|
Post by Jerome H on Jul 8, 2016 18:55:19 GMT
In the New Tube for London mock up videos, it shows stations being retrofitted with Platform Edge Doors after the new rolling stock is introduced with only double doors.
Is it likely the Victoria Line will receive Platform Edge Doors within the lifetime of the 2009 Stock's lifetime or will be goal be that the next Vicc stock will match NTFL specs and have Platform Doors to accommodate that?
With the NTFL design, would we expect the Jubille Line to always have stock matching the current 1996's or would the JLE stations have their PEDs changed for new trains in the future to match the NTFL vision?
I'm not asking in terms of hypothetical feasibility, but actual plans for new Platform Doors/expectations from those who know a bit more about the future of Platform Doors than me.
Thanks
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 8, 2016 19:29:08 GMT
Whilst I suspect it's an expensive job to reconfigure the PEDs on the JLE, weren't they tweaked when the 7th car was introduced?
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Jul 8, 2016 19:56:13 GMT
the JLE PEDS had provision for 7th car when its built so the PEDS was easily tweaked for new car addition
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 8, 2016 21:43:47 GMT
In the New Tube for London mock up videos, it shows stations being retrofitted with Platform Edge Doors after the new rolling stock is introduced with only double doors. Is it likely the Victoria Line will receive Platform Edge Doors within the lifetime of the 2009 Stock's lifetime or will be goal be that the next Vicc stock will match NTFL specs and have Platform Doors to accommodate that? With the NTFL design, would we expect the Jubille Line to always have stock matching the current 1996's or would the JLE stations have their PEDs changed for new trains in the future to match the NTFL vision? I'm not asking in terms of hypothetical feasibility, but actual plans for new Platform Doors/expectations from those who know a bit more about the future of Platform Doors than me. Thanks For the Victoria Line to have PEDS will require a business case for them but as the trains have only been in service for 7 out of their likely 50 year operation it wouldn't be ridiculous to consider their provision in a few years time. As the line gets used by ever increasing numbers of people and its already substandard width platforms get busier its likely there will soon be calls for PEDS.
Its likely that the last trains to ever be build for LUL that have individual cars will be the 2009 stock. When the 1996 stock are taken out of service its almost certain they will replace the PEDS as well as they will be unreliable and approaching the end of their usable life with the 96's. There are so many advantages of having the NTFL style train as there are more individual cars that result in them being able to corner faster and will be lighter as they will have less bogies. They also have space for air cooling and have more space for passengers as they will be totally walk through.
When the 1996 stock became 7 cars long they had to I believe only modify the software of the PEDS to get them to open all doors rather than just 6 cars worth of doors. I don't believe they had to physically change them.
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jul 8, 2016 22:48:11 GMT
PED's were introduced with the plan of a DTO network which are both ludicrous. It was and hopefully remains a vision in my view. A feasibility report was conducted which highlighted the technical aspects of implementing PED's and challenges in this scheme.
Furthermore, PED's: ..Can't be installed before preparations to infrastructure are in place and that the appropriate equipment is available (engineering stock) which both cost. ..Require maintenance and eventual replacement to accommodate the replacement of future rolling stock. ..Are a risk to safety for passengers boarding in crowded situations. ..Reduce flexibility in the event of an emergency whereby access to track would be required or if a train in a tunnel or partially on the platform had to be evacuated.
...all in all whilst defacing historic platforms and making more roles redundant on LU.
