On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>
>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>> door system.
>>>
>>
>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>
> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>

Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>
>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>> door system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>
>
> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>

Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
trains?

On Sun, 06 Jun 2021 15:39:02 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 15:06:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s9djq8$ffj$3@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> So what are the positives? The conversion will cost a fortune, the
>>>> operating costs will rise,
>>>
>>> This is where I 100% disagree with you
>>>
>>> I do not accept your ridiculous premise that the on-train assistants will be
>>> paid the same as current drivers
>>>
>>> It's a nonsense thing to do
>>>
>>> You have no proof that it will happen.
>>
>>So why do you think the pay for drivers rose when ATO was introduced?
>>
>>You seem to be oblivious to the power of rail unions.
>>
>>And you keep forgetting about the PEDs, that are failure-prone and need
>>lots of maintenance. Unlike ticket gates, they can't just be left open when
>>they fail.
>>
>IME the opposite usually happens when they fail. They are locked shut
>and a member of staff left in attendance to indicate to passengers on
>the train that they need to move to another door. If that member of
>staff is not available then trains have to pass through without
>stopping.

This is all part of the process of cutting costs that Tim favours?

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:29:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>> door system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>
>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>
>>
>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>
>
>Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
>trains?

I think 'people' is in the singular. Alexander the Great came up with this as a union-busting wheeze when he was having
his IT lessons from Jennifer Arcuri

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>> door system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>
>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>
>>
>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>
>
> Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
> trains?

That’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. I can see no logic behind
spending vast sums on retrofitting old lines for driverless operation.

OK, consider it when planning new lines, to see whether it would be both
safe and economic to implement.

But there’s no point in even having a project to consider it for the
current tube network, because we already know it would cost a lot for no
benefit.

--
Jeremy Double

On 7 Jun 2021 11:28:23 GMT, Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>>> door system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
>> trains?
>
>That’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. I can see no logic behind
>spending vast sums on retrofitting old lines for driverless operation.
>
>OK, consider it when planning new lines, to see whether it would be both
>safe and economic to implement.
>
>But there’s no point in even having a project to consider it for the
>current tube network, because we already know it would cost a lot for no
>benefit.

Mayor Boris was always happy to splash (or spaff) taxpayers' money on grandiose projects, whether or not they had any
chance of success. He can now do it on a larger scale.

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <MrSpook_w1z3coms@5jel.com> wrote in message
>> news:s9dja3$11n8$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:45:46 +0100
>>> "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:s9ckui$ogn$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> There's absolutely nothing that a driver can do in an emergency
>>>>>> situation,
>>>>>> that this attendant can't
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? How about spotting obstructions on the track, such as
>>>>> trespassers
>>>>> or fallen trees?
>>>>
>>>> we are discussing a systems that is mostly underground lines.
>>>
>>> Most of the London Underground is above ground.
>>
>> the ones first in line to be automated are mostly underground
>>
>>>> And in any case, automated trains can "spot" these things (often overly
>>>> cautiously)
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> yep
>>
>>> Since when?
>>
>> Since I read about it happening on the Copenhagen system, which must have
>> been almost 20 years ago.
>>
>>> Sure, some machine learning vision system probably could
>>> but "probably" is not the same as "always will".
>>
>> The system back then was crude and overly sensitive, it isn't hard to
>> achieve
>>
>>>>> It's made worse if they could be anywhere in the crowded train, rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> at the front where they have equipment.
>>>>
>>>> Oh come on.
>>>>
>>>> providing comms repeaters along the train is a trivial technical task
>>>>
>>>> are you still in the 1960s?
>>>
>>> Have you ever been on a tube train in the rush hour? You literally cannot
>>> move without having to physically shove someone out of the way. How the
>>> fuck
>>> is an attendent supposed to do anything in those circumstances?
>>
>> presumably he has a cab he "hides" in
>>
>>>>> Unmanned automatic trains certainly would.
>>>>
>>>> people who are building automated systems from scratch don't seem to have
>>>> additional operational problems with incidents on the track
>>>
>>> From scratch being the operative words. Not a system constructed from 1880
>>> onwards.
>>
>> Oh don't be silly
>>
>> the track and signalling are all up to a reasonably modern standard
>>
>> what else can go wrong to force a train to stop?
>>
>> or are you thinking that a 150 year old tunnel might collapse?
>
> See
> https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/penetration-and-obstruction-of-a-tunnel-between-old-street-and-essex-road-stations-london
>

