Could we raise all of our platforms across the railway network to enable level boarding.

[stadler]

Would it be possible to raise all of the platforms throughout the UK to enable level boarding at all stations? If so why is this not being done instead of ordering low floor trains like the Stadler Flirt etc?

This has been done at the East London Line core and Elizabeth Line core and Heathrow Airport stations and Thameslink core. So it is clearly possible and i see no reason why more stations could not have this done.

The one thing that has made British trains so much better than Mainland European trains is our level floor throughout which is made possible by our high floor trains sitting entirely above the bogies. This gives the train a much nicer feel and much better accessibility inside the train everything is on one level with no steps or ramps. On our new Stadler Flirt trains they have a weird layout with ramps going up and down at the ends of the coaches and seating on different levels at the ends with some seats having a step up to them. So it would seem a shame to eventually end up with all trains being like this.

Surely it would be far better and cheaper and simpler to just simple raise all of our platforms rather than ordering new trains or waiting until we need to order new trains. If we are going to wait until low floor trains are ordered than it will be at least fourty or fifty years until the whole network is level boarding.

So i am interested in others thoughts on this? Would it be a possibility to simply begin a programme of raising all of the platforms in the UK to enable level boarding with our traditional high floor trains?

 

[30907]

AFAIK Flirts are not "low floor" in the mainland European sense - they are deigned to match standard UK platform heights.

That said, the main problem is other trains, not least freight, and ancillary platform equipment such as lifts. See the discussion here about Ealing Broadway.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...form-gaps-bbc-news.267038/page-2#post-6754850
The decision to have extra-high platforms for HEX impacted the EL core.

Thameslink has a different solution - effectively double "humps" - which works as long as all units are compatible, and could be expanded to other TL stations that have no freight traffic or non-stopping trains.

 

[Sorcerer]

Raising the platforms would be a bit of a nightmare at stations like Berkhamsted and Wolverton where you have 125ph Pendolinos passing by in full tilt mode. I remember reading somewhere that in order to have full level boarding and matching platform heights would require cutting some of them back which partly negates the benefits of level boarding in the first place, not even considering some trains have onboard steps such as the 377 and 390. I have wondered about this sort of thing myself but I think the more practical solution is to make it law that all trains must now be built with level boarding even if it means a few slopes and steps at the end of the coaches where the bogies sit. It might be a bit jarring but it improves accessibility and can reduce dwell times compared to the time and headache of raising platforms.

 

[etr221]

Level boarding requires either building trains to fit the platforms, or platforms to fit the trains.

There is a long standing standard (set over a century ago) for platform heights (915mm IIRC) - the fact that it hasn't been met is a testament to the magnitude of the task of adjusting platform heights.

Merseyrail took the line that their new trains would match the platform standard (and that adjusting those non-standard platforms (which I think were not that far off) a price worth paying). The new Anglian Stadler trains also (I understand) match the platform standard.

But the new bits of the Elizabeth line took the other approach - of higher platforms to match the trains...

An interesting discussion is at Much Ado about Level Boarding: TfL & UK Urban Rail (Part 1)

 

[SynthD]

This has been done at the East London Line core and Elizabeth Line core and Heathrow Airport stations and Thameslink core.

ELL core isn’t NR owned, TfL say only our services can go here. EL core has restrictions on what trains can use it, and minor restrictions on what services. The Heathrow branch is owned by the airport. Thameslink core, like all of them, doesn’t have any freight or intention of being open for other trains, through services, fast running through platforms.

Ramps put in place by platform or train staff are the best solution we have so far. If there aren’t enough staff for that to satisfy people with wheelchairs, then there have been various proposals on the forums.

 

[Snow1964]

Probably a better question is if we decided decades ago that 915mm (3 feet) was the platform height, why have we been building trains with floors at a different height.

I realise that couplers of individual hauled coaches, and end gangways of multiple units have to accommodate the high couplers, but no logical reason why the floor height within sets is not at 915mm, or is at 915mm in majority of cars (where doors are) but slopes up at outer ends.

 

[JamesT]

Probably a better question is if we decided decades ago that 915mm (3 feet) was the platform height, why have we been building trains with floors at a different height.

