Maximum platform gap?

[railwalker]

is there a maximum gap allowed between the edge of the platform and the train door?

 

[najaB]

is there a maximum gap allowed between the edge of the platform and the train door?

For new build stations/platforms yes - they would need to comply with standards set by the RSSB. I had a quick look through RIS-7016-INS Interface between Station Platforms, Track, Trains and Buffer Stops and I didn't see an absolute value specified, but the geometry of the platform (e.g. height and radius of any curve) would place upper limits depending on the stock.

For existing platforms, not really. There are some that have very big steps up/down (e.g. Dunkeld and Birnham) or big horizontal gaps between platform and train (e.g. Perth platforms 1/2).

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Group standards require the following - max 275mm horizontally, 230 vertically and 350mm diagonally. But invariably this isn't achieved everywhere for all rolling stock.

For new build stations/platforms yes - they would need to comply with standards set by the RSSB. I had a quick look through RIS-7016-INS Interface between Station Platforms, Track, Trains and Buffer Stops and I didn't see an absolute value specified, but the geometry of the platform (e.g. height and radius of any curve) would place upper limits depending on the stock.

For existing platforms, not really. There are some that have very big steps up/down (e.g. Dunkeld and Birnham) or big horizontal gaps between platform and train (e.g. Perth platforms 1/2).

It's now in GMRT 2173. RSSB Standards send me round in circles!

 

[najaB]

It's now in GMRT 2173. RSSB Standards send me round in circles!

Thanks. Just found it too.

 

[railwalker]

Thanks for the replies, at least I now have something to hopefully use going forward.

The gap is such that at a couple of local stations are such that my wife has great difficulty getting on an off the trains. (she doesn't like gaps, wont walk over a lot of bridges that have them etc)

 

[InkyScrolls]

Gargrave platform 1 has a section just 15" above the railhead, which must be among the lowest.

 

[zwk500]

Gargrave platform 1 has a section just 15" above the railhead, which must be among the lowest.

ISTR on one of the previous threads on this topic somebody posted a chart with a lot of the horizontal and vertical stepping distances at NR platforms, although I can't find it now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for the replies, at least I now have something to hopefully use going forward.

The gap is such that at a couple of local stations are such that my wife has great difficulty getting on an off the trains. (she doesn't like gaps, wont walk over a lot of bridges that have them etc)

A reminder that the above applies to new station platforms, and not those already in existence for which ‘grandfather rights’ apply.

 

[railwalker]

A reminder that the above applies to new station platforms, and not those already in existence for which ‘grandfather rights’ apply.

I accept that, but it at least gives me a starting point to ask questions.

 

[zwk500]

I accept that, but it at least gives me a starting point to ask questions.

If you are hoping for a change, bear in mind that on curved stations a gap must be left by necessity due to the way rail vehicles overhang at the corners. Also, a full station rebuild would cost several million pounds and be very disruptive. However one (much cheaper) option is known as a 'Harrington Hump' where essentially a very thick mat is securely attached to the platform to raise the platform height only at the doors. I don't think harrington humps would actually close the distance from edge to train though, they'd only help with the height.

 

[railwalker]

If you are hoping for a change, bear in mind that on curved stations a gap must be left by necessity due to the way rail vehicles overhang at the corners. Also, a full station rebuild would cost several million pounds and be very disruptive. However one (much cheaper) option is known as a 'Harrington Hump' where essentially a very thick mat is securely attached to the platform to raise the platform height only at the doors. I don't think harrington humps would actually close the distance from edge to train though, they'd only help with the height.

I am hoping I can at least open a debate.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Always found the gap between train and platform to be excessively large at Platform 17 at Clapham Junction.

Be interesting to ascertain whether it meets modern day "new build" guidelines.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

This has set me thinking about Clapham Jn. Ever since my time, (AFAIR) the Up Main Fast (platform 8) has been barred to stopping services, albeit there were virtually zero such services in the 70's when I first knew the place, and since trains on the UP SWML started to stop there in more modern times, they have to use the Up Loop (platform 7), which both curve and track cant wise, brings the passenger step-off, much closer to the platform surface, except when stock with end doors is used (ie: 158/9, 444) when the gap is still quite wide. Stock with doors at one and two third spacing, is far better in this particular scenario.
Purely for interest, might have to check out timetable world for historic (LSWR/SR) timetables when trains may have been timed to stop at what is now p8.

In recent times I believe there have been industry discussions/questions posed occasionally in relation to effectively moving the MFL platforms at Clapham Jn, possibly on to straight track, ie: further towards London, possibly in relation to improving the timetable (as in reducing the present approach control time to sig W132 (UMF) in to the Up loop) but IIRC(?) more in association with some early and very preliminary work done for Crossrail 2.

