• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Do other manufacturers besides Stadler offer platform level boarding?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
Crossrail will have level boarding in the core section, but not in the western and eastern sections as they are, for some unknown reason, built higher than the standard platform height

No, platform height on the western section averages 850mm, the eastern section averages 1000mm. There are some platforms on the western section which have been increased to 1100mm for Heathrow Express service.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Alex27

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2020
Messages
141
Location
Oxford
No, platform height on the western section averages 850mm, the eastern section averages 1000mm. There are some platforms on the western section which have been increased to 1100mm for Heathrow Express service.
Which is what I don't understand, as there is a standard platform height why has it not been consistently used? Surely crossrail was an excellent opportunity to standardise the platforms as much as possible (/idealistic teenage rant)
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
Which is what I don't understand, as there is a standard platform height why has it not been consistently used? Surely crossrail was an excellent opportunity to standardise the platforms as much as possible (/idealistic teenage rant)

There's gauging issues on both east and west sections which limit what can be done - not just freight, but high speed passenger services needs a little more space (the dynamic gauge).
 

Alex27

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2020
Messages
141
Location
Oxford
There's gauging issues on both east and west sections which limit what can be done - not just freight, but high speed passenger services needs a little more space (the dynamic gauge).
True, true, I suppose I wish this stuff was just done, no matter the cost, to help create a better and more equal railway and society, but money talks and I'm way too idealistic for my own good
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Yes but old platforms aren't all that height and there are places where changing it would be prohibitively impractical, such as busy interchanges with buildings on the platforms.

It's a stretch to call that prohibitive. Expensive and difficult in places, yes — but that's no reason to dismiss the entire concept.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
Yes but old platforms aren't all that height and there are places where changing it would be prohibitively impractical, such as busy interchanges with buildings on the platforms.
Other countries have managed it. (Not 100% completed of course, but done in such a way that the vast majority of passengers get level boarding.)
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
True, true, I suppose I wish this stuff was just done, no matter the cost, to help create a better and more equal railway and society, but money talks and I'm way too idealistic for my own good
Maybe we should shut down some of the uneconomic lines, and cancel HS2 to help pay for level boarding on the rest of the network...
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Maybe we should shut down some of the uneconomic lines, and cancel HS2 to help pay for level boarding on the rest of the network...

Have you calculated the relative costs of those, or are you just naming extremes as hyperbole?
 

AlexNL

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
1,683
Yes but old platforms aren't all that height and there are places where changing it would be prohibitively impractical, such as busy interchanges with buildings on the platforms.
The Dutch Railways are currently working on a rolling programme to bring the platforms from the legacy standard (84cm above top of rail) to the TSI standard: 76cm above top of rail. They do this by either rebuilding platforms, or raising the track in places where it's not possible to change the platform.

There's little stopping the UK from doing the same (especially in places where OLE is not a factor), except for money of course.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
If you lower the floor for most of the vehicle then the 2 floor heights reduces capacity and flexibility for the internal layout. Most other manufactures have gone for the wide walk through corridor connections to reduce crush loading issues in peak. Ramp deployment also increase dwell times and has the risk that they won't retract.
Have you been on a 745 or 755? The floor layout in no way reduces capacity of these units, and there is a wide connection between vehicles, except for the 755 power unit and the electrical gubbins in the middle of a 745 (and even then there is a large, windowless area where the two half-units are coupled together.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Have you been on a 745 or 755? The floor layout in no way reduces capacity of these units, and there is a wide connection between vehicles, except for the 755 power unit and the electrical gubbins in the middle of a 745 (and even then there is a large, windowless area where the two half-units are coupled together.

As the coach tapers in more than a normal one I don't think you could do 3+2 in a low floor body, but to be fair I don't think you should be doing 3+2 anyway, the Class 700 approach of narrower 2+2 with lots of circulation space works better.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Have you been on a 745 or 755? The floor layout in no way reduces capacity of these units, and there is a wide connection between vehicles, except for the 755 power unit and the electrical gubbins in the middle of a 745 (and even then there is a large, windowless area where the two half-units are coupled together.

A low floor does compromise capacity, it's a simple fact, the GA FLIRTs however aren't designed to be high capacity units and so it doesn't really impact them.

Lower floors mean narrower bodies (for a given vehicle length), 2+3 seating in a FLIRT would be impossible, whilst being merely uncomfortable in something like an Aventra. The ramps/steps up and down limit what can be done with the seating arrangement, the high floor sections in the FLIRTs have table bays, continued airline seating doesn't look like it'd work above them although granted that is conjecture and would depend on the seating throughout the rest of the unit - it does however make it an awful lot more complicated to fit seats in than if you just have one flat floor. Similarly, the low floor means that you loose vehicle length to accommodate the traction equipment - not so much of an issue in rural Anglia or London-Norwich, but somewhere like the Waterloo Suburban lines where you need all 200m of train to be passenger accommodation or driver's cab it is an issue.

I would also point out that whilst the FLIRTs are walk through, they are by no means 'wide' connections between the vehicles, at floor level they are 'corridor' width - compare that with something like an Aventra which is considerably wider at floor level - you could quite happily stand multiple people in an Aventra or Desiro City gangway, not so in a FLIRT.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Lower floors mean narrower bodies (for a given vehicle length), 2+3 seating in a FLIRT would be impossible, whilst being merely uncomfortable in something like an Aventra. The ramps/steps up and down limit what can be done with the seating arrangement, the high floor sections in the FLIRTs have table bays, continued airline seating doesn't look like it'd work above them although granted that is conjecture and would depend on the seating throughout the rest of the unit - it does however make it an awful lot more complicated to fit seats in than if you just have one flat floor. Similarly, the low floor means that you loose vehicle length to accommodate the traction equipment - not so much of an issue in rural Anglia or London-Norwich, but somewhere like the Waterloo Suburban lines where you need all 200m of train to be passenger accommodation or driver's cab it is an issue.
Some of the raised sections in the 755's have airline seating. The raised sections really don't make that much of a difference. I tend to like sitting in the raised section, but that's about as far as it goes.
I take your point about the power pack in the 755's, but like you say it's not an issue on the routes they were built for, or many routes for that matter. The 745s are effectively two EMU's permanently coupled and with the inner cabs removed. I guess it's just easier to remove the cab and leave an empty space rather than start modifying bodyshells etc for a one off order. I don't think there's any fundamental reason that there has to be a short section of empty space in the middle of them.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
As the coach tapers in more than a normal one I don't think you could do 3+2 in a low floor body, but to be fair I don't think you should be doing 3+2 anyway, the Class 700 approach of narrower 2+2 with lots of circulation space works better.
Yes they are narrower at floor level. That pushes the heating duct toward your feet and combined with the pretty beefy seat cantilever support make the airline window seats the least desirable on the train, in my view.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Yes they are narrower at floor level. That pushes the heating duct toward your feet and combined with the pretty beefy seat cantilever support make the airline window seats the least desirable on the train, in my view.

You don't, of course, have to use cantilever seats, and indeed I find them a very poor design as it decreases passenger comfort to save the cleaners' time, which is a poor choice of priorities.

Best is to bolt the seat to the sidewall and to the floor in one place at the outer edge.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
I quite like the cantilever seats actually, it leaves plenty of room for luggage under the seats and if it makes it easier to keep clean then that's good too. The leg bolted to the floor designs always end up looking tatty and grubby as it's just not practical to clean right into the crevices on a regular basis.

Overall I think they are very good units and clearly a lot of thought has gone into the layout and seating. I think they've done very well to get level boarding and made the compromises that entails almost unnoticable.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Some of the raised sections in the 755's have airline seating. The raised sections really don't make that much of a difference. I tend to like sitting in the raised section, but that's about as far as it goes.
I take your point about the power pack in the 755's, but like you say it's not an issue on the routes they were built for, or many routes for that matter. The 745s are effectively two EMU's permanently coupled and with the inner cabs removed. I guess it's just easier to remove the cab and leave an empty space rather than start modifying bodyshells etc for a one off order. I don't think there's any fundamental reason that there has to be a short section of empty space in the middle of them.

Far as I can tell, those raised airline sections aren't at a normal seat pitch though, which is why they might be seen as a 'compromise' - particularly for the pack-em-in approach to train interiors.

Seats/metre of train may not be critical on many routes, but it is critical on many others, including most of the busy London suburban routes where level access would arguably be most beneficial. As for the 745s, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for Stadler to modify the bodyshell to save the space if they could. There'll be some sort of equipment in there, otherwise they'd have pushed the partition wall further back!
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Have you calculated the relative costs of those, or are you just naming extremes as hyperbole?
I was using those as extreme examples to point out that the railway has tough choices, and a limited budget. If you devote vast sums towards raising every platform, that money has to come from somewhere
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I was using those as extreme examples to point out that the railway has tough choices, and a limited budget. If you devote vast sums towards raising every platform, that money has to come from somewhere

In reality if you buy the trains now you can do the platforms on an ongoing, bit by bit basis. That's how SBB did it.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
In reality if you buy the trains now you can do the platforms on an ongoing, bit by bit basis. That's how SBB did it.
A logical time to do it is probably when some other major work is going on at the station. For example, if you're doing a platform extension then I assume you could build the extension to the new height, then close the old bit of the platform to be rebuilt while the extension is used to stop trains.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
A logical time to do it is probably when some other major work is going on at the station. For example, if you're doing a platform extension then I assume you could build the extension to the new height, then close the old bit of the platform to be rebuilt while the extension is used to stop trains.

Indeed. In the meantime you've still got an advantage of the step up being smaller than other stock and the gap at least partially being bridged.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
...I assume you could build the extension to the new height, then close the old bit of the platform to be rebuilt while the extension is used to stop trains.

It's unlikely. The majority of platform extensions are short lengths, in Scotland at the moment there's some work going on to look at how the current 120m capable (6 x 20m) platforms can be extended to 161m/184m capable (7/8 x 23m). The platform extensions will be around 41m/64m which isn't enough length to stop a service at, even with SDO, whilst the rest of the platform is modified.

That also assumes that the position of the platform extension allows a train to stop without fouling any pointwork, or that there's no issues with platform starter signals, signalling systems or DOO apparatus that requires rolling stock to be at a specific position for detection, signal visibility, DOO monitor alignment etc.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I think it would be worth having a look at the campaign for level boarding's website: https://www.levelboarding.org.uk I personally think level boarding should be mandatory on all new trains (Or at least part of the train) to make the life's of disabled passengers, and indeed everyone else's, better. There is a standard platform height, which all new platforms are built too (730mm by 915mm). Yes this is a big undertaking, but a very necessary one in my opinion.

Totally agree. On occasions there seems to be a strange reluctance to make the necessary effort to accommodate those with disabilities.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I was using those as extreme examples to point out that the railway has tough choices, and a limited budget. If you devote vast sums towards raising every platform, that money has to come from somewhere

Fair comment but it often appears that disability issues are placed rather far down any list of priorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top