Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Last night some bright spark at Brent Cross had set all the gates to
enter only, they all displayed no exit. Fortunately the side gate
hadn't been locked.
What happens to people with Oyster cards in this situation.
Kevin

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Just was well it was unlocked then.

Kevin

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Kat typed


wrote:
Last night some bright spark at Brent Cross had set all the gates to
enter only, they all displayed no exit. Fortunately the side gate
hadn't been locked.
What happens to people with Oyster cards in this situation.

They should use the Oyster reader by the manual gate.

Except this sometimes *still* results in an 'incomplete journey'...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Can someone explain why the gates being closed for exit when the side
gate was open is a breach of safety?

Barry Salter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 00:14:06 -0700, wrote:


Last night some bright spark at Brent Cross had set all the gates to
enter only, they all displayed no exit.


Odd...I was under the impression that the bare minimum of gates was
specified as 1 entry, 1 exit, 1 reversible; and I believe this is/was
the arrangement at Bow Road, for example.

I stand for correction on this matter, but I do find it *very* hard to
believe that there wasn't at *least* one gate available for exit
(unless, for some reason, the 'fixed' exit gate had failed).

Cheers,

Barry

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Barry Salter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 00:14:06 -0700, wrote:

Last night some bright spark at Brent Cross had set all the gates to
enter only, they all displayed no exit.

Odd...I was under the impression that the bare minimum of gates was
specified as 1 entry, 1 exit, 1 reversible; and I believe this is/was
the arrangement at Bow Road, for example.

I stand for correction on this matter, but I do find it *very* hard to
believe that there wasn't at *least* one gate available for exit
(unless, for some reason, the 'fixed' exit gate had failed).


Some have their preferences and are used to working in one direction
only but in theory electronic gates can be set open, closed, entry or
exit.
--
Kat

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:
Can someone explain why the gates being closed for exit when the side

gate was open is a breach of safety?



At a guess the amount of people specified in the 'fire capacity'
cannont be evacuated quickly enough through only the side gate. Also,
if the gate is unlocked but closed, how does one know to try it?

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Barry Salter typed


On 19 Apr 2005 00:14:06 -0700, wrote:

Last night some bright spark at Brent Cross had set all the gates to
enter only, they all displayed no exit.

Odd...I was under the impression that the bare minimum of gates was
specified as 1 entry, 1 exit, 1 reversible; and I believe this is/was
the arrangement at Bow Road, for example.

I stand for correction on this matter, but I do find it *very* hard to
believe that there wasn't at *least* one gate available for exit
(unless, for some reason, the 'fixed' exit gate had failed).

I don't find this *at all* difficult to believe.

Burnt Oak had all its gates set to 'exit' a few weeks ago. The situation
*might* have changed after I tried to sort out some incomplete journeys
on my, and my partner's, Oyster Prepay cards. Wecomplained loudly at
another station about the situation at Burnt Oak...

I won't have the problem now I have my Freedom Pass ;-)

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Chris! wrote:
At a guess the amount of people specified in the 'fire capacity'
cannont be evacuated quickly enough through only the side gate.

Do the gates not all automatically open in the event of a fire alarm
signal? We operate a restricted entry system at work, and several days
was spent testing that they would open in the event of an alarm being
triggered.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Chris wrote:
Chris! wrote:

At a guess the amount of people specified in the 'fire capacity'
cannont be evacuated quickly enough through only the side gate.


Do the gates not all automatically open in the event of a fire alarm
signal? We operate a restricted entry system at work, and several days
was spent testing that they would open in the event of an alarm being
triggered.

They should do.

I've been in the ticket hall (at Stepney Green, as it happens) when an
Inspector Sands announcement turned into an evacuation, and as soon as
the evacuation announcement started all the gates opened automatically.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

If there is a fire then the gates will open automatically and a bloody
annoying voice tells you where to go!

Chris! wrote:
General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

Can someone explain why the gates being closed for exit when the side


gate was open is a breach of safety?




At a guess the amount of people specified in the 'fire capacity'
cannont be evacuated quickly enough through only the side gate. Also,
if the gate is unlocked but closed, how does one know to try it?

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:
If there is a fire then the gates will open automatically and a
bloody
annoying voice tells you where to go!

If theres a fire? Or if the fire alarm is activated

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

The display indicated no exit, the display could have been incorrect
though I guess.

Kevin

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Where would one find the fire alarm, just incase the next time I can't
get out. I looked around but couldn't see any obvious emergency release
buttons.

Kevin

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Only assuming that the alarm has been given. As I stated in a previous
posting, one day last week the gates were in operation but the booking
office not open, the staff were busy putting money in the ticket
machine and therefore not available to respond to a fire. I have not
seen any obvious alarms available for public use.
It is this sort of cavalier attitude towards safety that resulted in
the Kings Cross fire.

Kevin

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
The display indicated no exit, the display could have been incorrect
though I guess.


And you assume that the public at large is too stupid to find the gate and
pass through it safely?

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

So the public should ignore any warning signs or advisory signs on the
basis that they might be wrong. Should they also ignore announcements
over the pa on they basis that they may also be wrong.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

wrote:
So the public should ignore any warning signs or advisory signs on
the
basis that they might be wrong. Should they also ignore announcements
over the pa on they basis that they may also be wrong.

yes. Especialy automatic announcements that seem to contradict
everything else. e.g. person on platform appologising for train being
diverted somewhere else at Earls Court and appologising for the
inconvenience being interupted by "District line services are oprating
normally".

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
So the public should ignore any warning signs or advisory signs on the
basis that they might be wrong. Should they also ignore announcements
over the pa on they basis that they may also be wrong.


I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you've
confirmed my first impression.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Surely, Chris, the example you've given proves the announcements WERE
correct... A train being diverted at Earl's Court, signal failures on
the Wimbledon branch etc etc: These ARE (unfortunately) a normal
service on the District line... However much we hate them.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

I take it that you accept LUL engage in unsafe practices and if a
passenger was injured or killed then it was their own stupid fault. In
the instance that I highlighted the side gate was actually open so
there was not a problem but does that excuse LUL from their duties.
What other safety aspects are LUL taking short cuts over. Well you
obviously believe that it does so I know were you stand on this also.

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 19 Apr 2005:


I won't have the problem now I have my Freedom Pass ;-)

Congratulations, Helen - and may you enjoy it for a very long time
indeed!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

Breach of Safety by LUL, Again
 

Mrs Redboots typed


Helen Deborah Vecht wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 19 Apr 2005:


I won't have the problem now I have my Freedom Pass ;-)

Congratulations, Helen - and may you enjoy it for a very long time
indeed!

Thanks; it's taken so long to get it, I probably won't have as much use
as I'd have liked. My legs were so weak today that I had to sit down and
rest for half an hour on the 100 yard trip from the bus stop. Reading
newspapers in the sun wasn't a huge hardship...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.