|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 4, 2015 2:43:36 GMT
With the sickening incidents of people being pushed from train platforms on to the tracks, accidental falls, drink-related stupidity, suicides etc it's about d*mn time barriers are implemented across the whole LU. There really are no excuses, especially with the recent Kentish Town incident and the close call at Piccadilly Circus. Link to Kentish Town incident
What really peees me off is the moronic imbecile by the name of 'Chris Wyburd' who compared putting barriers on platforms with Zebra Crossings at the bottom of the page....comparing something realistically understandable and feasible to an irrational and illogical scenario is an utter fail, his statement couldn't be any more flawed regardless of it being a figure of speech. The logic can be understood by any halfwit if barriers are put up on LU platforms, the newer Jubilee Line platforms being perfect examples. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 4, 2015 9:42:35 GMT
With the sickening incidents of people being pushed from train platforms on to the tracks, accidental falls, drink-related stupidity, suicides etc it's about d*mn time barriers are implemented across the whole LU. There really are no excuses, especially with the recent Kentish Town incident and the close call at Piccadilly Circus. Link to Kentish Town incident
What really peees me off is the moronic imbecile by the name of 'Chris Wyburd' who compared putting barriers on platforms with Zebra Crossings at the bottom of the page....comparing something realistically understandable and feasible to an irrational and illogical scenario is an utter fail, his statement couldn't be any more flawed regardless of it being a figure of speech. The logic can be understood by any halfwit if barriers are put up on LU platforms, the newer Jubilee Line platforms being perfect examples. Meanwhile back in the real world there is no justification, in terms of accidents / deaths avoided, for platform edge barriers. Being brutal about it the numbers don't work and however distasteful it might be you do have to put a financial value on a life or a serious injury. It's done all the time. The costs are likely to be substantial because of the highly variable condition of LU's platforms plus they're not all straight. It's easy to design them in at the start as per JLE and Crossrail and there are extra benefits there because they're linked into the ventilation, fire and smoke control features. They're also co-ordinated with the new signalling and control systems. The next line to get them will be the Piccadilly Line as part of the upgrade and move to fully automatic trains and works to improve the accessibility of Picc Line platforms. You can't run accessible trains when you have compromise height platforms that involve stepping down into a train. Therefore the Picc Line upgrade will undoubtedly see some very complex track raising / platform reconstruction works to deal with accessibility and allow platform edge barriers to be fitted. You can see in the case of the Picc Line that an integrated approach allows the fitment of barriers because the costs are linked into a much wider set of works and improvements / benefits. Therefore the cost becomes marginal in the greater scheme of things. See page of content.tfl.gov.uk/future-contract-opportunities-over-500k.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 4, 2015 12:27:54 GMT
Well at least the Piccadilly Line is a start! What could bring costs down is the extent of the barriers covering the edge of the platform, they don't have to be that high to cover the entire height of the train as they currently are on the Jubilee Line resulting in less materials being used. There is also the option of using alternative materials to lower costs, if I'm not mistaken the current barriers on the Jubilee Line are Tempered Glass/Plexiglass? Reinforced Polycarbonate could be a cheaper alternative and less prone to cracking. You do raise a good point in platform reconstruction works, some platforms curve quite sharply and some have a complex meandering layout. I suppose this is something that needs to be worked on if people's lives continue to be at stake!
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 4, 2015 13:35:38 GMT
I hate the look of Jubilee Line extension stations so I'm not a fan of installing barriers purely for that reason. The pratically of those stations is really good but they are seriously dull and very dingy - I hope the Piccadilly Line stations won't become like this either.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 4, 2015 20:11:16 GMT
Well at least the Piccadilly Line is a start! What could bring costs down is the extent of the barriers covering the edge of the platform, they don't have to be that high to cover the entire height of the train as they currently are on the Jubilee Line resulting in less materials being used. There is also the option of using alternative materials to lower costs, if I'm not mistaken the current barriers on the Jubilee Line are Tempered Glass/Plexiglass? Reinforced Polycarbonate could be a cheaper alternative and less prone to cracking. You do raise a good point in platform reconstruction works, some platforms curve quite sharply and some have a complex meandering layout. I suppose this is something that needs to be worked on if people's lives continue to be at stake! To be honest the issue is rather more about the physical state of the platforms. Some are in very poor shape internally and nosing stones are known to "wobble" and come loose. You can't plonk heavy platform barriers and all the equipment to move them on existing platforms. The platforms would collapse and the barriers would be on the track bed. You also need to consider things like stepping heights, stepping distances, drainage, power supplies, how they cope in weather etc. Parts of the Picc Line (rayners lane branch) see very odd winter weather because of the micro climates that can develop. Ditto the Stanmore end of the Jubilee. I know this from having been Stations Performance Manager for all of JNP and having to deal with these issues. Clearly someone will be able to manufacture half height barriers that can be installed on tube platforms. All I am saying is that the environment is not easy and the challenges will be many. It wouldn't work as a stand alone initiative but as part of a huge line upgrade then it probably does (or LU have decided in principle it will). I am not persuaded that one pushing incident at Kentish Town alters anything - I'll sound dispassionate but we need to be rational about what to do and about these incidents. I've dealt with the recommendations from a number of platform / train interface incidents - some of which would really worry you. It's perfectly clear that millions of journeys are made perfectly safely on the tube every day despite the wide variation in train designs, station layouts, platform designs etc. Clearly if people die or are seriously injured then that's a tragedy for them and their families and friends. However they must be set in the wider context and you don't go racing off willy nilly trying to "improve" matters without some very serious research, analysis and consultation with the staff who know the issues. To be frank it is nearly impossible for LU to detect "nutters" who feel inclined to shove people off platforms. Ditto for those goons who think it's OK to have a p*ss in the tunnels, walk to the next station down the tunnels, jump off platforms to rescue bags / phones etc. It's not LU's job to employ "loony detectors" - it just has to deal with the consequences. When you can take a systematic approach to renewals and enhancements and you're contemplating a big operational change (fully auto trains) then you have a better opportunity to make step change improvements - either because you want to or you simply have to. Nonetheless it is worth bearing in mind that the DLR is fully automatic and it has relatively few fatal / serious injury incidents. In fact I can't think of the last time I heard of the DLR having to deal with a "one under" incident. Therefore you could have a debate about why is the Tube so much more prone to problems than the DLR is despite the DLR having an operational model that is like to one LU wants to introduce at some point in the future. If DLR copes without platform barriers why does the tube need them? Not saying we have the debate here - just saying there are choices / options / legitimate questions. |
|