I realise that couplers of individual hauled coaches, and end gangways of multiple units have to accommodate the high couplers, but no logical reason why the floor height within sets is not at 915mm, or is at 915mm in majority of cars (where doors are) but slopes up at outer ends.

Because there’s lots of equipment that currently goes under the floor? If you’re reducing that space, where does it go instead? It’s noticeable that on the Class 80x, the level of the floor in the saloon has to be higher than that at the ends in order to fit the engines in.

 

[hux385]

Because there’s lots of equipment that currently goes under the floor? If you’re reducing that space, where does it go instead? It’s noticeable that on the Class 80x, the level of the floor in the saloon has to be higher than that at the ends in order to fit the engines in.

In the 80x, each of the end carriages is slightly lower and has a wider door. A ramp is still required for step-free access, but the ramp is much less steep and can accommodate most wheelchairs and mobility scooters. It's a shame that these carriages aren't just a tinyyy bit lower down, because then we would have level boarding.

A lot of modern EMUs (and Turbostars too, actually) are already relatively low floor, the ramps used are not dangerously steep. The same can't be said for HST carriages which are a complete accessibility nightmare.

I think the most practical solution would be a requirement for all new trains to have at least 1 (clearly marked) carriage which offers completely level boarding. This would allow other coaches to have equipment underneath but would also go a long way to allow independent travel for those with mobility requirements. It's just a shame that the most recent batch of EMUs (excepting Stadler) weren't designed in this way, and it's probably going to be at least 30 years until these now get replaced. It's hard to see the situation changing anytime soon unfortunately

 

[SynthD]

I think the most practical solution would be a requirement for all new trains to have at least 1 (clearly marked) carriage which offers completely level boarding.

It’s difficult to manage a fleet and day of services when you want one unpowered carriage (from a loco hauled set) attached to a DMU set. How would the end doors connect?

 

[stevieinselby]

Would it be possible to raise all of the platforms throughout the UK to enable level boarding at all stations? If so why is this not being done instead of ordering low floor trains like the Stadler Flirt etc?

This has been done at the East London Line core and Elizabeth Line core and Heathrow Airport stations and Thameslink core. So it is clearly possible and i see no reason why more stations could not have this done.

The one thing that has made British trains so much better than Mainland European trains is our level floor throughout which is made possible by our high floor trains sitting entirely above the bogies. This gives the train a much nicer feel and much better accessibility inside the train everything is on one level with no steps or ramps. On our new Stadler Flirt trains they have a weird layout with ramps going up and down at the ends of the coaches and seating on different levels at the ends with some seats having a step up to them. So it would seem a shame to eventually end up with all trains being like this.

Surely it would be far better and cheaper and simpler to just simple raise all of our platforms rather than ordering new trains or waiting until we need to order new trains. If we are going to wait until low floor trains are ordered than it will be at least fourty or fifty years until the whole network is level boarding.

Raising platforms would be vastly more expensive and would take vastly longer than just buying the right trains to fit the platforms we have now.
Deliberately building core Crossrail platforms to a non-standard height was a catastrophically bad decision for accessibility, as it is now impossible for trains built to the right level to use them.
Raising platforms up to the current door level on all trains except Stadlers would cause gauging problems, especially where tracks are used by trains passing at speed, so you would need to compensate with a wider gap between the train and platform edge.

 

[edwin_m]

Raising platforms would be vastly more expensive and would take vastly longer than just buying the right trains to fit the platforms we have now.
Deliberately building core Crossrail platforms to a non-standard height was a catastrophically bad decision for accessibility, as it is now impossible for trains built to the right level to use them.
Raising platforms up to the current door level on all trains except Stadlers would cause gauging problems, especially where tracks are used by trains passing at speed, so you would need to compensate with a wider gap between the train and platform edge.

This problem started with Heathrow Express. As Crossrail had to use the same platforms at Heathrow, they were pretty much forced to go with an 1100mm floor height and build their platforms to suit that where possible.

 

[JamesT]

In the 80x, each of the end carriages is slightly lower and has a wider door. A ramp is still required for step-free access, but the ramp is much less steep and can accommodate most wheelchairs and mobility scooters. It's a shame that these carriages aren't just a tinyyy bit lower down, because then we would have level boarding.