I was reminded of that one, also (though I don’t know of any reference)
that the various things attached to the walls of the tunnels (cables,
signals, signage) might occasionally fall off.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>
>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>> door system.
>>>
>>
>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>
>
> Maybe a guillotine style door coming down from the top to meet the rising
> bollards, too? :D

And the penalty for obstructing the system? :-)

Sam (gets out knitting needles)

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:45:33 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpook_4ufv8gaxl@ygagfqsr.biz wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Jun 2021 17:33:31 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:04:15 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>precise stopping is much harder in open air stations with much more
>>>variable rail quality. The approach speeds would therefore have to be
>>>reduced.
>>>
>>I suspect the tolerance is much the same in either case. I have been
>>at open air stations (Met. and Jubilee) where the driver has had to
>>adjust the train's stopping position by a matter of a few inches
>>before opening the doors.
>
>I've been on the underground parts of the JLE where occasionally the driver
>has had to do the same. I suspect - though I have no proof - that the
>resolution of the distance measuring system on the jubilee probably only goes
>down to something like 6 inches at best.
>
The PEDs sometimes (but not too often) overlap the train doors by
around 3 inches or so with the doors open thus roughly matching that.
However, looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgJi7JlGlEw
[Jubilee Line PEDs at Waterloo Station]
the PEDs seem to be around 18" wider than the train doors so the full
stopping position tolerance might be as much as a couple of feet which
ISTR is about the width of the green section of the driver's stopping
position marker.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:20:00 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <MrSpook_w1z3coms@5jel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s9dja3$11n8$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:45:46 +0100
>>>> "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s9ckui$ogn$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> There's absolutely nothing that a driver can do in an emergency
>>>>>>> situation,
>>>>>>> that this attendant can't
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? How about spotting obstructions on the track, such as
>>>>>> trespassers
>>>>>> or fallen trees?
>>>>>
>>>>> we are discussing a systems that is mostly underground lines.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the London Underground is above ground.
>>>
>>> the ones first in line to be automated are mostly underground
>>>
>>>>> And in any case, automated trains can "spot" these things (often overly
>>>>> cautiously)
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>> yep
>>>
>>>> Since when?
>>>
>>> Since I read about it happening on the Copenhagen system, which must have
>>> been almost 20 years ago.
>>>
>>>> Sure, some machine learning vision system probably could
>>>> but "probably" is not the same as "always will".
>>>
>>> The system back then was crude and overly sensitive, it isn't hard to
>>> achieve
>>>
>>>>>> It's made worse if they could be anywhere in the crowded train, rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> at the front where they have equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh come on.
>>>>>
>>>>> providing comms repeaters along the train is a trivial technical task
>>>>>
>>>>> are you still in the 1960s?
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever been on a tube train in the rush hour? You literally cannot
>>>> move without having to physically shove someone out of the way. How the
>>>> fuck
>>>> is an attendent supposed to do anything in those circumstances?
>>>
>>> presumably he has a cab he "hides" in
>>>
>>>>>> Unmanned automatic trains certainly would.
>>>>>
>>>>> people who are building automated systems from scratch don't seem to have
>>>>> additional operational problems with incidents on the track
>>>>
>>>> From scratch being the operative words. Not a system constructed from 1880
>>>> onwards.
>>>
>>> Oh don't be silly
>>>
>>> the track and signalling are all up to a reasonably modern standard
>>>
>>> what else can go wrong to force a train to stop?
>>>
>>> or are you thinking that a 150 year old tunnel might collapse?
>>
>> See
>> https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/penetration-and-obstruction-of-a-tunnel-between-old-street-and-essex-road-stations-london
>>
>
>I was reminded of that one, also (though I don’t know of any reference)
>that the various things attached to the walls of the tunnels (cables,
>signals, signage) might occasionally fall off.
>
AFAIR from reports in the LURS "Underground", the usual thing to fall
off in the Underground was the occasional DriCo wire
[https://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/11416] becoming detached from
an insulator and being caught by a passing train. Most signals in tube
tunnels have probably got their fixing bolts assisted by a layer of
rust on the threads; the only loose signal I recall reported in the
above was one on the Met. Line whose post had shifted due to
subsidence. The above journal had a photograph of the relevant A stock
train with the signal head embedded in its roof by its backshade.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 05:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 21:14:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:36:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <MrSpook_rx55@1duyua4y5vp0.info> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just because e.g. the Met trains share some track with the Piccadilly trains
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that we don't have dedicated stock of Piccadilly trains and a
>>>>>>>> dedicated stock of Met trains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it stops you from easily having PEDs in those areas, therefore stops