Of course any such relocating of platforms in the context I mention, would have a serious negative impact on the workings at Clapham Yard (West London sidings), which are crucial to the overall plan.

Edited, BOLD: thinking as far back as LSWR/SR etc, I doubt there was any 'planned' difference, the signallers using p7 or p8 as they saw fit. It was an age when the thought of Court proceedings taking place if someone tripped over (etc) when alighting a train, likely never entered anyone's mind?

Always found the gap between train and platform to be excessively large at Platform 17 at Clapham Junction.

Reference my post. Yes, platform 17 is another good example, albeit in my day, it only saw trains formed of troublesome trucks, so wasn't a problem

 

[zwk500]

I am hoping I can at least open a debate.

Always worth trying to do so! I take it from your location this is mostly thinking about the Airedale lines? They're fairly busy commuter stations, so investment would be easier to secure than at some of the more dramatic platform heights you get in, e.g. Scotland.

If you don't mind me asking, is the issue with stepping up, stepping across, or visually seeing there's a gap? From a technical point of view, Stepping up is fairly easy to solve, stepping across moderately hard but visually eliminating a gap is nigh on impossible without a total line rebuild (need effectively dead straight platforms).

 

[DJ_K666]

Amberley used to have a pretty big step up back in Slammer days. Not sure how high it is now we've got all that electrostar stock running there.

Another one was the York to Harrogate line in the days of the dreaded class 141 pacers. I was a small kid of course so my perception of the gap as a yawning abyss might not have been entirely accurate. They did have bus width bodies which are narrower as I remember. I sion forgot that trauma when I realised I could look through the front window of the train, however.

 

[baz962]

Always found the gap between train and platform to be excessively large at Platform 17 at Clapham Junction.

Be interesting to ascertain whether it meets modern day "new build" guidelines.

Quite brutal that platform. I used to drive for London overground and sometimes change ends there. I used to genuinely worry that passengers would fall. I used to be very careful myself alighting and boarding when changing ends and made copious announcements.

 

[IndianPacific]

Group standards require the following - max 275mm horizontally, 230 vertically and 350mm diagonally. But invariably this isn't achieved everywhere for all rolling stock.

<diagram>

It's now in GMRT 2173. RSSB Standards send me round in circles!

Interesting that the NTSN PRM (which would apply to new or upgraded platforms) has different horizontal values for straight & curved platform, neither of which are 275mm!

Pg67 - Table 25 - Values of δh, δν+ and δν– for UK specific case

	δh mm (horizontal gap)	δν+ mm (max step up from platform)	δν– mm (max step down from platform)
on a straight level track	200	230	160
on a track with a curve radius of 300 m	290	230	160

The NTSN PRM also has a tighter limit for where level access is needed...

Pg12 -Level access

A level access is an access from a platform to the doorway of a rolling stock for which it can be demonstrated that:

- The gap between the door sill of that doorway (or of the extended bridging plate of that doorway) and the platform does not exceed 75 mm measured horizontally and 50 mm measured vertically and

- The rolling stock has no internal step between the door sill and the vestibule

This is what the platform humps, like those used at Blackfriars, are measured against.

Platform gap fillers or train steps are allowed to get you in to that box, so you could probably build to the group standard and still get compliance another way. Just need to make those decisions early.

 

[mcmad]

Those values in table 25 are for rolling stock assuming a 'standard' 915mm high platform rather than the platform itself.

 

[Deepgreen]

It used to amaze me how the huge gaps on the Victoria side at Clapham Junction survived for so long - for such an intensively-used station the gaps/vertical steps were enormous, especially at the London ends of 12, 14 and 15 (the latter being a particularly low section of platform despite the cant helping a little there). I remember passengers at the rear of ex-Victoria trains didn't so much alight there as fall out! I have no figures for the number of gap/step accidents, but in the slam-door era it was common for people to be boarding moving trains at these areas, so the theoretical risk was huge. I think the advent of 377s made the problem worse still, but works took place several years back to reduce the gaps.

Quite brutal that platform. I used to drive for London overground and sometimes change ends there. I used to genuinely worry that passengers would fall. I used to be very careful myself alighting and boarding when changing ends and made copious announcements.

This highlights another issue - the constant automatic announcements at every station to mind the gap/step, or similar, no matter what the gap actually is - as with any such recordings they risk being sub-consciously blotted out and therefore the genuine problem sites such as this one risk not receiving the attention from passengers they deserve (of course, manual announcements do help in these extreme cases).

 

[HOOVER29]

Platform 1 at Tamworth has always been a bit brutal especially off a 350

 

[dk1]

The curve at Yarmouth Vauxhall had a very impressive gap for coaches with doors in the centre of the carriage particularly those on MK1 and MK2 rolling stock with nothing to tell anybody. These days the 755 Stadler fleet have the moving step yet we have large red warning markers painted onto platforms & onboard announcements. Funny how wrapped up everybody is now.

