DfT initiative to improve accessibility of railway stations

[geoffk]

The Gov.UK website reports that disabled passengers will have better access to public transport, under a new strategy that will boost inclusivity across the entire network.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-strategy-to-boost-accessibility-for-disabled-passengers

The Department for Transport (DfT) is today (28 July 2021) unveiling a range of initiatives to remove barriers and improve confidence for disabled people as they return to trains, buses and taxis after the pandemic.

An audit of all UK train stations, originally pledged in the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, is now underway – helping to identify improvements and highlighting existing areas of excellence. The findings will form a new public database so people can better plan their journeys and, along with input from disabled passengers, will shape future investment in accessible rail travel.

Despite progress in recent years, many older stations are still unusable by those with a range of disabilities. Yet some stations probably can never be made PRM-compliant because of their layout, location or physical characteristics. Confining our search to national rail stations (as London Underground has many with escalators only) what stations come in the “too difficult” category? Are there just a few, or too many to list?

My local station, Polsloe Bridge in Exeter, has a single platform perched on an embankment accessible only by steps. The platform is so narrow that the yellow line is more than half way in from the edge and there is little space for passengers to wait. While it might be possible to put in a lift, it would probably be out of action regularly in a suburban area like this.

 

[YorksLad12]

There's a few up here where a significant amount of work would need to take place. For Ravensthorpe, Morley and Mirfield, that will be fixed when they are rebuilt during the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade. Cottingley is slated for closure. Platforms 1 & 2 at Marsden are steps only and not due to be replaced with anything. And that's just one line...

 

[zwk500]

There's a big difference between accessible platforms and accessible boarding. I should think that most stations (money permitting) could be made to have accessible platforms, even those perched on embankments. However achieving level boarding would be a far greater challenge.

 

[BrianW]

As a kid I recall cross-platform interchange between (high) District and (low) Piccadilly Line line trains at eg Acton Town and Hammersmith, or same platform Piccadilly and Met trains at Rayners Lane. Have they changed? And 'mind the gap' at others. It's a laudable aim, but ...
And IIRC its not 'equal' to offer a taxi as much cheaper alternative, as it's not the same.
I think the equality legislation is a bit like the Dangerous Dogs Act- well meaning but insufficiently thought through. I'm picturing the tarmac path to the summit of Everest.
Surely the 'audit' referred to should have been done years ago, and a plan drawn up and acted upon by now.

 

[The exile]

Another way to boost inclusivity would be to ensure that all staffed stations had access to toilet facilities for all.

Coming back to the point, I can't see anyone paying to make Doleham accessible.

Ironically, in terms of accessibility to the platforms, a lot of very minor stations are already compliant (single line so no footbridge problems). Suspect the biggest nut to crack will be the less frequented urban stations on two ( or more) track lines, where there’s restricted room to put in ramps - even if they are still acceptable. Level boarding is still an issue everywhere - but at least we’re starting to get trains that make it possible to achieve.

 

[zwk500]

Ironically, in terms of accessibility to the platforms, a lot of very minor stations are already compliant (single line so no footbridge problems). Suspect the biggest nut to crack will be the less frequented urban stations on two ( or more) track lines, where there’s restricted room to put in ramps - even if they are still acceptable. Level boarding is still an issue everywhere - but at least we’re starting to get trains that make it possible to achieve.

I believe ramps are acceptable, but need frequent flat lengths along the rise. I think lifts are also the default option, so you need a good reason for a ramp in the first place.

 

[The exile]

I believe ramps are acceptable, but need frequent flat lengths along the rise. I think lifts are also the default option, so you need a good reason for a ramp in the first place.

Would hope that station footfall can at least be taken into consideration…. And that creative solutions are encouraged rather than slavish box- ticking

 

[yorksrob]

Ironically, in terms of accessibility to the platforms, a lot of very minor stations are already compliant (single line so no footbridge problems). Suspect the biggest nut to crack will be the less frequented urban stations on two ( or more) track lines, where there’s restricted room to put in ramps - even if they are still acceptable. Level boarding is still an issue everywhere - but at least we’re starting to get trains that make it possible to achieve.

Yes, particularly those with island platforms !

 

[BrianW]

It's bound to be difficult applying today's criteria to 'yesterday's' constructions. Understanding, reasonableness, striving and funding all required. I'm still wondering about that 'audit' to which the minister referred. I'm picturing tube maps with symbols (already exist) and info on websites (exist) ... is there (not yet?) an App or website that will plan a stepfree journey? Showing my ignorance here. There will be quite a lot of considerations but surely possible. More than a nuisance of course when the train is cancelled or diverted to another platform but again 'realtime recalculating' should be a possibility too.

