Automated wheelchair ramps and other ways to create level boarding without staff

[34D]

In another thread user jcollins wrote:

They will need to find a way of allowing wheelchair bound passengers to board trains (under EU legislation), so either DOO would only be allowed where every station called at is staffed or the on board ticket inspector would be required to perform other non-revenue related work.

How feasible would it be that an automated wheelchair ramp could be designed, which had the effect of allowing level, independent boarding at the prescribed angle?

There would be various issues:
-weight
-clear space on the platform
-the ramp itself deploying on a packed platform
-variation in platform height

Or could an alternative solution be a programme of increasing platform heights so as to enable level boarding (and the creation of a tiny gap) as per some LU stations and the various tram systems?

 

[Bald Rick]

In another thread user jcollins wrote:


Or could an alternative solution be a programme of increasing platform heights so as to enable level boarding (and the creation of a tiny gap) as per some LU stations and the various tram systems?

This. Is going to happen in some places. But you wouldn't believe the paperwork to make it so!

 

[Class 170101]

I think it already is happening. Its called the Harrington hump and is being trialled at Harrington on the Cumbrian coast route.

 

[455driver]

I think it already is happening. Its called the Harrington hump and is being trialled at Harrington on the Cumbrian coast route.

Nope, all the Harrington hump does is raise a small part of a low platform up to normal (but still below train floor) height because it's cheaper than raising all the platform.

It's a cheap and nasty method of doing half a job.

 

[Domh245]

It would also only work in situations where you have one type of train which has an almost constant orientation. As soon as you try to put two trains on the same hump where the door heights are different, or have wheelchair areas in different places, then it becomes very difficult to do it properly, which is why it is well suited to places like the Underground or other metro systems

 

[TUC]

What about a ramp fitted with electronic sensors that uses these to detect the height of the platform and length of the gap in order to calculate for itself how far to extend?

 

[34D]

What about a ramp fitted with electronic sensors that uses these to detect the height of the platform and length of the gap in order to calculate for itself how far to extend?

This sounds good. The other thought I've just had is that a gentle incline could well start inside the train.

What actually are the obstacles to level boarding?

 

[fowler9]

This sounds good. The other thought I've just had is that a gentle incline could well start inside the train.

What actually are the obstacles to level boarding?

I'm sure that given investment it is more than possible technologically. I reckon altering platforms in a basic way to provide a small gap is going to cause a lot of clearance issues and likewise altering the rolling stock. However since we already have parking sensors for cars some kind of automatic extending ramp is doable. Not cheap at the mo but doable.

 

[starrymarkb]

What about a ramp fitted with electronic sensors that uses these to detect the height of the platform and length of the gap in order to calculate for itself how far to extend?

Talent 2 units in Germany already do this, A step at each door extends until it touches the platform, it then pulls back a few mm to allow for rocking as passengers board and alight. At most regional platforms it gives near level boarding. At higher platforms there is often a step down into the train

 

[Moonshot]

Not an altogether bad idea.....though it would be useless at a good number of Northern Stations as there is no wheelchair access to the platforms anyway.

 

[NotATrainspott]

To the best of my knowledge the platform height is also part of the loading gauge and so raising the platforms significantly above the ~915mm standard could cause problems for other trains. In places where only specific trains would ever be allowed, e.g. the Heathrow tunnels or Crossrail, it is possible to have the platforms designed to fit perfectly with the floor of the train.

 

[Tom B]

Some buses (particularly those operated by LRT or by TfL) are fitted with automatic deploying ramps - which adjust to different heights of pavements. I'm sure a modified design could be employed.

 

[edwin_m]

To the best of my knowledge the platform height is also part of the loading gauge and so raising the platforms significantly above the ~915mm standard could cause problems for other trains. In places where only specific trains would ever be allowed, e.g. the Heathrow tunnels or Crossrail, it is possible to have the platforms designed to fit perfectly with the floor of the train.

Agreed. Technology such as smaller wheels or wheels protruding into boxes above the floor might allow a 915mm entrance height to match the standard platform, but this probably won't happen because (1) it is incompatible with the higher platforms mentioned above, and (2) there would still be a problem with horizontal gap on curved platforms.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It certainly would seem that it would be cheaper just to ensure that there would always be a DOO ticket inspector on board capable of deploying the onboard ramp than it would be to radically change train or platform-train interface design, especially when that ticket collector will decrease the number of free train journeys.

From the other thread discussing the new Northern/TPE consultation it seems that most of the anger and worry towards DOO comes from the idea that the future Northern operator would contract out ticket inspection to G4S and then end up dropping it completely. That is not an intrinsic part of the DOO system and there hasn't been any real problems of such a thing happening in Strathclyde.

 

[DownSouth]

Some buses (particularly those operated by LRT or by TfL) are fitted with automatic deploying ramps - which adjust to different heights of pavements. I'm sure a modified design could be employed.

They are used all around the world on trains, trams and buses. Any competent manufacturer would have it as a standard option to be specified by the client.

The most critical component of such a system is not a sensor, a motor or even the ramp itself - it is the will to make it happen.

 

[34D]

To the best of my knowledge the platform height is also part of the loading gauge and so raising the platforms significantly above the ~915mm standard could cause problems for other trains. In places where only specific trains would ever be allowed, e.g. the Heathrow tunnels or Crossrail, it is possible to have the platforms designed to fit perfectly with the floor of the train.

Is there a precise spec for this, please? I'm guessing that the platform edge must be a certain distance from the nearest rail?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is there a precise spec for this, please? I'm guessing that the platform edge must be a certain distance from the nearest rail?

I've not found a precise document but here's an illustration:

What you can see here is that the loading gauge has a 'step' around the platform area where the train has to be narrower below the platform level. In comparison, the European loading gauges have a constant width until not far above rail level, meaning that the precise platform height is not as much an issue.

 

[speedy_sticks]

As a wheelchair user and knowing how unreliable electric ramps are. I would opt for a manual flip out ramp which would be fitted in the door area, retrofitting them can't be that expensive, it would keep guards in jobs and stop delays in service.

 

[Harbon 1]

I can't imagine electric ramps on trains being all that quick, and if they were quick they'd slice the ankles off of anyone that was stood somewhere near the edge!

The current system, although more labor intensive, is much better than an electric ramp from the door. Having to let the ramp come out of the train and then fold back in would take a while, and then what if it failed? Manual ramps can't fail, and they are only used when needed, electric ones would have to be selected somehow.

 

[jopsuk]

if we now have an official 915mm standard, why is new stock being built with the floor higher than that? I appreciate smaller wheels mean other tradeoffs, but these can be mitigated.

 

[Domh245]

Not to mention that if you had an electric ramp extending from the train, imagine the fallout when some dosy person with their earphones in and on their phone, stood right in front of the door gets hit by a ramp, despite all the alarms and flashing lights, "they are unsafe, lethal, &c."

 

[SPADTrap]

I think we just have to accept that a human is the best answer. I know that's hard to accept, people love machines and automation and "progress" but...

 

[DarloRich]

How would such a piece of equipment impact upon the loading gauge? Whilst a very good idea the railway does have somewhat more constraints than, say, level access to a bus.

 

[34D]

How would such a piece of equipment impact upon the loading gauge? Whilst a very good idea the railway does have somewhat more constraints than, say, level access to a bus.

I envisage it would be stored within the loading gauge, under the floor.

There is no reason at all why we couldn't have level boarding at all stations. All that is required is a specification (for platform, and train internal floor height, and the interface).

 

[Domh245]

For the really cheap look, could you not go for a 3 part door, where the top 2/3rds of the door are normal plug doors, but the bottom third folds down until it comes into contact with the platform. It would be difficult to get a good seal I reckon, but it might stop people trying to rush through the doors as the close, seeing as they would have to jump over something about 60cm tall!

 

[edwin_m]

There is no reason at all why we couldn't have level boarding at all stations. All that is required is a specification (for platform, and train internal floor height, and the interface).

It's not just a specification, compatibility with existing specifications needs to be considered.

As posted above, higher platforms to match existing train floors would foul the clearances for passing freight trains. To avoid this, the platforms would have to be set back far enough that the horizontal stepping distance on curved platforms would be dangerously large. There is a report on this somewhere on the RSSB website but I don't have time to search out a link right now.

 

[sng7]

For the really cheap look, could you not go for a 3 part door, where the top 2/3rds of the door are normal plug doors, but the bottom third folds down until it comes into contact with the platform. It would be difficult to get a good seal I reckon, but it might stop people trying to rush through the doors as the close, seeing as they would have to jump over something about 60cm tall!

If I remember correctly some of the trams in Geneva have something like that though obviously the height of the flap is much less but it proves it is possible

 

[starrymarkb]

If I remember correctly some of the trams in Geneva have something like that though obviously the height of the flap is much less but it proves it is possible

Stadler Tango The Stadler units on the Brunigbahn have the same setup.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/r_walther/9069928759