A lot of modern EMUs (and Turbostars too, actually) are already relatively low floor, the ramps used are not dangerously steep. The same can't be said for HST carriages which are a complete accessibility nightmare.

I think the most practical solution would be a requirement for all new trains to have at least 1 (clearly marked) carriage which offers completely level boarding. This would allow other coaches to have equipment underneath but would also go a long way to allow independent travel for those with mobility requirements. It's just a shame that the most recent batch of EMUs (excepting Stadler) weren't designed in this way, and it's probably going to be at least 30 years until these now get replaced. It's hard to see the situation changing anytime soon unfortunately

The floor height in the vestibules and the end carriages will be around 1100mm in the 80x like most UK rolling stock. So it's more than a little bit lower, somewhere in the region of 15-20cm to be level with a normal UK platform. However it would be extremely difficult to provide level entrances on end-doored stock like the 80x, because you're above the bogies. The Stadler stock has its doors in the middle of the carriage, then has to ramp up at the ends to get over the bogies.

It’s difficult to manage a fleet and day of services when you want one unpowered carriage (from a loco hauled set) attached to a DMU set. How would the end doors connect?

I wasn't reading it as a loco-carriage, but that when designing a new train you organise the kit so one of the carriages doesn't have bulky equipment needing a high floor. Which is plausible, there have been classes of DMUs that included trailer cars and many classes of EMU have motors in only some carriages. So it would just be part of the set and have doors to the rest like any other.

The issue if there's only one carriage with the disabled accommodation like that is making sure it's always platformed and doesn't end up blocked.

 

[MarkyT]

This problem started with Heathrow Express. As Crossrail had to use the same platforms at Heathrow, they were pretty much forced to go with an 1100mm floor height and build their platforms to suit that where possible.

If the Crossrail project had known early on that HEX rolling stock was to be replaced then they could have modified that fairly small number of platforms to 3ft, built the core to the same standard, and both operators could have bought trains to match. Then there could have been an ongoing programme to fix any substandard platforms on the surface sections either side of London. The HEX renewals were only finally triggered due to incompatibility with the new ETCS system in the airport tunnels, needed for EL to get to Heathrow. That happened late on when most EL trains were already delivered and the majority of the heavy civils works were completed in the tunnels. The HEX trains were also fairly knackered apparently, with bogie cracking that had on occasions taken the fleet out of use for checks and remedial work. In my view a series of very poor decisions.

 

[Trainbike46]

Would it be possible to raise all of the platforms throughout the UK to enable level boarding at all stations? If so why is this not being done instead of ordering low floor trains like the Stadler Flirt etc?

This has been done at the East London Line core and Elizabeth Line core and Heathrow Airport stations and Thameslink core. So it is clearly possible and i see no reason why more stations could not have this done.

The one thing that has made British trains so much better than Mainland European trains is our level floor throughout which is made possible by our high floor trains sitting entirely above the bogies. This gives the train a much nicer feel and much better accessibility inside the train everything is on one level with no steps or ramps. On our new Stadler Flirt trains they have a weird layout with ramps going up and down at the ends of the coaches and seating on different levels at the ends with some seats having a step up to them. So it would seem a shame to eventually end up with all trains being like this.

Surely it would be far better and cheaper and simpler to just simple raise all of our platforms rather than ordering new trains or waiting until we need to order new trains. If we are going to wait until low floor trains are ordered than it will be at least fourty or fifty years until the whole network is level boarding.

So i am interested in others thoughts on this? Would it be a possibility to simply begin a programme of raising all of the platforms in the UK to enable level boarding with our traditional high floor trains?

Simply put, you can't do that because a platform at 1100mm would foul the loading gauge, especially for higher speed trains and freight vehicles. Note how all the places you mention with higher platforms have no freight whatsoever.

The stadler solution is better - it also has the advantage that it doesn't reuqire rebuilding all the thousands of platforms that currently meet (or are close to) our standard platform design, which has been in place for a very long time.

All manufacturers should be capable of designing trains with at least one carriage offering level boarding. Make it an absolute requirement for all new stock orders, and everywhere will have level boarding within the next 40 years (which is a long time, but I don't believe for a second we'd even be close to raising all platforms on the network in that time.

 

[hux385]

The floor height in the vestibules and the end carriages will be around 1100mm in the 80x like most UK rolling stock. So it's more than a little bit lower, somewhere in the region of 15-20cm to be level with a normal UK platform. However it would be extremely difficult to provide level entrances on end-doored stock like the 80x, because you're above the bogies. The Stadler stock has its doors in the middle of the carriage, then has to ramp up at the ends to get over the bogies.

I wasn't reading it as a loco-carriage, but that when designing a new train you organise the kit so one of the carriages doesn't have bulky equipment needing a high floor. Which is plausible, there have been classes of DMUs that included trailer cars and many classes of EMU have motors in only some carriages. So it would just be part of the set and have doors to the rest like any other.

The issue if there's only one carriage with the disabled accommodation like that is making sure it's always platformed and doesn't end up blocked.

Ahhh that makes a lot of sense about the end doors.

So the solution would be to insert a centre-doored, low-floored coach in the middle of the set, such that it would never be hanging off the edge of the platform. Of course this would cause issues because it would lengthen trains which then may not fit in terminus stations!

I think the only feasible solution is to mandate this as a requirement for new rolling stock as stated above ^

 

[MarkyT]

On our new Stadler Flirt trains they have a weird layout with ramps going up and down at the ends of the coaches and seating on different levels at the ends with some seats having a step up to them. So it would seem a shame to eventually end up with all trains being like this.

The ramps are only over power bogies on UK FLIRTs, where the motors and gearboxes between the wheels form an additional obstacle. The regional ones have power bogies only at their extremities, under the cab and equipment compartments. In addition, the intercity ones have a back to back pair of power boges in the middle of the train. Elsewhere the gangway is level throughout the trailer cars and the inter-car connectors between them, though a few seats at the car ends are raised a little over wheelboxes that protrude into the saloons. On trailer cars the gangway passes between the wheelboxes, and thus the tops of the wheels within them.

Surely it would be far better and cheaper and simpler to just simple raise all of our platforms rather than ordering new trains or waiting until we need to order new trains. If we are going to wait until low floor trains are ordered than it will be at least fourty or fifty years until the whole network is level boarding.

Definitely not cheaper nor really any better than going for 3ft floor trains at fleet renewal, which must be cheaper and less disruptive overall on a whole system basis. A large majority of platforms are already 3ft or very close. Once these new bodyshells become standard there'll no longer be an early adopter premium. If you are building a brand new segregated railway like a Metro or the South African standard gauge Gautrain regional and airport express (using electrostars with pointy noses), then you can easily specifiy all platforms to be whatever height you like, but modifying every single rural platform in the UK is not practical. Moving gap filler steps can close any undesirable horizontal gaps. Adjusted for local platform heights, that is the solution being implemented all over Europe. However, for the lowest platforms (550mm), ramps or steps are sometimes required at all car ends because the floor height isn't sufficient to pass over the axles. The Talgo system, with individual wheels rather than conventional wheelsets linked by axles, can have a lower gangway between cars without ramps as there's no axle to climb over. They claim they could supply their new Avril HS train with continuous 550mm floor height throughout (except the end power cars, which passengers have no access to). With floor height now a customer variable, rather than a given for a particular product line, it can be seen that a 3ft floor or thereabouts should be comparatively easy to incorporate in the same concept as part of a redesign to British profile.

So the solution would be to insert a centre-doored, low-floored coach in the middle of the set, such that it would never be hanging off the edge of the platform. Of course this would cause issues because it would lengthen trains which then may not fit in terminus stations!

The new one might replace an existing carriage without affecting the overall length. I think some continental operators did this in the early days of low floor. I'm certain some tramways inserted a low-floor car or section. It doesn't make sense with new trains, now techniques for varying floor height exist. For full benefit, all doors need to be level boarding. As well as allowing unassisted wheelchair and other less abled access, LB helps others with wheeled items, reduces trip and fall accidents, quickens boarding, and prevents blockages from people lifting luggage or struggling on steps. The gap fillers can assist on curved platforms where on particularly tight radii the platform can't be any closer to the rail because of end or centre throw of passing vehicles. Level boarding is very operationally desirable and should contribute to reliability by eliminating many minor incidents and causes of delay.

