News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 13K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.3K     0 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
1,752
Fleet switching would be impossible without a huge renovation since there isn't a standardization of door location or vehicle length with low floor vehicles. Sure they can ask for customization but articulation points and bogie locations would interfere with door location. On high floor vehicles, these aren't issues so the can design a new vehicle to match the door location of an existing fleet. They would be stuck with Flexity's for life if they put in PSDs.

Nope it wasn't designed to have them because they make no sense on a low floor light rail line.
Well, it can help with crowded platforms. Trains don't charge in cause they fear someone could have slip when they are pack to the platform edge. Track fire is not an issue with overhead rails.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
544
Reaction score
1,032
Huh? How is their a reduction in cost to a sation by putting in platform edge doors? The crosstown wasn't designed for them because of the vechles selected for it would have no benefit from them.

The Spadina extension was designed for them to be added with no additional supporting elements for the station above. They were removed from the plans because of cost overruns due to the change in componies installing the ATC signal systems.

I also stated that the London underground has only one small section of a line that has them, hasn't added more or even put them on the newest sations. Platform edge doors do nothing.
Which no subway systems actually have except for the staff. Adding it is a waste of money.
Nope it wasn't designed to have them because they make no sense on a low floor light rail line.
Still can't see the downsides of reducing the risk of people falling onto tracks, faster boarding times, more comfortable stations, and faster train speeds.

If it's not in Toronto, we can't have it. That would be blasphemy against the all-knowing Toronto Transit gods! /s
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,014
Reaction score
10,859
City:
Toronto
Nope it wasn't designed to have them because they make no sense on a low floor light rail line.
Wrong. The light rail vehicles are designed to use ATC in the underground section, with platform doors. Low floors have nothing to do with with. All the doors will be level with the platforms. It's the non-transit using powers-that-be (AKA accountants) that said "no".
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
2,886
City:
Toronto
They wern't part of the plan. Personally, I think the benefit of them is highly debatable and it seems to be something that some places embrace more than others for example in London only one section of a line has them and then even just opened a new section of aline and didn't use them on it. I think what we need to do is instead of just shifting the problem of people committing suicide by building barriers to it instead we should address it by trying to help more people who are mentally not well and need help.

The Nine Elms extension on the Northern Line has provision for them should they be installed in the future.

Both Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station Station have them provision for them but funding was an issue.

In London, jumpers aren't as prevalent as they are in Toronto. There isn't as much need to install them there.

Some tube stations like Kensal Green, Amersham, Uxbridge or Mill Hill East have such low usage that there is no need for platform doors. Also, with the exception of Central London alot of the stations are actually above ground.

In Toronto however, I can foresee a homeless person destroying or damaging the doors. This would in turn, cause stations to be bypassed until the doors could be repaired or replaced.
 

valvenis

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
49
Reaction score
9
The Nine Elms extension on the Northern Line has provision for them should they be installed in the future.

Both Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station Station have them provision for them but funding was an issue.

In London, jumpers aren't as prevalent as they are in Toronto. There isn't as much need to install them there.

Some tube stations like Kensal Green, Amersham, Uxbridge or Mill Hill East have such low usage that there is no need for platform doors. Also, with the exception of Central London alot of the stations are actually above ground.

In Toronto however, I can foresee a homeless person destroying or damaging the doors. This would in turn, cause stations to be bypassed until the doors could be repaired or replaced.
Toronto already has platform edge doors on the Union Pearson Express for a few stations. They are at Union Station even though there's not a "need" to have platform edge doors there based on what happens on every other platform.

Oh - there's really no reason to use a homeless person as an example when imagining someone destroying or damaging the doors. Homelessness is not a uniquely Toronto problem and causing damage to transit resources and property (forcing open subway doors for example) is rare and not limited to a particular demographic.

Having platform edge doors on something other than the UPX could be helpful for changing the mindset of what's possible in Toronto.
 

EastYorkTTCFan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
1,233
City:
Toronto
Wrong. The light rail vehicles are designed to use ATC in the underground section, with platform doors. Low floors have nothing to do with with. All the doors will be level with the platforms. It's the non-transit using powers-that-be (AKA accountants) that said "no".
Having ATC doesn't mean that they have to have platform edge doors too. Someone pointed out that because of the type of vehicle having them doesn't make sense it would be like putting them in at Spadina, St clair West , Queen's Quay or Union station Streetcar loops. The track is not far from the platform level and there is no third rail for anyone to make contact with.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,014
Reaction score
10,859
City:
Toronto
The Nine Elms extension on the Northern Line has provision for them should they be installed in the future.

Both Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station Station have them provision for them but funding was an issue.

In London, jumpers aren't as prevalent as they are in Toronto. There isn't as much need to install them there.

Some tube stations like Kensal Green, Amersham, Uxbridge or Mill Hill East have such low usage that there is no need for platform doors. Also, with the exception of Central London alot of the stations are actually above ground.

In Toronto however, I can foresee a homeless person destroying or damaging the doors. This would in turn, cause stations to be bypassed until the doors could be repaired or replaced.
Damaging one set of doors does not mean the entire platform will go out of service. There would be other doors available, and the train and central control would be notified to add a few seconds to get passengers to use the other doors, and send repair crews.
 

sche

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
230
Reaction score
667
I get the argument I'm just pointing out that a lot of places have built new lines or added to existing ones and they weren't used for various reasons.

I think a lot of people think that they are useful and that they should be added to every new project but it doesn't really make sense to me to add it to only a few places and not others like for example when the extrusion of line 2 is built I don't expect them to add them unless they actually plan to put them on the rest of the line.
I did specifically mention that PSDs usually don't make sense on extensions, for several reasons. Usually if an existing line gets PSDs, the entire line gets them, not any extension.
New lines are very clearly moving towards using platform screen doors however - Paris line 14/Grand Paris Express, Vienna U5, Bacelona Line 9/10, REM, Crossrail, Sydney Metro, Copenhagen Metro, Singapore, pretty much everything built in China, Korea, and Japan (which is like, probably over 100 lines), etc. It's hard to find a recently built new metro line that doesn't use platform screen doors.

Also I think that a lot of people have ideas of fantasy about them like thinking that having them will mean that the station is going to have HVAC systems installed in them.
Right, so what's being built in Montreal right now, and what already exists on UPX and Pearson's people mover, is all "fantasy". Got it.

Nope it wasn't designed to have them because they make no sense on a low floor light rail line.
What exactly about low floor light rail trains makes PSDs not viable? Especially when they're used on a line that is functionally a light metro line for much of its length?
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
2,886
City:
Toronto
Damaging one set of doors does not mean the entire platform will go out of service. There would be other doors available, and the train and central control would be notified to add a few seconds to get passengers to use the other doors, and send repair crews.

True but it would be a pain in the ass.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
2,856
Huh? How is their a reduction in cost to a sation by putting in platform edge doors?

If you have doors you can put platform edge vertical supports in place to hold up the ceiling. This significantly reduces the span horizontal beams require; long horizontal beams holding heavy loads are expensive and that cost increase isn't linear with length.

There is no cost savings by retrofitting in platform edge doors. The savings is from being able to add additional vertical supports without impacting passenger flow or safety during initial station design.


The Spadina extension was designed for them to be added with no additional supporting elements for the station above.

Yes, the second round of station design was done this way.

The first round of station design included vertical supports at platform edges supporting the mezzanine level and roof above that. When it became clear ATC was not guaranteed to be completed, platform doors were removed, and in turn the vertical supports needed to be removed as well. Station costs increased by about 10% due to this change (part of that cost was redesign, the other part was an increase in materials costs).
 
Last edited:

PL1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
158
Reaction score
34
Having ATC doesn't mean that they have to have platform edge doors too. Someone pointed out that because of the type of vehicle having them doesn't make sense it would be like putting them in at Spadina, St clair West , Queen's Quay or Union station Streetcar loops. The track is not far from the platform level and there is no third rail for anyone to make contact with.
From what I've seen, people don't die or get hurt by touching the third rail. It's the damage wheels and the mass of the train do.
 

kotsy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
2,474
Reaction score
6,987
Still haven't seen any negatives of PSDs, @EastYorkTTCFan ...

Probably wouldn't be considered a worthwhile negative, but the rail fan in my loves the sight/sound & whoosh of air when a train flies into a station at top speed and comes to a stop in a matter of seconds.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
24,547
Reaction score
5,036
City:
Toronto
Happens already on the heavy rail subway cars, where a set of doors are not working. They put up a blockage across the door, but keep the train running.
That's for all stations though. Can they program the system so that a door doesn't open at just one station? Or do they just close that door on all trains?
 

Top