<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>

A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they were
hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.

The youngster, thought to be a two-year-old girl, suffered multiple
injuries in the incident at Southall station, west London, on
Wednesday.

The woman died at the scene. British Transport Police (BTP) refused to
confirm reports the victims were mother and child.

A BTP spokesman said they are not treating the incident as suspicious.

Major disruptions are now expected and there is currently no service
between Reading and Paddington.

But First Great Western tickets will be accepted on South West Trains
services between Waterloo and Reading either direct or via
Basingstoke. 


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Uncle Tupelo - New Madrid (from the album 'Uncle Tupelo 89/93: An Anthology')

Neil Sunderland wrote:

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>
>
> A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they
> were hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.


The page has now been updated to say that a woman and a child have been
killed and another child seriously injured.  A BTP spokesman is quoted
as saying "It appears the three people jumped from the platform."

The BBC report says that the train involved was a Heathrow Express,
travelling at "more than" 100mph.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

I see the BBC  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm reports
that a nine month old child "jumped" in front of the train.

Sadly, I think we have a murder/suicide here.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

"Richard J."  wrote


> The page has now been updated to say that a woman and a child have been
> killed and another child seriously injured.


Latest is that all three have perished.

John.

In message , at 14:31:56 on 
Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Neil Sunderland  
remarked:

>A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they were
>hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.


They'd be just as dead if it had been travelling at 50mph.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roger T.  wrote:


> I see the BBC  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm reports
> that a nine month old child "jumped" in front of the train.
> 
> Sadly, I think we have a murder/suicide here.


That's what I'm thinking (what I'm reading into "not being treated as
suspicious") though always best to wait and see what really happened.
Whatever, this is clearly a tragedy for all involved, including the
train driver and the people having to investigate on the scene.

-- 
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

"Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message
news:1tfbh1pp6h526g60puv86vv83hnvamckhs@4ax.com...

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>


<snip>

That would eplain the fGW HST I saw passing London bound through Feltham at
about 5.30 today.

In message , at 14:31:56 on 
Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Neil Sunderland  
remarked:

>A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they were
>hit by a train


I'm surprised no-one has commented that the train passengers were 
imprisoned for three hours afterwards.
-- 
Roland Perry

Bondee wrote:

> "Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message
> news:1tfbh1pp6h526g60puv86vv83hnvamckhs@4ax.com...
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>
>
> <snip>
>
> That would eplain the fGW HST I saw passing London bound through Feltham at
> about 5.30 today.


No that would be the points failure at Paddington. The GWML was
re-opened at 1430 following the tragic fatalities.

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at
> 14:31:56 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Neil Sunderland
>  remarked:
>> A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they
>> were hit by a train
>
> I'm surprised no-one has commented that the train passengers were
> imprisoned for three hours afterwards.


That information was added to the BBC report some hours after the
incident.  Since the police said quite quickly that the incident was not
being treated as suspicious, why wasn't it possible to move the train as
soon as another driver could be taken to the scene, or to bring another
one alongside on the up main??

On 7th July, LU passengers at Edgware Road were being evacuated from a
tunnel within 2 minutes of the bomb going off, yet in the open air it
apparently takes 3 hours. It's unreasonable, and "imprisoned" is the
right word.

-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

> Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message , at
> > 14:31:56 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Neil Sunderland
> >  remarked:
> >> A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they
> >> were hit by a train
> >
> > I'm surprised no-one has commented that the train passengers were
> > imprisoned for three hours afterwards.
>
> That information was added to the BBC report some hours after the
> incident.  Since the police said quite quickly that the incident was not
> being treated as suspicious, why wasn't it possible to move the train as
> soon as another driver could be taken to the scene, or to bring another
> one alongside on the up main??
>
> On 7th July, LU passengers at Edgware Road were being evacuated from a
> tunnel within 2 minutes of the bomb going off, yet in the open air it
> apparently takes 3 hours. It's unreasonable, and "imprisoned" is the
> right word.
>
> --
> Richard J.
> (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)


Because there was more than one incident, the fatality scene being
cleared quite quickly being followed by a very large failure of points
outside Paddington with trains queued up for miles already. This also
affected the reversible working arrangements already in force. The law
of "Shit Happens" was on overtime today. How accurate was the BBC
report about three hour entrapments? It happens to be wrong it was not
three but nearer two.
Compare like with like, were the passengers today in a life threatening
environment? No. Would letting hundreds of people loose onto this scene
have gained anything apart from increasing the time it took to clear
the scene? No. There will always be room for improvements but todays
incident showed the speed of response possible to get trains diverted
where it was possible, and where it was not shuttles set up. It may
also interest those critics claiming it was obviously not suspicious,
that initial reports were at variance with this. Ranging from two
children hit on the line, to two children thrown by a man onto the line
to a woman and two children being pushed onto the line. It was 45
minutes into the incident before I was told the version we are now
discussing. It should also be noted that emergency teams were on the
track working to try and save the life of one victim, sadly in vain. In
addition others were recovering the body parts of the other victims.
In summary, apologies for the inconvenience and the lives that were put
on hold today, but you are not unique as people trapped on the M25
twice this week will testify to.

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

> Richard J. wrote:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message , at
>>> 14:31:56 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Neil Sunderland
>>>  remarked:
>>>> A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they
>>>> were hit by a train
>>>
>>> I'm surprised no-one has commented that the train passengers were
>>> imprisoned for three hours afterwards.
>>
>> That information was added to the BBC report some hours after the
>> incident.  Since the police said quite quickly that the incident
>> was not being treated as suspicious, why wasn't it possible to
>> move the train as soon as another driver could be taken to the
>> scene, or to bring another one alongside on the up main??
>>
>> On 7th July, LU passengers at Edgware Road were being evacuated
>> from a tunnel within 2 minutes of the bomb going off, yet in the
>> open air it apparently takes 3 hours. It's unreasonable, and
>> "imprisoned" is the right word.
>>
>> --
>> Richard J.
>> (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
>
> Because there was more than one incident, the fatality scene being
> cleared quite quickly being followed by a very large failure of
> points outside Paddington with trains queued up for miles already.
> This also affected the reversible working arrangements already in
> force. The law of "Shit Happens" was on overtime today. How
> accurate was the BBC report about three hour entrapments? It
> happens to be wrong it was not three but nearer two.