 

[Trainbike46]

The new one might replace an existing carriage without affecting the overall length. I think some continental operators did this in the early days of low floor. I'm certain some tramways inserted a low-floor car or section. It doesn't make sense with new trains, now techniques for varying floor height exist. For full benefit, all doors need to be level boarding. As well as allowing unassisted wheelchair and other less abled access, LB helps others with wheeled items, reduces trip and fall accidents, quickens boarding, and prevents blockages from people lifting luggage or struggling on steps. The gap fillers can assist on curved platforms. Level boarding is very operationally desirable and should contribute to reliability by eliminating many minor incidents and causes of delay.

There are actually still some situation where having some, but not all, carriages be low floor:

- Trains that run into areas with different platform heights - It can make sense to have different low-floor/accessible areas for the different regions
- Double-decker trains in areas where platform height doesn't allow level boarding to the bottom floor. An example of this is the upcoming NS DDNG: the end carriages are single deck and offer level boarding, the middle carriages are double deck with the doors above the bogies (and therefore don't offer level boarding)

DOUBLE-DECKER REGIONAL TRAIN FOR NS

In 2022, CAF secured a deal with the Dutch state-owned operator Nederlandse Spoorwegen to supply DDNG (Double Deck Next Generation) dou...

www.caf.net

 

[MarkyT]

There are actually still some situation where having some, but not all, carriages be low floor:

- Trains that run into areas with different platform heights - It can make sense to have different low-floor/accessible areas for the different regions

SBB Girunos, supplied by Stadler can cope with 550mm & 760mm at different doors for their international role, eventually travelling beyond Switzerland and Italy (both 550mm) to Austria (nominally also 550) and Germany (760)

- Double-decker trains in areas where platform height doesn't allow level boarding to the bottom floor. An example of this is the upcoming NS DDNG: the end carriages are single deck and offer level boarding, the middle carriages are double deck with the doors above the bogies (and therefore don't offer level boarding)

DOUBLE-DECKER REGIONAL TRAIN FOR NS

In 2022, CAF secured a deal with the Dutch state-owned operator Nederlandse Spoorwegen to supply DDNG (Double Deck Next Generation) dou...

www.caf.net

Disappointing the door lobby areas on the DD cars at least can't be level boarding, even if steps are necessary inside. I wonder if smaller wheeled bogies might be an answer on these umpowered trailer cars or somehow wheelboxes might be incorporated I suspect most tripping incidents will be at these doors or on the steps inside. The single deck sections also seem to provide much space for technical equipment on the roof and the higher windows at the ends of the driving vehicle suggest power bogies at both ends of these cars. France's new bi-level TGV-M manages a 550mm door lobby area, but using steps or a rotating turntable lift is necessary to access the lower floor which is even closer to the rails, while steps alone provide access to the upper deck where a continuous level inter-car gangway links to the next vehicle. There's no gangway connection at the lower deck or door lobby levels. The doors are inboard of the articulated bogies at the extremities of those vehicles.

NS bestelt 60 'halve' dubbeldekkers

UTRECHT - De NS heeft maandag het contract getekend voor de aanschaf van 60 nieuwe, 'halve' dubbeldekkers bij de Spaanse treinfabrikant CAF. De treinen bestaan uit een combinatie van enkeldeks- en dubbeldeksrijtuigen om zowel een hoge capaciteit aan zitplaatsen als een gelijkvloerse instap te...

www.zakenreisnieuws.nl

NS ORDERS 60 'HALF' DOUBLE-DECKERS​

December 13, 2022 - 10:03 | By means of:
our editorial staff
UTRECHT - The NS signed the contract on Monday for the purchase of 60 new, 'half' double-deckers from the Spanish train manufacturer CAF. The trains consist of a combination of single-deck and double-deck carriages to offer both a high seating capacity and ground-level entry.

By ground-level I'm sure Google translate means level boarding from Dutch standard platforms!

