Thameslink core should have platform edge doors (PEDs)

[miklcct]

I'm so disappointed that, although all the Thameslink core stations have been built / rebuilt recently (St Pancras - London Bridge), with only one kind of trains used at high metro frequency, there still aren't any platform screen doors installed at these stations.

Platform screen doors are now standard equipment on new-built urban railways elsewhere around the world in the past 20 years.

 

[A0]

I'm so disappointed that, although all the Thameslink core stations have been built / rebuilt recently (St Pancras - London Bridge), with only one kind of trains used at high metro frequency, there still aren't any platform screen doors installed at these stations.

Platform screen doors are now standard equipment on new-built urban railways elsewhere around the world in the past 20 years.

But when the core initially opened you had 3 types of train using it - 319s, 387s and 700s - presumably that's why PEDs weren't put in ?

 

[zwk500]

I'm so disappointed that, although all the Thameslink core stations have been built / rebuilt recently (St Pancras - London Bridge), Platform screen doors are now standard equipment on new-built urban railways elsewhere around the world in the past 20 years.

Thameslink isn't a new-build line, it's a massive upgrade of a line built around 100 years ago. The platforms aren't level - St Pancras, Farringdon and City Thameslink all have either or both of serious gradient changes mid-platform and Harrington Humps for level boarding. London Bridge, St Pancras and Farringdon also have severe curvature, so PEDs would need to be stepped back significantly to avoid being struck as trains arrived and departed. At London Bridge, Farringdon and City TL the platforms are very narrow at points and PEDs would take up even more of this width.
It would have been lovely to have them, but the only station you could have reasonably installed them at is Blackfriars. And 1 station (which isn't even that high-risk for crowding and is above-ground so no fire concerns) would not have a good cost.

with only one kind of trains used at high metro frequency, there still aren't any platform screen doors installed at these stations.

700s only became exclusive to the line around 2017 or 2018. 319s and 387s would have needed modification for PEDs. 700s may be able to operate PEDs with ETCS/ATO control but I'd be surprised if it didn't need something extra installed on top.

 

[Hadders]

What problem are you trying to solve with platform edge doors in the Thameslink core?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What problem are you trying to solve with platform edge doors in the Thameslink core?

The reason to retrofit PEDs to any railway is to improve platform-train interface safety, surely? They (or partial fences) would be of great benefit at most busy stations, though obviously they're only possible where only one class of train is ever used.

 

[zwk500]

The reason to retrofit PEDs to any railway is to improve platform-train interface safety, surely? They (or partial fences) would be of great benefit at most busy stations, though obviously they're only possible where only one class of train is ever used.

Or where all classes of train using the station are designed to have precisely the same door configuration.

The big problem for Thameslink is that the station arguably most in need of PEDs is Farringdon, and that's the station that is next to impossible to fit due to the curvature, width, height and gradient.

 

[HST43257]

Do platform edge doors mean taking away the yellow line (ie creating a little bit of extra capacity)?

 

[Hadders]

Do platform edge doors mean taking away the yellow line (ie creating a little bit of extra capacity)?

Unlikely to be any capacity gain once you consider the width of the doors.

 

[zwk500]

Do platform edge doors mean taking away the yellow line (ie creating a little bit of extra capacity)?

A tiny amount of extra capacity.

The other point that hasn't been mentioned is that Thameslink does operate 8 and 12 car lengths through the core, so the PEDs would need a system of verifying only the correct doors open, but that all of them do so correctly. Increases complexity and therefore cost, although far from unsolvable.

 

[HST43257]

A tiny amount of extra capacity.

The other point that hasn't been mentioned is that Thameslink does operate 8 and 12 car lengths through the core, so the PEDs would need a system of verifying only the correct doors open, but that all of them do so correctly. Increases complexity and therefore cost, although far from unsolvable.

Could this sort of thing not be tied in with ATO-type things?

 

[zwk500]

Could this sort of thing not be tied in with ATO-type things?

Presumably it could be, although it'll be yet more complications and potential points of failure.
Does anybody know of any PEDs worldwide that operate multiple lengths in normal operation?

 

[DanNCL]

Does anybody know of any PEDs worldwide that operate multiple lengths in normal operation?

Only one I can think of is line 14 of the Paris Metro. For the last few years it's had both 6 car and 8 car trains running together. Imminently, if it hasn't already happened, the last 6 car trains on the line will move to line 4 and all trains on line 14 will be 8 car.

 

[Bald Rick]

It was looked at. Not possible without some very, very expensive engineering. Benefit minimal on a 50kph railway.

There’s also the small matter that trains other than the Class 700s are still permitted through the core, in passenger service (not that any have done for a while, obviously).


I‘d be interested to know what is “disappointing” about their non provision.

 

[greatkingrat]

I‘d be interested to know what is “disappointing” about their non provision.

Particularly as the OP always seems to avoid zone 1 to save a few pence anyway.

 

[MarkyT]

I recall reading that, despite doubts initially, the Thameslink ETCS-based ATO system eventually proved capable of stopping trains with sufficient accuracy to align with platform edge doors if they were ever provided. The early uncertainty was one reason why the same system was rejected for the Elizabeth Line central core in favour of a standard proprietary Metro-style CBTC solution. Due to subsequent industry consolidation, both systems ended up being supplied by the same company (Siemens).

 

[NSEWonderer]

How would you go about fitting peds to Farringdon where it's got the overhead bridge etc and would essentially require some sort of low roof to secure the top half of the peds to. Plus would also end up requiring the rigid structure ole design like at St Pancras than the cantilever of current.

Unless the peds are jubliee style like at Westminster where most of the structure is supported from the base and the top is slightly open but then imo Westminster jubilee doesn't have a footbridge going over its Peds.