I must learn not to believe BBC reports. I agree that with a major
problem at Paddington as well, then 2+ hours is not unreasonable in the
circumstances.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J."  wrote in message
news:o8kRe.99719$G8.72832@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Neil Sunderland wrote:
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>
> >
> > A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they
> > were hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.
>
> The page has now been updated to say that a woman and a child have
been
> killed and another child seriously injured.  A BTP spokesman is
quoted
> as saying "It appears the three people jumped from the platform."
>
> The BBC report says that the train involved was a Heathrow Express,
> travelling at "more than" 100mph.


Is the platform track arrangement the same at Southall as Hayes?
IIRC at Hayes there is one platform backed by buildings with the old
offices etc serving the up slow line, and an island platform with the
down slow on one side and the up fast on the other.   The down fast is
on the far side of the up fast and has no platform.

I am surprised that island platform is not divided centrally isolating
and protecting passengers from the up fast line services.

When I was last at Hayes, waiting on the island platform for a slow to
Reading, there was unlimited access to the fast side where services
rushed through, coming from under the bridge that had limited any
advance noise of their approach.  There were of course plenty of
warning announcements, but it was stilll an alarming experience.

That was before the Heathrow services started, do Heathrow non stop
services use the slow lines or fast lines?

Roger

Roger R wrote:

> "Richard J."  wrote in message
> news:o8kRe.99719$G8.72832@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>> The BBC report says that the train involved was a Heathrow Express,
>> travelling at "more than" 100mph.


(Now updated to say "up to" 100mph.


> Is the platform track arrangement the same at Southall as Hayes?
> IIRC at Hayes there is one platform backed by buildings with the old
> offices etc serving the up slow line, and an island platform with
> the down slow on one side and the up fast on the other.   The down
> fast is on the far side of the up fast and has no platform.


The down fast ("down main" actually) does have a platform at both
Southall and Hayes.  I travelled on Heathrow Connect on Sunday 7 August
on a train which ran on the down main all the way to Airport Junction
and called at both these stations as well as Ealing Broadway.


> I am surprised that island platform is not divided centrally
> isolating and protecting passengers from the up fast line services.


This is irrelevant to today's incident; the BBC reported the train as
heading towards Heathrow, and passengers were eventually taken on to
Hayes.  It was presumably on the down main.  In any case, as noted
above, stopping trains do occasionally use the main lines.


> When I was last at Hayes, waiting on the island platform for a slow
> to Reading, there was unlimited access to the fast side where
> services rushed through, coming from under the bridge that had
> limited any advance noise of their approach.  There were of course
> plenty of warning announcements, but it was stilll an alarming
> experience.


There are many stations all over the country where trains pass platforms
at speed.  However, the warning announcements seem to be very badly
timed.  Last time I was at Southall, they occurred at least two minutes
before the train appeared.  They should be not more than about 30
seconds before the train to be of any real use.


> That was before the Heathrow services started, do Heathrow non stop
> services use the slow lines or fast lines?


Heathrow Express normally uses the main (fast) lines.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:41:28 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>
>I am surprised that island platform is not divided centrally isolating
>and protecting passengers from the up fast line services.


It's the same at many stations on that line; however a few have
dividing fences, e.g. Ealing Broadway, with enough gaps in the ence
for access when needed, plus a few like West Ealing that have no
access to the up fast at all (completely fenced off). 


>
>That was before the Heathrow services started, do Heathrow non stop
>services use the slow lines or fast lines?


Fast lines - or main lines to use the route's usual terminology.

In The Mirror there is a picture of the bodies under cover with forensic
people standing around while a FGW HST passes. Would that HST be going slow
for would it be passing at speed?

I would not like to see someone had been killed on the railway from a train!

In message , at 
14:08:37 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk remarked:

>Because there was more than one incident, the fatality scene being
>cleared quite quickly being followed by a very large failure of points
>outside Paddington with trains queued up for miles already.


But the affected train was heading *out* of London, and would have been 
past the points failure. All that was needed was to get it to the next 
station (Hayes), so people could continue their journey by road. Which 
was exactly what they did, it seems. But the time taken was excessive.
-- 
Roland Perry

Neil Sunderland wrote:

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>
>
> A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they were
> hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.
>

I feel sorry for the driver, I'm not surprised he was treated for shock
after something like that.

-- 
Malc

"Pete_uk"  wrote in message 
news:43169b76$0$22951$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> In The Mirror there is a picture of the bodies under cover with forensic
> people standing around while a FGW HST passes. Would that HST be going 
> slow
> for would it be passing at speed?
>
> I would not like to see someone had been killed on the railway from a
> train!


It would obvously be passing slowly....

Maybe it was an ECS move or perhaps passengers of a sensitive nature has 
been asked to avoid looking through the windows. My friend is an air 
stewardess and after the 9/11 attacks one of her flights was escorted to 
ground by two fighter jets, all passengers were asked to close the blinds, 
perhaps something similar happened with staff asking/warning passengers not 
to look.

That said, personally I'd accept the delay, but want to get on with my 
journey ASAP.

Tom Burton

In message <LNyRe.16099$x4.2805@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, at 08:16:43 on 
Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Tom Burton  remarked:


>My friend is an air
>stewardess and after the 9/11 attacks one of her flights was escorted to
>ground by two fighter jets, all passengers were asked to close the blinds,


That would be to disorientate any potential terrorists on that flight 
and/or prevent them from seeing what immediate security measures had 
been implemented. There'd not have been any dead bodies on the runway.

It's also common practice in the USA to re-open roads after an RTA at 
the stage the bodies are bagged, but not necessarily taken away.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <LNyRe.16099$x4.2805@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, at 08:16:43 on 
> Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Tom Burton  remarked:
> 
>> My friend is an air
>> stewardess and after the 9/11 attacks one of her flights was escorted to
>> ground by two fighter jets, all passengers were asked to close the 
>> blinds,
> 
> 
> That would be to disorientate any potential terrorists on that flight 
> and/or prevent them from seeing what immediate security measures had 
> been implemented. There'd not have been any dead bodies on the runway.
> 
> It's also common practice in the USA to re-open roads after an RTA at 
> the stage the bodies are bagged, but not necessarily taken away.


I believe there are/were certain air routes where a military escort is 
the "norm" and passengers are told to close the window blinds. It's also 
said that if yo udo open it and wave to the military escort they will 
wave back; but not sure how wise such a move is.

"Roger R"  wrote


> I am surprised that island platform is not divided centrally isolating
> and protecting passengers from the up fast line services.


And what happens with people wishing to transfer from one to the other?

John.

"1577+2260"  wrote


> It's the same at many stations on that line; however a few have
> dividing fences, e.g. Ealing Broadway, with enough gaps in the ence
> for access when needed, plus a few like West Ealing that have no
> access to the up fast at all (completely fenced off).


And how does that stop people jumping under a train?

Your comments are symptomatic of much which ails society today.  People have 
to be responsible for their own safety.  Nothing you can do will stop people 
committing suicide by using the railway as the means.

John.

In message <df6gs8$fv4$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, at 10:15:55 
on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, John Turner <nospam@nospam.invalid> remarked:

>> I am surprised that island platform is not divided centrally isolating
>> and protecting passengers from the up fast line services.
>
>And what happens with people wishing to transfer from one to the other?


Unlikely that any of the fast trains will ever stop at the station.
-- 
Roland Perry

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:df6h21$g1t$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...

>
> "1577+2260"  wrote
>
> > It's the same at many stations on that line; however a few have
> > dividing fences, e.g. Ealing Broadway, with enough gaps in the
ence
> > for access when needed, plus a few like West Ealing that have no
> > access to the up fast at all (completely fenced off).
>
> And how does that stop people jumping under a train?
>

On a simplistic level it removes the opportunity at that location.


> Your comments are symptomatic of much which ails society today.
People have
> to be responsible for their own safety.  Nothing you can do will
stop people
> committing suicide by using the railway as the means.


Whilst I am sympathetic to your reaction against excessive H&S regs
somehow intended to save people from themselves, in the case of
industrial operations such as the railway, it is right that hapless
users are protected from excessive risk.   Yellow lines are painted on
the platform and warning announcements indicate that the railway
operator knows a dangerous situation exists and has done something
about it.

But at the stations mentioned they could do more.   Closing off access
to a potentially lethal situation such is a common sense measure and
I'm surprised that it isn't mandatory at stations like those mentioned
where no normal services stop at the main (fast) platform.   As has
been mentioned gates could be provided for use in special
circumstances.

As a child accompanied by my mother, Hayes station was a familiar part
of our weekly travel and I don't remember ever being restrained from
running about independently, though I probably was.   As an adult I
would see the situation differently, children being so unpredictable,
and would worry that my child might run into the yellow line space
whilst distracted playing some game or other and be sucked in by a
passing express.    A central fence would at least remove some of the
risk.

Roger

In article <df6h21$g1t$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, John Turner
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes

>
>"1577+2260"  wrote
>
>> It's the same at many stations on that line; however a few have
>> dividing fences, e.g. Ealing Broadway, with enough gaps in the ence
>> for access when needed, plus a few like West Ealing that have no
>> access to the up fast at all (completely fenced off).
>
>And how does that stop people jumping under a train?


No you can't...

>
>Your comments are symptomatic of much which ails society today.  People have 
>to be responsible for their own safety.  Nothing you can do will stop people 
>committing suicide by using the railway as the means.
>
>John. 
>
>

Any if anyone knows the poor driver involved will they tell him that he
has my sympathies and is in my thoughts, must be awful for the poor sod,
and those who had to deal with it all.

And whatever made her do it, and take her children with her, may she now
find peace.......

-- 
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:34:33 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>As a child accompanied by my mother, Hayes station was a familiar part
>of our weekly travel and I don't remember ever being restrained from
>running about independently, though I probably was.   As an adult I
>would see the situation differently, children being so unpredictable,
>and would worry that my child might run into the yellow line space
>whilst distracted playing some game or other and be sucked in by a
>passing express.    A central fence would at least remove some of the
>risk.


I lived near the Padd-Reading line. We once had a school trip to our
local station, and the purpose of the yellow line was clearly pointed
out to us, along with the fact that trains passed at 125mph and that
there was a lot of turbulence that could be dangerous. I think they
said people could be sucked under the train if too close, but I may
have misunderstood a more general comment about turbulence.

I treated the yellow line as a boundary. However, I doubt every child
would be restrained by that.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:19:00 +0100, "John Turner"
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:


>
>"1577+2260"  wrote
>
>> It's the same at many stations on that line; however a few have
>> dividing fences, e.g. Ealing Broadway, with enough gaps in the ence
>> for access when needed, plus a few like West Ealing that have no
>> access to the up fast at all (completely fenced off).
>
>Your comments are symptomatic of much which ails society today.  People have 
>to be responsible for their own safety.  Nothing you can do will stop people 
>committing suicide by using the railway as the means.


I assume you realise I was just saying what there is, rather than
saying I think it is useful ;-) I do agree that the fences are
somewhat superfluous, particularly as they are only present at a few
stations - essentially, AFAIR, those that are never served by trains
on the main lines, plus Ealing Broadway which has some dividing
fencing, perhaps because it is quite busy and only needs the main
lines occasionally. The less busy stations - and SLough which has a
regular main line service - have nothing but the 'risk' is not all
that different.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:27:18 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>>And what happens with people wishing to transfer from one to the other?
>
>Unlikely that any of the fast trains will ever stop at the station.


Late evening, night and Sunday stopping trains quite often use the
main line platforms. 

If someone insists on fences, Ealing Broadway manages to have a fence
and access to both platforms. However, this causes a reduction in
space on each side of the fence.

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at
> 14:08:37 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk remarked:
>> Because there was more than one incident, the fatality scene being
>> cleared quite quickly being followed by a very large failure of
>> points outside Paddington with trains queued up for miles already.
>
> But the affected train was heading *out* of London, and would have
> been past the points failure. All that was needed was to get it to
> the next station (Hayes), so people could continue their journey by
> road. Which was exactly what they did, it seems. But the time taken
> was excessive.


You were there were you?

In message , at 14:43:54 on Thu, 1 Sep 
2005, dwb  remarked:

>>> Because there was more than one incident, the fatality scene being
>>> cleared quite quickly being followed by a very large failure of
>>> points outside Paddington with trains queued up for miles already.
>>
>> But the affected train was heading *out* of London, and would have
>> been past the points failure. All that was needed was to get it to
>> the next station (Hayes), so people could continue their journey by
>> road. Which was exactly what they did, it seems. But the time taken
>> was excessive.
>
>You were there were you?


No, but I think I understand why three hours to travel two miles in the 
quoted circumstances could be considered excessive.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:27:04 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>No, but I think I understand why three hours to travel two miles in the 
>quoted circumstances could be considered excessive.


Especially as it was a Heathrow-bound HEx.  That most of the
passengers would have missed flights as a result is not an
unreasonable assumption, and the railway should take this into account
when planning what to do.

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.

Neil Williams wrote:


> Especially as it was a Heathrow-bound HEx.  That most of the
> passengers would have missed flights as a result is not an
> unreasonable assumption, and the railway should take this into account
> when planning what to do.


As the police were getting witness statements, the fact that many
potential witnesses would be leaving the country, and would be more
difficult to contact in the future, might be a factor.

In message , at 
13:25:40 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>
>> Especially as it was a Heathrow-bound HEx.  That most of the
>> passengers would have missed flights as a result is not an
>> unreasonable assumption, and the railway should take this into account
>> when planning what to do.
>
>As the police were getting witness statements, the fact that many
>potential witnesses would be leaving the country, and would be more
>difficult to contact in the future, might be a factor.


As modern trains have no view out of the front, I'm a bit puzzled what 
they think anyone on the train might have witnessed.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:ZwVtiYEOa2FDFAOG@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at 
> 13:25:40 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:
>>
>>> Especially as it was a Heathrow-bound HEx.  That most of the
>>> passengers would have missed flights as a result is not an
>>> unreasonable assumption, and the railway should take this into account
>>> when planning what to do.
>>
>>As the police were getting witness statements, the fact that many
>>potential witnesses would be leaving the country, and would be more
>>difficult to contact in the future, might be a factor.
>
> As modern trains have no view out of the front, I'm a bit puzzled what 
> they think anyone on the train might have witnessed.
> -- 
> Roland Perry
>
>

Yes, I doubt many of them would even know what had happened initially.

Only us railwayman would know 'stopping in a heap'.

Roland Perry wrote:


> As modern trains have no view out of the front, I'm a bit puzzled what
> they think anyone on the train might have witnessed.


Well, The Guardian says that:

"The 85 passengers on board were detained while police interviewed
witnesses. Several people are thought to have seen the incident."

http://tinyurl.com/defjt

On 1 Sep 2005 13:25:40 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:


>As the police were getting witness statements, the fact that many
>potential witnesses would be leaving the country, and would be more
>difficult to contact in the future, might be a factor.


It may be.  However, I wasn't aware that the police had the right to
detain people in order to obtain such statements.

As an aside, I was sadly once caught up in a rail suicide; someone
jumped in front of the Manchester-Liverpool 158 at one of the smaller
halts.  Not a pleasant experience, and even worse to hear over hte PA
how badly it seemed to have affected the driver, however it took only
about an hour's delay before the train was cleaned up enough to move,
and another driver arrived by road to take it on to Lime Street, where
no doubt the police investigation continued.  This course of action
struck me as entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

I suspect part of the reasoning was that most people on the train
wouldn't have witnessed anything by virtue of the lack of a forward
view.  At most, the person may have been visible because of a slightly
curved platform, but no more than that.

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.

In message , at 
15:40:45 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>> As modern trains have no view out of the front, I'm a bit puzzled what
>> they think anyone on the train might have witnessed.
>
>Well, The Guardian says that:
>
>"The 85 passengers on board were detained while police interviewed
>witnesses. Several people are thought to have seen the incident."


The "several people" definitely were on the station platform, so perhaps 
they were the witnesses too.

The police were perhaps detaining the passengers in case one of them was 
involved in making the people jump - perhaps her husband (or whoever she 
was unhappy about) was on the train and phoned her up just before she 
jumped?  (That's about the only scenario I can think of).
-- 
Roland Perry

"1577+2260" <someone@somewhere.x> wrote in message
news:lcrdh1992p1kn91omgf76kar7aebvue9gu@4ax.com...

>
> If someone insists on fences, Ealing Broadway manages to have a
fence
> and access to both platforms. However, this causes a reduction in
> space on each side of the fence.
>

Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
underground operations where on some systems the platform is entirely
enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the train.

Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.    Though
it would probably be an effective measure and may have side benefits
such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
expensive waste.

I thought these enclosed platforms were being proposed for new
stations on London Underground, but maybe I have that wrong.    Though
its practical application is perfectly achievable I would have though
LT had more important matters to waste its money on.   As I see it the
problem is this kind of infrastructure decision is made behind closed
doors and only revealed to us well after the decision is signed and
sealed.

As regards the main line railways and enclosed platforms, less
practical due to differing surface stock, of little or no practical
benefit and unimaginably expensive, but I expect someone is working on
it behind the scenes.    No doubt to appear as a recommendation to a
Transport Select Committee for inclusion in the 2008 Transport Act.
:-)

Roger

"Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote > >

> Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
> underground operations where on some systems the platform is entirely
> enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the train.
>
> Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
> events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.    Though
> it would probably be an effective measure and may have side benefits
> such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
> containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
> expensive waste.
>
> I thought these enclosed platforms were being proposed for new
> stations on London Underground, but maybe I have that wrong.    Though
> its practical application is perfectly achievable I would have though
> LT had more important matters to waste its money on.   As I see it the
> problem is this kind of infrastructure decision is made behind closed
> doors and only revealed to us well after the decision is signed and
> sealed.
>

Platform edge screens and doors are fitted to the underground platforms on
the Jubilee Line Extension. AIUI the main purpose is to reduce draughts (the
piston effect of a tube train in a tunnel that has a diameter very little
larger than the train), and it may have even been a cheaper way of reducing
the draughts to acceptable (specified by someone) levels than additional
draught relief shafts.

Passenger safety is a side effect. But it is something else to go wrong.

Peter

"Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1125652534.12221.0@echo.uk.clara.net...

>
> "1577+2260" <someone@somewhere.x> wrote in message
> news:lcrdh1992p1kn91omgf76kar7aebvue9gu@4ax.com...
>>
>> If someone insists on fences, Ealing Broadway manages to have a
> fence
>> and access to both platforms. However, this causes a reduction in
>> space on each side of the fence.
>>
> Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
> underground operations where on some systems the platform is entirely
> enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the train.
>
> Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
> events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.    Though
> it would probably be an effective measure and may have side benefits
> such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
> containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
> expensive waste.
>
> I thought these enclosed platforms were being proposed for new
> stations on London Underground, but maybe I have that wrong.    Though
> its practical application is perfectly achievable I would have though
> LT had more important matters to waste its money on.   As I see it the
> problem is this kind of infrastructure decision is made behind closed
> doors and only revealed to us well after the decision is signed and
> sealed.
>
> As regards the main line railways and enclosed platforms, less
> practical due to differing surface stock, of little or no practical
> benefit and unimaginably expensive, but I expect someone is working on
> it behind the scenes.    No doubt to appear as a recommendation to a
> Transport Select Committee for inclusion in the 2008 Transport Act.
> :-)
>
> Roger
>

Following on from yesterday's comments about the people on the 'Heathrow 
Express' train being detained for two hours, the report in today's Guardian 
mentions that over an hour was spent removing the remains of one of the two 
children who died from underneath the train. Perhaps this might make the 
reasons for the delay a little more obvious....
Brian

"BH Williams"  wrote in message
news:df99gb$8ql$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1125652534.12221.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "1577+2260" <someone@somewhere.x> wrote in message
> > news:lcrdh1992p1kn91omgf76kar7aebvue9gu@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> If someone insists on fences, Ealing Broadway manages to have a
> > fence
> >> and access to both platforms. However, this causes a reduction in
> >> space on each side of the fence.
> >>
> > Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
> > underground operations where on some systems the platform is
entirely
> > enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the
train.
> >
> > Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
> > events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.
Though
> > it would probably be an effective measure and may have side
benefits
> > such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
> > containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
> > expensive waste.
> >
> > I thought these enclosed platforms were being proposed for new
> > stations on London Underground, but maybe I have that wrong.
Though
> > its practical application is perfectly achievable I would have
though
> > LT had more important matters to waste its money on.   As I see it
the
> > problem is this kind of infrastructure decision is made behind
closed
> > doors and only revealed to us well after the decision is signed
and
> > sealed.
> >
> > As regards the main line railways and enclosed platforms, less
> > practical due to differing surface stock, of little or no
practical
> > benefit and unimaginably expensive, but I expect someone is
working on
> > it behind the scenes.    No doubt to appear as a recommendation to
a
> > Transport Select Committee for inclusion in the 2008 Transport
Act.
> > :-)
> >
> > Roger
> >
> Following on from yesterday's comments about the people on the
'Heathrow
> Express' train being detained for two hours, the report in today's
Guardian
> mentions that over an hour was spent removing the remains of one of
the two
> children who died from underneath the train. Perhaps this might make
the
> reasons for the delay a little more obvious....
> Brian
>


Your post appears to have erroneously popped up here instead of
elsewhere in this thread where the issue of delay was being discussed.

Roger

Roland Perry wrote:



> The police were perhaps detaining the passengers in case one of them was
> involved in making the people jump - perhaps her husband (or whoever she
> was unhappy about) was on the train and phoned her up just before she
> jumped?  (That's about the only scenario I can think of).


  /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:15:30 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
>underground operations where on some systems the platform is entirely
>enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the train.
>
>Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
>events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.    Though
>it would probably be an effective measure and may have side benefits
>such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
>containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
>expensive waste.


On the Jubilee Extension the platform doors are on the platforms that
are literally 'underground' and not on the surface platforms. This
suggests that air flow control is the priority and the reason for
spending the money on it, and not protecting against people jumping
and so on, although that may be a somewhat useful side effect.

"Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1125657338.3175.0@lotis.uk.clara.net...

>
> "BH Williams"  wrote in message
> news:df99gb$8ql$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:1125652534.12221.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
>> >
>> > "1577+2260" <someone@somewhere.x> wrote in message
>> > news:lcrdh1992p1kn91omgf76kar7aebvue9gu@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> If someone insists on fences, Ealing Broadway manages to have a
>> > fence
>> >> and access to both platforms. However, this causes a reduction in
>> >> space on each side of the fence.
>> >>
>> > Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
>> > underground operations where on some systems the platform is
> entirely
>> > enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the
> train.
>> >
>> > Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
>> > events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.
> Though
>> > it would probably be an effective measure and may have side
> benefits
>> > such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
>> > containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
>> > expensive waste.
>> >
>> > I thought these enclosed platforms were being proposed for new
>> > stations on London Underground, but maybe I have that wrong.
> Though
>> > its practical application is perfectly achievable I would have
> though
>> > LT had more important matters to waste its money on.   As I see it
> the
>> > problem is this kind of infrastructure decision is made behind
> closed
>> > doors and only revealed to us well after the decision is signed
> and
>> > sealed.
>> >
>> > As regards the main line railways and enclosed platforms, less
>> > practical due to differing surface stock, of little or no
> practical
>> > benefit and unimaginably expensive, but I expect someone is
> working on
>> > it behind the scenes.    No doubt to appear as a recommendation to
> a
>> > Transport Select Committee for inclusion in the 2008 Transport
> Act.
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > Roger
>> >
>> Following on from yesterday's comments about the people on the
> 'Heathrow
>> Express' train being detained for two hours, the report in today's
> Guardian
>> mentions that over an hour was spent removing the remains of one of
> the two
>> children who died from underneath the train. Perhaps this might make
> the
>> reasons for the delay a little more obvious....
>> Brian
>>
>
> Your post appears to have erroneously popped up here instead of
> elsewhere in this thread where the issue of delay was being discussed.
>
> Roger
>
>

My apologies-I hadn't realised that there was any coherent structure to 
these things...
To go back slightly, access to the platforms in question was controlled, in 
that a member of station staff had seen the woman heading that way a little 
before and told her the platforms were in not in use- she replied that she 
wanted to show her children the fast trains.
On the subject of platform edge doors,I can see their attraction on Metro 
systems, where it is possible to enclose the entire platform edge and with 
fixed formation trains and regular stopping points. On 'normal' railways, 
with several possible formations of stock, I could envisage them being a 
nightmare. Knowing some of the problems that have been involved in getting 
SDO authorised in the UK, I can envisage some of the objections that might 
be raised by the safety authorities. It also involves more things that could 
possibly fail, and which therefore need condition monitoring. In short, 
something feasible were a system to be built from scratch- the Jubilee Line 
in the UK, as previously cited, or the various MTRC systems in Hong Kong, 
but probably neither technically viable or cost-effective on existing open 
air systems. In terms of reduction of fatalities per pound spent, a proper 
risk assessment of station footbridges and subways followed by appropriate 
remedial action would be better value, as slips, trips and falls on these 
cause appreciable numbers of casualties (including fatalities) each year.
Brian

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Well, The Guardian says that:
> "The 85 passengers on board were detained while police interviewed
> witnesses. Several people are thought to have seen the incident."
> http://tinyurl.com/defjt


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

In message , at 
04:44:50 on Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:


>PLEASE DO NOT
>FEED THE TROLLS


I'm getting a bit confused here. "Chippy" is a prime candidate for being 
a troll.
-- 
Roland Perry

> I suspect part of the reasoning was that most people on the train
> wouldn't have witnessed anything by virtue of the lack of a forward
> view.


Well at least there is something to be said in favour of modern units.
I always found it interesting to sit in the leading seats on a first
generation unit.

Thankfully I never had to witness the horror this poor driver did.

In article , Roland
Perry  wrote:


> In message , at 
> 04:44:50 on Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:
> 
> >PLEASE DO NOT
> >FEED THE TROLLS
> 
> I'm getting a bit confused here. "Chippy" is a prime candidate for being 
> a troll.


Though we now have one or more anonymous trolls spamming everything
Chippy sends and Chippy doing the same to them.  Either an extravagant
case of multiple personality disorder or one or more prats loose in the
newsgroup.

Sam

> I feel sorry for the driver, I'm not surprised he was treated for shock
> after something like that.


Invariably after an incident of that nature the driver will be
immediately relieved of duty.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:48:39 UTC, "malc" 
 wrote:

: 
: Neil Sunderland wrote:
: > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>
: >
: > A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they were
: > hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.

: I feel sorry for the driver, I'm not surprised he was treated for shock
: after something like that.

Agreed completely. I also feel dreadfully sorry for the poor woman 
concerned. What hellish state of mind must one be in to take that sort
of action - to feel that that sort of action is the only solution to 
life's problems?

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:48:39 UTC, "malc"
>  wrote:
>
> :
> : Neil Sunderland wrote:
> : > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201632.stm>
> : >
> : > A woman has been killed and a child critically injured when they were
> : > hit by a train travelling at above 100mph.
>
> : I feel sorry for the driver, I'm not surprised he was treated for shock
> : after something like that.
>
> Agreed completely. I also feel dreadfully sorry for the poor woman
> concerned. What hellish state of mind must one be in to take that sort
> of action - to feel that that sort of action is the only solution to
> life's problems?
>
>

Yes I agree. And to take your kids with you too. She must have been
seriously out of it, what must have gone through the older child's
mind? {1}

{1} no I'm not going to make the obvious joke.

-- 
Malc

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> As the police were getting witness statements, the fact that many
> potential witnesses would be leaving the country, and would be more
> difficult to contact in the future, might be a factor.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:



>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>            /   |   |           |      --|
>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


/|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"1577+2260" <someone@somewhere.x> wrote in message
news:c1ggh1hhacac2epfokapvckf9m57723m4m@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:15:30 +0100, "Roger R"
> <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Just to follow this thread up with a comparison to the trend in
> >underground operations where on some systems the platform is
entirely
> >enclosed, sliding doors provided to match the locations on the
train.
> >
> >Presumably this enclosed platform approach is designed to counter
> >events such as suicide or more malicious actions by others.
Though
> >it would probably be an effective measure and may have side
benefits
> >such as preventing the strong winds caused by train movements and
> >containing smoke in the event of fire, I would have thought it an
> >expensive waste.
>
> On the Jubilee Extension the platform doors are on the platforms
that
> are literally 'underground' and not on the surface platforms. This
> suggests that air flow control is the priority and the reason for
> spending the money on it, and not protecting against people jumping
> and so on, although that may be a somewhat useful side effect.
>

I do seem to have got the intended purpose and the side effect
reversed.

As Peter Masson suggested earlier the screens may have been an
inexpensive alternative to ventilation shafts, the probable difficulty
being to find a suitable vacant spot on the surface.    However I
prefer the ventilation shafts believing, perhaps falsely, they are
some benefit in dispersing smoke in the event of fire.

Roger

"BH Williams"  wrote in message
news:df9g1b$j45$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...

> > Your post appears to have erroneously popped up here instead of
> > elsewhere in this thread where the issue of delay was being
discussed.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> My apologies-I hadn't realised that there was any coherent structure
to
> these things...


How the 'tree' of posts is displayed probably depends on your
Newsreader.  Others are better qualified than me to comment on thier
operation.


> To go back slightly, access to the platforms in question was

controlled, in

> that a member of station staff had seen the woman heading that way a
little
> before and told her the platforms were in not in use- she replied
that she
> wanted to show her children the fast trains.


I was trying to be more general about access to platforms and avoid
getting into the details of the actual incident.    My thoughts on the
platform dividers were more about reducing an unecessary exposure to
risk, in the same way as a high voltage sub station would be fenced
off, though no one would have any good cause to enter such an area.

Just to be pedantic for a moment and I hope you take this in good
part, if contributing an anecdote like yours above, you should
validate it by giving the source of the information, unless, that is,
you were the member of the station staff in question.


> On the subject of platform edge doors,I can see their attraction on
Metro
> systems, where it is possible to enclose the entire platform edge
and with
> fixed formation trains and regular stopping points. On 'normal'
railways,
> with several possible formations of stock, I could envisage them
being a
> nightmare. Knowing some of the problems that have been involved in
getting
> SDO authorised in the UK, I can envisage some of the objections that
might
> be raised by the safety authorities. It also involves more things
that could
> possibly fail, and which therefore need condition monitoring. In
short,
> something feasible were a system to be built from scratch- the
Jubilee Line
> in the UK, as previously cited, or the various MTRC systems in Hong
Kong,
> but probably neither technically viable or cost-effective on
existing open
> air systems. In terms of reduction of fatalities per pound spent, a
proper
> risk assessment of station footbridges and subways followed by
appropriate
> remedial action would be better value, as slips, trips and falls on
these
> cause appreciable numbers of casualties (including fatalities) each

year.


I agree with almost all of that.

The trade off between the economy of providing platform screens
against the cost of a ventilation shaft must take into account the
continuing maintenance cost of the screen doors.   Problem with that
sort of calculation is that as time passes and the equipment begins to
wear out and breakdown causing frustration to passengers, the original
commitment is forgotten as available recourses have subsequently been
allocated to more squeaky wheels.

Roger

"Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1125683819.20324.0@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...

>
> "BH Williams"  wrote in message
> news:df9g1b$j45$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>> > Your post appears to have erroneously popped up here instead of
>> > elsewhere in this thread where the issue of delay was being
> discussed.
>> >
>> > Roger
>> >
>> >
>> My apologies-I hadn't realised that there was any coherent structure
> to
>> these things...
>
> How the 'tree' of posts is displayed probably depends on your
> Newsreader.  Others are better qualified than me to comment on thier
> operation.
>

I tend to read on 'Outlook Express' with 'Show Unread Items' as a setting. 
At work, Iread , but cannot reply' via Google.

>> To go back slightly, access to the platforms in question was
> controlled, in
>> that a member of station staff had seen the woman heading that way a
> little
>> before and told her the platforms were in not in use- she replied
> that she
>> wanted to show her children the fast trains.
>
> I was trying to be more general about access to platforms and avoid
> getting into the details of the actual incident.    My thoughts on the
> platform dividers were more about reducing an unecessary exposure to
> risk, in the same way as a high voltage sub station would be fenced
> off, though no one would have any good cause to enter such an area.
>
> Just to be pedantic for a moment and I hope you take this in good
> part, if contributing an anecdote like yours above, you should
> validate it by giving the source of the information, unless, that is,
> you were the member of the station staff in question.
>

The 'anecdote' in question was an interview on page 10 of this morning's 
Guardian with Michael Harrison, described as a 'Great Western trains 
security contractor, who was apparently the last person to speak to the dead 
woman..


>> On the subject of platform edge doors,I can see their attraction on
> Metro
>> systems, where it is possible to enclose the entire platform edge
> and with
>> fixed formation trains and regular stopping points. On 'normal'
> railways,
>> with several possible formations of stock, I could envisage them
> being a
>> nightmare. Knowing some of the problems that have been involved in
> getting
>> SDO authorised in the UK, I can envisage some of the objections that
> might
>> be raised by the safety authorities. It also involves more things
> that could
>> possibly fail, and which therefore need condition monitoring. In
> short,
>> something feasible were a system to be built from scratch- the
> Jubilee Line
>> in the UK, as previously cited, or the various MTRC systems in Hong
> Kong,
>> but probably neither technically viable or cost-effective on
> existing open
>> air systems. In terms of reduction of fatalities per pound spent, a
> proper
>> risk assessment of station footbridges and subways followed by
> appropriate
>> remedial action would be better value, as slips, trips and falls on
> these
>> cause appreciable numbers of casualties (including fatalities) each
> year.
>
>
> I agree with almost all of that.
>
> The trade off between the economy of providing platform screens
> against the cost of a ventilation shaft must take into account the
> continuing maintenance cost of the screen doors.   Problem with that
> sort of calculation is that as time passes and the equipment begins to
> wear out and breakdown causing frustration to passengers, the original
> commitment is forgotten as available recourses have subsequently been
> allocated to more squeaky wheels.
>
> Roger
>
>
>

On underground systems, I can see that platform edge doors might form part 
of a more complex air-management system (which would probably involve 
ventilation shafts, along with primary and secondary forced ventilation 
systems). Many, however, are only partial height, and so would provide 
relatively few benefits in terms of ventilation management. I also tend to 
believe that systems such as these, exposed as they are to the public, are 
inevitably prone to vandalism and general abuse. Having some experience of 
being involved in operating a system dependent on managed air-flow, I am 
aware of how many alarms can be generated by simple 'detection-errors' which 
cause elements of the system to be in an 'unknown' state. Above a certain 
level, such things may lead to a degradation of service to the public, in 
the best case scenario, or to other, possibly more safety critical, alarms 
being missed due to what one might term 'operator-overload'. I tend, I'm 
afraid to the aircraft designer Eddie Stinson's motto ' Simplificate and add 
lightness'.
Brian

"Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:1125683819.20324.0@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...

>
> "BH Williams"  wrote
>
> > To go back slightly, access to the platforms in question was
> controlled, in
> > that a member of station staff had seen the woman heading that way a
> little
> > before and told her the platforms were in not in use- she replied
> that she
> > wanted to show her children the fast trains.
>
> Just to be pedantic for a moment and I hope you take this in good
> part, if contributing an anecdote like yours above, you should
> validate it by giving the source of the information, unless, that is,
> you were the member of the station staff in question.
>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1761270,00.html>
Michael Harrison, Great Western Trains security contractor, said that his
attention was drawn to the woman at the station, who was dressed in Western
clothes, shortly before she jumped. She had tried to walk from the station
foyer to Platform 1, which was out of bounds to the public. He said: "I
asked her what she was doing and she told me her children liked looking at
the fast trains. She said, 'I'm taking my children to see the fast trains'.

"I told her she was not allowed down there and she accepted that. She seemed
calm and collected. She was a nice lady, very polite. There was nothing out
of the ordinary about her."

He watched her waiting in the same area but when his shift ended, he left
the station. Mrs Sidhu then walked down to the deserted Platform 1 with her
children.

Mr Harrison said: "She must have waited until I had gone. I could not
believe it when I heard about it. I was deva- stated."

Peter

Having suffered from depression myself I can testify the mind can do
things you never expected. Luckily I never reached the stage where the
only solution was to take my life, but I can understand how it can
happen.

Neill

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:49:59 +0100, "BH Williams"
 wrote:


>On underground systems, I can see that platform edge doors might form part 
>of a more complex air-management system (which would probably involve 
>ventilation shafts, along with primary and secondary forced ventilation 
>systems). Many, however, are only partial height, and so would provide 
>relatively few benefits in terms of ventilation management.


The Jubilee ones are not full height - they are about the same height
as the train. AIUI (the main?) part of their purpose is to contain the
column of air that the train is effectively pushing along the tube,
reducing the rush of air when the train is approaching to improve
comfort for passengers on the platform and general air flow within the
station.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:28:47 GMT, 1577+2260 <someone@somewhere.x>
wrote:


>>On underground systems, I can see that platform edge doors might form part 
>>of a more complex air-management system (which would probably involve 
>>ventilation shafts, along with primary and secondary forced ventilation 
>>systems). Many, however, are only partial height, and so would provide 
>>relatively few benefits in terms of ventilation management.
>
>The Jubilee ones are not full height - they are about the same height
>as the train. AIUI (the main?) part of their purpose is to contain the
>column of air that the train is effectively pushing along the tube,
>reducing the rush of air when the train is approaching to improve
>comfort for passengers on the platform and general air flow within the
>station. 


It's not just for comfort - it allows the trains to run faster, as
much higher tunnel wind speeds are permissible without it becoming
dangerous for those standing on the platform.

"BH Williams"  wrote in message
news:dfa6sm$b6k$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1125683819.20324.0@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "BH Williams"  wrote in message
> > news:df9g1b$j45$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> > Your post appears to have erroneously popped up here instead of
> >> > elsewhere in this thread where the issue of delay was being
> > discussed.
> >> >
> >> > Roger
> >> >
> >> >
> >> My apologies-I hadn't realised that there was any coherent
> >> structure to these things...
> >
> > How the 'tree' of posts is displayed probably depends on your
> > Newsreader.  Others are better qualified than me to comment on
> > thier operation.
> >
> I tend to read on 'Outlook Express' with 'Show Unread Items' as a
> setting.  At work, Iread , but cannot reply' via Google.


I use OE 6 with Win98SE, perhaps your version options are different.
As I am dial up I only download all headers, then selected messgs as
required.

Under 'View' menu I have the last item checked 'Group messages by
conversation', so all downloaded messages are displayed incl read and
unread ones.

I don't have the option of 'Show Unread Items' on my 'View' menu, but
have 'Hide read messages' which perhaps is the same thing.  I can see
this would prevent the display of the flow of conversation.


> > Just to be pedantic for a moment and I hope you take this in good
> > part, if contributing an anecdote like yours above, you should
> > validate it by giving the source of the information, unless, that
> > is, you were the member of the station staff in question.
> >
> The 'anecdote' in question was an interview on page 10 of this
> morning's Guardian with Michael Harrison, described as a 'Great
> Western trains security contractor, who was apparently the last
> person to speak to the dead woman..


Thanks for providing the source for the quote.
I used the term 'anecdote' because unless there is some reference to
the source, that's all it is, an unsupported anecdote.


> >> On the subject of platform edge doors......
[snip]
> ...the aircraft designer Eddie Stinson's motto ' Simplificate and
> add lightness'.


I like that.

Roger

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

In message , 1577+2260 
<someone@somewhere.x> writes

> not protecting against people jumping and so on, although that may be 
>a somewhat useful side effect.

As the Jubilee trains stop about 6" away from the doors there is a full 
foot left unused, surely this should be sorted out to allow maximum 
flow?
-- 
Clive

In message , Roger R 
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> writes

>However I prefer the ventilation shafts believing, perhaps falsely, 
>they are some benefit in dispersing smoke in the event of fire.

Indeed even normal respiration as well as heat generated by traction 
equipment.
-- 
Clive

In message , Neil Williams 
 writes

>another driver arrived by road to take it on to Lime Street, where no 
>doubt the police investigation continued.  This course of action struck 
>me as entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

This was standard practice on both BR and LU as the drivers would have 
had a shock Doug can only dream about.   I think it's good operating 
practise and would condone it.   I can't think of anything where one 
human being could do nothing but watch another human die.   I'm glad 
I'll never be in that situation anymore.
-- 
Clive

In message , 
Chippy  writes

>Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
>
>
>>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>>                     ||__||     |                     |
>>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
>>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>>            /   |   |           |      --|
>>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
>> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
>> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
>/|  /|      _____________________
>                    ||__||     |                     |
>                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                  /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
>                 /      \     \|_____________________|
>                /   _    \     \      ||
>               /    |\____\     \     ||
>              /     | | | |\____/     ||
>             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>            /  /  \            |____| ||
>           /   |   |           |      --|
>           |   |   |           |____  --|
>    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
>*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>   /  _     \\        |        /      `
>*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>

This is in such poor taste, I can't think of an appropriate reply.
-- 
Clive

"Neillw001"  wrote in message news:1125691378.471677.239700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Having suffered from depression myself I can testify the mind can do
> things you never expected. Luckily I never reached the stage where the
> only solution was to take my life, but I can understand how it can
> happen.
>
> Neill
>



it's ok folks, the woman and kids were pakis so worry no more. Long may this lemming like behavior continue

i didn't know pakis were so into trains

In message <kc%Se.2452$oq4.757@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, buzz lightyear 
 writes

>
>"Neillw001"  wrote in message 
>news:1125691378.471677.239700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Having suffered from depression myself I can testify the mind can do
>> things you never expected. Luckily I never reached the stage where the
>> only solution was to take my life, but I can understand how it can
>> happen.
>>
>> Neill
>>
>
>
>it's ok folks, the woman and kids were pakis so worry no more. Long may 
>this lemming like behavior continue
>
>i didn't know pakis were so into trains


ah. now I understand the need for a killfile.  hope they invent the 
remote electrocution button soon! (ah, but I wish I really believed in 
it).  Suffice to query whether the poster regards themself happy with 
their position at the bottom of the gene pool? (actually, to be fair, I 
reckon racism is mainly a position based on ignorance rather than 
genetic inheritance).

ok. one shouldn't bother replying to scum; but it is worse to let this 
sort of post go unanswered?

Clive wrote:


> In message ,
> Chippy  writes
> >Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>                     /|  /|      _____________________
> >>                     ||__||     |                     |
> >>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
> >>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
> >>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
> >>                 /   _    \     \      ||
> >>                /    |\____\     \     ||
> >>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
> >>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
> >>             /  /  \            |____| ||
> >>            /   |   |           |      --|
> >>            |   |   |           |____  --|
> >>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> >> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
> >>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> >> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
> >>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
> >
> >/|  /|      _____________________
> >                    ||__||     |                     |
> >                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
> >                  /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
> >                 /      \     \|_____________________|
> >                /   _    \     \      ||
> >               /    |\____\     \     ||
> >              /     | | | |\____/     ||
> >             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
> >            /  /  \            |____| ||
> >           /   |   |           |      --|
> >           |   |   |           |____  --|
> >    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> >*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
> >   /  _     \\        |        /      `
> >*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
> >   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
> >
> This is in such poor taste, I can't think of an appropriate reply.


An appropriate reply would be to strongly condemn the practice of
posting unwarranted allegations of trolling.

"Chippy"  wrote:


> An appropriate reply would be to strongly condemn the practice of
> posting unwarranted allegations of trolling.


A few of the allegations were entirely warranted (when you wished
another member of the group had died in an accident, and some of your
replies to the person who was ripped-off travelling through
Lockerbie).

I don't think you are a troll in general, but you have no right to
claim the moral high ground.

In message , 
Chippy  writes

>Clive wrote:
>
>> In message ,
>> Chippy  writes
>> >Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>> >>                     ||__||     |                     |
>> >>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>> >>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
>> >>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>> >>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>> >>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>> >>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>> >>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>> >>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>> >>            /   |   |           |      --|
>> >>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>> >>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
>> >> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>> >>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
>> >> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>> >>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>> >
>> >/|  /|      _____________________
>> >                    ||__||     |                     |
>> >                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>> >                  /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
>> >                 /      \     \|_____________________|
>> >                /   _    \     \      ||
>> >               /    |\____\     \     ||
>> >              /     | | | |\____/     ||
>> >             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>> >            /  /  \            |____| ||
>> >           /   |   |           |      --|
>> >           |   |   |           |____  --|
>> >    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
>> >*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>> >   /  _     \\        |        /      `
>> >*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>> >   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>> >
>> This is in such poor taste, I can't think of an appropriate reply.
>
>An appropriate reply would be to strongly condemn the practice of
>posting unwarranted allegations of trolling.
>

I did NOT post this.
-- 
Clive

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> An appropriate reply would be to strongly condemn the practice of
> posting unwarranted allegations of trolling.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 





(This program will terminate today.)