Could the DLR be made fully automated and staffless.

[skyhigh]

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

I think this is another example of your 'back of a fag packet' maths (as seen in your insurance thread) that is well out of kilter with the real world.

Providing staff and required facilities will be a lot more expensive than the current system.

 

[birchesgreen]

For example here is Royal Albert, to have barriers here and all the support infrastructure and staff facilities you would need to enclose all this with a new building at the very least. I wouldn't be surprised if that would be at least a million, now you have to do this again dozens of times. How much are we saving again?

 

[TRAX]

I thought Nuremberg U2/U3 were driven remotely by a human train driver?

Nope

 

[Meerkat]

For example here is Royal Albert, to have barriers here and all the support infrastructure and staff facilities you would need to enclose all this with a new building at the very least. I wouldn't be surprised if that would be at least a million, now you have to do this again dozens of times. How much are we saving again?

View attachment 170515

From memory you would be able to gate many DLR stations without blocking public space, pavements, and rights of way.

 

[Taunton]

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.

The most "untapped" station was analysed, and turned out to be City Airport. Which is not surprising given their location where, once a couple of unfamiliar users are standing at them, you would have no idea they are there. I don't remember the rest of the analysis but would expect Lewisham to be next, where if you walk the intuitive way from entry stairway to train you don't see one. For touching out there is of course Custom House, where the route from DLR to Liz Line has none at all.

 

[whoosh]

I think this is another example of your 'back of a fag packet' maths (as seen in your insurance thread) that is well out of kilter with the real world.

Providing staff and required facilities will be a lot more expensive than the current system.

Indeed. Current system: all Train Captains book on at the same place, spare coverage (for sickness, annual leave etc.) is provided by the same pool of workers.

Staffing every station: Would you have stations grouped? Where are people starting work? At their home station? At a 'hub'?
You'd need to provide a toilet, and a messroom for breaks as well, unless you're paying for travel to a centralised one and travel back to the station too.

There's a reason the current system was set up the way it was, and still exists.

 

[Surreytraveller]

The main purpose of driverless trains is to save money on staffing as you no longer need a train driver. .

Is it? Where is that written?
The main purpose for ATO is to have more frequent trains, as they can run closer together, and for more uniform performance

 

[Haywain]

I thought that when the DLR originally opened the trains operated in fully automated mode, and the 'train captain' only got involved when there was a problem - I don't recall that they even operated the doors. I remember once having to move from the front seat so that they could open the control panel and drive the train due to some sort of problem.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I thought that when the DLR originally opened the trains operated in fully automated mode, and the 'train captain' only got involved when there was a problem - I don't recall that they even operated the doors. I remember once having to move from the front seat so that they could open the control panel and drive the train due to some sort of problem.

They've always operated the doors.

 

[bluegoblin7]

They've always closed the doors - they open automatically once the train has received an accurate stop command from the signalling system.

 

[Harpo]

The main purpose for ATO is to have more frequent trains, as they can run closer together, and for more uniform performance

Exactly. Mk1 human is no good at precision and uniformity on stuff timed down to seconds.

ATO can also do counter-intuitive stuff such as powering up towards the end of a movement authority which you wouldn’t want Mk1 human doing!

 

[MrJeeves]

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?

The staff on the Copenhagen Metro are only at some large stations, primarily to clear out trains before being taken out of service and to provide advice and assistance to passengers.

The only on-board staff are revenue protection officers who perform ticket inspections.

 

[MarkyT]

The staff on the Copenhagen Metro are only at some large stations, primarily to clear out trains before being taken out of service and to provide advice and assistance to passengers.

The only on-board staff are revenue protection officers who perform ticket inspections.

The Copenhagen Metro is fully equipped with platform screen doors today I think. That wasn't the case at opening of the earliest sections. Although some of the busiest stations had the doors from new, at others there were multiple sophisticated sensor systems monitoring the platform edge instead. The problem was reliability, with far too many false positives occurring that turned out to be rubbish blowing around, wildlife, or people moving near the edge, automatically slowing or stopping any approaching trains and sending alarms to the control room.

 

[MrJeeves]

The Copenhagen Metro is fully equipped with platform screen doors today I think. That wasn't the case at opening of the earliest sections. Although some of the busiest stations had the doors from new, at others there were multiple sophisticated sensor systems monitoring the platform edge instead. The problem was reliability, with far too many false positives occurring that turned out to be rubbish blowing around, wildlife, or people moving near the edge, automatically slowing or stopping any approaching trains and sending alarms to the control room.

Exactly right, yes.