http://www.guardian.co.uk/Business/s...698519,00.html

Bob

Bob wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Business/s...698519,00.html

Bob

Classic.

The requirement was imposed because of concerns that passengers might
become confused and fall on to the track while attempting to board a
seventh carriage on trains which only had six.

Kevin

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Business/s...698519,00.html

Bob

Classic.

The requirement was imposed because of concerns that passengers might
become confused and fall on to the track while attempting to board a
seventh carriage on trains which only had six.

Kevin


What about partially sighted or blind passengers who may not notice?

"Robert McCall" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Business/s...698519,00.html

Bob

Classic.

The requirement was imposed because of concerns that passengers might
become confused and fall on to the track while attempting to board a
seventh carriage on trains which only had six.

Kevin


What about partially sighted or blind passengers who may not notice?

Or the drunk...

wrote:

The requirement was imposed because of concerns that passengers might
become confused and fall on to the track while attempting to board a
seventh carriage on trains which only had six.

I refer the concerned to the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and
Metropolitan Line train lengths. And doesn't the Picadilly also have a
different length from the Met? The Bakerloo and Silverlink?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Business/s...698519,00.html

Bob

Classic.

The requirement was imposed because of concerns that passengers might
become confused and fall on to the track while attempting to board a
seventh carriage on trains which only had six.

Kevin


Wasn't this to do with the limitations of the platform edge doors at the new
stations, which couldn't be altered to open dependent on train length, ie
not exactly comparable with the situation on the Subsurface railway. Still
seems possible to have dealt with the issue even if platform staff had to
stand by the doorways for a few days.

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Business/s...698519,00.html

Bob

Classic.

The requirement was imposed because of concerns that passengers might
become confused and fall on to the track while attempting to board a
seventh carriage on trains which only had six.

Kevin


Wasn't this to do with the limitations of the platform edge doors at the new
stations, which couldn't be altered to open dependent on train length, ie
not exactly comparable with the situation on the Subsurface railway. Still
seems possible to have dealt with the issue even if platform staff had to
stand by the doorways for a few days.

Paul

It seems incredible that the platform edge doors couldn't be programmed
for a 6 or 7 coach train and have some sort of detection system.
Last week a space probe that has been in deep space for several years
having collected dust from the tail of a comet landed back on earth but
we can't have platform edge doors that can cope with variable train
lengths.

Kevin

wrote in message
ups.com...

Wasn't this to do with the limitations of the platform edge doors at the
new
stations, which couldn't be altered to open dependent on train length, ie
not exactly comparable with the situation on the Subsurface railway.
Still
seems possible to have dealt with the issue even if platform staff had to
stand by the doorways for a few days.

Paul

It seems incredible that the platform edge doors couldn't be programmed
for a 6 or 7 coach train and have some sort of detection system.
Last week a space probe that has been in deep space for several years
having collected dust from the tail of a comet landed back on earth but
we can't have platform edge doors that can cope with variable train
lengths.

Kevin

Of course had they been programmable, H&S would probably have insisted on a
weeks testing with empty trains of varying length anyway...

Paul

In article . com,
writes
It seems incredible that the platform edge doors couldn't be programmed
for a 6 or 7 coach train and have some sort of detection system.

We could have had them. Was it worth paying the extra for a
once-in-a-lifetime event?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article . com,
writes

It seems incredible that the platform edge doors couldn't be programmed
for a 6 or 7 coach train and have some sort of detection system.

We could have had them. Was it worth paying the extra for a
once-in-a-lifetime event?

Depends how much it would have cost. Here, i'll do it for free:

int trainLength = train.getNumberOfCars() ;
if ((trainLength 6) || (trainLength 7))
{
throw new MalformedTrainException(train, "bad number of cars") ;
}
for (int i = 0 ; i trainLength ; ++i)
{
// assumes this is a headstop, if that's what it's called
// tailstop is not much more complicated
platform.edgeDoor((2 * i)).open() ; // the front one
platform.edgeDoor(((2 * i) + 1)).open() ; // the back one
}

That ought to be tested before it goes into production use, though.

tom

--
Who would you help in a fight, Peter van der Linden or Bill Gates?