Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[edwin_m]

I think there could be things done at Ealing Broadway to reduce the step before we get anywhere near changing standards.

The constraint, as mentioned some way upthread, is the things on the platform that might make it difficult to raise. Platforms should slope downwards from the front edge to the back, which helps stop things like pushchairs rolling off the edge. But there's likely to be a limit on how much this slope can be increased before creating a different hazard. Without some surveys and design work it's not possible to say how much the vertical gap could be reduced.

 

[WAO]

Too much packing under the sleepers? Is the track canted for speed?

WAO

 

[AngusH]

I think one cheap approach would be record and advertise the gap distance and step height data more widely.
So at least people could know in advance and plan their journeys. (yes, they do have to choose to do this)
Also maybe provide a journey planner with an option to "avoid large platform gaps".


TFL has a really detailed map (well done TFL!):

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdf

with categorised step and gap distances for quite a few stations, but for many it just shows [R] for ramp.

If this could be upgraded then the map would be more useful.

 

[dosxuk]

Someone said earlier in the thread that the track can not be lowered at this location - do we know what the reason for this constraint is?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The constraint, as mentioned some way upthread, is the things on the platform that might make it difficult to raise. Platforms should slope downwards from the front edge to the back, which helps stop things like pushchairs rolling off the edge. But there's likely to be a limit on how much this slope can be increased before creating a different hazard. Without some surveys and design work it's not possible to say how much the vertical gap could be reduced.

Difficult but not impossible. The lack of anything but a shoestring budget to fix such a major issue is a systemic issue. Without even meeting the current standards, it's impossible to design a solution for level boarding.

Another aspect of this is that we have probably exhausted the range of options that can be delivered on a shoestring budget. If you have a limited budget to deliver accessibility, you'll pick the schemes with the best cost-benefit ratio first. After you've done one scheme, the next one you do has a worse BCR, and so on and so on. It's the law of diminishing returns.

We've maximised the amount of overall accessibility on the line by fixing all of the easy problems. But that means the remaining problems stick out even more like a sore thumb. Inconsistent platform gaps can lead to a false sense of security; if your experience of the Elizabeth line is just the core then you might not be aware of how bad the non-core, non-Heathrow sections are.

 

[AngusH]

Inconsistent platform gaps can lead to a false sense of security; if your experience of the Elizabeth line is just the core then you might not be aware of how bad the non-core, non-Heathrow sections are.

Definitely true.

I wonder if the visual appearance of the stations be made *really* different in some way in order to visually show that they aren't the same.

Maybe paint/colour the whole platform blue in the core and paint the platforms with bigger gaps red or yellow or something.


(colour vision is an issue with this scheme)

 

[Falcon1200]

Someone said earlier in the thread that the track can not be lowered at this location - do we know what the reason for this constraint is?

I don't know whether there are physical constraints, but if not it would be a massive task; The track would have to be lowered not just through the platforms but for a fair distance to east and west as well, resulting in the closure of either, or both, Relief Lines for an extended period; Which cannot possibly happen.

 

[dosxuk]

I don't know whether there are physical constraints, but if not it would be a massive task; The track would have to be lowered not just through the platforms but for a fair distance to east and west as well, resulting in the closure of either, or both, Relief Lines for an extended period; Which cannot possibly happen.

Presumably the lines would also need to be closed for an extended period for a full platform reconstruction to a standard height?

 

[jfowkes]

Someone said earlier in the thread that the track can not be lowered at this location - do we know what the reason for this constraint is?

As has been mentioned several times on the thread, the reason is frieght. Raise the platforms or lower the track, you run into the same issue - the platform enters the kinematic/physical envelope of the train.

That's why I asked the question above: how much raising/lowering can you do and still keep the platforms outside that boundary? And would that be worth doing?

 

[dosxuk]

As has been mentioned several times on the thread, the reason is frieght. Raise the platforms or lower the track, you run into the same issue - the platform enters the kinematic/physical envelope of the train.

However it has also been noted that the platform at this location is below the standard height - which presumably is set to be the maximum that will still fit all stock - meaning there must be some adjustment available before you start getting freight trains knocking the coping off.

But it also seems that it's too difficult to do anything.

