On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:14:31 +0100
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message ,
wrote:
Except the person who was killed fell on the track by accident apparently
12 seconds before the train ran over her. Unless the driver was asleep he'd
have had no problem stopping the train in time.

Is that so? It's not obvious: a main line train takes 90 seconds to stop

Yes it is so.

from 100 mph at the braking rates the signalling is designed for.

A 3-unit DLR train is 84 metres long. The braking system is designed for
0.6 m/s^2, so that means the train will enter the platform at 10 m/s and
take 16.7 seconds to stop. 12 seconds before that the train is doing
17.2 m/s and is 162 metres from the start of the platform.

A DLR train doing 17.2 m/s coming into a platform? In which universe?
Thats 38mph. If a DLR train ever got up to that speed it probably had to go and
have a lie down for a week. Say a far more realistic 20-25 mph which seems
to be the top speed these days almost everywhere.

Train doing 10m/s, stops at 1.2m/s. Even with a 1-2 second reaction time
you're sorted.

Next...

However, will the victim be visible at 162 metres from the platform?
Particularly if there's a curve on the track.

Who knows. Maybe at some they would be , at others not.

Will it be worth the cost? How much will it cost to add a driver to
every DLR train? If I recall the previous posting, we're talking about
one accident every 5 years and one suicide a year.

Umm, why would you need to add a driver? FFS - the train ops/captains/door
dollys/whatever they're called this month are already on the train, salaried
and do virtually nothing for their money from what I can see. Why would
putting them at the front be so onorous?

--
Spud