All tube stations should have barriers in front of the platforms.

Scroll to see replies

Pitt1988

They have these in Thailand, perspex screens that open at the exact place the train doors open when it stops. Stops suicides and people pushing others on to the tracks, pretty good idea I think!

Reply 41

The Mr Z

Original post by ocelotrevs

The main issue prevent installation of these things, as mentioned, is the time, cost, space and complexity.
Installing them would be pretty impractical for very small gain.

Heating in modern stations isn't an issue with this, as modern stations and tunnels are much more open and allow much better heat circulation. Also, the top of these barriers are usually open.

And the vast majority of the London Underground could not be considered "modern stations", hence the heat problem. The tunnels are often too small to put these in without significantly hampering circulation.

Obviously we've noticed the problem now and modern tunnels are built to better alleviate this problem. The newer lines are also closer to the surface than many of the older ones, which helps matter dramatically.

Building them half-height in older tunnels would cause different problems with turbulent airflow buffeting the commuters, you need additional height to reduce the amount of turbulence.

Reply 42

Witty Username

Original post by danny111

I took the Jubilee for 3 years of uni. Those situations where doors don't open occur, but so rarely, and I've never seen someone not get out.

I think I'm just unlucky :tongue:

Rarely in London these days because of uni and yet it happened to me the last time I was there!

Reply 43

TKC

Yeah it would look nicer and save a couple of lives, but the cost of planning, construction, and disruption would probably be huge.

Reply 44

CherryCherryBoomBoom

Original post by Flyteryder

Have you ever tried to find a vacant chair or bench at St Pancras underground station, Oxford Circus, Tottenham Court Road or Leicester Square? They're the only 4 stations I ever go to, and there are so many other people there it's impossible to find anywhere to it on the platform! I will sit down if possible though.

Well, I've not been to any of those stations very often, so fair enough. The Tube station I use most often these days whenever I enter Central London is London Bridge.

Reply 45

cognito_08

People referencing the Jubilee Line; those barries that go from the floor to the celing on some stations (e.g. Canary Wharf) are not for safety purposes.
They were designed for ventilation purposes.

It was on the documentary, The Tube :smile:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 46

Clickers

The barriers are not used for passenger safety but used to decrease the wind turbulence. They were designed primarily to reduce the movement of air caused by emergency ventilation fans which activate in event of a fire, or under test conditions.

Reply 47

Norfolkadam

Having spoken to people who drive trains and work on the Jubilee Line they are constantly whinging about how much they hate platform-edge doors. They are the cause of a great deal of delays and station closures on the Jubilee Line and they require constant, expensive maintenance. If so much as a copy of The Metro or a crisp packet gets caught in them it can shut a whole station during rush hour and if a train operator overshoots by just a few inches it takes them precious seconds to reverse the train in order for the doors to line up.

The fact is that for the amount of deaths they prevent it's really not worth the cost and delays. If people want to jump in front of trains they'll always find a way and the number of people who die on the tube accidentally is negligible.

Reply 48

Moaning Myrtle

Good idea but I don't think it would be worth the cost or disruption.

Reply 49

Arekkusu

Original post by HeyyImRyan

I agree, but by how much does it reduce travel time between Birmingham and London compared to Virgin railway trains? Even Chiltern trains take less than 35 minutes more - so is it really?

If it wants to cut through a town and cause the town to need restructured roads, and have an area of outstanding natural beauty be totally destroyed by monstrous train tracks and viaducts, then it should be a requirement that a mid-way station should be added. I'd happily accept it if this were the case, even if it was only a couple of trains an hour which stopped in the town and 'fast' trains didn't :smile:

I would have thought it's about improved capacity rather than speed, the speed is the selling point for the business users.

The actual Big Idea behind HS2 is to revitalise the north by linking it to Europe (hence HS2 and HS1). We are basically doing it because France did.

Reply 50

RibenaRockstar

Original post by Arekkusu

Also it increases capacity on local services. I live on the Chiltern Line and in the year since they've emphasised their London<-> Birmingham service there are fewer local trains, because there are more fast ones - simple logic, oui? When HS2 is completed more of the intercity traffic will be on other lines, so we get our stopper trains back.

Reply 51

rY4uGD1fMzBj4xe2

Although I agree they'd make things safer and look better (and I do like them), I don't think that's my first priority on what money should be spent on.

Nothing wrong with taking a bit of care when around a train track. I don't think the public needs everything child-proof, people just need to be less retarded and use some common sense around fast moving vehicles.

Reply 52

cambio wechsel

Original post by Flyteryder

Backwards hug anything that sticks out of the wall, or if nothing like that is available, I face the wall with my back and spread my arms out across the wall so that I'm touching it as much as I can :h:

you lovable nutter.

Reply 53

username402722

You could have some fun if they were at an outside station such as Cockfosters and opened and then shut some and filmed the bemused response of commuters.

Reply 54

Aspiringlawstudent

Nah. That'd take ages and cost too much.

Hardly anyone dies on the tube.

It's exactly like that idea to put a defibrillator in every station and every public building - it's not cost-effective.

Reply 55

Slosh

They are too expensive because apparently money is more important than people

Edit: to whoever negged that, this was sarcasm :P

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 56

zoeaw

Original post by patrickinator

plus you would lose advertising revenue from the other side of the platform. plus people would complain that we are run by a nanny state.

Aren't they normally made of glass so you can see all the ads on the other side?

Reply 57

HeyyImRyan

Original post by RibenaRockstar

I'm going to take a guess and say you're on the Aylesbury Vale Parkway --> Amersham --> Marylebone line, in which case that will not happen. London - Birmingham non-stop is already possible with Virgin railways, it is not possible from London via Aylesbury as far as I know (passes through Risborough so apologies if you're on the Wycombe line).

If this is the case, the foot-traffic will be exactly the same on the Chiltern line and capacity will not increase as a result (I don't know if you've seen Marylebone in evening rush hour, but you literally have to take a running jump and lodge yourself into the carriage). The same people who live across the Chilterns will be using the service as they always have been, it therefore doesn't do anything to affect Chiltern Railways travel.

If it had a mid-way station then this would of course be different, many could use HS2 to get across the Chilterns with only one stop and that would therefore offset the 100% capacity utilisation of the current Chiltern line - sadly the government fail to spot this opportunity, or just don't really care. :smile:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 58

RibenaRockstar

Original post by HeyyImRyan

No, I'm on the Wycombe line. Since the Chiltern Mainline timetable came in there are much fewer stopper trains, and especially fewer full distance trains that stop at a couple of the local stations. When HS2 is done, much of the full distance traffic will be redistributed, the Virgin passengers will go HS2 so Virgin will poach the Chiltern full distance travellers. Therefore, we should get the timetable back to a more local emphasis.

Reply 59

HeyyImRyan

Original post by RibenaRockstar

Unfortunately will not really be the case, as Chiltern see inter-city commute as bigger business and a more profitable transport option than local travel, all that will happen is it will become more competitive, and Chiltern will lower costs or introduce direct trains from London to Birmingham at a reduced rate to HS2 in order to compensate the increase in travel time.

Capacity will remain the same, as the local stopper trains will still need to transport the same amount of passengers on the same amount of trains, I can't see Chiltern opting out of LDN-Brum or LDN-Warwick transport because it's much bigger business for them than people travelling one or two stops (ie. Kimble to Risborough to go shopping)

However, if HS2 had a stop in Wycombe it would indeed force Chiltern out of the LDN-Brum market as a result of the ease of use, but that's not going to happen and really is the reason most of Bucks is opposed to HS2 as it destroys our countryside yet doesn't actually benefit the county.