Driverless trains.
 

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?
--
CJG

Driverless trains.
 

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

Driverless trains.
 

"Richard J." wrote:
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?

... Duplicate screens and other equipment could be provided elsewhere
in principle, but I don't see how the extra cost could be justified.

Do DLR trains get less internal vandalism than tube trains because the
train crew wanders around instead of staying locked in a cab?

Colin McKenzie

Driverless trains.
 

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote:
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?

... Duplicate screens and other equipment could be provided elsewhere
in principle, but I don't see how the extra cost could be justified.

Do DLR trains get less internal vandalism than tube trains because the
train crew wanders around instead of staying locked in a cab?

It would appear so ...

Driverless trains.
 

"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?

Driverless trains.
 

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?

Driverless trains.
 

"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!

Driverless trains.
 

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?

Driverless trains.
 

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.

Driverless trains.
 

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

IMO it's better to have visible staff on every platform than locked away at
the front of the train.

Driverless trains.
 

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

IMO it's better to have visible staff on every platform
than locked away at the front of the train.

Most people prefer both. Given the option I expect most people would also
prefer to have someone on the back of the train as well. Unfortunately the
people who actually run the Underground have had to play the part of a
football. Hopefully that role will now be in the past (but I'm not holding
my breath).

Driverless trains.
 

"Ed Crowley" wrote in message t...
I would imagine an engineer would be called. What happens on the
driver-less airport shuttle trains such as those at Stanstead and Gatwick?

I think theres a slight difference between a mickey mouse 1 car people
mover on a half mile above ground track with a few dozen people on board
and a tube train with 800 passengers and 8 cars underground in the heat!

B2003

Driverless trains.
 

Boltar wrote:
"Ed Crowley" wrote in message
t...
I would imagine an engineer would be called. What happens on the
driver-less airport shuttle trains such as those at Stanstead and
Gatwick?

I think theres a slight difference between a mickey mouse 1 car
people mover on a half mile above ground track with a few dozen
people on board and a tube train with 800 passengers and 8 cars
underground in the heat!

Does anyone know if there are any Métro staff on board the trains on line 14
in Paris, which have ATO and no driver at the front? (Good view for
passengers though!)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Driverless trains.
 

"Ed Crowley" wrote in message t...
"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?

A platform runs all the way alongside the 'train' at gatwick

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Colin McKenzie
writes
Do DLR trains get less internal vandalism than tube trains because the
train crew wanders around instead of staying locked in a cab?

I can't say I use DLR that often. Maybe three times a month at most. But
they do seem a lot less vandalised than LU trains.
--
CJG

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Cast_Iron
writes
"People like people", i.e. passengers like to know there is someone on
hand to deal with a situation as it arises.

But the whole point is. Have the train driver checking tickets and
making a presence felt on the train. If the train breaks down or any
technical problem. They can sort out the problem quickly. As they are
already on the train.
Maybe the drivers wouldn't like the idea of leaving the cab and having
to deal with the customers....
--
CJG

Driverless trains.
 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:48:55 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Boltar wrote:
"Ed Crowley" wrote in message
t...
I would imagine an engineer would be called. What happens on the
driver-less airport shuttle trains such as those at Stanstead and
Gatwick?

I think theres a slight difference between a mickey mouse 1 car
people mover on a half mile above ground track with a few dozen
people on board and a tube train with 800 passengers and 8 cars
underground in the heat!

Does anyone know if there are any Métro staff on board the trains on line 14
in Paris, which have ATO and no driver at the front? (Good view for
passengers though!)

From memory there are no staff on the trains. I believe that the VAL
trains in Lille and elsewhere in France also have no on board staff. The
new North Easy line in Singapore is also driverless but staff do
sometimes travel on trains - there are always people in the stations.
Berlin have also tested driverless capability on one of the U Bahn lines
recently.

It is not beyond the wit of operators to provide driverless trains that
prove to be entirely acceptable to the travelling public. I would accept
that there is a cultural issue to deal with in London concerning
completely staff less trains - especially with regard to the current
level of unreliability; passenger information, safety, security and
vandalism issues. A lot of work would be needed to switch LUL lines to
a fully automated mode.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Driverless trains.
 

As Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:40:46 +0100 appeared fresh and rosy-fingered,
"Ed Crowley" wrote:

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

There are walkways next to the tracks at Gatwick.

I don't know about Stanstead - I was once booked to go on a tour of
the transit system there, but some Afghans decided to hijack a plane
on the same day. When I went there to fly somewhere it was broken, and
we got bussed.
--
Arthur Figgis
Surrey Interested in the
UK Hull & Barnsley Railway?
http://www.hullandbarnsleyrailway.org.uk

Driverless trains.
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
There have also been cases where people have broken into
drivers cabs and beaten them up.

Really? I've never heard of that before. What's your source for this
information?

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Ed Crowley
writes

There have also been cases where people have broken into
drivers cabs and beaten them up.

Really? I've never heard of that before. What's your source for this
information?

It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was assaulted at
Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.

I think you'll find it was in the Evening Standard.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Driverless trains.
 

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Crowley
writes

There have also been cases where people have broken into
drivers cabs and beaten them up.

Really? I've never heard of that before. What's your source for this
information?

It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was assaulted at
Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.

I think you'll find it was in the Evening Standard.

Sh*t. I always thought those doors to the drivers' cab looked pretty solid.

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Ed Crowley
writes

There have also been cases where people have broken into
drivers cabs and beaten them up.

Really? I've never heard of that before. What's your source for this
information?

It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was assaulted at
Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.

I think you'll find it was in the Evening Standard.

Sh*t. I always thought those doors to the drivers' cab looked pretty solid.

The emergency access to the cab is by way of removing a plastic flap -
hardly a great challenge, even for the hard of thinking it appears.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was assaulted
at Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.


This is true. LU was screwing around with commuters as per usual. Trains
delayed. One of the commuters took it personally.
--
CJG

Driverless trains.
 

"CJG" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was assaulted
at Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.


This is true. LU was screwing around with commuters as per usual. Trains
delayed. One of the commuters took it personally.
--
CJG

I bet that really speeded up everyone's journey.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

Driverless trains.
 

CJG wrote the following in:


In message , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was
assaulted at Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.


This is true. LU was screwing around with commuters as per usual.
Trains delayed. One of the commuters took it personally.

Disgusting that you'd defend such behaviour. In fact, it's so
disgusting, I think I'll go round to your house and beat you up. But
you annoyed me, so it's ok to do that, isn't it?

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Driverless trains.
 

"Richard J." écrivait
:

I think theres a slight difference between a mickey mouse 1 car
people mover on a half mile above ground track with a few dozen
people on board and a tube train with 800 passengers and 8 cars
underground in the heat!

Does anyone know if there are any Métro staff on board the trains on
line 14 in Paris, which have ATO and no driver at the front? (Good
view for passengers though!)

There is no driver on board of the line 14 trains in Paris. On the other
hand, there is a hidden dashboard in the front car permitting an agent to
manually drive the train in the event of an emergency.

The RATP expect to automate all the Paris Métro lines. This will start with
the line 1 (400 000 passengers/day, 16 km).

Driverless trains.
 

"CJG" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
It happened a couple of weeks ago when a Jubilee driver was assaulted
at Bermondsey and required hospital treatment.


This is true. LU was screwing around with commuters as per usual. Trains
delayed. One of the commuters took it personally.

That's pretty out of order. It wasn't the drivers' fault that the train was
delayed. I bet they don't like sitting at red signals any more than we like
sitting in traffic jams ...

Driverless trains.
 

Would you really trust a train with no actual driver in the cab? Be honest
now

Driverless trains.
 

Just me and the world wrote:
Would you really trust a train with no actual driver in the cab? Be
honest now

Yes, of course. Computers are very reliable these days and zp[]#-90yomgv
qt qLuoyur ..'p['[0-][-=

--
..J drahciR
)sserdda ni noy dna ku paws ,em liam-e ot(

Driverless trains.
 

"Just me and the world" wrote in message
...
Would you really trust a train with no actual driver in the cab? Be
honest
now

Computers don't read the paper while driving (as witnessed on the Central
line a good few times now) or turn up to work ****ed up on booze (a
reference to recent reports about the levels of alcohol and drug abuse in
the workplace, including the railway industry).

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Ed Crowley
writes
It wasn't the drivers' fault that the train was delayed.

I never said it was. What I am saying is that its front-line staff who
come in constant contact with customers that get all the crap and abuse
about what their company is doing.
--
CJG

Driverless trains.
 

In message , Ed Crowley
writes
Computers don't read the paper while driving (as witnessed on the
Central line a good few times now) or turn up to work ****ed up on
booze (a reference to recent reports about the levels of alcohol and
drug abuse in the workplace, including the railway industry).

Or use a mobile phone whilst driving (obviously not underground)
--
CJG

Driverless trains.
 

In article , Just me and the world
wrote:
Would you really trust a train with no actual driver in the cab? Be honest
now

You do on a lift. It's an awful smash if something really does go
wrong! And there is no driver in the CAB of a DLR train.

Michael Bell



--

Driverless trains.
 

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Just me and the world
wrote:
Would you really trust a train with no actual driver in the cab? Be
honest
now

You do on a lift. It's an awful smash if something really does go
wrong!

Incorrrect. There is a safety device that stops the lift falling in the
event of the cables breaking.
See http://www.theelevatormuseum.org/e/e-5.htm


And there is no driver in the CAB of a DLR train.

Very true, but what you fail to point out is that there is no cab in which
to place the driver.

Driverless trains.
 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:40:46 +0100, "Ed Crowley"
wrote:



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

WTF can't anyone spell 'Stansted'?

Driverless trains.
 

Colin McKenzie écrivait
:

There is no driver on board of the line 14 trains in Paris. On the
other hand, there is a hidden dashboard in the front car permitting
an agent to manually drive the train in the event of an emergency.

How does he get there if the train is stuck in a tunnel?

He can walk in the tunnel (they are enough wide that people could walk
beside a train).

Are RATP tunnels single or double track?

They are generally double tracked, but some section of the line 14 are
single tracked.