On Mar 30, 1:10*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Mar 30, 1:45*pm, CJB wrote:

As witnessed everyday - but thank fully not experienced - at
Kensington Olympia (and numerous other stations on TfL's new
Overground routes) - at rush-hour - these trains largely devoid of
seating - are so grossly over-crowded as to be well beyond safe
capacity

Nonsense. *A crowded train is uncomfortable, but is not unsafe.

It is not a matter of if but when there is a train crash / smash with
massive loss of life on these brand new cattle trains.

Only in the A380 sense, i.e. the presence of more people in the train
will necessarily mean more deaths/injuries. *A crowded train might
actually be safer - no space to be thrown around and injured from
this.

Neil

A more realistic danger would be a power failure, resulting in a crush-
loaded train being stuck in a tunnel without ventilation and unable to
be evacuated, as LU tunnels are too narrow for side doors to be used,
the pax would then be all asphyxiated. The only safe way to clean up
the resulting mess would be to thoroughly cremate the rapidly
decomposing corpses in situ, and then clear the wreckage with
explosives, but I don't think our politicians would have the bottle to
give the required orders to the military.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
"alexander.keys1" wrote:
A more realistic danger would be a power failure, resulting in a crush-
loaded train being stuck in a tunnel without ventilation and unable to
be evacuated, as LU tunnels are too narrow for side doors to be used,
the pax would then be all asphyxiated. The only safe way to clean up
the resulting mess would be to thoroughly cremate the rapidly
decomposing corpses in situ, and then clear the wreckage with
explosives, but I don't think our politicians would have the bottle to
give the required orders to the military.

Are you a troll or just completely stupid?

B2003

On Mar 31, 2:24*pm, "alexander.keys1"
wrote:

A more realistic danger would be a power failure, resulting in a crush-
loaded train being stuck in a tunnel without ventilation and unable to
be evacuated, as LU tunnels are too narrow for side doors to be used,

That would be why LU stock has end doors, no? As, for that matter,
does the LOROL stock being discussed.

Neil

"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Mar 31, 2:24 pm, "alexander.keys1"
wrote:

A more realistic danger would be a power failure, resulting in a
crush- loaded train being stuck in a tunnel without ventilation and
unable to be evacuated, as LU tunnels are too narrow for side doors
to be used,

That would be why LU stock has end doors, no? As, for that matter,
does the LOROL stock being discussed.

Apart from which, 378s don't go through (m)any narrow single tunnels.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Mar 31, 2:24 pm, "alexander.keys1"
wrote:

A more realistic danger would be a power failure, resulting in a
crush- loaded train being stuck in a tunnel without ventilation and
unable to be evacuated, as LU tunnels are too narrow for side doors
to be used,

That would be why LU stock has end doors, no? As, for that matter,
does the LOROL stock being discussed.

Apart from which, 378s don't go through (m)any narrow single tunnels.

The Thames Tunnels are single-bore, if no others they use.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes

The Thames Tunnels are single-bore, if no others they use.

But there are cross passages between the two bores every few feet, so I
don't think evacuation would be a major problem (unless they forget to
switch off the juice on the other track!).
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message ,
writes

The Thames Tunnels are single-bore, if no others they use.

But there are cross passages between the two bores every few feet,
so I don't think evacuation would be a major problem (unless they
forget to switch off the juice on the other track!).

I thought the problem was getting out of the sides of the trains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel