Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2016 17:03:37 GMT
Hong Kong is the only place where Platform Edge Doors (Full Height to the Ceiling too) have been retro-fitted to an operational metro system network - it took about a decade of work though. Work begin shortly after 1998, and was substantially completed by 2012.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 9, 2016 17:21:19 GMT
Well if London Underground ever want to run trains without drivers they will need to have installed PEDS so it will be likely high up on the list of things for them to implement as part of the NTFL programme. Also are they just planning to fit PEDS on the underground stations and not on stations like Stratford Central line?
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Jul 9, 2016 17:37:55 GMT
Also are they just planning to fit PEDS on the underground stations and not on stations like Stratford Central line? If we follow the JLE as an example, above ground stations don't feature PEDs. Not sure if this has to do with air circulation on the platforms since they won't have air-con or the fact that if someone is on the tracks there is significantly more places for them to flee to. If PEDS were added to above ground stations, the passenger area would probably need to be completely enclosed. 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. IMO the best way to keep some of the character of old stations would be to have the PEDS not be metal, but to draw from one of the colors of the heritage tiles at the platform and colors the PED frames to match 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. Wouldn't the doors themselves and windows an frames be fine, it'd be some of the motors and electrics that would need to be repaired? 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.If we follow the JLE as an example, above ground stations don't feature PEDs. That would mean none of the Uxbridge branch would have PEDs. Also any of the district/piccadilly line above ground stations would also probably not receive PEDs based on that model. I'm not sure if I've missed something that mentioned above ground stations.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 9, 2016 17:55:55 GMT
Also are they just planning to fit PEDS on the underground stations and not on stations like Stratford Central line? If we follow the JLE as an example, above ground stations don't feature PEDs. Not sure if this has to do with air circulation on the platforms since they won't have air-con or the fact that if someone is on the tracks there is significantly more places for them to flee to. If PEDS were added to above ground stations, the passenger area would probably need to be completely enclosed. 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. IMO the best way to keep some of the character of old stations would be to have the PEDS not be metal, but to draw from one of the colors of the heritage tiles at the platform and colors the PED frames to match 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. Wouldn't the doors themselves and windows an frames be fine, it'd be some of the motors and electrics that would need to be repaired? 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.If we follow the JLE as an example, above ground stations don't feature PEDs. That would mean none of the Uxbridge branch would have PEDs. Also any of the district/piccadilly line above ground stations would also probably not receive PEDs based on that model. I'm not sure if I've missed something that mentioned above ground stations. The only reason the JLE has PEDS is so they didn't have to chamfer the ends of the running tunnels and so they didn't have to provide draught relief shafts. The NTFL programme is different though as the trains eventually will be run without drivers so I just wondered if there were plans to install PEDS on above ground stations as risk mitigation will be required against one unders on all stations.
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Jul 9, 2016 19:15:04 GMT
in copegahgen metro - when its was first built the overground stations had no PEDS but later they decided to install PEDs at airport station - that was overground with full screen but bit later on they started installing platform half height screen doors on all overground stations
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2016 19:32:14 GMT
Also are they just planning to fit PEDS on the underground stations and not on stations like Stratford Central line? If we follow the JLE as an example, above ground stations don't feature PEDs. Not sure if this has to do with air circulation on the platforms since they won't have air-con or the fact that if someone is on the tracks there is significantly more places for them to flee to. If PEDS were added to above ground stations, the passenger area would probably need to be completely enclosed. Yeah, as will said, the oft-quoted reason (also mentioned earlier by domh245) for PEDs on the JLE was so that they could avoid the intense drafts caused by the piston effect as trains travel through the tunnels without having to install draft relief shafts and chamfer the tunnels. The piston effect is caused by having a train run through a tunnel which is only a little bigger than it is. Obviously, as the train travels through the tunnel, most of the air in the tunnel cannot escape around the train and so gets pushed along the tunnel by the train. This air then comes out at stations and blows along the platforms and through the passenger walkways and out into the open. Hence the strong breezes you get in tube stations. This is obviously not an issue on the surface, hence no pressing need to install PEDs on the surface stations of the JLE. However, they do also have the purpose of preventing people from falling onto the track or anything like that, which was a consideration on the JLE and a bonus of the PEDs in the underground stations, but wasn't enough of a factor to get them installed on the surface. Now, things are different. The NTfL lines were built with the draft relief shafts etc. and although you do get breezes, particularly on the Picc I've noticed, they're not the concern. Now the concern is safety, future-proofing, and potential future UTO (Unattended Train Operation). Most underground platforms have suicide pits in which to get down, most surface platforms have nothing like that. I wouldn't say "there [are] significantly more places [...] to flee to" and though I wouldn't like to have to choose where to end up on the tracks (where a civilian should never be), I think there's no reason at all to think that PEDs weren't installed on the surface because it's non-trivially safer up there.
