|
|
Post by bwhughes on Dec 8, 2006 23:16:33 GMT
Hasn't someone noticed this before? Having bought a copy of Video 125's East London and District DVD, I have noticed that part of the line is in a single-track tunnel where there appears to be very little space between the train and both tunnel walls.  This means that passengers would not be able to detrain through the normal doors in an emergency!  AND the image of the Overground version of the Class 376 had no front-end corridor connection! Not even anything remotely similar to a 'M' door!  I hope that the image on the front of the RAIL magazine in early September will not be the final product, otherwise there will be no way of detraining passengers in the event of an emergency in the tight tunnel section. Passengers would either end up trapped or have to face a very traumatic and uncomfortable squeeze alongside the train to be able to escape. That is why Class 465/466 Networkers are still to this day prohibited  from travelling through the Shakespeare Tunnels near Dover - the tight single track tunnels and lack of front doors on the Networkers prevent any means of passengers escaping. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2006 23:22:20 GMT
Theres actually an idea to knock out the middle part of that Tunnel down along the Dover - Folkestone Cliff line... one other solution, if this can't be done, is to preactially demolish the cliff and use the spoil to short up the rest of the coast line!
|
|
|
|
Post by bwhughes on Dec 8, 2006 23:28:15 GMT
As well as destroying a large area of cliff that wildlife could rely on and is a major landmark for the Southern Coast of Britain (are you talking about the White Cliffs of Dover here?)
...I think it would not be much point for the sake of making a non standard-dimensions train fleet like the Networkers able to run through the tunnel without restriction!
The tunnel appears to be very tall so therefore could accomodate the highest freight containers. Provided a passenger train has a front door there would be very little safety and clearance problem in detraining passengers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2006 23:34:39 GMT
Thats the thing that Network Rail are discussing with the Council for the Protection of Rural England [CPRE] Theres some rather rare beetles up on that cliff apparently... the actual white cliffs of Dover, are a little bit further east of these ones, but they are still white anyway...
I agree that there is very little point in spending £xx millions just sorting out a 1.5 mile tunnel to make it compatible... There was a similar problem back in the early days of the Tonbridge - Hastongs line, special narrow bodied DEMU's had to be built to be able to fit down the tunnels... now, the track through some of the tunnels has bene singled, reducing capacity slightly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 1:19:58 GMT
Why? It would only be like a normal tube train. The electrostars they are going to get are like the 376s, thus with sliding doors, rather than doors that open outside of the train. All they should do is add a conventional class 377 end. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Dec 9, 2006 3:02:15 GMT
The section of single tunnel mentioned in the original post is on the District line between Stepney Green & Mile End. The new "Overground" trains will work on the East London line - which means there is no issue as the two are completely un-related |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by towerman on Dec 9, 2006 4:31:49 GMT
Isn't there a short stretch of single line tunnel under the Thames where the original Brunel tunnel is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 5:29:47 GMT
The section of single tunnel mentioned in the original post is on the District line between Stepney Green & Mile End. I do believe there is a short section of single track tunnel under the thames on the ELL. It has some historical meaning too......  |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Dec 9, 2006 8:25:05 GMT
Isn't there a short stretch of single line tunnel under the Thames where the original Brunel tunnel is? The Thames Tunnel is a double tunnel with a track in each. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 9:46:21 GMT
Why? It would only be like a normal tube train. The electrostars they are going to get are like the 376s, thus with sliding doors, rather than doors that open outside of the train. All they should do is add a conventional class 377 end. That's not the point - he is referring to the lack of an M door in the cab and the danger this may pose if an emergency evac is needed in the Thames Tunnel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 10:20:14 GMT
That's not the point - he is referring to the lack of an M door in the cab and the danger this may pose if an emergency evac is needed in the Thames Tunnel. No, he is referring to the fact that if the trains had doors that opened outside of the train, evacuation wouldnt be possible due to lack of space. If he was referring to there being no M door due to lack of space, I dread to think what the shape of the tunnel would be like. He then goes on to say that the lack of an M door is also another bad design. Below is two quotes from his post which shows what he was talking about. Having bought a copy of Video 125's East London and District DVD, I have noticed that part of the line is in a single-track tunnel where there appears to be very little space between the train and both tunnel walls. This means that passengers would not be able to detrain through the normal doors in an emergency! Then: AND the image of the Overground version of the Class 376 had no front-end corridor connection! Not even anything remotely similar to a 'M' door! |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Dec 9, 2006 11:42:12 GMT
RE: Thames tunnel - oopppss, I forgot about that one  ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Dec 9, 2006 13:34:35 GMT
He then goes on to say that the lack of an M door is also another bad design. I haven't seen he images in Rail, but in the official images the train does have what looks like an M door. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 21:34:22 GMT
Maybe that door folds down to become a ramp akin to the 96ts?
|
|
|
|
Post by bwhughes on Dec 11, 2006 22:24:24 GMT
he is referring to the fact that if the trains had doors that opened outside of the train, evacuation wouldn't be possible due to lack of space.
Sorry I didn't put it simply! It's the ELL Brunel section under the Thames I was wary about.
I knew that sliding plug doors would not be used; it's just the RAIL image didn't show anything like an 'M' door or corridor connection at the front end, which would have been the primary means of evacuation in that narrow tunnel section.
I assumed the tunnel was too narrow for passengers to squeeze between that and the train even if the doors weren't plug and did not foul the tunnel sides if opened.
I am glad though to hear from cetacean about the official images having some form of front-end corridor connection - problem is solved.
Though it would be better for passenger flow through the train to have it as a corridor connection, a 96 TS-style 'M' door would be great, esp. for disabled people!
|
|
from travelling through the Shakespeare Tunnels near Dover - the tight single track tunnels and lack of front doors on the Networkers prevent any means of passengers escaping.
