prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 17, 2006 18:35:33 GMT
Oh no! I am deeply opposed to emergency egress devices in the saloon. I cannot think of a scenario where it would be safer for customers to self detrain rather than await assistance. Ah, hang on! Do you mean a device for staff to utilise that is not available to the customers? Exactly! I explicitly stated that any emergency door release mechanism will be behind a removable panel that can be unlocked with a J door key. The thought of providing a passenger-accessible release mechanism inside the saloon is SCARY!!! Besides, if the S stock really is gangway stock and not car stock, it's not like it would be hard for the T/Op to reach... Right, gotcha. In that case - yes, the 'S' stock will have a internal device to release the passenger doors. This device is located discretely and is not accesible to the public. Hows that for service?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2006 18:56:10 GMT
Oh no! I am deeply opposed to emergency egress devices in the saloon. I cannot think of a scenario where it would be safer for customers to self detrain rather than await assistance. Ah, hang on! Do you mean a device for staff to utilise that is not available to the customers? Exactly! I explicitly stated that any emergency door release mechanism will be behind a removable panel that can be unlocked with a J door key. The thought of providing a passenger-accessible release mechanism inside the saloon is SCARY!!! Besides, if the S stock really is gangway stock and not car stock, it's not like it would be hard for the T/Op to reach... IIRC the DLR has passenger emergency door release. Many metro systems have this feature, and it doesn't cause a major problem through misuse. Many driverless systems will automatically turn off the traction current in that area if the doors are manually opened.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 17, 2006 19:18:12 GMT
When I lived in Croydon, and travelled to work on the trams, there were many occasions when "yoofs" pulled the emergency door release, delaying the trams and the safety of passengers in the door area. Having said that, I have as yet had no such issues on Southern's Sussex trains. Yes, something like a butterfly cock that can be accessed from within the car would be very handy (if hidden from the punters) Exactly! I explicitly stated that any emergency door release mechanism will be behind a removable panel that can be unlocked with a J door key. The thought of providing a passenger-accessible release mechanism inside the saloon is SCARY!!! Besides, if the S stock really is gangway stock and not car stock, it's not like it would be hard for the T/Op to reach... IIRC the DLR has passenger emergency door release. Many metro systems have this feature, and it doesn't cause a major problem through misuse. Many driverless systems will automatically turn off the traction current in that area if the doors are manually opened.
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Jul 17, 2006 19:40:34 GMT
or some sort of key operated valve, a la guards area 59TS (obviously with a more up to date lock)
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 17, 2006 23:25:40 GMT
That is basically what we are looking at.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 18, 2006 22:16:08 GMT
damn silly/noisy aircon stuff. Hmm, not sure the majority of our 3 million plus commuters would agree with you on that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2006 1:42:37 GMT
I should think not. Air-con is not darn silly, it's essential during summer, and many systems already have air-con, like Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT).
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 21, 2006 20:07:37 GMT
Ok. I have spoken to the engineers on the subject of locking windows. They feel it would be difficult to engineer windows that automatically unlock as it introduces lots of extra kit and risk of failure. One of the things they are trying to do is to keep it simple, and we (LU System Upgrades) think thats a good idea too. As you all know, I think that in an emergency scenario it would be unrealistic to expect a train Operator to walk back through a crowded train and unlock windows manually. I also think with a fallback vent system and through gangways, air circulation is less of a problem. So what do we do? How about this: In an emergency if the fallback system fails, and/or temperature levels rise, and the train operator has time, we utilise the internal egress device on each car to allow a flow of fresh air into the car? This needs some thought and obviously we can't just fully open the door and then trust people not to get out when they are unattended, but it may be a solution. Thoughts?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jul 21, 2006 21:38:14 GMT
An interesting alternative if remote unlocking of opening windows really is unfeasible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2006 21:39:18 GMT
How about a circuit to allow the door engines to pull the doors open approximately 2-3 inches and hold them there?