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Jul 9, 2016 19:42:11 GMT
A much better (and probably cheaper) idea would be to have a continuous 4-5 foot barrier which rises from the platform edge. The slot it rises from is covered by the top of the barrier which is slightly wider than the rest of it. The barrier would rise at a suitable time before the train arrives and descend as the train stops. This would also allow any form of door spacing etc. and train floor height. If there's any money in it -I thought of it first.
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jul 9, 2016 21:14:35 GMT
Well if London Underground ever want to run trains without drivers they will need to have installed PEDS so it will be likely high up on the list of things for them to implement as part of the NTFL programme. Also are they just planning to fit PEDS on the underground stations and not on stations like Stratford Central line? Can we be clear. DTO and UTO are not currently the main focus on any upgrade project that is currently being planned. The NTfL is a project that is still in it's infancy and no proper scheme to phase either DTO or PED's has started. It's one vanity project enshrined in another. PED's are required to accommodate a greater level of automation than is currently being adopted. The upgrade of signalling will do little to no better than ATO in terms of providing a frequent service. Stations will be defaced, regardless of weather PED's can be blended with certain colours / materials and all that nonsense. A lot of mounted objects in platform tunnels would have to be ripped off along with many of the tiles and replaced with TfL's own 'bland white and blue' scheme for the depressed... On surface stations, canopies would need to be ripped apart from stations that were ex-LNER and GER. But sure, forget Paolozzi, let's just strip everything and replace it all with concrete and galvanized steel.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 9, 2016 21:21:10 GMT
Well if London Underground ever want to run trains without drivers they will need to have installed PEDS TfL already run driverless trains on the DLR- - with not a PED in sight.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 9, 2016 21:30:11 GMT
Well if London Underground ever want to run trains without drivers they will need to have installed PEDS TfL already run driverless trains on the DLR- - with not a PED in sight. I think that PEDs are a necessity for UTO though, which must be a worrying prospect if they are looking at them
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 9, 2016 22:20:48 GMT
What do you mean by 'deploy PEDS'? Unless you have quoted my post by mistake? Sorry - I messed up the quote function, and ended up attributing both quotes to the same person.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 9, 2016 22:25:29 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'. But many one-unders are accidental: trips, slips, falls, or jostles. A half height PED would certainly have prevented me ending up on the track when I tripped - it had been my intention to end up on the train, not under it.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 9, 2016 22:29:59 GMT
TfL already run driverless trains on the DLR- - with not a PED in sight. I think that PEDs are a necessity for UTO though, which must be a worrying prospect if they are looking at them. They are looking at the prospect of UTO in the future as the NTFL programme is to set the basis for the future of the tube and full automation is considered vital. The only sections where they aren't planning to fully run UTO (- unattended train operation) on the Bakerloo Line and the Piccadilly line between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge. The Piccadilly cant run driverless alongside the Metropolitan line and the Bakerloo wont seemingly at all with the current level of ATO seen on the Victoria line implemented.
