|
DLR - no collision detect?
I see that a woman with epilepsy fell in front of a DLR train and was
killed (in 2013). "DLR director Rory O'Neill told the inquest that DLR trains are driven through a computer and monitored through CCTV cameras by control centre officers. "Mr O'Neill said that even if there was a driver who could have applied an emergency brake there is no proof the train would have stopped in time. There have been just two fatal accidents on the DLR in the last 10 years." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...having-5563014 E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 22/04/2015 20:55, eastender wrote:
I see that a woman with epilepsy fell in front of a DLR train and was killed (in 2013). "DLR director Rory O'Neill told the inquest that DLR trains are driven through a computer and monitored through CCTV cameras by control centre officers. "Mr O'Neill said that even if there was a driver who could have applied an emergency brake there is no proof the train would have stopped in time. There have been just two fatal accidents on the DLR in the last 10 years." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...having-5563014 E. Surely you'd need a "pre-collision detect" as once you've been hit by several tonnes of train moving at some speed any detection system is going to take more time to stop the vehicle than it does to pulverise your vital bits? Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. |
DLR - no collision detect?
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/04/2015 20:55, eastender wrote: I see that a woman with epilepsy fell in front of a DLR train and was killed (in 2013). "DLR director Rory O'Neill told the inquest that DLR trains are driven through a computer and monitored through CCTV cameras by control centre officers. "Mr O'Neill said that even if there was a driver who could have applied an emergency brake there is no proof the train would have stopped in time. There have been just two fatal accidents on the DLR in the last 10 years." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...having-5563014 E. Surely you'd need a "pre-collision detect" as once you've been hit by several tonnes of train moving at some speed any detection system is going to take more time to stop the vehicle than it does to pulverise your vital bits? Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
|
DLR - no collision detect?
On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:35:32 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. How many incidents have there been? How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:35 +0100
eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. Didn't know that it had surfers. Still, its just natural selection in action - the stupid die young and so can't procreate. Doing us all a favour really. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 2015-04-24 11:26:02 +0000, d said:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:35 +0100 eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. Didn't know that it had surfers. Still, its just natural selection in action - the stupid die young and so can't procreate. Doing us all a favour really. No I meant kids who sit at the front of the train and who would see people hit by trains. There have been a few on the DLR: The DLR figures for passengers being struck by a train are as follows: Date Outcome Cause 26/10/2001 Passenger Fatality Unknown 29/01/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 26/06/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 01/11/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 22/12/2002 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 16/01/2003 Non Fatal Not a suicide attempt 28/03/2003 Non Fatal Suicide attempt 08/12/2004 Non Fatal Suicide attempt 27/12/2006 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 02/04/2007 Passenger Fatality Not suicide attempt 12/10/2007 Passenger Fatality Not a suicide attempt 08/02/2011 Passenger Fatality Suicide attempt 06/05/2011 Passenger Fatality Not a suicide attempt https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...s_under_trains E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:26:02 +0000 (UTC),
d wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:35 +0100 eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 10:48:01 +0000, d said: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Given the number of kids who ride the front of the DLR that's just as well. Didn't know that it had surfers. Still, its just natural selection in action - the stupid die young and so can't procreate. Doing us all a favour really. I think he meant the kids who rush to sit in the front seats. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC),
d wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:35:32 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. How many incidents have there been? How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: Around 2000 deaths pa So what? That amount barely even registers in the total deaths in the UK per annum which is about 500K. Also that amount has been dropping steadily since the 70s despite the vast increase in the number of cars on our roads. Anyway, guess what - life has risks. Get over it. So you think 2000 road deaths 'barely even registers', but a single DLR death is intolerable? And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 2015-04-24 11:42:53 +0000, Recliner said:
And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? There have been a fair few suicides on the DLR as my other post notes although of course suicides are very hard to avoid. But my is that I would have thought that a driverless train would have some kind of obstruction detection system for any kind of hazard, but it seems not. E. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:53 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), wrote: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: And? 2000 is nothing compared to the total, but getting the DLR train op to sit at the front costs nothing. Its not like do anything useful anyway apart from open and close the doors which they could easily do from the desk. So what? That amount barely even registers in the total deaths in the UK per annum which is about 500K. Also that amount has been dropping steadily since the 70s despite the vast increase in the number of cars on our roads. Anyway, guess what - life has risks. Get over it. So you think 2000 road deaths 'barely even registers', but a single DLR death is intolerable? Where did I use the word intolerable? But since the fix is so bloody easy - and in this case would have saved her life despite some idiots saying 12 seconds wouldn't be enough to stop the train, oh please - then why not do it? And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? Well the DLR is somewhat smaller so will proportionatly less. But as to why people prefer to chuck themselves in front of a tube I have no idea. Perhaps they can't be arsed to travel to east london first. Buy a Quija board and find out then get back to us. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:53 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: And? 2000 is nothing compared to the total, but getting the DLR train op to sit at the front costs nothing. Its not like do anything useful anyway apart from open and close the doors which they could easily do from the desk. In case you haven't noticed, they also check tickets. Presumably you're an expert on how to dodge the ticket checks, but not everyone has your expertise in this area. I'm also not sure they could even do their door checking duties from the front console. In any case, if a would-be suicide throws themselves on the track just as the train enters the platform, driver or no driver, they'll still be hit and probably killed. So what? That amount barely even registers in the total deaths in the UK per annum which is about 500K. Also that amount has been dropping steadily since the 70s despite the vast increase in the number of cars on our roads. Anyway, guess what - life has risks. Get over it. So you think 2000 road deaths 'barely even registers', but a single DLR death is intolerable? Where did I use the word intolerable? But since the fix is so bloody easy - and in this case would have saved her life despite some idiots saying 12 seconds wouldn't be enough to stop the train, oh please - then why not do it? And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? Well the DLR is somewhat smaller so will proportionatly less. But as to why people prefer to chuck themselves in front of a tube I have no idea. Perhaps they can't be arsed to travel to east london first. Buy a Quija board and find out then get back to us. Maybe they think DLR trains are too slow? In any case, we already know that having a driver doesn't stop successful suicides and accidental deaths, so it'll probably be a pointless change. |
DLR - no collision detect?
eastender wrote:
On 2015-04-24 11:42:53 +0000, Recliner said: And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? There have been a fair few suicides on the DLR as my other post notes although of course suicides are very hard to avoid. But my is that I would have thought that a driverless train would have some kind of obstruction detection system for any kind of hazard, but it seems not. Yes, I was surprised at the number of fatalities. I'm not sure an obstruction detector would prevent suicides as the person would throw themselves under just as the train enters the platform, when it's too late to stop the train. However, it might reduce the surprising number of accidental deaths and injuries. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: In case you haven't noticed, they also check tickets. Presumably you're an I hadn't noticed. I currently travel on it mon-fri and I've yet to spot them checking tickets in the rush hour. Probably because they'd barely be able to move through the carraige. Like I said - there's no reason for them not to sit at the front. expert on how to dodge the ticket checks, but not everyone has your expertise in this area. It doesn't take a genius to spot the holes in TfLs system. I'm also not sure they could even do their door checking duties from the front console. In any case, if a would-be suicide throws themselves on the All stations have monitors and/or mirrors so yes they can and do. track just as the train enters the platform, driver or no driver, they'll still be hit and probably killed. Except the person who was killed fell on the track by accident apparently 12 seconds before the train ran over her. Unless the driver was asleep he'd have had no problem stopping the train in time. Maybe they think DLR trains are too slow? In any case, we already know that having a driver doesn't stop successful suicides and accidental deaths, so it'll probably be a pointless change. Is there such thing as an unsuccessful suicide or a successful accidental death? Unless you're claiming that no train with a driver has ever managed to make an emergency stop before hitting something or someone on the track in the entire history of railways, then I think you'll have to concede that having a pair of eyes up front is probably a Good Thing. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:53 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: And? 2000 is nothing compared to the total, but getting the DLR train op to sit at the front costs nothing. Its not like do anything useful anyway apart from open and close the doors which they could easily do from the desk. In case you haven't noticed, they also check tickets. Presumably you're an expert on how to dodge the ticket checks, but not everyone has your expertise in this area. I think not, 'cos it's not feasable with the current 3-unit trains. Back when it was a small system with 11 units & not so many passengers the train captains had ample time to check tickets & dish-out tourist info, but now it's a busy little network & it can't be done. Oyster usage replacing printed tickets might be another factor, & it's still possible to deploy the the Revenue Protection teams as & when needed. I'm also not sure they could even do their door checking duties from the front console. In any case, if a would-be suicide throws themselves on the track just as the train enters the platform, driver or no driver, they'll still be hit and probably killed. If a train is being driven in manual mode there is no need to leave the control desk to open & close doors, platform mirrors were installed from day 1, DC --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:16:12 +0100, David C wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:42:53 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: And? 2000 is nothing compared to the total, but getting the DLR train op to sit at the front costs nothing. Its not like do anything useful anyway apart from open and close the doors which they could easily do from the desk. In case you haven't noticed, they also check tickets. Presumably you're an expert on how to dodge the ticket checks, but not everyone has your expertise in this area. I think not, 'cos it's not feasable with the current 3-unit trains. Back when it was a small system with 11 units & not so many passengers the train captains had ample time to check tickets & dish-out tourist info, but now it's a busy little network & it can't be done. Why can't they check tickets and Oyster cards in whichever car they're in? I'm pretty sure they still do, from time to time, and of course they can move between the cars at stops. Oyster usage replacing printed tickets might be another factor, & it's still possible to deploy the the Revenue Protection teams as & when needed. They can check Oyster cards. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 24.04.15 12:42, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:35:32 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. How many incidents have there been? How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: Around 2000 deaths pa So what? That amount barely even registers in the total deaths in the UK per annum which is about 500K. Also that amount has been dropping steadily since the 70s despite the vast increase in the number of cars on our roads. Anyway, guess what - life has risks. Get over it. So you think 2000 road deaths 'barely even registers', but a single DLR death is intolerable? And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? Aren't there detectors at stations that will either stop a train or cut power in the event that somebody falls onto the tracks. Skytrain in Vancouver has such a system, AIUI. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 24.04.15 15:05, Recliner wrote:
eastender wrote: On 2015-04-24 11:42:53 +0000, Recliner said: And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? There have been a fair few suicides on the DLR as my other post notes although of course suicides are very hard to avoid. But my is that I would have thought that a driverless train would have some kind of obstruction detection system for any kind of hazard, but it seems not. Yes, I was surprised at the number of fatalities. I'm not sure an obstruction detector would prevent suicides as the person would throw themselves under just as the train enters the platform, when it's too late to stop the train. However, it might reduce the surprising number of accidental deaths and injuries. Driver or no, it will not make a difference if somebody falls onto the tracks, deliberately or otherwise, if a train is too close. |
DLR - no collision detect?
" wrote:
On 24.04.15 12:42, Recliner wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:35:32 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. How many incidents have there been? How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: Around 2000 deaths pa So what? That amount barely even registers in the total deaths in the UK per annum which is about 500K. Also that amount has been dropping steadily since the 70s despite the vast increase in the number of cars on our roads. Anyway, guess what - life has risks. Get over it. So you think 2000 road deaths 'barely even registers', but a single DLR death is intolerable? And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? Aren't there detectors at stations that will either stop a train or cut power in the event that somebody falls onto the tracks. Apparently not. Skytrain in Vancouver has such a system, AIUI. Yes, the discussion was whether the DLR should have such a system, too. It is indeed slightly surprising that it doesn't. Perhaps the fear is of false positives (eg, when a bit of rubbish triggers the detector -- you can just imagine the local yobs experimenting to see just what it took to stop the trains). |
DLR - no collision detect?
On 25.04.15 15:49, Recliner wrote:
" wrote: On 24.04.15 12:42, Recliner wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:48:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:35:32 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Given the tight curves and so on of the DLR system it might actually be quite difficult to detect something at or exceeding your stopping distance which is obstructing the tracks or even harder the bits between or at the side of the tracks. Presumably the only places you'd fit it is where people routinely get near the tracks: stations. The detectors would be fitted in front of the platforms (which are straight) and could stop a train coming into the station if someone or something had fallen from a platform on to the tracks. Aren't remotely monitored level crossings already fitted with similar devices? I'm surprised the RMT haven't picked up on this with an I-told-you-so tagline. If they did they'd have a point. The DLR is a damn sight busier than it was ever envisiged to be and I'm not convinced that not having the train operator at the front is a good idea any more. How many incidents have there been? How many do their need to be? I think the DLR are lucky that for some reason suiciders seem to prefer the tube or NR for their finale. Perhaps I can refer you to what you said of the 2000 road deaths: Around 2000 deaths pa So what? That amount barely even registers in the total deaths in the UK per annum which is about 500K. Also that amount has been dropping steadily since the 70s despite the vast increase in the number of cars on our roads. Anyway, guess what - life has risks. Get over it. So you think 2000 road deaths 'barely even registers', but a single DLR death is intolerable? And if you think having a human driver would save lives on the DLR, how come most of the rail fatalities happen with trains with human drivers on the Tube and NR? Aren't there detectors at stations that will either stop a train or cut power in the event that somebody falls onto the tracks. Apparently not. Skytrain in Vancouver has such a system, AIUI. Yes, the discussion was whether the DLR should have such a system, too. It is indeed slightly surprising that it doesn't. Perhaps the fear is of false positives (eg, when a bit of rubbish triggers the detector -- you can just imagine the local yobs experimenting to see just what it took to stop the trains). Would need to a certain size and mass in order to activate the triggers, however. I'm sure that they could calibrate such a system. |
DLR - no collision detect?
|
DLR - no collision detect?
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d wrote: Except the person who was killed fell on the track by accident apparently 12 seconds before the train ran over her. Unless the driver was asleep he'd have had no problem stopping the train in time. Is that so? It's not obvious: a main line train takes 90 seconds to stop from 100 mph at the braking rates the signalling is designed for. A 3-unit DLR train is 84 metres long. The braking system is designed for 0.6 m/s^2, so that means the train will enter the platform at 10 m/s and take 16.7 seconds to stop. 12 seconds before that the train is doing 17.2 m/s and is 162 metres from the start of the platform. Suppose someone was at the entry end of the platform and fell at that point, the driver takes 1 second to react, and the emergency braking rate is 1.2 m/s^2, then after 1 second the train is 146 m from the platform and at 16.6 m/s. It will then take 13.8 seconds to stop and proceed another 115 m. So, yes, in that situation it will work. I'll let you do the calculations for other places on the platform. However, will the victim be visible at 162 metres from the platform? Particularly if there's a curve on the track. Unless you're claiming that no train with a driver has ever managed to make an emergency stop before hitting something or someone on the track in the entire history of railways, then I think you'll have to concede that having a pair of eyes up front is probably a Good Thing. Will it be worth the cost? How much will it cost to add a driver to every DLR train? If I recall the previous posting, we're talking about one accident every 5 years and one suicide a year. I think the stats showed four probably accidental fatalities and six successful suicides in 11 years. The latter would probably still happen with or without alert drivers or obstruction detectors, if the would-be suicides jumped just as the train entered the platform at speed. That means that only about one accidental death every three years might be saved, and that's assuming they fell early enough for the driver or detector to see them and stop the train in time. |
DLR - no collision detect?
|
DLR - no collision detect?
