Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[James H]

The TfL board question is here, just after 30 minutes in to the meeting, and the response from the Commissioner is at the 36 minute mark

TfL Board Meeting (June 12 2024)

www.youtube.com

 

[BrianW]

The TfL board question is here, just after 30 minutes in to the meeting, and the response from the Commissioner is at the 36 minute mark

TfL Board Meeting (June 12 2024)

www.youtube.com

Hmmh ...so the platform's 'within designated specification' then.

 

[apbj]

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.

A daily user of this exact platform here; I can 100% confirm there are absolutely no extra staff on the platform to assist, at any time of day. This is totally bogus. Literally nothing has changed. There is a ramp propped up against the barrier near the Central line platform, but I've never seen it used except for booked assistance passengers. Of course there is often a staff member on the platform to make announcements in the peak hours (reading out what's on the departure screens) but the claim that there are additional staff as a result of this issue is entirely and provably false.

A lot of discussion on this thread about sophisticated mitigation measures but the problem is only severe at the western end of Ealing Broadway platform 4, by and underneath the station complex. The centre and east end of platform have a lower gap (so either the platform or the track must be on a gradient). The problematic zone is on a straight section. It would take two guys with a concrete mixer no more than an afternoon to fix the issue even within gold-plated railway safety standards, but of course that won't happen. As noted above, what is far more likely is that some jobsworth will simply close that part of the platform, update the SDO and turn one of the busiest Elizabeth Line stations into a pointless bottleneck. Dwell times are already long because of overcrowding caused by terminating trains at Paddington rather than further west.

Incidentally, the height of this section of platform is not its only problem. During the multi-million pound station update prior to Crossrail opening, the old toilets on Plat 4 were moved in order to make way for the new lifts, but the sewage pipes were not updated correctly and every time following rainfall the entire platform is affected by a gut-wrenching stench emanating from various drain covers. Since no staff ever stand in this area, nothing is done about it, but it is a total health hazard. So if the leap from the train onto an uneven platform doesn't get you, the smell will...

 

[Benjwri]

It would take two guys with a concrete mixer no more than an afternoon to fix the issue even within gold-plated railway safety standards, but of course that won't happen.

Perhaps this is a slight exaggeration. Raising any platform, or changing it at all is a significant task, and for good reason. You have to consider the gradient down from such a hump, and how that affects passengers and other infrastructure items around. Not to mention as has been said countless times before it would likely foul other trains, and whether it does that has to be checked.

Dwell times are already long because of overcrowding caused by terminating trains at Paddington rather than further west.

Something which was inevitable because changing it would have cost quite literally billions.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Yes.

No, or not necessarily. If altering platforms on the above-ground parts of the EL has the effect of stopping any freight trains from using that line, how much freight would end up being transferred from rail to road? And then, how many extra deaths and injuries on the roads would result? Anybody feel like making an estimate?

 

[Horizon22]

Hmmh ...so the platform's 'within designated specification' then.

It always has been since TfL was responsible for the station. The station is just getting new travellers, some of whom think the whole platform/station layout is "new" because the Elizabeth line is "new".

As noted above, what is far more likely is that some jobsworth will simply close that part of the platform, update the SDO and turn one of the busiest Elizabeth Line stations into a pointless bottleneck. Dwell times are already long because of overcrowding caused by terminating trains at Paddington rather than further west.

This doesn't quite make sense. Dwell times at Ealing are as you would expect for a busy suburban teams. Not much time is lost here.

But seeing as the issue is Platform 4 (Eastbound) what would that have to do with terminating trains at Paddington? (Westbound). There's no capacity to run more trains west of Paddington and Ealing Broadway in the peak gets a service every ~5 mins.

 

[JamesT]

It always has been since TfL was responsible for the station. The station is just getting new travellers, some of whom think the whole platform/station layout is "new" because the Elizabeth line is "new".

It clearly isn’t within the standard if there’s a 12 inch difference in height between the platform and train floor.
The question that hasn’t been answered is why the platform height wasn’t brought up to standard during the station refurbishment before Elizabeth Line services started.

 

[Horizon22]

It clearly isn’t within the standard if there’s a 12 inch difference in height between the platform and train floor.
The question that hasn’t been answered is why the platform height wasn’t brought up to standard during the station refurbishment before Elizabeth Line services started.

It has? Countless people have mentioned the freight issues. The platform height standards are grandfathered in and apply to newly built ones only.

 

[JamesT]

It has? Countless people have mentioned the freight issues. The platform height standards are grandfathered in and apply to newly built ones only.

Those have been in relation to raising the platform to allow for level boarding. Isn’t the whole point of the standard platform height that it won’t impede on passing traffic?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/elizabeth-line-platform-gaps-bbc-news.267038/post-6806549 implies that platform heights should be reconsidered when work has occurred.

 

[Horizon22]

Those have been in relation to raising the platform to allow for level boarding. Isn’t the whole point of the standard platform height that it won’t impede on passing traffic?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/elizabeth-line-platform-gaps-bbc-news.267038/post-6806549 implies that platform heights should be reconsidered when work has occurred.

For all we know it was considered. And future options were limited due to the local constraints. So it seems you can consider it and still plough on anyway. Not saying that's ideal, but without documentation of the original decision being made, it's hard to know why. Plus there are other parts.

The relevant section(s) being:

Simply building the extension to the standard position, without consideration of future options for the full platform length is not good practice.
---
G 2.1.19 Whether a project provides a reasonable opportunity to bring the items concerned
into conformity has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
the:
a) Size of project;
b) Balance of risks and mitigation options;
c) Cost of the opportunity to bring existing non-conforming areas into conformity;
d) Future plans for the asset and related assets;
e) Best long-term interests of the railway system as a whole; and
f) Views of stakeholders.

 

[MarkyT]

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.

Going back in time, what where door heights on stock that ran the Western Region services in the past? I'm thinking of Autocoaches, BR Suburbans, 117s and 121s, BR Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3s, 165/166 etc. For that matter have the platforms changed height over time?

I don't think floor height of traditional rail vehicles has changed much over the decades, being largely constrained by traditional wheel and bogie size and construction on conventional straight frames in the past. Some continental railways started to drop centre sections of cars with doors in the mid-20th century, often as part of bi-level designs, and while that reduced step height considerably, speeding boarding on expanding suburban railways, it wasn't anything like level boarding, a more recent phenomenon responding to disabled access but making the railway safer and easier to use for all travellers. Modern metros adopted LB widely for the speed, convenience and safety aspects. LUs S stock was the first major UK fleet where the floor was lowered to match standard UK platform height. They managed this with smaller wheeled bogies with a diameter similar in size to those used on deep tube cars.

On Twitter, Marco Chitto made some observations about level boarding and the history of the low floor vs high floor approaches.

x.com

x.com

A recent exchange in here reminded me that historically there has essentially been two main paths toward level boarding of mainline rail.
The prevalence of one type or the other in a country depends a lot of when and how the railway became a commuter-oriented mobility tool.

 

[zwk500]

Those have been in relation to raising the platform to allow for level boarding. Isn’t the whole point of the standard platform height that it won’t impede on passing traffic?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/elizabeth-line-platform-gaps-bbc-news.267038/post-6806549 implies that platform heights should be reconsidered when work has occurred.

What has also been mentioned many, many times is the presence of other structures (lifts, steps, waiting rooms) on the platform and the impact of raising the floor relative to those structures.

 

[JamesT]

What has also been mentioned many, many times is the presence of other structures (lifts, steps, waiting rooms) on the platform and the impact of raising the floor relative to those structures.

But the station was refurbished, so there was the opportunity to consider all of these things as a whole. New lifts were part of that work, so if you were going to fix the platform height, that was the moment to do it.

 

[zwk500]

But the station was refurbished, so there was the opportunity to consider all of these things as a whole. New lifts were part of that work, so if you were going to fix the platform height, that was the moment to do it.

'as a whole' also would include consideration around the station being already open. This means considering the practicalities of actually rebuilding the platform while the railway remained operational, and whether there was sufficient alternatives for passengers to work around any platform closures and the like.
Equally the underground platforms impose a constraint, because the platforms aren't wide enough to have 2 separate levels with a step/split between them. What would the impact on the District Line have been if they lost 1 or 2 platforms for the duration of the rebuilding work?

As ever, the devil is in the details here. All of the engineering the problems I mention above could have been fixed by throwing enough money at the station, but the same is not necessarily true of the transport problems. Only so many people can be displaced to buses, and if the District lost a couple of trains per hour in the central section the impact on station safety could be noticeable.

 

[Crithylum]

Equally the underground platforms impose a constraint, because the platforms aren't wide enough to have 2 separate levels with a step/split between them. What would the impact on the District Line have been if they lost 1 or 2 platforms for the duration of the rebuilding work?

The Underground platforms (especially District line) are separate to the offending platform 4. Depending on what works were performed to raise the height, the near-worse case would’ve involved reducing the path to the Central line to about 2-3m wide, which I accept would be a moderate temporary inconvenience. The District platforms are so far away that I highly doubt it would have any affect.

The platform needs to be raised ~10cm to have a normal sized gap, and it would likely result in a gentle slope between the raised platform, and the remainder of the station. Although raising the platform would probably require the GW local tracks to be shutdown, if well planned it may be possible to do this during planned maintenance weekend(s).