 

[The exile]

Are there any regulations about what is an acceptable additional distance for a "no step" route? Thinking of two platform stations where "no step" access to each platform from the outside could be relatively easily achieved, but access between platforms is currently by footbridge only. Assuming a ticket machine on each platform (or ability to purchase on-board) and no other facilities to speak of at the station (unfortunately all too common), it's only accessing the car-park that would require the "diversion" - and that would normally only have to be done once per round trip. Potentially a quickish win interim solution in some places, although I'm aware there are other hurdles to overcome (pavement width etc)

 

[Mikey C]

However much you'd like to in an ideal world, the reality is that for an awful lot of stations, spending vast amounts of money to rebuild them would be massively out of balance with the number of people who would benefit.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

Level boarding is still an issue everywhere - but at least we’re starting to get trains that make it possible to achieve.

Not an issue at 90% of the platforms served by 745/755 trains in East Anglia. It should be a procurement requirement that new passenger trains have level boarding with 915mm height platforms. Then you only have to address the non standard height platforms. It's a real shame that HS2 and Crossrail specific platforms are being built to a different height. Makes a nonsense of procuring trains for level boarding when they will always call at platforms with 2 different standard heights!

 

[The exile]

Not an issue at 90% of the platforms served by 745/755 trains in East Anglia. It should be a procurement requirement that new passenger trains have level boarding with 915mm height platforms. Then you only have to address the non standard height platforms. It's a real shame that HS2 and Crossrail specific platforms are being built to a different height. Makes a nonsense of procuring trains for level boarding when they will always call at platforms with 2 different standard heights!

The Germans made a similar mistake - I think they have 3 different standard heights!

 

[BrianW]

Not an issue at 90% of the platforms served by 745/755 trains in East Anglia. It should be a procurement requirement that new passenger trains have level boarding with 915mm height platforms. Then you only have to address the non standard height platforms. It's a real shame that HS2 and Crossrail specific platforms are being built to a different height. Makes a nonsense of procuring trains for level boarding when they will always call at platforms with 2 different standard heights!

Almost as mad as two or more different guages, or diesel-hydraulics, or Betamax, or European Standards, or ... 'Get (GBR?) standardisation done'?

 

[option]

Hopefully the " fast-tracked improvements " are done in a logical manner.

Stations in places with a population >X
Infill stations where most stations on a service are already accessible

eg. be somewhat daft to make somewhere like Lapworth fully accessible if Dorridge isn't, or anywhere else on the Snow Hill lines. There's more services at Dorridge, & a taxi to there, that then enables you to get to any station on the services knowing that they'll be accessible, isn't a massive issue.

 

[Tio Terry]

There have, of course, been design standards for Accessible Railway Stations for many years. They are applied whenever any major works are undertaken at non-compliant stations. I wonder how much these standards will be changed by this "New Initiative" or if it's just the same standards being presented as the latest "Build Back Better" plan?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918425/design-standards-accessible-stations.pdf

About the Code of Practice
1. The purpose of the Code is to ensure that any infrastructure work at
stations makes railway travel easier for disabled passengers. It applies
to services provided by operators in Great Britain in relation to trains
and stations.

2. The Code identifes European and national standards relevant for
all passenger train and station operators in Great Britain. Licensed
operators, including Network Rail must follow the Code, a
condition of their licence, whenever they install, renew or replace
infrastructure or facilities. This includes the requirement to establish
and comply with a Disabled People’s Protection Policy (DPPP), paying
due regard to this Code....

 

[zwk500]

There have, of course, been design standards for Accessible Railway Stations for many years. They are applied whenever any major works are undertaken at non-compliant stations. I wonder how much these standards will be changed by this "New Initiative" or if it's just the same standards being presented as the latest "Build Back Better" plan?

Its almost certainly the same standards. The question is whether additional money is being put up to convert entire lined, rather than just selected stations.

 

[tpjm]

The key challenge with that document is what constitutes 'major work' and what interventions become so expensive that they cease to be reasonably practicable.

