London Unveils New Driverless Subway Trains

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

London Unveils New Driverless Subway Trains

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday October 9, 2014 @09:35PM from the running-on-time dept.

MikeChino writes London just unveiled its next-generation subway trains — and they're sleek, 100% automated, and WiFi-equipped. UK-based design studio Priestmangoode teamed up with Transport for London to develop the trains over a period of 3 years, and they feature open and airy interiors inspired by aviation design.

127 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 21:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

We had those (except wifi) in our city (Torino, little more than 800k people in northen Italy) for the last 8 years. Where is the news?
1. Re:Well... by jalopezp · 2014-10-09 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  The news is that London is getting them. Did you RTF title?
2. Re:Well... by __Reason__ · 2014-10-09 22:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The news is that London is getting them. Did you RTF title?
  Driverless trains have existed in London for many years, too. For example on the DLR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
  Several lines of the London Underground already use Automatic Train Operation (ATO), where the train is fully controlled by software under normal conditions. There is still a "Driver", but all they do is operate the doors, make passenger announcements, and are ready to take over in the case of an emergency or a system failure.
  In fact, the Victoria line has used ATO since it opened in the 1960s, and was the world's first major metro/subway line to do so.
3. Re:Well... by operator_error · 2014-10-09 22:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I RTFA, and London isn't getting them until 2020. And that does *not* include the Northern (i.e. Misery) Line. Progressive? More like, its about %$#@! time.
4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of it, but I have heard of London. Plus they have 13 million people.
5. Re:Well... by nogginthenog · 2014-10-09 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  The Northern line has been driverless since 2012. The person who sits in the front just opens & closes the doors (when they are not on strike).
6. Re:Well... by Sique · 2014-10-09 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  Greater London (which includes 31 boroughs) actually has 8.3 million people. The largest borough is Croydon, with about 370,000 inhabitants. The City of London is rather small with less than 8,000 inhabitants.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
7. Re:Well... by operator_error · 2014-10-10 00:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Have you any idea what percentage of the Tube's budget is allocated just to keep the underground from flooding; a rather large unseen yet vital issue? Have you any idea what percentage of the UK's GDP might be affected by such a breach in the underground transport system?
  I believe at least 1/3 of the budget is used for flood control, although I welcome fact checkers' efforts.
  Last I heard, 16% of the UK's GDP was the financial sector of London.
8. Re:Well... by kilodelta · 2014-10-10 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile in the Boston area we have positively antiquated vehicles on the Red, Green and Orange lines. It's time to move toward the future.
9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Spend per head in london: ÃÂ£2700
  Spend per head in the north east: ÃÂ£5
  http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/transport-spend-per-head-is-p2700-for-london-but-p5-per-head-in-north-east
10. Re:Well... by TheRaven64 · 2014-10-10 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they're only paid £50K/year. That's not a lot for having to press a button not once, but twice every few minutes...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:Well... by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-10-10 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Have you any idea what percentage of the Tube's budget is allocated just to keep the underground from flooding; a rather large unseen yet vital issue? Have you any idea what percentage of the UK's GDP might be affected by such a breach in the underground transport system?
  I do have an idea that it was really stupid to build in such a place.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
12. Re:Well... by jonbryce · 2014-10-10 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot more than 8.3 million people during the day time when people travel in from other parts of South East England for work and shopping.
13. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  For the last eight years! That's only 19 years or so after the launch of the driverless Docklands Light Railway in London.
  Correct me if I am wrong, but your Metro Line 1 is a single line, isn't it? Have you looked at the London tube/overland/DLR map?
14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  It's not exactly on topic, but you've never heard of Torino? Crack open a book sometime.
15. Re:Well... by Existential+Wombat · 2014-10-10 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Driverless trains have existed in London for many years, too. For example on the DLR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
  There is still a "Driver", but all they do is operate the doors, make passenger announcements, and are ready to take over in the case of an emergency or a system failure.
  Doesn’t he have to feed the monkey as well?
16. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the doors open automatically. Whenever the train successfully reaches a station, it unlocks and opens the doors on the side with a platform (in very rare cases, both sides) without being asked. The trains have to be told if a station is closed, so that they don't try to stop there (although they must still slow down in case workers are on the platform when they pass).
  The driver is only responsible for closing the doors, once the train concludes that the doors are all successfully closed it locks them and proceeds at appropriate speed (normal speed to reduce costs or maximum speed if a delay means the train is running late) to its next station stop.
17. Re:Well... by Sique · 2014-10-10 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  So are in Torino (Turin for the non-italian people). You were saying?
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
18. Re:Well... by Leofcwen · 2014-10-11 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  The unions will no doubt decry this as an attack on the 'working man'. I wonder how long until they go on strike over this?
19. Re:Well... by RockDoctor · 2014-10-11 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Have you any idea what percentage of the UK's GDP might be affected by such a breach in the underground transport system?
  I do have an idea that it was really stupid to build in such a place.
  I blame the Romans myself for being so inconsiderate as to build a city at a fording point of a major river. If only they'd forded the river up on top of a hill somewhere, London wouldn't have any problems with flooding.
  Still, you can avoid it by choosing where to live in the city. My city has a harbour that is inconveniently at sea level, and the harbour often floods in heavy rain or high tides. But my house is 25m above the harbour level and has a site slope of about 2 degrees, so rain water runs away down hill. It's not rocket science.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
20. Re:Well... by RockDoctor · 2014-10-11 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how long until they go on strike over this?
  The unions (RMT, ASLEF) have been pointing out that without drivers, there is going to be no-one to react to suicides (which close tube lines and stations for around a day each time, causing huge disruption, and it happens frequently). The train drivers are also trained to operate the heart attack machines on most trains and platforms, and routinely save the lives of passengers by being present to react.
  You're right - there are plans in place for strikes to resist the de-drivering of trains.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I've been wondering why this took so long by Vlado · 2014-10-09 21:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Driverless subways exits in other cities for a while now. And this is definitely one of those things, where you can automate a lot out of a system.
1. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by lisaparratt · 2014-10-09 21:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Unions. The DLR has been automated for decades.
2. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by RogueyWon · 2014-10-09 21:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  London also has driverless trains on its (more recent) Docklands Light Railway.
  The reason it's news when driverless trains head to the Tube is nothing to do with technology and everything to do with industrial relations. London's Tube Drivers are extremely militant - it's normal to have a couple of strikes per year (sometimes over "normal" industrial disputes like pay, sometimes because, I suspect, they just want to remind people they can do it).
  The current Mayor, who has been in post for around 6 years now and who is, to put it mildly, no friend of the unions, has been making threats about automation on and off ever since he was first elected. It's a dangerous game to play, because even the mention of automation is sometimes enough to trigger strikes - you can get rid of the drivers eventually (though probably keeping - lower paid - train attendants), but they can cause you a hell of a lot of pain during the transition.
3. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by cardpuncher · 2014-10-09 22:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Victoria Line has had automated train operation since it opened in 1968. All the driver does is push a button at each station to close the doors.
  It's not really a matter of technology.
  There is a safety issue in that there are no escape routes other than the unilluminated and electrified track meaning you'd need some on-board staff member to ensure that people could be safely evacuated in the event of an emergency.
4. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by pr0nbot · 2014-10-09 22:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The Economist this week has a special report about how automation is going to make a lot of us unemployed, possibly in more permanent ways than previous industrial revolutions:
  http://www.economist.com/news/...
5. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by AGMW · 2014-10-09 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Funniest thing of all, after how many years of driverless trains on the DLR (also in London) is the Tube Driver's Union saying it won't be safe!
  [rubs chin thoughtfully] Hmmmm. I wonder if they've got an ulterior motive?
  Stand by for the Tube Driver's Union holding London to ransom again ... [sigh]
  
