Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United Kingdom

TfL Abandons Plans For Driverless Tube Trains (ianvisits.co.uk) 89

Transport for London (TfL) has dropped its investigation into how it could introduce driverless trains on the London Underground. From a report: One of the many conditions imposed on TfL during the pandemic to keep services running when most of us were stuck at home was that it would investigate how it could introduce driverless trains on the Underground. TfL was required to produce a business case for converting the Waterloo & City line and Piccadilly line to a DLR-style operation, and in September 2021, it advertised for consultancy work on the project.

It's now been confirmed that the study reached the same conclusion that every other study into the issue has already reported -- it'll cost an awful lot of money for very little benefit. Despite the claims that it would prevent strikes on the tube, the reality is that it wouldn't, as driverless trains would still have staff on board, just as the DLR does, and the DLR still has strikes.

TfL Abandons Plans For Driverless Tube Trains

Comments Filter:
  • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @07:36AM (#64980923)

    The Tube suffers from being one of the most used metros while simultaneously being one of the oldest. In comparison to other metros it is in horrendous shape and in desperate need of some maintenance and overhaul. The switch to DLR necessitates an upgrade that would almost be justifiable without the driverless component.

    I've been on metros all over the world, there's so far only one which has made me question whether we should be mandating hearing protection due to the noise the rusty old carriages make across the ancient lines. The Tube is just not nice to ride in, fellow passengers or not, on peak or off.

    • Is it really in horrendous shape? I suppose it varies by line, but those I used a few weeks ago (Picadilly, Circle, Bakerloo, Elizabeth) seemed to be in far better shape than most of the MBTA.

      • The Elizabeth is the newest line on the network. It opened a little over 2 years ago.
        The northern half of the Circle Line is the oldest in the world (not the first, that was the Liverpool end of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, but that now takes a different alignment). But it has been upgraded relatively recently.

        The Bakerloo has the oldest trains on the network, and the Piccadilly has the second oldest, and it shows. The Piccadilly has major reliability problems with its trains, and TfL have just tak

      • Everything is relative. To be clear I'm thankful for it. The fact that it's there is a significant benefit over it not being there at all, but the reality is it is most definitely showing its age which should surprise no one. Due to its importance there's virtually no opportunity to shut it down for any significant maintenance.

        I can't comment on comparison to American public transport like the MBTA, but ... doesn't ... most of the world ... use the term "American public transport system" as a setup for a pa

    • by HBI ( 10338492 )

      So you're saying it's worse than the MTA subways in NYC in terms of noise and track quality? I feel sorry for Londoners then.

      • Can't say, not been on that one. Actually NYC is one place I've always wanted to go visit but never managed to.

        • by HBI ( 10338492 )

          Don't make the trip just for the subways heh. But yeah, it's somewhere you want to have been before you die.

          • Don't make the trip just for the subways heh.

            Go to Moscow for that.
            Seriously. [wikipedia.org]
            Well, obviously not totally seriously. Travelling to Russia right now might not be terribly wise.

            • by HBI ( 10338492 )

              I heard they had closed off an unused section of Metro tunnel to use as a nuclear shelter for the Politburo, don't know how true that is.

              I just got a radon test on my future house today and I need it remediated. Makes me wonder about all those subways i've been in over the years.

              • The whole metro is a nuclear bomb shelter.
                Or why you think it is 40m below the surface?

                Of course it does not really help much in the grand picture of nuclear war fare: you never can get out, you have no food and no water. You only can eat each other.

                • by HBI ( 10338492 )

                  I've given a bit of thought about this lately, given the current rhetoric in the world. We'd have to more or less shelter in place for 14 days to let things cool down a bit and the fallout to blow away/get washed down. If I were at home, that's easy. In the Metro...variables. Are there food stands? How many people made it there? Is there a water supply of some sort, even a shitty one? Toilet tanks?

                  I'm not willing to say 0% chance of survival. It's pretty grim, though.

              • by HBI ( 10338492 )

                Bad form replying to myself, but I found a paper on this. [rsc.org] The upshot is that radon levels in subways are apparently not that high. One could surmise this is because of the constant ventilation of the system, and that the levels would build up if the system lost power.

                For comparison, my unremediated basement has a level of 72.3pCi/l, which translates to 2675Bq/m3, which is awful, lung cancer city.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's the UK in a nutshell. The plebs get a barely functional service that it's chronically under invested, while the wealthy don't care about the congestion charge and parking costs.

      • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @12:57PM (#64981477) Journal

        It's the UK in a nutshell

        It is not, since it is not really true.

        The plebs get a barely functional service that it's chronically under invested

        The tube works fine. Meanwhile people keep trying to push cars as a solution for poor people for some reason:

        while the wealthy don't care about the congestion charge and parking costs.

        News at 11, the wealthy have the best stuff. We can debate precisely about how much that sucks, but the solution is not to make things suck worse for everyone. The sufficiently wealthy can also afford to pay the £130 cost daily (or more) of happily ploughing though a "no cars" filter. But you know what? There are 99% fewer cars and that means the buses actually run, taking for example 10 minutes from Old St to London Bridge at rush hour with major roadworks as compare to maybe 40 minutes or longer before. And also, I can also bike without getting run over by some asshat. That works for me.

        In Southwark, substantially under half the population have access to cars and those that do skew wealthy and able bodied (also male, middle aged and white if you care). The health cost of pollution is disproportionately borne by poorer people. Anything that reduces car use and improves other forms of public transport benefits the majority. And given the absolute colossal fuss made by motorists about CPZs, I can assure you 100% that the wealthy do in fact care about parking costs.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's not about pushing cars, it's about the under-funding of public services.

          And that's even though London gets more funding than pretty much everywhere else, especially the North.

          • Yet Londoners get less of their taxes back than anywhere else in the UK.

            If Scotland can have an independence vote, why canâ(TM)t London? Itâ(TM)s got more people and a bigger economy.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Because of high population density.

              London may well vote for independence, given it didn't want Brexit... But Scotland has the history and the institutions to actually do it.

              • Because of high population density.

                I think it's more a case of high corporate headquarters density. Take the Square Mile out of the equation and things look very different.

          • It's not about pushing cars

            Then why complain about parking and congestion charges? They're quite popular in London, because (a) many of us don't have cars and (b) we don't like dying of pollution related diseases. Charging drivers reduces traffic.

            And that's even though London gets more funding than pretty much everywhere else, especially the North.

            London is a mixed bag. It has some of both the richest and poorest people in the country. We shouldn't let the poorest suffer simply because someone rich lives wi

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I didn't complain about parking or the congestion charge per se. They would be fairer if they were based on the value of the car, but even then it wouldn't really discourage a lot of people. Most dense cities do need some measure to reduce traffic.

              The issue is the underfunding of public transport, particularly the tube. And yes, even bike lanes. I love Japanese cities, really walkable and great public transport, I'm all for it. But we can't have that, for various reasons.

              • They would be fairer if they were based on the value of the car, but even then it wouldn't really discourage a lot of people.

                A rich person would then just buy a beat up old car car to drive into the city, and keep the Audi for weekends.

                • Yeah, some suggestions like the parents are completely stupid.
                  In the 1990ths I often was in Athens.
                  Absurd traffic. (And pollution)
                  So they had already invented the rule: on odd dates, only cars on the road where the last digit on the license plate is odd. And on even dates, similar.
                  Ended up with most families having two cars. One for odd dates and one for even dates, or had two license plates and paid car/road tax twice for a single car.
                  Did not change the traffic, neither the air pollution: only the parking

            • The EM drive is a thinly disguised perpetual motion machine. This really annoys some people so I made it my signature.

              I think I remember reading that post, did you happen to bookmark it? I'm quite happy to accept that the thing is bunk but I don't see the link to free energy.

              • I think I remember reading that post, did you happen to bookmark it?

                I did not, but I think I've refined my explanation.

                Say you have a 1kg mass at rest. You apply a force of 1N, and it accelerated at 1 m/s^2. After 100 seconds it is going 100 m/s and has a kinetic energy of 1/2 m*v^2 = 5000J.

                Now assume the EM drive exists and the 1kg mass is actually battery and an EM drive capable of generating 1N per Watt. Drive it with 1W, making 1N so after 100 seconds, the device has a kinetic energy of 5000J, as befor

                • Now assume the EM drive exists and the 1kg mass is actually battery and an EM drive capable of generating 1N per Watt. Drive it with 1W, making 1N so after 100 seconds, the device has a kinetic energy of 5000J, as before. However it's been drawing 1W of power for 100 seconds, so the energy removed from the power source is 100J. The result is the object has 4,900J of kinetic energy that appeared from nowhere.

                  Free energy!

                  You can not generate 1N force per Watt. Mixing up Joules and Watt in one sentence makes n

                  • You can not generate 1N force per Watt.

                    By Jove! he's finally got it!

                    You have finally agreed, after all these years (and so much cussing) that if one mixes up N and W, exactly as the supposed EM drive does (they claimed at one point around 2 micronewtons per Watt) , the you get absurd results that cannot possibly be real. Ergo, the EM drive cannot be real.

                    Finally, my work here is done. But since you're still in violent agreement, I shall leave my sig up.

              • He never explained how he puts less energy into it than he gets out, or how he got more energy out of it, then he put into it.

                He is bad in physics and thinks taglines like this make him look smart.

                • He never explained how he puts less energy into it than he gets out, or how he got more energy out of it, then he put into it.

                  Apart from the basic high school physics calculations, you mean? The ones that drive you into a blind rage.

                  It's a simple proof by contradiction.

                  Question: can the EM drive producing x N/W (x > 3e-9) exist?

                  1. Assume the EM drive producing some thrust for a given power exist.

                  2. Show with some maths that (1) would yield an absurd result.

                  3. Therefore the premise in (1) must be wrong.

                  • Your premises are wrong.
                    Simple.

                    So the conclusions you draw are wrong, too.

                    Why would 2. be true? Why would an EM drive not just produce "ordinary" results?

                    You are constructing thought experiments, where the first two steps make no sense.

                    Look at it from this perspective. I have three witches, riding on their brooms, with my magic wand and a tricky spell, I make them the size of a mosquito baby. Now three witches are dancing on the tip of my golden needle.

                    How many angles could be able to dance on that tip?

        • The tube works fine.

          To be fair to the parent, "works fine" is not the goal for one of the heaviest used public transports systems in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. The tube shouldn't be "working fine". It should be "fucking magnificent" given the number of people who rely on it daily, and it has been massively underinvested in over the years.

          It used to be one of the envies of the world. Instead cities which have actually invested heavily in their metro systems have left London in the dust. I dare say give me Paris

          • To be fair to the parent, "works fine" is not the goal for one of the heaviest used public transports systems in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. The tube shouldn't be "working fine". It should be "fucking magnificent" given the number of people who rely on it daily, and it has been massively underinvested in over the years.

            OK, that's a fair point.

    • by Sique ( 173459 )

      [...] being one of the oldest.

      Being by far the oldest in the World, and opened in 1863, more than 160 years ago, it is surely one of the oldest. Budapest Metro comes in third after Liverpool (1893), opening in 1896, but was the first one running electric. New York Subway for instance was late to the game, opening in 1904, beaten for instance by Glasgow (1896), Paris (1900) and Berlin (1902).

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      The Vancouver Skytrain, does almost everything right. All it's missing is platform edge doors on the stations.

      - Fully automated, even when the drivers go on strike it still operates (It's been well known that before the turnstiles were installed, if the union goes on strike, nobody will check for tickets unless management actually goes to the station to do so, which they can't do it for every station.)
      - Requires no physical tickets to be printed. Tap your phone / payment card / transit pass
      - Peak 75 seconds

      • The core reason why other transit systems shun or are scared of automated metros is that an actual retrofit of existing rolling stock is impossible

        I also suspect that, compared to the cost of running and maintaining the train and the system it runs on, paying someone to sit up the front of said train and press buttons is essentially nothing.

        Oh, and you also need to have someone on board to make announcements like "This train will now make a 57-minute maintenance stop due to the wrong kind of snow on the tracks" and similar.

      • the TTC driver union would not permit it to be run automated.
        That is nonsense.
        A union has no legal power to permit or prohibit anything.

        You sound like an American union hater.

  • Cyborg driven trains, but pay them well. Sorry, seven, and no, this didn't come out of Springfield

  • Hardly surprising that another study reaches the desired conclusions of those who commissioned it. The trains on half the tube lines already drive themselves, with the drivers only pushing a button to close the doors, yet these studies always factor in the costs of replacing all the trains. On those lines, all they need to do is add a few hundred pounds of electronics and remove a few hundred pounds of train driver.
    • by Phillip2 ( 203612 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @08:36AM (#64980991)

      Nothing to do with this. Infrastructure is really, really expensive and the cost of people relatively small. At some point bits of the underground will move and maybe they will become driverless, but to make them operate properly you need full barriers across the platforms which means new trains and new lines. And, given how old the underground is, it's quite possible new tunnels.