On the rear cab bulkhead, next to the Selective Close button there could be a Ventilation Open button that would open some of the doors slightly in each car; the standard Passenger Open/Close controls could then be used to open them fully or close them fully.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 21, 2006 21:45:22 GMT
It is a good idea, but I suspect the engineers will just say that it is more interlocks and circuitry coupled with more risk and all for a feature LU are not entirely convinced is required. Also LU would have to pay for this as Metronet would, quite rightly, say it is unnecessary. As this feature would only be needed if the fallback system failed, it would effectively be LU paying for a feature just in case a Metronet responsibility (2 hours load shed) wasn't met. The saga continues, I really love this forum! I'll get back to you with an update on this next week.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Jul 22, 2006 0:49:02 GMT
How about a circuit to allow the door engines to pull the doors open approximately 2-3 inches and hold them there? There is already a 'tolerence' built in because of wally's that get themselves trapped in closing doors. I think that by adding this, the door system would become far too complicated - as the saying goes, "why make the job harder than it has to be".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2006 2:24:47 GMT
How about a circuit to allow the door engines to pull the doors open approximately 2-3 inches and hold them there? There is already a 'tolerence' built in because of wally's that get themselves trapped in closing doors. I think that by adding this, the door system would become far too complicated - as the saying goes, "why make the job harder than it has to be". Perhaps, but conceptually it seems simple enough. It is a good idea, but I suspect the engineers will just say that it is more interlocks and circuitry coupled with more risk and all for a feature LU are not entirely convinced is required. Again, conceptually it seems quite simple - all you need is a circuit that engages the door engines for 1-2 seconds and then shuts them down. As long as the doors and their hardware are sufficiently strong enough, I doubt the playful element of LU travelers would try to force them open. I would like to know if the engineers really do think it's hard to do though Also LU would have to pay for this as Metronet would, quite rightly, say it is unnecessary. As this feature would only be needed if the fallback system failed, it would effectively be LU paying for a feature just in case a Metronet responsibility (2 hours load shed) wasn't met. And LU could say, quite rightly, that installing such a circuit on the trains (mobile infrastructure) is supplemental, and not duplicatory, to the presence of emergency interconnects to ensure power is restored ASAP (fixed infrastructure). Both work in different ways to ensure that passengers remain comfortable as long as possible. The saga continues, I really love this forum! I'll get back to you with an update on this next week. Great. If such an installation does turn out to be too complicated, why not just install something as simple as an emergency door chock? ;D
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 10:44:26 GMT
How about a circuit to allow the door engines to pull the doors open approximately 2-3 inches and hold them there? There is already a 'tolerence' built in because of wally's that get themselves trapped in closing doors. This might not be the case in the future. I'm sure you have noticed my reluctance to discuss doors here, so I can't go into any detail. The issue of doors is ongoing.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 10:49:49 GMT
There is already a 'tolerence' built in because of wally's that get themselves trapped in closing doors. I think that by adding this, the door system would become far too complicated - as the saying goes, "why make the job harder than it has to be". Perhaps, but conceptually it seems simple enough. Again, conceptually it seems quite simple - all you need is a circuit that engages the door engines for 1-2 seconds and then shuts them down. As long as the doors and their hardware are sufficiently strong enough, I doubt the playful element of LU travelers would try to force them open. I would like to know if the engineers really do think it's hard to do though And LU could say, quite rightly, that installing such a circuit on the trains (mobile infrastructure) is supplemental, and not duplicatory, to the presence of emergency interconnects to ensure power is restored ASAP (fixed infrastructure). Both work in different ways to ensure that passengers remain comfortable as long as possible. The saga continues, I really love this forum! I'll get back to you with an update on this next week. Great. If such an installation does turn out to be too complicated, why not just install something as simple as an emergency door chock? ;D I think the problem comes when you add more features you add more equipment (interlocks, circuits etc) and so you add more risk of failure. If we went ahead with a feature of this type there is no way that Metronet would fund it. LU would raise it as a requirement, a business case would be formed, and funds would need to be found. Knowing the engineers as I do, I think they would say that the real answer is to ensure that Metronet adhere to the 2 hours load shed standard in order to ensure that customers are kept comfortable by the fall back system. I will let you know though.
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Jul 22, 2006 13:27:35 GMT
Ventilation was so much simpler when we had clerestory roofs with external air scoops and mechanical sliding ventilators that the passengers could control. If the temperature of the tube system is rising, it is important to consider these two points:- 1. Moving air feels cooler than static air - that is why fans work. 2. Air conditioning, air blowers and other forms of controlled ventilation/cooling are invariably operated by electric motors which generate heat that adds to the problem that they have been installed to overcome. Simple mechanical systems do not add heat.
