Do we really need walk-through gangways?

[450 spotter]

Hi, I'm 450 spotter, and this is my first post.

I personally can see no benefit of having the walk through gangways (I mean the ones without doors, like will be on the new thameslink trains). Do we really need them?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

On some routes they're needed as potential evacuation routes if the trains pass through a tunnel where there's not enough room to evacuate by the normal doors

 

[A-driver]

Yes we need them on commuter trains bursting at the seams. You could probably fir about 8 people (u comfortably) standing in the connection rather that no one (well perhaps 1 person stuck between the doors) in the existing stock. On an 8 car train that's potentially room for about 50 extra passengers. It's about maximising space.

 

[SS4]

Surely gangways would aid in passenger distribution among coaches? It won't cure stupid but it'll help

 

[nicobobinus]

Surely gangways would aid in passenger distribution among coaches? It won't cure stupid but it'll help

Can comment as a regular on the Overground that this is indeed the case. Far less bunched than it ever was in the days of A-stock/313s/508s (though the 313s were invariably rammed to the max in any case so perhaps harder to tell there)

 

[QueensCurve]

Hi, I'm 450 spotter, and this is my first post.

I personally can see no benefit of having the walk through gangways (I mean the ones without doors, like will be on the new thameslink trains). Do we really need them?

I presume you mean the full width articulated gangways like the new sub-surface stock for LU rather than unit end gangways as found in the Class 450 or the Class 350?

 

[Mikey C]

Yes we need them on commuter trains bursting at the seams. You could probably fir about 8 people (u comfortably) standing in the connection rather that no one (well perhaps 1 person stuck between the doors) in the existing stock. On an 8 car train that's potentially room for about 50 extra passengers. It's about maximising space.

They're great for distributing loads, as can be seen by the 378s and especially the Underground S stock, as it's far easier to see if the next carriage is emptier than trying to peer through 2 doors and a concertina gangway!

I think they are popular from a passenger security point of view too.

 

[jopsuk]

Come at it the other way:
for a metro/suburban train, why would you NOT want to have wide gangways within the unit? What disadvantage is there?

 

[bramling]

Come at it the other way:
for a metro/suburban train, why would you NOT want to have wide gangways within the unit? What disadvantage is there?

Could be quite a disadvantage if you happen to be standing in one (or perhaps seated or standing near one) and your train is involved in a serious collision or derailment.

This is not beyond the realms of possibility, it's one thing on a class 378 which rarely carries passengers much above 40 mph, however the class 700 will be operating at up to 100 mph. Potters Bar was a 100mph derailment on a route these trains will operate.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Working on the assumption that they'd be suitable for the tight(ish) corners on the Wirral line loop, I'd say they'd definitely be very welcome on new Merseyrail stock if/when it is eventually ordered. Hopefully it will become the norm on all short-distance stock over the next 10-20 years. Even medium distance routes such as the North Trans-Pennine would benefit from the extra standing/circulation space. In fact, even on longer distance stock it needn't be a disadvantage, as long as saloons are closed off from door areas and carriage ends. The traditional narrow gangways seem to waste space, though they (or rather the associated 'walls') do provide space for essential equipment such as air-conditioning equipment.

 

[DarloRich]

Hi, I'm 450 spotter, and this is my first post.

I personally can see no benefit of having the walk through gangways (I mean the ones without doors, like will be on the new thameslink trains). Do we really need them?

Why would you not have them? It makes it much easier to move through the train and offers more space to store passengers meaning more people can get on, which is surely crucial in busy urban areas?

 

[satisnek]

Could be quite a disadvantage if you happen to be standing in one (or perhaps seated or standing near one) and your train is involved in a serious collision or derailment.

This is not beyond the realms of possibility, it's one thing on a class 378 which rarely carries passengers much above 40 mph, however the class 700 will be operating at up to 100 mph. Potters Bar was a 100mph derailment on a route these trains will operate.

I can see your point, although I hasten to add that it doesn't worry me. But the possibility of passengers being ejected through the ends of this type of stock in a derailment would appear to be something that the 'Mark 1s are death traps' brigade have overlooked.

 

[AM9]

Could be quite a disadvantage if you happen to be standing in one (or perhaps seated or standing near one) and your train is involved in a serious collision or derailment.

This is not beyond the realms of possibility, it's one thing on a class 378 which rarely carries passengers much above 40 mph, however the class 700 will be operating at up to 100 mph. Potters Bar was a 100mph derailment on a route these trains will operate.

Do you really think that is an unacceptable risk? More people would be at risk of death or serious injury from standing up during a simple roll caused by a derailment than those vulnerable in the case of one or more cars shearing their couplings and separating.
If you do think that risk is unacceptable, then in your estimation, all standing in fast trains should be prohibited.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

Interesting that someone suggested standing in the gangways yet in certain areas of the World (Melbourne) this is banned due to Safety concerns

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The risk of separation in the event of derailment would be lessened by greater use of articulation, though that does bring some disadvantages too (lack of flexibility, greater axle weight) and would take rather a long time to implement!

 

[Emblematic]

By far the greatest hazards in the London Overground, Underground, and I would suspect other cities' metro trains, are the nefarious activities of your fellow passengers. The fantastic visibility on S7/8 and Capitalstar stocks means anything untoward is seen by the entire train, and consequently suppressed to a large degree. Staff and Police can easily patrol and observe, and in turn be a visible presence on, the entire train.
The overall ambience of the train is one of openness and personal safety, and this contributes in no small degree to the popularity of the services right up to the close- this popularity also adds to the safe ambience, in a virtuous circle.
Revisting for example the D78, it feels positively claustrophobic in comparison. There's no going back, it would seem as retrograde as reintroducing compartment stock.
The practicalities such as additional standing space are minor in comparison. Accident safety is probably at least as good as anything else. In a full train you'll end in a heap of squashy individuals. Less full, you'll slide along the floor, eventually bumping into a partition, bulkhead or grab pole.
A picture, as they say...


Unit 378007 interior2 [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], by Sunil060902 (Own work), from Wikimedia Commons

LUL-S-Stock-special-needs-car [Public domain], by Spsmiler (Own work), from Wikimedia Commons

D78 DM INTERIOR District line [Public domain], by Peter Skuce (Own work), from Wikimedia Commons

 

[TheNewNo2]

I like the walk-through carriages, though it is disconcerting when they go round a tight bend and you can actually see the passengers at the other end move relative to you. It does make it easier to find a space, and makes staff presence more visible. It may not be suitable for everything, but it's nice for commuter stuff.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

'S stock' style gangways are probably ideal for any trains operating "metro" routes (for example any route operated by class 455s, 456s)

 

[bramling]

Do you really think that is an unacceptable risk? More people would be at risk of death or serious injury from standing up during a simple roll caused by a derailment than those vulnerable in the case of one or more cars shearing their couplings and separating.
If you do think that risk is unacceptable, then in your estimation, all standing in fast trains should be prohibited.

Given that in serious collisions or derailments some of the biggest causes of death or injury are always ejection from the vehicle or heavy objects intruding in to the vehicle, yes this is most definitely a risk. As to whether it's unacceptqable, that's another matter.

However, if I were to be in the Potters Bar derailment, on balance I'd rate my chances better in a class 365 than a class 700, where once the vehicle separated and moved about violently passengers could easily be thrown out the end or heavy objects enter the saloon.

Should this ever happen and result in a number of deaths or serious injuries, I wonder if the media coverage could result in this type of design being seen in hindsight as a mistake.

 

[talltim]

Only judging the relative risk by gut feeling, I think a car is a far more dangerous place than than a a wide gangwayed train

 

[Tracky]

Only judging the relative risk by gut feeling, I think a car is a far more dangerous place than than a a wide gangwayed train

The problem with risk is what is deemed as acceptable.

The target figure for deaths on the railway is always nil. Excluding suicides and to an extent, trespassers - the industry works hard to reduce the risk to passengers and staff to achieve this.

On the roads, people are killed in accidents or incidents week on week. They sometimes make the papers. They will at times tear families apart and cause great sadness. Sometimes there is blame, sometimes police will act. But outside of families involved nobody really bats an eyelid.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Yup I prefer gangwayed trains.

 

[bramling]

Only judging the relative risk by gut feeling, I think a car is a far more dangerous place than than a a wide gangwayed train

May be true, but not really a fair or helpful comparison.

A car is less safe than a wide gangway train, which is less safe than a conventional train.

In the same way that a non-TPWS train is less safe than one so fitted, yet we don't remove TPWS because it reduces capacity by imposing reduced speeds approaching signals or speed restrictions.

There have been 5 high-speed derailments in the last 15 years, all of which occurred when the respective trains were travelling at or near line speed. So it's not true to say that the risk is zero.

I find it hard to reconcile the railway's (correct) continual focus on improving safety with inviting passengers to occupy an area of a high-speed train where they would have no protection at all from the vehicle's bodyshell. Should this become a prominent factor in increased deaths or injuries in a future accident that hopefully won't happen, but statistically has a non-zero odds of occurring, I can't see how there wouldn't be some backlash.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Deleted. Posted in error.

 

[RobShipway]

May be true, but not really a fair or helpful comparison.

A car is less safe than a wide gangway train, which is less safe than a conventional train.

In the same way that a non-TPWS train is less safe than one so fitted, yet we don't remove TPWS because it reduces capacity by imposing reduced speeds approaching signals or speed restrictions.

There have been 5 high-speed derailments in the last 15 years, all of which occurred when the respective trains were travelling at or near line speed. So it's not true to say that the risk is zero.

I find it hard to reconcile the railway's (correct) continual focus on improving safety with inviting passengers to occupy an area of a high-speed train where they would have no protection at all from the vehicle's bodyshell. Should this become a prominent factor in increased deaths or injuries in a future accident that hopefully won't happen, but statistically has a non-zero odds of occurring, I can't see how there wouldn't be some backlash.

I think if you have corridor or non corridor there is always going to be backlash caused to passengers in some form whether they are standing or seated.

The designs of the trains in this country seem to be following the designs that have been within Europe for years now.

 

[450 spotter]

I presume you mean the full width articulated gangways like the new sub-surface stock for LU rather than unit end gangways as found in the Class 450 or the Class 350?

Yes, I mean like LU, with no doors between coaches.

 

[Bigfoot]

With no exit to other coaches how do you propose people move to a safer coach if/when fire breaks out? Or shall we just open the side doors and jump down on to probably live and open to traffic lines? Stopping trains and power takes time.

 

[transmanche]

With no exit to other coaches how do you propose people move to a safer coach if/when fire breaks out?

Have a look at the photos in post #16; the OP isn't referring to normal corridor connections, but the open 'walk-through' connections as seen on LO's Class 378s, LU's S stock, Tyne & Wear Metro stock and modern trams.

 

[colchesterken]

I liked the connections in the mk 1 s you could stand in the connection and look into the empty drivers cab and watch the speedo , very rare to see the 309 s get up to 100.
Could be they were passed it when I was commuting from Ipswich in 1989-92 chatting to drivers they said often only half the motors were going at full power

 

[jon0844]

If anyone feels it unsafe to be in an open gangway on the new stock, they could simply not sit/stand near one. I doubt I'm going to worry too much about what's a pretty unlikely event.