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Aren't the doors automated to reopen if they get stuck on something anyway? You see it all the time on the tube where people or their bags get trapped by the closing doors, which promptly reopen. Yeah, but I can't imagine it's too pleasant and I'm not sure the detection system is foolproof. Plus, at very busy times drivers are needed to slowly draw into the station in case somebody is pushed onto the track.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Yeah, but I can't imagine it's too pleasant and I'm not sure the detection system is foolproof. Plus, at very busy times drivers are needed to slowly draw into the station in case somebody is pushed onto the track. Those detection systems have been around a long time, you ever try to get into an elevator just as the doors are shutting? Same principle at work there. There's 48 year old subway cars in NYC that have doors that auto-open if they close on something after all. Also what exactly are these places where drivers know ahead of time someone's going to be pushed on the track? Are criminals issuing threats to push people off the platform direct to the driver?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Also what exactly are these places where drivers know ahead of time someone's going to be pushed on the track? Are criminals issuing threats to push people off the platform direct to the driver? They go in slowly and stop if they see anyone fall. I don't think it's a particularly hard concept to understand - it's how cars work all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:They go in slowly and stop if they see anyone fall. I don't think it's a particularly hard concept to understand - it's how cars work all the time. Look driverless trains will come. Boris Johnson might be using it as a way of saying "see, we don't need you drivers and gently caress the unions" but they actually are more efficient, there are less errors and you can run at higher frequencies. It makes sense and it's being used all over the world. sweek0 fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Nov 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
I feel like I should board one of those things and immediately get taken to WestWorld.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:They go in slowly and stop if they see anyone fall. I don't think it's a particularly hard concept to understand - it's how cars work all the time. So why wouldn't you just set the automatic train to always slow a lot going into a station? It's not like trains barrel in at 50 mph or anything in the first place, they need a good distance to stop to avoid overshooting the platform. Like I'm not understanding how what you're saying is being done different then any other train coming into a station?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:So why wouldn't you just set the automatic train to always slow a lot going into a station? It's not like trains barrel in at 50 mph or anything in the first place, they need a good distance to stop to avoid overshooting the platform. Have you ever seen a tube train coming into a platform? They're long enough that they're pretty much doing full speed when they hit the station. Even if you set the ATO to go slowly, you still need the driver to actually look for people falling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBttMwkrXY&list=UUtqI3OlOeaJ5FFrsUjMDbEQ&index=4&feature=plcp#t=22m35s
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Have you ever seen a tube train coming into a platform? They're long enough that they're pretty much doing full speed when they hit the station. Even if you set the ATO to go slowly, you still need the driver to actually look for people falling. Tube trains are usually a lot shorter than consists on other systems, in tandem with the platforms being shorter. Also where is the driver looking for people who are falling and how the hell are they going to stop in time? You can't go from full speed to stopped in such short spaces very easily. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Nov 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Nope, driverless is dumb (particularly in London) because the infrastructure doesn't support it. I support ATO in principle because it can provide better performance, but unless we decide to totally remodel the tunnels under London there's no way in hell you could have totally unsupervised trains running about. One day we might have driverless - but I suspect that this will all be an illusion as with certain lines in Singapore I believe. They essentially have a 'plain clothes' driver who sits and reads a paper in the front carriage all day just in case the system fails and you need to evacuate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
You don't need driverless to have ATO though. There's plenty of systems that have ATO and also a dude in the cab or whatever sitting there looking out for things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Tube trains are usually a lot shorter than consists on other systems, in tandem with the platforms being shorter. Also where is the driver looking for people who are falling and how the hell are they going to stop in time? You can't go from full speed to stopped in such short spaces very easily. They don't go in at full speed. That's the point. Did you watch the video? Although at Tube train speeds you can often stop within sighting distance, so there's still a chance that an accidental fall won't result in a death at full speed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:They don't go in at full speed. That's the point. Did you watch the video? But you just said Jonnty posted:Have you ever seen a tube train coming into a platform? They're long enough that they're pretty much doing full speed when they hit the station. Is that supposed to mean the opposite then? The video shows a train coming into station... slowly. Jonnty posted:Although at Tube train speeds you can often stop within sighting distance, so there's still a chance that an accidental fall won't result in a death at full speed. So if it isn't actually a danger then why are you painting it as a special danger of an automated train? I seriously do not understand in the slightest what you're saying. Is it that automated trains can't be told to slow? Is it that you think automated trains means there's no staff onboard and it'll just steamroll people? What was the video supposed to show? Help me out here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Bozza posted:Nope, driverless is dumb (particularly in London) because the infrastructure doesn't support it. I understand that due to all the tunnels bar the DLR (and the Jubilee extension maybe?) not having evacuation paths along the tunnels there would still be a need for staff just in case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
let's down a shot every time someone misuses 'driverless' and 'automated' / 'ATO' interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:38
|
|