Oh yes - and simple mechanical systems rarely need maintenance.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 15:39:04 GMT
Ventilation was so much simpler when we had clerestory roofs with external air scoops and mechanical sliding ventilators that the passengers could control. Sliding ventilators are quite ineffectual and the cooling effect from them are minimal at best. The other problem is that when the train stops the air flow stops too and you end up feeling hotter. Also, our climate is considerably hotter than when the lovely 'Q' stock where around. If the temperature of the tube system is rising, it is important to consider these two points:- 1. Moving air feels cooler than static air - that is why fans work. I refer to my previous comment on ventilators 2. Air conditioning, air blowers and other forms of controlled ventilation/cooling are invariably operated by electric motors which generate heat that adds to the problem that they have been installed to overcome. Simple mechanical systems do not add heat. Which is why we are only using air con on the SSR where heat dissipation isn't an issue. Oh yes - and simple mechanical systems rarely need maintenance. True, but our customers do not consider these methods to be sufficient to combat the high temperatures being reached.
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Jul 22, 2006 19:15:02 GMT
Sliding ventilators are quite ineffectual and the cooling effect from them are minimal at best. The other problem is that when the train stops the air flow stops too and you end up feeling hotter. Also, our climate is considerably hotter than when the lovely 'Q' stock where around. I agree. A straight sliding ventilator facing sideways in a tube tunnel will do little, even when the train is moving. However, I was not talking 'Q' stock. I was talking pre-38 standard tube stock and I mentioned the triangular-shaped air scoops that were mounted in the roof and which automatically forced air through the ventilators. These were very effective - if you have never experienced the effect, borrow a pre-38 car from Acton and take it for a ride through a tunnel. Although it would not fit in with the current 'design', the principle could easily be modified. I sometimes think that we look for sophisticated solutions to a problem simply because we can and are too proud to admit that older, simpler ideas can work. Oh yes - and simple mechanical systems rarely need maintenance.prjb then replied: True, but our customers do not consider these methods to be sufficient to combat the high temperatures being reached. If that is what your research shows, then you simply have a problem of public perception to deal with. Standing instructions on tube stock used to be that when a train was stationary in a tunnel for an extended period, the guard was to walk through the train and ask the passengers to open the windows to increase ventilation. Several instructors at the training school used to remark that the opening of window in a tunnel when nothing was moving did very little (see comment on side ventilators above) BUT experience had shown that it made the passengers feel that ventilation had been increased. It would, of course, not be possible for a T/O to use this method today, as the facility to open windows has been taken away. To understand how public thinking works, take a look back through your company notes to the time when the Victoria Line opened. The concealed ventilators (over which the public did have control) were probably equally as effective as the opening windows on the 1959TS built three years earlier, but because they did not look like ventilators, the public perception was that they were ineffective. With the greatest respect (and I genuinely do not mean this to be rude); I understand that you are applying new ideas. I understand that you have the facility to go boldly where no designer has gone before, and I understand that you have new materials and technology at your disposal. But, huge amounts of knowledge have been gained and research carried out over the years that can help, so there is no sense in re-inventing the wheel just for the sake of it. Where we go in the future is shaped by the past. We do not have to discredit old ideas just because we did not think of them, or because they are too simple for our modern electronic age. If you are interested, you may wish to listen to a programme that clearly illustrates this point and which uses railways as an example. Steam Driven was broadcast last Wednesday on BBC Radio 4 and can be heard until next Tuesday (25 July) on the bbc.co.uk/radio4 website using the Listen Again facility. It explains how steam technology has continued to develop since this method of propulsion was withdrawn from the main-lines, and how today's CAD designed steam locomotives are equal to (or could be better than) their diesel counterparts, but are more environmentally friendly (they will burn almost anything from light oil to renewable fuel - depending where they are used and the economic environment). The problem though is grid-lock. The manufacturers only build such locomotives (YES, steam locomotives are still built) for traditional type railways who want something that looks a bit like an old steam locomotive, but which has updated gubbins added in the places where such improvements enhance the performance. They know that they could build railcars and multiple units of the type that would conform to modern design requirements - and which could operate at todays speeds and standards - but they will not invest in these. Why? Because, the scrapping of steam worldwide was (politically) sold to the public on the basis that it was an outmoded form of transport that had passed its sell-by date. One thing that they did not mention in the programme was that that is exactly the same argument that was used to get rid of trams/light railways...and we know how that story ended.
