Embarking/disembarking Improvements...?

[WestCountry]

Old slamdoor stock with doors all down the sides worked ok, didn't it?

 

[jopsuk]

It's not really compatible with central door locking, and people DID come a cropper because of unlocked doors- one fatality is one too many. Plus to fit it to modern stock would be a huge expensive engineering project. Given that rebuilding key stations to have platforms both sides of trains at all platform roads is also far too expensive a proposition, I think the discussion really is constrained to "existing stock and infrastructure"

 

[The Barlow Boy]

What about trains on the Underground? The cars of the S-stock are roughly 16m (so shorter than those on National Rail services) which has 3 pairs of doors per car.

The stock is slower than main line stock so is subject to less stress plus the payoff between the spread of people embarking/disembarking is more important on an intense below ground service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

with the "get off at one end, on at the other" idea I can see it maybe, just maybe, working for "end door" stock- ie Intercity stock/units, 444s, 158s etc. With ⅓/⅔ and ¼/¾ door arrangements (ie most commuter, and hence busy) stock, the section of the carriage between the end of the carriage and the "in" door would become difficult to disembark from, as you'd then be expected to walk past a door that people are getting on through to the other end of the carriage- potentially slowing things down further.

All that is needed really is for people to pay heed to the byelaw that states that you've got to let everyone who wants off off before you try to board. It is already in the byelaws. Busy stations often have platform staff- perhaps they could make more frequent reminders?

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone quoted a bye-law.

 

[jopsuk]

IF the "emabrk at the front, disembark at the back" idea was to take hold, I'd reckon it would have to be written in as a railway bye-law (for all the good that would do).

 

[Greenback]

'Embark at the front, disembark at the back' would only benefit those who didn't have to stand on the platform in the cold as they could get straight on. I believe this is what prompted the suggestion int eh first place!

It would not make the process any faster at all, as the same numbe rof people have tog e toff and on, but through half the number of doors.

 

[Via Bank]

Old slamdoor stock with doors all down the sides worked ok, didn't it?

The trouble then is that the amount of doorways decreases the structural strength of the coach: one only has to look at the accidents involving third-rail stock to see that this is a bad idea.

Combine this with the lack of central locking and the requirement for someone to walk down the platform shutting doors, plus the heavily decreased amount of seating due to the increased space for vestibules, and it becomes clear that it is not an adequate solution.

 

[chuckles1066]

Solution HERE