TLDR: I don’t think the Underground would add much difficulty to any works that could be performed

 

[Meerkat]

Were the two people who fell aware of the gap but couldn’t make it, or just didn’t realise it was so big?
If it’s the latter then assistance or Harrington humps in one place won’t work because the victims won’t know they need them.
It’s particularly dangerous at busy stations. If it’s just you at the door and no one on the platform then you look where you are putting your feet. If you are following a rush out and/or there are people crowding the doors then you might not look so carefully.
The level boarding in the core makes it worse - walking straight on a train gives the expectation you will be able to walk straight off.
I just can’t believe anyone at the planning stage saw that gap and thought ‘meh, it‘ll be fine’.

 

[plugwash]

I wonder, do they have similar problems on the bakerloo line, where you go from level boarding in the center, to a reverse step (train floor lower than platform) on the outskirts.

 

[starlight73]

I wonder, do they have similar problems on the bakerloo line, where you go from level boarding in the center, to a reverse step (train floor lower than platform) on the outskirts.

with the bakerloo on the Watford DC line, the train roof is so low. That might be a reminder for taller people to look down as they can’t get into the train without stooping down. But it’s far from ideal!

 

[Ruthmc]

Recently I caught the Elizabeth line to Ealing Broadway station with my husband. I was recovering from a hip replacement and when the doors opened at Ealing Broadway I was terrified because the platform was further down than any I had previously encountered. I would not have been able to get off the train if my husband hadn’t lifted me down. It is an incredibly dangerous situation and I would never contemplate Ealing Broadway station again.

 

[geoffk]

Has this matter reached the pages of the specialist railway mags yet? There's nothing in the latest "Today's Railways UK" (issue 270).

 

[PG]

Recently I caught the Elizabeth line to Ealing Broadway station with my husband. I was recovering from a hip replacement and when the doors opened at Ealing Broadway I was terrified because the platform was further down than any I had previously encountered. I would not have been able to get off the train if my husband hadn’t lifted me down. It is an incredibly dangerous situation and I would never contemplate Ealing Broadway station again.

Welcome to the forum

Can I request that, if you haven't already done so, you report this?

You can do this by using the link below:
https://tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact/contact-us-about-tube-and-rail

Alternatively you can write to:
TfL Customer Services
9th Floor
5 Endeavour Square
London
E20 1JN

 

[boiledbeans2]

It was on the BBC London news again yesterday (16 July), watch from 2:30

BBC One - BBC London, Late News, 16/07/2024

The latest news, sport and weather from London.

www.bbc.co.uk

I wonder why there are so many incidents at Ealing Broadway.
The Clapham Junction gaps in my opinion are scarier but I don't hear of much incidents (maybe they are just not reported?). The SWML up slow platform 10 has very large gaps at the London end, as the track is also canted. I'm an able bodied person, and I had to be very careful when stepping off the train there.

 

[Mojo]

lt does not appear to be the gap, but the step up, that is the issue.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

The step is smaller than the previous 2 classes of trains (387 and 360).

 

[MarkyT]

I wonder why there are so many incidents at Ealing Broadway

The throughput has probably increased dramatically with the success of the Elizabeth Line.

 

[FOH]

The step is smaller than the previous 2 classes of trains (387 and 360).

I'd say expectations have changed with the universal flat boarding on the central section

 

[Crithylum]

BBC London news tonight reported that the Mayor (or some other important person) said that the problem would be fixed at Ealing Broadway. No mention of any other station(s), many of which have an equally big (or occasionally worse) gap. They also did not mention how it would be fixed.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Whilst i believe this may cause more issues than solve, I do wonder how possible it is to attempt a Thameslink style hump around mainly the accessible car 5 area of the platform(aka raising a Specfic part of the platform to level of the train(mainly here being the 345s)

 

[swt_passenger]

Whilst i believe this may cause more issues than solve, I do wonder how possible it is to attempt a Thameslink style hump around mainly the accessible car 5 area of the platform(aka raising a Specfic part of the platform to level of the train(mainly here being the 345s)

The idea of Thameslink (or LU) style humps has been raised quite a few times in this thread, but the usual answer is that they’d still have to leave a horizontal gap because there is a variety of rolling stock and freight passing the platforms. That doesn’t apply to the Thameslink core section.

 

[NSEWonderer]

The idea of Thameslink (or LU) style humps has been raised quite a few times in this thread, but the usual answer is that they’d still have to leave a horizontal gap because there is a variety of rolling stock and freight passing the platforms. That doesn’t apply to the Thameslink core section.

Ah I thought it may be the case.