London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old March 18th 05, 07:06 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,796
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:40:55 +0000, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Did he *really* say that?


It's relevant on any stock in Europe fitted with door blocking instead
of proper door locking. When the doors release, they do so on both
sides.

When I first saw this on sliding door stock (while twiddling with the
offside door buttons at a station) I was astonished.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

  #12   Report Post  
Old March 18th 05, 08:00 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 6
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)

Chris Tolley wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:


Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening accidentally?



Did he *really* say that?


He did. I suppose the point he was trying to make is that "selective
opening" means only opening (or unlocking) a subset of the available
doors, which is what already happens (except with MK1s, and on the DLR
at Canary Wharf etc.)

  #13   Report Post  
Old March 18th 05, 11:12 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2004
Posts: 164
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)


matt wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:


Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding

and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we

pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the

doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening

accidentally?


Did he *really* say that?


He did. I suppose the point he was trying to make is that "selective
opening" means only opening (or unlocking) a subset of the available
doors, which is what already happens (except with MK1s, and on the

DLR
at Canary Wharf etc.)


It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!

  #14   Report Post  
Old March 18th 05, 07:07 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2004
Posts: 235
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)

On 18 Mar 2005 04:12:06 -0800, Rupert Candy wrote:

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!


me2, but I had always assumed that those were in case of slam-door
stock. You live and learn, eh.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767172.html
(Fisheye view of 312 799, Colchester, 1980. Spot the buffers down below)
  #15   Report Post  
Old March 18th 05, 09:53 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 559
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)


"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2005 04:12:06 -0800, Rupert Candy wrote:

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!


me2, but I had always assumed that those were in case of slam-door
stock. You live and learn, eh.


'Open doors other side' seems to be used on DOO lines where the platform is
on the off side (e.g. for Up trains on the reversible Down platform 2 at
High Wycombe. The signs for passengers of slam door trains were typically
white lettering on a red background, reading 'Alight other side' where there
was something a bit like, but not quite, a platform on the wrong side. One
example was platform 7 (now 6) at London Bridge pre the alterations of the
early 1970s, where the post office 'Mount' platform was on the other side of
the train.

Peter




  #16   Report Post  
Old March 20th 05, 03:20 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2004
Posts: 164
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)


Peter Masson wrote:
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2005 04:12:06 -0800, Rupert Candy wrote:

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached

to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS

OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!


me2, but I had always assumed that those were in case of slam-door
stock. You live and learn, eh.


'Open doors other side' seems to be used on DOO lines where the

platform is
on the off side (e.g. for Up trains on the reversible Down platform 2

at
High Wycombe. The signs for passengers of slam door trains were

typically
white lettering on a red background, reading 'Alight other side'

where there
was something a bit like, but not quite, a platform on the wrong

side. One
example was platform 7 (now 6) at London Bridge pre the alterations

of the
early 1970s, where the post office 'Mount' platform was on the other

side of
the train.


There are some similar signs at Norwood Junction (though I can't
remeber which line it is that has platforms on both sides!). Again,
will presumably be obsolete once slammers are all gone.

  #17   Report Post  
Old March 21st 05, 07:07 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,125
Default Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)

In message , at 21:39:21 on Wed,
16 Mar 2005, John Rowland
remarked:
In particular the new Crossrail
design
does not require use of the Moorgate branch"

Use of the Moorgate branch? I don't know what they mean, unless the former
plan required widening of the Circle Line platform at Barbican.


Perhaps the earlier design used the land upon which the Moorgate Branch
track runs today (and which would be no longer required for running
trains over after TLK2K).
--
Roland Perry


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement Paul Scott London Transport 53 June 17th 10 08:06 PM
Thameslink 2012? J. Chisholm London Transport 46 December 30th 06 01:47 AM
HSE statement: Buncefield Oil Depot investigation GMails London Transport 0 December 16th 05 03:27 PM
No statement for Crossrail scheme Richard Stow London Transport 4 July 14th 04 02:00 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017