>>>>>>> those areas from being automated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More like impossible. You can't have PEDs where the train doors have different
>>>>>> locations and seperations on the different stocks with differing length
>>>>>> carraiges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided you have sufficient checking that the area between the train and
>>>>> "PEDs" is clear (ie probably need to be manual not automated, unless the
>>>>> technology used in Obstacle Detection crossings is suitable), I reckon you
>>>>> could put the "PEDs" a few feet back from the platform edge and allow
>>>>> circulation space between the PEDs and train.
>>>>>
>>>>> A solution I've seen in Japan (staffed station, not driverless) is a gap in
>>>>> the platform edge wall, with a number of plastic ropes which lift when a
>>>>> train arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably the relative sizes and spacings of doors on the two stocks make
>>>>> it impossible to have two entirely independent sets of PEDs interspersed
>>>>> along the same platform edge?
>>>>>
>>>> It probably would not be too hard if the carriage lengths didn't
>>>> differ too much and the tube trains were three doors per side (which
>>>> doesn't apply to current Piccadilly stock or impressions of the
>>>> replacement).
>>>
>>> Three (equal-size, evenly-spaced) doors per side ain't happening for tube
>>> size stock, because the bogies protrude through the low floor at just the
>>> wrong places.
>>>
>> Aren't these trains articulated and with no end doors ? :-
>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tube_for_London
>> ("Wider double doorways throughout, with no half width doors ")
>> and
>> https://londonist.com/london/transport/futuristic-tube-trains-piccadilly
>> (mockup showing only double doors and only two seats between the doors
>> and the end of the carriage as per S stock).
>
>Yes, they appear to have two double-doors per section.
>
>>
>>>> Rather than one set of doors for each type of train, one
>>>> trick could be to mount the PEDs in a frame which rolls to the correct
>>>> position to match the train or if the door positions are close enough
>>>> then adjust the open position of the two PED leaves to match the train
>>>> doors.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't the walls between the doors need to roll, expand or slide across each
>>> other too? Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
>>>
>> Not much more than at present? I can only recall encountering a couple
>> of PED failures in recent years.
>
>And what about if the PEDs are in the open, subject to rain, snow, dust,
>wind and wide temperature ranges?
>
WRT the Underground, something to be found out in the future if at
all. The official reason for the PEDs is ventilation not passenger
safety but if e.g. the DfT decide otherwise they could appear at
(selected?) open air stations.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 21:14:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:36:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <MrSpook_rx55@1duyua4y5vp0.info> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just because e.g. the Met trains share some track with the Piccadilly trains
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that we don't have dedicated stock of Piccadilly trains and a
>>>>>>>> dedicated stock of Met trains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it stops you from easily having PEDs in those areas, therefore stops
>>>>>>> those areas from being automated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More like impossible. You can't have PEDs where the train doors have different
>>>>>> locations and seperations on the different stocks with differing length
>>>>>> carraiges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided you have sufficient checking that the area between the train and
>>>>> "PEDs" is clear (ie probably need to be manual not automated, unless the
>>>>> technology used in Obstacle Detection crossings is suitable), I reckon you
>>>>> could put the "PEDs" a few feet back from the platform edge and allow
>>>>> circulation space between the PEDs and train.
>>>>>
>>>>> A solution I've seen in Japan (staffed station, not driverless) is a gap in
>>>>> the platform edge wall, with a number of plastic ropes which lift when a
>>>>> train arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably the relative sizes and spacings of doors on the two stocks make
>>>>> it impossible to have two entirely independent sets of PEDs interspersed
>>>>> along the same platform edge?
>>>>>
>>>> It probably would not be too hard if the carriage lengths didn't
>>>> differ too much and the tube trains were three doors per side (which
>>>> doesn't apply to current Piccadilly stock or impressions of the
>>>> replacement).
>>>
>>> Three (equal-size, evenly-spaced) doors per side ain't happening for tube
>>> size stock, because the bogies protrude through the low floor at just the
>>> wrong places.
>>>
>> Aren't these trains articulated and with no end doors ? :-
>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tube_for_London
>> ("Wider double doorways throughout, with no half width doors ")
>> and
>> https://londonist.com/london/transport/futuristic-tube-trains-piccadilly
>> (mockup showing only double doors and only two seats between the doors
>> and the end of the carriage as per S stock).
>>
>
>Yes ok, in that case you might get equal door spacing along the train. But
>not the same carriage length as S Stock.
>
>>>> Rather than one set of doors for each type of train, one
>>>> trick could be to mount the PEDs in a frame which rolls to the correct
>>>> position to match the train or if the door positions are close enough
>>>> then adjust the open position of the two PED leaves to match the train
>>>> doors.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't the walls between the doors need to roll, expand or slide across each
>>> other too? Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
>>>
>> Not much more than at present? I can only recall encountering a couple
>> of PED failures in recent years.
>
>But you mentioned PEDs rolling sideways along the platforms to reposition
>themselves between train arrivals, like something out of a CGI Harry Potter
>movie!
>
Not the PEDs but a simpler frame in which they are mounted.

>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>
>
>Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>some simpler solution will present itself.
>
The current LU PEDs are installed for ventilation purposes thus only
in tunnel sections where there is at present no mixing of stock types.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:48:31 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>
>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>> door system.
>>>
>>
>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>
>
>Maybe a guillotine style door coming down from the top to meet the rising
>bollards, too? :D
>
"They won't do that again."
>:-)

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:03:48 +0000 (UTC),
MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>
>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>> door system.
>>>
>>
>>And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>
>I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>
Maybe not at stations in the Soho area. ;-)

On 7 Jun 2021 11:28:23 GMT, Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>>> door system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
>> trains?
>
>That’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. I can see no logic behind
>spending vast sums on retrofitting old lines for driverless operation.
>
>OK, consider it when planning new lines, to see whether it would be both
>safe and economic to implement.
>
>But there’s no point in even having a project to consider it for the
>current tube network, because we already know it would cost a lot for no
>benefit.
>
The main advantage is not in such trains being driverless but in the
driver not having to do the routine driving. The control system can
see further ahead than the Mk1 eyeball thus speeding up the many
sections without a long view ahead. It can also more closely and
consistently control the train speeds and spacing (as evident with
trains in ATO mode on the Circle Line). What the human on the train
beats the computer at is dealing with the countless things that can go
wrong which do not involve the control system.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <MrSpook_w1z3coms@5jel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s9dja3$11n8$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:45:46 +0100
>>>> "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s9ckui$ogn$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> There's absolutely nothing that a driver can do in an emergency
>>>>>>> situation,
>>>>>>> that this attendant can't
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? How about spotting obstructions on the track, such as
>>>>>> trespassers
>>>>>> or fallen trees?
>>>>>
>>>>> we are discussing a systems that is mostly underground lines.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the London Underground is above ground.
>>>
>>> the ones first in line to be automated are mostly underground
>>>
>>>>> And in any case, automated trains can "spot" these things (often overly
>>>>> cautiously)
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>> yep
>>>
>>>> Since when?
>>>
>>> Since I read about it happening on the Copenhagen system, which must have
>>> been almost 20 years ago.
>>>
>>>> Sure, some machine learning vision system probably could
>>>> but "probably" is not the same as "always will".
>>>
>>> The system back then was crude and overly sensitive, it isn't hard to
>>> achieve
>>>
>>>>>> It's made worse if they could be anywhere in the crowded train, rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> at the front where they have equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh come on.
>>>>>
>>>>> providing comms repeaters along the train is a trivial technical task
>>>>>
>>>>> are you still in the 1960s?
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever been on a tube train in the rush hour? You literally cannot
>>>> move without having to physically shove someone out of the way. How the
>>>> fuck
>>>> is an attendent supposed to do anything in those circumstances?
>>>
>>> presumably he has a cab he "hides" in
>>>
>>>>>> Unmanned automatic trains certainly would.
>>>>>
>>>>> people who are building automated systems from scratch don't seem to have
>>>>> additional operational problems with incidents on the track
>>>>
>>>> From scratch being the operative words. Not a system constructed from 1880
>>>> onwards.
>>>
>>> Oh don't be silly
>>>
>>> the track and signalling are all up to a reasonably modern standard
>>>
>>> what else can go wrong to force a train to stop?
>>>
>>> or are you thinking that a 150 year old tunnel might collapse?
>>
>> See
>> https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/penetration-and-obstruction-of-a-tunnel-between-old-street-and-essex-road-stations-london
>>
>
> I was reminded of that one, also (though I don’t know of any reference)
> that the various things attached to the walls of the tunnels (cables,
> signals, signage) might occasionally fall off.
>

