On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:30:55 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 17/06/2010 15:22, d wrote:

If the driver just because train captain DLR style that
would be fine however.

How would that help anything? You'd still have to pay them, and cut the
service if they go on strike.

It doesn't really. But you could pay them less than current drivers. Since
it would be a different less skilled role LU could just hire from outside and
wouldn't be oblidged to take on militant RMT activist former drivers.

Do tube strikes cause an increase in deaths on the road? Would running
the trains unmanned when the drivers are on strike be safer than cutting
the service?

No idea. All I can say is that I personally would not be happy travelling
on a deep level tube train with no staff on board.

B2003

On 17 June, 16:02, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:30:55 +0100

Basil Jet wrote:
On 17/06/2010 15:22, wrote:

If the driver just because train captain DLR style that
would be fine however.

How would that help anything? You'd still have to pay them, and cut the
service if they go on strike.

It doesn't really. But you could pay them less than current drivers. Since
it would be a different less skilled role LU could just hire from outside and
wouldn't be oblidged to take on militant RMT activist former drivers.

Do tube strikes cause an increase in deaths on the road? Would running
the trains unmanned when the drivers are on strike be safer than cutting
the service?

No idea. All I can say is that I personally would not be happy travelling
on a deep level tube train with no staff on board.

B2003

Bank DLR is a deep-level tube station served by driverless trains
(though they do have the PSA "guards").

Basil Jet wrote on 17 June 2010
15:19:27 ...
On 17/06/2010 14:50, Paul wrote:

The metro in Lille is completely automatic, but is monitored by CCTV
at every station.

What stops the monitor monitors from going on strike every time the
World Cup is on?

Every time there's a strike on the Paris Métro (which is quite often),
the driverless Line 14 always runs a normal service. Maybe there are
enough non-union managers to staff the control room on those days.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 14:22:48 on Thu, 17 Jun
2010, d remarked:
The problem with the deep level tube is that evacuation is difficult. You
need a member of staff around. Much as I can't stand Bob Crowe I'm with him
on this one - I personally wouldn't be happy travelling on a completely
unstaffed train. If the driver just because train captain DLR style that
would be fine however.

Like the Victoria line has always been, you mean?
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
"Dr. Sunil" wrote:
No idea. All I can say is that I personally would not be happy travelling
on a deep level tube train with no staff on board.

B2003

Bank DLR is a deep-level tube station served by driverless trains
(though they do have the PSA "guards").

And theres a walkway all along the side of the tunnel.

B2003

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:59:01 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:22:48 on Thu, 17 Jun
2010, d remarked:
The problem with the deep level tube is that evacuation is difficult. You
need a member of staff around. Much as I can't stand Bob Crowe I'm with him
on this one - I personally wouldn't be happy travelling on a completely
unstaffed train. If the driver just because train captain DLR style that
would be fine however.

Like the Victoria line has always been, you mean?

Yes, except he sits in the cab, he doesn't wander around the train. I wouldn't
care if he wandered around as long as there was a member of staff on board.

B2003

In message
, Dr.
Sunil writes

Bank DLR is a deep-level tube station served by driverless trains
(though they do have the PSA "guards").

And the DLR tunnels have walkways for easy evacuation in case of
problems - the deep-level tubes do not.
--
Paul Terry

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 17 June, 11:32, Paul wrote:
On 17 June, 11:00, "Ian F." wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

I suspect Bob Crow's analysis - that this is a bit of kite-flying -
is
probably on the money.

How could we ever have driverless trains? There'd be no one to shut the
doors at Kennington just as you're rushing to change trains from the
Bank to
Charing Cross platform.

Ian

Or at Finsbury Park when you want to change from the Piccadilly line
to the Victoria line. Mind you I am sure that the line controllers
could achieve the same with judicious use of CCTV cameras.

Bottom line is, you can't very well have staffless (which is what it
really means) trains without platform edge doors, although I am not
entirely certain of their efficacy.

An anorak string with a large bobble, of the kind that got a boy
killed in the Piccadilly a few years ago, might be able to get trapped
between both the train doors and the platform doors without detection,

Newer "automatic" doors are supposed to be able to tell if there is as much
as a piece of paper stuck between them.

tim

On 17/06/2010 13:18, MIG wrote:

Bottom line is, you can't very well have staffless (which is what it
really means) trains without platform edge doors, although I am not
entirely certain of their efficacy.

Copenhagen and Kuala Lumpur do.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Paul wrote:

On 17 June, 11:00, "Ian F." wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...

I suspect Bob Crow's analysis - that this is a bit of kite-flying - is
probably on the money.

How could we ever have driverless trains? There'd be no one to shut the
doors at Kennington just as you're rushing to change trains from the
Bank to Charing Cross platform.

Or at Finsbury Park when you want to change from the Piccadilly line to
the Victoria line. Mind you I am sure that the line controllers could
achieve the same with judicious use of CCTV cameras.

You evidently don't have faith in the ability of machines to inflict that
kind of suffering on people. And yet according to your headers, you're a
Windows user. Most odd.

tom

--
an expertly crafted mix of practical decision-making and drunken shouting