Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[SLC001]

Another accident at Ealing Broadway reported by the BBC today. The problem will not go away and needs addressing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn33v7z3xmyo

Another passenger has contacted BBC London after being seriously injured using the Elizabeth line at Ealing Broadway in west London.
Rolf Kern, 82, had to go to hospital after he badly gashed his shin trying to board an Elizabeth line train. He says the vertical gap between the platform and the train is too high and caused his injury. He says he is now considering legal action.
It comes weeks after another passenger broke their foot on the same platform.
Transport for London (TfL) said it was "sorry" that some passengers had sustained injuries and that safety was its "number one priority".
Mr Kern says the gap is too high: "Normally, I take the left or right-hand side and use the handrail. But this time I happened to be in the middle and I missed the step and fell flat on the floor. I immediately realised I'd hurt myself very badly."

"The wound was very bad. It was a two-inch gap under the knee and the skin was actually totally detached. It's very, very serious."
Mr Kern says the height of the step is unacceptable: "It is the sheer fact that the step is 12 to 14 inches high, which I find for a modern, new line where the government invested so much money is unacceptable.
In February, also at Ealing Broadway station, Eric Leach stepped off an Elizabeth line train on to the platform.

Such was the force from the drop that he broke a bone in his foot. He collapsed on the platform.
Mr Leach, who also suffered bruising to his right knee, says the gap is not acceptable: "It's a 12in gap. Mums with buggies, people with heavy luggage, elderly people, of course it's not acceptable."
He told BBC London: "It's a scandal, someone will be seriously injured or die. It's a death trap."
"I was trying to get off. Other people were trying to force their way on. I was terrified looking at the gap, lost my balance and came down and fell and broke a bone in my left foot. And mashed up my right knee.
"I was on the ground for about 20 minutes. I was taken home in a taxi and a couple of days later I realised I was bad so I went to Ealing Hospital. "

Maybe the H&S people should walk in the shoes of the older generation. As I get older I do not lift my feet as I used to, and indeed my elderly father asked for a rug on his floor to be removed as it was a trip hazard.

 

[Falcon1200]

A most unpleasant experience for the passenger concerned, but is there a simple solution? Lowering the track is not feasible so the platforms would have to be raised, could this be done in stages with overnight possessions or would a complete closure be needed for however long the work took?

According to the BBC News report the passenger is threatening legal action; Could this force the railway into raising the platform, no matter how disruptive the work, or even having Elizabeth Line trains not call at Ealing Broadway?

 

[BrianW]

Another accident at Ealing Broadway reported by the BBC today. The problem will not go away and needs addressing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn33v7z3xmyo

Maybe the H&S people should walk in the shoes of the older generation. As I get older I do not lift my feet as I used to, and indeed my elderly father asked for a rug on his floor to be removed as it was a trip hazard.

Another incident; ANOTHER one. Entirely predictable. Something must be done. The 'problem' is known. Gaps are known. They pre-existed and the design of Elizabeth Line trains made them WORSE. Current 'arrangements' (and mitigations?) are clearly not working. Must someone die; or is that 'a price worth paying' for some unknown 'benefit'? Surely someone spoke up about this at design stage (and had their concerns recorded?) and was over-ruled (documented again?). I know some well-meaning folk like the idea of a 'no-blame' culture, but that assumes that
'lessons are learned'. Budgets are a measure of values- time and money must be spent on at least mitigating this.

I came across this analysis, with a useful table and drawing: http://www.metadyne.co.uk/mind_the_gap.htm

and this potentially very useful 'gap analysis' enabling route planning across the TfL area: https://tfl.gov.uk/transport-accessibility/wheelchair-access-and-avoiding-stairs

 

[SLC001]

Interesting link BrianW. Thank you.
It does beg a question that if this is a known problem why was it not mitigated? What steps were taken to reduce the chances of this happening? 2 serious accidents in just over a month suggests the risk was not properly assessed and mitigated. Yes, there are people in wheelchairs or others with disabilities that have a carer to assist them but many elderly people want to maintain their independence yet it is those people who are vulnerable. Their spacial awareness diminishes with age, their strength goes and they become more clumsy, not through their fault I should add.
It will be interesting to see how this develops as doing nothing is no longer an option. The gamble based on risk of it happening and the possible outcome / seriousness of the injury was wrong.

 

[HSTEd]

There isn't really a very practical solution, short of closing the relief lines to everything but Crossrail traffic so that the platforms can be rebuilt for level boarding.

