Here's a list of places for you to avoid (granted, not all of them run in a tunnel): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...

In train accidents, usually the first compositions are the most badly hit. The train driver is the most susceptible to die. You're better assisted by a remote operator...

That's in the very narrow situation of a head-on collision, something I don't think has happened on the tube in my lifetime. I'm talking about any kind of general emergency. I remember 7/7/05 like it was yesterday.

The 1975 Moorgate accident [0] was a single train accident that killed 43 people including the driver, who failed to brake his train as he approached a dead end.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorgate_tube_crash

Anything from a more relevant era, perhaps one in which passengers aboard an underground train weren't allowed to smoke a cigar?

> Anything from a more relevant era

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_Underground_acc...

Incidentally, I narrowly avoided one of these accidents: The Kings Cross fire of 1987 [1] which killed 31 people. This was caused by a fire under a (wooden) escalator that hadn't been cleaned. I passed through about an hour before the fire started. I was returning from a conference in London. A friend and I had planned to have a quick pint before travelling back but he felt ill so we didn't. Otherwise we would have been right in it. This was before mobile phones so my wife saw the event on the news and was of course desperately concerned that I had been it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Cross_fire

This subthread you are commenting on is about head-on collisions. There have been none since 1975 and I think you will agree that given that passengers on that train were wearing hats and smoking pipes, it's not particularly relevant to any kind of modern railway.

>> I'm talking about any kind of general emergency.

Hence me posting the list of general accidents

> The train driver is the most susceptible to die. You're better assisted by a remote operator

The driver didn't die in any of the recent incidents, so they would still be in place to manage the situation.

Interestingly, 7/7/05 isn't on the list, presumably because it wasn't an accident. That's exactly the kind of incident that is relevant in the context of this parent thread.

It would be interesting to where on the train is statistically the most survivable.

> Interestingly, 7/7/05 isn't on the list, presumably because it wasn't an accident

Yes, would also be interesting to know how many crime / related incidents are 'managed' by crew or station staff.

There's a list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_Underground_acc...

Assuming you've read the list, you will know that the answer is no. No head-on tube collisions in my lifetime or in any other relevant modern era of any definition.

Even on a derailment, the driver seems also likely to die. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_Metro_derailment

> I want there to be a trained, responsible member of staff in place to manage the situation

There will be. The article states that the trains will still have an onboard attendant.

As the article also states, there will be no point at all in moving to onboard attendants because the onboard attendants will strike just the same as drivers do.

This isn't really the argument though. Sure, we want a member of staff to help but they could be a £30K train manager instead of a £70K driver.

As the article explains, the train managers will strike just the same as drivers do, leaving us in exactly the same situation as before.

Not exactly the same situation. Less wages to pay, less pension debts to fund.

If there are still strikes then it is the same situation. Your plan solves nothing, for reasons both the article and I have outlined already. If we put you in charge tomorrow to execute your plan of moving from £70k drivers to £30k hi-vis vest-wearers, you would cause weeks of strikes, massive disruption and solve nothing.

One of cost of a few weeks of strikes to reduce cost of drivers by over half? Sign me up. Also the unions strikes are selfish in nature, they all team up to support one another to keep remuneration artificially high by holding the transport system to ransom anytime sometime tries correct it. The Tube Mafia would be a more apt name.

How badly paid do you want the people responsible for your safety to be?

A 30K train manager is still more than a 25K bus driver.

And there are a lot more road accidents than train accidents.

The last metro crash in Paris, quite a few years back, was due to the driver overspeeding in a curve for some reason.

Lol, what are they going to do? Keep you calm? The situation would most likely be outside of their control.

Yes, one of the reasons would be to keep the 1200 people on the train calm. It's important in an emergency for someone to be in charge of the situation. What's wrong with that?

Using a rough number for a yearly travel card, 1200 * £2000 = £2.4m yearly revenue from those passengers aboard that train. I think we can spare £60k for the driver.

Doesn't always work though. It might help but there are plenty of times where passengers take things into their own hands and follow survival instinct against the advice of a driver, both above and below ground.

During the July 7 bombings the train drivers led passengers out of trains and out exits. I would be glad to have someone familiar with that process on hand in the middle of that situation.

Actually, yes, British people do rather respond well to calm people with authority during a crisis.

Then you shouldn't use the tube, should you ? The argument that they are trained, responsible and competent is only used to justify their benefits. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

And I want one man for each 20 people "trapped" underground. Scratch that. One man for each 5 users. All of them paid minimum wage and doing absolutely nothing for 99.9% of the time. Otherwise it's unsafe. It's that simple. (/s).