PEDS are being planned on all platforms apart from the Bakerloo between Kensal Green - Harrow and Wealdstone and the Piccadilly between Rayners Lane - Uxbridge. Its also worth mentioning that Ealing Common wont be an issue as there are plans for the Piccadilly to serve Ealing Broadway allowing the District to concentrate on its Richmond and Wimbledon branches. It looks like above ground stations are to see PEDS as:
The Piccadilly line will have PEDs and be capable of fully-automatic operation (except between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge), the Bakerloo line won't have PEDS between Kensal Green and Harrow & Wealdstone suggesting they will be fitted on the rest of the line. On the Central and Waterloo and City lines that will feature full automation PEDS will be fitted to "provide a safer and more modern space for customers who are waiting for their trains, much like that provided on the underground stations on the Jubilee line extension."
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jul 9, 2016 22:36:55 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'. But many one-unders are accidental: trips, slips, falls, or jostles. A half height PED would certainly have prevented me ending up on the track when I tripped - it had been my intention to end up on the train, not under it. This is one of the reasons why I support the idea of half height platform gates. Another reason is that with these there would be less need to deface historic stations. However I suspect that they would only be viable on routes where a single type of train is used. S7 and S8 shared stations should be OK as the trains could identify themselves and only the appropriate gates open. But I question the practicality at shared tube and subsurface or LU and LO platforms. As for the Met Main Line, since Chiltern Railways also vary the length of their trains as well as have a different door arrangement I'd not do anything. Apart from Hong Kong and Copenhagen, Singapore retrofitted its above ground stations with platform gates. Viewers of my YouTubes have told me this when they see stations that did not have gates in 1991 but do now. Simon Paris installed theirs with minimal nuisance to passengers - if I recall correctly the trains were mostly kept running although individual stations were closed as required. Singapore
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Jul 10, 2016 10:07:32 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'. Quite simply, you're wrong. Over the years, I've been personally involved in over 100 'one unders' - as a driver (I've had a 'one under'), duty manager and now in a more senior position. I've also read reports of many, many more. In all but one occasion (they jumped off a bridge), half height PEDs would have prevented every one of the 'one unders' I've been involved in. The only surprising thing is that there's not been more pressure on LU to introduce PEDs sooner.
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Jul 10, 2016 11:34:21 GMT
Anyone noticed my post of 15 hours ago about a continuous half (or slightly more)height rising barrier. It would not cost anymore than full P E D's with their individual door engines for each opening, would allow any train door spacing and floor height. It would also work in open air stations without disfiguring the surroundings. If you take the platform height from track-level into consideration,the housing slot would not need too much excavation.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 10, 2016 12:34:11 GMT
Anyone noticed my post of 15 hours ago about a continuous half (or slightly more)height rising barrier. It would not cost anymore than full P E D's with their individual door engines for each opening, would allow any train door spacing and floor height. It would also work in open air stations without disfiguring the surroundings. If you take the platform height from track-level into consideration,the housing slot would not need too much excavation. Not sure where you want it to rise from. Would suffer from getting rubbish and worse still getting in the recess and the cable runs along the platforms at open stations would make it impossible.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 10, 2016 13:18:04 GMT
I am surprised at the vehemence of some opinion about PEDs and their potential use. We can't escape the fact that the tube is not set in aspic and it needs to adapt and to introduce step changes in technology that the railway supply industry have developed and made affordable. We also need to acknowledge that regulatory and passenger demands change over time (whether people here agree with them or not). LU cannot go into "la la la not listening" mode. It can't, given the financial and political climate, keep using expensive and increasingly outdated technology and working practices. I don't cope with change very well but I'm sufficiently aware to know that in many fields of endeavour it's unavoidable. Seemingly placing wall tiles over the lives of passengers seem a particularly perverse stance to take.
