back to article Domo arigato, Mr Roboto: Japan's bullet trains to ditch drivers

One of Japan's major passenger railway operators announced plans on Tuesday to bring fully automated bullet trains into service by the mid-2030s. The decision was attributed to population decline and work style reforms. JR East highlighted [PDF] several benefits of autonomous operation – including enhanced safety and …

  1. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    Just to clarify a point

    I feel like I should mention here that the Shinkansen trains run on dedicated tracks that are ONLY for the Shinkansen Trains. Almost no switching, no needing to worry about non-Shinkansen trains on the tracks, etc. Hence Automation for these is/should be significantly easier, than it is for most European train networks.

    Still if Automation has to start somewhere, this is as good a spot as anywhere. And once it's proven on the Shinkansen, it can likely be expanded to other more complex systems. So go for it Japan!

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Just to clarify a point

      Indeed, if only HS2 had been designed like that. ASLEF/RMT-free rail travel, one can only dream.

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        Nonsense.

        If time on a train matters that much, then you are wasting too much time on a train.

        The real q you should be asking is why am i wasting my life on a train.

        1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          1. Corderman's Rule: "If you live more than ten minutes from work, you're either working, or living, in the wrong place."

          2. Urban development patterns frequently prevent following Corderman's Rule. If *I* am 10 minutes from my work, *she* is now 45 minutes from her work.

          3. I read that a train arrives every three minutes at Tokyo Station, and that more than a million people pass through that station every day. To make that work, they have to be obsessive about train schedules.

          4. Why "waste" time on a train? Read a book, or do *something*.

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            AOD:

            4. Why "waste" time on a train? Read a book, or do *something*.

            cow:

            Dishonest. Its not always possible to read your a great book for the entire length of time. Trains run late, you dont always get a good seat, lighting might be bad, waiting and changing trains is *LOST* time etc.

            Secondly if you are tired or hungry you might not be able to enjoy your book because you are hungry. Yes i know you can get some food to eat, but again this is MORE time lost...

            AOD: 3. I read that a train arrives every three minutes at Tokyo Station, and that more than a million people pass through that station every day. To make that work, they have to be obsessive about train schedules.

            cow: Yes, the Japanese might not waste time because of late trains, but they waste hours on trains because the trains are so full you cant read a book a lot of the time.

            THe japanese also waste hours every day not going home becaus eof company man culture, where people cant go home because the boss is still in his office etc.

            So fast trains havent solved anything they make japanese have even longer and longer days...

            Trains here are part of the problem not the solution to enabling people to enjoy life.

            1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              @CowHorseFrog:

              You seem to be implying mass transit is, overall, a bad thing.

              1. We're talking here about mass transit, not about fixing the problems of Japanese culture and tradition.

              2. I carry light snacks (cut-up veggies, string cheese, granola bars, and water) to/from work. You can, too.

              3. Not everyone does just sit-in-the-office, use-the-computer sort of work. Not all jobs are "telecommutable".

              4. If you can't read a book due to crowded trains, you could listen to an audiobook, or read your book via Google Glasses (semi-kidding on that last).

              1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Just to clarify a point

                AOD: 1. We're talking here about mass transit, not about fixing the problems of Japanese culture and tradition.

                Cow: You fail to see that the "success" of the japanese train system has enabled the company man problem.

                An extreme example of this is if there was no trains, nobody would travelling hours or half way across town. If trains shutdown at say 8pm, then guess what, companies couldnt keep staff after this time because the staff wouldnt be enable to go home.

                If you stop and think you will understand what im saying.

                ~

                AOD 3: 3. Not everyone does just sit-in-the-office, use-the-computer sort of work. Not all jobs are "telecommutable".

                cow: wow are yoou a rocket scientist ?

                Are you telling me that plumbers cant fix toilets over the internet ?

                You are blind you dont see that commuting means people travel extreme distances and absolutely no effort is put into minimizing travel.

                If banks were for example forced to pay staff for commuting, then they would shuffle their staff around so staff wouldbe travelling to close branches instead of not giving a shit and sending them anywhere.

                ~

                AOD 4: 4. If you can't read a book due to crowded trains, you could listen to an audiobook, or read your book via Google Glasses (semi-kidding on that last).

                cow: THis is part of the problem. Idiots like you who dont value their time and demand that bosses try and make their life better by minimizing their commuting. You just accept what is given to you and continue to pay the penalty of wasting your life on a train/bus/car.

                ~

                AOD 2: 2. I carry light snacks (cut-up veggies, string cheese, granola bars, and water) to/from work. You can, too.

                cow: Wow yet again i ask why do you even bother to go home.

                One day your boss will force you to travel 5 hours each way and you will of course accept it because you have your string cheese and listen to audiobooks.

                Are you blind cant you see that commuting times are always increasing because morons accept this without question ?

          2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            AOD: 2. Urban development patterns frequently prevent following Corderman's Rule. If *I* am 10 minutes from my work, *she* is now 45 minutes from her work.

            cow: No the problem is too many people are too stupid to demand change. People sitting at a computer can and should work from home as much as possible as an example.

            But hey if you think reading a book for hours on a train or car is better than spending time talking to partner or kids, keep doing so and pretend the book is better than your family or friends.

            One day the kids will gone and they will barely know you because you spent all thaat time reading those great books...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        Of course! It's the unions demanding safe travel and fair pay to blame for the awful UK train network. Here I was thinking it was down to greedy licensees and inept politicians. Thanks for the correction.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          UK rail unions have no interest in fair pay, they want excessive pay whilst refusing to give up outmoded and overmanned working practices which predate the Beeching era.

          If they accepted fair pay and conditions there would be more money available to run more and better services, but union greed and a Labour government is always a failing combination.

          1. mdubash

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            So there's a lack of money in the public sector due to billionaires hoarding it and not paying their taxes - yet somehow this is the fault of working men and women organising themselves to retain a slightly bigger yet still thin slice of the pie.

            1. TheMeerkat Silver badge

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              The left-wing ideology is about being selfish and hating everyone who is a bit better off than you. This is why they inevitably produce a lot of hate speech about millionaires.

              The unions are simply helping some workers (unionised) to get more money at the expense of other workers (not unionised). If everyone unionised the unions will control economy and everyone will be equally poor as there would be nobody to steal from.

            2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              Railways are funded by passengers and tax subsidies. Throwing more taxpayer money at them to make up for union greed won't fix them.

          2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            What about all them experts and managers who want millions for being completely usless ?

            Trains dont need the vast majority of managers or experts, they do need every single train driver, and other skilled staff.

      3. martinusher Silver badge

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        The DLR -- the light rail system that serves the east of London -- is fully automatic. It still uses a sort-of-driver, though, partly because they need it for passenger safety and partly because passengers like to have a person driving even if they're not actually doing so. (Its also handy to have a person to blame for when the machine fails.)

        I'm impressed at just how deeply hatred of unions is inculcated into the British psyche. Its a class thing, I suppose. Nobody ever stops to ask themselves why its impossibly uneconomic for one person to drive a vehicle with 700 people on board (typical modern SE London commuter train at peak hours) but its somehow OK for one person to drive a taxi carrying one or two people.

        1. AdamWill

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          the main practical limitation with drivers isn't cost, it's...drivers. if every train has to have a driver, it's very hard to run very frequent trains all the time (because not many people want to drive a train at 3am on a Sunday). with an automated system this is not a concern.

          The mass transit rail system where I live is fully automated, which is a big reason why it can run very frequently (often every two or three minutes). if they had to find a driver for every train that would likely not be possible. the salary costs wouldn't be that much, it's more the sheer availability of people who want to do the (very boring, since you're not really doing anything) job.

          1. UnknownUnknown

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            That’s corporate bullshit if the highest order.

            Many people don’t want to work night shift … but do because that have to.

            I’d be happy to drive for Japan Easf Tfains at 3am if they paid properly. The Interweb seems to indicate it is a well paid job.

          2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            Hospitals and police and fireys are of course requird at all times but all other businesses shoudl be shut so people can have peaceful lives without being slaves around the clock to work.

            Having train at 3am encourages this abuse, just like having late night shopping means the workers at those shops work crazy long hours when they might not want to eb there.

            1. UnknownUnknown

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              This is not Iran or North Korea.

              Who are you to be dictating to people how they should live, love, travel, entertain and work.

              If much logistics, supply chain, overnight batch-processing and data process flow or post/parcel did not work overnight much in the world would be knackered.

              1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Just to clarify a point

                UU:

                This is not iran or NK ?

                cow:

                Then why are you wasting 10 - 20 hours a week 50 weeks a year, commuting for NOTHING ?

                1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                  Re: Just to clarify a point

                  Thank you downvoters, i guess you are all too afraid or cant actually write a semi intelligent answer to my statement, instead you continue to waste your lives away, pretending that commuting is an honour or something.

                  Keep living on your knees, one day you will be old and you will cry that you wasted 10 years of your life on a train/car/bus "commuting"...

            2. VicMortimer Silver badge

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              Some people PREFER to work at night. It's cooler, you don't have to wear sunglasses, and if you need to get something from one of those shitty shops that isn't 24 hours, you're off to be able to do it.

              Working at night IS NOT in any way tied to long hours. My favorite shift ever was when I worked 4 to midnight, I'd usually get up around 2 and when I got off there was the rest of the night if I wanted to go out or just go grocery shopping. I wish I could still do that.

    2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Re: Just to clarify a point

      So Shinkansen never cross regular train tracks with they are in a city and travelling too or from the fast tracks ?

      1. lglethal Silver badge
        Go

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        That is my understanding. Where a non-shinkansen track would cross a shinkansen track, then one track goes either over or under the other. There are supposed to be absolutely no crossings.

        Obviously I cant confirm that, (not working for Japanese Trains), but a very quick search on Google says that is the case.

        Whilst this seems like such a brilliant solution, I feel like in 99% of cases in Europe, it's too late to redesign the network to accommodate such a system. The cost to retrofit such a design would be massive, so unfortunately we have to live with what we've got... :/

        1. munnoch Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          The clue is in the name shin-kan-sen => new-buildings-lines, so yes,shinkansen, at least as originally conceived, run on dedicated RoW. Main reason being that Japan's existing railways are meter gauge whereas the shinkansen was designed to be standard gauge for stability at high speed.

          However there are a couple of routes off of the Tohoku shinkansen (Niigata and Joetsu from memory) where the bullet trains transfer onto existing lines. The local lines were regauged to standard gauge to accommodate this and the shinkansen vehicles used have a slightly smaller loading gauge (cross section) so that they physically fit and travel at a much lower speed than on the high speed sections.

          The local part of the formation runs to/from the transfer station piggy-backed on a through train and is attached/detached for its onward journey. I'd imagine the through train can be automated but the local portion would still have a driver.

          Japan Railways have been working towards driverless trains for a while as apparently no one wants to be a train driver these days. I, on the other hand, have always wanted to be a train driver, and still do...

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            Does that mean the New World is a completely new World or New Zealand is a completely new country and didnt exist before old Zealand ?

            1. lglethal Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              You want to be confused - what did Captain Cook mean when he named part of Australia - New South Wales? is it a new version of the South Wales? or is it a new Wales in the South?

              Having personally travelled both, I dont quite catch the resemblance (of either South Wales, or Wales in general...)...

              1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Just to clarify a point

                The south in the name of NSW means its in the semi hemisphere, new means its reusing a name from jolly old england, scotland etc.

                South Sandiwch islands are of course in the southern hemi, with hawaii being the original Sandwich is.

          2. Someone Else Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            Japan Railways have been working towards driverless trains for a while as apparently no one wants to be a train driver these days. I, on the other hand, have always wanted to be a train driver, and still do...

            You'd have to learn to Point and Call, but that shouldn't be a reason not to pursue your dream.

            1. munnoch Silver badge

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              Yosh...

              1. O'Reg Inalsin

                Re: Just to clarify a point

                And announce through your nose.

          3. VicMortimer Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            I have good news for you!

            No, you probably can't really operate trains in Japan. But there's a simulator!

            Densha de Go! Plug & Play

        2. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          "I feel like in 99% of cases in Europe, it's too late to redesign the network to accommodate such a system. The cost to retrofit such a design would be massive, so unfortunately we have to live with what we've got"

          Either building a high-speed rail network or refitting the current one for high-speed rail would be a massive massive undertaking in cost, time, and land area swallowed by new rails. It would probably be cheaper (and possibly occupy less space) to just build giant solar-powered reactors to convert water/CO2 to hydrocarbons for use as aviation fuel. Air travel already is faster, safer and cheaper than rail for long distances.

      2. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        The standard guage fast tracks are completely separate to the narrow guage regular train tracks, with their own platforms and everything.

      3. Xalran

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        No level crossing of roads, raised tracks most of the time, and dedicated, separate Shinkansen only tracks all the way, even in cities.

        It's easy for them, Shinkansen are built on Standard gauge tracks, while **all** the rest of the train network in Japan is narrow gauge.

        So a normal train *physically* go on a Shinkansen track, and a Shinkansen *physically* cannot use normal tracks.

        They didn't bother with the compatbilty of High Speed Trains with the existing network as they knew it was not going to be possible to reach the speed they wanted on narrow gauge tracks and bult a new separate network from scratch.

    3. rg287 Silver badge

      Re: Just to clarify a point

      Hence Automation for these is/should be significantly easier, than it is for most European train networks.

      Automation isn't the hard part of Unattended Operation, although integrating with legacy lines and non-automated rail certainly makes it harder. Most undergrad engineering students could throw together an autopilot that follows signals to start and stop.

      Note that Unattended Operation is distinct from "Driverless", e.g. the Docklands Light Railway is "driverless" but still requires a crew member on board. (See Grades of Automation.)

      The hard part is managing the Train-Platform Interface, which - put simply - is ensuring noone falls into the gap, nor gets their clothing trapped in the door. This is the job that Tube drivers do on lines with "Automatic Train Operation". They're ensuring the train is safe to dispatch (if this isn't done correctly, a person can be dragged down the platform to their deaths. This has happened). On Unattended systems like the Copenhagen or Singapore Metros, this is done with straight (not curved) platforms which assure step-free and gap-free level boarding, and Platform-Screen Doors (PSDs) (which also feature in newer Tube stations just because they improve platform safety). PSDs prevent anyone being outside the train without also being outside the screen.

      You also have to consider emergencies and evacuation. On an Unattended system, the tunnels are wide enough to accommodate a walkway alongside the train. The energised third rail is under a protective cover on the opposite side of the tunnel/tracks. On legacy systems like the London Underground, the trains fill the narrow tunnels and evacuation is through the end of the train - walking between the rails and in proximity to the exposed third rail. You need a driver or crew member to check the system is dead and safe to get passengers out. Without reboring the tunnels wider, it's basically impossible to bring them up to spec retrospectively.

      In terms of the Shinkansen, these are big, relatively modern platforms (nothing Victorian), and they're running on dedicated lines. The ATO is the easy part (the drivers are probably already just managing the doors). The platforms are also straight, which suits installation of PSDs, at which point you can do Unattended Operation.

      Mixed traffic and curved platforms are why it is broadly impossible to make conventional rail networks Driverless or Unattended. Even the London Underground will not go fully Unattended because of curved platforms (dangerous gaps) and narrow tunnels. When you hear politicians talking about making the Tube "Driverless" in response to strikes, they're actually talking about GoA3, which still requires a crew member (who can go on strike!), but they know the media will lap it up because "Driverless" doesn't mean what the public thinks it means.

      1. Xalran

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        <quote> Note that Unattended Operation is distinct from "Driverless", e.g. the Docklands Light Railway is "driverless" but still requires a crew member on board. (See Grades of Automation.)</quote>

        Similar trains be, it light railway or not ( Lines 1, 4, 14 in Paris, VAL in Lille, ORLYVAL, Toulouse subway, and a few other subway lines here and there in France ) works fine unattended. ( no crew on board ) on the French side of the Chunnel...

        The DLR doesn't really need somebody on board, it's just that it was so weird for regular English not to have a driver in the train, that they had to put somebody in it when the DLR was built.

        1. rg287 Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          The DLR doesn't really need somebody on board,

          It does. There are no Platform-Screen Doors and no automated mechanism to prevent the train setting off if something (e.g. clothing) is trapped in the doors. This is what the crew member does. In fact by modern standards, it's not even really GoA3. More like GoA2.5.

          There is also no self-evacuation walkway nor step-free way of getting out the carriage except at stations.

          Of course, being pretty much open-air, DLR could likely be upgraded to GoA4 without too much effort. The actual driving process is fully automated - it's the (much harder) Platform-Train Interface management to stop it cheerfully killing people like a welding robot without a cage. Of all the extant TfL lines, it'd be the easiest to fettle.

          But it absolutely does need a crew member on board for the current level of equipment. There is a huge difference between the station layout and onboard equipment of DLR and Paris Lines 1/4/14, or the Singapore/Copenhagen Metros. They crew member is not simply there because "it was weird for regular English".

          1. Xalran

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            The lack of platform doors is a non issue. We have the Line D in Lyon that has been working for decades automatically without any platform doors.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon_Metro_Line_D

            Platform layout is a non issue... there's enough different kind of layout around on automated lines, and some are similar to the LDR ones.

            And onboard equipment ( as well as the track equipment that is part of the whole system ) is also a non issue, it falls in the technology domain and it can be upgraded/updated/refurbished/converted.

            1. rg287 Silver badge

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              The lack of platform doors is a non issue. We have the Line D in Lyon that has been working for decades automatically without any platform doors.

              Lyon Line D is Driverless... not Unattended. There is a difference.

              And onboard equipment ( as well as the track equipment that is part of the whole system ) is also a non issue, it falls in the technology domain and it can be upgraded/updated/refurbished/converted.

              A statement like this on a site like El Reg. *Rolls around on floor actually laughing*.

              Pack up lads, this guy can do major tech refurbishments easily and for peanuts. It's not like signalling isn't usually the hardest part of rail projects, routinely running into a multi-billion line item. The West Coast Mainline Upgrade dropped it's top speed from 140 to 120mph because the "technology domain" became problematic (signalling, mainly) and was ballooning the projected cost from £5Bn to... £15Bn.