Lumps of equipment have been known to fall off LU trains, and could foul
following trains.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 05:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 21:14:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:36:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <MrSpook_rx55@1duyua4y5vp0.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just because e.g. the Met trains share some track with the Piccadilly trains
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that we don't have dedicated stock of Piccadilly trains and a
>>>>>>>>> dedicated stock of Met trains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it stops you from easily having PEDs in those areas, therefore stops
>>>>>>>> those areas from being automated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More like impossible. You can't have PEDs where the train doors have different
>>>>>>> locations and seperations on the different stocks with differing length
>>>>>>> carraiges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provided you have sufficient checking that the area between the train and
>>>>>> "PEDs" is clear (ie probably need to be manual not automated, unless the
>>>>>> technology used in Obstacle Detection crossings is suitable), I reckon you
>>>>>> could put the "PEDs" a few feet back from the platform edge and allow
>>>>>> circulation space between the PEDs and train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A solution I've seen in Japan (staffed station, not driverless) is a gap in
>>>>>> the platform edge wall, with a number of plastic ropes which lift when a
>>>>>> train arrives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably the relative sizes and spacings of doors on the two stocks make
>>>>>> it impossible to have two entirely independent sets of PEDs interspersed
>>>>>> along the same platform edge?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It probably would not be too hard if the carriage lengths didn't
>>>>> differ too much and the tube trains were three doors per side (which
>>>>> doesn't apply to current Piccadilly stock or impressions of the
>>>>> replacement).
>>>>
>>>> Three (equal-size, evenly-spaced) doors per side ain't happening for tube
>>>> size stock, because the bogies protrude through the low floor at just the
>>>> wrong places.
>>>>
>>> Aren't these trains articulated and with no end doors ? :-
>>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tube_for_London
>>> ("Wider double doorways throughout, with no half width doors ")
>>> and
>>> https://londonist.com/london/transport/futuristic-tube-trains-piccadilly
>>> (mockup showing only double doors and only two seats between the doors
>>> and the end of the carriage as per S stock).
>>
>> Yes, they appear to have two double-doors per section.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Rather than one set of doors for each type of train, one
>>>>> trick could be to mount the PEDs in a frame which rolls to the correct
>>>>> position to match the train or if the door positions are close enough
>>>>> then adjust the open position of the two PED leaves to match the train
>>>>> doors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Won't the walls between the doors need to roll, expand or slide across each
>>>> other too? Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
>>>>
>>> Not much more than at present? I can only recall encountering a couple
>>> of PED failures in recent years.
>>
>> And what about if the PEDs are in the open, subject to rain, snow, dust,
>> wind and wide temperature ranges?
>>
> WRT the Underground, something to be found out in the future if at
> all. The official reason for the PEDs is ventilation not passenger
> safety but if e.g. the DfT decide otherwise they could appear at
> (selected?) open air stations.
>