|
|
|
Post by orienteer on Jul 22, 2006 21:16:01 GMT
How about something simple, like window bolts that release when main train line pressure drops?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 22, 2006 21:59:15 GMT
Wow CSLR! You learn something new every day, and the point you make about steam trains is fascinating. I can't stand steam and I guess it is because the perception that it is out dated and defunct has been forced down my throat all these years. Getting back to LU though, air con is being installed on 'S' to combat high temperatures and whilst there may be other solutions I'm not sure that there are any as effective. It is also a political football as the mayor has promised to try and solve the heat problem on the tube. Once you go down the air con route (rightly or wrongly) then natural ventilation is something that causes problems. I am not a designer or an engineer, I am merely a railwayman and my job is to ensure that all non-railway personnel involved in the upgrade are adhering to sound operational principals. Personally I do not discount the men and women who designed and built our railway over the years and am conscious of the fact that we need to be mindful of our heritage in all areas of the upgrade. In fact I am taking some Bombardier and Metronet staff to the Acton museum in the next few weeks in order to impress upon them where we are coming from when we demand that our new stock fit in with our heritage. Bombardiers staff have been designing trains for many years (they may have been employed by BR or BREL or ABB or whatever!) and they too look to evolve their designs rather than just start again with each new train. They too have skills and experiences to bring to the table. I'll listen to that radio programme.
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Jul 22, 2006 22:25:05 GMT
To stretch the therad slightly, it could be argued that the underground still runs on steam since it is steam which drives the turbines which drive the power station generators.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jul 23, 2006 9:02:20 GMT
Fundamental to this (and we must get this thread back on topic sometime) is mobile steam boiler efficiency. Old steam engines were only about 4% efficient overall. I believe the later ones were approaching 12% towards the end. Compare this with power station efficiency of 33% and you see what I mean. Even with a few percent transmission losses that's way above 12%. Even diesel engine power gives an overall efficiency of something approaching 30% at best.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jul 23, 2006 9:26:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greatplum on Jul 26, 2006 13:38:33 GMT
Interesting blog on Annie Mole's site about the new SSL trains... london-underground.blogspot.com/Obviously there is quite a lot of concern that there will be 30% less seats! (Is this a true figure?) Some concern as well in the comments about it being a 'single carriage' train.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 26, 2006 17:02:43 GMT
I read the latter point in the Harrow Observer I think; seems someone completely misquoted the idea of an articulated train which would be one UNIT long, as opposed to one carraige long....Anyway, that was an extreamly early idea which has been scrapped now.
For anyone interested there is a campaign group formed to protest against the new trains seating arrangements, called 'Save Our Seats', sorry if I posted that before, I cant remember!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Jul 27, 2006 4:52:20 GMT
Because of a C stock's motor's requiring the attention of the London Fire Brigade last night, my train was 'stranded' at a very hot Temple station for 35 minutes. I had the cab door (of my refurb D stock ;D)open for most of that time conversing with the station staff - and during all that time the cab stayed very cool using only the lowest setting. I'm no expert on air con, and it was only a small cab, but doesn't that mean that if they get the design right, it can be made to work as desired?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 5:21:46 GMT
I s'pose. Oh, Hindenburg, did you know that Singapore's tube trains stop every minuite or so and open all the doors? They still have air-con. And BTW, I think Singapore is on average hotter than London, mate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 10:33:37 GMT
Wasn't air con tried on a C stock once and found to be effective?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Jul 27, 2006 12:03:57 GMT
I know that Solidbond has some knowledge on that subject - unfortunately he's not available to respond at the moment
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J on Jul 27, 2006 14:24:01 GMT
I know that Solidbond has some knowledge on that subject - unfortunately he's not available to respond at the moment I've put Colin's post searching hat on and found SB's post on this subject. That was 5513/6513. It was fitted to the saloon in both cars - and bloody effective it was as well ;D ;D Unfortunately, the amount of water it produced had to go somewhere, so it was being dumped onto the track - not an ideal situation really, so the equipment was removed However, if you look in the trailer car, 6513, you can still see the ACUCOS marking on the cant rail for the switch to cut it out
|
|