      2. JLV Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        Vancouver's Skytrain has been doing just that since 1986. To my knowledge it has had very few accidents and certainly no more than have happened elsewhere with manned trains.

        As a bonus, during the massive 4 month transit strike we had in 2001, the driverless trains kept on running for the duration.

        1. AdamWill

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          All the fully-automated systems in the world (including Skytrain) were designed to be such, though. It's much more complicated to retrofit an existing network to be fully-automated because of issues the OP mentioned, like the train and platform design. Skytrain stations are all dead straight and the platforms and trains were designed from the start so there is always no gap or height difference from the platform to the train. (And of course it's a closed-loop system with no interaction with any other train line and no grade crossings). Building a new system from scratch to be automated is a fairly simple thing at this point, that we know how to do and have done lots of times. Taking something like the original lines of the London or New York undergrounds and making them unattended would be harder.

          The unique challenges for the shinkansen system, reading between the lines of the post, are all related to the bit where it *goes really fast*. That's where all the stuff about detecting unusual vibrations and things comes in.

          1. Xalran

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            <quote>All the fully-automated systems in the world (including Skytrain) were designed to be such, though.>/quote>

            <quote>Taking something like the original lines of the London or New York undergrounds and making them unattended would be harder.</quote>

            Line 1 and 4 in Paris and Line D in Lyon used to be driver controlled lines. And Line 1 was the original line in Paris Subway. ( as in the first line, in Paris and in France )

            It's just more expensive, the rest is applied technology.

    4. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Just to clarify a point

      It's just a really really really fast Docklands Light Railway.

      1. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: Just to clarify a point

        It's just a really really really fast Docklands Light Railway.

        Except the DLR has a driver on board. But they mostly don't do any driving. They shut the doors, dispatch the train and can talk to passengers, offer directions, etc when travelling.

        The DLR doesn't run without them.

        Shinkansen is looking for full Unattended Operation, although it looks like their "driverless" trains will be run on a DLR-like basis whilst they finish getting platforms upgraded for full Unattended Ops.

        1. wolfetone Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          Sorry I thought the DLR was totally driverless.

          Carry on.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: Just to clarify a point

            No apology necessary - you can be quite forgiven for thinking so as they are technically "driverless" - just not "unmanned" - and the crew member is not always obvious if you're at the other end of the train (I suspect a lot of people think they're just station staff riding to a different stop to sort something out).

            And you need to do a fair bt of nerding to know about the fairly fine distinctions between the Grades of Automation.

            1. Wellyboot Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Just to clarify a point

              fair bit of nerding ... Register comments

              Yup, You're in the right place !

        2. anothercynic Silver badge

          Re: Just to clarify a point

          Shinkansen would still have what the English railway industry call a "guard" or a "train manager". There wouldn't be someone at the (very very) pointy end, but there would still be JR East staff on the train to deal with what train managers deal with. And Shinkansen also have platform despatchers and door attendants to ensure you get on the right carriage and no-one is trapped in closing doors.

          That's what the DLR has - train guards, not drivers. DLR is driver-less; it is operated and managed from an operations centre elsewhere. However, the guards *do* have the ability to manage the train manually, should the need arise.

          The big stink that RMT and ASLEF in particular are kicking up is that the government (and thus by extension the existing train operating companies) wants to go to driver-only operations (DOO). The unions believe this to be unsafe, especially when the CCTV cameras on the trains are either dirty or specific weather conditions (such as sun just at the right angle to cause glare on the camera and blinding the sensor) make it impossible for the driver to see whether it is safe to close the doors and despatch the train. They want the guard on there to make sure no-one is trapped. Of course, the TOCs want to rename the guards to train managers, and that in itself is also getting the unions upset. In some ways I fully support unions, but in others, like a title change, I'm amongst the "oh FFS, get over it if the job's the same" crowd.

          You'll also find that the Tube also has platform despatchers... they might not be on the platform, physically, but they also, along with the drivers, monitor the platform for issues like trapped items.

  2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    An obvious step forward

    In Paris there are metro lines without a driver now. It has been like that for a few years already. A train, technically, is just a metro with longer times between stops. In the metro in Paris, they are upgrading stations to build barriers between the tram and the people, so as to guarantee that people won't be able to suicide themselves by jumping in front of an incoming tram. Obviously, an actual train will not have that kind of protection, much less a high-speed one, but it would seem that there are a lot less people who jump in front of trains rather than trams. No idea why. In any case, I think automating trains is a good idea, because I know that train drivers on France's TGV are basically button-pushers. They have to press a button every minute to prove that they are awake.

    There are apparently more interesting jobs out there . . .

    1. abend0c4 Silver badge

      Re: An obvious step forward

      The Victoria Line has been automated since it opened in 1968 (and the technology had been tested on the District Line since 1963) and now many other lines don't technically require a driver for all or part of their operation, so the reasons we still don't have driverless metros in the UK are worth considering.

      Basically, we have the technology but lack the infrastructure you need to deploy it successfully. Britain in a nutshell.

      1. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: An obvious step forward

        The Victoria Line has been automated since it opened in 1968 (and the technology had been tested on the District Line since 1963) and now many other lines don't technically require a driver for all or part of their operation, so the reasons we still don't have driverless metros in the UK are worth considering.

        There is a significant difference between Automatic Operation and safe Unattended Operation.

        When that article says:

        This is one of the key issues holding back the automation of the Tube, according to the TfL document. In order to have driverless trains, the operator would have to adjust the platforms and the tracks to make them the same level.

        TfL would also have to introduce platform-edge doors in order to make on and offboarding driverless trains easier and safer for passengers. These prerequisite barriers would ensure that fewer people would jump or fall onto the rack.

        What they're saying is "rebuild from scratch". Nothing in London pre-1960s can be retrofitted for full Unattended Operation (GoA4) unless you commit to boring the tunnels wider for self-evacuation walkways that don't require a crew member to check the third rail is actually dead so you can walk along the tracks. You'd also need to straighten out the curved platforms, which means boring entirely new tunnels and realigning routes (which will impinge on other tunnels and infrastructure). "Adjust the platforms" and "install platform-edge doors" sounds like a matter of money and political will. And I suppose it is. But these are not upgrades. These are rebuilds!

        Platform Screen Doors prevent people falling onto tracks, but to be useful for Unattended Operation you need straight platforms, so that there is minimal gap between the train and screen doors (and no risk of being trapped in the interstitial space). Unfortunately, most of the older lines in London have at least one curved platform on their length which would leave a dangerously large gap (the gap between platform and train is already large enough that "Mind the Gap" is a cultural touchpoint).

        It is not a simple job to upgrade London's infrastructure". You'd be quite literally reboring and rebuilding entire lines to straighten them out. It would honestly be cheaper to start from scratch.

        1. Robert Grant

          Re: An obvious step forward

          > You'd be quite literally reboring and rebuilding entire lines to straighten them out

          Not the entire line; just the platform. Still a bit job, but not nearly as big.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: An obvious step forward

            Not the entire line; just the platform. Still a bit job, but not nearly as big.

            1. You need to rebore the tunnel to make space for an evacuation walkway. You can't do self-evacuation out the end of a train car stepping over a possibly-energised third rail. Also, people in wheelchairs and with mobility difficulties will find it very hard to step down onto the track from the train without assistance.

            2. If the platform is curved and you straighten it, the tunnel portals will be in a different place and the entry/exit vectors will be different. You can't just stick a 30degree turn in at the end of the platform - trains don't bend like that! For the densest sections of the LU network (where full automation would be most useful), the distances between stations may not in fact be great enough to accommodate a new tunnel being bored between the platform/station box at the necessary bends (even assuming there aren't other tunnels blocking the route).

        2. katrinab Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: An obvious step forward

          And even cheaper/better to build an entirely new line and keep the existing one. Like the Elizabeth Line didn't replace the Central Line, it supplemented it.

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: An obvious step forward

            Its even cheaper / better to NOT NEED a train or road at all...

            Making people commute is the problem ... not the lack of infrastruture.

        3. Xalran

          Re: An obvious step forward

          <quote>This is one of the key issues holding back the automation of the Tube, according to the TfL document. In order to have driverless trains, the operator would have to adjust the platforms and the tracks to make them the same level.</quote>

          That's not an impossible task, it would take time, but it can be done, since t has already been done in Paris with lines that are as old as London lines.

          <quote>

          TfL would also have to introduce platform-edge doors in order to make on and offboarding driverless trains easier and safer for passengers. These prerequisite barriers would ensure that fewer people would jump or fall onto the rack.

          </quote>

          <quote> You'd also need to straighten out the curved platforms.</quote>

          <quote> Platform Screen Doors prevent people falling onto tracks, but to be useful for Unattended Operation you need straight platforms, so that there is minimal gap between the train and screen doors (and no risk of being trapped in the interstitial space). </quote>

          Not needed, just look at Bastille on Line 1 in Paris it's a very wiggly station, on a ramp up and down ( the métro has to pass over a canal here ) with massive curves at both ends.

          and it got platform walls and doors so that the line could be fully automated...

