Selective Door Opening

[spsmiler]

MOD NOTE: The posts below have been moved from the Line Upgrade thread on the Piccadilly line board, as it was starting to veer off-topic onto SSR matters.

Nov 17, 2020 22:10:20 GMT vincenture said:

Nov 16, 2020 16:31:43 GMT metman said:

With selective door opening there shouldn’t be too many problems fitting the new trains in. If it can be done at Paddington-NottingHill Gate it can be done anywhere! (Dwell times permitting!)

I suppose so, and not forgetting Baker Street with the famous 1 front door and 3 rear doors cut out.

In C stock days all the doors were opened at Baker Street and some passengers found themselves exiting the train to a narrow section of platform just inside the tunnel. I have photos but they are not on Flickr ... yet, so cannot link to them here. 

[metman]

Without going off topic I recall reading that in the days of 8 car District trains narrow cat walks were needed in the tunnel areas to allow most of the doors to fit within a platform space! Would never happen now.

One assumes without the signalling upgrade it will be up to the train operator to isolate the rear and or front doors, or will a similar system used on the pre-ATO S stock be used?

[philthetube]

I am fairly sure that LUL would not be allowed to introduce new door cut out areas which were driver operated.

There would be plenty of platform space once mirrors, monitors were removed, transition, while both stocks were operating may cause issues but I doubt it.

[vincenture]

The good news is that 3 more platforms having selective door operation will be abolished. I do remember that Sloane Square, Dagenham East and Hornchurch used to have them. Now they're all gone so CBTC is definitely helping that. These recent videos show where the extended area is of Sloane Square from equipment removal to transition to CBTC: here and here.

[Tom]

Nov 28, 2020 20:29:09 GMT vincenture said:

I do remember that Sloane Square, Dagenham East and Hornchurch used to have them. Now they're all gone so CBTC is definitely helping that.

I'm fairly sure none of those had selective door opening, but if one of our resident experts (t697, I'm thinking of you!) were to confirm I'll happily stand corrected.

CBTC has certainly not reached any of these three locations except for testing purposes.

[DWS]

Hornchurch had the first set of doors on S stock not opening on the eastbound platform until the opo equipment was removed.

[vincenture]

Nov 28, 2020 21:15:30 GMT Tom said:

Nov 28, 2020 20:29:09 GMT vincenture said:

I do remember that Sloane Square, Dagenham East and Hornchurch used to have them. Now they're all gone so CBTC is definitely helping that.

I'm fairly sure none of those had selective door opening, but if one of our resident experts (t697, I'm thinking of you!) were to confirm I'll happily stand corrected.

CBTC has certainly not reached any of these three locations except for testing purposes.

They have not reached those places but probably they have already had equipment simplified for CBTC if that helps to clarify. Euston Square would be a better example. These locations have proven selective door operation if you view older tube journey videos on YouTube. I personally recommend X2K9 since some of his videos are really old.

[t697]

Nov 28, 2020 21:15:30 GMT Tom said:

Nov 28, 2020 20:29:09 GMT vincenture said:

I do remember that Sloane Square, Dagenham East and Hornchurch used to have them. Now they're all gone so CBTC is definitely helping that.

I'm fairly sure none of those had selective door opening, but if one of our resident experts (t697 , I'm thinking of you!) were to confirm I'll happily stand corrected.

CBTC has certainly not reached any of these three locations except for testing purposes.

Sloane Sq EB had the front door cut out until the redundant platform OPO equipment was removed. Dagenham East EB and Hornchurch EB also each had the front door cut out until the platform barriers were modified after D stock removal. The platform barriers had extended to the D stock stopping position to provide crowding protection to the stairway as I recall. None of those changes were CBTC related. 

CBTC is facilitating SDO changes at Liverpool St WB and Harrow platform 4.  At both, the S8 train will open all doors instead of one rear cut out.  Stopping position will be moved to suit with CBTC commissioning.  At West Ken EB the CBTC stopping position will reduce the cutouts from two rear doorways to one.  As far as I know, those three are the only ones currently planned for a stopping position change under CBTC, other such opportunities being deemed not to be cost justified. The 'Special Reverse' stopping positions at Harrow 5 SB and Northwood NB also disappear with CBTC.

One could argue that CBTC was a factor in the Euston Square WB stopping position change allowing all S8 doors to open, but in fact the change was accomplished successfully pre-CBTC.

These few posts about SSR SDO might be better in an SSR thread? Sorry for continuing a diversion form Picc!

[vincenture]

Nov 29, 2020 7:53:23 GMT t697 said:

Nov 28, 2020 21:15:30 GMT Tom said:

I'm fairly sure none of those had selective door opening, but if one of our resident experts (t697 , I'm thinking of you!) were to confirm I'll happily stand corrected.

CBTC has certainly not reached any of these three locations except for testing purposes.

Sloane Sq EB had the front door cut out until the redundant platform OPO equipment was removed. Dagenham East EB and Hornchurch EB also each had the front door cut out until the platform barriers were modified after D stock removal. The platform barriers had extended to the D stock stopping position to provide crowding protection to the stairway as I recall. None of those changes were CBTC related. 

CBTC is facilitating SDO changes at Liverpool St WB and Harrow platform 4.  At both, the S8 train will open all doors instead of one rear cut out.  Stopping position will be moved to suit with CBTC commissioning.  At West Ken EB the CBTC stopping position will reduce the cutouts from two rear doorways to one.  As far as I know, those three are the only ones currently planned for a stopping position change under CBTC, other such opportunities being deemed not to be cost justified. The 'Special Reverse' stopping positions at Harrow 5 SB and Northwood NB also disappear with CBTC.

One could argue that CBTC was a factor in the Euston Square WB stopping position change allowing all S8 doors to open, but in fact the change was accomplished successfully pre-CBTC.

These few posts about SSR SDO might be better in an SSR thread? Sorry for continuing a diversion form Picc!

I think I am responsible too for the topic diversion, but anyway thank you very much for the insight! I only recalled about SDO and wow this is an interesting read

[stapler]

The most notorious SDO station is surely Cutty Sark on the DLR. Many a non-English speaking grockle (yes, such used to exist) was carried on the Greenwich SER...

[Chris L]

Dec 1, 2020 12:56:10 GMT stapler said:

The most notorious SDO station is surely Cutty Sark on the DLR. Many a non-English speaking grockle (yes, such used to exist) was carried on the Greenwich SER...

Baker Street outer rail platform is far worse.

All doors on the he last car are locked out. People don't know the train has reached the station.

[vincenture]

Dec 1, 2020 13:12:11 GMT Chris L said:

Dec 1, 2020 12:56:10 GMT stapler said:

The most notorious SDO station is surely Cutty Sark on the DLR. Many a non-English speaking grockle (yes, such used to exist) was carried on the Greenwich SER...

Baker Street outer rail platform is far worse.

All doors on the he last car are locked out. People don't know the train has reached the station.

I heard that the reason was because the train couldn't stop further in front due to the proximity of the crossover from the Met.

[philthetube]

This may be the reason for locking out the rear doors, but some would have to be locked out somewhere as the patform is not long enough.

I would not have thought that the distance to the met crossover was any less than from Baker st platform 3 and the circle.

[t697]

Dec 1, 2020 20:12:36 GMT philthetube said:

This may be the reason for locking out the rear doors, but some would have to be locked out somewhere as the patform is not long enough.

I would not have thought that the distance to the met crossover was any less than from Baker st platform 3 and the circle.

Maybe, but the distance would have been too short if the stopping position had been moved east by enough to get even one doorway on the rear car on the platform. As it is now, even the last door on car 6 of 7 is only just on the platform.
Further, if the train had stopped a door spacing further east, that would mean only one door on the front car opening which was determined poorer for passenger flows than the scheme actually adopted with one front doorway and 3 rear doorways cut out and acceptable signalling arrangements.

[vincenture]

Great insight again. Reminds me of the Barbican and Bayswater odd arrangement, where the former has 2 rear-door cutout for one of the platforms instead of 1 and 1 for S8, and Bayswater having 2 and 2.

[t697]

Dec 2, 2020 18:57:14 GMT vincenture said:

Great insight again. Reminds me of the Barbican and Bayswater odd arrangement, where the former has 2 rear-door cutout for one of the platforms instead of 1 and 1 for S8, and Bayswater having 2 and 2.

The Barbican layouts were in part to avoid any signalling changes. The EB 2 rear cut out suits the platform exits best too. On the WB the 1 door each end is also reasonably non passenger disrupting. There was thought given to opening one more rear door on the EB for when the Crossrail/Elizabeth line interchange is available but it was not progressed.

[spsmiler]

Baker Street needs the outer rail station platform lengthening (No.5, I think) - a big project! Most likely if this was to be done the line here would have to close for 3 months (minimum). Just need to find a magic money tree to fund this! In a way its a shame that funds are needed to maintain services instead of being used on capital projects - 'right now' when passenger numbers are low would have been the best time for such works.

To be honest though, if major works were to be carried out here then they could go the whole hog and improve accessibility too. Not just for 'special needs' passengers, but for everyone. Both platforms 5 and 6. In many ways No.6 needs it even more as at busy times the staircase at the eastern end gets very crowded. Platform 6 also gets quite crowded at busy times, adding another (and wider) platform on the other side would avoid the need to break into the historic brickwork. The existing No. 6 could be used by trains that currently terminate at Edgware Road, potentially making an increase of services in the western side of the Circle possible. If Earls Court could take it then there would be a way to run a few more trains from Wimbledon or Richmond instead of diverting services from Ealing Broadway.

[MoreToJack]

“Special needs”? Has 2020 come full circle and we’ve gone back to 1990?

The term you’re looking for is Persons of Reduced Mobility.

[vincenture]

Dec 7, 2020 0:41:02 GMT spsmiler said:

Baker Street needs the outer rail station platform lengthening (No.5, I think) - a big project! Most likely if this was to be done the line here would have to close for 3 months (minimum). Just need to find a magic money tree to fund this! In a way its a shame that funds are needed to maintain services instead of being used on capital projects - 'right now' when passenger numbers are low would have been the best time for such works.

To be honest though, if major works were to be carried out here then they could go the whole hog and improve accessibility too. Not just for 'special needs' passengers, but for everyone. Both platforms 5 and 6. In many ways No.6 needs it even more as at busy times the staircase at the eastern end gets very crowded. Platform 6 also gets quite crowded at busy times, adding another (and wider) platform on the other side would avoid the need to break into the historic brickwork. The existing No. 6 could be used by trains that currently terminate at Edgware Road, potentially making an increase of services in the western side of the Circle possible. If Earls Court could take it then there would be a way to run a few more trains from Wimbledon or Richmond instead of diverting services from Ealing Broadway.

I would not want to deviate from the topic but I think it would be better to split the Edgware Road to Wimbledon section instead and make a new line extending further out into the suburbs. Other than that about accessibility yes it is the perfect time to do all of these works now, including Holborn and Camden Town but unfortunately shortage of funds and because Tfl is already in severe debt as well as more time is needed to plan out the lift works has delayed everything.

[spsmiler]

A variant of selective door opening is 'selective close'.

I've seen it in action on the C stock but suspect that it also existed on other stocks too, eg: 1973ts, 1983ts and D.

This was nothing to do with push button door opening (by the passengers) or cutting-out some doors for short platforms, rather it was a way to reduce heat loss from the trains by having just a few doors per train car open. Mostly it was used at open air terminus stations where a train would stay at the platform for longer than is usual.

Dec 7, 2020 2:16:59 GMT MoreToJack said:

“Special needs”? Has 2020 come full circle and we’ve gone back to 1990?

The term you’re looking for is Persons of Reduced Mobility.

Thank Jack. I'm showing my age!

Does that term include parents with children in pushchairs? Or even people like me when I've been shopping and have a heavy two wheel shopping trolley that I would rather not have to pick up and carry when negotiating fixed steps? 

[class411]

Dec 7, 2020 2:16:59 GMT MoreToJack said:

“Special needs”? Has 2020 come full circle and we’ve gone back to 1990?

The term you’re looking for is Persons of Reduced Mobility.

Yes, 'Special needs' bifurcated into: 'People with learning difficulties', and 'People with reduced mobility'.

Although now that most people have got used to those there will no doubt be new terms, shortly.


'Special needs' was always a rather poor term as it would logically include, for example, people with food allergies.

[alpinejohn]

Dec 7, 2020 0:41:02 GMT spsmiler said:

Baker Street needs the outer rail station platform lengthening (No.5, I think) - a big project! Most likely if this was to be done the line here would have to close for 3 months (minimum). Just need to find a magic money tree to fund this! In a way its a shame that funds are needed to maintain services instead of being used on capital projects - 'right now' when passenger numbers are low would have been the best time for such works.

To be honest though, if major works were to be carried out here then they could go the whole hog and improve accessibility too. Not just for 'special needs' passengers, but for everyone. Both platforms 5 and 6. In many ways No.6 needs it even more as at busy times the staircase at the eastern end gets very crowded. Platform 6 also gets quite crowded at busy times, adding another (and wider) platform on the other side would avoid the need to break into the historic brickwork. The existing No. 6 could be used by trains that currently terminate at Edgware Road, potentially making an increase of services in the western side of the Circle possible. If Earls Court could take it then there would be a way to run a few more trains from Wimbledon or Richmond instead of diverting services from Ealing Broadway.

I agree about the need to sort out the eastbound platform 5? at Baker Street on the route from Edgware Road.

However I wonder whether a cheap fix could be had using grandfather rights - as there is clearly a section of marked up platform well beyond the current passenger barriers which the presenece of a painted platform edge line suggests it was presumably allowed for passengers use at some stage. You can see this at around 20 minutes in this recent cab ride video.

link

Yes the final bit is stupidly narrow, but if you could remove/shift whatever is located in those cabinets dumped beyond the passenger barrier you could certainly reclaim at least one extra door possibly two without having to make any structural changes.  As all that lies beyond the passenger area perhaps if that suff is critical then perhaps the quick fix is to remove that section of ancient platform and dig down enough to locate all that kit below platform level, before reinstating the platform (probably with some sort of access hatch provided in the new platform surface for mantenance).

[vincenture]

Dec 7, 2020 11:20:16 GMT alpinejohn said:

Dec 7, 2020 0:41:02 GMT spsmiler said:

Baker Street needs the outer rail station platform lengthening (No.5, I think) - a big project! Most likely if this was to be done the line here would have to close for 3 months (minimum). Just need to find a magic money tree to fund this! In a way its a shame that funds are needed to maintain services instead of being used on capital projects - 'right now' when passenger numbers are low would have been the best time for such works.

To be honest though, if major works were to be carried out here then they could go the whole hog and improve accessibility too. Not just for 'special needs' passengers, but for everyone. Both platforms 5 and 6. In many ways No.6 needs it even more as at busy times the staircase at the eastern end gets very crowded. Platform 6 also gets quite crowded at busy times, adding another (and wider) platform on the other side would avoid the need to break into the historic brickwork. The existing No. 6 could be used by trains that currently terminate at Edgware Road, potentially making an increase of services in the western side of the Circle possible. If Earls Court could take it then there would be a way to run a few more trains from Wimbledon or Richmond instead of diverting services from Ealing Broadway.

I agree about the need to sort out the eastbound platform 5? at Baker Street on the route from Edgware Road.

However I wonder whether a cheap fix could be had using grandfather rights - as there is clearly a section of marked up platform well beyond the current passenger barriers which the presenece of a painted platform edge line suggests it was presumably allowed for passengers use at some stage. You can see this at around 20 minutes in this recent cab ride video.

link

Yes the final bit is stupidly narrow, but if you could remove/shift whatever is located in those cabinets dumped beyond the passenger barrier you could certainly reclaim at least one extra door possibly two without having to make any structural changes.  As all that lies beyond the passenger area perhaps if that suff is critical then perhaps the quick fix is to remove that section of ancient platform and dig down enough to locate all that kit below platform level, before reinstating the platform (probably with some sort of access hatch provided in the new platform surface for mantenance).

If you mean the western end of the eastbound platform, perhaps that is possible. But tfl has to adhere to safety standards so it may have been a waste of effort if what is done to remove those extra equipment still doesnt fit the regulations set for safe platform width to board and alight especially at a busy station.

[alpinejohn]

No I meant the eastern end of the eastbound Circle/Hammersmith & City platform (the bit nearest the junction with the Met Mainline).

That video shows that the barrier at the western end is already at the very end of the available platform space, however there was a large gap beyond the passenger gate at the eastern end of platform. I am not certain but I suspect that much of the stuff narrowing down the platform in the gap is actually no longer needed - as it appears to house video displays used by drivers of C stock trains which of course have now been retired from service, whilst drivers of the S7 stock stop well beyond those displays and observe the platform via the in cab feed.

The other constraint which may need attention seems to be a heap of very thick cables/pipes which appear to have been running below the platform but for some reason had been diverted to run above platform level for a short section along the platform wall. It is not obvious why that transition from below to above platform level could not take place after the end of the marked platform, which would then allow space for people to pass even on the relatively narrow section, without messing with any load bearing beams holding up whatever is directly above, and without affecting the current S7 stopping point, which already looks pretty close to the junction.

Because of the proximity of the main exit & stairs and passageway links to other platforms/services I suspect regulars on the line will already crowd around the first set of doors at the front of the train which currently open which may increase dwell time. If that load can be spread out over a few more doors then it should have a side benefit of reducing dwell time.

[vincenture]

Dec 7, 2020 15:27:26 GMT alpinejohn said:

No I meant the eastern end of the eastbound Circle/Hammersmith & City platform (the bit nearest the junction with the Met Mainline).

That video shows that the barrier at the western end is already at the very end of the available platform space, however there was a large gap beyond the passenger gate at the eastern end of platform. I am not certain but I suspect that much of the stuff narrowing down the platform in the gap is actually no longer needed - as it appears to house video displays used by drivers of C stock trains which of course have now been retired from service, whilst drivers of the S7 stock stop well beyond those displays and observe the platform via the in cab feed.

The other constraint which may need attention seems to be a heap of very thick cables/pipes which appear to have been running below the platform but for some reason had been diverted to run above platform level for a short section along the platform wall. It is not obvious why that transition from below to above platform level could not take place after the end of the marked platform, which would then allow space for people to pass even on the relatively narrow section, without messing with any load bearing beams holding up whatever is directly above, and without affecting the current S7 stopping point, which already looks pretty close to the junction.

Because of the proximity of the main exit & stairs and passageway links to other platforms/services I suspect regulars on the line will already crowd around the first set of doors at the front of the train which currently open which may increase dwell time. If that load can be spread out over a few more doors then it should have a side benefit of reducing dwell time.

Probably because moving the stopping position further east may clash with the signalling points with Baker Street junction. Plus I heard that this was preferred over a 2-2 configuration, and even if moving the stopping position wont be able to have an additional door to open.

[t697]

The boxes just beyond the end barrier at the east end of Platform 5 are the OPO monitors for C stock. Redundant now obviously. Whilst they could be removed and the huge cables also in that vicinity could also be tidied and boxed in, the gain in space is quite small and that area would be nowhere near the standard for platform width etc.
The assessment decided the benefit wasn't worth the cost. It would only have gained the narrower first doorway in car 1.
As discussed earlier in the thread, the stopping position is as far east as practicable for signalling protection of the junction. It's a little further east than the C stock position, which aligned its cab door window with those OPO monitors.
Back in the days of the PPP, Metronet had to deliver a study into lengthening the platforms here and at several other short platform sites. Here at Baker St the extensions would have to be at the West end and the civil engineering costs were very high and the work complex and lengthy as the Tyburn conduit would need to be supported and probably rebuilt.

[spsmiler]

If the S Stock & DLR trains had present-era LCD displays instead of 'steam train era' paper maps then at stations such as this they could be showing a pictogram message telling pax how to alight from the train - this could be in the form of a series of animated arrows (or genderless stick people) moving along the display towards an open door in the next car, where they exit the train onto the platform.

[t697]

Dec 7, 2020 21:59:28 GMT spsmiler said:

If the S Stock & DLR trains had present-era LCD displays instead of 'steam train era' paper maps then at stations such as this they could be showing a pictogram message telling pax how to alight from the train - this could be in the form of a series of animated arrows (or genderless stick people) moving along the display towards an open door in the next car, where they exit the train onto the platform.

Such things could indeed be done, but would that reduce over-carrying? Would the inattentive pay any more attention to those than to the audio and visual announcements that these trains do have for SDO?
In the case of S stock, the passengers are told at the previous station (so they can move accordingly in preparation). They are told again on approach to the SDO station (so again can move to where doors will open) and they are told (somewhat late I'll admit, but you can't make the whole announcement in a second or two!) at the station concerned.

(Substitute Customer for Passenger if you prefer).

[class411]

Dec 7, 2020 22:21:51 GMT t697 said:

Dec 7, 2020 21:59:28 GMT spsmiler said:

If the S Stock & DLR trains had present-era LCD displays instead of 'steam train era' paper maps then at stations such as this they could be showing a pictogram message telling pax how to alight from the train - this could be in the form of a series of animated arrows (or genderless stick people) moving along the display towards an open door in the next car, where they exit the train onto the platform.

Such things could indeed be done, but would that reduce over-carrying? Would the inattentive pay any more attention to those than to the audio and visual announcements that these trains do have for SDO?
In the case of S stock, the passengers are told at the previous station (so they can move accordingly in preparation). They are told again on approach to the SDO station (so again can move to where doors will open) and they are told (somewhat late I'll admit, but you can't make the whole announcement in a second or two!) at the station concerned.

The problem is that because of the almost continuous wittering coming from the audio, people switch off.

If they have any sense, passengers who are not familiar with a line/service will pay a lot more attention to announcements (assuming the can understand them - i.e. English speaking).

[t697]

So you are saying those unfamiliar with a line/service tend to pay attention and hence will mostly heed the SDO announcements. It follows that those who are familiar with the line/service know where there are SDO doors cut out and position themselves accordingly. Not sure there is a residual problem of a magnitude actually needing any action here :-)