 

[edwin_m]

Difficult but not impossible. The lack of anything but a shoestring budget to fix such a major issue is a systemic issue. Without even meeting the current standards, it's impossible to design a solution for level boarding.

Another aspect of this is that we have probably exhausted the range of options that can be delivered on a shoestring budget. If you have a limited budget to deliver accessibility, you'll pick the schemes with the best cost-benefit ratio first. After you've done one scheme, the next one you do has a worse BCR, and so on and so on. It's the law of diminishing returns.

We've maximised the amount of overall accessibility on the line by fixing all of the easy problems. But that means the remaining problems stick out even more like a sore thumb. Inconsistent platform gaps can lead to a false sense of security; if your experience of the Elizabeth line is just the core then you might not be aware of how bad the non-core, non-Heathrow sections are.

Ealing Broadway is one of the more important stops west of London and an interchange with the District Line (which has level boarding at many stations, not sure about here). So minimising the step height is likely to have more benefit here than at some nearby stations, but I'm not in a position to comment on whether it is more or less costly.

Presumably the lines would also need to be closed for an extended period for a full platform reconstruction to a standard height?

Raising the platforms might not be so bad in that respect, depending on how many difficulties we don't know about for either option. Potentially the platform would be closed, possibly in one direction at a time, but trains could still operate. A lot of the work would have to be done in possessions though, with all trains using the Mains.

As has been mentioned several times on the thread, the reason is frieght. Raise the platforms or lower the track, you run into the same issue - the platform enters the kinematic/physical envelope of the train.

That's why I asked the question above: how much raising/lowering can you do and still keep the platforms outside that boundary? And would that be worth doing?

There are two alternatives being discussed.

Level boarding requires either low-floor stock or platforms to be raised to a level that is incompatible with passing freight trains, and all platforms on the route to be consistent with whatever floor height is chosen. But the last few posts are more related whether the platform can be raised to the standard height, which wouldn't deliver level boarding but would be better than the current large step up.

 

[WAO]

I do not believe that the track cannot simply be lowered so that rail top is c70mm lower, so as to make the 345 door step no worse that the SWT picture shown; or that this would then be out of gauge for general traffic.

Even with sewers or cables under there are options for thinner track formations.

Level boarding is an elysian ideal that is a waste of time and money for general application, other than with normal stock replacement.

WAO

 

[norbitonflyer]

Be careful what you wish for. The quickest and cheapest way of stopping such accidents would be to have the Elizabeth Line not call there. (I recall a similar proposal when DDA legislation was being mooted, suggesting that a train not be permitted to enter service if the accessible toilet was out of order, until it was pointed out that at remote stabling points like Pwllheli that would mean the cancellation of the train service, preventing everyone, including the disabled, from travelling at all)

Seriously though, it is not just mobility problems that cause the elderly to be more prone to such accidents. Vision can be an issue. I am not particularly old (well, I don't qualify for the national bus pass yet) but can recall missing the bottom step of flights of stairs several times when I was new to bifocal lenses.

Be careful what you wish for. The quickest and cheapest way of stopping such accidents would be to have the Elizabeth Line not call there. (I recall a similar proposal when DDa

Seriously though, it is not just mobility problems that cause the elderly to be more prone to such accidents. Vision can be an issue. I am not particularly old (well, I don't qualify for the national bus pass yet) but can recall missing the bottom step of flights of stairs several times when I was new to bifocal lenses.

 

[MarkyT]

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!

So would you advocate hundreds of aggregate lorries wearing out and holding up the west country road network for the whole journey, or offloading it all at Theale and trucking it into London and thereabouts from there on the M4?

The aggregate industry is extraordinarily price sensitive.
The likely outcome is that the aggregates used in the South East start coming from a different source, not that the traffic would end up on the M4

You'll have the Mendip stone barons after you! Stone is not the only freight on GWML and ISTR it was an important diversionary route for deepsea intermodal during the Oxford bridge collapse.

 

[jfowkes]

I take it diverting freights at Reading via Wokingham/Bracknell/Egham/Brentford is a non-starter for traffic and/or gauging reasons?

 

[philthetube]

Level Boarding is unsafe on curved platforms, however experience on the Metropolitan line shows that when the S Stock was introduced there was a massive increase in numbers of people falling between train and track, in locations such as Farringdon and Baker street

Sorry I cannot provide documentary evidence of this, someone else may be able to

People notice a step, they do not notice a gap, it may make sense to make boarding level on any straight platforms providing there would not be a gap, the best solution in my opinion would be to reduce the step to 3/4 inches.

This link is to a Reddit video showing people falling through gaps in Australia showing how easily it can happen, I don't believe any of the shown incidents would have happened with a step, the worse consequence would have been trips or falls.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1b0pd7u/people_consistently_falling_between_platform_and/

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Be careful what you wish for. The quickest and cheapest way of stopping such accidents would be to have the Elizabeth Line not call there. (I recall a similar proposal when DDA legislation was being mooted, suggesting that a train not be permitted to enter service if the accessible toilet was out of order, until it was pointed out that at remote stabling points like Pwllheli that would mean the cancellation of the train service, preventing everyone, including the disabled, from travelling at all)

That to me is a major concern. It would cost almost zero. BCR = Benefit/cost - so if cost is zero the BCR of this would be infinity.

OK I have used a reductio ab absurdio treatment - but you can see how HMT may think!

 

[The exile]

Level Boarding is unsafe on curved platforms,

Which can presumably be mitigated by fitting stock with a retractable “step” (or whatever the official terminology is). Might still leave a “stiletto trap” but not much more than that.

 

[zwk500]

That to me is a major concern. It would cost almost zero. BCR = Benefit/cost - so if cost is zero the BCR of this would be infinity.

OK I have used a reductio ab absurdio treatment - but you can see how HMT may think!

The cost would not be near zero because there would be a loss of revenue & wider benefits from removing the stop. Especially with the tube interchange.
I wonder if suitable positions for all stock at Ealing Broadway could be found to mount handrails in the platform surface. I would guess that keeping a hold on the handrails in the train require leaning quite far forward/back when the passenger is on the platform surface which may be difficult to maintain balance for especially in the elderly. Having a platform rail to transfer their grip to may help avoid slipping or falling, without requiring the individual to ask for assistance (which many people find difficult to bring themselves to do, whether it be for pride, anxiety, or just social inhibitions about 'being a burden').
The railings could easily be kept clear of the kinematic envelope, the biggest problem would be identifying suitable positions for them give the variety of rolling stock the stops there.

 

[edwin_m]

That to me is a major concern. It would cost almost zero. BCR = Benefit/cost - so if cost is zero the BCR of this would be infinity.

OK I have used a reductio ab absurdio treatment - but you can see how HMT may think!

There's a financial cost (some passengers not using the train so not paying fares) and a social cost (they don't get the benefit of the train service and contribute to pollution, noise and accidents if they go by road instead). Both of these should show up in a proper social cost-benefit analysis.

 

[philthetube]

Which can presumably be mitigated by fitting stock with a retractable “step” (or whatever the official terminology is). Might still leave a “stiletto trap” but not much more than that.

It can but needs more than just a retractable step, it would need to vary in size according to the gap and the station.

Also it would it would need to have a sensitive edge of some form or it could end up doing unfortunate amputations.

It also increases dwell times as the step has to be in place before the doors open and retracted after they close.

1 door failure would result in a train being out of service and if step stuck out delaying the service while it was sorted

I am not saying it cannot be done, just pointing out considerations.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Let me clarify my comments please. The CAPEX would be close to zero

 

[James H]

this was raised at the TfL board yesterday and they said MTR have put extra staff on the platforms to assist passengers and to respond in the event of a problem.

 

[HSTEd]

You'll have the Mendip stone barons after you! Stone is not the only freight on GWML and ISTR it was an important diversionary route for deepsea intermodal during the Oxford bridge collapse.

Stone represents a huge portion of traffic though, especially daylight traffic when there will be no capacity on the fast lines for freight trains. Realtime Trains at Ealing Broadway seems to show it to be lots and lots of aggregates of various types, with a couple of petroleum trains and freightliners.

As for diversionary routes, forgive me if I am not particularly concerned about rarely used diversionary routes for freight when we barely bother with such things for passenger services.

 

[BrianW]

this was raised at the TfL board yesterday and they said MTR have put extra staff on the platforms to assist passengers and to respond in the event of a problem.

MTR? Meaning ...

Do they 'cover' the whole of every 9-car /the whole of each platform? How do they identify the want of/ need for 'assistance' or response?

So they admit there's an issue then?

 

[starlight73]

MTR? Meaning ...

Probably MTR Elizabeth Line (they operate it under contract to TfL)

 

[Benjwri]

Do they 'cover' the whole of every 9-car /the whole of each platform? How do they identify the want of/ need for 'assistance' or response?

As I understand it there is a bit of the platform which is significantly worse than the rest because of curvature and cant.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that due to the platform being on a curve I wonder if having a centre door is making the issue worse, in terms of distance from the platform horizontally? The photos shown have all been of the middle door, which will naturally be further from the platform on a curve. If the gap is more acceptable on non middle doors an immediate and almost free solution could be locking out middle doors at Ealing, along with appropriate announcements with sufficient notice.

 

[Horizon22]

There was reference by another poster here that the two incidents involved people over the age of 80 and by clear inference that they were the problem and perhaps could be ignored. I find that a typical comment of younger people who are ignorant of the problems of an aging population. One of the most common reasons for people over the age of 65 (not 80 and therefore still of working age) for visiting a doctor is that they complain of dizziness, imbalance or blackouts. There are many reasons for this including blood pressure, Parkinsons disease, diabetes and cognitive decline. It might be that people over 80 are more likely to have problems with their balance and spacial awareness than those over 65 but over a longer period of time the age range is likely to get greater unless something is done. What I cannot say but if this gentleman does take legal action or another person later on, a judge is going to take a dim view of the fact that nothing was done.
Incidentally, not having seen the platform concerned, what is the risk to children in what appears to be a busy and crowded platform?

I suggested age is a factor and I do stand by it. The only significant incidents have been of those over retirement age.

There is nothing about being "ignorant" about it, more than those who do have issues with dizziness and imbalance and spatial awareness should acknowledge this and use the various mitigations (e.g. boarding ramps and booked staff assistance) to help them off trains and again 'swallow their pride' and use public transport co-dependently.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Ealing Broadway's platform gap is less than ideal, it's just that solving the actual problem is incrredibly difficult. Also there's a difference between "nothing was done" and reasonable mitigations being put in place.

MTR? Meaning ...

Do they 'cover' the whole of every 9-car /the whole of each platform? How do they identify the want of/ need for 'assistance' or response?

So they admit there's an issue then?

Sounds like a short-term mitigation to me with a "we have to be seen to do something" approach. Slightly towards the rear of the train is worse for the cant.

As I understand it there is a bit of the platform which is significantly worse than the rest because of curvature and cant.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that due to the platform being on a curve I wonder if having a centre door is making the issue worse, in terms of distance from the platform horizontally? The photos shown have all been of the middle door, which will naturally be further from the platform on a curve. If the gap is more acceptable on non middle doors an immediate and almost free solution could be locking out middle doors at Ealing, along with appropriate announcements with sufficient notice.

The centre door does cause problems. Some of the gaps at significantly curved platforms at Paddington when 345s were regularly in service there were so bad the centre door was locked out on arrival.

 

[Purple Train]

As I understand it there is a bit of the platform which is significantly worse than the rest because of curvature and cant.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that due to the platform being on a curve I wonder if having a centre door is making the issue worse, in terms of distance from the platform horizontally? The photos shown have all been of the middle door, which will naturally be further from the platform on a curve. If the gap is more acceptable on non middle doors an immediate and almost free solution could be locking out middle doors at Ealing, along with appropriate announcements with sufficient notice.

That's definitely possible, yes; I think they did that at the left-hand-on-arrival platforms at Paddington. As the train regularly stops for 90 seconds or more at Ealing Broadway, I don't think it would have much of an adverse effect, though associated platform markers might be a good idea.

Also, to be totally clear, is the issue the gap or the step, or both?

 

[Horizon22]

That's definitely possible, yes; I think they did that at the left-hand-on-arrival platforms at Paddington. As the train regularly stops for 90 seconds or more at Ealing Broadway, I don't think it would have much of an adverse effect, though associated platform markers might be a good idea.

Also, to be totally clear, is the issue the gap or the step, or both?

The gap appears to be more of an issue, although the step isn't tiny either. But Platforms 1/2 the step is huge.