I think @mangyiscute was referring to the typical height of the floor of rolling stock. Apart from some Stadlers, almost nothing in the UK has the floor down at the platform standard height of 915mm.
Which if the platforms are 915, suggests the average train floor is indeed 1100 and the Class 345s are not exceptional in this regard.
That surely depends on what the outcome of the legal action is. It's possible that whoever is responsible will just pay up to make the legal action go away. Not having seen any statistics, it may even be cheaper in the long run to keep paying out on claims like this rather than make changes to platform heights.
And yet that is the standard, and a significant amount of money ahs been spent working towards it already. It's also worth remember steps down into a train are far worse for injuries, so a lower platform allows for more compatibility.
Given from the outset Elizabeth Line trains were to run well beyond the new central London section and not only to new platforms at existing stations ( putting aside both cost and physical space constraints ) I never understood how 1100mm was approved.
Ealing- 'Queen of the Suburbs'- lots of trees and green space opposite Ealing Broadway Station- from Googleearth:
That very much depends on your definition of richest. By GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) the UK is 28th.
Unless you manage to get a pair of freight bypass tracks in, that won't really solve the problem!
The freight has a legal contract to use the tracks. The court won’t wipe that out.
Heathrow Express had adopted 1100mm platforms already, and EL had to share the ones at the Heathrow stations.
So annihilation of any freight travel from the South West to the East, given there are very limited, or non existant, options for other routes, is a reasonable solution for an issue that only benefits a small area in outer London?
Well it benefits a line that now carries approximately 1 in 7 of all National Rail journeys. And potentially it impacts everyone using Crossrail from every station out to Reading.
I thought step free platforms for the Elizabeth Line would be incompatible with the GWR 387s. If so you can only do this to stations up to Slough, and regardless Maidenhead, Telford and Reading would be near impossible with the GWR shuttles. As I mentioned above it also severely limits GWR's Churchwood project, as a 915mm floor would be totally incompatible, and newer platforms built to this standard across the Western would have to be modified.
Yes.
This may have seemed to make sense when it was just a dedicated fleet of trains and dedicated platforms at Heathrow and Paddington with a non-stop service. Once the "Connect" service was introduced, stopping at most stations including Ealing Broadway on the way to Paddington, it starts to look a bit short sighted and following established height standards would have been a better longer term decision. Heathrow Connect was the predecessor to Elizabeth Line services.
So for the benefit of a handful of stations we should stop significant freight flows, and break a fairly critical link? Even if there are other alternatives? And stop any other potential uses of the line by National Rail services?
I guess you don't live on or near a road which is going to get all the extra lorries then. It's been reported elsewhere on the Forum that freight stands to lose out on the ECML because of the clamour for extra fast passenger trains.
Would the GWR shuttles continue to operate, or would we simply turn the relief lines entirely over to the Elizabeth line?
Why would they be going down the Branches?
I do realise the strategic importance, but ultimately I feel it matters less than the millions using the Elizabeth line.
~8m tons of aggregates is sent out from Somerset by train every year, most of it ends up somewhere in London, via the GWML. How would you propose that is delivered instead?
Lorries.
But trains can do both better than road vehicles. Each aggregate train takes somewhere around 100 lorry movements off the roads.
Unfortunately HEX got there first, creating the technical difficulties of lowering the platforms at Heathrow and the commercial ones of persuading the airport either to buy new trains or to accept a degradation to their premium service. Also, at the time EL was being specified, there was no train on the UK market offering level boarding to a 915mm platform and also a 90mph top speed, which is probably critical to maintaining timetables on the GWML in particular.
Contrary to much expectation, oversite developments, particularly over something as complex and in use as a railway station, do not give anything like the revenue that those not involved may think. The additional cost, and cost risk, compared to adjacent empty sites is just not worth it.