Platform height issue for new-built stations

hkstudent · 28 Nov 2019

With my observations at some new London Stations (e.g. Meridian Water, London Bridge), the newly built platform seems not built to the level of trains, which have caused significant height gap between trains and platform. It is particularly relevant to some platforms only to be served by newly built trains (e.g. London Bridge Platform 4-5: Class 700).

Are they any particular reason why the same height level for both trains and platform cannot be achieved?

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 29 Nov 2019

A higher platform would either foul clearances for passing freight trains, or need to be further back from the track which would create other problems of increased stepping distance and perhaps even people falling between the platform and the train. Some platforms where no freight* trains operate have been raised to about 1.1m above top of rail to allow level boarding - examples are Paddington HEx platform, Heathrow, Crossrail central section, East London Line and many of the LU sub-surface stations. However Anglia has muddied the waters by ordering Stadler FLIRTs which are level with the standard platform height.

*Places like London Bridge might need engineering trains even though there is no scheduled freight traffic.

hkstudent · 29 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
A higher platform would either foul clearances for passing freight trains, or need to be further back from the track which would create other problems of increased stepping distance and perhaps even people falling between the platform and the train. Some platforms where no freight* trains operate have been raised to about 1.1m above top of rail to allow level boarding - examples are Paddington HEx platform, Heathrow, Crossrail central section, East London Line and many of the LU sub-surface stations. However Anglia has muddied the waters by ordering Stadler FLIRTs which are level with the standard platform height.

*Places like London Bridge might need engineering trains even though there is no scheduled freight traffic.

Okay. Then I am kind of curious why many Mainland Europe trains & platform can be made step free...

ComUtoR · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
It is particularly relevant to some platforms only to be served by newly built trains (e.g. London Bridge Platform 4-5: Class 700).

London Bridge platform 4/5 are also served by Southeastern services. Whilst nothing is booked to stop, SE services are still allowed to call there when required. They also pass through the platform as ECS so the relevant clearances are required.

Harrington Humps are provided at the Wheelchair coaches to allow for level boarding.

pdeaves · 29 Nov 2019

ComUtoR said:
Harrington Humps are provided at the Wheelchair coaches to allow for level boarding.

Strictly, just humps. 'Harrington' humps are the after-market extras that can be added to existing low platforms at low cost. The London Bridge (and Farringdon and others) platforms are structurally all one, rather than a flat platform with an extra humped section stuck on top.

ComUtoR · 29 Nov 2019

pdeaves said:
Strictly, just humps. 'Harrington' humps are the after-market extras that can be added to existing low platforms at low cost.

Cheers for the correction.

The London Bridge (and Farringdon and others) platforms are structurally all one, rather than a flat platform with an extra humped section stuck on top.

They originally built the platforms without them.

AM9 · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
Okay. Then I am kind of curious why many Mainland Europe trains & platform can be made step free...

Because the UIC loading gauges on mainland Europe railways have a uniform width from floor level downwards, meaning that platform heights are not subject to the tuck-in that UK rolling stock has.

pdeaves · 29 Nov 2019

ComUtoR said:
They originally built the platforms without them.

Yes, the important bit being that now they are 'structurally all one'. The Harrington hump remains a distinctly separate structure.

hkstudent · 29 Nov 2019

AM9 said:
Because the UIC loading gauges on mainland Europe railways have a uniform width from floor level downwards, meaning that platform heights are not subject to the tuck-in that UK rolling stock has.

It's a bit pity that platform height issue can't be solved in the UK.
I wonder how many seconds are wasted in the ineffecitve boarding mechanism.

edwin_m · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
Okay. Then I am kind of curious why many Mainland Europe trains & platform can be made step free...

AM9 said:
Because the UIC loading gauges on mainland Europe railways have a uniform width from floor level downwards, meaning that platform heights are not subject to the tuck-in that UK rolling stock has.

Historically Continental railways had this problem much worse, with two or three steps to get into the train. There is now a multiplicity of platform heights - the TSI standards allow the French one which allows level boarding to double deck TGVs but not much else, and the German one which I don't think is level with anything. The Germans also have different platform heights for S-Bahns, regional routes and tram-trains, with trains that have level boarding … at least until they end up at one of the other types of platform.

The UK has been trying to get permission to go to 1.1m for level boarding on HS2 (dedicated platforms only), which would make quite a difference to dwell times.

ComUtoR said:
London Bridge platform 4/5 are also served by Southeastern services. Whilst nothing is booked to stop, SE services are still allowed to call there when required. They also pass through the platform as ECS so the relevant clearances are required.

Harrington Humps are provided at the Wheelchair coaches to allow for level boarding.

Interesting thought. The humps are just as much an obstruction to passing trains as a higher platform would be, so why did Thameslink not just provide high platforms at those stations? I guess the reason is so that wheelchair users are directed to a specific part of the train, which is where the wheelchair spaces and accessible toilet are, but also if the other end of their journey is a standard platform the assistance staff should be in the correct place.

hkstudent · 29 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
Historically Continental railways had this problem much worse, with two or three steps to get into the train. There is now a multiplicity of platform heights - the TSI standards allow the French one which allows level boarding to double deck TGVs but not much else, and the German one which I don't think is level with anything. The Germans also have different platform heights for S-Bahns, regional routes and tram-trains, with trains that have level boarding … at least until they end up at one of the other types of platform.

The UK has been trying to get permission to go to 1.1m for level boarding on HS2 (dedicated platforms only), which would make quite a difference to dwell times.

Interesting thought. The humps are just as much an obstruction to passing trains as a higher platform would be, so why did Thameslink not just provide high platforms at those stations? I guess the reason is so that wheelchair users are directed to a specific part of the train, which is where the wheelchair spaces and accessible toilet are, but also if the other end of their journey is a standard platform the assistance staff should be in the correct place.

I think putting signs would have the same effectiveness.
I think installing harrington humps could be more expensive than making the whole platform be high level at construction stage.

AM9 · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
I think putting signs would have the same effectiveness.
I think installing harrington humps could be more expensive than making the whole platform be high level at construction stage.

I don't think that signs would get much attention paid to them, most others aren't. That's OK but if the intention is to direct persons with restricted mobility to the coaches most si=uited to their needs, then a hump conveys the message much better.

ComUtoR · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
I think putting signs would have the same effectiveness.

Part of the design of the 700's is to have a universal stopping point. If an RLU or an FLU turns up, the wheelchair accessible coach is always in the same position. Where you have platforms with different coach lengths, various stopping points, multiple classes of unit, you get a situation where signage just won't work and you need a more universal platform height to allow for the variances.

Having the humps also reduces the need for people. You no longer need a ramp or need assistance when boarding. Level boarding is something that we need to work towards and I would hope that as each new train is rolled out there is a standard sole bar height.

DelW · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
Okay. Then I am kind of curious why many Mainland Europe trains & platform can be made step free...

Be thankful you're not travelling in the USA, where at many smaller stations the infamous yellow Amtrak 'step stool' has to be deployed, often in the edge of the ballast, so that passengers can reach the bottom step of the coach, with another couple of steps up to saloon floor level....

hkstudent · 29 Nov 2019

ComUtoR said:
Part of the design of the 700's is to have a universal stopping point. If an RLU or an FLU turns up, the wheelchair accessible coach is always in the same position. Where you have platforms with different coach lengths, various stopping points, multiple classes of unit, you get a situation where signage just won't work and you need a more universal platform height to allow for the variances.

Having the humps also reduces the need for people. You no longer need a ramp or need assistance when boarding. Level boarding is something that we need to work towards and I would hope that as each new train is rolled out there is a standard sole bar height.

What I would think is, why don't the whole platform be step-free, with signs pointing disabled passengers to specific points.
The cost of making the whole platform step-free at design stage should be cheaper than installing a hump...

edwin_m · 29 Nov 2019

hkstudent said:
What I would think is, why don't the whole platform be step-free, with signs pointing disabled passengers to specific points.
The cost of making the whole platform step-free at design stage should be cheaper than installing a hump...

Thameslink has long trains and minor delays can cause serious disruption in the busy central section. If a wheelchair passenger got in a long way from the accessible coach at a high platform station and travelled to a low platform station, the person waiting to provide assistance could take a minute or more to find the correct door, plus the time needed to use the ramp, which would make the train probably about 2min late.

Platform height issue for new-built stations

hkstudent

Established Member

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member

hkstudent

Established Member

ComUtoR

Established Member

pdeaves

Established Member

ComUtoR

Established Member

AM9

Veteran Member

pdeaves

Established Member

hkstudent

Established Member

edwin_m

Veteran Member

hkstudent

Established Member

AM9

Veteran Member

ComUtoR

Established Member

DelW

Established Member

hkstudent

Established Member

edwin_m

Veteran Member