          Oh, there's been some rebuild done on all the platforms to strenghten them for the walls, and to make sure they were level wth the train floors, but none of the curved strations were straightened.

          There's enough curved stations on both Line 1 and 4 in Paris ( both are fully automatic now, and they are not new lines, Line 1 is more than 100 years old ) to show it can be done without straightening and digging new tunnels. ( anyway, I wonder how they would have managed to straighten Saint Michel and Cité, since they are stations in a rivetted, curved, wrought iron shell to avoid being filled by water )

        4. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: An obvious step forward

          "It would honestly be cheaper to start from scratch."

          ...or pay for a human in each train, year after year.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      In Paris

      yes. hmm. You wouldn't be FrenCH by any chance, would you? Or work for their tourist board?

      The Shinkansen is the Lord's method of land-based travel. Leaving work and paying the extra £10 for Her to take me to my loved one in 15-20 mins over 300kph making a 1 hour journey in said time.

      Not matter how your day went, Shinkansen-sama is 5-star. Smoking my menthols in the smoking carriages as the fields of rice and a world of Canary Wharf-like Tokyo downtown blurred by. Watch that Brad Pitt film. The Concorde of land.

      The French one is nice but it has one flaw: customer service is infamously bad. So much so there is a condition that affect Orientals caused by Fr3nch waiters believing they conquered the globe, not us - despite all the clear evidence. Linga Franca anyone, for starters. Invented chu chu's too. Of course we encourage others ot exceed our achievements. That is the key th English success which is seen in sports, too.

      Trains here are the same as France. Japanese ones and now Chinese are another world. See James May - he loves them

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: In Paris

        Really the lord wastes his time travelling ?

        I would have thought the smartest thing was not needing to travel in the first place.

        Only idiots waste their lives commuting... just look at yourself you didnt ask the q why am i travelling soo much that it matters.

        1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
          Pirate

          Re: Travel

          There are many reasons other than commuting for travel. Including just travelling for the sheer unalloyed pleasure of it, meandering across the face of the globe on a whim, no schedule, just The Journey.

          GJC

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: Travel

            Geoff: Including just travelling for the sheer unalloyed pleasure of it, meandering across the face of the globe on a whim, no schedule, just The Journey.

            cow: If you are travelling for fun, then why complain that the train is slow ?

            Thankx for confirming my point.

            My original statement was if someone is travelling so frequently that they are tired of longer trips and want a much faster journey, then my statement applies.

            1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
              Pirate

              Re: Travel

              Slow trains, fast trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, whatever gets you around the planet, just so long as it's not a bloody plane. That's not travelling, it's stamp-collecting.

              GJC

              1. stiine Silver badge

                Re: Travel

                But the views from planes can be spectacular, almost as good as seen on Google Earth.

                1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
                  Pirate

                  Re: Travel

                  Sure, and modern air transport is in many ways astounding. But that's all it is, transport. It's not travel.

                  Yeah, it's something of a philosophical distinction. Sue me :-)

                  GJC

                2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                  Re: Travel

                  Looking at clouds is only interesting for a minutes, its not for hours every day.

                  I would rather ride a bicycle along a lkake or beach than watchin clouds in a small seat stuck in a plane for hours...

              2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Travel

                You and everyone who down votes me doesnt comprehend that we have limited time on earth ... using up 10 + hours a week for 40 years of your life amounts to years stolen.

                Anything is better than cancelling 10 years of your life, lost to commuting and travelling.

                The Easter break is a few days, travelling half way around the world by plane or half way around a country by train or car is not smart, if you have to return a few days later. Thats right wasting 2 days travlling out of a 4 or 5 day holiday is plain dumb.

                IN a week after you work, there are only a few hours when you could relax at home, walk the dog etc, replacing those hours or daylight with sitting on a train or car is again FUCKING DUMB.

                Yes downvoters keep on downvoting me and enjoying being locked in your prison you call travelling.

            2. rg287 Silver badge

              Re: Travel

              cow: If you are travelling for fun, then why complain that the train is slow ?

              Thankx for confirming my point.

              What a strangly aggressive person you are.

              Yes, Geoff did mention that travelling for fun - to watch the world go by - is one aspect. One might also be travelling to see a show or family for the weekend. This is not commuting, but is also a form of travel where the jouney is less important than the destination (i.e. journey time matters).

              Have you never travelled in your life for pleasure?

              It is telling in the UK that the politicos continue to wring their hands "we can't spend money on the railways. People don't want to travel. Ridership still isn't back to pre-COVID levels".

              This of course is the overly-broad average fallacy. When you look at the numbers, overall ridership is indeed only at 98% of pre-COVID levels. But this is because "London Commuting" is at 40% of pre-COVID levels. Every other category of travel is way up. Even by 2022, "Long Distance Leisure" was ~140% of pre-COVID levels. Trains were (and are) rammed. People outside of London would very much like to get around.

              Clearly incensed at the idea that people weren't driving enough, Boris and Rishi cancelled HS2 Phase 2.

              1. Someone Else Silver badge

                Re: Travel

                Clearly incensed at the idea that people weren't driving enough, Boris and Rishi cancelled HS2 Phase 2.

                Well shit, if you're traveling on a public transport, how can they collect the auto density tax (or whatever it's called there) from you?

              2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Travel

                rg287: Have you never travelled in your life for pleasure?

                cow: All time.

                I dont travel half way across the world just to get drunk at a bar or drink coffee half the day and eat at macdonalds.

                Thats not living, living is goint outside and enjoying the great outdoors not doing edxactly the same thing as one would do at home.

                ~

                rg287: Clearly incensed at the idea that people weren't driving enough, Boris and Rishi cancelled HS2 Phase 2.

                cow: Again idiots who need a fast train are drivinvg too much.

                If i had to visit London from Manchester i wouldnt care if the train was slow and took hours.

                The real problem is i will say it again idiots wasting their time driving, training soo frequently that they complain they need a faster train. They dont need a faster train , they need society to change so they dont travel from Manchester to London just to have a coffee or sign a paper or do anything else that could be done remotely or sent in the post.

              3. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

                Re: Travel

                Theres a third option.

                Dont catch the HS2 or drive, avoid all that travel.

                Problem is you are an idiot who doesnt have the will power or brains to think of the third option i shared. THey already have your soul and you are their bitch.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: In Paris

        "there is a condition that affect Oriental"

        Such a Tomi Tanker!

      3. O'Reg Inalsin

        Smoky memories drifting with time

        All smoking rooms were abolished on the Tokaido, Sanyo and Kyushu Shinkansen lines on March 16, meaning that smoking is no longer allowed on any bullet train nationwide. Smoking had already been banned on the Nagano (Hokuriku), Tohoku, Joetsu, Akita and Yamagata Shinkansen lines after the Health Promotion Law, which requires companies to prevent secondhand smoking, took effect in 2003. On the Tokaido and Sanyo Shinkansen lines, all seats on the N700 series bullet trains have been nonsmoking since their introduction in 2007, as on a subsequent model. But smoking rooms outside the seating areas allowed passengers to take a puff while onboard. However, those closed-off smoking rooms were abolished on March 16 when Japan Railway companies revised their timetables.

        All things change. My smoky memories weren't so great - circa 1991, I remember the train platforms with ubiquitous dead cigarette bins frequently smouldering and the most god awful mix of tobacco and burning filter smoke making me feel positively sick. They banned smoking on all but the extreme platform ends and local subway trains sometime in the mid 90's and that phenomena mostly went away.

    3. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: An obvious step forward

      The entire Rennes Métro, which is fairly new, was designed from the start so that the drivers two-car trains just go back and forth endlessly so there's a train every three(ish) minutes.

      Even better, because the route goes by the big hospital (Pontchaillou) and the nuclear medicine is underground there, in order to keep the trains safe from the scanners (and vice versa), it comes up out of the ground to quite high up.

    4. Xalran

      Re: An obvious step forward

      There's a fence on the platforms at Shinkansen stations. It's not the full glass wall we have in Paris subway, but the platform infastructure is already there.

  3. Sora2566 Silver badge

    I'm glad the Shinkansen have such a good safety record. I'd hate to see it get broken because of a software bug.

    Especially in a country where failures that bad often result in, er... "train delays".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      dont rememebr a delay. but

      happened to a friend once and made local news as was 18 minutes late. He got given a 'train late, we are so sorry and will torture our souls to seek your forgiveness (in Japaense)' ticket for work. He still has it 20 years later.

      1. MiguelC Silver badge

        Re: dont rememebr a delay. but

        They even apologise when they are too early, but then "It is rare for trains in Japan, which has one of the world's most reliable railways, to depart at a different time to the one scheduled."

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: dont rememebr a delay. but

        Meanwhile in America, you don't even get an apology if the train is 18 hours late.

    2. Bitsminer Silver badge

      The usual not-so-secret reason for train delays on JR lines and other lines around Japan is what other operators euphemistically call "medical emergencies".

      I'm not too sure that Shinkansen suffers from the same issues -- the only access people have to those trains is in the stations at the platforms when the train is travelling very slowly.

      An interesting fact of Shinkansen platforms is that the queues for passengers are colour coded according to the destination. Different trains stop slightly differently so the painted queues line up _exactly_ with the doors when the train for that destination has fully stopped. All by manual operation of course.

    3. PB90210 Silver badge

      Just been listening to the Hannah Fry 'Uncharted' podcast episode covering Singapore's Metro problem. On one of the automated lines, random trains were coming to an emergency stop in random places, due to a software crash. The affected trains were taken out of service and were found to be fault free. They were having to run the automatic trains with guards who were there purely to reboot the trains.

      It was eventually found to be a rogue train, running in the opposite direction, that was generating 'noise' that was causing the trains to freak out as it passed

    4. bazza Silver badge

      Not mentioned in the article is that the Shinkansen trains have had automatic train control from the very outset. The driver is there to monitor, and indeed to drive, but they've had a train "autopilot" from the 1960s onwards. Same as they've had electronic ticket booking from the very beginning too. The old electromechanical relay ticket booking "computers" are on display in the Kyoto Railway Museum.

      I shall morne the passing of the trains having true "drivers" on board. The reason why Japanese trains became so punctual was because of the ideas created by just one driver, back in (I think) the 1920s. Before him, Japanese trains were as hopeless as everyone else. After him, train drivers had the skills to bring in trains on time, every time, using nothing but an accurate clock and a totally intimate knowledge of their route. He developed methods of accurately assessing schedule compliance purely by eye, and his teaching became universal across Japan. So even before Shinkansen brought in automatic train control, their trains were already running extremely reliably.

      There's a Japanology video somewhere on YouTube showing the skills of an ordinary metro train driver, derived from this chap in the 1920. The video shows the driver being tested by the company's head driver. One of the tests was that the driver had to get from one station to the other, to within a couple of seconds of timetable, whilst all the cab instruments were covered up. No clock, no speedo, no nothing; all done by eye. Another test was to be driving along with the speed gauge covered up, with the exmaminer calling out different speeds - 50, now 10, now 15, now 45 - some random sequence. The driver had to change the train speed as instructed, and at the end of the sequence if the driver's actual speed was more than 5kph out (having not seen the speedo all this time), they'd failed the test. These folk are indeed highly skilled, and most certainly worthy of the deepest respect. The bullet train drivers are able to do the same thing, but at 300kph!

      There's just something so damn impressive about a human achieving something that is indistinguishble from that done by the most intricate and sophisticated of machines, particularly in a task where the machine has all the advantages.

  4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "199 mph"

    Because you don't need to go the full 200mph

    Meanwhile in Blighty HS2 will hit 225mph.

    One day.

    In the meantime Birmingham /Manchester (81 miles 65ch according to railmiles.me) and 99mins travel time gives an average speed of 49.58mph,despite all trains being capable of 125mph and the pendolinos being able to do 140mph. But that's the norm for train services outside London. At full speed that 125mph is 39mins, not 99 mins. A pendo (needs in-cab signalling, like the US has used since the 1920's)

    Of course they do have to share the loopy, hoopy built-in-the-19th-century route with freight trains whose top speed (75mphs maximum) hasn't changed since the late 60's and was set for trains with rigid (no springs) suspensions and braking only on the locomotive and the brake car at the back. All British freights since the mid 80's have had sprung suspensions and all wagon braking (although a lot of the US system still does it old school. That lead to the Palestine chems train derailment). Tests on some have shown 90mph is a safe speed on these, but that's still not been applied across the network.

    BTW 80+ parameters are needed to set a speed limit on the UK rail network and there is anecdotal evidence that there is no routine review of speeds across the 10 000 miles of network to systematically identify spots areas where an improvement scheme would raise the average speed for all commuters and freight services on that line.

    High Speed Rail? I think a lot of folk would settle for full speed rail.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "199 mph"

      but England is much much smaller than Japan. It might not look it, but Japan is massive. We dont have the same need. Normal train from Tokyo to Fukuoka takes a long time with quite a few changes. Non-Shinkansen for long distance isn't even considered there. Not the same here with Sotland being the longestg and that isnt even a real sleeper.

      Electric motorways that charge might be better. Electric is great for just the noise reduction alone. Here in Kensington, almost all are electric and the difference is wild. A lone ECU is a roaring monster in our square now.

      500 in China and new Shinkansen is something wild like 700kph

      1. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: "199 mph"

        Would you believe I was all set to indignantly sputter about your ignorance and then went and looked it up and to my surprise: Japan has nearly twice the land area than the island of Great Britain (*)!

        Have an upvote as apology! That said, those insane speeds are tests with maglev trains from what I've read.

        (*) UK readers please forgive me: I'm shirley not alone in getting confused about UK vs GB - and just what the septic isle is called, when you don't include Northern Ireland, various islands, etc?

        1. Crypto Monad Silver badge

          Re: "199 mph"

          and to my surprise: Japan has nearly twice the land area than the island of Great Britain (*)!

          Metropolitan France has over 2.6 times the land area of Great Britain.

          The shape, rather than the area, needs to be considered too. A thin land mass is going to need longer train routes than a roughly circular blob.

      2. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: "199 mph"

        but England is much much smaller than Japan. It might not look it, but Japan is massive. We dont have the same need.

        The most heavily trafficked routes are those like Tokyo-Osaka, which are very much on a UK-scale (London-Newcastle, Edinburgh).

        Not the same here with Sotland being the longestg and that isnt even a real sleeper.

        We're attached to this landmass called Europe. Under a non-insane political leadership, it would be possible to board a train in Brum or Manchester and got off in Paris. This would be quicker (door-to-door) than enduring the misery of airports and sitting for an hour on the RER to get in from CDG at the other end. This is even without considering the environmental cost of short-haul aviation.

        High Speed Rail also opens the possibility for HIgh Speed Sleepers. London to Istanbul is about 1800 route miles. A sleeper averaging 160-180mph over a 200-220mph capable track could make the distance in about 10-11 hours - board at 7pm and arrive at 7am, rested and ready for breakfast. This is almost certainly a more comfortable and practical way to travel than spending hours in an airport, and then sitting on a plane. You save a night in a hotel, and you don’t lose a “travel day” doing it!

        Electric motorways that charge might be better. Electric is great for just the noise reduction alone. Here in Kensington, almost all are electric and the difference is wild.

        For inter-city travel? Where do you park your car when you get there? Westminster? Princes Street Gardens? Cars don't work for ultra-urban transit and they don't scale. If you replaced the Underground with cars, you'd have to pave over most the places people were trying to get to! Cars are great. They're liberating. But let's be real - the future of transport is improved public transit with cars reserved for family outings, reps with arbitrary travel needs, etc. Nobody should be needing to commute by car. Kids should not be driven to school. These are failures of transport planning.

        And notwithstanding full-self-driving cars (further away than fully-unattended trains), 16 year olds can't legally drive. Nor can those with disqualifying disabilities. Or those without a licence. Are they to be excluded from civic life because they don't have access to a private car? (The de facto answer is "yes - screw the disabled").

        And some of us just like to read a book or get some work done if we're travelling for 5 hours - not having to deal with people who haven't picked up a copy of the Highway Code for 30 years and have no idea how to behave on "smart" motorways, or even the basics like zipper merging.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Just another brick in the walloftext

          go from Southern Kyushu to Northern Hokkaido.

          The issues you raised about electric motorways are weak and strawmen. An electric powering freeway would be a great help. My car does a damn good job auto-driving on the expressways and with the auto toll sensors on the car, i dont even have to stop to pay.

          There can be many more expressways if we have electric and Japan have that planned. The noise and pollution alone allow that.

          As is your intro of continental travel being a differentiator. No. That was planned for the Chunnel but dropped. Not worth the cost/time benefits.

          I will use simple language for you, Mr Silver Medal: GB is too small to justify spaffing the money Japan HAD to spend. Shinkansen has always been a social project as much as a travel means. Getting Shinkansen means a lot to a place. For the past 20 years it has been a key for public spending. Their money is the same and those train lines stretching across paddy fields are no cheaper. The go for miles and miles. The cost must have been breath taking.

          We can do as the Japanese did when skipping canals and going straight to railway. Jump high speed trains for something something electric. Maybe stop travelling for work. Save a bit of cash and not a wall of text written from a subterrain place with a poster reading "Have you tried switching...".

        2. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: "199 mph"

          "Nobody should be needing to commute by car."

          Depends where you live. I drive to work, because I live very rural and the only functional bus is the subsidised school service.

          Not only that, but I drive a special sort of car that you don't need a driving licence to be able to drive (Google "Aixam"). It's the bane of many a French driver, but it was decided that letting people like me loose with a Playmobil car was a lot simpler than pissing away money on public transport that would never be capable of turning a profit. Hell, the town where I live doesn't even have a bakery any more. The only library in my postal code (covers one small town and three tiny villages) is mostly for children.

          So, "use public transport" is only an option where it exists, which isn't everywhere.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: "199 mph"

            Depends where you live. I drive to work, because I live very rural and the only functional bus is the subsidised school service.

            There's always one *rollseyes*.

            Look, yes. There are rural areas. I grew up in one. My parents still live there. My dad drove to work and my mum drove us to school. They will always rely on a car. I know this. Transport planners know this.

            BUT. She should only have taken us to the nearest village, from where we "should" have got on a bus. Instead of an accident-waiting-to-happen outside the school (It did happen eventually, and was quite horrible. No fatalities though - "only" life changing injuries - unlike this one).

            Also. Statistically irrelevant. Rural areas are not the topic of discussion.

            Where I live now, I am IN town. INSIDE the ring road. We have no bus! (A matter of letters to councillors and MPs - this one, the last, the one before them). Over in Stoke-on-Trent, bus services have halved in the past 4 years, particularly affecting low-income and shift workers. But screw the poor I guess?

            In the UK, >80% of journeys are made by car. 10% by train and the rest by bus, cycle and walking.

            The aspiration is to knock that down to *drumroll*... 70% by car. And pretty much double train usage.

            This is not a war on cars (70% is still quite a lot). People will still drive for work and leisure. But it is a rejection of cars from urban areas where the majority of people live. The modal share of car journeys in urban areas should be <10%, not >50%. It is a rejection of cars from those dense urban areas where cars don't scale and public transport does make sense.

            Rural areas should get better public transport than they do - but nobody is under any illusion that private cars will remain the main mode of transport.

          2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Re: "199 mph"

            So you want everyone else to pay hundreds of millions so a few people in your rural town can catch a train to work instead of driving ?

            Billions of train works for a few thousand people.

            Yes that sounds very economical.

            THis is the problem people dont understand that trains are not free. Sure one can build a HS train all over the place but the money has to come from everyone. By money that means thousands from everyone.

            Its far easier to simply change how things work, stop wasting peoples time travelling. Wishing your country had a HS train so you can travel one a year to the capital is dumb, especially when you consider your taxes went up thousnads to pay for it.

            Nothing is free, HS trains in France are not free, they cost tax, which again means you have to work longer to pay more tax.

            Its far better to have a slow train and retire years easlier and that one time a year you go on a train, who cares if it takes twice as long as a HS train...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "199 mph"

        Meanwhile England is about the same size as Alabama.

        And our trains are shit. We don't have high speed rail, best we can do is medium speed, and that's on one line. Everything else is slow. I live walking distance from two passenger stations - neither of which have seen a passenger train in over half a century. If I want to actually get on a train, I'd have to drive a few hundred miles first.

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: "199 mph"

      That was the main reason for building HS2, to have a dedicated track where trains could run at full speed. With no need to share tracks with expresses they could then also run more stopping trains as well.

    3. rg287 Silver badge

      Re: "199 mph"

      In the meantime Birmingham /Manchester (81 miles 65ch according to railmiles.me) and 99mins travel time gives an average speed of 49.58mph,despite all trains being capable of 125mph and the pendolinos being able to do 140mph. But that's the norm for train services outside London. At full speed that 125mph is 39mins, not 99 mins.

      But that would presume that you make no stops. Which is why the WCML's average speed is lower than it's top speed. It turns out that people in places like Coventry, Crewe, Stafford and Reading also like to get the train sometimes.

      This of course is the entire f-ing point of HS2 - to segregate long-distance express services from stopping traffic and enable those non-stop services which get to top speed and sit there until the next city, whilst giving back the legacy network to local and regional travel so that stations like Polesworth, Norton Bridge and Barlaston can be reopened, and lots of little stations that are notionally open can get more than 1 train every 90 minutes (i.e. be actually useful!).

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: "199 mph"

        I never knew that the Metropolis of Reading was on the West Coast Main Line?

        Brunel would be quaking in his grave

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        IT Angle

        But that would presume that you make no stops.

        True.

        My route guide says 6 stops between Manc and Brum. Give them 5mins stopping at each that's another 30mins on top.

        So that's 69 mins, not 99 mins from B to M or vice versa. BTW Germany runs it's freight trains around 87mph. That's important because studies by Lithuanian Railways show that capacity (how many trains you can have up a track per unit time) is driven by the difference between the top speed of the fastest and slowest train. Want faster trains? Don't lower the top speed of the fast ones, raise the top speed of the slowest. My point is the top speed of the slow passengers is already at the limit of standard signalling IE 125mph.

        HS2 was first announced in 2013. The legislation was passed in 2017 Construction only began in 2020 and it's due to take 13 years to finish.

        Elapsed time 20 years minimum. There is something seriously fu**ing wrong with large project initiation and management in the UK.

        And BTW in the UK £38m is considered a reasonable price for 1mile of road but governments go into meltdown if electrification costs > £1.5m mile for rail.

        Incidently the WCML upgrade debacle happened because the government of the time went nuts and moved from an average of 9km/year (during the previous 16 yrs) to a total of 2000km+ of electrification and WCML (as one of the last projects) was at the end of the queue for staff. However the solutions they (eventually) developed are now on the shelf and were deployed in spectacular fashion when they avoided the rebuilding of an entire bridge in central Cardiff, saving around £40m. The #1 Lesson Learned? Commit to a sustainable electrification programme (as the Germans have since the 1970's and Scotrail has for at least the last decade).

        The IT angle? UK uses "block" signalling to control train movement. It's remarkably like the pipeline stages in a processor. More stages --> more instructions dispatched --> more throughput.

        In rail faster trains --> fewer stages needed --> lower throughput. But what happens if you accept the train won't stop at the signal if it's at red, but keep the leading train enough blocks ahead that the trailing train will stop before it hits the leading? No one knows because AFAIK the paradigm has always been faster trains --> reduce number of blocks --> save money.

        IOW it's not a Law of the Universe. It's just an implicit optimisation heuristic that generations of signalling people have followed. :-(

        1. rg287 Silver badge

          Re: But that would presume that you make no stops.

          My route guide says 6 stops between Manc and Brum. Give them 5mins stopping at each that's another 30mins on top.

          It's not just dwell time - it's the deceleration/acceleration curve. This is why electrification often cuts journey times - electric traction tends to offer better acceleration than diesel (or diesels geared for acceleration have a lower top speed).

          And then there's the notion that the WCML is actually 125mph. Sure, that's the notional top speed, but there are tonnes of Temporary Speed Restrictions for bits of tunnel, bridge, urban approaches or Switch & Crossing (S&C) that were too difficult to upgrade. Most of the southern end of WCML through Milton Keynes is max 110mph. If you're travelling late or at weekends and there's a possession on a fast track, trains could end up on the 70-90mph tracks. So any calculation based on 125mph is fundamentally flawed. North of Birmingham, the "express" lines through Stoke-on-Trent mostly top out at 70mph. There is a bit that's notionally 110 but if you've stopped at Stafford you won't hit 110 before going back on the brakes. Even if you were to charter a private, non-stop service from London to Manchester, you'd end up slowing down to 40mph through Stoke because even without stopping in Stoke, there are 40mph TSRs on that line. Even the big, open Trent Valley line is mostly 110.

          And this is why simple new-build of HSR for inter-city services which is actually designed for 220mph is cheaper, less disruptive and easier than trying to torture another few mph out of Victorian alignments. Leave the legacy lines for local & regional services (which only just bounce off 90-100mph before they're decelerating for the next stop anyway). You cut your maintenance costs as well by not smashing up the tracks with heavy IC trains running at full tilt.

          That's important because studies by Lithuanian Railways show that capacity (how many trains you can have up a track per unit time) is driven by the difference between the top speed of the fastest and slowest train. Want faster trains? Don't lower the top speed of the fast ones, raise the top speed of the slowest. My point is the top speed of the slow passengers is already at the limit of standard signalling IE 125mph.

          Track utilisation is absolutely driven by the speed differential - but average speed. A 125mph local train will have a much lower average speed than the 125mph express train which doesn't stop. Which is why local trains have been edged out by rising line speeds - the average speed of express trains has gone up (because they spend most time at top speed) but the average speed of local trains hasn't - because lifting their top speed doesn't change their average speed much (electrification does massively, because they accelerate much faster and therefore spend more time at max speed). In Lithuania they may have seen this improvement if they had very slow older Soviet-era diesels and replaced them with much quicker stock (which probably also accelerate a hell of a lot quicker than anything pre-1990, especially if they've electrified).

          Obviously local trains with faster acceleration and higher top speeds will help minimise that gap, but if you raise the line speed from (say) 90mph to 125mph, the gap between local and express trains will always grow, even if you upgrade both the fast and "slow" trains to have an equal top speed.

          It is also overly simplistic to say the top speed of the "slow" passengers is at 125mph. None of the WMT services between London and Brum or Crewe are good for 125. The Class 170-172 Turbostars notionally cap out at 100mph as does the Class 196. The Electrostars are also set up for 100mph and will get there much quicker. The newer EMUs like the Class 397 and 730s are good for 110mph. This probably doesn't matter though, because most of the WCML isn't actually good for more than 100-110mph and even on the 125mph bits, you lose time accelerating from/decelerating to the TSRs that bound that quick stretch.

          As you say, increasing freight speeds is a huge driver - even going from 70 to 80mph lets them play in traffic much easier. This however requires electrification, which successive governments refuse to commit to. Electrification is not just for speeds, but for handling grades - diesel locos can suffer grade-fade and need to hit an incline at a minimum speed to ensure they make it up. With electric traction, hills melt away and they can stay closer to their top speed much more easily.

