On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:01:28 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

Interesting that the guard has to travel in the train carriage, DLR
style, as the door release and door close buttons are by the doors
themselves.

I was wondering about this a while ago - i can't remember if i asked here
or not. How does this work when the trains are crush-loaded? Is the guard
sardined in with his flock (school?)?

I guess they must have to stay at the same door area until such time as
the crowding subsides and they can move elsewhere. I've not travelled
on DLR in mega crush conditions.

John's answered this, as it pertains to the ELL - the guard has a cab to
retreat to.

The fact one pair of doors is open while the guard shuts the others just
means people dash and plead with the guard to be allowed on - this
certainly happened with the lunchtime trip I saw at Highbury where there
is a constant stream of passengers.

I'm really confused by by this. Why is one pair of doors open while the
other isn't? What does 'pair' mean here?

The concept is the same as DLR - i.e. the guard is in control of one
doorway (i.e. two door leaves that slide across). From what I saw today
the guard stepped out on to the platform to ensure the other doors where
clear before initiating the door close process. Once the other doors are
closed he then steps into the train and closes the one remaining doorway
where his control panel is.

Oh, i see! Thanks for the explanation.

If you've seen what happens with DLR then you've seen what is happening
with the 378s.

I haven't used the DLR that much, hence my ignorance of this procedure.

Sorry for confusing doors with the bits that actually slide across the
opening!

Not at all - this was a regrettable lacuna in my knowledge of doors.

tom

--
In case you don't know what CROWDSOURCING is, it's a stomach-churning
new media term obviously invented by a ******* made of ****. -- Charlie
Brooker

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:33:54 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

The fact one pair of doors is open while the guard shuts the others just
means people dash and plead with the guard to be allowed on - this
certainly happened with the lunchtime trip I saw at Highbury where there
is a constant stream of passengers.

I'm really confused by by this. Why is one pair of doors open while the
other isn't? What does 'pair' mean here?

The concept is the same as DLR - i.e. the guard is in control of one
doorway (i.e. two door leaves that slide across). From what I saw today
the guard stepped out on to the platform to ensure the other doors where
clear before initiating the door close process. Once the other doors are
closed he then steps into the train and closes the one remaining doorway
where his control panel is. If you've seen what happens with DLR then
you've seen what is happening with the 378s. Sorry for confusing doors
with the bits that actually slide across the opening!

Oh dear. So the procedure at *every* stop is:

- Guard opens own set of doors
- Guard step out onto platform and checks train is correctly
platformed
- Guard opens remaining doors
- After passengers have finished boarding/alighting, guard closes all
but own set of doors
- Guard checks everything is OK
- Guard steps (or squeezes) onto train
- Guard closes own set of doors.

Surely it's easy enough for the guard to travel in the rear cab,
allowing them to lean out of the window and open/close all doors at
once?

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

On Jul 31, 3:02*pm, asdf wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I fail to see any need for guards (other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

Neil

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:39:37 +0100, Gavin Hamilton wrote:

Was impressed by the quick door release on the 365
at Kings Cross - unlike the usual long wait on a London Midland 321 or
350.

Surely this left you cowering in fear at how unsafe 365s are, compared
to 321s/350s with their important and worthwhile safety features?

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Andy wrote:

The same is true with the LM Desiros, although the wait is normally so
long that people remove their finger!! The 'rules' on LM state that
the conductor must open their door first to check the position of
train in the platform, hence the delay. I don't know why this rule has
come in, as it certainly adds to the overall journey time without any
major safety advantage over the conductor 'knowing' the train and
platform length from memory.

It's completely ineffective half the time anyway, because at many
stations the platform curves away and at least one end of the train
cannot be seen, so the guard has to rely on this 'knowing' anyway.

On 31 July, 15:06, Neil Williams wrote:
TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

They are fitted with cameras. The fight with Bob Crow comes later.

U

On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need for guards (other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

asdf writes:

Oh dear. So the procedure at *every* stop is:

- Guard opens own set of doors
- Guard step out onto platform and checks train is correctly
platformed
- Guard opens remaining doors
- After passengers have finished boarding/alighting, guard closes all
but own set of doors
- Guard checks everything is OK
- Guard steps (or squeezes) onto train
- Guard closes own set of doors.

Surely it's easy enough for the guard to travel in the rear cab,
allowing them to lean out of the window and open/close all doors at
once?

Is that very much different than the traditional, guard opens (inwards)
van door as train enters platform; Guard steps onto platform and watches
passengers boarding/alighting; Guard either blows whistle and holds up
green flag then re-enters train or re-enters train and while leaning out
of door presses bell twice; Guard continues leaning out of door
observing departure until the train leaves the platform, pressing bell
or applying brake in case of problems; Guard closes van door.

On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need for guards (other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. It's to do
with the procedure. It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow produre on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

asdf wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

The customer tells the manufacturer he wants to buy such trains, so the
manufacturer manufactures them. Bombardier has supplied plenty of trains
which don't need a driver, let alone a guard.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK