PDA

View Full Version : Mind the gap!



BrilloPad
23rd December 2011, 08:01
Yes, I do mind the gap (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/mind-the-gap-drunk-fall-under-train)

"it's fine for the British Transport police to make us aware of the dangers of being drunk, but why aren't they – and Network Rail, whose responsibility this is – doing more to make their platforms safer?"

This represents all that is wrong with the UK today. Adults who are careless enough to fall in the gap should be run over. Children should be rescued and their parents thrown under. It might encourage people to take a bit more care and stop expecting someone else to do everything for them.

doodab
23rd December 2011, 10:06
I think she has a valid point. Some of the gaps are ridiculous and with overcrowding on the platforms and trains getting worse it is an accident waiting to happen. I reckon disaster will strike during the Olympics.

VectraMan
23rd December 2011, 10:36
What exactly is different about "modern trains" that makes our victorian platforms unsuitable for them?

The gaps seem to be different for the same trains at different stations, or even on different platforms at the same station. In other words, the problem here is that the rails are in the wrong place. It seems to me that ensuring the distance from rail to platform edge is standard is a relatively simple engineering problem. Perhaps some kind of tape measure could be used?

eek
23rd December 2011, 11:22
What exactly is different about "modern trains" that makes our victorian platforms unsuitable for them?

The gaps seem to be different for the same trains at different stations, or even on different platforms at the same station. In other words, the problem here is that the rails are in the wrong place. It seems to me that ensuring the distance from rail to platform edge is standard is a relatively simple engineering problem. Perhaps some kind of tape measure could be used?

Carriages have different lengths and are usually longer compared to the olden days. A long straight line on a curve is a recipe for longer gaps.

Of course thats a boring answer so instead I'll blame Bob and Kraut train designers.

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 11:28
Carriages have different lengths and are usually longer compared to the olden days. A long straight line on a curve is a recipe for longer gaps.


This issue is fixed slightly by not having the doors right at the end of the carriages

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 11:32
Yes, I do mind the gap (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/mind-the-gap-drunk-fall-under-train)

"it's fine for the British Transport police to make us aware of the dangers of being drunk, but why aren't they – and Network Rail, whose responsibility this is – doing more to make their platforms safer?"

This represents all that is wrong with the UK today. Adults who are careless enough to fall in the gap should be run over. Children should be rescued and their parents thrown under. It might encourage people to take a bit more care and stop expecting someone else to do everything for them.

It's not always that clear cut:
Tributes to blind man, 33, killed by tram in St Peter's Square Metrolink platform accident | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1468243_tributes-to-blind-man-33-killed-by-tram-in-st-peters-square-metrolink-platform-accident)

And having a physical barrier between passengers and the line is possible and relatively easy to engineer. The Jubilee line has this, as does the Singapore MRT

Platform screen doors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors)

What really represents modern Britain is the almost total reliance on victorian age engineering!

eek
23rd December 2011, 11:36
This issue is fixed slightly by not having the doors right at the end of the carriages

That would make sense so we couldn't do that. And image if you had those glass doors you would need to cover so many options it would be impossible.

At least on London Underground you only have a single train type to deal with.

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 11:42
That would make sense so we couldn't do that. And image if you had those glass doors you would need to cover so many options it would be impossible.

At least on London Underground you only have a single train type to deal with.

It's not impossible to have some sort of universal opening barrier - the main hurdles are cost and reliability as I'd imagine there would be a large number of moving parts

Sysman
23rd December 2011, 11:43
What exactly is different about "modern trains" that makes our victorian platforms unsuitable for them?

There isn't a noticeable gap on the trains I use, and the latest carriage models have a sliding plate which moves out to meet the platform when the doors open. With these jobbies even wheelchairs can roll on and off without a problem.

I'm not in the UK of course...

pmeswani
23rd December 2011, 11:44
This issue is fixed slightly by not having the doors right at the end of the carriages

If memory serves me correctly, Picadilly Circus is known for it's big gaps, and not opening the end doors on each carriage isn't going to fix the problem.

NickFitz
23rd December 2011, 12:10
At least on London Underground you only have a single train type to deal with.

On the contrary, there are many kinds of rolling stock on the Tube: Category:London Underground rolling stock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:London_Underground_rolling_stock)

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 12:12
On the contrary, there are many kinds of rolling stock on the Tube: Category:London Underground rolling stock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:London_Underground_rolling_stock)

IIRC each line only has one type running on it

VectraMan
23rd December 2011, 12:15
Carriages have different lengths and are usually longer compared to the olden days. A long straight line on a curve is a recipe for longer gaps.

Of course thats a boring answer so instead I'll blame Bob and Kraut train designers.

Are platforms curved then? I can't think of any that I use that aren't straight.

Zippy
23rd December 2011, 12:16
IIRC each line only has one type running on it

The District line to Wimbledon has two different types. :igmc:

Freamon
23rd December 2011, 12:18
And having a physical barrier between passengers and the line is possible and relatively easy to engineer. The Jubilee line has this, as does the Singapore MRT

Platform screen doors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors)

What really represents modern Britain is the almost total reliance on victorian age engineering!

The Jubilee line extension is the only place in the UK that has really solved the problem. Not only are the screen doors there to prevent people falling or jumping off the platform, you'll notice when you step onto the train that the gap between train and platform is very small indeed (a couple of cms at most) and the two are always at the same level so there is no step up or step down.

When the JLE was being planned, the business case for the screen doors was very clear - the extra cost of putting the doors in and maintaining them was far lower than the cost of dealing with all the accidents and (more frequently) suicides and the knock-on economic costs of all the delays while they were cleared up.

BrilloPad
23rd December 2011, 12:19
When the JLE was being planned, the business case for the screen doors was very clear - the extra cost of putting the doors in and maintaining them was far lower than the cost of dealing with all the accidents and (more frequently) suicides and the knock-on economic costs of all the delays while they were cleared up.

Indeed. And the advantage of new stations is they are straight. I bet now someone is going to tell me about a new station which is curved....

Joeman
23rd December 2011, 12:25
She'd probably got that same train a million times before, and each time happily steped over the gap as have countless other people, So why should we have to have physical barriers between the platform and the train?? for the 0.00001% of times that someone slips??

Trains break down enough as it is without introducing more complexity.

Also, what would happen in the event of a fire on the train? imagine the train pulls into the station, doesnt quite line up with the doors on the platform so they dont open, and everyone burns to death as they cant get out of the train..

Personally, i cant stop laughing at this video :laugh

original PM
23rd December 2011, 13:17
I kind of agree - if we head down this route then how long before we have roads with perspex panels all the way along with doors only at crossing???

It is very difficult to engineer a perfect solution which takes into account all potential risk considerations and mitigates them..

at some point you have to rely on the user to not be a complete tit

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 13:19
I kind of agree - if we head down this route then how long before we have roads with perspex panels all the way along with doors only at crossing???


What? Like railings?

doodab
23rd December 2011, 13:49
The gap also depends on the length of the cars and position of the bogies as well as the curvature of the platforms themselves.

Another problem is the inconsistent height of platforms and rolling stock. There is often 8" or more vertical distance as well.

IR35 Avoider
23rd December 2011, 13:50
Hang on, she says she measured the gap at 46 to 51cm, 18" to 20" in old money, that is huge.

A gap big enough to put a foot in is a hazard, one an adult can fall through is ridiculous. It wouldn't take much to solve this, I like the idea of the automatic plate someone mentioned.

original PM
23rd December 2011, 14:01
Hang on, she says she measured the gap at 46 to 51cm, 18" to 20" in old money, that is huge.

A gap big enough to put a foot in is a hazard, one an adult can fall through is ridiculous. It wouldn't take much to solve this, I like the idea of the automatic plate someone mentioned.

It is not 'huge' at all - less than a standard stride.

And as for the last paragraph in the article comment about someone doing something to protect my children how about you stop your children dicking around on rail platforms as they could fall under a train and die.....

Also the gap is like just next to a ******* big train - you would think people would notice it..

Take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to get the state to nanny us..



:mad

doodab
23rd December 2011, 14:04
It is not 'huge' at all - less than a standard stride.

And as for the last paragraph in the article comment about someone doing something to protect my children how about you stop your children dicking around on rail platforms as they could fall under a train and die.....

Also the gap is like just next to a ******* big train - you would think people would notice it..

Take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to get the state to nanny us..

:mad

Why the **** shouldn't the railways be as safe and user friendly as possible?

In the rush hour it's quite possible that someone could be accidentally pushed off a train or unable to get on safely. Not to mention that you can also have a height of 8"+ to navigate. For an old person with a walking stick, someone with suitcases or more than one young child this is going to be a problem.