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:14:31 +0100
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote: In message , wrote: Except the person who was killed fell on the track by accident apparently 12 seconds before the train ran over her. Unless the driver was asleep he'd have had no problem stopping the train in time. Is that so? It's not obvious: a main line train takes 90 seconds to stop Yes it is so. from 100 mph at the braking rates the signalling is designed for. A 3-unit DLR train is 84 metres long. The braking system is designed for 0.6 m/s^2, so that means the train will enter the platform at 10 m/s and take 16.7 seconds to stop. 12 seconds before that the train is doing 17.2 m/s and is 162 metres from the start of the platform. A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe? Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems to be the top speed these days almost everywhere. Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time you're sorted. Next... However, will the victim be visible at 162 metres from the platform? Particularly if there's a curve on the track. Who knows. Maybe at some they would be , at others not. Will it be worth the cost? How much will it cost to add a driver to every DLR train? If I recall the previous posting, we're talking about one accident every 5 years and one suicide a year. Umm, why would you need to add a driver? FFS - the train ops/captains/door dollys/whatever they're called this month are already on the train, salaried and do virtually nothing for their money from what I can see. Why would putting them at the front be so onorous? -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
d wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:14:31 +0100 "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote: In message , d wrote: Except the person who was killed fell on the track by accident apparently 12 seconds before the train ran over her. Unless the driver was asleep he'd have had no problem stopping the train in time. Is that so? It's not obvious: a main line train takes 90 seconds to stop Yes it is so. from 100 mph at the braking rates the signalling is designed for. A 3-unit DLR train is 84 metres long. The braking system is designed for 0.6 m/s^2, so that means the train will enter the platform at 10 m/s and take 16.7 seconds to stop. 12 seconds before that the train is doing 17.2 m/s and is 162 metres from the start of the platform. A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe? Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems to be the top speed these days almost everywhere. Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time you're sorted. DLR Bank - Lewisham, 11.06km, timetabled 26 min. Thats 7.1m/s average including 14 intermediate stops, so the top speed must be much more than 10m/s. Peter Smyth |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter Smyth" wrote: wrote: A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe? Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems to be the top speed these days almost everywhere. Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time you're sorted. DLR Bank - Lewisham, 11.06km, timetabled 26 min. Thats 7.1m/s average including 14 intermediate stops, so the top speed must be much more than 10m/s. Well, timetables and reality are 2 different things, but it must be flying on the parts I don't use because on the bank - canary wharf section I reckon it does 30mph absolute max. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC) "Peter Smyth" wrote: d wrote: A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe? Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems to be the top speed these days almost everywhere. Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time you're sorted. DLR Bank - Lewisham, 11.06km, timetabled 26 min. Thats 7.1m/s average including 14 intermediate stops, so the top speed must be much more than 10m/s. Well, timetables and reality are 2 different things, but it must be flying on the parts I don't use because on the bank - canary wharf section I reckon it does 30mph absolute max. 30mph = 13.4 m/s |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:29:47 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC) "Peter Smyth" wrote: d wrote: A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe? Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems to be the top speed these days almost everywhere. Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time you're sorted. DLR Bank - Lewisham, 11.06km, timetabled 26 min. Thats 7.1m/s average including 14 intermediate stops, so the top speed must be much more than 10m/s. Well, timetables and reality are 2 different things, but it must be flying on the parts I don't use because on the bank - canary wharf section I reckon it does 30mph absolute max. 30mph = 13.4 m/s Yes, and? It certainly doesn't do it entering stations. 20mph maybe. Besides, I've been on a DLR train that did an emergency stop - presumably when it lost its control signal - and took no time at all. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC) "Peter Smyth" wrote: d wrote: A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe? Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems to be the top speed these days almost everywhere. Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time you're sorted. DLR Bank - Lewisham, 11.06km, timetabled 26 min. Thats 7.1m/s average including 14 intermediate stops, so the top speed must be much more than 10m/s. Well, timetables and reality are 2 different things, but it must be flying on the parts I don't use because on the bank - canary wharf section I reckon it does 30mph absolute max. 30mph = 13.4 m/s Yes, and? It certainly doesn't do it entering stations. 20mph maybe. Besides, I've been on a DLR train that did an emergency stop - presumably when it lost its control signal - and took no time at all. How far did it travel? Probably more than a few meters. |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:26:46 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: Besides, I've been on a DLR train that did an emergency stop - presumably when it lost its control signal - and took no time at all. How far did it travel? Probably more than a few meters. Don't know. But it stopped in a lot less than the 12 seconds that would have been required to prevent that poor girl being run over. -- Spud |
DLR - no collision detect?
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:42:38 +0100, "
wrote: snipped Aren't there detectors at stations that will either stop a train or cut power in the event that somebody falls onto the tracks. Skytrain in Vancouver has such a system, AIUI. Yes, on both operating systems within the network, there are sensors covering track within all stations. They don't stop suicide attempts though... nor accidents. Statistics are difficult to uncover. A quick search turns up a couple of references both dating to late 2008 with a death toll totaling 54 or 55 from the first SkyTrain lne opening in late '85. But I can't turn up any info as to a breakdown of those. I ride the SkyTrain frequently, and system shutdowns are infrequent, with the usual "medical emergency" sometimes annouced. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk