其實九鐵車頭同車尾應吾應該加緊急出口?

其實九鐵車頭同車尾應吾應該加緊急出口?, 好似地鐵敢

因為而家d車好高, 好似琴日,有個有肚婆要jump落路軌,
其實幾危險.而且這樣一個個jump落去,比較浪費時間.

而地鐵果款就安全好多,而且走也走得快d

原帖由 cruisesnet 於 2007-2-15 09:35 發表
其實九鐵車頭同車尾應吾應該加緊急出口?, 好似地鐵敢

因為而家d車好高, 好似琴日,有個有肚婆要jump落路軌,
其實幾危險.而且這樣一個個jump落去,比較浪費時間.

而地鐵果款就安全好多,而且走也走得快d

西鐵隧道旁邊唔係有逃生月台咩?

原帖由 cruisesnet 於 2007-2-15 09:35 發表
其實九鐵車頭同車尾應吾應該加緊急出口?, 好似地鐵敢

因為而家d車好高, 好似琴日,有個有肚婆要jump落路軌,
其實幾危險.而且這樣一個個jump落去,比較浪費時間.

而地鐵果款就安全好多,而且走也走得快d

唔駛跳落去,側面有逃生通道係係同列車地台差唔多高

睇下呢幅圖
http://appledaily.atnext.com/ima ... large/15la1p101.jpg

西鐵同地鐵列車車頭好唔同,應該整唔倒
亦都唔覺得會快d,仲有西鐵路軌中間有條線可能會影響逃生

[ 本帖最後由 tse0856 於 2007-2-15 16:34 編輯 ]

原帖由 hksubways 於 2007-2-15 17:13 發表
MTR's design may even be more dangerous than  KCR's design
because the primary reason for using detrainment ramps is to allow smaller diameter tunnels to be designed, a cost-saving measure.

...

At present, firemen tackle fires in highrise buildings (i.e. ones too high for their ladders to reach) inside the building already.

Furthermore, unless the fire is exceptionally severe,
the train would be a safer place to be.
And in the case of most fires,
the same procedure used at Admiralty several years ago can be used;
which is even more effecient than evacuatioin by operation doors.

I do have concerns over the control of passengers in event of a operation door evacuation.
If doors at either ends are used, it is just one single queue through the entire train and it is obvious which way to run;
but in the case of a operation doors evaucation... look at TST during hte morning peak!!!

原帖由 tse0856 於 2007-2-15 16:27 發表

唔駛跳落去,側面有逃生通道係係同列車地台差唔多高

睇下呢幅圖
http://appledaily.atnext.com/ima ... large/15la1p101.jpg

西鐵同地鐵列車車頭好唔同,應該整唔倒
亦都唔覺得會快d,仲有西鐵路軌中間有條線可能會影響逃生 ...

因為地鐵隧道o既直徑比九鐵o既細,
所以地鐵隧道冇逃生通道月台

我記得地鐵東涌線/機場快線「香港站—奧運站」一段的隧道，兩側都有逃生通道；不過僅得一人通過。

原帖由 tse0856 於 2007-2-15 16:27 發表

唔駛跳落去,側面有逃生通道係係同列車地台差唔多高

睇下呢幅圖
http://appledaily.atnext.com/ima ... large/15la1p101.jpg

西鐵同地鐵列車車頭好唔同,應該整唔倒
亦都唔 ...

但睇返消防員隻腳，逃生月台0既高度係比列
車地台0既高度差成兩三級樓梯高度。