No, it doesn't mean "remote drivers". Yes, an automated network is going to have people monitoring it and the ability of remote control for emergencies or failures, but that's not the same as "remote drivers" for normal operations.
(in the case of DLR, the staff on the train can take control if needed, but other networks don't have staff on every train)
I know this is getting into "technically correct" territory, but I think its reasonably important to qualify. As we are getting into AI automates <Hardthing> when it turns out that actually <Hardthing> was largely automated already.
For the tube, places like the victoria, jubilee, the driver doesn't actually "drive" if that makes any sense. They open the doors and hold down a button that indicates the line is clear. The driver has no real control over speed under normal circumstances.
for the tubes, the real blocker to "Driverless" trains is re-boring the tunnel to allow a walkway for evacuation.
The DLR is centrally controlled for most of the time. In the sense that there is a central operator that opens and closes the doors and tells the train to move to the next station.
the only difference is that there is no requirement for someone to hold down a button for the train to continue, the deadmans switch as it were.
> In the sense that there is a central operator that opens and closes the doors and tells the train to move to the next station.
Is it that remote controlled? Other systems I'm familiar with don't need a human for that.
> As we are getting into AI automates <Hardthing> when it turns out that actually <Hardthing> was largely automated already.
Oh, I fully agree with that point. You don't need AI-hype to automate a subway system, it's in many ways in the real of "classic" industrial automation.
(in the case of DLR, the staff on the train can take control if needed, but other networks don't have staff on every train)