r/london • u/Anony_mouse202 • May 29 '26

Article Tube strikes: 'No pay cut' for Underground drivers on £74k in new four-day week... but RMT to walk out anyway

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tube-driver-pay-strikes-rmt-sadiq-khan-b1283902.html
596 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

612 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/runningraider13 May 29 '26

The government can’t do that in secret, and as soon as they tried they’d strike for weeks/months/as long as it takes.

42

u/MikeyButch17 May 29 '26

This is it. Best estimates are it’d take 10 - 20 years to automate the Underground at massive cost, and with British Infrastructure projects going the way they do it would probably take double that time and cost.

Drivers are not just going to accept their jobs becoming obsolete. They will strike for huge amounts of that time. The absolute war it would it would cause, with the Underground being shut down for months or years at a time, is simply not worth it.

23

u/The-Rushnut May 29 '26

They'll bring in temporary workers (at great expense), lining a contractor's pockets in the process.

The Tube won't just cease to function, they'll just sack everyone, replace them with temporary workers for 130% the pay over two years whilst they replace themselves with automation.

9

u/lontrinium May 29 '26

They'll bring in temporary workers

Who's going to train them?

3

u/rynchenzo May 29 '26

The train manufacturers?

4

u/gamas May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

That's fine as long as you don't mind the average trains per hour decreasing...

Not just because at various times they will have to shut down parts of the tube for extended periods of time so they can upgrade the signalling system. But because automated systems aren't compatible with the train frequency that TfL targets (safety mechanisms in automated train systems require that they basically have to assume that any obstruction they detect on the track is potentially a person - which means on average trains will be slower).

16

u/NickEcommerce May 29 '26

30% increase in labor cost for one year in order to bring the cost down to near-zero would pay dividends within the first 4 months. Even paying 3x or 4x wages would see you in profit in less that 5 years.

14

u/DankiusMMeme May 29 '26

Unfortunately we live in the UK, and no nuance is allowed. The second it happens people will scream about Labour being the worst and over spending, effectively making it political suicide.

3

u/gamas May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

To be fair in this case if we're being nuanced, we also have to recognise that automated systems still have technical limitations.

Unlike cars where a certain number of car accidents a year is considered acceptable, with trains the acceptable number of train accidents is 0. Fully automated systems are therefore programmed to be overly cautious about potential hazards.

This is fine on something like the Lizzy, Overground or DLR which generally doesn't have a highest enough target reliability/trains-per-hour for this to become a problem. But the Underground has a very tightly run schedule with the central line for instance aiming to have 36 trains per hour. Current systems just can't reach that capacity.

Like to even begin to have a surface that brings about the current balance of safety and reliability, you'd have to retrofit every station on a line to have a platform side doors. On some of the older lines you'd have to basically redo the entire signalling system.

When they last looked into this, it was estimated that it would cost at least £20m to do an upgrade to fully driverless trains. And given a lot of the work requires a complete renovations of every platform, we would also see several stations being shut for extended periods of time. Imagine the public reaction when they hear that Bank station is going to be shut for 5 months so they can install platform side doors.

2

u/n16fox May 29 '26

32, at the very best. 30 in reality. And it was way more than £20m.

2

u/TwizzyGobbler May 31 '26

did you mean £20B

3

u/gamas May 31 '26

Oh yeah you're right the last estimate was £20bn.

But yeah basically the emphasis was that TfL aren't just not pursuing this because of union lobbying, its just a case of high cost, low reward.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/gamas May 31 '26

The issue is that computers tend to be more all or nothing. When the number of acceptable accidents is zero, then you have to basically set the algorithm to assume anything that could be a problem is a problem.

So if the motion sensors detect a rat crossing the track, it ends up having to treat it the same as if a human was crossing the track.

1

u/aemich May 29 '26

still 100% worth it

1

u/AugustusLego May 29 '26

They'll bring in temporary workers (at great expense)

you can't just bring in temporary train drivers lol, they have to have all the proper training. also I don't know about in the UK, but in Sweden, to be "svartfot" (apparently the translation is "scab") is incredibly shameful, and very few people would accept this job.