 

[Trainbike46]

SBB Girunos, supplied by Stadler can cope with 550mm & 760mm at different doors for their international role, eventually travelling beyond Switzerland and Italy (both 550mm) to Austria (nominally also 550) and Germany (760)

Disappointing the door lobby areas on the DD cars at least can't be level boarding, even if steps are necessary inside. I wonder if smaller wheeled bogies might be an answer on these umpowered trailer cars or somehow wheelboxes might be incorporated I suspect most tripping incidents will be at these doors or on the steps inside. The single deck sections also seem to provide much space for technical equipment on the roof and the higher windows at the ends of the driving vehicle suggest power bogies at both ends of these cars. France's new bi-level TGV-M manages a 550mm door lobby area, but using steps or a rotating turntable lift is necessary to access the lower floor which is even closer to the rails, while steps alone provide access to the upper deck where a continuous level inter-car gangway links to the next vehicle. There's no gangway connection at the lower deck or door lobby levels. The doors are inboard of the articulated bogies at the extremities of those vehicles.

NS bestelt 60 'halve' dubbeldekkers

UTRECHT - De NS heeft maandag het contract getekend voor de aanschaf van 60 nieuwe, 'halve' dubbeldekkers bij de Spaanse treinfabrikant CAF. De treinen bestaan uit een combinatie van enkeldeks- en dubbeldeksrijtuigen om zowel een hoge capaciteit aan zitplaatsen als een gelijkvloerse instap te...

www.zakenreisnieuws.nl

By ground-level I'm sure Google translate means level boarding from Dutch standard platforms!

the word ground-level appears to be a translation of the Dutch word "gelijkvloerse", which just means level-boarding so matching the platform height

The Netherlands has platforms at 760 mm, and the double deck coaches have the doors directly above the bogies, so making that fit would be a challenge, especially for 100mph stock!

I'm assuming the french TGV-M found a way to have the doors not above the bogies? Large parts of the Netherlands also have weight restrictions, so that adds a further design challenge. I also think that France has a slightly larger/higher loading gauge than some of the lines in the Netherlands these will be using.

In any case, these will be replacing double deckers that don't offer level boarding anywhere so that is a significant improvement

 

[JamesT]

I'm assuming the french TGV-M found a way to have the doors not above the bogies? Large parts of the Netherlands also have weight restrictions, so that adds a further design challenge. I also think that France has a slightly larger/higher loading gauge than some of the lines in the Netherlands these will be using.

In any case, these will be replacing double deckers that don't offer level boarding anywhere so that is a significant improvement

The photos on https://railcolornews.com/2024/04/3...m-sncf-present-the-standard-livery-for-tgv-m/ appear to show the doors in red aren’t over the bogies.

 

[BrianW]

1. A (Coordinated and funded) Plan might make achievement of level boarding more likely; the determination of a standard, which was not applied (enforced?), was ineffective, and has continued (arguably increased) barriers to travel for less able people.

2. The provision of 'wheelchair spaces' on trains is of limited value without level boarding.

3. Why were new platforms of non-standard height allowed, eg Crossrail Core? Was there no control?

4. Kneeling buses have been on the market for years now. Kneeling trains? Or kneeling parts (ends?) of trains?

5. There's a lot more to be done than just level boarding, eg inclusive access from street to platforms.

 

[MarkyT]

The photos on https://railcolornews.com/2024/04/3...m-sncf-present-the-standard-livery-for-tgv-m/ appear to show the doors in red aren’t over the bogies.

Yes and it looks like they retain the traditional single set of doors per short car.

1. A (Coordinated and funded) Plan might make achievement of level boarding more likely; the determination of a standard, which was not applied (enforced?), was ineffective, and has continued (arguably increased) barriers to travel for less able people.

LB has caught a lot of organisations out. Europe is having teething problems with but generally seems to be getting there. In Great Britain we seem only just to be getting started with Stadler products, but a number of recent very large fleet renewals have now made the future implementation of 3ft floor LB more difficult. Massive mistakes.

2. The provision of 'wheelchair spaces' on trains is of limited value without level boarding.

Well those in wheelchairs do manage to get on trains even without LB using current poor methods of ramps etc, so they do need somewhere onboard to travel in. There aren't any guards vans anymore!

3. Why were new platforms of non-standard height allowed, eg Crossrail Core? Was there no control?

I think the project had to make a firm decision early on, which turned out to be the wrong one. There was no funding or intention to replace the HEX stock so the EL trains had to match the platforms in the Heathrow Airport tunnels. It was only later it was decided the HEX fleet needed renewing mainly for signalling compatibility, but they were also becoming troublesome with age so early renewal was justified, rather than attempting to make expensive modifications. By then most of the new tunnel infrastructure had been built and the EL trains had been delivered.

4. Kneeling buses have been on the market for years now. Kneeling trains? Or kneeling parts (ends?) of trains?

Or an extending ramp like buses, a kind of 'super gap filler' variant.

5. There's a lot more to be done than just level boarding, eg inclusive access from street to platforms.

Very true, but even without that there are other benefits for all users.

 

[edwin_m]

If the Crossrail project had known early on that HEX rolling stock was to be replaced then they could have modified that fairly small number of platforms to 3ft, built the core to the same standard, and both operators could have bought trains to match. Then there could have been an ongoing programme to fix any substandard platforms on the surface sections either side of London. The HEX renewals were only finally triggered due to incompatibility with the new ETCS system in the airport tunnels, needed for EL to get to Heathrow. That happened late on when most EL trains were already delivered and the majority of the heavy civils works were completed in the tunnels. The HEX trains were also fairly knackered apparently, with bogie cracking that had on occasions taken the fleet out of use for checks and remedial work. In my view a series of very poor decisions.

I was seconded into the Crossrail systems team in 2009-10 and the key decisions on the train specification and platform height were being made by others while I was there. The 332 units were only around 15 years old at that time and nobody knew they would be prematurely replaced not much more than a decade later. I suspect also lowering the platforms at Heathrow would have been a technical nightmare and the airport would have been very unhappy about the idea.

So I agree in principle that a 914mm floor height would have been best, considering there are some pretty capable suburban units on the Continent that manage to go ever lower, but there were some real practical difficulties achieving this with Crossrail and this has helped to land the industry in something of a pickle.

I'm certain some tramways inserted a low-floor car or section.

Yes they did. Inserting a low floor centre section improved capacity as well as accessibility, assuming the tram had enough power to handle the extra weight. I can't think of anywhere that removed a high floor section to replace it with a low one, and I'm not aware of anyone doing either with trains.

One googly idea I had some years ago was whether a tilting train could be made to lean over when standing in the platform to lower its entrance steps to platform height, rather like a kneeling bus. But tilting trains, and the 220s and 222s with tilt-compatible bodyshells, have to have even higher floors than standard stock so I doubt that would actually work.

 

[MarkyT]

I was seconded into the Crossrail systems team in 2009-10 and the key decisions on the train specification and platform height were being made by others while I was there. The 332 units were only around 15 years old at that time and nobody knew they would be prematurely replaced not much more than a decade later. I suspect also lowering the platforms at Heathrow would have been a technical nightmare and the airport would have been very unhappy about the idea.

Maybe better to raise the rails through the platform, assuming there's vertical clearance to do that within the structures. Might have to raise catenary a bit if clearance already tight which is often the case in tunnels. All the track-mounted kit, ETCS balises, axle counters etc would have to be refitted onto the new track. I tend to agree that what the project decided was probably the only realistic option at the time. I feel the whole industry has been blindsided by the LB issue in UK. It seems that Bombardier had little interest in offering low floor on the brand new body shell for the Aventra, despite just building a huge order of level boarding lower floor S-Stock trains for TfL. Then CAF followed suit with its new UK bodyshell, also resolutely high floor despite building many low-floor trains on the continent, particulalry disappointing in Wales compared to the excellence of the FLIRTs and tram-trains in this respect. I think this was a Major strategic mistake.