          Incidently the WCML upgrade debacle happened because the government of the time went nuts and moved from an average of 9km/year (during the previous 16 yrs) to a total of 2000km+ of

          electrification and WCML (as one of the last projects) was at the end of the queue for staff.

          IIRC, they also spent a lot of money trying to do ETCS/In-Cab signalling before they realised that trying to "big-bang" that on Europe's most complex bit of railway was a bad idea and scrapping the lot. Which was why they abandoned 140mph top speeds for the Pendos (for those unaware, you really can't do >120mph without in-cab signalling because track-side signal boards whip past too fast).

          Elapsed time 20 years minimum. There is something seriously fu**ing wrong with large project initiation and management in the UK.

          And BTW in the UK £38m is considered a reasonable price for 1mile of road but governments go into meltdown if electrification costs > £1.5m mile for rail.

          Could not agree more. It is insane that that road projects are uncritically waved through (£1Bn for the Black Cat roundabout upgrade anyone?) but rail projects need to spend almost as much on feasability studies as they do on the f-ing build.

          However the solutions they (eventually) developed are now on the shelf and were deployed in spectacular fashion when they avoided the rebuilding of an entire bridge in central Cardiff, saving around £40m. The #1 Lesson Learned? Commit to a sustainable electrification programme (as the Germans have since the 1970's and Scotrail has for at least the last decade).

          The problem is... learned by whom? Part of the problem we have, is that instead of committing to a rolling programme, our special boy Grant Shapps (albeit only one in a long line of bad transport ministers) was very keen on being "agile". Don't just electrify a line on a rolling basis - surely it would be better to chunk it up into smaller contracts for... reasons. So one contractor comes along and develops solutions for electrifying under bridges (the same design of which will have used along most of the line, because they were usually built by one company back in the day), and then the next contractor comes along and reinvents their own solution for the next block of work instead of having a team who work out how to address the vagaries of <particular line's architecture>, solve the problem once and then do that all the way along.

          We knew how to do electrification. We could come up with cheap solutions - the Selby Diversion was delivered as a 160mph-capable electrified alignment on-time and on-budget (despite working over ground conditions that civil engineers call "firm porridge") because the government gave the engineers the green-light and got the f- out the way. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            IT Angle

            it's the deceleration/acceleration curve.

            Absolutely.

            They don't carry fuel, the power package has better power to weight ratio so with the same brakes it can brake harder in complete safety. And the tech is still under continuous development, so it benefits from all the work done on batteries and motors for electric vehicles in general. A recent UK upgrade (with German hardware) introduced regenerative braking using AC motors.

            "Learned by whom" well I think you'll find that's Railtrack and those solutions are available to all subbies. The key report is the RIA "Electrification Cost Challenge" was the contractors reply to the governments complaints for anyone who's interested.

            "even going from 70 to 80mph lets them play in traffic much easier. "

            Didn't realise this was a such a problem :-( The Chartered Ins of Logistics & Transport proposed a plan on rolling electrification. It's Here It fits very well into the scale of a sustainable electrification programme. Again I'd not realised how much of the problem is down to infill sections between long stretches of already electrified track. The freight rule of thumb seems to be "2/3 of passenger speed." Early work has suggested that it could be made "Passenger top speed - 10mph" but again it's not been revised since the late 60's.

            "top speeds for the Pendos (for those unaware, you really can't do >120mph without in-cab signalling because track-side signal boards whip past too fast)."

            True. The trouble is peoples desire to solve 21st century problems by limiting themselves to 20th century technology. Obvious options are a) A black box on the train that (essentially the guts of a mobile phone) "knows" where all the signals are and can "see" them much faster than a human (and is filtered to ignore any other colours). or b)(IT?) Send out a copy of the signals over the GSM-R network that AFAIK all UK train cabs are already fitted with. Loss of reception (or a "not sure what it was") indication would then trigger either a slow down or stop but AIUI this is already SOP for GSM reception in some places. Humans still very definitely in the loop

            The trouble is with the UK's divided infrastructure/trains-that-run-over-it system one set of organisations gets the costs, another gets the benefits :-(

            For those looking at ways to speed up Brum/Manc some suggestions are Here "Dynamic loops" are AIUI the rail equivalents of lay-bys for trains. Passing loops normally have the passed train halted in the loop but dynamic ones allow them to continue moving (possibly at full speed if long enough). There is a UK goal to make them 770m long (roughly half the length of US freights). From an energy efficiency PoV full speed>slow>stop and for energy reasons also better to keep both the expresses and the freights at full speed.

        2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Re: But that would presume that you make no stops.

          So dont travel from B to M. Simple answer.

    4. katrinab Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: "199 mph"

      The UK actually has the fastest slow trains, and fastest average speed of any train network in the world, as well as the fastest diesel trains and fastest steam trains.

      The one thing it is lacking is the fastest fast trains.

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: "199 mph"

        no, australian trains are even slower, top speed is far less than British top speeds.

  5. david 12 Silver badge

    and all wagon braking (although a lot of the US system still does it old school. That lead to the Palestine chems train derailment).

    The derailment was caused by a 'hot box" -- an overheated wheel bearing. Like all normal trains in the USA, the train had all-wagon-breaking. Reports indicated that the train had a "civil war era braking system" --- in the USA, that means Westinghouse air brakes on every car: the civil war ended in 1865 and the Westinghouse automatic air-brake system was patented 4 years later in 1869.

    The Westinghouse automatic air-brake system is pneumatically controlled. The Westinghouse system means that brakes are applied very quickly when required (not a feature of the older pneumatic-control designs), and are applied automatically when there is a brake fault (also not a feature of the older pneumatic-control systems).

    Modern rail air-brake systems are electronically controlled, not pneumatically controlled. Electronically Controlled wagon brakes are only being introduced as wagons are replaced. Some countries never even legislated the Westinghouse control system, and still have archaic pre-civil-war error positive-control not-fail-safe air-brakes, or, like the UK until the 1960s, are still using "loosely coupled" unbraked wagons. That's not the USA, and it's not what lead to the Palestine derailment.

    1. IvyKing Bronze badge

      Ahem...

      Westinghouse's 1869 air brake design was "straight air", meaning that brake applications required by increasing pressure from atmospheric. There were two major disadvantages to this approach. First was a break-in-two or someone forgetting to close the valve at the end of the trainline would lead to inoperative brakes. Second was that any patent that Westinghouse could get on the straight air system wold have been pretty weak. The solution was the "triple valve" combined brake reservoirs on each car, where any reduction from the normal trainline pressure (90psi for freight) would cause the brakes to apply. The ingenious aspect of the design was that the triple valve would respond to a reduction in trainline pressure by releasing enough air from the brake reservoir into the brake cylinder such that the pressure in the brake reservoir would be at the same pressure as the trainline.

      The "triple valve" has seen a number of revisions over the last 150 years. There have been experiments with electric overlays for freight train braking in the last two decades or so, with one obstacle being that over 1 million freight cars would need to be retrofitted.

      The biggest breakthrough in freight train braking came from the experience of the Milwaukee Road's 1916 electrification of it's main line through western Montana. The locomotives and traction power system were set up for regenerative braking as an energy saving measure. This line crossed three different mountain ranges and before the electrification it was common to have to replace almost all of the brake shoes on the train. After electrification, brake shoe wear went down dramatically along with accidents involving descending grades. Some 24 years later, diesel freight locomotives were commonly equipped with dynamic braking, where standard operating procedure is to use the dynamic brakes first and leave the air brakes as a last resort.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "The derailment was caused by a 'hot box" "

      I stand corrected.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    UK train drivers

    It's about time that lazy, overpaid UK train drivers were replaced with automation. If cars can be self-driving (to a certain degree) I see no reason why trains going along fixed rails cannot be more easily made self-driving.

    1. Ken Shabby Bronze badge

      Re: UK train drivers

      Sydney has driverless trains, about 100kph under the harbour the network is extensive, you can look out the front window.

      1. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: UK train drivers

        Sydney Metro was built from scratch to meet GoA4 (Unattended Operation).

        Upgrading London's Victorian-era lines is basically impossible without rebuilding almost from scratch (reboring the tunnels to be wider, realigning routes to get straight platforms, etc).

        Paris successfully upgraded Lines 1 & 4 (1900-era lines) to GoA4, but that benefitted from a lot of shallow cut-and-cover construction (i.e. box section tunnels which have more space in than bored tunnels). They also had to overcome one curved platform on Line 1, which is very impressive. But of the dozen-plus lines on the Paris Metro, they've only been able to upgrade two (Line 14 was built new as GoA 4).

        If you can do it, you should. But there are many places where you can't, unless you're willing to start over - which would make HS2 look cheap!

        1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Re: UK train drivers

          Have you seen Paris lately ?

          It seems they spent all their money on metros and trains and nothing on everything else.

          Graffiti everywhere, broken roads, rubble. They cant even afford to clean the roads or plant trees in parks.

          Yup making trains and metros so people whizz about looking a ttheir phones and have no life becaue its a distopian shithole outside is real smart.

      2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: UK train drivers

        Sydney does not have driverless trains. Year ago there was a new building with 100s of people watching the driverless train when theres only the chatswood to epping line. Just think they could have had a few drivers for the few metro trains, as opposed to 100+. Guess which costs more ?

      3. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: UK train drivers

        Mate every single metro station basically costs $1B to $2B.

        There was talk about a new Rosehill station for a new housing project. THe problem is $2B on a station for the few thousnad people there, means each home is costing nearly $100K.

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/secret-report-reveals-multibillion-dollar-cost-of-metro-extensions-in-sydney-s-east-and-west-20240908-p5k8ve.html

        Thats only for the station, that doesnt even include the track work itself which is extra.

        The chatswood metro cost over $20B to build and only serves a few million ppl a yea. That basically means every train trip is costing tax payers nearly $500. Thats right everybody catching the metro is costing the tax payer $5000 a week. Go read the numbers on the mtro

        https://www.sydneymetro.info/about

        Thats fucking nuts. Half of all Australians pay less tax than benefits they receive, so EVERY station is running at a cost of billions. If SYdney built MORE metros the country would be broke.

      4. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: UK train drivers

        SYdney does not have driverless trains. Theres a building the gov spent $100M to house hundreds of s/w engineers to watch the train and be ready to take over.

        Is it really cheaper ?

        Fire a few dozen drivers or spend hundreds of Millions ?

    2. rg287 Silver badge

      Re: UK train drivers

      If cars can be self-driving (to a certain degree) I see no reason why trains going along fixed rails cannot be more easily made self-driving.

      They can. The driver serves the same role as the driver in a partly self-driving car - ensuring that the vehicle is safe to depart, nobody is stood on the platform with their clothes trapped in the door, and that nobody is trying to retrieve fallen items from beneath the vehicle ("Mind the Gap").

      The "Platform-Train Interface" is the hardest problem in automation and is borderline impossible to retrofit on many legacy networks without basically rebuilding the network. In fact, no legacy system has ever been upgraded to Unattended Operation (GoA4). The Copenhagen and Singapore Metros, and the driverless lines in Paris were all built that way from the start, with necessary accomodations for platform and tunnel infrastructure. No curved platforms, over-bored tunnels with self-evacuation walkways, etc. Good luck squeezing an evacuation walkway into the tunnels on the Northern Line!

  7. wolfetone Silver badge

    I highly recommend watching Japan Railway Journals on YouTube (courtesy of NKH), it's enlightening to see how the railways work in Japan.

    It's also quite sad. You do see a lot of train routes falling in to the hands of volunteers to keep them alive because they just don't have the footfall of people going to and from work. Its a mix of an aging population and the young people not wanting to live in small towns where there doesn't seem to be the work for them. So you end up with special trains running different themes etc. It's just the Severn Valley Railway but much wider across the country.

    Then you have some fabulous trains in Japan. There is one where the interior is nothing like you'd see anywhere else. Hardly any walls just glass all around you, with the shape of a tree over it and the interior belonging to something out of a 7 star luxury Dubai hotel, giving you near panoramic views of the Japanese countryside.

    1. munnoch Silver badge

      Also broadcast on NHK24 for those with a satellite telly. Highly recommended for the rail nerd not withstanding the slightly cringe-worthy presentation style.

      Japan is quite good at keeping rural lines going with schemes like transferring the operation to local governments who have more of a vested interest than the JR entities. Also with the replacement rate of vehicles in urban areas there are opportunities for rolling stock to be cascaded down to these much less intensive operations.

      The more civic minded attitude of the population helps enormously too, unlike the UK where we prefer to sit on our arses and do nothing but complain.

      1. rg287 Silver badge

        Japan is quite good at keeping rural lines going with schemes like transferring the operation to local governments who have more of a vested interest than the JR entities.

        I presume they fund them appropriately for that! Unlike our habit in the UK of Westminster saying "we're giving back power to local authorities" but then not funding them, nor granting them the revenue powers to fund it.

        Germany is also very good at local rail and metros because their Lander have significant revenue power and a vested interest in good transit. By contrast, the national DB network is a bit of a shambles because for Berlin - like many national governments - transport always gets shunted to "next year". There's always something more immediately pressing.

        The more civic minded attitude of the population helps enormously too, unlike the UK where we prefer to sit on our arses and do nothing but complain.

        We have plenty of people in the UK campaigning for better transit. But you have to be willing to devote 15 years of your life to lobbying local MPs and the Treasury to throw you a few scraps for a viability study, and then they'll set you a series of moving goalposts before putting it into an aspirational roadmap for the next 20 years.

        <rant, not at you(!)> And then having talked about how tight funds are and how they have to make really hard choices about whether they can justify £20m on a new local station... they'll magically find £400m down the back of the sofa to piss up the wall on a seditious scheme designed not to send immigrants to Rwanda but to make a lot of noise about not sending people to Rwanda and undermine the rule of law by complaining that judges are enemies of the people.

        Really weird how politics works like that. Infrastructure? We'll see in 18 months. Politically convenient whipping boy? Make it rain. The Rwanda scheme would have opened 20 new stations. It could have reopened at least two mothballed local lines, or got tram networks started in two mid-sized cities.

        When a politician tells you money is tight... they're lying.

        1. wolfetone Silver badge

          "When a politician tells you money is tight... they're lying."

          They're not lying.

          When they say money is tight, they mean it's tight for you. Not for them.

        2. heyrick Silver badge

          "Germany is also very good at local rail"

          There used to be a channel (3sat?) on the Astra birds at 19E that would broadcast late at night what looked like they just stuck a camera on the front of some random rural train.

          I can't tell you how many hours of my life passed by (circa 2002-2005) as I enjoyed the scenery as these little trains trundled slowly along their routes.

        3. munnoch Silver badge

          "I presume they fund them appropriately for that!"

          Local authorities in Japan get a cut of income tax revenues.

          So in theory there is a correlation between spending on infrastructure to make your municipality more attractive to visit/live in and increased funding.

        4. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Guess what - Japan's trains are not free...

          Japan has crazy levels of debt, which of course means citizens are taxed that bit more.

          Taxing people MORE means they retire even later in life, and because of debt they take jobs they might not actually like, company man jobs where you work crazy hours.

          But hey keep telling yourself thats a good trade, wasting even more of your life working just to save a few minutes on a train each day. Only problem is you went to home at 8pm or 10pm, but hey you saved 30mins on the train but worked 4 hours unpaid overtime.

  8. Marty McFly Silver badge
    Coat

    Errrrrr......

    Did the article end with a comment about dating apps? Maybe this isn't the same autonomous self-driving bullet train I thought it was....?

  9. Blackjack Silver badge

    1000% times safer that Tesla autopilot? Only time will tell.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Your average drunk driver is safer than Turdla autopilot.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just a reminder that...

    The Victoria Line in London was designed to run totally automated from the start of operations in the late 1960's.

    The Unions demanded a driver who does very little for his/her £50K+. It is time to get rid of the carbon based body at the front of the train on this line.

    The DLR is driverless much to the annoyance of ASLEF./NUR.

    1. rg287 Silver badge

      Re: Just a reminder that...

      The Victoria Line in London was designed to run totally automated from the start of operations in the late 1960's.

      No it wasn't. It was designed to feature Automatic Train Operation. Which refers to a series of Grades of Automation. The Victoria Line has GoA2. As designed, it is not capable of GoA4 (Unattended Operation), although it could (unusually) probably be upgraded to such with some major works.

      ATO is great because drivers do silly things like brake early (e.g. a human instinctively wants to slow down as they approach a station - but in some cases the braking point is halfway down the platform - the train is actually supposed to thunder into the station at full speed). Cautious drivers braking early or inconsistently means the following train catches up and then starts to knock delays down the line.

      So ATO gives a more consistent drive and better timetable reliability, which is vital on a high-density metro with short head-ways. But it doesn't cover any of the safety aspects of door closures or checking that a train is safe to depart.

      Now, being newer, the Victoria Line does have wider tunnels with raised walkways which could be brought up to "passenger self-evacuation" spec - not just "suitable for trained service staff" spec and then install PSDs at stations. The "problem" with PSDs is that they mean that you don't get that blast of air when a train enters a station. This is usually a good thing (safer, more pleasant platform environment) - but is an issue here because the Victoria Line stations don't have air con. Ventilation is based on trains pushing air from vent shafts through the tunnels! Screen off the platforms from the tunnels and you lose your ventilation!

      They are sinking trial boreholes to cool and ventilate stations. If you can control the air conditions, then you can install PSDs and then think about bringing the tunnels and rolling stock to spec for Unattended Operation. They could also manage GoA4 on the Docklands Light Railway. But a lot of lines are basically impossible to upgrade due to narrow tunnels.

      The DLR is driverless much to the annoyance of ASLEF./NUR.

      Driverless but not crewless. There is a driver-trained staff member ("Passenger Service Agent") on every train who controls the doors and dispatches the train (just as a driver does on the Victoria Line). They just do it from a door panel instead of a cab. The trains don't move without that crew member.

      1. adrianrf

        rg287, thanks!

        I really appreciate your extremely helpful rail-tech posts—thanks!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like