footbridge for wheelchairs

[DaveNewcastle]

IMHO pretty much every £ spent on facilities for the disabled is a waste of money. For whatever reason(s) - real or imagined - the lesser mobile section of society are . . .

Nice rant, but lets just deal with this preface to your 'humble opinion'.

Its irrelevant.
And therefore the remainder of the post has no underpinning in fact.

Ramps help pram users, shopping trolley users, cyclists (pushing or cycling), tourists (have you used any large stations this summer and observed the logistics of getting those huge wheeled cases to the right places at the right times - especially those that serve airports and all the connecting stations), zimmer-frame users, those with various injuries or prosthetics (trains serve hospitals - study the access provisions and options to and within modern hospitals to learn about accessibiliy), infants, golf caddies, rail service trolleys, carts, cases, . . . . . the list could go on.
You may be as critical as you wish about policies which aspire to enhance the accessibility of rail transport to those with physical disabilities (though I'd disagree with you there too) but please don't alienate those millions of other travellers with your criticism of ramps.

Remember, that for every major tourist terminus, or station that serves an airport, hospital, care home, etc, that there has to be another suitably equipped station somewhere else to make 'a journey'.

[I reckon I have used 8 ramps this week, in favour of steps, and do not consider myself to be in "the disabled community"].

If you'd like to research some evidence for your views, please tell us the number of pram users at any one averaged instant in one day in the UK.
Tell us the same for each of the other ramp users.
That could inform a much more thorough debate of service provision.

And after that analysis, I'm now going to make a completely uninformed assumption . . . . Speedbird2639 has never experienced the joys of mobility that a wheelchair can give (after an accident, hip replacement, arthitis, etc.] but (s)he may do so one day, as applies to the vast majority of us at some points in our lives - after which her/his 'humble opinion' may begin to change.

 

[SussexMan]

IMHO pretty much every £ spent on facilities for the disabled is a waste of money.

Guess you won't be watching much of the Paralympics then....

Still shows how far we have to go before attitudes change.

 

[bb21]

But the case is indefensible - people suggested that disabled people didnt use the trains because there were no appropriate facilities - these facilities have been provided at huge expense that arguable cld have been better spent else where and still they stay away

Your source being?

How much in your eyes should be spent on provisions for easier access for the less mobile?

 

[jon0844]

My mum had an accident years ago that left her wheelchair bound for some years. She now walks with a stick and uses ramps over lifts because she doesn't really like lifts (and I bet there are others who don't like lifts for the fear of being trapped).

And disabled doesn't automatically mean in a wheelchair. I am amazed people would even think that, but clearly many do.

 

[yorkie]

...number of times I've seen a disabled person on the train? Nil! - not one - on all those journeys.

I am puzzled by this. How do you know? Did you walk up and down the train and ask them all?

As for "abt", "shd" and "wld".... they are not words! However, if you have a disability, then I'll let that go, but if there's no good reason for typing that, then please abide by our Forum Rules. Thanks.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

People moan abt the railways receiving subsidies and fares being too high and then they (the rule makers) insist on every possible permutation of provision being made for people who travel everywhere in their Motability provided brand new car, and so have no need of the railway.

Motability do not provide the cars. They are leased and paid for by the disabled person.

Disabilities come in many shapes and forms and it is not always obvious that someone might be profoundly deaf or partially sighted and there are many people with heart conditions who look perfectly healthy but will be only able to walk short distances without suffering severe discomfort.

 

[Mojo]

The platforms at Lawrence Hill have just had new staircases put in, replacing the old dilapidated concrete ones.
Odd that they didn't put in a ramp, there's no other access to the southbound platform, so it's still totally inaccessible for a wheelchair user.

It is my understanding that there was reluctance to install wheelchair access and just go ahead with a 'like for like' replacement of the steps due to concerns over how any future ramp would fit in with the imminent extra tracks and overhead line equipment to be installed at this location.

 

[northwichcat]

Since Jan 2012 I have been travelling to work by train in Birmingham - so date that wld be roughly 320 journeys - number of times I've seen a disabled person on the train? Nil! - not one - on all those journeys.

If you're commuting you normally see a lot of the same people every day (except on very high frequency lines) so the number of journeys is irrelevant.

I saw a group of disabled people travelling from Manchester to Blackpool on a service run by a 150/1 + 150/2 combination a few weeks ago as part of a trip organised by a disability group. However, only one of them was in a wheelchair, the rest had disabilities that didn't prevent them from walking, so how many people who boarded the other unit knew that there were multiple disabled people on the same train?

 

[DarloRich]

IMHO pretty much every £ spent on facilities for the disabled is a waste of money. For whatever reason(s) - real or imagined - the lesser mobile section of society are not attracted by the service offered by The Railway. Since Jan 2012 I have been travelling to work by train in Birmingham - so date that wld be roughly 320 journeys - number of times I've seen a disabled person on the train? Nil! - not one - on all those journeys. At all the stations along the line provision is made with car parking spaces set aside for their use and every day these stand idle while people hunt abt in side streets for a parking spot.

People moan abt the railways receiving subsidies and fares being too high and then they (the rule makers) insist on every possible permutation of provision being made for people who travel everywhere in their Motability provided brand new car, and so have no need of the railway. Any service shd strive to create a cost effective and efficient service for the majority of its users - not get into an 'arms race' to see who can spend the most money on facilities that simply adds extortionate costs to be ignored by its target audience.

Before the pedants swarm all over this - I have no 'axe to grind' with the disabled community - I wld have no objection if my train was delayed a couple of minutes while the ramp was deployed to allow someone access to the train. But the case is indefensible - people suggested that disabled people didnt use the trains because there were no appropriate facilities - these facilities have been provided at huge expense that arguable cld have been better spent else where and still they stay away - it wld be an interesting exercise for an actuary types on the forum to explore the cost of providing parking/ lifts/ ramps at every station vs the cost of providing Motability cars to the disabled to use - I wldnt be surprised if the car option came out as cheaper in the long run when all the lift servicing/ cctv etc was factored in.

total and utter wibble

You might not like it but tough - Statue defines that there shall be access for all therefore there shall be access for all.

 

[Class377/5]

I'm fairly sure lifts can now be remotely supervised, my local example is Eastleigh, where they relocated the up side 'concourse' doors, sspecifically so that the lift became accessible from the platform but outside of the building. This was to allow the station to operate unmanned with passenger access through a side gate, but the lifts still stay on all night AFAICT...

Not sure how far away the remote supervision is though - perhaps they have someone mobile covering a local group of stations?

They are not remotely looked after at all. I know this for a fact due to my job.

I believe they've relaxed the rules over them to allow more stations to get lifts.

 

[pendolino]

Which is presumably why the ramps in question are so long, to minimise the gradient- I notice they also have short "refuge" sections of flat.

It's all enshrined in Part M of the Building Regs which specifies maximum gradients, widths, surface finishes, railings etc. Part M stipulates that a ramp can have a maximum length of 10m at 1:20 (shorter distance for steeper gradients) before a min. 1500mm level landing must be provided.

It's years since I did this sort of thing but from memory that's the spec that tends to be adopted.

So a ramp for a rise of 5m will require 10 no. 10m sections at 1:20 (each rising 500mm vertically) plus 9 intermediate level landings @ 1500mm which makes 113.5m longitudinal length (which can double back of course) plus the landings at either end which I think must be min. 2000mm. (Doing those calculations off the top of my head - probably wrong!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IMHO pretty much every £ spent on facilities for the disabled is a waste of money. For whatever reason(s) - real or imagined - the lesser mobile section of society are not attracted by the service offered by The Railway. Since Jan 2012 I have been travelling to work by train in Birmingham - so date that wld be roughly 320 journeys - number of times I've seen a disabled person on the train? Nil! - not one - on all those journeys. At all the stations along the line provision is made with car parking spaces set aside for their use and every day these stand idle while people hunt abt in side streets for a parking spot.

People moan abt the railways receiving subsidies and fares being too high and then they (the rule makers) insist on every possible permutation of provision being made for people who travel everywhere in their Motability provided brand new car, and so have no need of the railway. Any service shd strive to create a cost effective and efficient service for the majority of its users - not get into an 'arms race' to see who can spend the most money on facilities that simply adds extortionate costs to be ignored by its target audience.

Before the pedants swarm all over this - I have no 'axe to grind' with the disabled community - I wld have no objection if my train was delayed a couple of minutes while the ramp was deployed to allow someone access to the train. But the case is indefensible - people suggested that disabled people didnt use the trains because there were no appropriate facilities - these facilities have been provided at huge expense that arguable cld have been better spent else where and still they stay away - it wld be an interesting exercise for an actuary types on the forum to explore the cost of providing parking/ lifts/ ramps at every station vs the cost of providing Motability cars to the disabled to use - I wldnt be surprised if the car option came out as cheaper in the long run when all the lift servicing/ cctv etc was factored in.

'The Disabled' does not just mean those in wheelchairs, and not every wheelchair user will be able to drive a car, adapted or otherwise. Motability is not suitable for everyone, and those whose needs are not met by such a scheme should be given other options to enable them to undertake journeys that you might take for granted.

I see people with disabilties using the railway every day - they're not all in wheelchairs. I am able bodied but have no problem with money being spent on improving access. The current situation of TOCs providing 'assisted travel' (e.g., a wheelchair user needing to book ahead to ensure help is available to board/alight etc.) should be a stop-gap in my opinion - I look forward to the day when anyone can just turn up and go, regardless of ability. That would be true equality of access. That's a long way off, mind.

 

[jon0844]

It's very worrying that there are people who think a disabled user is someone in a wheelchair. Sadly even people who make things more accessible can assume this to be the case too - like ticket machines with the credit card machine (and display) low down for those in a chair, forgetting anyone who might struggle to bend/arch down to read. A simple movable display (tip up/down) could solve this, for example.

I've had luggage and found steps a pain. I've been to stations where the lifts are broken, and imagine what it must be like for a wheelchair user (compared to me simply cursing as I carry bags upstairs).

Since becoming a dad, I'm now pushing a pram and seeing things from a different light there - from the simple things like the lack of dropped kerbs at some crossings (usually on housing estates, rather than town centres).

When I sprained my ankle and struggled to walk in the coming week - I found myself looking at the stations I used every day in a different light too.. suddenly ramps were very welcome and - more important - looking for hand rails to support myself.

There are loads of things ordinary people don't notice at all in their usual day-to-day life, but circumstances change and one day any one of us - for a range of reasons, not just becoming disabled in some way - will appreciate that there are moves to make everything more accessible.

Having returned from Sweden, a country which is very technologically advanced, I was quite dismayed at how behind they were for accessibility - from buildings to using stations, trains and buses.

I read on another thread about the wish to get the Swedish (Bombardier) X50 trains because of how spacious they are - but then the doors open and it's like boarding a Pacer... except for one door with lower access, and a lift, but that means at best getting one wheelchair or buggy on before the doors close.. a total joke! Besides them being too wide for the UK anyway, I hope we'd never consider a train like that as it's like going back in time.

 

[WSW]

Sorry Speedbird your comments are both inaccurate and offensive.

When you make your daily journey do you ever consider that
a) you may not be able to get on the platform or on the train?
b) you may not be allowed to travel on the train due to your wheelchair being "too long"?
c) you may not be able to get off at your destination because there is no ramp or no lift?

And I see you have fallen for the old Motobility "free car" myth. My family are entitled to use Motobility but you know what - we can't afford to use Motobility. It's actually cheaper for us to buy and run our own car (which of necessity is much larger than needed by most families of three adults).

We find the improvements being made to our railways (and other facilities) are extremely helpful but often the designers fail as they tend to consult with manuals and regulations, and do not consult properly and extensively with real users.

And believe me, Speedbird, none of our experiences are as you say "imagined". They are quite, quite real. Every minute, every hour, every day, every month, every year. No escape.

Steve

IMHO pretty much every £ spent on facilities for the disabled is a waste of money. For whatever reason(s) - real or imagined - the lesser mobile section of society are not attracted by the service offered by The Railway. Since Jan 2012 I have been travelling to work by train in Birmingham - so date that wld be roughly 320 journeys - number of times I've seen a disabled person on the train? Nil! - not one - on all those journeys. At all the stations along the line provision is made with car parking spaces set aside for their use and every day these stand idle while people hunt abt in side streets for a parking spot.

People moan abt the railways receiving subsidies and fares being too high and then they (the rule makers) insist on every possible permutation of provision being made for people who travel everywhere in their Motability provided brand new car, and so have no need of the railway. Any service shd strive to create a cost effective and efficient service for the majority of its users - not get into an 'arms race' to see who can spend the most money on facilities that simply adds extortionate costs to be ignored by its target audience.

Before the pedants swarm all over this - I have no 'axe to grind' with the disabled community - I wld have no objection if my train was delayed a couple of minutes while the ramp was deployed to allow someone access to the train. But the case is indefensible - people suggested that disabled people didnt use the trains because there were no appropriate facilities - these facilities have been provided at huge expense that arguable cld have been better spent else where and still they stay away - it wld be an interesting exercise for an actuary types on the forum to explore the cost of providing parking/ lifts/ ramps at every station vs the cost of providing Motability cars to the disabled to use - I wldnt be surprised if the car option came out as cheaper in the long run when all the lift servicing/ cctv etc was factored in.

 

[ailsa]

People moan abt the railways receiving subsidies and fares being too high and then they (the rule makers) insist on every possible permutation of provision being made for people who travel everywhere in their Motability provided brand new car, and so have no need of the railway.

Please remove your thinking cap from your pocket and put it on your head.

I may not drive, due to seizures. I sure hope I never become physically disabled too, because in your world I'd be stuck at home going nowhere.

I also regularly see wheelchair users on the train between Trowbridge and Bristol.

 

[sevenhills]

The platforms at Lawrence Hill have just had new staircases put in, replacing the old dilapidated concrete ones.
Odd that they didn't put in a ramp, there's no other access to the southbound platform, so it's still totally inaccessible for a wheelchair user.
Northbound there's access via the ALDI car park.