I'm also very aware of the befits of PED's like remedying overcrowding problems (short-term), and preventing 'one unders' from occuring (nearly). However, the cons outweigh the pros from my point of view.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 8, 2016 22:52:23 GMT
PED's were introduced with the plan of a DTO network which are both ludicrous. It was and hopefully remains a vision in my view. A feasibility report was conducted which highlighted the technical aspects of implementing PED's and challenges in this scheme. Furthermore, PED's: ..Can't be installed before preparations to infrastructure are in place and that the appropriate equipment is available (engineering stock) which both cost. ..Require maintenance and eventual replacement to accommodate the replacement of future rolling stock. ..Are a risk to safety for passengers boarding in crowded situations. ..Reduce flexibility in the event of an emergency whereby access to track would be required or if a train in a tunnel or partially on the platform had to be evacuated. ...all in all whilst defacing historic platforms and making more roles redundant on LU. I'm also very aware of the befits of PED's like remedying overcrowding problems (short-term), and preventing 'one unders' from occuring (nearly). However, the cons outweigh the pros from my point of view. In what ways do PEDS risk passenger safety I thought they solved all the safety problems. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jul 9, 2016 1:15:19 GMT
PED's were introduced with the plan of a DTO network which are both ludicrous. It was and hopefully remains a vision in my view. A feasibility report was conducted which highlighted the technical aspects of implementing PED's and challenges in this scheme. Furthermore, PED's: ..Can't be installed before preparations to infrastructure are in place and that the appropriate equipment is available (engineering stock) which both cost. ..Require maintenance and eventual replacement to accommodate the replacement of future rolling stock. ..Are a risk to safety for passengers boarding in crowded situations. ..Reduce flexibility in the event of an emergency whereby access to track would be required or if a train in a tunnel or partially on the platform had to be evacuated. ...all in all whilst defacing historic platforms and making more roles redundant on LU. I'm also very aware of the befits of PED's like remedying overcrowding problems (short-term), and preventing 'one unders' from occuring (nearly). However, the cons outweigh the pros from my point of view. In what ways do PEDS risk passenger safety I thought they solved all the safety problems. Thanks PED's are a risk to safety for passengers boarding in crowded situations because passengers will attempt to board a train regardless of the fact that they are going to obstruct the doors. These will always be the circumstances on a busy crowded train or even for a passenger trying to board a train as the doors are about to close. You can't deny that many customers will foolishly take the risk, and at the cost of hurting themselves, others or even damaging the doors. I once observed a customer at Canary Wharf board a crowded train with a backpack on. She tried squeezing into the train but her backpack was obstructing the train doors. The doors were reopened and immediately starting to close again. She turned to face the platform and then decided to get out whilst the doors were about to close. As the doors were closing, the PED closed on her shoulder but she managed to get back on the platform without hurting herself luckily.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 9, 2016 2:45:37 GMT
The Crossrail stations below ground will have PEDs which extend up into a fixture which goes up to ceiling height. This will have signage fixed to it as well as screens showing next train information.
The Piccadilly line will be getting PEDs similar to a type used in Paris. They won't be as high as the Jubilee line extension and will be easier to install.
They can be installed on the Victoria line but the platform edge area will need to be strengthened. There is some concern that they will reduce platform space as the line was built with everything on a smaller scale to save money.
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Jul 9, 2016 3:26:53 GMT
The Crossrail stations below ground will have PEDs which extend up into a fixture which goes up to ceiling height. This will have signage fixed to it as well as screens showing next train information. The Piccadilly line will be getting PEDs similar to a type used in Paris. They won't be as high as the Jubilee line extension and will be easier to install. Being pedantic, Crossrail will have Platform Screen Doors since they completely isolate the running tunnel and the platform passenger areas For the pic, the renderings look very tall
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 9, 2016 6:34:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 9, 2016 6:39:49 GMT
. When the 1996 stock are taken out of service its almost certain they will replace the PEDS as well as they will be unreliable and approaching the end of their usable life with the 96's. How could that be achieved in practice? Replacement of a fleet of rolling stock usually takes place over a lengthy period. But not a single ntfl could run on the Jubilee until the PEDs have been modified. And as soon as the first one is nmodified the 1996 stock would be unable to run. And changing the PEDs can't be done overnight anyway. The relatively simple job of modifying the W&C infrastructure to take 1992 stock required a complete shutdown of several months. I doubt that such a shutdown would be possible on the Jubilee.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 9, 2016 6:59:01 GMT
. When the 1996 stock are taken out of service its almost certain they will replace the PEDS as well as they will be unreliable and approaching the end of their usable life with the 96's. How could that be achieved in practice? Replacement of a fleet of rolling stock usually takes place over a lengthy period. But not a single ntfl could run on the Jubilee until the PEDs have been modified. And as soon as the first one is nmodified the 1996 stock would be unable to run. And changing the PEDs can't be done overnight anyway. The relatively simple job of modifying the W&C infrastructure to take 1992 stock required a complete shutdown of several months. I doubt that such a shutdown would be possible on the Jubilee. Totally agree, they have a lot of interfaces with the train and signalling. A big stretch from Everest changing your windows and doors in a day.
