|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 5, 2018 12:28:51 GMT
Not read the whole thread so apologise if this has been raised already, but you would not lock a fire escape would you? Why would you lock a cab if its a safe escape route. An excape route to a space the size of a toilet cubicle, unless you are suggesting that their escape route should have continued onto electrified tracks, (and I am sure that you are not).  |
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Aug 5, 2018 16:11:40 GMT
A simple and cost effective solution which doesn't require anything too complicated would be a magnetic lock linked to sufficiently protected break glass call point (or something similar) which activates a 90 second timer when operated. During those 90 seconds, the driver would have an opportunity to over-ride the lock.
Step 1 - break glass and press button
Step 2 - wait for response from driver
Step 3 - if no response, door lock will be released after 90 seconds
If the driver did respond, they would be able to speak to the passenger via the intercom and the door wouldn't be unlocked
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Aug 5, 2018 18:01:41 GMT
What they need is a member of staff to be stationed in, say, the fourth carriage, who would have a key that would enable her to get into the drivers cab if the need arose to de-train the passengers. Since they would have a better view from the mid point, this member of staff could also take on the responsibilities of checking that the doors were clear, closing them, and signalling the driver when it was safe to start. If the had a separately operable door, they could then also check no one was being dragged down the platform.
It would big a big improvement to passenger, and possible staff, safety.
You could call this person, oh, I don't know, perhaps the train 'sentry', or, maybe, 'guard'
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Aug 6, 2018 10:08:52 GMT
What they need is a member of staff to be stationed in, say, the fourth carriage, who would have a key that would enable her to get into the drivers cab if the need arose to de-train the passengers. Since they would have a better view from the mid point, this member of staff could also take on the responsibilities of checking that the doors were clear, closing them, and signalling the driver when it was safe to start. If the had a separately operable door, they could then also check no one was being dragged down the platform. It would big a big improvement to passenger, and possible staff, safety. You could call this person, oh, I don't know, perhaps the train 'sentry', or, maybe, 'guard' Agreed! Bring back the guards... |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 6, 2018 11:15:11 GMT
This is not the place to discuss bringing back guards. Back to cab security please. 
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 6, 2018 13:22:49 GMT
My rather frivolous 'guard' post had its genesis in something that occurred to me whilst reading this thread.
It seems to be considered vital that passengers can access the cabs in case of emergency.
However, I can't think of any circumstance in which it would be helpful to access the driving cab without the driver's acquiescence.
If the driver became incapable, surely LU would need to send a rescue train to deal with the situation. Otherwise, in any form of emergency that meant the passengers needed to be de-trained through the cab, the driver would be supervising.
So, why would passengers need to access the driving cab without the driver being able to unlock the door?
Trailing cabs could be unlocked so that, if a fire occurred in the middle of the train, and for some reason it could not move, the driver could announce when it was safe to de-train from the rear (although this sound a little unlikely, there must be some plan for dealing with a serious fire in the middle of a stuck train.)
That makes the solution very easy. Simply provide the driver with a proper lock that only s/he, or an emergency rescue crew, can undo should the need arise.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Aug 6, 2018 13:41:38 GMT
How about a combination of fire and a train stalled partway into a platform? A set of circumstances - inherently unlikely as all of these are - where the assumption of controlled egress doesn’t fully apply, and may prevent timely action.
The underlying issue is that many of these designs introduce complexity into a situation where simplicity would be key.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Aug 6, 2018 15:51:58 GMT
For me (analysing my own thoughts - never a good idea...!) it is more about the perception of risk rather than the actual risk.
Seeing a "J" door that I know I could open within a few seconds somehow makes me feel safer because it gives me a perception of control... I would feel a bit claustrophobic to be in a train in a tunnel knowing that the doors at both ends are locked.
There probably are extreme circumstances where it might be necessary for a passenger to get access to the cab - even if it means potentially stepping onto a live rail. In an extreme & immediately life-threatening situation, I'd personally rather have that choice. Although there is probably more chance of me winning the lottery than ending up in that situation.
