Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[ThameslinkUser]

Each aggregate train takes somewhere around 100 lorry movements off the roads.

And how many cars does each 345 take off the road?

 

[Recessio]

Heathrow really should have been forced to change their platforms then. They won't have turned down the allure of the Elizabeth line funneling in new customers simply because they had to rebuild some platforms.

I can sympathise more if we have accessibility problems due to victorian era structures, but for something built within living memory to cause baked-in accessibility issues across the entire western length of the EL due to a non-standard platform height at Heathrow is frankly unacceptable, and should never have been allowed to go forward.

 

[zwk500]

And how many cars does each 345 take off the road?

The proportion of passengers who board or alight at Ealing Broadway without issue now is rather high, so you'd be ending freight for the number of car journeys made by the people who could not otherwise board from 915mm platforms. That's a much smaller number.
Might even be cheaper over 30 years to offer anybody uncomfortable boarding or alighting at Ealing Broadway a Black Cab to/from Paddington or the next station Westwards with safe boarding distances.

 

[dosxuk]

How does the floor height of the 345's compare to other non-Stadler stock?

 

[geoffk]

I've only used Ealing Broadway to change between Heathrow Connect and the Underground. What's the difference in stepping distance there now with EL trains, compared to, say, Salford Central before the platforms were raised? I used SFD quite often before I moved south and found it a big step down but there was always a warning from on-train staff. It would help if "mind the step down from train to platform" announcements could be confined to stations where there is a particular issue, rather than trotting it out at every station. I agree though that this is an issue which should have been properly addressed. talking about Harrington Humps just seems crazy - weren't they only ever intended for low-use rural stations?

 

[stuu]

And how many cars does each 345 take off the road?

Strawman. No one is suggesting not running passenger trains

 

[JamesT]

How does the floor height of the 345's compare to other non-Stadler stock?

According to the page I linked to in post #91, they're pretty average.
The problem with Ealing Broadway is the platform is sub-standard.

 

[zwk500]

talking about Harrington Humps just seems crazy - weren't they only ever intended for low-use rural stations?

Harrington Humps refers to a specific design of bolt-on humps that could be deployed quickly and cheaply. However, some stations on the Thameslink core (St Pancras for definite) have sections of raised platform that fulfill the same purpose, and some station on some London Underground ines now have an entire section of the platform at a higher height.
The issue with a hump - Harrington or just 'built-in' - is that if the platform is narrow, there is an existing structure on the platform, or there is something the platform needs to connect to, it will impact on the maximum allowable gradients. Which may end up costing rather a lot to resolve.

 

[Horizon22]

The proportion of passengers who board or alight at Ealing Broadway without issue now is rather high, so you'd be ending freight for the number of car journeys made by the people who could not otherwise board from 915mm platforms. That's a much smaller number.
Might even be cheaper over 30 years to offer anybody uncomfortable boarding or alighting at Ealing Broadway a Black Cab to/from Paddington or the next station Westwards with safe boarding distances.

Or for people who really do struggle might need to swallow their pride and request a boarding ramp. Not ideal of course but without any reasonable alternative this would help. Both incidents have involved people over 80.

 

[NotATrainspott]

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.

I don't actually disagree here. Once the principle that TfL should be encouraged to redevelop at density above and around their stations is established, even if it means buildings much larger than local NIMBYs would want, then the natural next question is the land around the stations. Why shouldn't TfL be able buy up a row of unlisted 2-story shops or houses next to the station if the demand is there for a 20-storey tower above the station itself? Being able to expand station footprints can be absolutely critical for railway operations. If you need more platforms, or wider platforms, or more entrances and exits and stairs and escalators and lifts to handle passenger numbers, it can be pretty hard if you don't have excess land laying around. Land expansions like these almost always work well with oversite development, since you don't need the complex foundations or work above the railway requiring possessions and specialist staff and equipment.

Well the station has been substantially redeveloped already in the last 3 years. It's nothing to do with NIMBYism. It's just various bits not coordinating and evidently TfL / Network Rail believing the risk was suitably managed to "as low as reasonably practicable".

What does it mean to be substantially redeveloped? The fact the overall footprint and land use of the station did not change, despite the incredible value of the land after the opening of the Elizabeth line, is a reflection of issues well beyond what TfL are currently responsible for.

Quite fundamentally, all of these transport improvements have changed what Ealing Broadway as an area is meant to be. It isn't a nice end-of-the-line suburb any more. It's an intermediate stop on the newest and arguably most important metro line in the city. The rest of the country spent many billions of pounds on giving the people of Ealing Broadway the sort of railway that has otherwise resulted in major new tower developments, like at Woolwich. Why is it right to keep the area around the station essentially the same as it was 100 year ago? If there were a tornado localised totally on the site of Ealing Broadway station that wiped out all buildings in a 500m radius, we would not then rebuild by putting back 2 storey houses.

The platform gaps are no worse than they were under the old GWR diesel service. But, that diesel service was set up for a world that is now gone, where passenger numbers were lower and it just didn't matter that the gap existed. The world has changed, but the things which have not (the platform gaps) cause problems. The same is true of the frankly terrible housing around the station. The same people complaining about these platform gaps are also going to find it particularly difficult to live in these old 2-storey houses that were never designed to be accessible. They wouldn't have those accessibility problems if they lived in Woolwich, where everything was built gap-free with lifts from the very start.

If we made it easier for our built environment to adjust to reflect changes in lifestyle and infrastructure, it would make it easier for our infrastructure and lifestyle to reflect changes in our built environment too. Why can't we dedicate the GWML relief lines to the Elizabeth line, like how the District is separate to the LTS? Because there's that lingering demand for GWML passenger and freight services to be able to use them too. That's something that could be fixed.

What if TfL had carte blanche to redevelop all the land near to the Elizabeth line (i.e. existing property not under railway ownership) and receive the profit? They'd be able to fit in a lot of flats and make a lot of money as a land developer. Plus, all the new flats would mean a lot of economic growth and new tax revenue for the government from that increase in wealth. And, even more passengers for the Elizabeth line, so the need to run even more services. All those extra passengers would probably necessitate the line being handed over completely to TfL, at which point level boarding could be achieved by raising the platforms to 1100mm as at Heathrow and in the core. With more revenue coming in to the railway and the government, you have the best possible shot at building something better to handle the remaining GWML traffic. Maybe the answer is to build a high speed rail bypass line of the entire inner GWML, so that the current mains can become the reliefs? It's not a quick solution by any means, but if you get the incentives right then it may follow totally logically and inevitably.

 

[edwin_m]

And how many cars does each 345 take off the road?

The question should be how that number would change if level boarding was introduced at all the surface stations.

 

[Benjwri]

And, even more passengers for the Elizabeth line, so the need to run even more services

The reliefs past Slough already are already dedicated to the Elizabeth Line, bar 2 freight paths. Not many more services could be run, certainly not enough to make a meaningful difference to passenger numbers.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Lorries.

Lorries can move aggregate in a more space efficient manner than private motor cars can move commuters.

It's genuinely illegal to remove freight off the gwml because some platforms at ealing broadway have some issues. Completely breaks every single rail rule and regulation.

 

[Falcon1200]

the millions using the Elizabeth line.

Of those millions only a certain proportion are joining or alighting at a station with 'low' platforms, and while that is still a significant number, there have been just two reported (or perhaps highlighted) accidents at one of the busiest such stations, Ealing Broadway. It is also worth mentioning that the unfortunate passenger in the latest incident did say, according to the BBC News article, that he did not use a handrail to join the train, and that this was a factor in his accident.

The suggestion of humps on the platforms concerned is worth considering, as long of course as they do not prevent or hamper other trains than Class 345, and can be provided without causing disruption. Any suggestion of dedicating, physically, the Relief Lines entirely to Elizabeth Line trains only is a non-starter.

 

[HSTEd]

~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?

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

 

[SLC001]

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?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Might even be cheaper over 30 years to offer anybody uncomfortable boarding or alighting at Ealing Broadway a Black Cab to/from Paddington or the next station Westwards with safe boarding distances.

All the stations west of Ealing are much the same.

Ealing may be sufficiently busy that a dedicated member of staff could meet each train with a ramp at a predefined area of the platform. How do they manage east of Liverpool Street?

 

[SynthD]

The rest of the country spent many billions of pounds on giving the people of Ealing Broadway the sort of railway that has otherwise resulted in major new tower developments, like at Woolwich.

The whole country, not the rest of the country, spent money on Ealing. It didn't spend money on Woolwich as that was paid for by the private developers.

All those extra passengers would probably necessitate the line being handed over completely to TfL

No.

The suggestion of humps on the platforms concerned is worth considering, as long of course as they do not prevent or hamper other trains than Class 345, and can be provided without causing disruption.

They only solve vertical gaps. The edge of the hump would have to be set back to accommodate the passing freight. Is level boarding with a horizontal gap and a second surface 17.5cm below the gap acceptable?

Might even be cheaper over 30 years to offer anybody uncomfortable boarding or alighting at Ealing Broadway

Why 30 years?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I do realise the strategic importance, but ultimately I feel it matters less than the millions using the Elizabeth line.

Most of those millions do not have a problem with the platform height. I'm in my late 70s and I've never had difficulty at Ealing Broadway and I've never noticed anyone else having difficulty.

And how many cars does each 345 take off the road?

Almost none. Most of the passengers using the Elizabeth Line were already travelling by public transport.

 

[Haywain]

Why 30 years?

Because that's the approximate life of the class 345s, I expect.

 

[BrianW]

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?

While agreeing with the comments regarding, as I would put it, the 'right' of older people to travel, and to do so without 'unreasonable' risk, I also disagree with the suggestion that younger people are not considerate of older folk. I appreciate that some may have difficulty putting themselves in their shoes. This 'oppositional' setting of subsidised old folk against young who are paying is not conducive to a good society.

I do recognise however the need for costs to be proportionate; older folk, given help and encouragement, will seek out safer ways. I like the suggestion of a 'safe coach' with level(-ish) boarding at every stop, and between platforms and entry/exit. TfL is getting there, recognising that funding and staff resources will not support doing everything as soon as some, including em, might like. Announcements, ramps and human assistance are a good 'step' (soory foor the pun- old git, stroke-survivor, writing!) along the way to a more considerate travelling society, also apprteciative of the needs of freight!

 

[NotATrainspott]

The whole country, not the rest of the country, spent money on Ealing. It didn't spend money on Woolwich as that was paid for by the private developers.

So why then should Ealing remain a two storey suburb when along the line, the same level of service makes it possible for a private developer to not only build new housing but also an entire station?

It's totally unnatural for these two storey homes to persist near such a major transport node. It only persists because we have policies which break normal supply and demand. Why can't the same private developers who built Woolwich go and buy up all the properties near Ealing Broadway, knock them down and replace them with towers? They wouldn't have had to pay for a totally new underground station either.

They can't because our planning system makes it very difficult to overcome local NIMBY complaints. The fact that you would be providing good housing for another 10,000 new people for the area is irrelevant if 1000 current residents can complain and vote in councils that will block them. There isn't anywhere in the process where the views of future residents get to be weighed against the views of current residents.

And, our tax system means that there is little punishment for local voters to block housing. Once you've bought a house, we've basically insulated people from how much their house is now worth. If your £100k suburban home is now worth £1m because it's steps away from a 20 min ride to the City, you aren't taxed like you own a £1m asset. Meanwhile the people who rent the same home end up having to pay 10x as much, despite having done just as much to pay for the railway to be built.

If you were taxed on the basis of a £1m valuation for your home, then the offer of selling it to TfL or another private developer for them to demolish it and replace it with a better station and flats wouldn't seem so bad. Now though, without that stick applied, you'll just wait for the biggest carrot you can possibly extract from the taxpayer and future buyers/tenants of the new flats.

The stepping distance is just as much part of the Elizabeth line now as the trains. On a high intensity rail service the bottlenecks can lie in odd places, like the escalators and ticket barriers. It might not be sexy but a few more seconds per station call to handle slower dwell times adds up across the network.

We have an aging population. We can't afford to have staff to help people onto busy commuter trains. Demand for help is increasing at the same time as the supply of young people to carry ramps about is going down. The time staff spend getting people onto trains, overcoming physical limitations of our railway and built environment, is time that the staff can't be doing something that is much harder to solve. This same problem applies everywhere else. We can't have an aging population living on their own in homes that predate them and require them to walk up and down narrow stairs to get up to bed at night. If they lived in modern housing with lifts and wider doorways etc, then they'd be able to live independently and in dignity for a lot longer. If they lived across the road from the station in accessible new flats, with step-free access on and off trains, then they might be able to give up private car ownership while remaining mobile at low cost.

 

[SLC001]

If your £100k suburban home is now worth £1m because it's steps away from a 20 min ride to the City, you aren't taxed like you own a £1m asset.

It is taxed - when you die and probably quite close to 40%. Depends upon circumstances so please, yet again, do not quote tax issues unless you know what you are taking about. Besides I think it distracts from the point here. There is a problem, potentially it affects large percentage of the population and needs addressing before someone suffers a life changing injury.

 

[BrianW]

So why then should Ealing remain a two storey suburb when along the line, the same level of service makes it possible for a private developer to not only build new housing but also an entire station?

It's totally unnatural for these two storey homes to persist near such a major transport node. It only persists because we have policies which break normal supply and demand. Why can't the same private developers who built Woolwich go and buy up all the properties near Ealing Broadway, knock them down and replace them with towers? They wouldn't have had to pay for a totally new underground station either.

They can't because our planning system makes it very difficult to overcome local NIMBY complaints. The fact that you would be providing good housing for another 10,000 new people for the area is irrelevant if 1000 current residents can complain and vote in councils that will block them. There isn't anywhere in the process where the views of future residents get to be weighed against the views of current residents.

And, our tax system means that there is little punishment for local voters to block housing. Once you've bought a house, we've basically insulated people from how much their house is now worth. If your £100k suburban home is now worth £1m because it's steps away from a 20 min ride to the City, you aren't taxed like you own a £1m asset. Meanwhile the people who rent the same home end up having to pay 10x as much, despite having done just as much to pay for the railway to be built.

If you were taxed on the basis of a £1m valuation for your home, then the offer of selling it to TfL or another private developer for them to demolish it and replace it with a better station and flats wouldn't seem so bad. Now though, without that stick applied, you'll just wait for the biggest carrot you can possibly extract from the taxpayer and future buyers/tenants of the new flats.

The stepping distance is just as much part of the Elizabeth line now as the trains. On a high intensity rail service the bottlenecks can lie in odd places, like the escalators and ticket barriers. It might not be sexy but a few more seconds per station call to handle slower dwell times adds up across the network.

We have an aging population. We can't afford to have staff to help people onto busy commuter trains. Demand for help is increasing at the same time as the supply of young people to carry ramps about is going down. The time staff spend getting people onto trains, overcoming physical limitations of our railway and built environment, is time that the staff can't be doing something that is much harder to solve. This same problem applies everywhere else. We can't have an aging population living on their own in homes that predate them and require them to walk up and down narrow stairs to get up to bed at night. If they lived in modern housing with lifts and wider doorways etc, then they'd be able to live independently and in dignity for a lot longer. If they lived across the road from the station in accessible new flats, with step-free access on and off trains, then they might be able to give up private car ownership while remaining mobile at low cost.

Two-storey Ealing- in fact much of Ealing, including Haven Green, is multi-storey flats- Edwardian or modern- and the voters of Ealing have decided on Conservation areas:

GiS Maps - Conservation

Ealing Council

maps.ealing.gov.uk

Many voters are 'asset-rich and cash-poor'. Maybe 'equity relaease' and 'the bankof mum--and-dad' will see that change to cope with care costs as the population ages.

We do not have compulsory euthanasia yet; I won't vote for that- maybe our grandchildren will?

Politicians, and we who vote for them, decide what we will and will not afford. Compulsory Purchase is a possibility, for the common good ...

Meanwhile I would like to maintain my mobility and make good use of my old gits' bus pass and rail concessions allowed me by the voters of the past and present, while living in a home of my choice, and I do what I can to avoid busy commuter trains. Thank you.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It is taxed - when you die and probably quite close to 40%. Depends upon circumstances so please, yet again, do not quote tax issues unless you know what you are taking about. Besides I think it distracts from the point here. There is a problem, potentially it affects large percentage of the population and needs addressing before someone suffers a life changing injury.

Yes, there is a problem. There isn't the money and ability to change our built environment to suit our modern requirements. Ealing Broadway is now just as important a station as Woolwich at the other end of the line. To be able to do as much for its local community as Woolwich does, with its step free access, this station will need a similar level of attention. The only reason there's a station at Woolwich is because of the opportunity to build new towers of flats without local NIMBYs being able to block the change. If the NIMBYs had their way, there would be no Woolwich station.

Inheritance tax doesn't help here because once you're dead, you don't care about platform-train interfaces. The money to fix the station has to be available when you're still alive, so unless the state is able to borrow against the future income it will receive from your estate, it'll have to come from tax revenue they get from you now. Why should working people pay more in income tax to pay for pensioners to have step free access to trains, if the pensioners reject having their assets taxed to pay for it instead?

 

[Falcon1200]

Is level boarding with a horizontal gap and a second surface 17.5cm below the gap acceptable?

Both incidents discussed in this thread occurred as a direct result of the height difference, so eliminating or at least reducing that would be of benefit.

 

[Haywain]

Both incidents discussed in this thread occurred as a direct result of the height difference, so eliminating or at least reducing that would be of benefit.

Indeed - it seems that the vertical step is greater than the normal 185mm, and if that's the case, reducing that should be looked at.

 

[Dr Hoo]

If we had an ORR fit for purpose it would have addressed this wider problem successfully much earlier.

A retired senior NR manager friend recently tripped boarding a SWT train and was quite badly hurt.

Stoically, he just stayed at home and recovered.

WAO

Well, the background legislation requires ORR to ‘permission’ new works but is not retrospective for existing works.
It could been for the DfT to have specified (and funded) platforms raisings (anywhere) in the Periodic Review HLOS/SoFA process and for Network Rail to develop a 5-year business plan including such works for the ORR to assess but that hasn’t happened.

 

[jfowkes]

How much could you raise the platforms at Ealing Broadway, before they began fouling freights?

You don't *have* to get to level boarding (though that is best), every mm you raise the platform means less risk of this kind of incident occuring.

I'm guessing this wouldn't be practical because of pathing, but would slowing freights down help, by reducing their kinematic envelope? I guess they're already fairly slow anyway at Ealing Broadway...

 

[OxtedL]

Can I exhibit
1. A photo of the gap at Ealing Broadway from the BBC article in post #1

2. A photo of platform 3 at London Bridge


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