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 14:09
Why the **** shouldn't the railways be as safe and user friendly as possible?

In the rush hour it's quite possible that someone could be accidentally pushed off a train or unable to get on safely. Not to mention that you can also have a height of 8"+ to navigate. For an old person with a walking stick, someone with suitcases or more than one young child this is going to be a problem.

WHS

Different people have different "standard strides" and there is no reason why the rail network shouldn't support them.
Thankfully society has moved on from survival of the fittest

doodab
23rd December 2011, 14:14
Not to mention that making it easier for those less able to get on and off easily reduces the dwell time in stations and makes it more likely that trains will actually run on time.

original PM
23rd December 2011, 14:15
I fail to see why I should see a hike in the prices I pay to travel on the train to pander to the tiny percent of society who seem to struggle with a basic task.

I see your point about the elderly etc - but there are 'normally' porters etc at most stations who are available to assist those who need it. And hey - we can all help too - I always do where needed.

And remember you do have a choice - you do not have to take the train....

doodab
23rd December 2011, 14:23
I fail to see why I should see a hike in the prices I pay to travel on the train to pander to the tiny percent of society who seem to struggle with a basic task.

I see your point about the elderly etc - but there are 'normally' porters etc at most stations who are available to assist those who need it. And hey - we can all help too - I always do where needed.

And remember you do have a choice - you do not have to take the train....

I fail to see why they should put up with a barely usable service or be forced to use alternate means of transport to save you a tiny amount of money.

original PM
23rd December 2011, 14:29
I fail to see why they should put up with a barely usable service or be forced to use alternate means of transport to save you a tiny amount of money.

Barely usable......

The Railways have been with us for what 150 years???? what has changed now that makes them barely useable.

Nothing has changed with the railways at all - what has changed is peoples lack of ability to take responsibility for their own actions.

Tiny amount of money ... to upgrade all stations so that the trains are level with the platforms..... add in some perspex barriers (how long before someone running for a train goes through one and tries to sue..) straigten out some platforms.....

I think we are talking much larger amounts than you may think.


But anyway what will be will be.. have a great xmas and -- erm if you have a few beers and take the train home..

Mind the damn gap!



:cheers:

doodab
23rd December 2011, 14:38
Barely usable......

The Railways have been with us for what 150 years???? what has changed now that makes them barely useable.

Nothing has changed with the railways at all - what has changed is peoples lack of ability to take responsibility for their own actions.


Well, lets see, we have millions more people using them, different rolling stock that makes the gaps bigger, people living longer and hence more old people, and 150 years of progress so that we can actually make things better than we could back then.



Tiny amount of money ... to upgrade all stations so that the trains are level with the platforms..... add in some perspex barriers (how long before someone running for a train goes through one and tries to sue..) straigten out some platforms.....

I think we are talking much larger amounts than you may think.


But these amounts are being spent anyway with stations being refurbished, track being renewed, platforms lengthened and so on. Amortised over a period of years and millions of users the per journey cost is fairly minor. And like I say, making passenger ingress and egress easier actually increases the capacity of the rail network, which benefits everybody.



But anyway what will be will be.. have a great xmas and -- erm if you have a few beers and take the train home..

Mind the damn gap!

:cheers:

Yeah, merry christmas. :cheers:

I'll be getting a cab though :wink

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 14:50
Barely usable......

The Railways have been with us for what 150 years????

150 years ago they didn't have platforms, those were invented make it easier for people to get onto the train
They also didn't have a handy foot bridge for crossing the railway, those were invented to keep squishy people away from solid and fast moving chunks of metal.
They also didn't have escalators taking people up from the platform to the bridge, those were invented to make life easier
They also didn't have a lift from the platform to the bridge, those were introduced to make the station accessible for certain groups of people and to make moving luggage around easier.

We could go back to a train station being a man in a shed selling tickets for one old pence. Or we could actually try and make things better.

VectraMan
23rd December 2011, 16:16
And 150 years ago they didn't have digital signs on the platforms giving you accurate information about the arrival time of your train.

And we still don't.

Spacecadet
23rd December 2011, 16:31
And 150 years ago they didn't have digital signs on the platforms giving you accurate information about the arrival time of your train.

And we still don't.