In the context of this thread, PEDs wouid be mandatory for future
driverless trains.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2021 11:28:23 GMT, Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>>>> door system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>>>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
>>> trains?
>>
>> That’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. I can see no logic behind
>> spending vast sums on retrofitting old lines for driverless operation.
>>
>> OK, consider it when planning new lines, to see whether it would be both
>> safe and economic to implement.
>>
>> But there’s no point in even having a project to consider it for the
>> current tube network, because we already know it would cost a lot for no
>> benefit.
>>
> The main advantage is not in such trains being driverless but in the
> driver not having to do the routine driving. The control system can
> see further ahead than the Mk1 eyeball thus speeding up the many
> sections without a long view ahead. It can also more closely and
> consistently control the train speeds and spacing (as evident with
> trains in ATO mode on the Circle Line). What the human on the train
> beats the computer at is dealing with the countless things that can go
> wrong which do not involve the control system.
>

Boris wants driverless trains to beat the rail unions. He has no
understanding of the subtleties of ATO, which is fitted to all modern
trains anyway (though it needs modern signalling to operate). He's been
obsessed with this for many years.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:25:51 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>
>
>Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.

No dafter than some magic doors that somehow align themselves with the
train doors.

On 07/06/2021 11:29, Tweed wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>> door system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>
>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>
>>
>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>
>
> Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
> trains?
>

Boris thinks it will stop strikes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:09:38 +0000 (UTC), MrSpook_c7@x_2wmhnql.edu
wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:25:51 +0100
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>
>>
>>Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>>and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>
>No dafter than some magic doors that somehow align themselves with the
>train doors.
>
No magic involved, just one of many different mechanisms with two
operating positions.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 05:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 21:14:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:36:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <MrSpook_rx55@1duyua4y5vp0.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just because e.g. the Met trains share some track with the Piccadilly trains
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that we don't have dedicated stock of Piccadilly trains and a
>>>>>>>>> dedicated stock of Met trains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it stops you from easily having PEDs in those areas, therefore stops
>>>>>>>> those areas from being automated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More like impossible. You can't have PEDs where the train doors have different
>>>>>>> locations and seperations on the different stocks with differing length
>>>>>>> carraiges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provided you have sufficient checking that the area between the train and
>>>>>> "PEDs" is clear (ie probably need to be manual not automated, unless the
>>>>>> technology used in Obstacle Detection crossings is suitable), I reckon you
>>>>>> could put the "PEDs" a few feet back from the platform edge and allow
>>>>>> circulation space between the PEDs and train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A solution I've seen in Japan (staffed station, not driverless) is a gap in
>>>>>> the platform edge wall, with a number of plastic ropes which lift when a
>>>>>> train arrives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably the relative sizes and spacings of doors on the two stocks make
>>>>>> it impossible to have two entirely independent sets of PEDs interspersed
>>>>>> along the same platform edge?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It probably would not be too hard if the carriage lengths didn't
>>>>> differ too much and the tube trains were three doors per side (which
>>>>> doesn't apply to current Piccadilly stock or impressions of the
>>>>> replacement).
>>>>
>>>> Three (equal-size, evenly-spaced) doors per side ain't happening for tube
>>>> size stock, because the bogies protrude through the low floor at just the
>>>> wrong places.
>>>>
>>> Aren't these trains articulated and with no end doors ? :-
>>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tube_for_London
>>> ("Wider double doorways throughout, with no half width doors ")
>>> and
>>> https://londonist.com/london/transport/futuristic-tube-trains-piccadilly
>>> (mockup showing only double doors and only two seats between the doors
>>> and the end of the carriage as per S stock).
>>
>> Yes, they appear to have two double-doors per section.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Rather than one set of doors for each type of train, one
>>>>> trick could be to mount the PEDs in a frame which rolls to the correct
>>>>> position to match the train or if the door positions are close enough
>>>>> then adjust the open position of the two PED leaves to match the train
>>>>> doors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Won't the walls between the doors need to roll, expand or slide across each
>>>> other too? Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
>>>>
>>> Not much more than at present? I can only recall encountering a couple
>>> of PED failures in recent years.
>>
>> And what about if the PEDs are in the open, subject to rain, snow, dust,
>> wind and wide temperature ranges?
>>
> WRT the Underground, something to be found out in the future if at
> all. The official reason for the PEDs is ventilation not passenger
> safety but if e.g. the DfT decide otherwise they could appear at
> (selected?) open air stations.
>

