Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,443
|
Post by Chris M on May 19, 2011 15:40:58 GMT
Would one really want passengers to be communicating with the driver in this way? How is it different to a passenger alarm on a train? Or to a passenger pushing an emergency stop button on an ATO line while the train is departing a station? Platform buttons that may/may not stop a train are not a perfect solution to a problem that may/may not be an issue. Why is being able to stop a train leaving a platform an issue on ATO lines but not on manual lines? The driver's (lack of) vision of the platform is not affected by ATO[/quote] I'm not sure that red lights would be appropriate as they could be confused with signals. The original OMO red cross on white light with yellow diamond display board might be more appropriate. Fair enough - it matters little to the idea what the display actually is. Every marker board is a lot of new signals whether they are simple lamps or something more, apart from initial outlay and installation there is the question of the extra cost of additional maintenance, routine testing etc. This is true of any system, but the simpler the system the lower the costs will be. What if the lamps should fail 'ON' The first thing that comes to mind is requiring someone on the platform who can contact the driver if needed, connect radio comes to mind as a way to achieve this. They need to stand somewhere where they could see the leading car number and the platform edge. Drivers would need to be informed of this, but this can be done in exactly the same ways as failures of other station equipment are done. just how quickly should a driver react to such lamps. Lots of possibilities to consider requiring new rules, regulations and procedures. In terms of how to react, that's simple - react exactly as they do now when they get a PEA while in the same area. Without knowing the wording of the current procedures it may be as simple as adding the words "or if the marker board lights illuminate," so no new procedures, rules or regulations required for that. Would the cost be worth it for the relatively negligible number of incidents that one is attempting to mitigate. I think a risk analysis would show that it isn't. The money would be far better spent educating joe public to take more care, act more responsibly and accept full responsibility for his/her own actions. I'm just outlining a simple way it could be done if needed, not advocating that is should be done. It does seem odd to me that it is deemed necessary for such a system to be in place on ATO lines but not on manual ones. edit: Fix last quote so I'm not attributing my words to railtechnician edit 2: use proboards syntax, not Wikipedia syntax
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 4:01:48 GMT
What do you estimate the cost of implementing these proposals would be?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,443
|
Post by Chris M on May 20, 2011 7:28:37 GMT
I wouldn't have a clue where to start coming up with an estimate to be honest.
In terms of installation (i.e. excluding design and maintenance), I reckon it would involve The purchase of however many lights are required - you need 6 × the number of platforms (if every marker, not necessarily required). I reckon that there are up to 212 stations that would possibly this (i.e. excluding the ATO lines as they have a system, and the northern which is going ATO anyway.) At an average of 3 platforms per station (both ends of some platforms need doing) that makes 636ish platforms or 3816 lights, so say 4000 to allow for things like spares. Then you'll need the buttons, say three per platform, so about 2000 And the wiring to connect it up, say 300 metres per platform at a guess, which is just under 191 km, so let's get 250 km (probably work out cheapest to use a type of cabling already used for something else so you only need one stock of spare) Then you've got the physical cost of installing it And the money to pay the people who are installing it and testing it (makes sense to me for these to be the same people)
So that's what I think would be involved in installing it, but as I have no idea how much any of these elements would cost any figure I come up with would be a pure guess - and I'm notably bad at guessing numbers!
However, it wouldn't just be the cost, it would be whether the benefits were deemed worth it, and I don't think all the figures that would need to be used are going to be in the public domain.