Thinking about it, I mainly refer to the unmanned trailing end cab. But whether that is about my own anxieties, or there is a genuine issue, is another matter. Perception of risk and actual risk are two different things but neither should be dismissed... Lots of things do more to manage the perception of risk rather than actual risk. I always find lifejackets on airplanes quite amusing, especially the light and the whistle to attract attention. Bobbing around in the Atlantic Ocean, a plastic whistle is unlikely to make much difference, but knowing that the life jacket is under my seat somehow makes me feel safer...
Allowing the driver to lock the door while they are in the cab seems reasonable, provided the cab at the other end could be opened by passengers (or a driver who had lost her/his key) in an emergency...
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 6, 2018 18:18:34 GMT
My rather frivolous 'guard' post had its genesis in something that occurred to me whilst reading this thread. It seems to be considered vital that passengers can access the cabs in case of emergency. However, I can't think of any circumstance in which it would be helpful to access the driving cab without the driver's acquiescence. If the driver became incapable, surely LU would need to send a rescue train to deal with the situation. Otherwise, in any form of emergency that meant the passengers needed to be de-trained through the cab, the driver would be supervising. So, why would passengers need to access the driving cab without the driver being able to unlock the door? Trailing cabs could be unlocked so that, if a fire occurred in the middle of the train, and for some reason it could not move, the driver could announce when it was safe to de-train from the rear (although this sound a little unlikely, there must be some plan for dealing with a serious fire in the middle of a stuck train.) That makes the solution very easy. Simply provide the driver with a proper lock that only s/he, or an emergency rescue crew, can undo should the need arise. in case of driver illness, or if the line controller is unable to get a response from a driver following an opo alarm they may make a pa on the train to try and get assistance to the driver, so there needs to be a means of entry. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 6, 2018 19:05:19 GMT
My rather frivolous 'guard' post had its genesis in something that occurred to me whilst reading this thread. It seems to be considered vital that passengers can access the cabs in case of emergency. However, I can't think of any circumstance in which it would be helpful to access the driving cab without the driver's acquiescence. If the driver became incapable, surely LU would need to send a rescue train to deal with the situation. Otherwise, in any form of emergency that meant the passengers needed to be de-trained through the cab, the driver would be supervising. So, why would passengers need to access the driving cab without the driver being able to unlock the door? Trailing cabs could be unlocked so that, if a fire occurred in the middle of the train, and for some reason it could not move, the driver could announce when it was safe to de-train from the rear (although this sound a little unlikely, there must be some plan for dealing with a serious fire in the middle of a stuck train.) That makes the solution very easy. Simply provide the driver with a proper lock that only s/he, or an emergency rescue crew, can undo should the need arise. in case of driver illness, or if the line controller is unable to get a response from a driver following an opo alarm they may make a pa on the train to try and get assistance to the driver, so there needs to be a means of entry. Well, if they can make an announcement, they can arrange for a remote override on the door lock via a coded, modulated, signal. That's not a difficult thing to do because it can be 'piggy-backed' onto an existing system and does not require integrating into any of the trains systems (except for a power supply). |
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Aug 6, 2018 19:21:10 GMT
Unless an impact or other damage has disabled the radio system. Or a fire in a tunnel has disabled the radio system. Anything which is not fail-safe doesn't belong on a railway
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 6, 2018 21:50:44 GMT
Unless an impact or other damage has disabled the radio system. Or a fire in a tunnel has disabled the radio system. Anything which is not fail-safe doesn't belong on a railway Nonsense. A system whereby a passenger can be dragged down the platform without the driver being aware what is happening is not fail-safe. A system where there is only one staff member on a train is not fail-safe. A system where trains can stop at platforms in such a way that there is sufficient gap for passengers to fall down is not fail-safe. In reality we are only concerned with fire (or smoke) related issues, as there are ones where there is the potential for a time critical escape necessity, and the probability of BOTH a fire occurring AND the driver becoming incapacitated are negligible. In any of these problems there has to be an intelligent assessment of the probability of each particular scenario occurring. In the entire history of subterranean train travel, has there ever been a situation where there has been a fire on a train in a tunnel and the driver is unavailable? |
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Aug 6, 2018 23:28:44 GMT
Not sure if its already been mentioned, is it possible to put a door chain on the inside? Doesn't require a key, protects the driver from any reasonable force from the outside and is probably quite easy to install?
https://www.wilko.com/en-uk/wilko-security-door-chain-chrome-effect/p/4477046
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 7, 2018 10:26:05 GMT
But not very easy to remotely override.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 7, 2018 12:30:36 GMT
Unless an impact or other damage has disabled the radio system. Or a fire in a tunnel has disabled the radio system. Anything which is not fail-safe doesn't belong on a railway An impact or fire which has disabled the radio system is very likely to have de-energised the track, or have knocked out the train auxiliary power, and thus would have caused the door to be locked only on the existing, passenger operable, emergency lock. The system can be configured such that it requires power in order to hold the lock closed - this is FAIL SAFE. A system which requires power to hold the lock open is known as FAIL SECURE and is often employed in banks and so forth. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 8, 2018 7:49:50 GMT
A system whereby a passenger can be dragged down the platform without the driver being aware what is happening is not fail-safe. A system where there is only one staff member on a train is not fail-safe. A system where trains can stop at platforms in such a way that there is sufficient gap for passengers to fall down is not fail-safe. And NONE of these scenarios belongs on a railway. The third one may be a result of physical limitations The first and second are deliberate choices. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 8, 2018 8:11:38 GMT
A system whereby a passenger can be dragged down the platform without the driver being aware what is happening is not fail-safe. A system where there is only one staff member on a train is not fail-safe. A system where trains can stop at platforms in such a way that there is sufficient gap for passengers to fall down is not fail-safe. And NONE of these scenarios belongs on a railway. The third one may be a result of physical limitations The first and second are deliberate choices. The point I was making was that TPTB (the powers that be) clearly do think these things 'belong' on a railway - at least in the sense that they allow them to continue to exist on a railway. The very simple - and easily retro-fittable - system I suggested was rejected by one member on the basis of a scenario that has not, as far as I'm aware, ever happened on any railway anywhere in the world. Given that, as I showed, more dangerous systems, that demonstrably have caused problems, are allowed, it seems unreasonable to reject an idea on the basis of a situation so unlikely that it has never happened. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Aug 8, 2018 21:50:10 GMT
Can everyone please remember that this is a friendly forum? Starting posts with words like ‘nonsense’ does nothing but antagonise. Added to which we’ve had words in public and by PM about bad manners with several of you regarding this sort of thing. It doesn’t add to the debate and isn’t what most of you would countenance saying face to face, so stop it.......and I don't want to see an argument about it.
|
|
u03drp
Posts: 3
Member is Online
|
Post by u03drp on Aug 28, 2018 22:48:24 GMT
A couple of people have asked rhetorically why passengers would need to access a cab or detrain without the permission and assistance of tube staff. The accident near Holland Park 28th July 1958 comes to mind. A number of LT staff did not cover themselves in glory on that day (eg Station Master Nelder), but life's like that and the outcome could have been very different if the passengers had been wholly reliant on the staff to enable them to detrain.
How you balance that with the safety of Train Ops is another matter.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Aug 29, 2018 7:54:40 GMT
A couple of people have asked rhetorically why passengers would need to access a cab or detrain without the permission and assistance of tube staff. The accident near Holland Park 28th July 1958 comes to mind. A number of LT staff did not cover themselves in glory on that day (eg Station Master Nelder), but life's like that and the outcome could have been very different if the passengers had been wholly reliant on the staff to enable them to detrain. How you balance that with the safety of Train Ops is another matter. The solution of locking the leading cab and leaving the trailing cab unlocked would not have hindered evacuation on that occasion. The only situation where I can see a problem with that solution is where a driver became incapacitated AND a fire broke out in the middle of the train. I doubt that's ever happened. The advantage of the solution is that it is extremely cheap and easily retro-fittable. A slightly more complicated system where the lock 'timed-out' if the driver didn't respond to a request for entry would be a little more expensive but would remove the objection that passengers could not get out if the driver became incapacitated. |
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Aug 29, 2018 19:54:31 GMT
Slightly off topic, in the early 1980s on the Piccadilly line, there was a problem with T/Ops and depot staff forgetting their J door keys so they’d smash the glass in the J door lock to get into the cab.
At a Sectional Council 3 meeting the union and management discussed the problem trying to find a solution. One of the NUR (It was still the NUR then) reps came up with a cracking solution. It was to use unbreakable glass in the J door lock. Apparently, there was a stunned silence from all present at the meeting...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Aug 29, 2018 20:21:27 GMT
Ballot papers now issued: linkASLEF members on London Underground will ballot for strike action to force London Underground management to take the issue of drivers cab security seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 2, 2018 10:29:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Sept 2, 2018 11:25:37 GMT
A couple of people have asked rhetorically why passengers would need to access a cab or detrain without the permission and assistance of tube staff. The accident near Holland Park 28th July 1958 comes to mind. A number of LT staff did not cover themselves in glory on that day (eg Station Master Nelder), but life's like that and the outcome could have been very different if the passengers had been wholly reliant on the staff to enable them to detrain. How you balance that with the safety of Train Ops is another matter. The solution of locking the leading cab and leaving the trailing cab unlocked would not have hindered evacuation on that occasion. The only situation where I can see a problem with that solution is where a driver became incapacitated AND a fire broke out in the middle of the train. I doubt that's ever happened. The advantage of the solution is that it is extremely cheap and easily retro-fittable. A slightly more complicated system where the lock 'timed-out' if the driver didn't respond to a request for entry would be a little more expensive but would remove the objection that passengers could not get out if the driver became incapacitated. What about the driver who has just suffered a stroke and nobody can get to him to provide assistance? |
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Sept 2, 2018 11:54:20 GMT
The solution of locking the leading cab and leaving the trailing cab unlocked would not have hindered evacuation on that occasion. The only situation where I can see a problem with that solution is where a driver became incapacitated AND a fire broke out in the middle of the train. I doubt that's ever happened. The advantage of the solution is that it is extremely cheap and easily retro-fittable. A slightly more complicated system where the lock 'timed-out' if the driver didn't respond to a request for entry would be a little more expensive but would remove the objection that passengers could not get out if the driver became incapacitated. What about the driver who has just suffered a stroke and nobody can get to him to provide assistance? As class413 said in the last line of his post, the lock could time out. Such a system could be implemented by a simple circuit which would be activated when a passenger alarm is activated but not answered within, say 2 minutes. The lock could also de-energise when the Line Controller uses the remote PA (Passenger Announcement) system on a train. Plenty of safe ways to implement this. |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Sept 2, 2018 14:14:32 GMT
Is that a single incident? In how many years? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 2, 2018 14:25:35 GMT
Which single incident do you mean? The article starts by describing an incident on the Northern Line in 2015, it then mentions a recent incident on the H&C, two more on the Northern and a "string of incidents) on the Central Line. I was only aware of two incidents on the Central but it would appear there have been more.
That makes at least six incidents and at least five this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Sept 2, 2018 14:29:17 GMT
Which single incident do you mean? The article starts by describing an incident on the Northern Line in 2015, it then mentions a recent incident on the H&C, two more on the Northern and a "string of incidents) on the Central Line. I was only aware of two incidents on the Central but it would appear there have been more. That makes at least six incidents and at least five this year. Fair point. I only read the quotes at the top. Must do better. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 6, 2018 6:42:54 GMT
I received my ballot paper yesterday and voted "yes" in support of a strike
|
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Sept 7, 2018 14:55:04 GMT
A couple of people have asked rhetorically why passengers would need to access a cab or detrain without the permission and assistance of tube staff. The accident near Holland Park 28th July 1958 comes to mind. A number of LT staff did not cover themselves in glory on that day (eg Station Master Nelder), but life's like that and the outcome could have been very different if the passengers had been wholly reliant on the staff to enable them to detrain. How you balance that with the safety of Train Ops is another matter. The solution of locking the leading cab and leaving the trailing cab unlocked would not have hindered evacuation on that occasion. The only situation where I can see a problem with that solution is where a driver became incapacitated AND a fire broke out in the middle of the train. I doubt that's ever happened. The advantage of the solution is that it is extremely cheap and easily retro-fittable. A slightly more complicated system where the lock 'timed-out' if the driver didn't respond to a request for entry would be a little more expensive but would remove the objection that passengers could not get out if the driver became incapacitated. Possibly having the Leading cab mag lock linked to the opo alarm incase of driver being incapacitated so the door can be opened, although it wouldn't work on ATO lines. |
|