Not sure why Charlbury has a wheelchair friendly bridge, since it only has 244,586 users last year; whereas my local station (Morley) has one platform that is only accessible via steps, had 328,556 users last year.

I believe the bridge at Morley is over 50 years old, at least it looks that old.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Not sure why Charlbury has a wheelchair friendly bridge, since it only has 244,586 users last year; whereas my local station (Morley) has one platform that is only accessible via steps, had 328,556 users last year.

I believe the bridge at Morley is over 50 years old, at least it looks that old.

The line through Charlbury has been redoubled recently, I suspect that any new platforms nowadays require disabled access, ergo it was provided.

 

[L&Y Robert]

It's all enshrined in Part M of the Building Regs which specifies maximum gradients, widths, surface finishes, railings etc. Part M stipulates that a ramp can have a maximum length of 10m at 1:20 (shorter distance for steeper gradients) before a min. 1500mm level landing must be provided.

It's years since I did this sort of thing but from memory that's the spec that tends to be adopted.

So a ramp for a rise of 5m will require 10 no. 10m sections at 1:20 (each rising 500mm vertically) plus 9 intermediate level landings @ 1500mm which makes 113.5m longitudinal length (which can double back of course) plus the landings at either end which I think must be min. 2000mm. (Doing those calculations off the top of my head - probably wrong!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The road leading out of town towards the station (Dyer's Hill) slopes quite steeply, and it hasn't got any of that. The road outside my house is 1:12, steepening to 1:7, and it hasn't either. (And isnt it Part K of the Building Regs?) My copy (1998 edition) says "Stairs, ladders and ramps shall be so designed constructed and installed as to be safe for people moving between different levels in or about the building" and that's all. The rest of the document, with all that stuff about dimensions IS ADVISORY.

 

[MattRobinson]

The road leading out of town towards the station (Dyer's Hill) slopes quite steeply, and it hasn't got any of that.

Could that be because it's a road, rather than a building, overbridge or similar structure?

 

[L&Y Robert]

Could that be because it's a road, rather than a building, overbridge or similar structure?

Yes, of course it is. But you are invoking RULES rather than common sense. You'd fall just as hard on a sloping 'sidewalk' as on a footbridge ramp. My point is that people negotiate slopes in the public domain all the time without having to be protected by special measures, viz. all that ADVISORY stuff about landings and wot-not.
To develop the thesis a bit, another section of Part K (my copy of the 1998 edition, bear in mind) requires that:
" . . . Any basement or similar sunken area shall be protected with barriers where it is necessary to prevent people in or about the building from falling".

Well now. What about station platforms then? I don't see many fences along station platform edges! (Yes, yes, yes - there are some on the underground, I know). Here, common sense prevails - it can't be done and yet be practical.
Er, can't it?

 

[Mojo]

As a person on a station platform you expect there to be an edge with a drop from it. I don't expect to be walking along the street and fall into a basement.

 

[jopsuk]

L&Y Robert- you seem to be suggesting that the large, gentle, ramps can't be done and aren't practical. This is clearly nonsense at so many locations. Yes, they might not be pretty, but patently they're practical- and there's usually/often a set of stairs as a short cut for those that can/want to use them

 

[L&Y Robert]

L&Y Robert- you seem to be suggesting that the large, gentle, ramps can't be done and aren't practical. This is clearly nonsense at so many locations. Yes, they might not be pretty, but patently they're practical- and there's usually/often a set of stairs as a short cut for those that can/want to use them

I'm suggesting that large gentle ramps are overkill (!) and probably expensive (all that steel!). Small severe ones might suffice, but they'd break all the rules (if rules they be). I remember the ramp from the footbridge up the embankment (south side) at Burnley Manchester Road was about 1 in 6 and cobbled. It had a handrail, though, but there was no alternative route via stairs (Late 50s).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Firstly, modern lifts at stations have all the same facilities (at least) as any other lift. I have been trapped in a lift 3 times in my life, all in major office buildings with plenty of people around, and in all cases an "engineer" was despatched from 20 miles away to release me / us.

If the lifts are the sole means of evacuation for a mobility impaired user, then they will have independent power back-ups, etc.

Many recent lift installations also have CCTV, monitored from a TOC or NR control office, 24hrs per day.

Lastly, the law only requires special provision where it is reasonable to do so and no other reasonable alternative exists. I can confirm that on all the recent NR station projects I have worked on, they have either been specifically aimed at meeting an accessibility need or have considered what is a reasonable provision (and we have not automatically designed in ramps or lifts).

And as for Speedbird2639, I actually hope you have to live some part of your life with an impairment, preferably an "invisible" one, even if only temporary.

How do you know you've never seen a disabled person on a train? How did you find out?