It wont be cheap, but it would be cheaper than a new set of signals for every platform.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 20, 2011 9:14:51 GMT
I wouldn't have a clue where to start coming up with an estimate to be honest. In terms of installation (i.e. excluding design and maintenance), I reckon it would involve The purchase of however many lights are required - you need 6 × the number of platforms (if every marker, not necessarily required). I reckon that there are up to 212 stations that would possibly this (i.e. excluding the ATO lines as they have a system, and the northern which is going ATO anyway.) At an average of 3 platforms per station (both ends of some platforms need doing) that makes 636ish platforms or 3816 lights, so say 4000 to allow for things like spares. Then you'll need the buttons, say three per platform, so about 2000 And the wiring to connect it up, say 300 metres per platform at a guess, which is just under 191 km, so let's get 250 km (probably work out cheapest to use a type of cabling already used for something else so you only need one stock of spare) Then you've got the physical cost of installing it And the money to pay the people who are installing it and testing it (makes sense to me for these to be the same people) So that's what I think would be involved in installing it, but as I have no idea how much any of these elements would cost any figure I come up with would be a pure guess - and I'm notably bad at guessing numbers! However, it wouldn't just be the cost, it would be whether the benefits were deemed worth it, and I don't think all the figures that would need to be used are going to be in the public domain. It wont be cheap, but it would be cheaper than a new set of signals for every platform. You're right, it won't be cheap, nothing done at LUL is cheap! You wouldn't believe the hoops that have to be jumped through to get approval to use anything 'new' to the railway so one might expect existing kit to be found to do the job but if that was not the case there would be an overhead cost in terms of evaluation and approval. Then there is the stores element which is a tin of worms in itself as far as procurement is concerned, lead times, draw off etc and the cost of storing the spares too! I'm afraid working out the basics with simple arithmetic usually doesn't come anywhere near the costs of installation and commissioning. Mind you it also depends who does the work, the in-house method always added another layer of financial complexity as the budget was divi'd up into cost centres to control the various works with the financial section having to be paid as well! It could be better or worse with a private contractor, probably worse as we live in rip-off Britain. As for guessing you'd probably do quite well thinking of a reasonable number and multiplying by 10 then adding 50% overhead for contingency. In the internal market money is treated as confetti ! I spent a short while doing estimating. One small job I estimated at £1m including contingency in the late 1980s was rejected on the grounds that it was not enough as all the external bidders had bid considerably more and indeed one of the external bidders got the job.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 20, 2011 9:27:25 GMT
Would one really want passengers to be communicating with the driver in this way? How is it different to a passenger alarm on a train? Or to a passenger pushing an emergency stop button on an ATO line while the train is departing a station? Why is being able to stop a train leaving a platform an issue on ATO lines but not on manual lines? The driver's (lack of) vision of the platform is not affected by ATO Fair enough - it matters little to the idea what the display actually is. This is true of any system, but the simpler the system the lower the costs will be. The first thing that comes to mind is requiring someone on the platform who can contact the driver if needed, connect radio comes to mind as a way to achieve this. They need to stand somewhere where they could see the leading car number and the platform edge. Drivers would need to be informed of this, but this can be done in exactly the same ways as failures of other station equipment are done. In terms of how to react, that's simple - react exactly as they do now when they get a PEA while in the same area. Without knowing the wording of the current procedures it may be as simple as adding the words "or if the marker board lights illuminate," so no new procedures, rules or regulations required for that. Would the cost be worth it for the relatively negligible number of incidents that one is attempting to mitigate. I think a risk analysis would show that it isn't. The money would be far better spent educating joe public to take more care, act more responsibly and accept full responsibility for his/her own actions. I'm just outlining a simple way it could be done if needed, not advocating that is should be done. It does seem odd to me that it is deemed necessary for such a system to be in place on ATO lines but not on manual ones. edit: Fix last quote so I'm not attributing my words to railtechnician edit 2: use proboards syntax, not Wikipedia syntax [/quote] There is a great deal of difference between an automatic failsafe emergency stop system and one that requires driver reaction. As for PEA on a train the driver and passenger are both on the train, the driver already has a set of rules to work to. I don't know that the emergency stop system was deemed to be necessary on ATO lines, I do think it was seen as a good idea as it cost little to implement i.e. the technology to do it was inherent in the signalling system. Don't forget that OMO was installed on the Met/District but was never implented, thus it was not perhaps the good idea that you believe it to be. From a safety standpoint such a system would have been installed long ago had it been deemed to be necessary. I see nothing whatsoever odd about the lack of such a system on manual lines. These days everyone seems to be looking for problems to fit a solution to, it's another form of the insane and ludicrous political correctness which has grown like a cancer to blight the country today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 11:14:19 GMT
An awful lot of money and time installing a system that would be redundant once new trains with in-cab CCTV and ATO were delivered, let’s be optimistic and say that will happen in early to mid 2020s.
Hmmmmm..........
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 20, 2011 13:23:05 GMT
An awful lot of money and time installing a system that would be redundant once new trains with in-cab CCTV and ATO were delivered, let’s be optimistic and say that will happen in early to mid 2020s. Hmmmmm.......... Absolutely, I couldn't agree more, however, I will always believe that building rolling stock and signalling systems from a limited set of interchangeable components and modules would be the best way forward instead of each line or group doing its own thing. There are distinct cost benefits to standardisation but that's a topic for another thread!
|
|