New full height gatelines and passive vs. active emergency opening systems vs. staffing - what should be the case?

[Bletchleyite]

Big red break glass in emergency buttons at either end of every gateline linked to the fire alarm which automatically release all gatelines in the station would function similarly to fire push bars which are often alarmed as well.

That's active, not passive. Active is not considered good enough for most fire escape related matters, I struggle to understand why it should be seen as acceptable here.

Push bars are alarmed, but generally open mechanically if pushed. Sometimes there are ones with electrical locks - I half recall this is the case at Birmingham New St and it makes me VERY uncomfortable that it is the case. If I am up against an escape door with a crowd behind me being crushed that door needs to open mechanically, totally independently of anything else. An AI detecting a crush isn't good enough for me, nor is a fire alarm system when the thing causing the crush may not be a fire. This is more important than managing fare dodging.

This strikes me as very dangerous and as I said as a means of just avoiding paying the costs of appropriate staffing. What is needed is staff who are specifically employed and paid to engage with those who jump and push through gatelines physically, be that BTP or "bouncers" as found in every nightclub. I understand rail staff do not wish to do that and that is fair enough, but companies do exist who specialise in staff to do this plus there is the BTP.

As an aside I also think supermarkets should be employing such staff in theft hotspots rather than just employing people to stand there and ignore it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

Though hopefully either staff, automatic heat/smoke sensors or video monitoring woul trigger the alarm and gate release before passengers would be required to use it.

"Hopefully" is not a word I consider appropriate to use in the context of any safety system whatsoever.

 

[Class83]

That's active, not passive. Active is not considered good enough for most fire escape related matters, I struggle to understand why it should be seen as acceptable here.

Push bars are alarmed, but generally open mechanically if pushed. Sometimes there are ones with electrical locks - I half recall this is the case at Birmingham New St and it makes me VERY uncomfortable that it is the case. If I am up against an escape door with a crowd behind me being crushed that door needs to open mechanically, totally independently of anything else. An AI detecting a crush isn't good enough for me, nor is a fire alarm system when the thing causing the crush may not be a fire. This is more important than managing fare dodging.

This strikes me as very dangerous and as I said as a means of just avoiding paying the costs of appropriate staffing. What is needed is staff who are specifically employed and paid to engage with those who jump and push through gatelines physically, be that BTP or "bouncers" as found in every nightclub. I understand rail staff do not wish to do that and that is fair enough, but companies do exist who specialise in staff to do this plus there is the BTP.

As an aside I also think supermarkets should be employing such staff in theft hotspots rather than just employing people to stand there and ignore it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==



"Hopefully" is not a word I consider appropriate to use in the context of any safety system whatsoever.

You could have a trigger point of 10 seconds continuous pressure on the barrier auto opens the lot and sets off the alarm. There are engineering solutions better than a bad gate which fare Dodgers can shove through. Relying on that degree of force to escape isn't good for children or pensioners.

Hopefully wasn't the best word, but if a crowd are panicking due to smoke or fire then the sensors and cameras as engineering control should have triggered in advance opening the gates and activating fire alarms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could have a trigger point of 10 seconds continuous pressure on the barrier auto opens the lot and sets off the alarm. There are engineering solutions better than a bad gate which fare Dodgers can shove through. Relying on that degree of force to escape isn't good for children or pensioners.

That's probably better than AI cameras.

Hopefully wasn't the best word, but if a crowd are panicking due to smoke or fire then the sensors and cameras as engineering control should have triggered in advance opening the gates and activating fire alarms.

Again, "should have"...not a term I like to see used with any form of safety equipment. Safety equipment requires certainty.

I'd agree on the degree of force, though equally it is probably low enough that most people could be pushed through by a crowd without being seriously injured.

 

[The exile]

Hopefully wasn't the best word, but if a crowd are panicking due to smoke or fire then the sensors and cameras as engineering control should have triggered in advance opening the gates and activating fire alarms.

Although fire is the most likely cause of a panic stampede, it’s by no means the only possibility. Others wouldn’t be picked up by conventional alarm systems.

I wonder, though, what the effectiveness of barriers with about a 2 foot gap underneath would be. Possible to get under in an emergency (ok, not for all - but we’re talking about a last resort when all other systems fail) but anyone doing so is putting themselves at a massive disadvantage compared to any security staff.

 

[Mattplans]

A lot of replies in the other thread mentioned that gatelines are often linked with the fire alarm system, which is good. But there are plenty of situations where you might need to quickly evacuate a station and the fire alarm might not be activated. I wanted to say that, in my opinion, the inabiltiy to jsut be able to bump the barrier to leave quickly in a hurry creates a risk. If you're faced with a dangerous situation, you waste no time bumping through the current gatelines. It's simply not possible with these proposed gates and that increases the risk to the general public.

For example, overcrowding during an event. Looking at a lot of North and West (And NorthWest) London stations there. I can't imagine the risk of using these barriers during Notting Hill Carnival? Seems to me it would be too easy for something to go wrong, and the stations used for this event are very stressed and overcrowded on the day. This - and the football fixtures - are at least pre-planned events, operators are able to coordinate and mobilise staff in response to the expected risk, but what of emergency events that may require someone to leave the station in a hurry?

So I wonder how operators will be able to justify this public safety risk. Gatelines are not always staffed like they are supposed to be. Management encourages staff to become lackadaisical about supervising gatelines in order to bolster statistics. There needs to be a change to this approach.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==


And then we've got the problem with remote monitoring which I've never been a fan of. It just reeks of laziness in my opinion. Again, a CCTV camera will never replace what an active individual can do in real time. Shouldn't need to speak through an intercom to get help at a gateline, there should be someone right there. Operators should seek to install more TfL style GLAPs and design gateline areas like Homerton station. How long before gateline monitoring is then outsourced to a major local station or ROC? Then, how long before we outsource it overseas for cheaper labour costs? Then how long until AI are monitoring the gatelines?





I've pointed to where the ticket office is at Homerton Overground. The staff member in there is able to supervise the gateline instead of being locked away elsewhere watching CCTV. That's one member of staff for this station and it's an ideal arrangement, in my opinion, for gating small suburban stations.

 

[Starmill]

I think the design mentioned at Birmingham New Street is a mechanical release that can also be operated electronically. i.e. if there's a critical system failure or a failure of the back up power supply, the door will still open as necessary when it's pushed, it just won't automatically open electronically. I'm happy to be corrected by a fire and security expert of course...

 

[Class83]

I think the design mentioned at Birmingham New Street is a mechanical release that can also be operated electronically. i.e. if there's a critical system failure or a failure of the back up power supply, the door will still open as necessary when it's pushed, it just won't automatically open electronically. I'm happy to be corrected by a fire and security expert of course...

This is probably key, you need the gates or other systems which fail to open, i.e. if the power goes off they should be open so the actuators are actually hold the gates closed when the are operating, the default position is open or at the very least fail to having no resistance so a slight push opens them.

Although fire is the most likely cause of a panic stampede, it’s by no means the only possibility. Others wouldn’t be picked up by conventional alarm systems.

I wonder, though, what the effectiveness of barriers with about a 2 foot gap underneath would be. Possible to get under in an emergency (ok, not for all - but we’re talking about a last resort when all other systems fail) but anyone doing so is putting themselves at a massive disadvantage compared to any security staff.

While at the same time they need to be robust enough that fare dodgers can't shove them open or crawl underneath. Gateline staff don't grab people to stop them, even if crawling and I understand are told to let people go, much better to let an inanimate gate take them on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While at the same time they need to be robust enough that fare dodgers can't shove them open or crawl underneath. Gateline staff don't grab people to stop them, even if crawling and I understand are told to let people go, much better to let an inanimate gate take them on.

This I consider to be the nub of the issue.

 

[aron2smith]

While at the same time they need to be robust enough that fare dodgers can't shove them open or crawl underneath. Gateline staff don't grab people to stop them, even if crawling and I understand are told to let people go, much better to let an inanimate gate take them on.

If this is seriously where this country is at, I say just have transport accept that loss. We rightly have a lot of concessions and discounts to get people using trains more. Why make the stations worse in a futile attempt to stop a small minority of people? Ticket barriers far too often refuse all sorts of valid tickets, are we supposed to just stand there and be taken hostage because we can't catch the eye of the staff because now the barrier is too big?! Fix the small issues like ticketing and staffing first before creating more.

I don't see how these taller gates at High Wycombe can be part of the solution. They will undermine any push to getting people to use trains more for sure.

 

[Sakuradori]

You could have a trigger point of 10 seconds continuous pressure on the barrier auto opens the lot and sets off the alarm.

This almost already happens on current gates, continuous pressure will cause the gate to open and go out of service until reset (this is by design). Also happens if a sensor is blocked for too long.

This is probably key, you need the gates or other systems which fail to open, i.e. if the power goes off they should be open so the actuators are actually hold the gates closed when the are operating, the default position is open or at the very least fail to having no resistance so a slight push opens them.

Also already happens, internal battery will open the gate if power is lost (all the emergency buttons/modes etc actually does is just cut power). Gate will also not close if internal battery is faulty/flat.

Having worked on these gates for years (thankfully crawled my way off of them) I cannot welcome these new gates quickly enough. Getting rid of pushthrough is a huge change, and ironically will probably be a nail in the coffin for unmanned gatelines, which companies have been trying to force for years, as no company will be able to justify the risk to passengers, although they'll still probably try. Everyone wants safer trains but nobody seems to want to have gates that can actually keep fare evaders out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Everyone wants safer trains but nobody seems to want to have gates that can actually keep fare evaders out.

I'd have less of an issue with gatelines not allowing burst through in a direction not useful for emergency exit, but that is often potentially both ways depending on the emergency. I would rather see staff employed whose job it is to engage with fare dodgers, physically if necessary, in addition to the railway staff.

 

[Sakuradori]

I would rather see staff employed whose job it is to engage with fare dodgers, physically if necessary, in addition to the railway staff.

100% with you on that one, but I just don't think it'll ever happen.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Ironically ticket gates have recently disappeared from Dewsbury and not so long ago from Grantham.

Maybe the answer is to get rid of them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ironically ticket gates have recently disappeared from Dewsbury and not so long ago from Grantham.

Maybe the answer is to get rid of them?

I think they serve three useful purposes:

1. Deterring casual "pay when challenged" type evasion by providing the challenge
2. Deterring antisocial behaviour on the same basis
3. Preventing people accidentally travelling without paying (e.g. thinking they already had a ticket but didn't) and thus becoming subject to PF or prosecution

For those purposes I like them, but I don't think you can substitute them for BTP or "bouncers" for the serious cases.