 

[BrianW]

Maybe better to raise the rails through the platform, assuming there's vertical clearance to do that within the structures. Might have to raise catenary a bit if clearance already tight which is often the case in tunnels. All the track-mounted kit, ETCS balises, axle counters etc would have to be refitted onto the new track. I tend to agree that what the project decided was probably the only realistic option at the time. I feel the whole industry has been blindsided by the LB issue in UK. It seems that Bombardier had little interest in offering low floor on the brand new body shell for the Aventra, despite just building a huge order of level boarding lower floor S-Stock trains for TfL. Then CAF followed suit with its new UK bodyshell, also resolutely high floor despite building many low-floor trains on the continent, particulalry disappointing in Wales compared to the excellence of the FLIRTs and tram-trains in this respect. I think this was a Major strategic mistake.

Presumably this approach by the Rail Safety and Standards Board is something that will be expected (Required??) to be used into a better future?

Keeping Passengers Safe on the Platform

The Platform Train Interface (PTI) is a term used to describe the area where trains and platforms meet, and where people get on and off trains. It plays a critical role in ensuring safe journeys for millions of passengers who use UK railways daily. However, the PTI can also pose significant...

www.rssb.co.uk

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe better to raise the rails through the platform, assuming there's vertical clearance to do that within the structures. Might have to raise catenary a bit if clearance already tight which is often the case in tunnels. All the track-mounted kit, ETCS balises, axle counters etc would have to be refitted onto the new track. I tend to agree that what the project decided was probably the only realistic option at the time. I feel the whole industry has been blindsided by the LB issue in UK. It seems that Bombardier had little interest in offering low floor on the brand new body shell for the Aventra, despite just building a huge order of level boarding lower floor S-Stock trains for TfL. Then CAF followed suit with its new UK bodyshell, also resolutely high floor despite building many low-floor trains on the continent, particulalry disappointing in Wales compared to the excellence of the FLIRTs and tram-trains in this respect. I think this was a Major strategic mistake.

I suspect the tunnel cross-section was reduced to the minimum possible so raising the OLE would be difficult. Maybe the lower floor would allow a lower pantograph well, and the roof could be made flatter to maintain clearances.

 

[MarkyT]

Presumably this approach by the Rail Safety and Standards Board is something that will be expected (Required??) to be used into a better future?

Keeping Passengers Safe on the Platform

The Platform Train Interface (PTI) is a term used to describe the area where trains and platforms meet, and where people get on and off trains. It plays a critical role in ensuring safe journeys for millions of passengers who use UK railways daily. However, the PTI can also pose significant...

www.rssb.co.uk

I expect methods like this will be required to assess the interface, especially for infrastructure projects and new fleets, and allow responsible managers to assess what is already out there. The tool could probably help build the case for level boarding in a particular area I think. Unfortunately, as 'premium' content the detailed pages are only available to members it seems, so I can't determine exactly what's involved.

 

[Krokodil]

Raising the platforms would be a bit of a nightmare at stations like Berkhamsted and Wolverton where you have 125ph Pendolinos passing by in full tilt mode.

At some point in the future this will no longer be a problem. The Stadler solution can take care of any remaining horizontal gaps.

 

[MarkyT]

At some point in the future this will no longer be a problem. The Stadler solution can take care of any remaining horizontal gaps.

And for outside platform edges on tight curves below about 360m radius which can be further from the near rail than on straighter track due to vehicle end throw clearance. Doors at 1/3/, 2/3 spacing are a long way from the edge in that case because centre throw and cant move them away from the edge as well. For platforms on the inside of the curve, the centre throw can be beneficial in reducing stepping distance for mid-position doors brought closer to the edge. Platforms #8 and #9 at Clapham Junction are a good illustration of this difference, and PTI on #8 is one of the major reasons no fast SWR trains stop there in the up direction during the morning peak. Trains can't be booked to stop at #8 because of the awful stepping distance. That means they must be looped into #7 for a passenger call. The speed and signalling constraints of that turnout move prevent it from being carried out at all during the highest peak throughput levels of approaching ~30tph (I think), so all trains have to fly through. There are also overlap constraints at the London end that prevent sequential entry to #7 or #8 while the previous train from the other platform is still departing (it's a bit more complicated than that because you can do one combination but not the other).

 

[Trainbike46]

At some point in the future this will no longer be a problem. The Stadler solution can take care of any remaining horizontal gaps.

But, if using the stadler solution you don't have to raise the platform, as it provides level boarding at the platform height for the current standard platform height, so why spend money completely rebuilding the platform if you don't have to?