Estimating the flow rate capacity of an overturned rail carriage end exit in the presence of smoke

While incidents requiring the rapid egress of passengers from trains are infrequent, perhaps the most challenging scenario for passengers involves the evacuation from an overturned carriage subjected to fire. In this paper we attempt to estimate the flow rate capacity of an overturned rail carriage end exit. This was achieved through two full-scale evacuation experiments, in one of which the participants were subjected to non-toxic smoke. The experiments were conducted as part of a pilot study into evacuation from rail carriages. In reviewing the experimental results, it should be noted that only a single run of each trial was undertaken with a limited — though varied — population. As a result it is not possible to test the statistical significance of the evacuation times quoted and so the results should be treated as indicative rather than definitive. The carriage used in the experiments was a standard class Mark IID which, while an old carriage design, shares many features with those carriages commonly found on the British rail network. In the evacuation involving smoke, the carriage end exit was found to achieve an average flow rate capacity of approximately 5.0 persons/min. The average flow rate capacity of the exit without smoke was found to be approximately 9.2 persons/min. It was noted that the presence of smoke tended to reduce significantly the exit flow rate. Due to the nature of the experimental conditions, these flow rates are considered optimistic. Finally, the authors make several recommendations for improving survivability in rail accidents. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Oral agreements: estoppel, constructive trusts and restitution

Analyses the House of Lords judgment in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd in relation to claims by the prospective purchaser under an oral agreement for sale of a block of flats based on proprietary estoppel, a constructive trust and common law restitution brought against the owner of the property who sought to resile from the agreement after the purchaser had, at considerable expense, obtained planning permission to redevelop the property in reliance on assurances given by the owner that if permission was granted the sale would be honoured.