In terms of the practicalties of conversion and rolling stock replacement all of this can be worked round and dealt with. The suppliers will want to work with a major client like LU to come up with feasible ways of implementing a complex set of changes for PEDs. This will also cover anything needed on the Jubilee line - offering a flexible, adaptable solution that improves the chances of gaining future work is what it will be about. I'd also expect the railway industry to be able to come up solutions that allow PEDs to cope with different rolling stock designs stopping at PED equipped platforms (there are obviously limits here). Some of Tokyo's subway lines have extensive interworking with JR and private main line routes with multiple different stock designs serving the same platforms. They must have found a way of coping with this across a wide range of technical areas. I'm not saying it's easy on the LU network but it's been / is being done elsewhere in the world and with places that have vast crowding issues. If you can install platform edge gates on the Yamanote line in Tokyo with 11 car trains then you can do it anywhere. That line carries more pass jnys in a day than the entire LU network.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by class411 on Jul 10, 2016 13:40:02 GMT
I am surprised at the vehemence of some opinion about PEDs and their potential use. I said I very definitely don't like the appearance of them and think they change the 'look and feel' of the underground, but I absolutely accept that if they make The Underground safer then, of course, they should be adopted. The Underground is a passenger transit system, not a theme park for people like me!
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 10, 2016 15:19:21 GMT
I am surprised at the vehemence of some opinion about PEDs and their potential use. We can't escape the fact that the tube is not set in aspic and it needs to adapt and to introduce step changes in technology that the railway supply industry have developed and made affordable. We also need to acknowledge that regulatory and passenger demands change over time (whether people here agree with them or not). LU cannot go into "la la la not listening" mode. It can't, given the financial and political climate, keep using expensive and increasingly outdated technology and working practices. I don't cope with change very well but I'm sufficiently aware to know that in many fields of endeavour it's unavoidable. Seemingly placing wall tiles over the lives of passengers seem a particularly perverse stance to take. In terms of the practicalties of conversion and rolling stock replacement all of this can be worked round and dealt with. The suppliers will want to work with a major client like LU to come up with feasible ways of implementing a complex set of changes for PEDs. This will also cover anything needed on the Jubilee line - offering a flexible, adaptable solution that improves the chances of gaining future work is what it will be about. I'd also expect the railway industry to be able to come up solutions that allow PEDs to cope with different rolling stock designs stopping at PED equipped platforms (there are obviously limits here). Some of Tokyo's subway lines have extensive interworking with JR and private main line routes with multiple different stock designs serving the same platforms. They must have found a way of coping with this across a wide range of technical areas. I'm not saying it's easy on the LU network but it's been / is being done elsewhere in the world and with places that have vast crowding issues. If you can install platform edge gates on the Yamanote line in Tokyo with 11 car trains then you can do it anywhere. That line carries more pass jnys in a day than the entire LU network. It will as you say definitely be in the interests of PED suppliers to engage with LUL as the whole of the Central and Waterloo and City lines as well as the Bakerloo Elephant & Castle - Kensal Green and the Piccadilly line apart from Rayners lane - Uxbridge will be fitted with PEDS as part of the NTFL programme. When that is complete it will then be approaching / at the time to start replacing the 1995/6 with new trains and its likely that there will be a requirement then to introduce PEDS as there has been with the NTFL and only time will tell how long it will be until they begin to roll them out on the SSR and Victoria lines.
