Ed Crowley wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Ed Crowley wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Ed Crowley wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Ed Crowley" wrote in message
...

"Richard J." wrote in
message
...
CJG wrote:
If DLR can run without drivers. Why can't the
Victoria
line have the drivers turfed out of the cab and down
checking tickets.
I know there is a higher frequency of trains on
Victoria than DLR. But surely if DLR can run safety
with no drivers then underground lines can?

DLR trains have a train captain (or whatever they're
now
called) whose duties include opening and closing the
doors, and making sure that this is done safely. He
can
do this from any of a number of points on the train
because the trains are short and the trains were
designed that way.

On the tube, trains are much longer, hence TV is
needed
to enable the train operator to close the doors
safely
with full visibility of the platform (some of which
are
curved, unlike DLR). In practice this means that the
screens are either in the cab or at the front of the
platform. Duplicate screens and other equipment could
be
provided elsewhere in principle, but I don't see how
the
extra cost could be justified.

Couldn't a button be fitted on the platform that
allows
platform staff to close the train doors when safe?
You
then wouldn't need any staff on the trains at all ...

And what happens when the train comes to a sudden stop
due
to mechanical failure? Are all passengers going to be
trained in remedying faults?

I would imagine an engineer would be called. What
happens
on the driver-less airport shuttle trains such as those
at
Stanstead and Gatwick?

They are very short and as far as I know each vehicle
simply runs back and forth along its own dedicated track.
Such systems are in no way comparable with any line of
the
London underground most of which has several dozen
trains.in service at any one time all of which may be
carrying one thousand passengers.

If such a policy were implemented and the engineer
couldn't fix the problem there is then a need for the
train following the defective one to push it out. Do you
have any suggestions as to how that might work?

Someone could board the train behind and drive it manually
(manual controls would have to be retained as with the
DLR). You would obviously need to have enough people on
hand who are trained to do this!

So you've got all these people sitting around waiting for
emergencies to occur. Why not give them something to do in
the meantime, like drive a train?

Computers are better at driving trains than humans. Also,
having a member of staff on every platform has to be
cheaper than staff on some platforms plus a driver on every
train. Why couldn't the platform staff be trained to
fix/drive trains in an emergency? It would make their jobs
more interesting and varied to boot ...

Technically, you may be correct. However there is one fundamental point
invariably overlooked by proponents of such courses of action. "People like
people", i.e. passengers like to know there is someone on hand to deal with
a situation as it arises. IIRC when the Victoria Line was being planned and
built the tyechnology would have allowed driverless trains. The system you
propose is feasible on the DLR. It is the human factor that keeps a member
of staff actually on the train.