Is it that work has been identified that needs to take place before route clearance – such as trimming a few mm off of platform faces? Or is it that they have not been proven to be compliant?
If the latter, the following may sound a silly idea but it has worked in the past:
I recall the route clearance for either the class 155’s or 158’s at Portsmouth and Southsea low level. The “high-tech” solution/test was to attach blocks of polystyrene to an otherwise compliant vehicle (from the RTC Derby I think) to emulate the extremes (width, height etc.) of the vehicle seeking clearance. The blocks may have been painted with something or have something on them that would rub off in the event of an issue. The vehicle was propelled into the platform at low speed and observations were made – damage to the polystyrene, marks on the platform edge etc. So if this is the issue, why not do same with a 23M vehicle (444) and flush out any issues? Not all solutions have to be high-tech! But my guess is that the issues go beyond the train/platform interface. Does anyone have any inside knowledge as to what the precise issues are, and where, together with any remedies required?
Also, re the three or so instances of COA at Earlsfield, is this the only location that this has happened? Have tests been done on the PDL? For some time there were Q paths during the day for a Fratton – Guildford – Petersfield – Guildford – Fratton working but I never saw them actually run. Were these for crew training?
