On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-13 09:01:28 +0000, Recliner said:
True, but they needed to access doors on both sides in the days before
video monitors. They also had to step out on curved platforms to see the
whole train. None of that is needed today. In fact, door closing could be
automated or controlled remotely, with the PSA providing a manual override
if needed (eg, if a wheel chair is being rolled on). After all, we're all
used to using automatic lifts, where the doors close automatically (with
override buttons), and a train is really just a horizontal lift.
A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

How does that differ from what happens today?

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

It's my experience that neither users nor customers can articulate
what it is they want, nor can they evaluate it when they see it
-- Alan Cooper

On 2014-10-14 11:42:34 +0000, David Cantrell said:

How does that differ from what happens today?

Eventually the driver presses the close button, and the doors close
anyway, possibly hitting people and trapping things as they do, and the
interlock only kicks in if something above a given size is trapped.
There is no way you would get that arrangement past a risk assessment
for a completely unstaffed system in the UK. It would have to work
like lift doors, where if blocked they reopen, and that would cause
massive delays.

You could have German-style Abfertigungspersonal on the platform in a
little elevated booth with CCTV and a good view, but that's still
staff. (Are there more stations or trains on LUL at any given time, I
guess?) OK, there are already dispatch staff, but they can't see well
enough to do it on their own, and they are only at busy stations at
busy times of day.

(Platform edge doors are probably less essential, because you could
replace the driver being able to see and brake with some kind of
obstacle detection)

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:54:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

I was reading an article about Barcelona's new driverless (and mostly
service-less) lines 9 and 10... Some of the stations are very deep,
and can only have lifts, and it's claimed that these (will) have an
interface with the central system in order to control passenger flows
through the station. If actually done this way, I suppose they would
be vertical lifts that run to a timetable.

Richard.

On 14.10.14 22:44, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:54:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

I was reading an article about Barcelona's new driverless (and mostly
service-less) lines 9 and 10... Some of the stations are very deep,
and can only have lifts, and it's claimed that these (will) have an
interface with the central system in order to control passenger flows
through the station. If actually done this way, I suppose they would
be vertical lifts that run to a timetable.

Richard.

So, if places like Italy, France, Spain and Denmark are building lines
with crewless trains, or even converting existing lines, if the DLR runs
without any difficulties without either a driver or PEDs, if the
Canadians and Merkins can operate Sky Train-type services, then why all
the potential difficulty here in London?

On 13.10.14 1:36, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12.10.14 22:30, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-11 14:30:13 +0000, Recliner said:

The ironic thing is that the Northern line needs extra trains in the same
time-scale, but I don't suppose there would be any chance of using
redundant 92TS on that line alongside the slightly newer 95TS. Had those
lines shared a standard design, it would have been feasible.

92 stock would be too big I think. It definitely appears higher and wider.


Out of curiosity, could any LUL rolling stock operate without drivers now?

Technically, no, but it wouldn't be hard to fit remote or automatic
timer-based door closing gear. Everything else is automatic now on several
fleets.

I had heard that there was a possible plan a while back to bring stabled
LUL trains into passenger terminals without any crews at all, though RMT
put a stop to that.

They do that on the Vienna U-Bahn and, I think, on the Kazan Metro.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:33:51 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
The fundamental problem that London has is how to effectively manage
fire risk and also how to get people out quickly and efficiently. LU

I for one would not be happy about travelling on a packed tube with no
staff on board and I'm pretty sure a majority of other passengers would be
of a similar mind.

--
Spud

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:15:30PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-10-14 11:42:34 +0000, David Cantrell said:
How does that differ from what happens today?
Eventually the driver presses the close button, and the doors close
anyway, possibly hitting people and trapping things as they do, and the
interlock only kicks in if something above a given size is trapped.
There is no way you would get that arrangement past a risk assessment
for a completely unstaffed system in the UK. It would have to work
like lift doors, where if blocked they reopen, and that would cause
massive delays.

Ahh, OK, I see what you meant.

OK, there are already dispatch staff, but they can't see well
enough to do it on their own, and they are only at busy stations at
busy times of day.

At really busy stations there are sometimes several dispatch staff so
that they really can see the whole length of the train. Same happens at
very busy NR stations.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved
by killing everyone even remotely associated with it

On 2014\10\14 22:44, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:54:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

A train is a horizontal lift that runs to a timetable. The timetable
would end up in tatters as people who couldn't fit squeezed on, and the
doors wouldn't close, and doors were held all over the place.

I was reading an article about Barcelona's new driverless (and mostly
service-less) lines 9 and 10... Some of the stations are very deep,
and can only have lifts, and it's claimed that these (will) have an
interface with the central system in order to control passenger flows
through the station. If actually done this way, I suppose they would
be vertical lifts that run to a timetable.

The lifts at Aldwych station would wait at surface level until the train
was due to arrive, and then descend in time to meet the train, so they
will have effectively run to a timetable.

On 2014\10\15 10:10, d wrote:

I for one would not be happy about travelling on a packed tube with no
staff on board

You're not happy about travelling on an empty tube with staff on board!

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:58:02 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\10\15 10:10, d wrote:

I for one would not be happy about travelling on a packed tube with no
staff on board

You're not happy about travelling on an empty tube with staff on board!

Depends on the staff. I'd be happy with them just doing a supervisory
role, preferably with a dog in the cab to bite them if they try and touch
the controls! Some drivers on the piccadilly line as so bloody slow its
not funny.

--
Spud