4 ms·

Yes, I've always thought it was completely ridiculous. What's the 'justification' for it ?

• lmm 10y ago
  Guess: when originally built those carriages didn't have door locking. It was felt it would be unsafe to have a handle on the inside that could be accidentally opened while the train was moving at high speed. So the handle is on the outside so that it takes a very deliberate effort to open the door (and hopefully people know better than to reach out of a window at high speed).
  • pmontra 10y ago
    Another guess: a handle on the outside costs less than one on both sides and there is a window to access the outside handle. Or: passengers were not supposed to operate those doors, there was railway personnel for that (this assumes very old trains) Check: there is something about that issue here https://lukehalliwell.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/horrible-doors-on-british-trains/ https://lukehalliwell.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/horrible-door... "they firstly removed the interior door handles as a dirt-cheap “safety” measure to discourage people from getting out of the train before it stopped, then realised that they hadn’t actually discouraged everyone and had instead made jumping early even more dangerous, so they added a central locking system to keep the doors locked until the train stopped. Of course, in a quintessential piece of British train-related incompetence, they didn’t bother to put the handles back on once they had central locking."
    • pyb 10y ago
      We are talking about recent carriages here (10-20 years old)
      • pmyteh 10y ago
        They're quite a bit older than this, assuming you're thinking of the British examples. The last Mark 3 coach was made in 1988, and the Mark 4s have sliding plug power doors. It was still an odd design decision, though. There had been electric doors on BR multiple units since the 70s.
        • lmm 10y ago
          The Mark 3 coaches were made for the High Speed Train, right? So the safety (or "safety") requirements were probably higher than for previous coaches.
          • pmyteh 10y ago
            Yes; derivative Mark 3A/B loco hauled stock was later also built for the West Coast Main Line (plus a bunch of sleepers). I don't know whether the crash standards for 125mph running were higher at the time. The Mark 3s are generally very strong, and have held up to high-speed crashes better than their predecessors, so something was definitely done right. They weren't fitted with central door locking until the early 90s, though, and even now it's not interlocked with either the train power or an 'actually closed' sensor - so it relies on the guard to make sure the train doesn't set off with a door open.
        • pyb 10y ago
          Yes it looks like I was thinking of those trains, they don't look this old. They run on the Reading-Paddington line. Anyway, there's no excuse whatsoever for this design, however old they are! After 3 years, I am still not quite confident opening those doors. I try to let another passenger do it for me.
  • pmyteh 10y ago
    This. These trains were originally not fitted with central locking, and being able to (accidentally?) open the door at 125mph is obviously unsafe. There have been a few converted to more conventional power doors, but the original design is not such that this is easy; it's a pretty major rebuild and it's not clear they're going to be in service long enough to make it worthwhile.