Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,781
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 31, 2018 12:47:34 GMT
One other thing I've just thought of is that there should be a clear indication available to the operator of the state of the door lock, and an active (audio?) indication of it changing state.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 31, 2018 17:21:09 GMT
Is it really feasible to fit complicated electronic locks that only open in defined circumstances to every train on the network, some of which are 40+ years old? A more realistic aim would be to agree a solution for future new stock which could be gradually introduced as trains are replaced.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 31, 2018 19:07:32 GMT
Is it really feasible to fit complicated electronic locks that only open in defined circumstances to every train on the network, some of which are 40+ years old? A more realistic aim would be to agree a solution for future new stock which could be gradually introduced as trains are replaced. Well done, you've just written the précis for when ACAS have to deal with this dispute. It is not simple to fit a lock that is fit for purpose to all the J-doors, but LU might well do this for future orders they place; the union(s) would (naturally) rather they do this sooner rather than later in order to protect the wellbeing of their members. The solution to this dichotomy?  |
|
|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Jul 31, 2018 19:22:27 GMT
....Also, should the non occupied cab be locked? I seem to remember spsmiller saying that when he was younger they were allowed into the back cab on the Met in the morning commute. I can't find it anymore but when did this stop being allowed? ..I believe there is also recently a video someone took when they occupied the rear cab on the Bakerloo line after it had been left insecure. So both cabs, yes.. I agree with that. Whilst I was on my Work Experience, one morning I saw two people (who obviously weren't LUL staff) getting into back cab (facing Stratford) of the 1996 Stock, luckily someone shouted at them to get out of there. I despise it when people who have absolutely no business to be in staff only areas of the railway just enter these areas, I'm assuming that some of them think that they can do anything just because "I pay my taxes/tickets" - although I'm sure that most customers passengers don't have this attitude. All cabs, regardless of whether they're being used or not, should be locked IMO. It may be apparently fun for those doing it, but I doubt the staff will find it as amusing. I'd class it as trespassing on the railway, and should be dealt with as such. I also think it's a good idea for the "You vs Train" campaign to be extended to include LUL as well. In terms of locking the door, I'd suggest some sort of specially designed magnetic key that T/Ops have which they "tap" onto the train before opening the cab door. If this little magnetic key isn't tapped on the train, then whatever device is interacted with to open the cab door is deactivated. It would probably be better if this was bespoke and, if possible, made in-house with the specifications as safely guarded as the Johnston font is  "Please don't assault our staff", management says. But what are they doing to prevent this from happening? Alcohol is prohibited on the Underground, but this isn't always necessarily enforced. People aren't always in their best states when drunk, and may do things that they wouldn't do whilst sober, so could the rules possibly be extended to include drunk people too? If they weren't allowed to even enter the system, maybe drunken assaults could be avoided. But then the problem arises of where they will go. I'm sure that bus drivers, especially those on the Night Bus, won't be very keen with allowing more drunk people onto their buses. There should be some more preventative measures put in place by management so that their "plea" is fulfilled. Then again, as always, I'm saying this from a "lay man" enthusiast's point of view. Quite a lot of the posts previously made in this thread were from experienced staff members' point of view. As such, I may have some misunderstandings about the issue and I'm always happy to be corrected  (sorry for the long post as well  ) |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 31, 2018 20:16:18 GMT
Thanks shrugged. May I ask why it is only the last two years that this has become a perceived issue? I say "perceived" because it seems to only have manifested itself as an issue in the last 6 months. Have passengers got more savvy with means of entry? Is it the night tube and therefore a correlation to beer? I ask as if we deal purely with the data that you have provided (which I have no reason to argue with), then we have several instances of passengers entering cabs in the past six months and one assault, whereas for the past 15 years these numbers have been zero. Have I got that correct? Presumably in the days of guards they had no secure place and there was no problem then (I assume). So what has changed do you think? I know you will take issue with me on this, but, if the above is correct, then one driver being assaulted out of how ever many hundreds (?) of drivers in a decade and a half doesn't seem to me to be a significant number. Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree that absolutely no-one needs to be in this position of course. I'm not sure that your analogy re retail makes sense as surely you are (rightly so) more interested in you and your colleagues staying safe than the impact on the "customers". I know i would be! Before February 1975 there were tube trains overrunning terminus stop marks, then Moorgate happened. Before November 1987 there were fires on the Underground, then Kings Cross happened. How severe an incident with a cab invasion would you need before you (and London Underground) agreed that this is an important safety issue and needs to be addressed? I can't disagree with the two specific instances that you mention. No contest. However that doesn't mean that every other risk bears a similar material outcome. Is it possible to know during the same period, have there been instances that a passenger/staff member has entered the cab to fix an issue? If not then why haven't the J doors gone the same way as fire extinguishers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 20:38:47 GMT
Before February 1975 there were tube trains overrunning terminus stop marks, then Moorgate happened. Before November 1987 there were fires on the Underground, then Kings Cross happened. How severe an incident with a cab invasion would you need before you (and London Underground) agreed that this is an important safety issue and needs to be addressed? I can't disagree with the two specific instances that you mention. No contest. However that doesn't mean that every other risk bears a similar material outcome. Is it possible to know during the same period, have there been instances that a passenger/staff member has entered the cab to fix an issue? If not then why haven't the J doors gone the same way as fire extinguishers?