  --
  Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
  handmadehands.co.uk
6. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by _Shad0w_ · 2014-10-09 22:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Victoria, Central, Jubilee, and Northern lines all use semi-automation. It wasn't uncommon to see the driver stood up in the middle of the cab when it pulled in to a station, when I used the central line regularly; the train stops itself. I've been on a couple where it's overshot the end of the platform and they've had to skip the station and continue to the next (reversing a tube train means the driver has to get out and go to the other end - it delays the service too much, so they just won't do it).
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
7. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by AGMW · 2014-10-09 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'd start with the Jubilee Line, as the JL Extension has trackside barriers already (the trains pull in and the train doors line up with doors in the tracksdie barriers). If they could roll those barriers out along the rest of the Jubilee Line it'd be one less 'safety' thing for the union to get their panties bunched about.
  Piccadilly Line next as it services Heathrow and that seems like a useful target for (approaching) a 24hr service.
  Line by line will take some time and hopefully natural wastage (ie people retiring) should lessen the blow on the drivers, but they're not going to like it and make life hell for Londoners as this progresses.
  Maybe the answer would be to insist on a new contract that stops them striking over anything to do with the introduction of automation. Obviously, we can't expect them to not strike when drivers are sacked for being drunk so there'd be no point trying!
  
  --
  Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
  handmadehands.co.uk
8. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by IamTheRealMike · 2014-10-09 22:29 · Score: 2
  
  If you read the TfL page about this that's exactly what they say their plan is - more track barriers, and allowing "current drivers to work for the rest of their careers". Of course I doubt the RMT will be willing to see itself slowly fade into the sunset via natural ageing, but they don't want to push it too far. London Underground engineering is incredibly efficient, they pack a lot of maintenances into the 3-4 hour engineering hours they get each night (the Tube never really shuts down per se). A lot of the upgrades require rehearsals in mockups of the stations, timing is so tight. If there was a sustained strike then a crapton of automation upgrades could be completed quite quickly.
9. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by N1AK · 2014-10-09 22:34 · Score: 2
  
  London's Tube Drivers are extremely militant - it's normal to have a couple of strikes per year (sometimes over "normal" industrial disputes like pay, sometimes because, I suspect, they just want to remind people they can do it).
  And it's worked for them so far sadly. They have an incredible deal compared to equivalent workers on other networks, regularly shake down the government for more by threatening not to do their job during major events, and continue to whine incessently. I'd pay more for my travel if it meant getting rid of drivers sooner because they're a liability to London's public transport.
10. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-10-09 22:40 · Score: 2
  
  Unions. The DLR has been automated for decades.
  Indeed. The wifi thing is a very smart move by Transport for London. The unions in the UK normally only get their way by getting the public behind them, and the public are understandably a bit jumpy about getting in driverless trains. But if the Transport Workers' Union objects to the new trains on grounds of being driverless, TfL and the Mayor's office will push the idea that TWU is keeping wifi off the tube, and if there's one thing that's more important to the modern public than a perception of safety, it's a permanent connection to social media....
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
11. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-10-09 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh shugar. TWU? It's RMT over here isn't it. Sorry... still got Oz on the brain.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
12. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by oneandoneis2 · 2014-10-09 22:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You think so?
  As a Londoner, I've yet to encounter anyone who supported the Tube strikes: Everyone I know considers it near-criminal extortion and loves the notion of trains that aren't subject to strikes by drivers who are insanely over-paid already. The DLR has had them for years and nobody bats an eye.
  What makes you think people need to be bribed with Wifi to get driverless trains into use?
  
