[hlandau]

Author here.

Can you elaborate? I don't see anything to support this claim from the link you provide.

You are correct that the completion of the phase-out of slam-door rolling stock in the UK will relate to modern safety (and accessibility) regulations, amongst other factors. But that is different to what motivated the initial introduction of remotely controlled doors, which as that article states, dates back to the London Underground in the 1920s.

While it might be the case that centrally controlled doors are mostly more safe (with some exceptions), that mere fact doesn't imply that it is the primary motivating factor behind the historical adoption trend. So it's an interesting claim, but unless I'm missing something in the link I don't see it as supporting this claim?

[haswell]

> "These newer units are safer as the doors have central locking ... In the past, the doors on slam-door trains could be opened at any time, even while the train was moving."

> "Due to a number of high-profile accidents in the 1990s, the manually-locked slam doors were supplemented with electronic, driver- or guard-operated central locking before they were gradually phased out in favour of sliding doors through the 2000s, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of deaths per year from passengers falling from trains"

> "Some units had individual compartments, each with its own door and no access to any other part of the train; however, these were unpopular due to security concerns and the lack of access to toilets ... The phase out was speeded up after the Murder of Deborah Linsley in such an individual compartment in 1988."

The Asbestos in many of these slam-door trains is less relevant to the central point, but was also a factor in the transition.

[hlandau]

The first quote is simply a statement that central locking is safer. I don't think that's really disputed, but it's not the same as saying that it was the defining motivation, especially in the 1920s.

The second quote relates to the greater adoption in the 1990s. But this is far after the initial adoption by the London Underground in the 1920s, and presumably these safety issues during the period 1920-1990 weren't so great as to be a showstopper, even if a safer design is preferable. This suggests to me that there was some other, much stronger motivating factor behind the development of the technology in the 1920s on the London Underground, with safety being a trailing motivator.

The third relates to a design issue entirely orthogonal to the design of the doors.