      The drivers are not there just to push the go button thousands of times; they are there for the one time there is an emergency.

      • Remote control, cameras, redundant network... 1 person monitoring everything all at once. Much cheaper long term... realistically, it doesn't work because voters are too incompetent. The transit systems in many places are poorly maintained because of the voters. Those barely functioning systems manage because the only updated component are the human workers.

        I'm sure a machine and remote access would do it better but before it paid for itself (including the always extra high costs which is another issue,)

        • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

          You can't remote control walk people down the tunnel when the electricity goes off or the train fails or a bombs goes off somewhere. In the Tube many stations have a staff member on the platforms when it's busy. Nothing to do with voters, TFL runs the tube, voters don't get a say beyond picking a mayor.

      • The drivers are not there just to push the go button thousands of times; they are there for the one time there is an emergency.

        Exactly this. In addition to the non-linear thinking occasionally needed, if the autopilot has a Boeing MCAS moment, we could have an inadvertent but quite deliberate death incident as the software determines is needed.

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          That's not the way trains work. At all. Drivereless metros are becoming a norm across the world because when you're on the rails in a tunnel, you can't in fact do anything as a driver if train has an "automation decided to dive".

          Because trains can't dive. They can only move on rails.

          It's the same thing with driverless cars. As long as you completely control the environment and route (as you obviously do with a metro), you can in fact have driverless cars right now with current tech. And unlike trains, cars

          • That's not the way trains work. At all. Drivereless metros are becoming a norm across the world because when you're on the rails in a tunnel, you can't in fact do anything as a driver if train has an "automation decided to dive".

            Because trains can't dive. They can only move on rails.

            Dood! do you actually for a minute believe that I was trying to equate a subway with an airplane as regards operating?

            It's the same thing with driverless cars. As long as you completely control the environment and route (as you obviously do with a metro),

            There is perhaps not as much complete control as you assume

            • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              >Dood! do you actually for a minute believe that I was trying to equate a subway with an airplane as regards operating?

              Yes. You literally referenced a specific system failure that is utterly unique to aircraft only as a relevant point on this subject. Quoting you:

              >In addition to the non-linear thinking occasionally needed, if the autopilot has a Boeing MCAS moment, we could have an inadvertent but quite deliberate death incident as the software determines is needed.

              >There is perhaps not as much com

        • by Kisai ( 213879 )

          Vancouver Skytrain has operated for 30 years without drivers, and there has never been a signal fatality due to the automation.

          All transit systems have fatalities caused by passengers at stations, human driver on the train or not. You eliminate these by having platform edge doors and sensors+video surveillance checking for track intrusions before the train enters/leaves the station. This operates less-than-perfectly in Vancouver due to the sensors being a combination of weight-sensors and infrared sensors.

          I

          • Vancouver Skytrain has operated for 30 years without drivers, and there has never been a signal fatality due to the automation.

            We have apparently reached perfection!

      • At some point bits of the underground will move and maybe they will become driverless, but to make them operate properly you need full barriers across the platforms which means new trains and new lines.

        You don't need platform barriers for driverless trains, such barriers are a different issue entirely. As TFA said, there would still be a staff member on board anyway, which is exactly how the Victoria line has been worked since it was built in 1967. And why the heck would you need new lines?

        • I think every driverless system I have seen has enclosed platforms. The underground needs them, I guess, regardless of whether they go driverless. But, they are also an important safety feature. The driver has to make a judgement whether it is safe to go when the platform is crowded. I am not sure that an automated system can do that unless there is a closed barrier between the train and the crowd.

          • by Kisai ( 213879 )

            Vancouver Skytrain does not have platform edge doors, and is one of the only valid criticisms about the entire system, since a crowded platform can result in people falling into the track, thus triggering the intrusion sensors and causing every inbound train outside the station to come to a stop.

      • by Kisai ( 213879 )

        Vancouver Skytrain doesn't have "drivers", and has operated for 30 years without them. So no, you don't need "someone", ever.

        The fact is, driver unions are why systems don't automate. If you update the trains to have the capability to operate automate, you just need to make sure ALL the trains operate on the same CBTC signaling system, and then you don't need any staff on the trains. If you have turnstiles, that's where you focus your enforcement. When "something happens" the central control can take over o

    • The trains on half the tube lines already drive themselves, with the drivers only pushing a button to close the doors, yet these studies always factor in the costs of replacing all the trains.