That would lead to the effective end of daytime freight traffic on the GWML corridor and probably the loss of the bulk of the traffic.

You could accept that (and I probably would) or try something silly like buy special aggregate wagons that have a Crossrail compatible profile!

 

[zwk500]

There isn't really a very practical solution, short of closing the relief lines to everything but Crossrail traffic so that the platforms can be rebuilt for level boarding.

That would lead to the effective end of daytime freight traffic on the GWML corridor and probably the loss of the bulk of the traffic.

You could accept that (and I probably would) or try something silly like buy special aggregate wagons that have a Crossrail compatible profile!

The most likely solution is to order the next batch of Crossrail trains with an extending step.

What should/could have been done would be to rebuild Heathrow platforms to 950/960mm and order that as the standard floor height (a standard UIC profile rail wheel is 920mm diameter so 915mm feels a little bit impractical as a floor height). GA Flirts and Merseyrail use 960mm I believe.

 

[Haywain]

The most likely solution is to order the next batch of Crossrail trains with an extending step.

So, wait 30 years for a solution?

 

[zwk500]

So, wait 30 years for a solution?

I didn't say it was ideal! Although it's possible Crossrail stock gets replaced sooner than that and the 345s are cascaded to a different area once ETCS rolls out.

 

[Recessio]

Platform height is one of those things that really should be a national standard for new build and refurbished stations, with a goal to rebuild existing platforms when possible.

Maybe GBR could set a standard height for new rolling stock and platforms.

 

[Haywain]

Platform height is one of those things that really should be a national standard for new build and refurbished stations,

But Ealing Broadway isn't new or refurbished.

 

[SynthD]

Platform height is one of those things that really should be a national standard for new build and refurbished stations, with a goal to rebuild existing platforms when possible.

Maybe GBR could set a standard height for new rolling stock and platforms.

But there isn’t an answer, there can’t be a standard.

 

[JamesT]

But Ealing Broadway isn't new or refurbished.

Crossrail | Network Rail ticks off another station upgrade ahead of Elizabeth line opening | New Civil Engineer

The upgrade is part of Network Rail’s Crossrail package of work to upgrade stations to the East and West of the central London section of the Elizabeth

www.newcivilengineer.com

Network Rail and its contractor Graham have completed the station upgrade at Ealing Broadway in West London.

Ealing Broadway has undergone a significant transformation by Network Rail to build a large new ticket hall with more space for customers. A glass frontage makes the entrance brighter with a longer gateline replacing the cramped entrance previously used to enter and leave the station.

The platforms have also been extended and are capable of accommodating the longer Elizabeth line trains, which are more than 200m in length. The station also benefits from improved lighting, signage and customer information screens providing a better customer experience.

That sounds like a refurbishment to me.

 

[Haywain]

That sounds like a refurbishment to me.

Platforms only extended.

 

[800001]

Platforms only extended.

And the massive redevelopment of the main entrance, footbridges, stair cases, basically everything except the platforms was rebuilt and extended.

 

[Benjwri]

Look at post 70 that you your self replied to, and that was about platform height at new or refurbished stations which is what Ealing Broadway is, so my point stands. Thank you for your reply.

So just to be clear you want it to be mandatory to raise/lower platforms to a standard height (Presumably 950mm, which is the standard for UK platforms, however the Elizabeth Line itself does not conform to this standard, and therefore this wouldn't solve the issue in the first place, instead making fixing it harder) whenever a station is refurbished? How do you define refurbishing? If you build a new station building? But what about if you build a new bridge? What about adding lifts? Raising a platform is expensive. If you make it happen every time a station is altered, stations just won't get altered in the first place because it will ahve been made unaffordable. I'm not saying the platforms shouldn't be standardised, but forcing it to be done in the manner you describe could be a step back.

That being said the root cause of this issue is not the platform heights. There already is a standard, but the Elizabeth Line decided not to conform to it, and that is the root cause of the issue.

The choice of 1100mm instead of 950mm as is the standard makes raising the platform difficult, because you have to consider what happens when GWR do get new stock. They will likely want to work towards level boarding, and almost definitely want it at the national standard of 950mm, as newer stations are built to. By raising the platforms you are making it that if GWR gets a 387 replacement it will be unable to call at Ealing Broadway, so overnight services would have to be run by XR or cut, and IETs would be unable to terminate there during Old Oak Common works.