  --
  So.. it has come to this
13. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by stranger_to_himself · 2014-10-09 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  You think so?
  As a Londoner, I've yet to encounter anyone who supported the Tube strikes:
  I'm one. So now you have. Glad I could help.
14. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by pr0nbot · 2014-10-09 23:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The point of the Economist article is that whereas previous technological shifts resulted in more but different low-skilled jobs, the current technological shift is likely to result in fewer, high-skilled jobs.
15. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Dr.+Evil · 2014-10-10 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's kind of insane that the unions are such a burden to transit, that it's easier to accept the safety risks and enormous costs of driverless trains than to accept a non-union driver.
16. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by dave420 · 2014-10-10 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're forgetting something rather important: the DLR was constructed with driverless trains in mind, specifically things like track/train visibility/access from the platform, escape routes, and communication between the platforms and the control centre, and so on. Some of the old lines on the underground were designed for steam trains, and most of the newer ones were designed for trains with drivers. Automated trains are wonderful, but in the event of an emergency, the software can't lead passengers out the rear door and down the dark track to the nearest exit, or slam on the brakes when some unfortunate person winds up on the tracks... The latter is easy enough to fix, but the former not as much.
17. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  Won't happen until the 2030s
18. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Bob Crow, is that you?
19. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-10-10 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think people need to be bribed with Wifi to get driverless trains into use?
  Well that would be the sizable public reaction Every Single Time driverless trains have been mooted, even after the successful implementation of the DLR. TfL could convince people to accept driverless trains by an expensive publicity campaign, or they could just tie the issue to something everyone already likes and that they would realistically have to implement eventually.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
20. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-10 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it will result in fewer jobs, period. Both low-skilled and high-skilled.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
21. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Vlado · 2014-10-10 00:57 · Score: 2
  
  What kind of safety risks are there supposed to be in driverless trains, as opposed to the ones with drivers? I'm asking especially, since driverless trains are not a new concept. And I've yet to see (I may have missed them) headlines for accidents that happened due to the fact that the train didn't have a driver.
22. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  And another, here :)
23. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by AdrienCo · 2014-10-10 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  The number 1 line of Paris subway was converted to full automation (no driver pushing button even to open doors) while never designed to be and it works perfectly well.
24. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is all the older stations have curved platforms, which makes fitting doors to them a lot more tricky and hence expensive.
25. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  I supported the strikes, because I think these people are anything but "insanely over-paid". If you want to see insanely overpaid douchebags, go to the City of London.
26. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by CastrTroy · 2014-10-10 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Ideally the tunnels should be designed so that he passengers can find their own way to the back of the train and to the nearest exit with or without a driver. If the train has become incapacitated, there's no guarantee that the driver would be able to help anyway. As far as people falling on the tracks, I would think that the computer system would be much more likely to be paying attention 100% of the time to check for people on the tracks, and it would be able to apply the brakes. The computer could even have infrared vision and other sensors which could warn them well before they enter the station that there was a person or other obstruction on the track. Even if you need humans to look out for people on the tracks, it would be much easier and cheaper for it to be a person paid specifically to look out for people on the tracks at each station, and be able to signal incoming trains to stop, than it would be to have a highly paid subway operator to do this task.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
27. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by jonbryce · 2014-10-10 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Start with the Victoria Line. The trains there could be converted to driver-less operation within a week. Trackside barriers are a red herring. If someone jumps onto the track, there is nothing the driver can do about it anyway.
28. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Pino+Grigio · 2014-10-10 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  From the grave?
29. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by itzly · 2014-10-10 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Sounds like a good plan. We'll be able to enjoy our free time, while our robots do all the nasty work.
30. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by randomhacks · 2014-10-10 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. They have removed the worst part of the underground. Over paid train drivers and their unions!
31. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  Unions defined safety in terms of their income. A "safe" service is one that ensures Union members keep paying dues.
  Oh you wanted like, actual customer safety? Yeah, unions haven't actually cared about that for decades. Even safety of their own members is a low priority, because they reflect the priorities of their (all too human) members, and those priorities put high wages and convenient hours above safety every time. The unions campaigned hard to keep 12 hour shifts for signallers. They said the shorter shifts (meaning fewer days off, 3 per week instead of 4) were "dangerous" and would lead to many accidents. Weirdly though, this "danger" abated after the signallers were offered a pay raise.
  The RMT (the lead union in these and future tube strikes) stands for Rail, Maritime and Transport. If you ask them about safety they will point you at numerous initiatives they're "part of" on the railways. They are obliged to be invited to take part in these initiatives and their input can be summarised as "Our members will co-operate, reluctantly, if you give them more money".
  But they won't talk about the maritime part, because the RMT represents ship workers who are famously lackadaisical when it comes to safety. RMT members send their (legally mandatory) lookout to bed, then fall asleep at the wheel with the BNWAS switched off and crash a ship into the rocks. That sort of thing. The RMT _could_ try to push its members to be more safety conscious, but why bother? So it just pushes for them to be paid more, as usual.
32. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Many drivers on LU are non-union. That's why the "strike" won't shut the whole system down. Many non-union members will turn up and do a normal days work. Only members are asked by the union to strike (although legally everybody on the job is permitted to join in).
  The UK is in the EU, not the US, so we have no Closed Shop jobs, the union can be criminally prosecuted if it tries to force employees to join. Every tube driver has their own choice about whether to join a union and if so which one. But, even if they don't join a union the drivers are automatically entitled to benefit from collective bargaining done by the union (e.g. better contract terms) and to strike if the union is on strike (taking a day's pay cut in exchange for standing around yelling slogans, but without any fear of losing their job for it).
33. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Ash+Vince · 2014-10-10 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Start with the Victoria Line. The trains there could be converted to driver-less operation within a week. Trackside barriers are a red herring. If someone jumps onto the track, there is nothing the driver can do about it anyway.
  The biggest reason for keeping drivers on the train for the forseeable future is to cope with when things go wrong. When the DLR goes wrong someone just drives to the nearest station then walk a few yards (all the stations are really close together) and then sorts it out. With the underground that is not possible due to the way the tunnels and the way the two electrifies rails make walking down them impossible, when something goes wrong you get stuck under ground unless the driver can get you to the nearest station.
  I am sure we will see driver less trains eventually, but that is still along way off as the infrastructure needs serious improvement before then. A decent, modern digital signalling system not reliant on a poxy third rail than can be screwed up by a coke can landing on it will be needed first. Eventually TFL will actually spend enough cash to sort things like this out, but that is decades away.
  Until we get rid of the train driver though, they are seriously overpaid for the job they do. It will require a serious influx of cash though to hasten there demise, and they have TFL over a barrel with their current pay deal.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
34. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by omfgnosis · 2014-10-10 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Only after a radical redistribution of wealth. The vast majority of people do not actually have the means to enjoy what free time they do have without first exchanging the rest of their time for wages. Simply automating people out of their jobs doesn't resolve that, it exacerbates it.
35. Re:I've been wondering why this took so long by Leofcwen · 2014-10-11 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  He doesn't say stupid things now he's dead, at least to those of us without a ouija board or those sad enough to try and contact him...
Unions upset by Richard_at_work · 2014-10-09 21:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

And on the day of unveiling, the immediate comment from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union was "we don't like driverless trains". Why? Because the drivers are members of that union. Nuff said really.
Driverless trains have worked fine on the Docklands Light Railway for years, about time we switched the tube over.
1. Re:Unions upset by ihtoit · 2014-10-09 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  some of the underground lines run driverless (as in no cabs, the locomotive control is by computer and is dependent on a crewman running the doors), I wonder if the GP actually means "completely crewless" as in DLR, Heathrow, Gatwick?
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
2. Re:Unions upset by __Reason__ · 2014-10-10 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  some of the underground lines run driverless (as in no cabs, the locomotive control is by computer and is dependent on a crewman running the doors), I wonder if the GP actually means "completely crewless" as in DLR, Heathrow, Gatwick?
  1. No London Underground trains are "Driverless". All current London Underground rolling stock have driving cabs, and there is a driver in that cab at all times (even if they aren't doing any actual driving!).
  2. The DLR is not crew-less. All DLR trains have a member of staff on board at all times.
3. Re:Unions upset by ihtoit · 2014-10-10 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  1. Victoria Line are cabless/driverless, there are train captains who have the ability to take over manual control for whatever reason but that's more to bring the train to a safe stop than anything else. Control panels for such eventualities are kept behind locked panels at the end of all cars since they are all interchangeable by design and the train captain occupies the "front" end car with passengers. I should know this being as I use Victoria every single time I go to London (several times a year) and given what almost happened to me in 1987 I like to make sure I'm near someone who can stop the train and direct me to the nearest glint of daylight. I *hate* being inside a metal tube several dozen feet underground at the best of times.
  2. I don't honestly know, since I've never used DLR.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Looks good by Roodvlees · 2014-10-09 21:43 · Score: 1

Seems like there are few seats, but I guess most people will stand.

--
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
1. Re:Looks good by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-10-09 21:55 · Score: 2
  
  they feature open and airy interiors inspired by aviation design.
  Aviation design doesn't exactly spell open and airy interiors to me. It spells cramped seats and stale peanuts.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Looks good by RogueyWon · 2014-10-09 21:59 · Score: 2
  
  That's how London Underground, as well as other highly congested services in London (Overground, DLR and, increasingly, some of the short-distance "heavy rail" commuter trains) are configured. Crowding levels during the morning peak are intense and removing seats is a way to cram more people on.
  By and large, the way it works is that if you are commuting from one of the outer zones (5 or 6) into the center, your train won't be as busy when you get on it and you should be able to get one of those seats, which is lucky as with the Tube being a full-stopping service, you are in for a long journey. If you're commuting from one of the more central zones (2 or 3) you are much more likely to have to stand, but on the other hand, you do have a shorter journey.
  Obviously, it works better on some parts of the network than others. And it's a fairly brutal environment to commute in, particularly if you have a particular reason (disability, pregnancy) that makes standing uncomfortable - somebody might offer you a seat, but it's the exception rather than the norm at rush hour. Personally, I think people who live in north London and commute via the Tube are mad. I'm south of the river in Zone 5 and get a seat on a nice, non-stop "heavy rail" train that gets me to the center in 20 minutes or so every morning.
3. Re:Looks good by Rik+Sweeney · 2014-10-09 22:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Clearly you don't live in Britain, otherwise you'd understand how polite and accommodating we are.
  If there are no seats, ask a fellow passenger if you can sit on their lap. They'll usually oblige, unless they have a very good reason.
  Try it the next time you visit.
  
