The latest short-term DfT funding settlement for TfL yet again obliges the
latter to pursue the Johnson hobby horse of 'driverless trains'. In
particular, the DfT wants DLR-style automation to be investigated on the
Drain and Piccadilly lines:

Driverless Trains

11.TfL's record of modernisation and innovation should not leave it behind
other European networks, which are achieving significant operational
efficiencies through Driverless Trains. Accordingly, DfT will lead a joint
programme with TfL on the implementation of Driverless Trains on the London
Underground.

12.Working with DfT, TfL will make sufficient progress towards the
conversion of at least one Underground line to Grade-of-Automation 3
(driverless, but with an on-board attendant, as on the Docklands Light
Railway), subject to a viable business case and its statutory
responsibilities. To achieve this DfT and TfL will produce a Full Business
Case for the Waterloo & City Line within 12 months and for the Piccadilly
Line within 18 months. Progress towards this milestone during the 2021
Funding Period will be measured by the Oversight Group and will be as
follows:

a. Delivery of at least interim OBC on Waterloo and City line by the end of
the 2021 funding period.

b. Delivery of at least interim SOBC on Piccadilly line by the end of the
2021 funding period.

c. Market engagement into alternative platform edge protection technology,
to be led by TfL and completed by 30 November 2021.

d. Design work on rolling stock specification, new signalling, and Platform
Edge Doors (PEDs).

DfT and TfL will also conduct a full review of the potential for the
implementation of GoA3 on the rest of the network. The review will conclude
within the next twelve months. DfT’s assessment of progress made towards
conversion will factor into agreeing any longer-term funding settlement in
the future.

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/990488/tfl-extraordinary-funding-and-financing-settlement-letter-1-june-2021.pdf>

—————

But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former London
mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
driverless train.”

<t
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/>

On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
<snip>
> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former London
> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
> driverless train.”
>

I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
Capacity may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very
many forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I
doubt TfL is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium
term. What it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which
vastly exceeds its income.

To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
LR Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up.
Focusing on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground
may be fighting last decade's war.

Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
> <snip>
>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former London
>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>> driverless train.”
>>
>
> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
> Capacity may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very
> many forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I
> doubt TfL is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium
> term. What it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which
> vastly exceeds its income.

The problem is that driverless trains on the existing network would require
a large investment with little return. Given TfL's current dire financial
predicament, it's madness for Boris to order Shapps to order TfL to waste
money it doesn't have on this pointless project. Why not just go ahead
with the overdue Piccadilly resignalling? That would be a pre-requisite
for any driverless operation anyway.

>
> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
> LR Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up.
> Focusing on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground
> may be fighting last decade's war.

So let's have projects to investigate ways to make LU more efficient, or to
increase revenues.

"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
> <snip>
>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>> London
>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>> driverless train.”
>>
>
> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
> exceeds its income.
>
> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
> fighting last decade's war.

and methinks people protest too much

analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
isn't.

I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't

Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
much to implement

All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
intervals anyway and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
conditioned platforms).

Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.

So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.

>
>
>
> Robin
> reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>> London
>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>> driverless train.”
>>>
>>
>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>> exceeds its income.
>>
>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>> fighting last decade's war.
>
>and methinks people protest too much
>
>analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>isn't.
>
>I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't

Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.

>
>Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>much to implement

How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?

>
>All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>intervals anyway

Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
cut back on the District line.

> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>conditioned platforms).

And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?

>
>Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.

It almost entirely negates it.

>
>So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.

Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube strike-proof, which this measure will not.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>> London
>>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>> driverless train.”
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>> exceeds its income.
>>>
>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>
>> and methinks people protest too much
>>
>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>> isn't.
>>
>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>
> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>
>>
>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>> much to implement
>
> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>
>>
>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>> intervals anyway
>
>
> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
> cut back on the District line.
>
>
>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>> conditioned platforms).
>
> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>
>>
>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>
> It almost entirely negates it.
>
>>
>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>
> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>

It will all be quietly forgotten. It’s just posturing to allow the Treasury
to claim it is getting something for its bail out. Note that they only have
to come up with plans. They mayor has even been given a ladder to climb
down regarding his ill conceived fares freeze. Undoing that is being forced
upon him. He probably really wants do do it anyway, having failed to
consider the compounding effect of a freeze. So he can just blame it on the
government now.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>> London
>>>>> mayor: ?I would rather prioritise capacity? I would rather put the
>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>>> driverless train.?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>
>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>
>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>
>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>
>>>
>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>>> much to implement
>>
>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>
>>>
>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>>> intervals anyway
>>
>>
>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>> cut back on the District line.
>>
>>
>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>> conditioned platforms).
>>
>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>>
>>>
>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>>
>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>
>>>
>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>>
>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>
>
>It will all be quietly forgotten. It’s just posturing to allow the Treasury
>to claim it is getting something for its bail out. Note that they only have
>to come up with plans. They mayor has even been given a ladder to climb
>down regarding his ill conceived fares freeze. Undoing that is being forced
>upon him. He probably really wants do do it anyway, having failed to
>consider the compounding effect of a freeze. So he can just blame it on the
>government now.

Yes, he'd never promised a fares freeze beyond his first four-year term, and it obviously wasn't promised in his latest
manifesto. So now TfL fares will go up by more than the rate of inflation.

I just hope the study doesn't waste too much money that could be better spent on, say, finding ways to make TfL more
efficient.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>>> London
>>>>>> mayor: ?I would rather prioritise capacity? I would rather put the
>>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>>>> driverless train.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>>
>>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>>
>>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>>
>>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>>> isn't.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>>
>>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>>>> much to implement
>>>
>>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>>>> intervals anyway
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>>> cut back on the District line.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>>> conditioned platforms).
>>>
>>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>>>
>>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>>>
>>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>>
>>
>> It will all be quietly forgotten. It’s just posturing to allow the Treasury
>> to claim it is getting something for its bail out. Note that they only have
>> to come up with plans. They mayor has even been given a ladder to climb
>> down regarding his ill conceived fares freeze. Undoing that is being forced
>> upon him. He probably really wants do do it anyway, having failed to
>> consider the compounding effect of a freeze. So he can just blame it on the
>> government now.
>
> Yes, he'd never promised a fares freeze beyond his first four-year term,
> and it obviously wasn't promised in his latest
> manifesto. So now TfL fares will go up by more than the rate of inflation.
>
> I just hope the study doesn't waste too much money that could be better
> spent on, say, finding ways to make TfL more
> efficient.
>

Viewed from outside of London I wonder if there really is much scope for
any significant efficiencies. The privatisation of the underground
infrastructure maintenance proved to be a disaster and was reversed. If
they remove any more public facing staff from the system there will be an
uptick in crime. Capital assets are made to last a very long time.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>>>> London
>>>>>>> mayor: ?I would rather prioritise capacity? I would rather put the
>>>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>>>>> driverless train.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>>>
>>>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>>>
>>>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>>>> isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>>>>> much to implement
>>>>
>>>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>>>>> intervals anyway
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>>>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>>>> cut back on the District line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>>>> conditioned platforms).
>>>>
>>>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>>>>
>>>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>>>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>>>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It will all be quietly forgotten. It’s just posturing to allow the Treasury
>>> to claim it is getting something for its bail out. Note that they only have
>>> to come up with plans. They mayor has even been given a ladder to climb
>>> down regarding his ill conceived fares freeze. Undoing that is being forced
>>> upon him. He probably really wants do do it anyway, having failed to
>>> consider the compounding effect of a freeze. So he can just blame it on the
>>> government now.
>>
>> Yes, he'd never promised a fares freeze beyond his first four-year term,
>> and it obviously wasn't promised in his latest
>> manifesto. So now TfL fares will go up by more than the rate of inflation.
>>
>> I just hope the study doesn't waste too much money that could be better
>> spent on, say, finding ways to make TfL more
>> efficient.
>>
>
> Viewed from outside of London I wonder if there really is much scope for
> any significant efficiencies. The privatisation of the underground
> infrastructure maintenance proved to be a disaster and was reversed. If
> they remove any more public facing staff from the system there will be an
> uptick in crime. Capital assets are made to last a very long time.
>
>

Yes, that's all true. And currently advertising revenue is right down, too.
As traffic returns, perhaps it will pick up again?

"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02hhbg9v97pbctcu8shioudi2b00vnatsr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>> London
>>>> mayor: "I would rather prioritise capacity. I would rather put the
>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to
>>>> carry
>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed
>>>> of
>>>> driverless train."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>> Capacity
>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt
>>> TfL
>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term.
>>> What
>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>> exceeds its income.
>>>
>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
>>> LR
>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>
>>and methinks people protest too much
>>
>>analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>isn't.
>>
>>I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>
> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.

No, the are forcing them to do the analysis work.

>>Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost
>>that
>>much to implement
>
> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?

the amount of saving depends upon how far into the future you look

It is clearly 100s of millions up front cost for 10s of million per annum
saving.

The latter is fairly easy to work out. For one line, 300 drivers replaced
by 300 assistants on 30K pa less, equals 9 million per year, plus a bit more
saved on training costs.

I have no idea at all as to the up front costs.

>>All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded
>>at
>>intervals anyway
>
>
> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
> cut back on the District line.

well yes, but sooner or later it needs to be replaced.

and at that point including the extra software for driverless trains is
unlikely to be significant.

>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>conditioned platforms).
>
> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C
> lines?

well none because they don't have platform doors, but if they did :-)

>>Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>drivers.
>
> It almost entirely negates it.

Other counties have done this conversion

perhaps we should look to them for results, rather than guessing

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9aos7$ci$1@dont-email.me...
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole
>>>>>>> Johnsonian
>>>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>>>> London
>>>>>>> mayor: ?I would rather prioritise capacity? I would rather put the
>>>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to
>>>>>>> carry
>>>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new
>>>>>>> breed of
>>>>>>> driverless train.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>>>>> Capacity
>>>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt
>>>>>> TfL
>>>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term.
>>>>>> What
>>>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those
>>>>>> at LR
>>>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up.
>>>>>> Focusing
>>>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>>>
>>>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>>>
>>>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or
>>>>> it
>>>>> isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't
>>>>> cost that
>>>>> much to implement
>>>>
>>>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably
>>>>> upgraded at
>>>>> intervals anyway
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>>>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>>>> cut back on the District line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>>>> conditioned platforms).
>>>>
>>>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and
>>>> W&C lines?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to
>>>>> deal
>>>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from
>>>>> operating
>>>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what
>>>>> are
>>>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual
>>>>> salary.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>>>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It will all be quietly forgotten. It’s just posturing to allow the
>>> Treasury
>>> to claim it is getting something for its bail out. Note that they only
>>> have
>>> to come up with plans. They mayor has even been given a ladder to climb
>>> down regarding his ill conceived fares freeze. Undoing that is being
>>> forced
>>> upon him. He probably really wants do do it anyway, having failed to
>>> consider the compounding effect of a freeze. So he can just blame it on
>>> the
>>> government now.
>>
>> Yes, he'd never promised a fares freeze beyond his first four-year term,
>> and it obviously wasn't promised in his latest
>> manifesto. So now TfL fares will go up by more than the rate of
>> inflation.
>>
>> I just hope the study doesn't waste too much money that could be better
>> spent on, say, finding ways to make TfL more
>> efficient.
>>
>
> Viewed from outside of London I wonder if there really is much scope for
> any significant efficiencies. The privatisation of the underground
> infrastructure maintenance proved to be a disaster and was reversed. If
> they remove any more public facing staff from the system there will be an
> uptick in crime. Capital assets are made to last a very long time.

once Covid restrictions are over there could be a noticeable change in
travelling habits

so a reduction in frequency (tube and bus) could well be on the cards

tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:02hhbg9v97pbctcu8shioudi2b00vnatsr@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>> London
>>>>> mayor: "I would rather prioritise capacity. I would rather put the
>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to
>>>>> carry
>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed
>>>>> of
>>>>> driverless train."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>>> Capacity
>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt
>>>> TfL
>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term.
>>>> What
>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
>>>> LR
>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>
>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>
>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>
>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>
> No, the are forcing them to do the analysis work.
>
>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost
>>> that
>>> much to implement
>>
>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>
> the amount of saving depends upon how far into the future you look
>
> It is clearly 100s of millions up front cost for 10s of million per annum
> saving.
>
> The latter is fairly easy to work out. For one line, 300 drivers replaced
> by 300 assistants on 30K pa less, equals 9 million per year, plus a bit more
> saved on training costs.

Note the salary difference is less than half of that, as the PSAs still
have to be qualified to drive the trains and sort out faults. So, there's
not actually very much difference in pay rates.

>
> I have no idea at all as to the up front costs.
>
>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded
>>> at intervals anyway
>>
>>
>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>> cut back on the District line.
>
> well yes, but sooner or later it needs to be replaced.
>
> and at that point including the extra software for driverless trains is
> unlikely to be significant.

That's not where the costs are. All the recent trains have ATO anyway, but
they still have drivers.

>
>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>> conditioned platforms).
>>
>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C
>> lines?
>
> well none because they don't have platform doors, but if they did :-)

So you think that airconditioning the Tube platforms will be free?

>
>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>> drivers.
>>
>> It almost entirely negates it.
>
> Other counties have done this conversion
>
> perhaps we should look to them for results, rather than guessing

I take it you've not actually read the London Reconnections article I
linked?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>> London
>>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>> driverless train.”
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>> exceeds its income.
>>>
>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>
>> and methinks people protest too much
>>
>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>> isn't.
>>
>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>
> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>
>>
>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>> much to implement
>
> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>
>>
>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>> intervals anyway
>
>
> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
> cut back on the District line.
>
>
>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>> conditioned platforms).
>
> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>
>>
>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>
> It almost entirely negates it.
>
>>
>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>
> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>

Boris seems to have no idea about details at all. He also doesn’t seem to
have people who can point out the detail to him, to point out his bad
ideas.

--
Jeremy Double

>
> Other counties have done this conversion
>
> perhaps we should look to them for results, rather than guessing
>
>
>

Is that the case? The few driverless systems I’ve been on have been
newbuilds, or as good as (shut down the old system and completely rebuild
it).

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Other counties have done this conversion
>>
>> perhaps we should look to them for results, rather than guessing
>>
>
> Is that the case? The few driverless systems I’ve been on have been
> newbuilds, or as good as (shut down the old system and completely rebuild
> it).

Exactly. It's pretty clean that Tim has't read the article he's commenting
on.

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>> London
>>>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>>> driverless train.”
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>
>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>
>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>
>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>
>>>
>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>>> much to implement
>>
>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>
>>>
>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>>> intervals anyway
>>
>>
>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>> cut back on the District line.
>>
>>
>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>> conditioned platforms).
>>
>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>>
>>>
>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>>
>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>
>>>
>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>>
>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>
>
> Boris seems to have no idea about details at all. He also doesn’t seem to
> have people who can point out the detail to him, to point out his bad
> ideas.
>

They probably discover that it's career-limiting to do that. Once he's
settled on a glib slogan, nothing will dissuade him, and he probably just
gets annoyed with anybody who tries to tell him it's not true. The DUP's
Arlene Goster discovered this the hard way.

But as more people discover that about him, fewer people believe anything
he says. This affects international negotiations and also the population's
willingness to be guided by him.

On 03/06/2021 16:04, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s9aos7$ci$1@dont-email.me...
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole
>>>>>>>> Johnsonian
>>>>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>>>>> London
>>>>>>>> mayor:  ?I would rather prioritise capacity? I would rather put the
>>>>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system
>>>>>>>> to carry
>>>>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new
>>>>>>>> breed of
>>>>>>>> driverless train.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>>>>>> Capacity
>>>>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010.  But now? Given the very many
>>>>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I
>>>>>>> doubt TfL
>>>>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium
>>>>>>> term. What
>>>>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to
>>>>>>> those at LR
>>>>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up.
>>>>>>> Focusing
>>>>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>>>>
>>>>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective
>>>>>> or it
>>>>>> isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't
>>>>>> cost that
>>>>>> much to implement
>>>>>
>>>>> How come?  Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably
>>>>>> upgraded at
>>>>>> intervals anyway
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>>>>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>>>>> cut back on the District line.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>>>>> conditioned platforms).
>>>>>
>>>>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly
>>>>> and W&C lines?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board
>>>>>> to deal
>>>>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from
>>>>>> operating
>>>>>> with attendant rather than drivers?  Which is as much an issue of
>>>>>> what are
>>>>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual
>>>>>> salary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>>>>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will all be quietly forgotten. It’s just posturing to allow the
>>>> Treasury
>>>> to claim it is getting something for its bail out. Note that they
>>>> only have
>>>> to come up with plans. They mayor has even been given a ladder to climb
>>>> down regarding his ill conceived fares freeze. Undoing that is being
>>>> forced
>>>> upon him. He probably really wants do do it anyway, having failed to
>>>> consider the compounding effect of a freeze. So he can just blame it
>>>> on the
>>>> government now.
>>>
>>> Yes, he'd never promised a fares freeze beyond his first four-year term,
>>> and it obviously wasn't promised in his latest
>>> manifesto. So now TfL fares will go up by more than the rate of
>>> inflation.
>>>
>>> I just hope the study doesn't waste too much money that could be better
>>> spent on, say, finding ways to make TfL more
>>> efficient.
>>>
>>
>> Viewed from outside of London I wonder if there really is much scope for
>> any significant efficiencies. The privatisation of the underground
>> infrastructure maintenance proved to be a disaster and was reversed. If
>> they remove any more public facing staff from the system there will be an
>> uptick in crime. Capital assets are made to last a very long time.
>
> once Covid restrictions are over there could be a noticeable change in
> travelling habits

At this stage it is all supposition with everyone pushing their pet
theories. Already major companies are talking about having the status
quo ante back by September.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 03/06/2021 16:27, Jeremy Double wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>> London
>>>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>>> driverless train.”
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>
>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>
>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>
>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>
>>>
>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost that
>>> much to implement
>>
>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>
>>>
>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded at
>>> intervals anyway
>>
>>
>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>> cut back on the District line.
>>
>>
>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>> conditioned platforms).
>>
>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C lines?
>>
>>>
>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>>
>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>
>>>
>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>>
>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>
>
> Boris seems to have no idea about details at all. He also doesn’t seem to
> have people who can point out the detail to him, to point out his bad
> ideas.
>

Like his transatlantic hero, he doesn't do detail, that's for wimps.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:02hhbg9v97pbctcu8shioudi2b00vnatsr@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>> London
>>>>> mayor: "I would rather prioritise capacity. I would rather put the
>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to
>>>>> carry
>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed
>>>>> of
>>>>> driverless train."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>>> Capacity
>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt
>>>> TfL
>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term.
>>>> What
>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
>>>> LR
>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>
>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>
>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>
>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>
> No, the are forcing them to do the analysis work.
>
>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost
>>> that
>>> much to implement
>>
>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>
> the amount of saving depends upon how far into the future you look
>
> It is clearly 100s of millions up front cost for 10s of million per annum
> saving.
>
> The latter is fairly easy to work out. For one line, 300 drivers replaced
> by 300 assistants on 30K pa less, equals 9 million per year, plus a bit more
> saved on training costs.
>
> I have no idea at all as to the up front costs.
>
>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded
>>> at
>>> intervals anyway
>>
>>
>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>> cut back on the District line.
>
> well yes, but sooner or later it needs to be replaced.
>
> and at that point including the extra software for driverless trains is
> unlikely to be significant.
>
>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>> conditioned platforms).
>>
>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C
>> lines?
>
> well none because they don't have platform doors, but if they did :-)
>
>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>> drivers.
>>
>> It almost entirely negates it.
>
> Other counties have done this conversion
>
> perhaps we should look to them for results, rather than guessing
>
>