I don't think there can be any question of abolishing J doors.
It's not just the emergency escape route for passengers, they're used all the time every day. Not so that people (especially passengers!) can wander into the cab to fix an issue, but for routine access, e.g. when changing ends in a siding where you can't get out and walk alongside the train to use the side cab doors. Also, if the driver requires access to the saloon. Also, if you think about the S stock for instance, they are often too long for the platform and often stop with the cab door not alongside a platform. For the driver to leave their cab to deal with an issue at, say, Notting Hill Gate on the Circle/District, they will need to enter the passenger saloon, then if it's necessary to exit the train, they'll have to use the passenger doors.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 31, 2018 20:48:23 GMT
If J doors are abolished, how would passengers be evacuated from a train stuck in a tube tunnel?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Aug 1, 2018 0:04:33 GMT
....Also, should the non occupied cab be locked? I seem to remember spsmiller saying that when he was younger they were allowed into the back cab on the Met in the morning commute. I can't find it anymore but when did this stop being allowed? Actually it was the front cab. On my way to school I used to meet some friends at Liverpool Street station - usually we travelled on the 8:14am Amersham train which used the bay platform and we sat right next to the train driver's cab. So... when the driver came we got to see inside the cab. I think we even opened the door for the driver, my memory on that part is fading and I do not recall if this was possible. Anyway, we got to look inside and if the driver did not close the door immediately we got to watch him use his keys to unlock the driving controls, etc. Sometimes the door was left open during the journey, so that we could enjoy a forward view. Other times we were even invited in, although we had to duck when entering stations as the train drivers said that they would get in trouble if a station supervisor saw a row of smiling faces in the cab with them! How I wish I'd filmed the mainline trains I sometimes saw at Farringdon (BR MK1 coaches with diesel loco). Even one half decent still image view would have been so useful when making my recent film about the LNER Quad-Art carriages which included some surviving BR carriages from this service. By the way, one morning when we boarded the Amersham train we noticed some greenfly inside the car - on the windows, etc. At first we thought nothing of it but when we looked up we all ran in horror. Hitchcock should have been there to use it as a scene in a horror film - that part of the train had an infestation of greenfly and the ceiling was a seething mass of them. ------------------------- Whilst talking about cab security, this may be of interest. Some years ago (earlier part of this decade) I was sitting next to the cab of a Bakerloo line train when the driver had his bag nicked. I was reading so did not see the crime but remember hearing some excited schoolboys shouting to each other at the time. I vaguely recall them using the porter button to close the passenger doors, perhaps to stop other passengers chasing after them. I think what happened is that the driver had gone to investigate the use of the emergency alarm, but he left his platform door open and a schoolboy reached in or even entered the cab and nicked the bag. This was around 4pm, possibly at Stonebridge Park, Harlesdon or Kensal Green stations. Because he no longer had his safety equipment (it was in the bag) the driver said that he could not continue the journey but fortunately there was an off-duty driver around who had his bag and safety equipment with him and this way the train was able to continue. I dont know what was stolen that the driver needed. Simon |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 1, 2018 0:34:56 GMT
Is it really feasible to fit complicated electronic locks that only open in defined circumstances to every train on the network, some of which are 40+ years old? A more realistic aim would be to agree a solution for future new stock which could be gradually introduced as trains are replaced. Well done, you've just written the précis for when ACAS have to deal with this dispute. It is not simple to fit a lock that is fit for purpose to all the J-doors, but LU might well do this for future orders they place; the union(s) would (naturally) rather they do this sooner rather than later in order to protect the wellbeing of their members. The solution to this dichotomy? It’s not an easy situation to resolve one way or other due to conflicting needs. Another thing which could perhaps have some merit is to fit a time-delay to the J door, which could be a simple mechanical device like the old-fashioned screw releases found in signal boxes - turn a wheel so many times so the door can’t be opened for, say, 2 minutes. Supplement this with a secondary bolt which the driver can deploy in a hostile situation. The time delay gives time for the driver to assess the situation, and in many cases get to the next station, whilst the bolt would facilitate a place of safety in an extreme situation. To me that does seem to cover all situations without introducing too much complication. Obviously immediate access would need to be maintained for staff with a key, perhaps something more secure than a J door key completing the setup. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 1, 2018 6:41:25 GMT
The magnetic locks on J Doors would activate when one of the cabs is "live", if a driver leaves the cab at any time the procedure is to "fully secure" the train i.e. remove their keys from the lock so the cab would not be "live" and the locks would be released (I seem to recall that one driver got sacked for leaving the cab "live" to fill up a water bottle).