      Never underestimate how much that last human check costs to automate. There are plenty of driverless tubes in the world, they all share things in common: safety features at all *stations* to ensure you don't end up severing someone's limb.

      Also never underestimate the cost of a system retrofit. It often sounds simple and you very quickly end up spending just as much retrofitting old rolling stock as you do on new ones, ... and why wouldn't you. The tube is in a horrendous shape. One way or the other it would

    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      The study was commissioned at the behest of the Tory government, as was explained in the article. If the Tory government didn't like the consultants used, or the process used, or the publishing deadline, etc, that was in their gift to change. Given they were content with all of that, it seems odd to think that the report is self-evidently biased because of Sadiq Khan being a Labour mayor. As others have pointed out, you're indulging in post-hoc rationalisation of your position that it must surely be cheap b

      • Yes, the then Conservative government shouldn't have allowed TfL anywhere near the study, even though that body should be best placed to contribute. Coupled with the usual RMT threat to strike whenever driverless trains are mentioned, there was only ever one outcome.
        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          I mean, it’s fair to say that the Tories would have been capable of commissioning a study with a different outcome, but I’m every bit as skeptical of Tory-commissioned reports as you are of TfL-commissioned reports. Probably even more. There are just some obvious basic facts:
          - Automated systems require more safety systems, especially platform gates. From a political perspective as much as anything else. The minute a passenger fell / was pushed / jumped under a driverless train, all hell would br

    • The DLR has a train captain who pushes a button to close the doors. So all you would be doing is changing the employee's job title and moving them out of the driver's cab into the main portion of the train.

  • by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @10:19AM (#64981147)

    The city of Paris operates a fully driverless metro since 1998 (line 14) and it has given so much satisfaction that it has been extended on both ends; four additional lines are being built as we talk (15, 16, 17, 18), and one more is under project (19).

    Advantages:
    * Increased train rates (1 train every 85 seconds) (instead of typically once every 150 seconds on human driven line 1)
    * Increased train speed (40 km/h end-to-end average instead of 25-30 km/h in human driven)
    * Increased customer satisfaction (good timeliness and less crowded). Line 14 is rated 2nd best quality of service in Paris by travellers ( https://www.lesechos.fr/2018/0... [lesechos.fr] ).

    Paris was apparently the first capital city to adopt a fully driverless metro on a major line; but smaller scale driverless trains have been operating in France since 1983, to much popular success. I have no idea why London would not want that. The only drawback is the higher construction cost, but the advantages outweigh the cost if the objective is to serve well your citizens.

    • Nah - don't be silly. The London tube is held hostage by the rail unions to do exactly what they want. A serious strike on it would disrupt London to such an extent that no government is ever going to get to that point; instead we have brief strikes which lead to the government extracting more money from taxpayers to keep the workers happy.

      • So the next Starmer action will be to ban striking for critical Tube employees. There is no right to strike under UK law, hence "statutory ballots". UK gov was trying to ban strikes for certain positions to "ensure key services like the NHS are protected".

        • Press release
          Strikes Bill becomes law
          Government Bill to introduce Minimum Service Levels during industrial action receives Royal Assent
          https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
          Rail Minister Huw Merriman said:
          The ability of workers to take strike action is an integral part of industrial relations, however, this should not be at the expense of members of the public.
          The passing of this Bill will help give passengers certainty that they will be able to make impo

    • Victoria line trains run every 100 seconds, and have an operating speed of 80km/h. It takes 30 minutes to do the 21km route, so the end-end average is 42km/h.

    • There's a difference between new lines and the work needed to retrofit an existing very heavily used line. The cost of including driverless systems in a bid for a new line is virtually pocket change lost in the noise. But you could compare Line 14 to Line 4. Specifically you could compare how it took almost as long to retrofit Line 4 with driverless automation as it took to build the entire Line 14 from scratch. And just to be clear the Piccadilly line has 5x the ridership of Line 4 making it significantly

    • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @12:30PM (#64981429) Journal

      The city of Paris operates a fully driverless metro since 1998

      London's done that since 1987. The question is not whether it's possible: clearly it is. The question is whether it's worth the money converting the existing lines to driverless.

      Increased train rates (1 train every 85 seconds) (instead of typically once every 150 seconds on human driven line 1)

      The Victoria line alternates between 90 and 110 seconds depending on whether the departure needs a crossover at Brixton. The trains are automated but not driverless.

      Increased train speed (40 km/h end-to-end average instead of 25-30 km/h in human driven)

      https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/t... [tfl.gov.uk]

      You will note London has several underground lines which average over 40kmh.

      I suspect the lizzie line has the highest average speed, due to being brand new and having relatively well spaced out stations.

      The only drawback is the higher construction cost

      There are other drawbacks: we don't have driverless mainline rail. This means the metro trains cannot go from the rail network to being a metro train and back again. The newest line does that.

      It's almost certainly worth building a new pure metro line as driverless. Fir high capacity hybrid lines it is not and it's very unlikely that converting existing lines is worth the money.

  • Replaced the existing trains with 3 person pods, pre-programmed to pull in to each station and stop (either at the end of the platform, or behind the last car already stopped there), wait a few seconds to see if the door opens, and then continue as soon as the time has passed and the door is in a closed state.

    With the exception of road crossings, you could have your system running more or less constantly.

    Eventually you can get fancy and add bypass rails so the pods don't have to stop at stations the riders

    • by nukenerd ( 172703 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @11:37AM (#64981317)
      You obviously don't know much about public transport, queuing theory, or London.
    • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @12:34PM (#64981441) Journal

      That sounds like a terrible idea.

      The newest line, the Elizabeth Line, has a capacity of 1,500 passengers per train, and at peak time runs at 24 trains per hour. To match that you would need 3 of your three person pods whizzing by per second.

      • And how many do you imagine could queue at a platform in place of a train? It's not like each would block the entire thing.

        • This is your proposal, not mine, so I don't know what you have in mind except what you explain. The properties of the Elizabeth line are easily found. The trains are about 200m long and 2.7m wide so you could tell me how many pods would fit in the same space.

          But also you presumably need a two more tracks track and a very advanced signalling system to get 3 per second in and out of the station while maybe stopping. Unless you have them all in a line. In which case you just invented a cramped, inefficient tra

      • I think the OP is Elon Musk.

        Musk is obsessed with the idea of small transport pods for public ransport. His Las Vegas Loop, Hyperloop, Robot Taxis, all small "pod" transport, are supposed to kill off trains and buses. However, their capacity in passengers per hour is abyssmal. Apart from the mid-journey flow rate, Musk fails to take handling at terminals into account. This shows the queue of taxis waiting to enter a station on his LA Loop : YouTube [youtube.com]
  • Driverless tube trains are in service in France since 1983 [wikipedia.org]
    The same trains are in service in Lyon I think, the line 14 of the Paris' métro, the OrlyVAL and CDGVal (airports terminals connections).
    But London cannot achieve the same nowadays ?
    • Yes, London can, and has done. The question is whether it is cost-effective to retrofit it onto existing systems.

  • FFS .. the same country that built 175,000 airplanes and nearly 600 large ships and 200 submarines WHILE getting bombed by Germany in WW2 can't build a tunnel without it costing billions of dollars? What the fuck is going on. This is like NASA contractor, Bechtel, saying a launch tower getting a fat $300 million to build a launch tower four years ago and then after the deadline passed, with zero shame said they haven't even started and demanded $3 billion to finish the work. Meanwhile SpaceX built launch to

    • by Anonymous Coward

      What the fuck are you drivelling about, moron?

      This isn't about "building fucking tunnels".

      This is about converting existing tube lines to fully automated operation.

      The tunnels are already there, see?

      Have you got a brain injury or something?

      • Oh, just automation then it's even worse that it costs billions. You really should get that brain tumor checked out though.

  • Why would driverless trains still need staff onboard? That's just BS. I have a feeling these 'studies' were conducted by people who didn't want driverless trains. Yes, maybe the costs up front might be high, but in the long run it should be a fraction of the current costs. Any train that's gonna be replaced should be driverless. It's a fixed track, with 24/7 camera surveillance, so the trains could easily be driverless.
    • In Bangkok driver less trains do have staff on board.
      They hop out of the train, and watch what is going on.
      Then they signal, then they hop back in.
      And there is extra staff in the first cabin, watching the rails.

      And: staff helps disabled or elderly or pregnants to get on and off.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...