In terms of driverless trains the reason for PEDs is safety.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 21:14:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:36:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <MrSpook_rx55@1duyua4y5vp0.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just because e.g. the Met trains share some track with the Piccadilly trains
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that we don't have dedicated stock of Piccadilly trains and a
>>>>>>>>> dedicated stock of Met trains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it stops you from easily having PEDs in those areas, therefore stops
>>>>>>>> those areas from being automated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More like impossible. You can't have PEDs where the train doors have different
>>>>>>> locations and seperations on the different stocks with differing length
>>>>>>> carraiges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provided you have sufficient checking that the area between the train and
>>>>>> "PEDs" is clear (ie probably need to be manual not automated, unless the
>>>>>> technology used in Obstacle Detection crossings is suitable), I reckon you
>>>>>> could put the "PEDs" a few feet back from the platform edge and allow
>>>>>> circulation space between the PEDs and train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A solution I've seen in Japan (staffed station, not driverless) is a gap in
>>>>>> the platform edge wall, with a number of plastic ropes which lift when a
>>>>>> train arrives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably the relative sizes and spacings of doors on the two stocks make
>>>>>> it impossible to have two entirely independent sets of PEDs interspersed
>>>>>> along the same platform edge?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It probably would not be too hard if the carriage lengths didn't
>>>>> differ too much and the tube trains were three doors per side (which
>>>>> doesn't apply to current Piccadilly stock or impressions of the
>>>>> replacement).
>>>>
>>>> Three (equal-size, evenly-spaced) doors per side ain't happening for tube
>>>> size stock, because the bogies protrude through the low floor at just the
>>>> wrong places.
>>>>
>>> Aren't these trains articulated and with no end doors ? :-
>>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tube_for_London
>>> ("Wider double doorways throughout, with no half width doors ")
>>> and
>>> https://londonist.com/london/transport/futuristic-tube-trains-piccadilly
>>> (mockup showing only double doors and only two seats between the doors
>>> and the end of the carriage as per S stock).
>>>
>>
>> Yes ok, in that case you might get equal door spacing along the train. But
>> not the same carriage length as S Stock.
>>
>>>>> Rather than one set of doors for each type of train, one
>>>>> trick could be to mount the PEDs in a frame which rolls to the correct
>>>>> position to match the train or if the door positions are close enough
>>>>> then adjust the open position of the two PED leaves to match the train
>>>>> doors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Won't the walls between the doors need to roll, expand or slide across each
>>>> other too? Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
>>>>
>>> Not much more than at present? I can only recall encountering a couple
>>> of PED failures in recent years.
>>
>> But you mentioned PEDs rolling sideways along the platforms to reposition
>> themselves between train arrivals, like something out of a CGI Harry Potter
>> movie!
>>
> Not the PEDs but a simpler frame in which they are mounted.
>

Which would require their alignment to be confirmed before opening,
electrical connections to the rolling part, tracks to be kept clean, etc.

>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>
>>
>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>
> The current LU PEDs are installed for ventilation purposes thus only
> in tunnel sections where there is at present no mixing of stock types.
>