 

[zwk500]

Maybe GBR could set a standard height for new rolling stock and platforms.

We already have both. 915mm for platforms. (can't find the standard for rolling stock but believe it's 1100mm).

Also we've had the following in standards for quite a while: (from https://consultations.rssb.co.uk/_e...81-cc99413f07b6?file=07. GIRT7020 issue 2.pdf)

G 2.1.17 When designing and implementing a platform extension it is good practice to consider how, in the future, the full length of the platform will be brought into compliance with the standard position. Achieving compliance for the full platform length may not be appropriate as part of the initial project but consideration of practical options is used to inform the design of the extension. Optimisation of the long-term position may include consideration of a time-limited deviation for the height of the extension. Simply building the extension to the standard position, without consideration of future options for the full platform length is not good practice.

So either the crossrail rebuild didn't fully consider what they should have, or they had good reasons to not meet the standard height.

So just to be clear you want it to be mandatory to raise/lower platforms to a standard height (Presumably 950mm, which is the standard for UK platform

915mm is the UK standard platform height.

 

[Benjwri]

915mm is the UK standard platform height.

yep my bad

 

[800001]

So just to be clear you want it to be mandatory to raise/lower platforms to a standard height (Presumably 950mm, which is the standard for UK platforms, however the Elizabeth Line itself does not conform to this standard, and therefore this wouldn't solve the issue in the first place, instead making fixing it harder) whenever a station is refurbished? How do you define refurbishing? If you build a new station building? But what about if you build a new bridge? What about adding lifts? Raising a platform is expensive. If you make it happen every time a station is altered, stations just won't get altered in the first place because it will ahve been made unaffordable. I'm not saying the platforms shouldn't be standardised, but forcing it to be done in the manner you describe could be a step back.

That being said the root cause of this issue is not the platform heights. There already is a standard, but the Elizabeth Line decided not to conform to it, and that is the root cause of the issue.

The choice of 1100mm instead of 950mm as is the standard makes raising the platform difficult, because you have to consider what happens when GWR do get new stock. They will likely want to work towards level boarding, and almost definitely want it at the national standard of 950mm, as newer stations are built to. By raising the platforms you are making it that if GWR gets a 387 replacement it will be unable to call at Ealing Broadway, so overnight services would have to be run by XR or cut, and IETs would be unable to terminate there during Old Oak Common works.

Read my answer before you reply thinking you know what I wrote! I do love when people (you) answer based on something that someone did not write!

I replied about Ealing Broadway refurnishment, I never said anything about the station should have had platforms altered to suit the 345.

 

[Mag_seven]

Right can we stop niggling at one another and concentrate on the matter at hand which is discussion of the class 345 stepping distance issue at Ealing Broadway.

thanks

 

[Mag_seven]

My own understanding of the issue is that I'm sure that the Crossrail team would have been remitted to make the platforms Class 345 stepping distant compliant unless they were given a dispensation (by means of "mind the gap" markings etc). Can anyone confirm this?

 

[JamesT]

Raising to the Class 345 height of 1100mm is likely to cause issues, but I'm confused at the apparent suggestion that raising to the standard 915mm is infeasible. The news reports talk of a 12 inch gap stepping down from a 345. 12 inches is roughly 300mm, and the 345s are 1100mm level, which implies the existing platform is only around 800mm above rail level.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/maximum-platform-gap.246720/ refers to a maximum step up from a platform to a train of 230mm, so it would be compliant if the platforms were at the standard height.

 

[zwk500]

Raising to the Class 345 height of 1100mm is likely to cause issues, but I'm confused at the apparent suggestion that raising to the standard 915mm is infeasible. The news reports talk of a 12 inch gap stepping down from a 345. 12 inches is roughly 300mm, and the 345s are 1100mm level, which implies the existing platform is only around 800mm above rail level.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/maximum-platform-gap.246720/ refers to a maximum step up from a platform to a train of 230mm, so it would be compliant if the platforms were at the standard height.

The issue with raising the platform height is that it then has an impact on existing platform structures, such as the footbridge, waiting rooms, etc. Raising the platform 115mm would have an impact on things like the lift doors and there are maximum allowable gradients before steps would be required.
Having said that, the fact that the station received a rather deep refurbishment suggests that there was an opportunity to demolish all platform structures and start again, which has now passed.

 

[800001]

Seeing as it is just 345s that call at platforms 3/4, could they not do ‘humps’ at the areas where 345s call on the platform?