|
|
|
Post by tubetraveller on Jul 9, 2016 8:55:08 GMT
IIRC, Jubilee and Northern lines aren't included in the NTFL project. They'll be retaining the '96 and '95 stock for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 9, 2016 9:33:57 GMT
IIRC, Jubilee and Northern lines aren't included in the NTFL project. They'll be retaining the '96 and '95 stock for the foreseeable future. Sorry you don't read correctly. The recent responses are to this section higher up Its likely that the last trains to ever be build for LUL that have individual cars will be the 2009 stock. When the 1996 stock are taken out of service its almost certain they will replace the PEDS as well as they will be unreliable and approaching the end of their usable life with the 96's.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,397
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 9, 2016 10:01:04 GMT
IIRC, Jubilee and Northern lines aren't included in the NTFL project. They'll be retaining the '96 and '95 stock for the foreseeable future. Sorry you don't read correctly. The recent responses are to this section higher up Its likely that the last trains to ever be build for LUL that have individual cars will be the 2009 stock. When the 1996 stock are taken out of service its almost certain they will replace the PEDS as well as they will be unreliable and approaching the end of their usable life with the 96's. Yes, but the end of the design life for the 95 and 96 stocks is still a couple of decades away at least - there is a lot that may change between now and then.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 9, 2016 11:11:07 GMT
The NTFL feasibility report states "Platform Edge Doors - the NTfL Feasibility Study evaluated both full height Platform Edge Doors (PEDs) as installed on parts of the Jubilee line, and half height Passenger Safety Gates (PSGs) as installed on Paris Line 1, and concluded that full-height PEDs offer the best solution for NTfL". The NTFL video states that PEDS already introduced on the Jubilee line will be progressively deployed strongly suggesting they will be the full height variety.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jul 9, 2016 11:23:50 GMT
Does anyone else think that PED's completely change the whole character of The Underground?
If they save lives, it would be completely wrong to oppose them, but I find that despite (since I first encountered it) two complete changes of stock, and many changes to stations, 'The Underground' still retains the main core of its personality. Whenever I use the JL and am confronted by PED's, it just does not seem like The underground to me.
|
|
|
Post by tubetraveller on Jul 9, 2016 11:41:27 GMT
IIRC, Jubilee and Northern lines aren't included in the NTFL project. They'll be retaining the '96 and '95 stock for the foreseeable future. Sorry you don't read correctly. The recent responses are to this section higher up Its likely that the last trains to ever be build for LUL that have individual cars will be the 2009 stock. When the 1996 stock are taken out of service its almost certain they will replace the PEDS as well as they will be unreliable and approaching the end of their usable life with the 96's. My point was, since the Jubilee and Northern lines aren't part of NTfL, they may not necessarily share the same design characteristics, such as door placements. If the PEDs are due to be replaced around the same time as the trains, they could adapt the new trains to match the existing PEDs; they could install PEDs that work with both stocks; or they could get rid of PEDs altogether for the interim period
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 9, 2016 12:06:16 GMT
I think it's most likely that they will have to remove the PEDS on the Jubilee Line as the 1996 stock begin to be withdrawn and the new trains are introduced. This is because it would be madness to limit the design of the trains that will have a service life of 40/50 years down to the design of the PEDS that are currently in service. When the 1996 stock start getting replaced probably not long after the NTFL programme has been completed sometime in the late 2030's early 2040's the PEDS will likely be needing complete replacement also. The reason that new Jubilee line trains will almost certainly copy the design of the NTFL trains is because there is a strong desire to have walk through carriages and to increase capacity while generally maintaining the same length of trains. This is only possible by introducing NTFL style trains.
There will always be debate as to just how LUL will introduce new Jubilee line trains whilst simultaneously continuing to run the 1996 stock until they are all withdrawn. The only way I can see that they can feasibility do this is to remove the PEDS and have trains on the extension enter and leave platforms at a slower rate as to reduce droughts as the reason that PEDS were installed was because they saved money by not having to provide draught relief shafts. After the 1996 stock have been withdrawn they would then have to progressively deploy PEDS in the same way as they are planning to on the NTFL.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jul 9, 2016 12:30:46 GMT
Having just spent a totally unproductive ten minutes with my friend (Google, since you ask), plus having checked the abbreviations thread in 'Forum Rules ...', I'm going to have to ask here.
What the **** does NTFL stand for?
I did think it might mean "New Trains For London", but the phrase "progressively deploy PEDS in the same way as they are planning to on the NTFL" doesn't fit with that - you can't deploy PEDS on a train.