Yes but that's not what we're talking about.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 22:39:54 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 21:14:40 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:36:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <MrSpook_rx55@1duyua4y5vp0.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That's irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> just because e.g. the Met trains share some track with the Piccadilly trains
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that we don't have dedicated stock of Piccadilly trains and a
>>>>>>>>>> dedicated stock of Met trains.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it stops you from easily having PEDs in those areas, therefore stops
>>>>>>>>> those areas from being automated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More like impossible. You can't have PEDs where the train doors have different
>>>>>>>> locations and seperations on the different stocks with differing length
>>>>>>>> carraiges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Provided you have sufficient checking that the area between the train and
>>>>>>> "PEDs" is clear (ie probably need to be manual not automated, unless the
>>>>>>> technology used in Obstacle Detection crossings is suitable), I reckon you
>>>>>>> could put the "PEDs" a few feet back from the platform edge and allow
>>>>>>> circulation space between the PEDs and train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A solution I've seen in Japan (staffed station, not driverless) is a gap in
>>>>>>> the platform edge wall, with a number of plastic ropes which lift when a
>>>>>>> train arrives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presumably the relative sizes and spacings of doors on the two stocks make
>>>>>>> it impossible to have two entirely independent sets of PEDs interspersed
>>>>>>> along the same platform edge?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It probably would not be too hard if the carriage lengths didn't
>>>>>> differ too much and the tube trains were three doors per side (which
>>>>>> doesn't apply to current Piccadilly stock or impressions of the
>>>>>> replacement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Three (equal-size, evenly-spaced) doors per side ain't happening for tube
>>>>> size stock, because the bogies protrude through the low floor at just the
>>>>> wrong places.
>>>>>
>>>> Aren't these trains articulated and with no end doors ? :-
>>>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tube_for_London
>>>> ("Wider double doorways throughout, with no half width doors ")
>>>> and
>>>> https://londonist.com/london/transport/futuristic-tube-trains-piccadilly
>>>> (mockup showing only double doors and only two seats between the doors
>>>> and the end of the carriage as per S stock).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes ok, in that case you might get equal door spacing along the train. But
>>> not the same carriage length as S Stock.
>>>
>>>>>> Rather than one set of doors for each type of train, one
>>>>>> trick could be to mount the PEDs in a frame which rolls to the correct
>>>>>> position to match the train or if the door positions are close enough
>>>>>> then adjust the open position of the two PED leaves to match the train
>>>>>> doors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Won't the walls between the doors need to roll, expand or slide across each
>>>>> other too? Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
>>>>>
>>>> Not much more than at present? I can only recall encountering a couple
>>>> of PED failures in recent years.
>>>
>>> But you mentioned PEDs rolling sideways along the platforms to reposition
>>> themselves between train arrivals, like something out of a CGI Harry Potter
>>> movie!
>>>
>> Not the PEDs but a simpler frame in which they are mounted.
>>
>
>Which would require their alignment to be confirmed before opening,
>electrical connections to the rolling part, tracks to be kept clean, etc.
>
One of two states to be proven; tracks as now with PEDs.

>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>
>> The current LU PEDs are installed for ventilation purposes thus only
>> in tunnel sections where there is at present no mixing of stock types.
>>
>
>Yes but that's not what we're talking about.
>

On 7 Jun 2021 at 13:08:04 CEST, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:29:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2021 10:03, MrSpook_92e3tvycV@_4bxj0bza_exmf1fph.net wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:27:42 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/06/2021 08:49, MrSpook_and2Qva5eu@9iq4hyeb8p2_e.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 07:32:46 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If surface and tube train door positions are close to each other then
>>>>>>>> you use wider doors with differing open positions. If they are well
>>>>>>>> apart then separate doors with selective opening. If there are no
>>>>>>>> actual conflicts between those (see also Sodde's Law) then the sliding
>>>>>>>> door frame version could be unnnecessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would depend on the exact specifications of the two trains, and I suspect
>>>>>>> some simpler solution will present itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dispense with doors altogether and just have some waist height poles raise
>>>>>> up and down out of the platform in the same way as automated barriers on
>>>>>> roads. Yes, lots to go wrong, would cost a fortune, hard to retrofit and
>>>>>> wouldn't stop suicides, but more doable than some kind of movable curtain
>>>>>> door system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And cause dozens of injuries every day.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't suggesting a spike get fired up from the floor though it would
>>>> certainly stop people blocking the doors. A slow moving rounded off bollard
>>>> which stopped when it encountered resistence would be fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful on a crowded rush-hour platform, slow moving so a trip hazard
>>> and if someone is standing on the cover it won't rise at all so is useless.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what problem are people trying to solve with driverless underground
>> trains?
>
> I think 'people' is in the singular. Alexander the Great came up with this as
> a union-busting wheeze when he was having
> his IT lessons from Jennifer Arcuri

So that's what 'IT' is all about! In certain parts it's the late afternoon /
early evening meal. With hot food as opposed to the cold fare of afternoon T.