They didn't have live train times available on their mobiles either :tongue

centurian
23rd December 2011, 17:08
Are platforms curved then? I can't think of any that I use that aren't straight.

Bank - Central Line

One of the worst - possibly where "Mind the Gap" originated from.

The curve is so bad that if you are at one end of the platform, you can't see the other end

NickFitz
23rd December 2011, 17:18
Bank - Central Line

One of the worst - possibly where "Mind the Gap" originated from.

The curve is so bad that if you are at one end of the platform, you can't see the other end

Same with the northbound Northern Line platform at Embankment, because it used to be part of a big loop: The Northern Line tunnel – bombed and flooded in 1940 – and still sealed shut (http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2011/10/26/the-northern-line-tunnel-that-was-bombed-and-flooded-in-1940-and-is-still-sealed-shut/)

Gonzo
23rd December 2011, 17:23
Bank - Central Line

One of the worst - possibly where "Mind the Gap" originated from.

The curve is so bad that if you are at one end of the platform, you can't see the other endI'm not an engineer so I don't appreciate all the details but I had it in my mind for some reason that because Bank station is so far below sea level it wasn't possible to do 'straight'.

But the Northern line platform is below the Central Line one, and that is straight.

The DLR platform is even further below and that is straight too.

So what is the explanation?

NickFitz
23rd December 2011, 17:44
I'm not an engineer so I don't appreciate all the details but I had it in my mind for some reason that because Bank station is so far below sea level it wasn't possible to do 'straight'.

But the Northern line platform is below the Central Line one, and that is straight.

The DLR platform is even further below and that is straight too.

So what is the explanation?

If you look on this map showing the actual course of the lines (http://tubejp.co.uk/), you'll see that the Central line turns sharply northwards at Bank (eastbound), whereas the other lines are running pretty straight.

d000hg
23rd December 2011, 17:55
I'm not an engineer so I don't appreciate all the details but I had it in my mind for some reason that because Bank station is so far below sea level it wasn't possible to do 'straight'.

But the Northern line platform is below the Central Line one, and that is straight.

The DLR platform is even further below and that is straight too.

So what is the explanation?I imagine when they were digging the tunnels - imagine what that must have been like without our modern equipment - the extra work/digging to make the line straight at the station was not considered worth it.

Freamon
23rd December 2011, 18:56
Hang on, she says she measured the gap at 46 to 51cm, 18" to 20" in old money, that is huge.

A gap big enough to put a foot in is a hazard, one an adult can fall through is ridiculous. It wouldn't take much to solve this, I like the idea of the automatic plate someone mentioned.

The NYC subway has automatic plates that slide out to bridge the gap between platform and train, in at least one station where the curve of the platform is particularly steep (and therefore the gap particularly wide):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-2rE1wDsb4

OwlHoot
23rd December 2011, 19:08
The NYC subway has automatic plates that slide out to bridge the gap between platform and train, ..

Great, so after falling through the gap the hapless passenger is chopped in half while they struggle to climb back up :eyes

Surely the simplest and safest system, if it could be made practical, would be a row of inverted "bellows" fixed along the top of the track side wall that could be inflated by compressed air in a couple of seconds, and deflated just as fast, to fill the gap with a cushion. You could use even the momentum of the incoming train in some way to power them while braking the train at the same time.

Freamon
23rd December 2011, 19:12
Great, so after falling through the gap the hapless passenger is chopped in half while they struggle to climb back up :eyes

Surely the simplest and safest system, if it could be made practical, would be a row of inverted "bellows" fixed along the top of the track side wall that could be inflated by compressed air in a couple of seconds, and deflated just as fast, to fill the gap with a cushion. You could use even the momentum of the incoming train in some way to power them while braking the train at the same time.
You're right, that does sound very simple.

SueEllen
23rd December 2011, 19:21
Great, so after falling through the gap the hapless passenger is chopped in half while they struggle to climb back up :eyes


For wheelchair passengers if they request in advance and someone is available they wheel out a platform which enables them to get their wheelchair on and off the train themselves, as the platform goes over the gap.

The main problem is there is not usually a staff member available to put the platform out in the evenings and it adds an extra minute or two onto the train timetable.

Therefore the woman who often gets off at the station near me with one leg normally has to hop off over the massive gap holding on to one able-bodied passenger, while another able-bodied passenger takes her wheelchair put her wheelchair on the platform for her.