  --
  Summation 2
4. Re:Looks good by CastrTroy · 2014-10-10 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  They have trains like this in Toronto. The open-car/few seats part of the design, not the driverless part. I was on vacation there in the summer, and I found they work quite well. At low volume times, there was few passengers so you could mostly find a seat. At high volume times, there was no way you could find a seat no matter how many seats they had on the train. Having less seats left more room for standing and more room for maneuvering to get on and off the train.
  
  Compared to the buses in my city (we only have busses), leaving more room for standing becomes immediately apparent. In many parts you can only stand 1 person wide. If you're at the back, it takes a long time maneuvre between all the people to make it to the door. You either have to start moving towards the door 2 or so stops before you disembark, or you'll end up holding up the bus for minutes while your trying to get to the door. It's not uncommon for people to miss their stop because they couldn't get to the door before the door closed. The driver can't see that far to the back to tell if anybody is trying to make their way to the door. And apparently some people don't like to use their voice to alert the driver to wait up for a moment.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
5. Re:Looks good by serviscope_minor · 2014-10-10 01:05 · Score: 2
  
  Aviation design doesn't exactly spell open and airy interiors to me. It spells cramped seats and stale peanuts.
  Um, you know that would be an improvement at rush hour, right? At the moment the current design is more like being wedged under some massive sweaty unwashed guy's armpit in 35 degree heat.
  Cramped seats and stale peanuts would be a welcome break from that.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Looks good by CastrTroy · 2014-10-10 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Subway trains, at least the ones I've been on, never been to London, tend to be pretty brutal towards those with disabilities anyway. It's usually stairs or escalators. There's usually only a few stops that have elevators. I'm not sure what a good solution is though. On one hand I think that people with disabilities should be afforded the same opportunities and services as every other citizen. On the other hand, sometimes putting in the needed infrastructure for those with disabilities makes the system more costly and work less efficiently. In my city the buses have retractable wheelchair ramps. It's great because everybody can use the bus, but it does slow down the system. Who knows once automated cars become a thing, maybe it will be cheaper to design buses for able bodied people only, and have the relatively few disabled people chauffeured around in private vehicles.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
7. Re:Looks good by serviscope_minor · 2014-10-10 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  If there are no seats, ask a fellow passenger if you can sit on their lap. They'll usually oblige, unless they have a very good reason. Try it the next time you visit.
  However, you first need to greet them correctly. To do this, hold up two fingers (palm towards yourself) and wave your hand up and down vigorously. This is generally taken to be a welcoming and friendly greeting, and the person will likely rise out of their seat, thereby allowig you to sit down.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
8. Re:Looks good by HornWumpus · 2014-10-10 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the OK sign. Except they make it much smaller over there.
  Do the OK sign, then close the finger/thumb hole up completely.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Aerodynamic design? by Jack+Malmostoso · 2014-10-09 21:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm not an engineer, but I always wondered why trains tend to be designed like a wall. Only high-speed trains are actually wedge shaped to be aerodynamic.
I would imagine that a subway train, acting like a "piston" would work better if it were more aerodynamic and not have to overcome a lot of pressure within the tunnel.
Can anyone explain the reasons behind this design?
1. Re:Aerodynamic design? by itzly · 2014-10-09 21:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In a narrow tunnel, the train is going to act like a piston no matter what the front shape is like.
2. Re:Aerodynamic design? by mrbester · 2014-10-09 22:51 · Score: 2
  
  And this was part of the original plan: as well as having occasional open spaces (for lines close enough to the surface of course, see 23/24 Leinster Gardens) for venting until full electrification the engines were steam powered from coal burning. Got to get rid of the smoke somehow.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
3. Re:Aerodynamic design? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  London Transport tried an aerodynamic cab in the 1930s (just prior to the introduction of the 1938 stock IIRC); but at the relatively-low maximum speeds that deep-level trains reach (even on open-air track sections) there was little point to the modification.
4. Re:Aerodynamic design? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 23:30 · Score: 0
  
  The gap between the train and wall is too small to easily push the air it's entering around the train. That's the main pressure it's overcoming, and there's no way to avoid it without having wider tunnels (as the newer extensions have). The shape of the front of the train by comparison has an almost unnoticeable effect.
5. Re:Aerodynamic design? by bluegutang · 2014-10-09 23:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Because it's a higher priority to maximize the volume of the train car (i.e. more passengers), and to make the cars easily attachable to each other, than it is to slightly increase the aerodynamic efficiency of a relatively low-speed vehicle.
6. Re:Aerodynamic design? by __Reason__ · 2014-10-10 00:51 · Score: 2
  
  I would imagine that a subway train, acting like a "piston" would work better if it were more aerodynamic and not have to overcome a lot of pressure within the tunnel.
  Can anyone explain the reasons behind this design?
  There are various reasons for this. One important one is safety: You need a door at each end of the train to allow it to be evacuated.
7. Re:Aerodynamic design? by HornWumpus · 2014-10-10 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Just open the front and rears of the trains. Hell just use flatcars.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Aerodynamic design? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 21:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

They are piston shaped on purpose, they actually are the main way to cause ventilation of air in/out of the underground.
bit ahead of themselves by ihtoit · 2014-10-09 21:58 · Score: 1

TFL are still in the middle of total network conversion to cabless - so far it's only taken thirty years!