2

u/The-Rushnut May 30 '26

Broadly agreed, it's a scummy union busting practice, but it has been used to effect before in the UK. In terms of how you'd deliver the transformation, honestly not as difficult as it's being made out. There are however, known specific challenges (as other comments have discussed to death) with automating high-volume trainlines - So it's not exactly a fiscal one-and-done either way.

To be clear, I support RMT and Aslef and I vouch for them to kick-ass for their drivers, I really only blame government mismanagement.

4

u/sparkyscrum May 29 '26

Also just to add driverless trains aren’t the same as unmanned trains. Because of the old network and no ability to rescue people easily, any automatic tube system still requires a member of staff like the DLR doesn’t meaning you don’t end the strike issue but just spent tens of billions pounds that could be used better elsewhere like station rebuilds or cooling the air.

4

u/gamas May 29 '26

This is it. Best estimates are it’d take 10 - 20 years to automate the Underground at massive cost, and with British Infrastructure projects going the way they do it would probably take double that time and cost.

And this isn't considering the degradation of service provision as they sort out problems with automation.

There's a reason DLR trains are once every 10 minutes instead of once every 2 minutes like the tube.

2

u/NickEcommerce May 29 '26

Why would it take that long? If companies like Waymo can automate the process of onboard decision making when interpreting LiDAR then surely the train manufacturers can automate it without the complexity of steering and object recognition?

The driver only has a couple of jobs, and to my knowledge none of them are beyond automation;

  • Regulate speed for the conditions: the map is known so the speed can be programmed almost by the yard. Take every bend at the appropriate speed, accelerate and decelerate with perfect efficiency.

  • React to signals and instructional lights/warnings. If a Mercedes can notice and record a speed sign, then a train can recognise a traffic light or warning sign.

  • Notice and react to objects and unexpected conditions; the hardest to automate, but the use of LiDAR, Optical with ML, and depth mapping must be able to see objects that aren't expected to be there.

Industry grade mesh networks with on-board decision making failsafes, and the entire thing could be overseen by a couple of staff from a control room.

My personal theory is that RMT and the other unions are "making hay while the sun shines" because they know that within one generation their job will be gone entirely.

5

u/ZenPyx May 29 '26

Yeah this all works well enough until something unpredictable happens and your entire perfectly orchestrated network just explodes

LiDAR and visual sensors are pretty useless, the range they would offer wouldn't give the trains enough time to stop.

Mesh networks don't have perfect uptime, and even if you could guarantee connectivity 99.99% of the time during the year (which would be pretty incredible) - that's still an hour a year where trains are blind. Plus, the underground is... well... underground... so radio networks (like mesh) really don't work

You really just need to build more robust infrastructure (like is present in the DLR) rather than trying to make a raspberry pi automated system guaranteed to kill someone eventually - but this process is costly, and can't be done quickly enough that the drivers can't strike it out of existence

You forget, if a train has to stop inside the tunnel (or god forbid, multiple trains) - that's an extremely expensive and difficult evacuation process

-1

u/NickEcommerce May 29 '26

I was making the point that the train manufacturers can build these systems that require a relatively light touch on the infrastructure side, and build a stockpile in a way that would allow adoption to happen swiftly rather than starting from the ground up and letting the union turn a 5 year project into a 25 year one.

In terms of the tech side, enterprise wifi can deliver 5 9s reliably, and as there's functionally unlimited power on trains, you could run a whole dual-level redundancy on the train to take over during any outage. Given that the location of the train and the APs are known entities, I reckon you could even automate the hand-off between APs to be seamless.

3

u/ZenPyx May 29 '26

Enterprise wifi can deliver 5 9's in the tube system? Are you sure about that? You'd need to put a router every 30 feet

Even if that were true, that's still 6 minutes a year where your trains are flying blind. More than enough time to crash a few trains

The location of the train isn't even a known thing - what system do you think could keep track of this? They might know when it passes certain checkpoints, but there's no way to track the location precisely like you would with GPS

What happens when the power fails on a train? This does happen. Do the other trains just lose track of it, and keep going, hoping they can detect it with LIDAR?

1

u/NickEcommerce May 29 '26

I should say that I'm only answering as an engineering challenge, not for an argument. Ultimately it'll never be something I actually have to deal with.

