Comments on: Transit considering more conductor-less trains

By: With money tight, has OPTO’s time come? :: Second Ave. Sagas

With money tight, has OPTO’s time come? :: Second Ave. Sagas — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:21:32 +0000

[...] nearly agreed to allow the MTA to move ahead with OPTO plans, and as late as May, Transit was moving ahead with OPTO plans. But two events put this off the table. First, the TWU’s rank-and-file nearly revolted. As a [...]

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:10:41 +0000

They’re less likely to fail than humans who text message on the job, though.

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:11:47 +0000

On the London Underground, all trains are OPTO. This didn’t seem to pose too much of a problem for the evacuations after the 7/7 bombings. Likewise, Moscow has OPTO on almost all the metro lines, and this was not a problem in the terrorist attacks there either.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:16:31 +0000

Even if the trains were fully automated, computers–and the people who operate them–do fail and there is just as much chance for an accident as ever.

By: herenthere

herenthere — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:39:49 +0000

With Communications Based Train Control (CBTC), currently successfully in use on the L line, even if the driver were incapacitated, the train would still be able to run safely by itself. This type of Automated Train Operation is already in place in numerous cities around the world. The safety issue would of course be helped by having articulated train cars (connected like the double-length buses) but as The Transport Politic reported, US transit systems just don't get it.

By: Veritas

Veritas — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:46:54 +0000

I wonder if a driverless train could in some instances be safer. In Boston last week, there was a crash on the Green Line when the driver of the train was texting and missed a red light. By the time he looked up, he was too close to the train in front of him to stop. If that driver didn’t have control of the train, the crash would have been avoided.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:34:17 +0000

So it basically looks as though the June 5, 1995 accident on the Williamsburg Bridge was the last Transit accident in which passengers were hurt and the motorman was incapacitated or killed. Considering the number of train rides since then, the cost/benefit analysis in that regard clearly favors eliminating the conductor.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:29:58 +0000

Here is a list of subway accidents (it's cleaned up, not too morbid!). According to memory and reports I can dig up, the most recent one was in November 2007 and involved an M train at Chambers St which overshot the end of the track and hit the bumper-block. I don't think there were passengers on-board, but the operator was trapped in the cab for awhile.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:02:26 +0000

Just out of curiosity, Josh, and to play devil’s advocate a bit: When was the last time the MTA suffered through an incident that involved an incapacitated train driver?

By: AlexB

AlexB — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:59:46 +0000

I agree 100% with Sam. Most systems in the world operate with OPTO as the standard, not the exception. If they need someone on board to maintain safety, I would prefer a police officer who goes from car to car, not a conductor. It would be infinitely more effective at maintaining safety and yes, preventing terrorism. Now, if only we could get those pesky underground radios to work…

If it takes time for the equipment and contractual changes necessary to remove the conductor, fine, but it should happen eventually. Why should we maintain a system with no intention to update it? It is proven to be outdated by examples all over the world.