 

[zwk500]

Platform 1 at Tamworth has always been a bit brutal especially off a 350

If we're going there then please see:

Biggest gap and/or step down to the platform nomination thread.

I would like to nominate Elephant & Castle platform 4 for the biggest step down and step across from train to platform. I think it must be a diagonal distance of over half a metre from doorplate to platform edge. Really quite shocking! Wonder how many people cope... anyone like to add others? :D

www.railforums.co.uk

Trivia: Largest gap between the train and the platform

Hi, I recently disembarked from a 156 at Irlam station and when I stepped off the train was a little surprised by the size of the gap to the platform. It was by no means unsafe but is definitely the largest gap I've come across in the UK. It was because part of the platform has been elevated...

www.railforums.co.uk

Biggest Platform Gap in the country?

Strange question, I know. But what station would you say has the widest gap?

www.railforums.co.uk

Trivia: Widest gap between train and platform (not including platform height)?

Trying to think as to which station platform has the largest gap between the train and the platform edge. Part of me thinks this would be the stations with the tightest curve, to which Perth platform 1 would come out on top for gangwayed stock such as an Mk3. But seeing as Azuma's are 26m per...

www.railforums.co.uk

For starters.

P.S. Wolverton and Long Buckby should be considered for Olympic qualification events, especially Wolverton on the Up Slow.

 

[Pokelet]

Mention for Worcester Foregate St platform 1. The step down is quite something and the horizontal gap at the Droitwich end is very much a 'Mind the ravine' situation.

 

[Annetts key]

Maybe we should just offer passengers vouchers for long jump training….

 

[David57]

I second Long Buckby on the downside platform, as the train is on a cant, it really is a big gap.

 

[MarkyT]

This has set me thinking about Clapham Jn. Ever since my time, (AFAIR) the Up Main Fast (platform 8) has been barred to stopping services, albeit there were virtually zero such services in the 70's when I first knew the place, and since trains on the UP SWML started to stop there in more modern times, they have to use the Up Loop (platform 7), which both curve and track cant wise, brings the passenger step-off, much closer to the platform surface, except when stock with end doors is used (ie: 158/9, 444) when the gap is still quite wide. Stock with doors at one and two third spacing, is far better in this particular scenario.
Purely for interest, might have to check out timetable world for historic (LSWR/SR) timetables when trains may have been timed to stop at what is now p8.

In recent times I believe there have been industry discussions/questions posed occasionally in relation to effectively moving the MFL platforms at Clapham Jn, possibly on to straight track, ie: further towards London, possibly in relation to improving the timetable (as in reducing the present approach control time to sig W132 (UMF) in to the Up loop) but IIRC(?) more in association with some early and very preliminary work done for Crossrail 2.

Of course any such relocating of platforms in the context I mention, would have a serious negative impact on the workings at Clapham Yard (West London sidings), which are crucial to the overall plan.

Edited, BOLD: thinking as far back as LSWR/SR etc, I doubt there was any 'planned' difference, the signallers using p7 or p8 as they saw fit. It was an age when the thought of Court proceedings taking place if someone tripped over (etc) when alighting a train, likely never entered anyone's mind?

Part of the problem on #8 is the extreme cant tilting trains away from the face. This is required because so many up trains, including all services in the peak, run fast through the station and operators want a reasonable running speed. #7 is much better, even for end door stock, because trains tilt in towards the platform, and the cant isn't so severe anyway. Compounding the problems using #7 is the junction signalling arrangement which slows trains down dramatically for the turnout. This means it can't be used in the super-dense morning up peak service, the main reason even a small number of trains on the up fast can't stop currently. There's also an overlap conflict issue at the London end which would prevent trains easily using #7 and #8 alternately (like main platforms at Reading), even if the stepping distance issue could be solved by lowering the through speed.

 

[Incogcyclist79]

As this is my local station (until Ashley Down opens) I'd like to add my two-penneths for the Down platform (platform 2) at Stapleton Road.

These are some images I took on Friday to illustrate the height of the step down from a turbo.

 

[tomuk]

As this is my local station (until Ashley Down opens) I'd like to add my two-penneths for the Down platform (platform 2) at Stapleton Road.

These are some images I took on Friday to illustrate the height of the step down from a turbo.

Well they increased the ride height of the Turbos because they are wide for a 23m carriage to clear other locations.

 

[swt_passenger]

As this is my local station (until Ashley Down opens) I'd like to add my two-penneths for the Down platform (platform 2) at Stapleton Road.

These are some images I took on Friday to illustrate the height of the step down from a turbo.

Perhaps they should signwrite “mind the hot exhaust”, as well as the step…