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Jul 9, 2016 12:49:38 GMT
New Tube For London. C411 you must pay more attention.
|
|
|
Post by rail2210 on Jul 9, 2016 12:50:34 GMT
Having just spent a totally unproductive ten minutes with my friend (Google, since you ask), plus having checked the abbreviations thread in 'Forum Rules ...', I'm going to have to ask here. What the **** does NTFL stand for? I did think it might mean "New Trains For London", but the phrase "progressively deploy PEDS in the same way as they are planning to on the NTFL" doesn't fit with that - you can't deploy PEDS on a train. Apparently it stands for 'New Tube For London' tfl.gov.uk/campaign/tube-improvements/the-future-of-the-tube/new-tube-for-london
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jul 9, 2016 13:21:18 GMT
New Tube For London. C411 you must pay more attention. You'd think I could have worked that out. Must be a bad brain day.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 9, 2016 13:39:28 GMT
you can't deploy PEDS on a train. Apparently it stands for 'New Tube For London' By analogy with NBFL - but with considerably more time spent on designing it. The actual Tubes (tunnels) will not be new, of course. Basically new trains, and there are proposals to deploy PEDs - not on the trains themselves of course, but their designs have to be mutually compatible.
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jul 9, 2016 13:54:30 GMT
Yes, Crossrail, a line that has been designed and built to include PED's which is not a challenge. Because the panels extend up to the ceiling, air that is pushed in as a result of the Piston Effect has to be vented out. Something which cannot be achieved on some older platforms without a major restructuring job, which is expensive.
.... and the half height PED's won't be any effective because people will still be able to climb over them which makes them pointless for preventing 'one-unders'.
May I also point out, many platforms are shared between both Tube-Gauge and Sub-Surface-Gauge trains so PED's will be pointless at some stations. Also, no, the Piccadilly and District can't switch places at Rayners Lane and Ealing Broadway. You'll have too many of one type of train on the Picadilly and not enough S's to cover the District to Uxbridge. More can be ordered which is expensive.
Hmm, I've certainly used the words expensive and pointless a lot. Maybe because that's all it is, an expensive and pointless luxury.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jul 9, 2016 14:01:23 GMT
... and the half height PED's won't be any effective because people will still be able to climb over them which makes them pointless for preventing 'one-unders'. Except that any driver seeing someone on the wrong side of a PED, or climbing over it, might well consider now would be a very good time to test the train's emergency braking system. True, someone really determined could find a way, but it makes stations less 'attractive'.
|
|
|
Post by rail2210 on Jul 9, 2016 14:02:34 GMT
you can't deploy PEDS on a train. Apparently it stands for 'New Tube For London' By analogy with NBFL - but with considerably more time spent on designing it. The actual Tubes (tunnels) will not be new, of course. Basically new trains, and there are proposals to deploy PEDs - not on the trains themselves of course, but their designs have to be mutually compatible.What do you mean by 'deploy PEDS'? Unless you have quoted my post by mistake?
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 9, 2016 14:18:00 GMT
Does anyone else think that PED's completely change the whole character of The Underground? If they save lives, it would be completely wrong to oppose them, but I find that despite (since I first encountered it) two complete changes of stock, and many changes to stations, 'The Underground' still retains the main core of its personality. Whenever I use the JL and am confronted by PED's, it just does not seem like The underground to me. It will definitely change the character of the underground. I think it will make the tube look smarter and will certainly give large parts of the network an heir of sophistication and swankiness (actual word) that the JLE particularly stations like Westminster have. PEDS also have an effect beyond how the actually look, personally I feel safer on JLE platforms practically at peak times as you know their isn't any danger of falling on the tack or someone bumping into you.
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jul 9, 2016 16:32:03 GMT
True, someone really determined could find a way, but it makes stations less 'attractive'. Yes, I agree it makes stations look less appealing. The Leslie Green style Platforms would certainly loose a lot of it's detail in the upgrade and a lot of the tiling would be hidden. I for one thing that the JLE Stations are absolutely crude and soulless. It's gloomy cold and depressing and you can't see the trains.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 9, 2016 16:32:07 GMT
.... and the half height PED's won't be any effective because people will still be able to climb over them which makes them pointless for preventing 'one-unders'. They would however act as a very good deterrent and make people think twice before attempting to jump in front of a train. They would still be useless though with regards to stopping the bursts of air that you can get at stations which was the main reason for PEDs on the Jubilee line extension (or so we are always told)
|
|