Clive wrote:
Anyone know which of the tube lines are now driven automatically?

Central and Victoria, using different systems.

Further is the system the same as was used on the Woodford loop and
Victoria line?

The system used on the Central is different to that used on the Woodford
loop and Victoria line.

Some info here http://www.davros.org/rail/signallin...s/central.html

Brimstone wrote:
Clive wrote:
Anyone know which of the tube lines are now driven automatically?

Central and Victoria, using different systems.

Both lines, of course, rely on a driver in the cab to control the
on-board systems, so they are not completely automatic.

In Paris, Line 14 of the Métro has no staff on trains or, as far as I
could see, on platforms. Even at the terminus, if you fail to alight,
they take you into the reversing siding for a few minutes before
starting the return journey.

When I was last in Paris in April, there were reports in the local press
that Line 1 would be converted to automatic (crewless) operation, which
will involve the installation of platform-edge doors at all stations.
One of the stated reasons for the conversion was to reduce the number of
closures due to strikes. Bob Crow, look out!

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Both lines, of course, rely on a driver in the cab to control the
on-board systems, so they are not completely automatic.
In Paris, Line 14 of the Métro has no staff on trains or, as far as I
could see, on platforms. Even at the terminus, if you fail to alight,
they take you into the reversing siding for a few minutes before
starting the return journey.

That sounds to me very unsafe, in the event of an emergency like what
we had here recently, evecuation would have been much slower, plus some
stations need to have different 'dwell times.'

Joe wrote:
Both lines, of course, rely on a driver in the cab to control the
on-board systems, so they are not completely automatic.
In Paris, Line 14 of the Métro has no staff on trains or, as far
as I could see, on platforms. Even at the terminus, if you fail
to alight, they take you into the reversing siding for a few
minutes before starting the return journey.

That sounds to me very unsafe, in the event of an emergency like
what we had here recently, evecuation would have been much slower,

Not necessarily. In the case of the Piccadilly Line bombing, people in
the rear five cars had nobody to help them until rescuers arrived along
the tunnel from King's Cross. The tunnels in Paris are mostly double
track with no fourth rail, which makes evacuation easier.

plus some stations need to have different 'dwell times.'

Maybe, but I can think of various ways of achieving that automatically.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:35:10 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Maybe, but I can think of various ways of achieving that automatically.

Certainly if (as is likely outside the UK) people are disciplined and
refrain from blocking sensors to hold doors open.

Something similar is used on bendy buses in Hamburg. The rear door is
on a timer with a sensor in the step. If someone is standing on the
step (thus, it is assumed, trying to board), the door remains open.
After the step is cleared and the time has passed, it closes and the
driver can depart.

IMX, it has only been when the bus has been crammed full and people
have accidentally stood on the step that this has caused delays. I
never experienced anyone doing it deliberately. In the UK, I expect
the scallies would soon realise...

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Certainly if (as is likely outside the UK) people are disciplined and
refrain from blocking sensors to hold doors open.

Easily solved - make the doors close harder as they do in some other
countries so if you block them it actually hurts. People would soon
refrain from doing it.

B2003

"Boltar" typed


Certainly if (as is likely outside the UK) people are disciplined and
refrain from blocking sensors to hold doors open.

Easily solved - make the doors close harder as they do in some other
countries so if you block them it actually hurts. People would soon
refrain from doing it.

B2003

Until it breaks a kid's neck...

They already close quite hard enough IMO.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On 31 Jul 2005 02:29:21 -0700, "Boltar"
wrote:

Certainly if (as is likely outside the UK) people are disciplined and
refrain from blocking sensors to hold doors open.

Easily solved - make the doors close harder as they do in some other
countries so if you block them it actually hurts. People would soon
refrain from doing it.

In an unsupervised, computer-controlled situation this would be
downright dangerous.

On the main line, where there is someone supervising door closure, the
doors do usually close quite harshly. Anyone who's tried to hold back
the doors of a Class 153 DMU[1], for example, will know this.

[1] I did this once to assist a guard in boarding, as the external
staff controls had for whatever reason failed. The sensible thing
might have been for me to hold the emergency release instead, but she
operated that and I held the door back once open. The force with
which it then attempted to close was rather surprising.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

The Picc's 1973 Stock were originally hard & fast in closing and
certainly deterred obstruction. Alas LT (as as) gave in to complains
and reduced the air pressure.

"Joe" wrote in message .

That sounds to me very unsafe, in the event of an emergency like what
we had here recently, evecuation would have been much slower, plus some
stations need to have different 'dwell times.'

I looked at this point on the Copenhagen system which is
completely unmanned and has platform doors for safety
reasons.

The dwell times all appeared to be much longer than necessary
even at the busy stations, and it seemed to wait for the same time
at the less busy ones.

tim