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Jul 10, 2016 15:33:41 GMT
I am surprised at the vehemence of some opinion about PEDs and their potential use. We can't escape the fact that the tube is not set in aspic and it needs to adapt and to introduce step changes in technology that the railway supply industry have developed and made affordable. We also need to acknowledge that regulatory and passenger demands change over time (whether people here agree with them or not). LU cannot go into "la la la not listening" mode. It can't, given the financial and political climate, keep using expensive and increasingly outdated technology and working practices. I don't cope with change very well but I'm sufficiently aware to know that in many fields of endeavour it's unavoidable. Seemingly placing wall tiles over the lives of passengers seem a particularly perverse stance to take. In terms of the practicalties of conversion and rolling stock replacement all of this can be worked round and dealt with. The suppliers will want to work with a major client like LU to come up with feasible ways of implementing a complex set of changes for PEDs. This will also cover anything needed on the Jubilee line - offering a flexible, adaptable solution that improves the chances of gaining future work is what it will be about. I'd also expect the railway industry to be able to come up solutions that allow PEDs to cope with different rolling stock designs stopping at PED equipped platforms (there are obviously limits here). Some of Tokyo's subway lines have extensive interworking with JR and private main line routes with multiple different stock designs serving the same platforms. They must have found a way of coping with this across a wide range of technical areas. I'm not saying it's easy on the LU network but it's been / is being done elsewhere in the world and with places that have vast crowding issues. If you can install platform edge gates on the Yamanote line in Tokyo with 11 car trains then you can do it anywhere. That line carries more pass jnys in a day than the entire LU network. There would definitely have been an opportunity with the S Stock to design a train who's door spacing matched that of the NTFL. But that's me living in my engineering student world where "anything is possible and we'll shape the future"
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 10, 2016 15:36:21 GMT
Work has already been done on PEDs for the Victoria line. As stated previously there are problems with the limited size and the ability to support the weight near the platform edges.
It will be interesting to see how they cope with the Central line given the serious gaps on the curves at Bank.
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Jul 10, 2016 16:04:44 GMT
Anyone noticed my post of 15 hours ago about a continuous half (or slightly more)height rising barrier. It would not cost anymore than full P E D's with their individual door engines for each opening, would allow any train door spacing and floor height. It would also work in open air stations without disfiguring the surroundings. If you take the platform height from track-level into consideration,the housing slot would not need too much excavation. Not sure where you want it to rise from. Would suffer from getting rubbish and worse still getting in the recess and the cable runs along the platforms at open stations would make it impossible. Why is it impossible?-this was just an idea which would need thinking through(unlike a lot of other things which have happened) For instance if the barrier was placed on the ground level just outside of the platform edge the weight problem is solved. Now tell me the platform edge is too close--then move it back a bit and use the top bar of the fence as the edge proper when lowered.This also clears your anxiety about cable runs As for rubbish etc: -don.t you get rubbish in door runners including P E D door runners? The actual barrier would consist of sections similar to fence panels with 2" ram poles at suitable spacings only needing a small bored hole. If the barrier was made in two overlapping sections it would't need to have a slot excavated for it. It can also accomodate curved platforms as well. Think about it before condemning it out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 10, 2016 16:22:35 GMT
bassmike, please have a look at some open air platforms.
Your first suggestion would be hit by the trains.
Otherwise you will see fairly large cables on hangers along the length of the platforms below an overhanging platform edge. That doesn't leave space for your alternative.
In many cases there are voids under the slabs. The construction method was to support a platform not the weight of your proposed installation (or your 2" bored holes)
I did give it thought which was based on more than 40 years of Underground experience.