<https://twitter.com/garius/status/1399739782780096519?s=21>

"None of these problems are insurmountable. It is perfectly possible to
fully automate old metro systems. Nuremberg, Paris (one done, one underway)
and Singapore (twice) have all converted old lines to full automation. They
too are often held up as examples by those demanding full automation in
London: “See! It can be done!”

What those lauding such conversions fail to grasp, however is the
difference between an example and an exception. What they should pause to
consider is this: There are over 100 metro systems in the world built
before 2000. Of those, why have only four been converted to full
automation?"

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Has anyone tried to envisage the safety case for a "driverless" train
operating in a deep-level tunnel in central London?

I fear that parallels with the mostly surface-level DLR could be misleading.
Some thoughts from this longtime DLR user:

1 - There are only three significant underground sections on the DLR, the
tunnels below the river and the Shadwell to Bank section. I suspect that many
UG sections between stations are considerable longer.

2 - Passenger numbers - what are the "crush load" pax numbers on, say a Picc
train in the peak vs DLR to / from Bank or Canary Wharf

3 - For about nine months of the year peak-hour services on DLR are in
daylight or at worst semi-darkness, so there is at least some ambient light if
an evacuation is needed. How does this compare with trying to unload an
Underground train in a tunnel?

4 - How robust will the [attendant / assistant / undriver]'s emergency comms
be to/from deepest deep level? I know there are all kinds of tech
developments regarding 4G / 5G and wifi, but will these be adequate for said
staff person in the middle of packed train rather than in the cab?

Having laboured long and hard over several years on tech specs, safety cases
and emergency planning for passenger services for TfL-licensed services on the
river, I think that all those who think of this as a bright idea have not only
failed their Halfwit badges, they have failed to qualify as Quaterwits!

Ken

On 3 Jun 2021 at 17:40:51 CEST, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>>> London
>>>>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to carry
>>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed of
>>>>>> driverless train.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article. Capacity
>>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt TfL
>>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term. What
>>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>>
>>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at LR
>>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>>
>>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>>
>>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>>> isn't.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>>
>>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost
>>>> that
>>>> much to implement
>>>
>>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded
>>>> at
>>>> intervals anyway
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>>> cut back on the District line.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>>> conditioned platforms).
>>>
>>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C
>>> lines?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from drivers.
>>>
>>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what are
>>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual salary.
>>>
>>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>>
>>
>> Boris seems to have no idea about details at all. He also doesn’t seem to
>> have people who can point out the detail to him, to point out his bad
>> ideas.
>>
>
> They probably discover that it's career-limiting to do that. Once he's
> settled on a glib slogan, nothing will dissuade him, and he probably just
> gets annoyed with anybody who tries to tell him it's not true. The DUP's
> Arlene Goster discovered this the hard way.
>
> But as more people discover that about him, fewer people believe anything
> he says. This affects international negotiations and also the population's
> willingness to be guided by him.

Ken W <ken@welsbywrites.com> wrote:
> Has anyone tried to envisage the safety case for a "driverless" train
> operating in a deep-level tunnel in central London?
>
> I fear that parallels with the mostly surface-level DLR could be misleading.
> Some thoughts from this longtime DLR user:
>
> 1 - There are only three significant underground sections on the DLR, the
> tunnels below the river and the Shadwell to Bank section. I suspect that many
> UG sections between stations are considerable longer.
>
> 2 - Passenger numbers - what are the "crush load" pax numbers on, say a Picc
> train in the peak vs DLR to / from Bank or Canary Wharf
>
> 3 - For about nine months of the year peak-hour services on DLR are in
> daylight or at worst semi-darkness, so there is at least some ambient light if
> an evacuation is needed. How does this compare with trying to unload an
> Underground train in a tunnel?
>
> 4 - How robust will the [attendant / assistant / undriver]'s emergency comms
> be to/from deepest deep level? I know there are all kinds of tech
> developments regarding 4G / 5G and wifi, but will these be adequate for said
> staff person in the middle of packed train rather than in the cab?
>
> Having laboured long and hard over several years on tech specs, safety cases
> and emergency planning for passenger services for TfL-licensed services on the
> river, I think that all those who think of this as a bright idea have not only
> failed their Halfwit badges, they have failed to qualify as Quaterwits!
>

And as the article points out, the DLR would not be allowed today. It's
only allowed to operate as it does because of grandfather rights. A newly
converted line would have to meet the higher, modern safety standards.

On 03/06/2021 18:01, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:02hhbg9v97pbctcu8shioudi2b00vnatsr@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole Johnsonian
>>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>>> London
>>>>>> mayor: "I would rather prioritise capacity. I would rather put the
>>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to
>>>>>> carry
>>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> driverless train."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>>>> Capacity
>>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt
>>>>> TfL
>>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term.
>>>>> What
>>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>>
>>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
>>>>> LR
>>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up. Focusing
>>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>>
>>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>>
>>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>>> isn't.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>>
>>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>
>> No, the are forcing them to do the analysis work.
>>
>>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost
>>>> that
>>>> much to implement
>>>
>>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>
>> the amount of saving depends upon how far into the future you look
>>
>> It is clearly 100s of millions up front cost for 10s of million per annum
>> saving.
>>
>> The latter is fairly easy to work out. For one line, 300 drivers replaced
>> by 300 assistants on 30K pa less, equals 9 million per year, plus a bit more
>> saved on training costs.
>>
>> I have no idea at all as to the up front costs.
>>
>>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably upgraded
>>>> at
>>>> intervals anyway
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>>> cut back on the District line.
>>
>> well yes, but sooner or later it needs to be replaced.
>>
>> and at that point including the extra software for driverless trains is
>> unlikely to be significant.
>>
>>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>>> conditioned platforms).
>>>
>>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and W&C
>>> lines?
>>
>> well none because they don't have platform doors, but if they did :-)
>>
>>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>
>> Other counties have done this conversion
>>
>> perhaps we should look to them for results, rather than guessing
>>
>>
>
> <https://twitter.com/garius/status/1399739782780096519?s=21>
>
> "None of these problems are insurmountable. It is perfectly possible to
> fully automate old metro systems. Nuremberg, Paris (one done, one underway)

One what, line? Paris now has two automated lines -- the 1 and the 14.

On 04/06/2021 00:16, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 03/06/2021 18:01, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>
>> "None of these problems are insurmountable. It is perfectly possible to
>> fully automate old metro systems. Nuremberg, Paris (one done, one
>> underway)
>
> One what, line? Paris now has two automated lines -- the 1 and the 14.

The 14 was newly built as automated and so doesn't count as a "fully
automated old metro".

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Mayday Signals - Swell Maps

"Jeremy Double" <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:245903418.644426776.081685.jmd.nospam-btinternet.com@news.individual.net...
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:28 +0100, "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5c5fbb53-5d7b-0edb-6177-847811d3c64c@outlook.com...
>>>> On 02/06/2021 10:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> But London Reconnections is rather sceptical about the whole
>>>>> Johnsonian
>>>>> vision of union-busting driverless trains. And it quotes one former
>>>>> London
>>>>> mayor: “I would rather prioritise capacity… I would rather put the
>>>>> investment into expanding the ability of our underground system to
>>>>> carry
>>>>> people in comfort, than in putting money now into creating a new breed
>>>>> of
>>>>> driverless train.”
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was a cheap trick that detracted from the article.
>>>> Capacity
>>>> may well have been a priority in 2010. But now? Given the very many
>>>> forecasting that a much increased amount of working from home I doubt
>>>> TfL
>>>> is likely to have a capacity problem for the short and medium term.
>>>> What
>>>> it does have is massive budget problem - i.e. spending which vastly
>>>> exceeds its income.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the ante-penultimate para, my recommendation to those at
>>>> LR
>>>> Towers is that they remember this, whenever the topic comes up.
>>>> Focusing
>>>> on better ways to increase capacity on the London Underground may be
>>>> fighting last decade's war.
>>>
>>> and methinks people protest too much
>>>
>>> analysis of driverless trains is either going to be cost effective or it
>>> isn't.
>>>
>>> I doubt that the treasury will sign it off if it isn't
>>
>> Hopefully not, though the DfT is trying to force it on TfL.
>>
>>>
>>> Though superficially, for trains with attendants it surely doesn't cost
>>> that
>>> much to implement
>>
>> How come? Surely you meant, "doesn't create much of a saving"?
>>
>>>
>>> All it needs is updated signalling systems, which are presumably
>>> upgraded at
>>> intervals anyway
>>
>>
>> Note that resignalling is hideously expensive, and has been postponed
>> indefinitely on the Piccadilly line, as well as
>> cut back on the District line.
>>
>>
>>> and platform doors (which also help to save costs on air
>>> conditioned platforms).
>>
>> And how many air-conditioned platforms are there on the Piccadilly and
>> W&C lines?
>>
>>>
>>> Against which, you are still going to have an attendant of board to deal
>>> with emergency evacuations, which somewhat negates the saving from
>>> drivers.
>>
>> It almost entirely negates it.
>>
>>>
>>> So surely it all comes down to what is the saving in cost from operating
>>> with attendant rather than drivers? Which is as much an issue of what
>>> are
>>> the recruitment/training costs of this role as much as the annual
>>> salary.
>>
>> Yes, but what Boris is really trying to do is to make the Tube
>> strike-proof, which this measure will not.
>>
>
> Boris seems to have no idea about details at all. He also doesn’t seem to
> have people who can point out the detail to him, to point out his bad
> ideas.

Cameron was just the same in that respect

He had no idea how things worked in the real world either

"Ken W" <ken@welsbywrites.com> wrote in message
news:778uI.892992$J5P5.399604@fx20.ams1...
> Has anyone tried to envisage the safety case for a "driverless" train
> operating in a deep-level tunnel in central London?
> I fear that parallels with the mostly surface-level DLR could be
> misleading.
> Some thoughts from this longtime DLR user:
>
> 1 - There are only three significant underground sections on the DLR, the
> tunnels below the river and the Shadwell to Bank section. I suspect that
> many
> UG sections between stations are considerable longer.
>
> 2 - Passenger numbers - what are the "crush load" pax numbers on, say a
> Picc
> train in the peak vs DLR to / from Bank or Canary Wharf
>
> 3 - For about nine months of the year peak-hour services on DLR are in
> daylight or at worst semi-darkness, so there is at least some ambient
> light if
> an evacuation is needed. How does this compare with trying to unload an
> Underground train in a tunnel?

That's the reason why the train needs an attendant

There's absolutely nothing that a driver can do in an emergency situation,
that this attendant can't

that's the whole point of having him

>
> 4 - How robust will the [attendant / assistant / undriver]'s emergency
> comms
> be to/from deepest deep level? I know there are all kinds of tech
> developments regarding 4G / 5G and wifi, but will these be adequate for
> said
> staff person in the middle of packed train rather than in the cab?

The issue of comms in a packed train is trivial, compared with the issue of
how does one person control the crowds of the packed train

and that doesn't change one iota because the man trying to control that
crowd has a different hat.

> Having laboured long and hard over several years on tech specs, safety
> cases
> and emergency planning for passenger services for TfL-licensed services on
> the
> river, I think that all those who think of this as a bright idea have not
> only
> failed their Halfwit badges, they have failed to qualify as Quaterwits!

The problem is that escape from a stranded train in a tunnel without
sidewalks is a problem whoever has to do it

automated trains are not going to make it a bigger problem