The training I'd also assume that would go with what to do if one or multiple doors fail to open or close or gather interlock would require some station staff on call or the drivers to be trained on operating a driver side panel in the event of failure to close and achieve interlock assuming thet fixes it.

If not you'd have a train going nowhere without some sort of interlock override that would most definitely required trained platform staff or a driver with station/control also trained to authorise and assess said situation.

Assuming the driver is doing these operations I'd assume that adds to DOO by quite a bit.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The reason to retrofit PEDs to any railway is to improve platform-train interface safety, surely? They (or partial fences) would be of great benefit at most busy stations, though obviously they're only possible where only one class of train is ever used.

I was under the impression from previous threads that the main benefit was actually to improve single core tunnel aerodynamics and therefore fuel efficiency of the trains - which is basically irrelevant to Thameslink (St Pancras is in a tunnel but I'm not sure to what extent the aerodynamic benefits still apply to twin track tunnels? Having said that, maybe an extra benefit is that decent platform door design could also cut down the high platform noise levels there?)

 

[NSEWonderer]

The main benefits for example with Jubliee and the Elizabeth were claimed to be Fire protection, Increased Train Performance, Platform interface safety and wind blast protection. With thameslink at the most you'll only really get PTI safety(to a degree imo as Farringdon is iffy) and increased Train Performance.

 

[Bald Rick]

The training I'd also assume that would go with what to do if one or multiple doors fail to open or close or gather interlock would require some station staff on call or the drivers to be trained on operating a driver side panel in the event of failure to close and achieve interlock assuming thet fixes it.

If not you'd have a train going nowhere without some sort of interlock override that would most definitely required trained platform staff or a driver with station/control also trained to authorise and assess said situation.

There’s plenty of metro systems worldwide with Platform screen doors that have no staff on the platforms or on the train, and they seem to manage just fine.

However, as stated above, there’s lots of other reasons why it’s not straightforward to have them on the TL core.

 

[NSEWonderer]

There’s plenty of metro systems worldwide with Platform screen doors that have no staff on the platforms or on the train, and they seem to manage just fine.

However, as stated above, there’s lots of other reasons why it’s not straightforward to have them on the TL core.

Yeh however those have mainly been mainstay with their systems where as you'd have to start implementing and changing a lot of documentation etc to facilitate the safe operation of these new equipment.

UK more so than most love our Paper work

 

[dastocks]

Apart from all the reasons already stated I would have thought the biggest problem would be that the entire route through the core would have to be closed while the equipment was fitted, tested and commissioned. It would have been a total closure for an extended period; not just evenings and weekends.

 

[Bald Rick]

Apart from all the reasons already stated I would have thought the biggest problem would be that the entire route through the core would have to be closed while the equipment was fitted, tested and commissioned. It would have been a total closure for an extended period; not just evenings and weekends.

it was closed a lot during the Thameslink Programme works. It would have been fitted around that.

Besides, fitting screen doors isn’t that disruptive. I’ve seen it done in Paris & Barcelona overnight / weekends.

 

[stuu]

How would you go about fitting peds to Farringdon where it's got the overhead bridge etc and would essentially require some sort of low roof to secure the top half of the peds to. Plus would also end up requiring the rigid structure ole design like at St Pancras than the cantilever of current.

They don't have to be fixed at the top - there are plenty of systems which use half-height doors, which would give the same safety benefit.

I can't see it happening though, but there are older lines with curved platforms which have been retrofitted elsewhere

 

[MarkyT]

They don't have to be fixed at the top - there are plenty of systems which use half-height doors, which would give the same safety benefit.

The half-height fencing and gates seem to be particularly popular in Japan. They're also not always at the platform edge, with an area between them and the edge that is observed to be clear as part of the dispatch process, so they can cope with varying train door spacing.

 

[zwk500]

The half-height fencing and gates seem to be particularly popular in Japan. They're also not always at the platform edge, with an area between them and the edge that is observed to be clear as part of the dispatch process, so they can cope with varying train door spacing.

I wonder how London commuters would react if we also borrowed the Japanese practice of hiring staff to push people further into the carriages. Of course, being today's Britain, they'd be agency bouncers and so perhaps slightly more forceful than one might initially presume would be the case.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I notice the OP has not been back to explain why it’s a disappointment why platform edge doors were not fitted!

 

[MarkyT]

I wonder how London commuters would react if we also borrowed the Japanese practice of hiring staff to push people further into the carriages. Of course, being today's Britain, they'd be agency bouncers and so perhaps slightly more forceful than one might initially presume would be the case.

3+2 searing, where provided, doesn't exactly encourage standing customers to move themselves further into the saloon, so promotes the tight throng around the door lobbies that can adversely affect loading time.The gangway is often so narrow with British width rolling stock there physically isn't capacity for more than a single line of people through the carriage anyway, so however forceful such white gloved platform pushers were, they'd often be facing an uphill battle. Thankfully, as medium to high density units, TL cl. 700s don't have that seating arrangement.

 

[Speed43125]

Presumably it could be, although it'll be yet more complications and potential points of failure.
Does anybody know of any PEDs worldwide that operate multiple lengths in normal operation?

Line 2 of the Shanghai Metro formerly switched from 8 car trains to 4 car trains at GuangLan Road station, which shorter trains for service further east of the city. However, some 8 car trains continued one stop further out and reserved at the next station from ~2016. The operation was rather confusing with some of the platforms at GuangLan Road dispatching trains in opposite directions at different times. No idea how this worked for PEDs on a technical level, but it certainly happened for a good few years until all trains were extended to 8 car operation in 2019.
Wiki has a brief mention of this here, but I'll try and find a more detail source somewhere else.