 

[mangyiscute]

Seeing as it is just 345s that call at platforms 3/4, could they not do ‘humps’ at the areas where 345s call on the platform?

That is pretty much the whole platform, though, since they are 9 car trains.
Also, they often serve 1 and 2 on Sundays and the GWML is very frequently down to two track running in at least sections on sundays.
The most feasible short term solution is probably to install humps at some of the doors, and instruct people who have difficulty with large steps to use those doors - if this could be standardised across the elizabeth line network, then markers could be placed at those doors to make it clear which one to wait at (I'm thinking perhaps do the middle door in each odd carriage, so 5 humps in total).
Could anyone answer my next question, which would be is this just an Ealing Broadway issue, or an issue at most/all of the stations the Elizabeth line calls at that weren't specifically built for these trains, or a nationwide issue?
Also, did the 387s/165s (or older trains) not have the same issue since I guess they also have the national typical boarding height of 1100mm?

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Could just do humps at the doors for the disabled carriage, akin to Thameslink, as a compromise between nothing and whole reconstruction. Would give people with mobility issues a more comfortable step into the train without having a major impact.

 

[hassaanhc]

My own understanding of the issue is that I'm sure that the Crossrail team would have been remitted to make the platforms Class 345 stepping distant compliant unless they were given a dispensation (by means of "mind the gap" markings etc). Can anyone confirm this?

That is pretty much the whole platform, though, since they are 9 car trains.
Also, they often serve 1 and 2 on Sundays and the GWML is very frequently down to two track running in at least sections on sundays.
The most feasible short term solution is probably to install humps at some of the doors, and instruct people who have difficulty with large steps to use those doors - if this could be standardised across the elizabeth line network, then markers could be placed at those doors to make it clear which one to wait at (I'm thinking perhaps do the middle door in each odd carriage, so 5 humps in total).
Could anyone answer my next question, which would be is this just an Ealing Broadway issue, or an issue at most/all of the stations the Elizabeth line calls at that weren't specifically built for these trains, or a nationwide issue?
Also, did the 387s/165s (or older trains) not have the same issue since I guess they also have the national typical boarding height of 1100mm?

Just three stops west at Southall, they did alter the platform heights on the relief lines, ready for the 345s.

Platform 4 (up Relief, the one causing problems at Ealing Broadway), had an enormous horizontal and vertical gap, made worse by the track cant away from the platform (couple of poor photos from 2005 here and here). Both Southall and Ealing Broadway have Platform 4 on the outside of a slight curve.

From Christmas 2015, at Southall the entire section beyond the canopy was demolished and rebuilt over a few months (with a metal temporary platform in between work taking place), while the remaining section was altered in height rather than a full rebuild. In addition, the track was re-aligned to reduce the horizontal gap. By mid-2016 the work was complete, and boarding trains became much easier for everyone. Platform 3 (down Relief) was also adjusted for clearances, actually being lowered slightly in the end, while both Main line platforms remain untouched and are still quite low, something that still also affects Ealing Broadway today if trains stop on those lines.

 

[800001]

Could just do humps at the doors for the disabled carriage, akin to Thameslink, as a compromise between nothing and whole reconstruction. Would give people with mobility issues a more comfortable step into the train without having a major impact.

That’s does sound like a sensible option.
As long as well marked, on both train and station.

 

[Benjwri]

which would be is this just an Ealing Broadway issue, or an issue at most/all of the stations the Elizabeth line calls at that weren't specifically built for these trains, or a nationwide issue?

It’s an issue to an extent at all the GWML platforms, to differing extents as they are all a bit different.

Also, did the 387s/165s (or older trains) not have the same issue since I guess they also have the national typical boarding height of 1100mm?

387s are roughly the same, 165s have a lower floor iirc.

To be absolutely clear 1100mm is not the national typical height. The standard height is 915mm, but the Elizabeth Line decided on a different height.

 

[Haywain]

Could just do humps at the doors for the disabled carriage, akin to Thameslink, as a compromise between nothing and whole reconstruction. Would give people with mobility issues a more comfortable step into the train without having a major impact.

That doesn't work because it fouls the clearances for other trains, especially freights. Not a problem on the Thameslink core because only one type of train passes through those platforms and at low speeds if not stopping.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

especially freights

Freight are going to be the real losers from this gentleman's legal action, as I can't see any body choosing freight over the Elizabeth line.