This includes working on the Jubilee Line Extension alongside the PED installers.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 10, 2016 17:07:50 GMT
Work has already been done on PEDs for the Victoria line. As stated previously there are problems with the limited size and the ability to support the weight near the platform edges. It will be interesting to see how they cope with the Central line given the serious gaps on the curves at Bank. Does this mean that the Victoria line will have PEDS or just some feasibility studies were carried out to look at the possibility of installing them? Do you have a source of information (not that I don't believe you) as I've looked for information regarding Victoria line PEDS before but didn't come up with anything.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 10, 2016 17:55:35 GMT
half height PEDs would have prevented every one of the 'one unders' I've been involved in. However, not even a full height PED would have prevented the three incidents I have seen, all of which involved falling through the gap between the platform and a stationary train - and thus any PED present would have been open at the time. Until one can literally square the circle of finding a solution to the gap between curved platforms and straight carriages, that problem will remain.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 10, 2016 18:50:37 GMT
I am surprised at the vehemence of some opinion about PEDs and their potential use. I said I very definitely don't like the appearance of them and think they change the 'look and feel' of the underground, but I absolutely accept that if they make The Underground safer then, of course, they should be adopted. The Underground is a passenger transit system, not a theme park for people like me! To be fair to you I wasn't overly concerned about your remarks. I understand your comments and partly agree with them. The "look and feel" in London is very different to the design and ambience of all PED equipped lines like the MRT Circle Line in Singapore. Both systems work in their own particular ways and Singapore has the advantage of designing in modern technology from day one and factoring in expansion capability too. LU has to work in "catch up" mode a lot of the time whereas newer systems have room to cope with growth. LU does have the advantage of being well aware of the need to renew assets, how to adjust its maintenance regimes etc. MRT has been caught napping more than once as their assets have aged, failed and caused unexpected service disruptions. Passengers in the Far East have far less tolerance for delays than we have. Anyway back to PEDS - I suspect the Far East has things to teach LUL.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 10, 2016 18:56:46 GMT
They have looked at the feasibility of PSGs (passenger safety gates) I.e half height PEDS and concluded that full PEDS are the best solution as
"Data confirmed that PEDs offer at least double the reliability of PSGs based on their simpler design which incorporates fewer components. The simplicity and robustness of the door guidance systems of PEDs is also known to be a contributor to the increased reliability compared to PSGs.
PEDs provide much greater integrity of separation of the platform and track environment. No track intrusions have been recorded from platforms fitted with PEDs on the Jubilee line. 1.7m high PSGs have not been proven to stop all track intrusion on other metros. The lower height also leads to a greater number of false alarms where secondary detection is deployed to mitigate the risk of entrapment on curved platforms. In addition, it is comparatively easier for customers to drop rubbish over the top of a PSG which can have a negative impact on service reliability."
Also the issue of installing the PEDS is becoming less of a problem as the passenger safety gates were only developed to retrofit onto existing platforms rather than new builds but they are able to transport PEDS on low floor engineering stock through the curvy tunnels of the deep tube and manufactures will be racing soon to develop the ability to install and commission units in the 3 and a half hour slot that passenger service gates can be installed.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by class411 on Jul 10, 2016 19:08:52 GMT
half height PEDs would have prevented every one of the 'one unders' I've been involved in. However, not even a full height PED would have prevented the three incidents I have seen, all of which involved falling through the gap between the platform and a stationary train - and thus any PED present would have been open at the time. Until one can literally square the circle of finding a solution to the gap between curved platforms and straight carriages, that problem will remain. Interestingly, last night I saw (on TV) a train where, when it stopped, a little platform emerged halfway between the passenger floor and track level. This was, of course, to produce a step to correctly interface between the two heights. However, it doesn't seem too difficult to imagine a similar system deployed on LU as a safety barrier. (I think that trying to produce something at (roughly) the same level as the carriage floor would be quite a technical challenge.)
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,359
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 10, 2016 21:31:31 GMT
Interestingly, last night I saw (on TV) a train where, when it stopped, a little platform emerged halfway between the passenger floor and track level. This was, of course, to produce a step to correctly interface between the two heights. However, it doesn't seem too difficult to imagine a similar system deployed on LU as a safety barrier. (I think that trying to produce something at (roughly) the same level as the carriage floor would be quite a technical challenge.) I believe these are known as "gap fillers" (not illogically). The idea is very simple, and for the most part the technology is pretty simple to implement. The problem is that they need to astoundingly reliable as if even one fails in the "out" position you can't move the train because by their very design the gap fillers are foul of gauge. If one fails in the "in" position then you have an increased risk of passengers falling into the unfilled gap as they are not expecting the gap to be there. The second issue can be mitigated by placing a member of staff at the affected doorway to warn specifically warn (and help) passengers about the gap, but only once the failure is known (so realistically likely from the second or third affected train only).
|
|