[xplo42]

Rolling stock is normally only designed with gangways between trainsets if required for evacuation purposes if operating over a route with limited clearances but I feel gangways should be a compulsory requirement for all rolling stock that is licensed for the carriage of passengers.

Situation.
A passenger is located at the rear of a train, comprised of 3 trainsets with no intermediate gangways, and is in need of assistance from the onboard staff - either the driver (located at the front driving cab) or the guard (located in either of the remaining two sets in front) but both of whom have no access to the third and rear set - how is the passenger to receive assistance? The passenger is essentially trapped despite still being able to move between carriages but not trainsets and subsequently deprived from the staff in the other sections of the train.

Classes 313/314/315/319/378/507/508 are designed for frontal evacuation through a central door from the driving cab but do not enable communication between sets.



Classes 172/150/156/158/159/317/350/375/377/379/390/442/444/450/455/458 have full gangways and enable communication between sets.



I do not understand the mentality that if rolling stock is to be equipped with gangways between carriages that they should not have gangways between sets as standard.

Thoughts?

[starrymarkb]

You'll be seeing less of them most likely, new TSI*s make installing inter-unit angways difficult on new designs, so far the 380 is the only one to attempt it.


*The requirement for driver protection means most new designs both here and on the continent have raked back fronts

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by xplo42

I do not understand the mentality that if rolling stock is to be equipped with gangways between carriages that they should not have gangways between sets as standard.

Although obviously sharp-nosed units for 125 mph running (180, 22x, 390*, 395) can't have corridor connections because they're the wrong shape.

*not that you'd ever have 390s in multiple...

[318259]

The 380s are the first EMUs we've had with corridor connections since the 314s in 1979 and the 318s in 1985.

The 320s don't have corridor connections and neither do the 334s. The 318s actually had theirs removed during the last renovation in 2005-2006.

[HSTEd]

Originally Posted by 318259

The 380s are the first EMUs we've had with corridor connections since the 314s in 1979 and the 318s in 1985.

The 320s don't have corridor connections and neither do the 334s. The 318s actually had theirs removed during the last renovation in 2005-2006.

Do you mean on Scotrail or the like? Because the 5WES units did not arrive until 1988.....

[Class377/5]

Not to mention the 375, 377, 350, 450 & 444 fleets.

As to the original poster. Gangways are designed to allow movement within a train on units that regularly run in multiple.

In an evacuation you wouldn't in most reasons use the gangway to move passengers unless there was a danger in one, ie fire. If you were evacuating a whole train, you'd never move people around less the area was confined access.

In fact the reason why 319's cannot be run in 12 cars for passengers is due to no way to get out of middle units safety in certain parts of the tunnels. In this case gangways assist.

[hairyhandedfool]

Originally Posted by Class377/5

....In fact the reason why 319's cannot be run in 12 cars for passengers is due to no way to get out of middle units safety in certain parts of the tunnels. In this case gangways assist.

If that is really the reason (I suspect there are other reasons), then they should never have allowed 319s to run in multiple (ie 8-car) as a DOO service!

[michael769]

I have long suspected that the visibility for drivers in stock with gangway connections is much poorer that those without (eg cl158 vs cl170), is this the case?

If so does that not have potential safety implications? I know trains are not driven by sight, but I would think that a wider field of view for the driver is still an advantage when it comes to spotting trespassers and on some curves signals?

[starrymarkb]

The 360s were originally specced with Gangways but they were deleted from the final build due to poor sighting with the DOO equipment on the GE.

[WatcherZero]

380's have a camera to make up for poor driver view dont they?

[Cherry_Picker]

Originally Posted by michael769

I have long suspected that the visibility for drivers in stock with gangway connections is much poorer that those without (eg cl158 vs cl170), is this the case?

If so does that not have potential safety implications? I know trains are not driven by sight, but I would think that a wider field of view for the driver is still an advantage when it comes to spotting trespassers and on some curves signals?

Yes, it is significantly worse. Not only do you lose all the visibility from the second mans window, the drivers window has to be quite a bit smaller too, to the point where you cant see a stretch of the up line if you are on the down (or the down lin when you are on the up) This might mean lower line speeds around right hand bends for trains with a gangway connection through the cab area and it almost certainly will mean the driver cannot inspect the track on his own when requested to by the signalman.

[xplo42]

I understand that the 360 was to be designed with gangways and to be operated by the DOO method, however due to the gangway obstructing the driver's view of platform departure monitors and mirrors it was deemed a safety hazard and became mandatory to either to equip all trains with guards (such as LM and SWT with the gangway variation 350/444/450) or to redesign the cab and remove the gangway completely - the latter option was chosen.

Could Siemens have not fitted external CCTV cameras to solve the problem, like Bombardier have with both the 377 and 379? Both have gangways and both are DOO (377 with FCC and 379 with GA).

[notadriver]

Does anyone know which main line units have an emergency egress into the drivers cab?

[SqUaShIe P]

I agree with the OP.
My rule would be if there was any chance that at some point this train would work in multiple, it would have the gangway connection. It annoys me that Cl185s don't have gangway connections. I know a lot of the time, they operate as single sets, but it would be so handy for when they are working in multiple.

[GB]

Originally Posted by xplo42

Situation.
A passenger is located at the rear of a train, comprised of 3 trainsets with no intermediate gangways, and is in need of assistance from the onboard staff - either the driver (located at the front driving cab) or the guard (located in either of the remaining two sets in front) but both of whom have no access to the third and rear set - how is the passenger to receive assistance? The passenger is essentially trapped despite still being able to move between carriages but not trainsets and subsequently deprived from the staff in the other sections of the train.

I am sure there are units that don't have gangways which run in multiple that are only DOO.

As for assistance, is that not what the passcom is for?