All this discussion about different camera systems is interesting and informative, but there are a few issues that are not being addressed.
No camera, no matter how advanced, is going to be able to cope with all lighting conditions to give drivers a decent view. Whether it's low light, direct sunlight, thick fog, reflections from wet platforms, etc, etc, etc, there will always be conditions that a camera system will struggle with.
There has been some mention about changing camera set-up to account for different seasonal and weather conditions. Sadly this is not going to be possible as the camera angles are supposed to give the best possible view of the "PTI Corridor". You can't keep moving them around without compromising this view.
Combining in-cab with platform monitors is a little problematic. Most stock designed with in-cab monitors tends not to have a very good view out of the side of the cab which is obviously going to affect the driver's ability to clearly see any platform monitors. Electrostars have a little square porthole on the driver's side, but the view through it is pretty poor. It's really only there so that the driver can see where the car stop boards are. I'm assuming that the Desiro City cab gives a similarly poor view over the side because the driver's position appears to be quite central.
Beaming pictures from platform mounted cameras to in-cab monitors might give a slightly better perspective than body mounted cameras, but that is something for the future. As far as I am aware, no such facilities exist in any existing stock nor stock under construction, so it's going to take a while to carry out the necessary upgrade works to both stock and stations to make this happen.
Then there's still the issue of who is actually meant to be using these technologies to watch the "PTI Corridor" and what implications that might have on the safe operation of the train, but that's already been covered.
The Mark 1 eyeball was mentioned further up the thread, and I must confess to being a fan of it's use. Although it's not 100% perfect it is able to deal with challenging light conditions better than most camera systems, is endlessly adjustable and suffers a much lower failure rate than any technology. It is also fantastically flexible and can also be deployed in almost limitless ways to take the best advantage of local conditions according to it's user's expertise. A camera system will only give a single view and that is it.
According to the rule book there is no additional time. But we do use common sense... There's no guarantee that no one is left behind though.
What concerns me more is the risk of a "trap and drag", that someone running down at the last minute might get trapped in the doors and you wouldn't be aware of them being there.
I appreciate your perspective on this, but I think that comparing the UK and Swiss DOO systems is like comparing chalk and cheese. Clearly they are not quite the same thing as the safety demands of our respective systems have a different emphasis. What we're experiencing here in the UK is a bit of a safety revolution, shifting from SPADs onto passenger safety.
I wouldn't say it's unreliable. There is a always remaining risk. It becomes more and more a problem with passengers thinking the warning lights and sounds are an invitation to jump into the train ignoring the already closing doors, instead of stepping back and waiting for the next train. But it seems as everything has to be 100% foolproof these days.
I meant unreliable in the sense that, like UK systems, the obstacle detection system cannot be relied upon to detect all obstructions in the doors.
We have exactly the same problems with passengers here. I don't know if it's because they don't see the danger in their actions or because they have just got so blasé about the railways, but I'm sure that the behaviour of the UK passenger wouldn't be so very different to that from the Swiss passenger.
This is an area where the TOCs could do a lot more to encourage passengers to comply. Sure you're never going to stop people trying to board when doors are closing, however IMO there definitely should be a culture where it's frowned upon. Nowadays people not only hold doors open or deliberately board when the doors are closing, but then have the nerve to put in a complaint if they get caught in the doors. There should at least be an expectation of being issued with some kind of fine if observed by BTP, ejected from station, etc.
I love the thinking behind your idea, but realistically I can't see it working. Every passenger seems to know best (or so their behaviour would suggest) and no amount of cajoling them over the PA ever seems to make much difference. The BTP probably don't want the hassle and I have a feeling that attempting to change the culture among passengers would be resisted. The travelling public tends to view railstaff as incompetent, nannying and out of touch with what they see as being reality, so trying to get them to understand our concerns regarding their safety tends to be an uphill struggle (as this thread helpfully illustrates).
O L Leigh