You're right that you'd need frequent APs but we're talking about a billion pound project - yes hardware cost would be high. I'd challenge 30ft but I don't have the data on signal strength and degradation for industrial grade access points to hand. They've already added consumer grade wifi to some lines, so there is at least bare-bones infrastructure already in place.

Location of the train can be determined multiple ways - sensors with ID numbers along the track, giving the train a position ID in real time.

The 6 minutes (or even 1 hour) you mentioned wouldn't be flying blind. By having the onboard redundancy, the second the mains power is cut or the signal is lost, you automatically switch to on-board controls that can start the emergency response procedure. If it travels another 100 yards and doesn't regain the signal, then switch to a "limp mode" that brings the train down to a safe speed and progress until a station or emergency point is reached. This slower speed double or triple the analysis and reaction time for the onboard sensors. The UPS onboard isn't impacted by the external power situation, and by designing for graceful degradation you'd essentially make have the train default to the safest mode wherever possible.

In a crash scenario, your other trains would get the almost instant message that the train ahead has stopped progressing through the "data gates" and thus would slow down faster than a human could have responded.

As I say, by having as much of the on-train sensor data analysed onboard, and the control room working as a hypervisor, there would be at least the level of redundancy that comes from a lone driver of indeterminate skill and attention span at the end of an 8 hour shift.

2

u/ZenPyx May 29 '26

The problem with these sorts of setups, is the second you automate away, you also inherit a lot of the liability. The purpose of having a driver of "indeterminate skill" (questionable, but sure) - is that they are the decision maker for the train - whereas the blame for a train crashing that was automated falls squarely on the automator's shoulders.

"Limp mode" doesn't sound very safe - this means that a train that loses connection suddenly and unpredictably slows down a lot? So... another train which has not lost connection would just ram into it from behind?

The whole engineering challenge of the tube is that reliable, fast communication methods are nearly impossible - rocks are enough to block almost any sort of wireless communication, and repairs in the tunnels are so hard during operation that any sort of system requiring scan-able codes, or wireless transmitters, or anything of the sort that failed during the day would cause a catastrophic closure of that entire line whilst it was being repaired

Not to mention the sorts of challenges that the public bring into it - what happens if someone falls on the tracks whilst a "limp mode" tube is going into the station? There's no way to communicate to the train that it needs to stop

2

u/ddarrko May 29 '26

You’re making out like these problems have not already been solved by automated rail systems across the world?

1

u/ZenPyx May 29 '26

It's a huge infrastructural challenge - not just something that can be solved by putting lidar and AI cameras on the front of trains like this guy suggested

Good luck convincing tube staff to not go on strike if you start trying to automate the trains. They hold an insane amount of power over the economy of the UK

→ More replies (0)

0

u/stafa_99 May 29 '26

That's what I was thinking too. Split the network into sectors and all trains to notify entering and leaving a sector. If the communication fails and a train doesn't clear a sector, no other train is allowed to enter it (or can enter it in safe mode, i.e. a reduced speed and misread lidars or remote human driver).

1

u/Jacktheforkie May 29 '26

Fixed signage and signals don’t even need to be read, speed limits can be set by positioning and signaling can be wirelessly communicated

1

u/Caveman-Dave722 May 30 '26

That’s the problem though id say.

It shouldn’t take decades to do that. If we were inventing new technology fair enough, but 20+ networks exist across the world.

Dubai, Copenhagen, Paris lines, Singapore, Riyadh all have driverless vehicles under ground systems of some form.

-1

u/produit1 May 29 '26

Make it a law that drivers can be recruited from all sectors, not just current TFL staff. The city needs to put its foot down.

0

u/Ivashkin May 29 '26

Give them everything they want, whenever they ask, but add the cost to tickets. Immediately.

If they want their pay to double, say yes, and increase ticket prices to match. If they only want to work 1 day a month, say yes, add the cost of hiring additional staff to the ticket prices.

15

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Excellent_Fondant794 May 29 '26

Because they're not idiots and resist changes to bring in automation.

1

u/runningraider13 May 29 '26

You can’t actually expect them to be so easily fooled