Could the DLR be made fully automated and staffless.

[stadler]

Could the DLR ever be made fully automated? By this i mean it operates without a member of staff onboard?

I have always thought that the DLR being automated is so pointless as you still have a staff member onboard operating the doors and pressing the start button. The main purpose of driverless trains is to save money on staffing as you no longer need a train driver. But with the DLR they are not saving money as every train still requires a staff member onboard. It kind of defeats the major purpose of driverless operation.

The majority of other fully automated systems (eg, Copenhagen Metro, Lille Metro, Lyon Metro, Milan Metro, Nuremberg Metro, Paris Metro, Rennes Metro, Sydney Metro, Toulouse Metro, Vancouver Skytrain, etc) operate as proper automated systems with no staff onboard at all and it works perfecrly there. So it seems quite odd how the so called "automated" DLR in 2024 still requires a staff member on every train.

The lack of platform screen doors at DLR stations is not an issue. Both the Nuremberg Metro and Vancouver Skytrain have fully automated staffless lines without any platform screen doors. Also the Copenhagen Metro did not have platform screen doors for the first fifteen years or so of operation. So i do not think the lack of platform screen doors would be an issue.

I presume the DLR trains could easily be modified for fully automated staffless operation. The trains are already automated other than the staff member operating the doors and pressing the start button and do not even have a proper drivers cab.

I saw an article the other day that TFL had abandoned plans to investigate driverless LU trains however the DLR may be a much easier one to implement staffless trains. I certainly think it is worth looking in to and i am surprised they did not introduce the B23 as staffless trains.

Is this something that is likely to happen at any point? Are there any obstacles to making the DLR fully automated and staffless?

 

[signed]

Isn't the guard more of a customer/security presence than anything else?

 

[stadler]

Isn't the guard more of a customer/security presence than anything else?

I suppose they are there for customer service and ticket checks and safety too. But they also have to operate the doors and press a start button at every stop. So they are definitely there for operational reasons too. The vast majority of other automated metro systems have no staff member onboard so it still seems rather unnecessary. Also the DLR is mostly six coach trains formed or three of the two coach units without gangways. So the guard can only provide customer service in 1/3 of the train anyway.

 

[SynthD]

The lack of platform screen doors at DLR stations is not an issue.

If you want it done in this country, then our regulators need to permit it. What have the ORR and others said?

i am surprised they did not introduce the B23 as staffless trains.

The trains don’t need physically modifying to run without staff (though changes could be wise), it could just be the check for the staff key that needs removing.

The Nuremberg metro U3 line is automated with optional staff on board and no platform edge doors. Both termini are underground. Are there any automated light rail with open, ground level platforms like Langdon Park?

 

[LLivery]

I can't imagine the tunnelled sections would ever be cleared for a totally staffless operation, nor would I argue, should it be.

Also, the Copenhagen Metro isn't totally staffless. They might not be on *every* train, but they're certainly around.

My question is, why would you want the possibility of something going wrong and the only chance of anyone who knows anything safety wise is a member of off duty rail staff who might be a passenger?

 

[Russel]

I don't know how much the DLR Train captains earn, but I'm fairly certain it is less than an LU Train Operator, so staffing costs will already be lower than if it was a manually driven system and given some of the areas the DLR runs through, I'd rather it remain staffed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect given that it runs through less than salubrious places it would become the Wild West were it unstaffed. Manchester Metrolink can be bad enough at times.

 

[Russel]

I suspect given that it runs through less than salubrious places it would become the Wild West were it unstaffed. Manchester Metrolink can be bad enough at times.

Exactly this, that said, some of the DLR onboard staff working to and from places like Lewisham and Stratford in the evenings must feel vulnerable at times as it is...

 

[Volvictof]

The automated nature of the train isn’t to save money on staff… automated railways cost a lot more than regular ones. The point is that trains are driven a lot more economically and can be ran closer together. It’s also safer taking out the human error factor for the driving.

 

[renegademaster]

I suspect given that it runs through less than salubrious places it would become the Wild West were it unstaffed. Manchester Metrolink can be bad enough at times.

People survive on DOO Southeastern/Thameslink/C2C trains

 

[Harpo]

Trap and drag still happens with despatch supervised by humans on board. That suggests at least one technology gap in addition to other obvious ones such as emergency manual operation and emergency train to control comms and evacuation in an emergency.

 

[JonathanH]

People survive on DOO Southeastern/Thameslink/C2C trains

The Southeastern and Thameslink trains are among the most vandalised trains in operation though.

 

[ScotGG]

People survive on DOO Southeastern/Thameslink/C2C trains

And ticketless travel is rife.

Ever seen how many scarper when the one in fifty journeys that revenue protection appears? Dozens the last time I saw it.

On DLR tickets are checked far more often.

Then we get into the issue of safety. I know some who won't use SouthEastern Metro at night as it doesn't feel too safe with no staff on trains and most stations a ghost town. They use the DLR as it feels safer with onboard staff.

If DLR followed that they can kiss goodbye to a lot of revenue and custom

 

[Bletchleyite]

And ticketless travel is rife.

As is serious antisocial behaviour. And that's with the driver there as a presence. It'd certainly be a lot worse were it totally unstaffed.

 

[tom1996]

Yesterday I was onboard a DLR service around 22:30 and a man started verbally attacking a female passenger. The DLR staff member boarded the carriage next stop and he stopped. I really think people underestimate the presence of staff on passenger behaviour and it would be very regressive to remove them, particularly as DLR has no station staff like the overground and tube

 

[stadler]

Surely a much better option would be to staff all DLR stations. All of the DLR stations should have ticket barriers installed and be staffed from first train to last train. This would improve safety far more than onboard staff as the DLR stations are what feels particularly unsafe.

Silverlink stations used to be almost all unstaffed other than a few major ones. But then LO came along and put in barriers at almost every station and starting staffing each and every station from first train to last train. As a result the safety of LO has increased massively despite it all being DOO now with zero staff onboard other than the driver.

So i think it may be worth looking in to treating DLR stations like EL and LO and LU stations and staffing them all from first train to last train and putting in ticket barriers. Getting rid of DLR onboard staff but instead staffing the DLR stations would probably increase safety a lot more. Staffing all of the DLR stations would also probably be a lot cheaper than providing PSA staff onboard the DLR trains.

 

[Russel]

Surely a much better option would be to staff all DLR stations. All of the DLR stations should have ticket barriers installed and be staffed from first train to last train. This would improve safety far more than onboard staff as the DLR stations are what feels particularly unsafe.

Silverlink stations used to be almost all unstaffed other than a few major ones. But then LO came along and put in barriers at almost every station and starting staffing each and every station from first train to last train. As a result the safety of LO has increased massively despite it all being DOO now with zero staff onboard other than the driver.

So i think it may be worth looking in to treating DLR stations like EL and LO and LU stations and staffing them all from first train to last train and putting in ticket barriers. Getting rid of DLR onboard staff but instead staffing the DLR stations would probably increase safety a lot more. Staffing all of the DLR stations would also probably be a lot cheaper than providing PSA staff onboard the DLR trains.

But is there a need to do any of this?

I don't recall many instances of station related antisocial behaviour and the current system of having on train staff works well.

 

[stadler]

But is there a need to do any of this?

I don't recall many instances of station related antisocial behaviour and the current system of having on train staff works well.

Because it would save costs. Making the trains unstaffed but staffing all of the stations instead would be a lot cheaper. I have seen a few instances of anti social behaviour at DLR stations (especially in the evenings) but rarely onboard DLR trains (although i am sure that happens occassionly too) so i think this would increase safety overall. But with the current state of TFL finances i am sure some cost saving measures such as this would be a good idea.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I thought Nuremberg U2/U3 were driven remotely by a human train driver? Sydney Metro does not have staff onboard the trains, but it has plenty of platform staff

 

[bramling]

Because it would save costs. Making the trains unstaffed but staffing all of the stations instead would be a lot cheaper. I have seen a few instances of anti social behaviour at DLR stations (especially in the evenings) but rarely onboard DLR trains (although i am sure that happens occassionly too) so i think this would increase safety overall. But with the current state of TFL finances i am sure some cost saving measures such as this would be a good idea.

Even if it was seen to be the desirable thing to do, there would be absolutely no short-term cost saving at all. Just to provide a staff presence at every DLR station would mean having to build facilities at nearly every single one. Even just having a portacabin type thing is going to cost a fortune, and that’s before we actually consider what works would be necessary to provide a setup which would actually bring some useful benefit to the end-user, for example gatelines.

Then there’s the technical issues over how to make the trains driverless. How are you going to manage the situation where trains need to be driven manually under degraded working, as the current signalling system sometimes requires?

Complete non-starter I’m afraid.

 

[Russel]

Because it would save costs. Making the trains unstaffed but staffing all of the stations instead would be a lot cheaper. I have seen a few instances of anti social behaviour at DLR stations (especially in the evenings) but rarely onboard DLR trains (although i am sure that happens occassionly too) so i think this would increase safety overall. But with the current state of TFL finances i am sure some cost saving measures such as this would be a good idea.

Financially, there would be a huge outlay to set up your proposal so any small savings will be years down the line, by which point you'll have just move the problem of anti-social behaviour on to the trains, it would be a vicious circle...

 

[birchesgreen]

Many if not most DLR stations would need some or even complete rebuilding to include barriers and staff facilities. That wouldn't be cheap!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because it would save costs. Making the trains unstaffed but staffing all of the stations instead would be a lot cheaper.

How? There aren't more trains on the system at any one time than stations.

 

[Ghostbus]

Why is it down to the DLR to prevent anti-social behaviour or other criminality? Their obligation to the public is to prevent accidents, and if they can do that without on board staff, why shouldn't we all reap the financial benefits? They're cheaper than drivers, but they're not working for peanuts. We are a long way past the point people should be reassured one bit by the mere presence of staff, it's the very definition of security theatre rather than a serious preventative measure.

Society is changing fast. Offenders are much bolder and utterly shameless now, and very wise to the fact DLR staff can't realistically do anything to stop them. These of course being a sub-class of society to whom the prospect of being identified on CCTV or a fingerprint/DNA database is already no deterrent to setting out to break the law on the DLR.

Things are so bad these days that some of these scumbags are actually looking for a confrontation with The Man to add to the entertainment or achieve some warped initiation objective. I dare say that that person not having anything but their wits and a walkie talkie as a means to react, makes it a lot more inviting.

If anything, it should be DLR considering the danger to staff of these late shifts on near or actually empty trains. As has come up in another thread, do DLR trains have adequate facilities to deal with acid attacks and such like? I'd certainly want to know that, before taking this job. I don't want to go blind doing my job, or stand there helpless while a passenger also goes blind.

You'd achieve far more from a preventative standpoint by re-deploying train captains as mob-handed roving security patrols. Trained to spot trouble-makers before they even get a chance to bother a muggle or damage a train. And suitably trained and equipped if offenders are looking for a confrontation. The fact most captains probably won't want that job, should tell you that you were already failing them and the public by allowing them to be seen as store detectives.

It is the police's job to protect the public in scenarios where CCTV, a stern look from a random stranger or the non-trivial chance of encountering a DLR security patrol, is insufficient. All you would need is a handful of plain clothes patrols to send the message that it's not worth your time to use the DLR as your playground or source of revenue.

They might then even gather some useful intelligence that helps them prevent crime in the streets, the places people, DLR passengers included, have no choice but to use if they want to live their life, but which have neither CCTV, patrols and in some cases not even adequate lighting.

 

[Sunil_P]

The most annoying thing about NOT having barriers is forgetting to tap out, especially when tapping in at a Tube or NR station with barriers. I have exited DLR stations on numerous occasions, and ended up running back to the card readers to touch out!

 

[Russel]

The most annoying thing about NOT having barriers is forgetting to tap out, especially when tapping in at a Tube or NR station with barriers. I have exited DLR stations on numerous occasions, and ended up running back to the card readers to touch out!

Or them not being where you'd expect, such as Heron Quays...

Walking up to the platform and finding no reader so having to walk back down to street level and then back up to platform level isn't fun.

 

[riceuten]

Yes, probably. But the "train captains" are there in a security/revenue control role, so other than satisfying people of a particular political persuasion's anti-union bloodlust, not sure there's much of a point

 

[The exile]

Because it would save costs. Making the trains unstaffed but staffing all of the stations instead would be a lot cheaper. I have seen a few instances of anti social behaviour at DLR stations (especially in the evenings) but rarely onboard DLR trains (although i am sure that happens occassionly too) so i think this would increase safety overall. But with the current state of TFL finances i am sure some cost saving measures such as this would be a good idea.

...and why have you seen it rarely on board the trains? Maybe it's because they are staffed...

 

[Blackpool boy]

Surely a much better option would be to staff all DLR stations. All of the DLR stations should have ticket barriers installed and be staffed from first train to last train. This would improve safety far more than onboard staff as the DLR stations are what feels particularly unsafe.

Silverlink stations used to be almost all unstaffed other than a few major ones. But then LO came along and put in barriers at almost every station and starting staffing each and every station from first train to last train. As a result the safety of LO has increased massively despite it all being DOO now with zero staff onboard other than the driver.

So i think it may be worth looking in to treating DLR stations like EL and LO and LU stations and staffing them all from first train to last train and putting in ticket barriers. Getting rid of DLR onboard staff but instead staffing the DLR stations would probably increase safety a lot more. Staffing all of the DLR stations would also probably be a lot cheaper than providing PSA staff onboard the DLR trains.

The cost of installing ticket gates and places for the staff to have a bit of respite and a place to stay and have welfare facilities will far outweigh getting rid of the PSAs for decades.

 

[DerekC]

Unattended Operation (Grade of Automation 4) requires either extremely high reliability, so that train failure between stations almost never happens, or means for safely accessing the train anywhere on the route, to allow passengers to be evacuated when a failure does occur. Vancouver Skytrain, for example, has access walkways along the whole length of the guideway. Although the SELTRAC system that controls DLR seems pretty good these days (it was a fairly crude system with lots of teething problems back in the mid 90s) DLR certainly doesn't have safe evacuation routes and a key role of the train steward (or is it back to train captain now?) is to drive the train manually when a failure does occur, either to the next station or (unless the system has crashed completely) to the next loop boundary so that the controlling computer can re-establish control of it at a known location. As others have said, staffing all the stations wouldn't be cheap and re-engineering the thing with some kind of remote manual operation would cost £££M.