Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluGill | Hacker News Reader

The argument is bogus: either way they should be installing doors in each station preventing track access. This is basic safety: keep people off the tracks so they can't be hit by a train. This is also air quality: keep brake dust out of the air in the station.

Maybe you decide automation isn't worth it, but you still want the doors, even if it means hiring someone to open them.

The above was also stated by one of the comments, but it is worth bringing up.

View on HN

Hmmm. London Underground carries about 1.5 billion people reach year. In the last year for data I can find, around 80 ended up on the tracks. Only a few stations have any pbarrier between track and platform.

All/most of the new stations on the Elizabeth line are going to have barriers afaik. It seems to me like all the new/refitted underground stations are getting the barriers these days too - I think it's a great improvement personally.

Alternatively they cost a lot and reduce flexibility (want to change your train fleet / door configuration?)

London has extremely cramped, extremely crowded stations. Platform screen doors become necessary as a way to ensure safety of _crowds_ not individuals. In most metro stations around the world, this is not true.

How about making a study, counting all metro stations noting whether they have platform screen doors, automation, and the year built. You'll very likely see there's a strong connection between automation and platform screen doors, but less so for the other variables.

Most of the stations on the older bits of the London Underground have curved platforms which means each place would need custom doors (+ some larger gaps between train and doors).

Newer lines, like the new section of the Jubilee line have straight track and doors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com