The problem with introducing magnetic locking on new rolling stock is that the next delivery won't be until 2023 on the Piccadilly while the 2009 stock on the Victoria and the S Stock on the sub surface lines probably won't be replaced until the 2050s. Cab invasions are becoming increasing regular events, waiting for rolling stock to be replaced is not an option.
Another issue that occurred as I was stuck staring at a red signal was unauthorised evacuations, where passengers leave the train without waiting for staff to let them out. There haven't been any to my knowledge on the Tube but there have been a few on the mainline with people walking down the track so I suppose its only a matter of time before we have one.
Someone wondered if Night Tube and alcohol were involved, at least one cab invasion on the Central Line was during the morning peak so I don't think we can ascribe the problem to Night Tube. It seems to me that some people think that they are entitled to do whatever they want on public transport because they've paid for their Oyster Card.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 1, 2018 8:03:20 GMT
If J doors are abolished, how would passengers be evacuated from a train stuck in a tube tunnel? Presumably through the gap where the J door used to be? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 1, 2018 8:13:27 GMT
If J doors are abolished, how would passengers be evacuated from a train stuck in a tube tunnel? Presumably through the gap where the J door used to be? Maybe I misunderstood. I assumed that the J door area was going to be sealed! |
|
hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Aug 1, 2018 8:23:19 GMT
The magnetic locks on J Doors would activate when one of the cabs is "live", if a driver leaves the cab at any time the procedure is to "fully secure" the train i.e. remove their keys from the lock so the cab would not be "live" and the locks would be released (I seem to recall that one driver got sacked for leaving the cab "live" to fill up a water bottle). The problem with introducing magnetic locking on new rolling stock is that the next delivery won't be until 2023 on the Piccadilly while the 2009 stock on the Victoria and the S Stock on the sub surface lines probably won't be replaced until the 2050s. Cab invasions are becoming increasing regular events, waiting for rolling stock to be replaced is not an option. Another issue that occurred as I was stuck staring at a red signal was unauthorised evacuations, where passengers leave the train without waiting for staff to let them out. There haven't been any to my knowledge on the Tube but there have been a few on the mainline with people walking down the track so I suppose its only a matter of time before we have one.Someone wondered if Night Tube and alcohol were involved, at least one cab invasion on the Central Line was during the morning peak so I don't think we can ascribe the problem to Night Tube. It seems to me that some people think that they are entitled to do whatever they want on public transport because they've paid for their Oyster Card. The only one I am aware of was the Piccadilly Line bombed train after 7/7. The passengers in the rear cars self evacuated. Although this is a very rare one off occurrence. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 1, 2018 8:39:09 GMT
I seem to recall a few years ago thst there was a self evacuation from a Central line train just west of Leytonstone after an extended delay. The power was discharged just as a pushout was being arranged with a train stalled across the points.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 1, 2018 9:44:08 GMT
There was an incident where passengers forced doors open for ventilation. And in that Central Line underfloor fire incident last year or the year before, people climbed out through the compartment end doors and squeezed between the cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 1, 2018 15:05:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2018 15:41:46 GMT
Not read the whole thread so apologise if this has been raised already, but you would not lock a fire escape would you? Why would you lock a cab if its a safe escape route.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 1, 2018 15:44:25 GMT
In the aforementioned case, a safe escape route from a violent altercation.
|
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Aug 1, 2018 18:34:48 GMT
Was this the incident referred to earlier? Was the driver physically injured? Reading the above at face value it seems that the "trespasser" was removing themselves from a violent situation where their personal safety was at risk. I doubt safety glass would have deterred them. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 1, 2018 18:43:38 GMT
Not read the whole thread so apologise if this has been raised already, but you would not lock a fire escape would you? Why would you lock a cab if its a safe escape route. Perhaps you should have read the whole thread...
