Gangways - compulsory for all rolling stock?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristopherJ

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
400
Location
London, UK
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?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
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

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
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

Member
Joined
11 Jun 2011
Messages
151
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

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,957
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

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
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

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....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

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2005
Messages
2,006
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

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
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.
 

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,711
Location
Birmingham
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.
 

ChristopherJ

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
400
Location
London, UK
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

Established Member
Joined
1 Oct 2010
Messages
3,386
Does anyone know which main line units have an emergency egress into the drivers cab?
 

SqUaShIe P

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Messages
179
Location
England
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

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,870
Location
Somewhere
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?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,576
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
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

I wonder whether either of these is possible:

  • Fitting corridor connected cabs to stock without it (as has been rumoured/suggested for the LO 172s, if they move away from the GOBLIN) - can this be done?
  • Building stock with a "350" cab at one end and a "360" cab at the other (so that if it was working in multiple it'd be designed to have the "360" cabs at the extremes (so that it'd be corridor connected, but with full cabs)?
 

The_Stig

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2009
Messages
364
380's have a camera to make up for poor driver view dont they?

380's (and 334's) have cameras on each coach for the driver to view passengers on DOO services when the doors are released by the driver if that is what you mean.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I wonder whether either of these is possible:

  • Fitting corridor connected cabs to stock without it (as has been rumoured/suggested for the LO 172s, if they move away from the GOBLIN) - can this be done?
  • Building stock with a "350" cab at one end and a "360" cab at the other (so that if it was working in multiple it'd be designed to have the "360" cabs at the extremes (so that it'd be corridor connected, but with full cabs)?

With the first, the entire Turbostar/Electrostar family has bolt-on ends, so they could produce a load more 379/172-style cabs and just bolt them on, stripping the equipment from the old cabs to use as spares.

With the second, that's been tried with the Swindon inter-city DMUs for Scotland. Note the picture at the top of the page where the 'inner' driving car corridor has been blanked off. They had a full-width cab at the other end a bit like the Trans-Pennine units that came out of the same factory. The idea was that they could work singly off-peak and in pairs during the peaks. Trouble was, they often ended up 'nose-to-tail', thus negating the advantage. The corridor cabs also were draughty and let the rain in, and all ended up being blanked off after about ten years.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,576
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
With the first, the entire Turbostar/Electrostar family has bolt-on ends, so they could produce a load more 379/172-style cabs and just bolt them on, stripping the equipment from the old cabs to use as spares.

With the second, that's been tried with the Swindon inter-city DMUs for Scotland. Note the picture at the top of the page where the 'inner' driving car corridor has been blanked off. They had a full-width cab at the other end a bit like the Trans-Pennine units that came out of the same factory. The idea was that they could work singly off-peak and in pairs during the peaks. Trouble was, they often ended up 'nose-to-tail', thus negating the advantage. The corridor cabs also were draughty and let the rain in, and all ended up being blanked off after about ten years.

Excellent informative answer - thanks. It was 27s on the Falkirk High service in my day, too young to remember these interesting units - cheers
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,523
380's (and 334's) have cameras on each coach for the driver to view passengers on DOO services when the doors are released by the driver if that is what you mean.

I thought they also had a forward facing track camera on the blind side.
 

DownSouth

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2011
Messages
1,545
Perhaps a solution to connections not providing enough visibility could be to adopt something like the Danish IC3/IR4 series trains have with their retracting cabs. Innovation is what is needed to solve this issue, not regulation.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,877
Regarding the 185s, did the then CEO of First Transpennine Express not give an interview where he described 'not wanting his drivers to have to work in a broom cupboard'?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,113
Location
Redcar
Regarding the 185s, did the then CEO of First Transpennine Express not give an interview where he described 'not wanting his drivers to have to work in a broom cupboard'?

I've heard that as well but I'm fairly sure it came from this forum so shouldn't be treated as absolute gospel.
 

Alan1310

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
187
Perhaps a solution to connections not providing enough visibility could be to adopt something like the Danish IC3/IR4 series trains have with their retracting cabs. Innovation is what is needed to solve this issue, not regulation.

just looked these up its a very clever idea
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
Though I don't think the IC3 design meets the latest crash regs. And before anyone goes on about how trains should not be made crashworthy as the signalling will keep them apart this TSI is more about protecting the driver should the train strike an obstacle (ie Barrow upon Soar) or large vehicle (that Anglian 156)
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I thought they also had a forward facing track camera on the blind side.

They do as many units do but this is just recorded so it can be viewed after an incident-SPAD/fatality etc. The driver dosnt see the camera feed live on a screen or anything, you don't need to see out that side of the cab.

Visibility is noticeably poorer on tight curves in say a 377 rather than a 455 but you can see enough, it's still a better view than it would have been in days of steam.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,568
Perhaps a solution to connections not providing enough visibility could be to adopt something like the Danish IC3/IR4 series trains have with their retracting cabs. Innovation is what is needed to solve this issue, not regulation.

Every cm of counts with a design like that- the narrower UK loading gauge may pose a problem.

As for non-interunit gangways running in multiple, DOO? Plenty. Including three unit formations- such as the 12 car class 365 operated Great Northern peak time trains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top