Re: DOO In Sydney?

[billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org (Bill Bolton)]

craigd@lios.apana.org.au (C. Dewick) wrote:


> And what happens when the display switches to camera 2 and someone
> approaches the train in view of only camera 1 between the time the display
> went off camera 1 and the driver shuts the doors, and starts the train
> moving?

What happens when the same thing happens when the guard is looking at
the "other" 4 cars?

Off hand, a simple approach would seem to be to do a quick flick
(quicker than 2 seconds) across all cameras after the close button is
pushed but before any door action is actually performed to allow a
cancel.  This would seem to adequately simulate the sort of two-way
quick head flick the guards now mostly do before pushing the button.

> There's a lot of potential for accidents there, and a sequenced
> video feed system doesn't really improve this problem at all over the way it
> is now with one guard having to look both directions along a train.

Yeah, that's pretty much my point too.

> With a camera this would be even less, since the driver's field of view of a
> video monitor is only a small portion of his total field of view (unless the
> driver moves closer to the display, which causes other problems because of
> the limited resolving ability of a pixelised display screen), whereas for
> the guard on the spot (or a driver standing at the door on a 4 car set doing
> the same thing as a guard) this 'display' takes up the entire field of view.

I'm not sure what you are implying here?  There are numerous video
monitoring systems in use commercial in many non-rail applications and
they seem to provide quite adequate resolution and visibility to cover
similar sort of "safety" concerns to that applying to train doors.

Again, I'm not particularly in favour of DOO, but I just can't see
that there are any serious or unsurmountable technical issues in
providing adequate driver visibility for door closing purposes.

Cheers,

Bill