The unions are suggesting magnetic locks that are activated when a cab is "live", are deactivated when traction current is discharged (for detrainments) and can be deactivated by the Line Controller remotely in a similar way to the way they can make PAs on trains (should the driver become incapacitated). |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 1, 2018 18:58:16 GMT
So it's only an escape route at times authorised by company policy, not when passengers decide they need it.
"I don't care if a mad axeman is running amok; that's a fire escape, and there's no fire".
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 1, 2018 20:18:22 GMT
Taking that literally, it means that passenger safety is secondary to staff safety. I would hope that they are treated as of equal importance. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 2, 2018 7:35:29 GMT
To be fair, the Union can only take issue on behalf of its members.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 2, 2018 7:49:19 GMT
To be fair, the Union can only take issue on behalf of its members. Indeed, but the quote was from management, not the union |
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 2, 2018 10:53:02 GMT
Taking that literally, it means that passenger safety is secondary to staff safety. I would hope that they are treated as of equal importance. Passenger safety is not secondary to staff safety, the incapacity of a driver caused by cab intruder puts all passengers at risk. Drivers are trained to deal with a variety of emergency scenarios in safe manner for passengers but they can only do this if they are free from interference. The current situation with cab door security does not guarantee that drivers are free from interference. I wish I could give you some examples of scenarios, but I do not want to give ideas to those who would use them for nefarious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Aug 2, 2018 13:20:11 GMT
So it's only an escape route at times authorised by company policy, not when passengers decide they need it. "I don't care if a mad axeman is running amok; that's a fire escape, and there's no fire". LU produced specific procedures for bladed weapon (axes included) or firearm attacks in response to the Leytonstone incident in December 2015, we all got a one-to-one briefing with a manager or instructor operator. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 16:34:59 GMT
Not read the whole thread so apologise if this has been raised already, but you would not lock a fire escape would you? Why would you lock a cab if its a safe escape route. Perhaps you should have read the whole thread...
The unions are suggesting magnetic locks that are activated when a cab is "live", are deactivated when traction current is discharged (for detrainments) and can be deactivated by the Line Controller remotely in a similar way to the way they can make PAs on trains (should the driver become incapacitated). Magnetic locks are not so reliable if not set correctly. If the power feed is interrupted (and there is no latch), then the door would be free to open. Useful when power has been lost on purpose, but I have been on trains where traction current has been discharged. This would mean the door would just swing open. If there was a latch, the door would remain shut, but with the driver 'incapacitated', how do you open the door. I know of a magnetic door (location with remain secret for security purposes) where if you push it hard enough, you can over come the force of the magnet. Remote controlled sounds good on paper, but making this 100% reliable is not easy. It would need testing very often to ensure it still works (maybe tag onto the 24hr tripcock test etc) And when you say unions, do you mean union or unions? The magnetic lock idea sounds like an idea come up by someone who sits behind a desk all day, with no practical experience. I have no doubt such a system could work, but what happened to the KISS procedure? (Keep it simple stupid) |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 3, 2018 9:25:48 GMT
I don't think anyone was suggesting JUST a magnetic lock. It would be in addition to the usual J-door latching mechanism. Another "point of control" is the release of the manual override itself, but unless the whole of that unit is replaced with some other mechanism, the easiest and fastest retrofit would seem to be a failsafe electromagnetic coil fitted in the door recess holding back a plate screwed to the door. Messing around with the insides of the door or the cab wall itself in order to fit a longer lock which has a custom electromagnetic interlock would seem to be a more extensive job, as well as possibly requiring a different engineered piece for every type of stock instead of using externally mounted, standard commercial off-the-shelf components.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 3, 2018 11:37:52 GMT
Would a fire-door bolt with a glass tube not suffice? At least it would make the intrusion strongly deliberate, rather than casual?
How about releasing the door from the emergency cord?
|
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Aug 3, 2018 22:44:01 GMT
Did we establish that the party evading the violent confrontation got into a physical issue with the driver? Or was this a good guy/girl keeping himself safe? Or was there a different incident in which a driver was injured?
i.e. are we solving the correct problem here? or is there even a problem? Not being awkward, but this discussion seems to be somewhat free of facts relating to the issue at the moment.
|
|
(sorry for the long post as well 
)
