In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
Why isn't that a problem in Paris, then?

Perhaps because there is more room alongside the cars in the Paris
metro system.

What sort of genuine emergency did you have in mind? If the train is
crowded, it wouldn't be possible to squeeze a whole car's worth of
passengers into adjacent cars.

No, but it would be possible to move an entire train's worth of
passengers along the train and out the door at the end, which is
the only practial way out of a train in a tube tunnel (there being
little room between the door and the wall of the tunnel), and the
floor at that point being a bit ... curvey.


--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

In message , Brimstone
writes

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

On LU, the fact that these doors can be opened by passengers means that
reversing trains at places such as Liverpool Street or Rayners Lane
takes longer, even with station staff involved. Plus the inability to
run with a car locked out. Plus the occasional death or injury through
passenger use. So what's the reason for allowing public access that
doesn't apply in Paris?

If there is a genuine emergency would you really want to have to wait for
someone to fight their way through a crowded train to unlock the doors?

Why not have a J-Door type key for normal use, plus an emergency release
handle, that would also apply the brakes?
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

In article , Richard J.
writes
So what's the reason for
allowing public access that doesn't apply in Paris?
If there is a genuine emergency would you really want to have to
wait for someone to fight their way through a crowded train to
unlock the doors?
Why isn't that a problem in Paris, then?

Paris RATP lines are nearly all double track. So you can evacuate a
train through the normal doors.

Much of London Underground is single track with no clearance to the
tunnel walls, so evacuation has to be through the end doors.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article ,
(Spyke) wrote:

In message , Brimstone
writes

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

On LU, the fact that these doors can be opened by passengers means
that
reversing trains at places such as Liverpool Street or Rayners Lane
takes longer, even with station staff involved. Plus the inability
to
run with a car locked out. Plus the occasional death or injury
through
passenger use. So what's the reason for allowing public access that
doesn't apply in Paris?

If there is a genuine emergency would you really want to have to wait
for
someone to fight their way through a crowded train to unlock the doors?

Why not have a J-Door type key for normal use, plus an emergency
release handle, that would also apply the brakes?
--
Unfortunately too many people mess about on the train, and having a door
that could still be opened, whether in emergency or not would not deter
them. People still remove the emergency panel on the J door to access
the cab door handle. There is nothing more annoying, as a driver, that the
continuous slamming of the emergency doors as people are walking through
them. You know when you have the beggars on the train because they start
at one end and then just walk through the train and the sound of slamming
doors gets louder.

It's no good having a handle that applies the brakes, because they would
always being applied. Other than the first few seconds when a train leaves
the platform, operation of a passenger emergency handle does not apply the
brakes, only sets off an alarm in the cab and it's up to the driver to
decide whether to stop or not (there are procedures laid down for this).
As far as I'm aware, this passenger emergency handle operation is now the
same principle on all stock.

LUL went away from the procedure of having a handle apply the brakes
because the train could not be moved unless the driver went back to reset
the handle. This meant that there was a risk of passengers being harmed,
say by smoke, if the train was stalled in a tunnel as a consequence of the
handle operation, whereas the driver could have ignored the alarm and just
carried on to the next station. Newer stock have a talk-back facility near
most of the handles where the driver can talk to the person who has
operated the handle and easily make up his mind whether to stop and deal
with the problem or carry on and deal with it at the next station. Many
handle operations are due to accidental use, especially the wheelchair
access ones which are very handy for babes in arms to play with :-)

An alarm could be provided to let the driver know if the door has been
opened. Indeed this happens on both the middle cab doors (J&M doors) on
the 95 stock.


Roger

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

wrote:
You'd prefer the entire train to be withdrawn from service?

No. I'd prefer that the entire car was locked out of use. Be
sensible, Robin.

For the past few years it has not been LUL policy to run trains
with one or more cars cut out. This is because it is possible for
passengers to access the car through the emergency doors.

... which prompts me to ask why passengers are given free access through
the emergency doors. In Paris, the inter-car doors on the Métro can be
opened only by a key, probably the Métro equivalent of LU's J-door key.

As far as I'm aware, it is an HMRI (or whoever) requirement that there
must be free access throughout the train, including through the cabs.


On LU, the fact that these doors can be opened by passengers means that
reversing trains at places such as Liverpool Street or Rayners Lane
takes longer, even with station staff involved. Plus the inability to
run with a car locked out. Plus the occasional death or injury through
passenger use. So what's the reason for allowing public access that
doesn't apply in Paris?

As far as I'm aware, it is an HMRI (or whoever) requirement that there
must be free access throughout the train, including through the cabs.


--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Solar Penguin) wrote:

wrote:

It does mean, though, that trains are now taken out of service for
often minor things when in the past it just meant isolating a car and
carrying on in passenger service as normal.

Roger


I was at Uxbridge last week, and tried to get a Met train baack. But
just as it was about to leave, there was annociment saying it is being
taken out of service because of "mess in the train." We all had to get
off and take the next train!

OTOH, It would be nice if SouthCentral could be even half that
dedicated at keeping trains tidy...


That's another thing, apart from the vomit etc., there are also the turds
- sometimes dog but, often or not, human ones!. I must say, though, that
given the amount of passengers that travel on the trains these days and
the amount of drunk passengers that are carried at night and the state of
some of them when turfed out at Morden, there seems to be much less of the
vomit and urine around in the cars these days. Mind you, it might be
because there are more trains running so it it shared out between more
cars!

Roger

In message , Robin Mayes
writes
two engineers were intently watching the traction motor below. There were
a
lot of grinding and banging noises (unusual ones) coming from the wheelset
as we progressed towards Queen's Park.

I was surprised that the vehicle was in service. Had it been an overground
TOC then the vehicle would have been locked out of service, rather than
full
of after-show revellers on their way home, surrounding working engineers -
but then that's LUL for you!

You'd prefer the entire train to be withdrawn from service?

In the circumstances described, that should have been the correct
procedure. If a car is unavailable, the whole train should be withdrawn
from service.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In message ,
writes
As far as I'm aware, this passenger emergency handle operation is now
the same principle on all stock.

On 73 stock, the Round The Train is lost so an emergency brake
application is made. We do have a button on the floor to allow this to
be overridden though, but it has to be kept pressed for the duration -
and the Sonalert still sounds all the time the handle is down.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In article , ] (Steve
Fitzgerald) wrote:

In message ,
writes
As far as I'm aware, this passenger emergency handle operation is now
the same principle on all stock.

On 73 stock, the Round The Train is lost so an emergency brake
application is made. We do have a button on the floor to allow this to
be overridden though, but it has to be kept pressed for the duration -
and the Sonalert still sounds all the time the handle is down.

The button on the floor is an addition since I was on the Picc Line. I
can't remember what the procedure was then. I know the alarm came up on
the TEP and I suspect that you could release the brakes by cutting out the
RTC, although of course the alarm would still remain. Or it may be
that the car could be by-passed via the TEP. They still had Guards on the
trains then (1978), so any problems were left for the Guard to sort out
:-)

On the 95 stock, the RTC is only lost if the alarm is operated during the
16(?) seconds timer when departing the station. At all other times, there
is just a warning in the cab that can be cancelled. The talk-back
procedure would then be followed.

Roger

In message ,
writes

The button on the floor is an addition since I was on the Picc Line. I
can't remember what the procedure was then. I know the alarm came up on
the TEP and I suspect that you could release the brakes by cutting out the
RTC, although of course the alarm would still remain. Or it may be
that the car could be by-passed via the TEP. They still had Guards on the
trains then (1978), so any problems were left for the Guard to sort out
:-)

I suspect these were added at the refurbs, when the TEP was ripped out
and replaced with a CDU (Which apparently doesn't do half as much).
Cue Mr. Delieu of this parish to come along and tell us all about the
good old days, pre refurb. blah blah blah :-)

On the 95 stock, the RTC is only lost if the alarm is operated during the
16(?) seconds timer when departing the station. At all other times, there
is just a warning in the cab that can be cancelled. The talk-back
procedure would then be followed.

It's up to us to ensure whether we are within station limits and make
the appropriate decision.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)