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Who is policing the trains? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 22:00 · Score: 0

This will be an interesting limited trial run to pave the way for automated cars and can resolve trust issues there-in.
more ads by ljw1004 · 2014-10-09 22:13 · Score: 1

I'm glad they'll now use dynamic electronic screens for ads! The old flat paper displays weren't just too restful for me to truly enjoy my underground trips...
1. Re:more ads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 22:31 · Score: 0
  
  Wait until the system is hacked to display porn or child abuse or photos of politicians receiving brown bags of cash, etc, etc
2. Re:more ads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  The Warsaw metro system already uses them, and has been using them for a number of years. For some unfathomable reason, the entire system runs Windows. The consequences are easily predictable. To be fair, the screens do more than just display ads (there's plenty of news and historical stuff, too, and if the latter seems weird - it's Poland, everybody's obsessed with history for some reason).
  What's more, all the new buses are equipped with screens that display the line number and the list of all the stops along the way. Last time I checked, they ran Windows too. Let's just say that the brand new "DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL" bus line is getting real popular around these parts.
  Then again, there's this: http://i.imgur.com/lXXKaiB.jpg
  As this apparent mythological weapon proves, there's no end to the absurdity in this country.
3. Re:more ads by oldmac31310 · 2014-10-10 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  First it is a 'safety hammer' then it is 'nothammer'. Can't you people make up your minds?!
  
  --
  http://www.acetonestudio.com
Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by Viol8 · 2014-10-09 22:40 · Score: 1

Why?
2 main reasons:
- On the really old lines there is only about 6 inches between the train and the tunnel wall , there is NO escape walkway. So in an emergency a member of staff WILL be needed to evacuate passengers from the front or rear of the train and walk them along the track.
- When the tube gets really busy its virtually impossible for anyone to walk the length of the train inside so any staff might as well be in front driving it , or at least monitoring it in a cab.
1. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by mrbester · 2014-10-09 22:54 · Score: 2
  
  It's extremely rare that an emergency results in a train stopped between stations: if you pull the cord the driver won't stop mid-tunnel. Every carriage on every train on every line has a notice stating this.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
2. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by ledow · 2014-10-09 23:53 · Score: 2
  
  And the solution is not one man trying to evacuate people down the line (it's an emergency, right? So if you shut down the line enough for help other than the lone driver we have at the moment to walk down the line, then everyone could walk back to the station safely anyway!)
  And escape walkway or not - what the hell does that matter? It means you can't walk down the SIDE of the train. Only through it and out onto the tracks. If you're out of the train, the danger is the same. In fact, I'd say it's safer NOT to have a narrow walkway that you want to push 200 people down, but to just power down the line and have them walk out of the tunnel.
  Why does this need a driver? And to me, the solution is not to pay several hundred men Â£30k each to push a lever for 10 years, but to widen the tunnel slightly.
  The DLR is actually AIRBORNE at some points (no escape at all) and was unmanned. The "must be manned" is the union line to preserve jobs, not anything to do with safety.
3. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by FooAtWFU · 2014-10-10 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Even supposing this to be true, it means that a train could be safely and efficiently operated by someone who hasn't expended months or years of their life being taught and practicing how to drive a train.
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
4. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by __Reason__ · 2014-10-10 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's extremely rare that an emergency results in a train stopped between stations
  Actually, it's not that unusual.
  The Victoria line, for example, has a very dense and frequent service - in fact there are about 45% more trains in operation at peak times than there are platforms on the line. So, if an emergency (like someone jumping on to the track in front of a train) means the line has to be suspended, inevitably there are going to be trains stopped in tunnels.
5. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by __Reason__ · 2014-10-10 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  The DLR is actually AIRBORNE at some points (no escape at all) and was unmanned. The "must be manned" is the union line to preserve jobs, not anything to do with safety.
  The DLR has never been unmanned. There is always a crew member onboard DLR trains, at all times.
  Also, all sections of DLR track, whether elevated or in tunnels, has walkways (albeit narrow ones) along side for evacuation purposes.
6. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by __Reason__ · 2014-10-10 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  the solution is not to pay several hundred men Â£30k each to push a lever for 10 years, but to widen the tunnel slightly.
  "Widening the tunnels slightly", in the case of the Tube, would be astronomically expensive. Not least for the economic cost of having to close lines for years while the work was carried out.
7. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by ledow · 2014-10-10 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  "The trains were fully automated, controlled by computer, and had no driver; a Passenger Service Agent (PSA) on each train, originally referred to as a "Train Captain", was responsible for patrolling the train, checking tickets, making announcements and controlling the doors."
  This I have no objection to, but it is essentially the job-preservation demand of a union. They are not a driver. They can be replaced in a day. However, currently drivers are claiming to be irreplaceable and, when they strike, the capacity of the network is decimated.
  Hence, "driverless" may be better than "unmanned". But one man on a train of several hundred people isn't going to add much "safety" at all in an emergency. Especially if there are three carriages full of people - getting them off safely cannot be the domain of one man.
  But if you want a guy to stamp tickets and press the emergency-stop button - no problem at all. Because his pay will reflect that and he's easily replaced if he decides not to come into work.
  (P.S. Walkways? Though I admit my knowledge may be outdated as I don't use DLR, I have vivid memories of there being sections with no space at all to walk: http://www.london-traveltips.c... - Where?)
8. Re:Driverless on the deep level tube is pointless by Viol8 · 2014-10-10 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  " Especially if there are three carriages full of people - getting them off safely cannot be the domain of one man."
  I would suggest that one man has a better chance of doing than zero men. Unless you think the passengers should be left to fend for themselves until help can reach them?
Inspired by aviation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 22:42 · Score: 1

....or trips on the countless other metro systems that already have a single 'continuous' carriage? Also many cities have articulated buses?
Looks good though.
1. Re:Inspired by aviation... by ledow · 2014-10-09 23:46 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the real news is that it's "inspired by Tube driver strikes".
  The London Underground staff go on strike so often, this is basically a (well-deserved) warning shot. If the drivers being paid more than teachers, nurses and doctors to push a lever forward for 8 hours a day (probably only 300 days a year, though, once you take into account strikes, holidays, etc.) want to disrupt the entire London Tube network and bring London to a standstill every time they negotiate their above-inflation pensions and pay-rises, this is the only sensible and logical result.
  No drivers. No strikes. And if the station staff go on strike - well, we've almost eliminated them too and they are much more easily replaced. Funny how the unions are whining about "unattended" stations now, isn't it...
  London has been held hostage by the railway unions for decades. The only spark of hope was the DLR (which is a driverless train line) but even there they were forced to put "safety officers" on the trains because of union representation. Now it seems that the joyride is ending and we might get a decent subway system not subject to the whims of a union leader (strange how this all changed once Bob Crow was out of the picture...).
  I counted up one year. There were something like 30 days of strikes in one year, all backed by the same union - drivers, then station staff, then railway maintenance staff, etc. but all the same union.
  I just want a transport system that works. I don't really care how we get there and there are more than enough jobs to go around when you have 8 million people going back and forth every day. But I abandoned public transport when, if it wasn't the strikes, it was the cancellations, delays, or total shutdowns for maintenance, then the ticket prices went through the roof to pay a Tube driver who requires 1 year's training more than I was being paid in a good job, after 15 year's experience and needing a degree.
  News summaries for this year regarding transport are: Problem, problem, problem. Bob Crow gone. Station staff gone except for skeleton staff, automated ticket systems instead. Drivers gone, driverless trains instead. Weekend openings (after DECADES of weekend shutdowns "for maintenance", because nobody in London wants to go anywhere on a weekend, do they?).
  All of a sudden, we have a system that stands a chance of working. All I need now is for them to install the barriers to stop over-crowding meaning you can fall onto the tracks (and shut down the whole Tube network for another day) and we might have something approaching what every other country in the world has had for decades.
2. Re:Inspired by aviation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  The London Underground already has lines that have trains with single "continuous" carriages (Hammesmith and City is a case in point).
  The reference to aviation likely refers to other aspects of the design, rather than having the "single articulated carriage" feel.
Subway trains? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 22:43 · Score: 1

Why would the London Underground have subway trains?
Tube trains, sure!
Underground trains? Why not!
Subway trains? What do you think we are? Merkins?
1. Re:Subway trains? by itsdapead · 2014-10-10 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why would the London Underground have subway trains?
  Oh, they're talking about the actual Underground? I was assuming that a "subway train" was some more efficient way of getting people along a subterranean walkway. Whenever I've arrived at St Pancras overground station and needed to get to St Pancras Underground I've always thought that they could do with a train of some sort...
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
2. Re:Subway trains? by jonbryce · 2014-10-10 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Or Glaswegians. The underground line in Glasgow is called the Subway.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-10-09 23:21 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
It reminds the VLA of 1983 by e70838 · 2014-10-09 23:35 · Score: 1

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
What's a subway by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:17 · Score: 0

Speaking as a Londoner, London has an underground system also known as the tube.
It has no subway or transit.
1. Re:What's a subway by tsqr · 2014-10-10 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as a Londoner, London has an underground system also known as the tube.
  It has no subway or transit.
  London has lots of things called subways. But they're subterranean pedestrian walkways, not train systems.
2. Re:What's a subway by mark-t · 2014-10-10 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Uh... no. That underground system known as "The Tube" is, by definition, a rapid transit system. Also, it fits almost any reasonable North American definition of a subway other than using as a proper noun to refer to one specific underground rail system. Since you didn't capitalize the term, nor did you use it in any context where a proper noun would have been implied by the surrounding grammar, one can only conclude that you are therefore simply factually incorrect. Saying that London doesn't have one just because people who live in London don't call it that is like saying that there are no elevators in London, nor people wear pants in London, just because the UK has different words for those specific terms, which even at best can only be taken as some sort of an attempt at trying to be funny, but it is still factually incorrect. If you are using a word in a sentence, then you presumably know what that term means, and that meaning is just as applicable to what London has as what can be found in North America.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:What's a subway by serviscope_minor · 2014-10-10 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  nor people wear pants in London
  My god man, do you think everyone in London goes commando?
  I wear pants, but like every true Englishman[*], I wear them under my *trousers*.
  [*]No true Scotsman wears pants under his kilt.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
LOL. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:24 · Score: 0

I haven't read the article but let's see what could go wrong in a world of terrorists.
Communication to the train is how? Radio? Can be jammed. What happens if there is an emergency stop required and the radio is jammed? Hacked? Train goes 120MPH into a turn. Slam the brakes on and off for the 'fun' of it.
I'm glad I won't ever be on one of these. Oh wait, perhaps this is better than a train where the engineer is tweeting or whose tonque is so busy making love to a cell phone.
1. Re:LOL. by andrewbaldwin · 2014-10-10 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you believe a London Underground train could get to 120mph, I've got a nice set of title deeds to the Houses of Parliament I can sell you at a very reasonable price :-)
  This isn't a new thing - it's been done before...
  I was working in Copenhagen about 8 years ago and the metro there was driverless; the London Docklands Light Railway (DLR) has been driverless for years.
2. Re:LOL. by Blaskowicz · 2014-10-11 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  The rail that provides electric power to the train is a good place to start. Problably can be used to send data, and though maybe not good enough you still can cut the power.
Not driverless...yet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 00:47 · Score: 2, Informative

As I understand it, the new trains are *capable* of being driverless... meaning they can also have drivers, and the plan is for them to retain drivers, initially at least. Anyone who knows anything about the history of LU will know that the spectre of driverless trains is something the unions (the RMT particularly, personified by the late Bob Crow) have been trying to resist for years. This is a smart move by the Mayor of London and the Conservative govermnent, like it or not - I imagine that the trains will have drivers for a few years, and whenever they strike, as they inevitably will, the trains will be able to operate as normal without them - and everyone will realise the drivers are not needed. There will be years of legal wrangling and eventually those staff will get nice fat payoffs and our trains will not be able to go on strike any more (Robocop anyone?) - and everyone will be happier.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11150671/New-driverless-tube-trains-unveiled-by-TFL.html
A recurring theme on "EconTalk" and this week by swb · 2014-10-10 02:13 · Score: 2

One thing brought up this week was something they called Polanyi's Paradox -- the ability to do things without actually knowing exactly how they're done, what Polanyi I think called tacit knowledge. Riding a bicycle was an example -- you can try to codify it and tell someone how to ride a bicycle, but they won't actually be able to ride a bicycle until they learn.
It plays a role in trying to figure out what things can be automated there are categories of tasks that despite their apparent simplicity defy automation.
I'm less concerned about the gains to automation than I am in the way that displaced workers (and future) workers are treated in the economy. I don't think it's reasonable that the current "system" of brief unemployment insurance followed by basically spiraling unemployment and poverty is tenable. It seems to be just another way of privatizing the gains for business while socializing the losses, whether through cash payments or paying for the effects of poverty.
Nor is just saying "well, new technologies will create new kinds of jobs" -- that's true, but saying "some new and different jobs will be created" seems to be a kind of a reliance on magical thinking.
Driverless trains have been around a while by SlithyMagister · 2014-10-10 02:58 · Score: 1

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada has had driverless trains since 1985
1. Re:Driverless trains have been around a while by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  And a non-trivial part of the overland rail network in London (a slightly more busy, complicated, old and crowded place than Vancouver) had driverless trains in 1987 -- the Docklands Light Railway.
  This is about the underground, where all-but-totally automated trains have existed for decades, but various complications including safety have prevented truly automated trains.
At least the layed off drivers will get NHS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 03:10 · Score: 0

At least the layed off drivers will get NHS unlike the usa.
1. Re:At least the layed off drivers will get NHS by oldmac31310 · 2014-10-10 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but in the US there is Cobra, so you get to pay a huge amount of money to have health insurance while you are unemployed! Awesome!
  
  --
  http://www.acetonestudio.com
2. Re:At least the layed off drivers will get NHS by HornWumpus · 2014-10-10 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Idiot. Cobra lets you retroactively buy insurance for 3 months after going off an employer plan.
  Being able to retroactively buy insurance IS FREE INSURANCE.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Unions by residents_parking · 2014-10-10 03:11 · Score: 1

Cue strikes in 3,2,1
Of course by kilodelta · 2014-10-10 03:14 · Score: 0

I despise most all of Symantecs products from their craptastic PGP implementation, drive encryption, etc. It's horrendous. It's why I went 100% Unix. Don't need Symantec at all for AV or firewall or PGP or encryption. It's built into Linux.
"inspired by aviation design" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 05:14 · Score: 0

open and airy interiors inspired by aviation design.

They haven't flown coach lately, have they.
1. Re:"inspired by aviation design" by Cyberdyne · 2014-10-11 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  open and airy interiors inspired by aviation design.
  They haven't flown coach lately, have they.
  Aircraft do look nice and airy on the inside - right up until you cram in extra rows of seats to make more money, then fill them up with people and luggage. Even in coach, I had some very comfortable long-haul flights in the months after 9/11 with an entire row of seats on a 777 to myself - of course, the airlines weren't quite as comfortable with the plane being that empty. (I'm told this is how Sean Connery flies: rather than pay for first class, just book a whole row in coach. Presumably the airline's perfectly happy with an empty seat, as long as it's being paid for.)
Isn't that lovely... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 07:05 · Score: 0

The worst train accident in decades in the US happened when the DC Metro trains were running on full automatic. Train A, stopped at the station, suddenly disappeared due to a degraded sensor. System didn't think that was unusual. Train B barreled through the station at full speed. NTSB had told them years
before not to run them things that way. 9 dead. Your tax dollars at work.
ME Helmet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 07:41 · Score: 0

Looks like something from Mass Effect.
Nothing to see from a technical POV here move away by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 21:39 · Score: 0

They didn't unveil any revolutionnary train here, they unveiled a design, and it is so conservative from a technical POW they didn't even bother to choose a manufacturer yet (usual suspects: Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, etc) because every single one of them has been able to build such trains for half a decade at least and they are already in operations all over the world.
Subway systems are so fucked-up people care more about the front design than the actual hardware, in fact I don't think manufacturers even bother to propose a standard front anymore they expect every municipality to commission their own and slap it on the same train as the next city.
They would never dream of doing the same scam for airplanes, people know A380 = Airbus Dreamliner = Boeing and interior is just plastics but here the tail wags the dog hapily.
Is slashdot even a technical site anymore?
I hope they don't run on Windows by Leofcwen · 2014-10-11 05:13 · Score: 1

I hope these trains will run on a *nix/Linux system and not Windows. The security and reliability problems would be horrendous if they chose the Microsoft offering...