Impossible to prove conclusively that frosted glass equals fewer accidents - there are too many variables to account for. Equally impossible, of course, to prove that it increases accidents.it isn’t counter productive, and the stats prove it. (Not in public domain so not quotable).
Perhaps some sort of platform heels are in order?
In relation to Wakefield Westgate Platform 2 the overwhelming proportion of services (towards Leeds) approach from the south. I am at a loss to understand how looking in the 'wrong' direction would give an easy insight.
I know that you have raised this before but after careful observation on numerous occasions I have yet to see kiosk queues causing a congestion problem. (For people unfamiliar with Leeds, the footbridge has all the lift shafts in the middle, so passengers have to walk to either side anyway. The busiest kiosk seems to be the passenger information one, which is extremely useful at a busy interchange like Leeds and at a stroke avoids the need for many people having to go down to concourse level only to discover that they need to go back up again. The refreshment kiosks are extremely useful given the lack of 'trainside' facilities at Leeds generally and again avoid many people having to make extra escalator trips or barrier passes to/from the main concourse. Good piece of station design in my view; albeit nothing to do with frosted glass.)
Wakefield also benefits from having excellent passenger information screens that tell you that 'your' train is "between Fitzwilliam and Sandall & Agbrigg" or wherever. Everyone can choose their own pace having waited on the concourse with a Greggs or Costa snack in hand to make for the barriers, lift or stairs.
Because this would only benefit a very few people who knew what to look for, and would only.give any information at the very last minute (especially if the next train signalled isn't your train).
Believe announcements are.trigged by berth occupancy yes.
Three whole seconds. Totally worth it.
That transfer deck is quite wide, it dwarfs the capacity of the stairs and escalators down to each platform. So I cannot see how congestion builds up unless it is people waiting up top and all going for the same stairs/escalator down to their train.
At East Croydon I do tend to hang around the bottom of the steps of the footbridge. The ramps are too long so a platform change there is impossible to achieve unless running hard as it is a long distance up a gentle slope then a long distance back down to the correct platform (probably totalling 6 carriage lengths or more). It would be half the distance if the glass was not frosted but still too far for many. If I have not made it to the bottom of the footbridge (which is about half way long the platforms) when a platform change occurs then I know I have missed it - making it tempting for some to take the very short and level route which I have not witnessed !.
Yes. Ideally, they would stay displayed until the doors are locked. Certainly not at scheduled departure time when the train hasn’t even arrived as seems to happen on occasion.
This is perhaps what sums up the problem. The information is not as accurate as ones own pair of eyes. The actual service performance is often different to whet the information reports.
And this is not a new thing. Quite a few of the Southern Region split-flap Solari indicator installations at medium-sized stations were configured with an ‘early clear’ feature. This would enable the barrier line displays to be blanked when a train ran into the platform. This was forty years ago.
The original bridge at Luton Airport Parkway has (and I think always has had) viewing ports in the vinyls.
In my experience the problem has been congestion getting on the the stairs/escalators from the transfer deck.
Doesn't analysis provide statistics?
Yes it does – but it was originally totally clear, and that was apparently the reason the stickers were added.
Working that out is why an actual analysis that considers and eliminates other factors is needed.
Analysis interprets statistics.
No, analysis is the transformation of data into statistics. That is the fundamental difference in their respective definitions. If Bald Rick (who has privileged access to both the data and statistics) says that the ECR frosted glass reduced slips trips and falls I'm inclined to believe him!
I remember there not being any vinyls on the bridge - it tended to result in people waiting for trains on the bridge rather than on the platforms in cold and wet weather.
If you want to play terminology games have at it, but my point still stands - the way he talks about it strongly suggests, to my mind, that there has not been analysis ruling out other causes. You don't say "I‘d be interested to hear what other variables could possibly account for a more than halving of slips trips and falls on the ramps at East Croydon immediately following the obscuring of the glass there" if there has actually been an analysis ruling out other causes. You say it if all you have is the raw data.
Unless you've seen the assessments, how do you know what work has and hasn't been done?
I don't know what assessments have been done, which is why I didn't say that I did know.
For clarity, are you saying that there was an analysis that considered other potential causes and rejected them?
The footbridge at Clapham Junction had frosted glass windows under BR in the 1980s, at least on the side looking west towards Clapham Yard, although you could sometimes open some of those windows. Last time I was there, which was only a few weeks ago, they had transparent glass. Have they now got frosted glass again just like in BR days?
Can you stop with your mocking tone and give an explicit answer?
I think what happened was that those responsible for East Croydon were concerned about the number of injuries sustained by passengers at East Croydon. Easy enough to ask them how it happened - saw my train and rushed.