There has been reference made further up the thread to the stations along the main Transpennine route which will see modification as a result of Transpennine Route Upgrade - the big difficulty (and this is something that sits with DfT) is working to the scope. To give a scenario, if you (Network Rail) are remitted by the DfT to electrify a route, the likely scenario is that you will need to raise some bridges, lower some track, and certainly replace some station footbridges along the route. Where a station footbridge is replaced, the new one will be fully compliant with all the various codes and NTSNs, meaning lifts will be provided in all but the most exceptional of cases. In principal this sounds great, but crucially, remembering that the project is remitted to deliver electrification, does the station even have level access to begin with, and are the platforms wide enough to deploy the accessible boarding ramp? Generally, one would hope that where possible, this would be fixed as a 'bonus extra' to the project, but when there is a 30ft high retaining wall with a busy A-road behind it, and therefore, the cost of resolving the narrow platform stretches into the millions, on top of the millions spent on the new footbridge, it is easy to see how the industry ends up with half-baked stations.

For the avoidance of doubt, the scope of TRU has not yet been fully remitted/developed by DfT and Network Rail. The above example is a potential scenario that could (and does) happen where the scope is tightly controlled and not necessarily in reference to a TRU station.

 

[Tio Terry]

The key challenge with that document is what constitutes 'major work' and what interventions become so expensive that they cease to be reasonably practicable.

There has been reference made further up the thread to the stations along the main Transpennine route which will see modification as a result of Transpennine Route Upgrade - the big difficulty (and this is something that sits with DfT) is working to the scope. To give a scenario, if you (Network Rail) are remitted by the DfT to electrify a route, the likely scenario is that you will need to raise some bridges, lower some track, and certainly replace some station footbridges along the route. Where a station footbridge is replaced, the new one will be fully compliant with all the various codes and NTSNs, meaning lifts will be provided in all but the most exceptional of cases. In principal this sounds great, but crucially, remembering that the project is remitted to deliver electrification, does the station even have level access to begin with, and are the platforms wide enough to deploy the accessible boarding ramp? Generally, one would hope that where possible, this would be fixed as a 'bonus extra' to the project, but when there is a 30ft high retaining wall with a busy A-road behind it, and therefore, the cost of resolving the narrow platform stretches into the millions, on top of the millions spent on the new footbridge, it is easy to see how the industry ends up with half-baked stations.

For the avoidance of doubt, the scope of TRU has not yet been fully remitted/developed by DfT and Network Rail. The above example is a potential scenario that could (and does) happen where the scope is tightly controlled and not necessarily in reference to a TRU station.

There have been a number of situations where NR have been in discussion with the DfT and a satisfactory solution has not been found. The proposal is then to close the station because it cannot be made compliant with the legal requirements at an acceptable cost. That puts the matter squarely in the hands of the DfT to resolve!

For something so major as the electrification of an existing line, the expectation would be that the finished project would comply to all current standards, that would include things like signalling system as well as stations and accessibility requirements. The one that is likely to become the greatest problem in this respect is the Safety in Railway Tunnels TSI.

One recent example is Crossrail where the existing on-network stations have been enhanced to become compliant.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Stations are renewed/rebuilt at intervals, could be nearly all accessible in twenty years.

What about lifts? Should there always be at least two? How reliable are they?

The lift at my local cinema has been out of use for two weeks. "We have informed the repair sevice" says a notice. Please be patient?!

 

[zwk500]

Stations are renewed/rebuilt at intervals, could be nearly all accessible in twenty years.

Its also about the trains, and how station interacts with trains, as well as platform buildings and the difficulty of keeping the railway running during builds.

What about lifts? Should there always be at least two? How reliable are they?

I'd say however many is reasonable for the usage and layout. You'd hope the railway would have enough lifts to make it worth having an engineer on call, to keep downtime to a minimum, and to have a viable plan B for when the lifts are broken.

 

[Tio Terry]

Stations are renewed/rebuilt at intervals, could be nearly all accessible in twenty years.

What about lifts? Should there always be at least two? How reliable are they?

The lift at my local cinema has been out of use for two weeks. "We have informed the repair sevice" says a notice. Please be patient?!

NetworkRails Access for All programme (A4A) has been installing lifts at stations for 5 years or more. Usually, for a two platform station, there is one life per platform with an overbridge also served by stairs. There is no duplication of lifts. There have been reliability problems in the past but these now seem to be largely ironed out - I'm sure someone will now tell me of somewhere this is not the case!

I have no recent information in respect of NR's maintenance and on call arrangements for lifts, or of the arrangements TOC's have in place to cover possible failures.