Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[MarkyT]

Platforms 1 and 2 (rarely used by Elizabeth line trains) had dual gauge tracks until early 1890s, so I suspect gap was even bigger on standard gauge trains.

Not really. Carriages and wagons were clearly wider, but the two gauges shared a common rail closest to the platform and the vehicle overhang beyond the near rail was similar. Convertible coaches were constructed with a narrower body with a 'temporary' narrow platform incorporated into the access steps on the sides to help close the gap while running on broad gauge which would be removed when rebuilt as the bogies and wheelsets were changed to standard gauge examples.

Broad Gauge - Track

The Broad Gauge Society was formed in 1980 to promote research into, and the modelling of, the 7' 0&frac14" Broad Gauge Railways of Great Britain.

www.broadgauge.org.uk

 

[Deepgreen]

In short, then - it's understandable that someone without any railway history knowledge, and who has been injured, would be outraged by what he perceives as an oversight by a project that was so late in coming to fruition. However, I suspect the reality is that nothing practical can be done for years/decades until complete standardisation of kinematic envelopes is achieved (if ever).

 

[Turtle]

Doesn't have to be the whole platform though does it? I know at least Waterloo + City tube line has a 'hump' halfway down the platform for level access, probably lots of other tube stations too. Even Northwich National Rail has a hump.

NORTHWICH RAIL PASSENGERS GET THE HUMP


If Northwich warrants it, I think Ealing Broadway might also!

That sounds like a reasonable attempt to solve what is really a national, historical issue with the railway in general. The BBC article also mentions Clapham Junction where the situation is further complicated by severe platform curvature which I experienced in my later years when disembarking with a walking stick.

 

[BrianW]

A Harrington Hump does not allow level boarding, as far as I know. It is a way of bringing low platforms up to a normal height to allow ramps to be used.


In an ideal world you would bring part of the platform up to allow level boarding, not the whole platform. But there are reasons for not doing it as covered above.

I found this recent item of interest and relevance:

Much Ado about Level Boarding: TfL & UK Urban Rail (Part 1) - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

 

[zwk500]

In short, then - it's understandable that someone without any railway history knowledge, and who has been injured, would be outraged by what he perceives as an oversight by a project that was so late in coming to fruition.

The gaps are extreme for what is ostensibly a modern commuter system. Ealing Broadway is hardly an out-of-the-way halt.

However, I suspect the reality is that nothing practical can be done for years/decades until complete standardisation of kinematic envelopes is achieved (if ever).

A big part of the problem is that some individual projects took an approach to align platforms with floor heights instead of floor heights with the platform standard (e.g. HEX). Now Crossrail can't go for nearly-level floor height (such as 960mm, as used on FLIRTS), because then there'd be a step up to 1,100mm platforms. Solving it is very difficult because new trains will need all the infrastructure changing first, but then the old trains will have a period when there's now a gap between the floor and the platform when there wasn't before. Or you can try and do it all in one big go, but works would have to be coordinated with Heathrow's Owners, TfL and Network Rail who all own different bits of the infrastructure and will all have passengers who can't simply be told to go away.

 

[Haywain]

Solving it is very difficult because new trains will need all the infrastructure changing first, but then the old trains will have a period when there's now a gap between the floor and the platform when there wasn't before.

It's worse than that - we have new infrastructure (Elizabeth line) with one solution and new trains (Greater Anglia and Merseyrail) with another solution, both of which work well in isolation. A national solution is a very long way off, and would have problems at points where the two solutions meet.

 

[zwk500]

It's worse than that - we have new infrastructure (Elizabeth line) with one solution

Not just the Elizabeth line of course - Heathrow (and Paddington's HEX platforms) also use high platforms and I believe HS2 will use even higher platforms! Although I did hear something about all platforms on the EL Core being built in such a way that they would be readily convertible to a different profile (not sure if that's standard UK or UIC) at a later date. No idea if that was just hearsay though!

A national solution is a very long way off, and would have problems at points where the two solutions meet.

Given it is desirable to have the train higher than the platform in all cases, the obvious national solution is to go back to the standard platform height, possibly raise it to 950mm (which is also conveniently a lot easier to achieve by raising the track, although I think a number of areas with level boarding are slab track) and purchasing trains with level or near-level boarding such that integrated ramps are feasible if required.

 

[Taunton]

Given the differences found around the national network, even on straight track, there are probably differences between "maximum", "minimum" and "ideal".

I do get the feeling that in some places it's down to the convenience of the civils in reballasting, which of these one ends up with.

 

[stuving]

In 2007 the RSSB commissioned a study into the issues of raising the standard platform height towards level boarding, called T610. Its results were:

Background​

Existing platforms in service on the main line GB network were built to many different heights, reflecting their history. A ‘standard’ platform height of 915mm was eventually established. However many platforms remain that do not conform to the ‘standard’ platform height. With a view to improving the accessibility at the platform/train interface, by reducing the stepping distance, it had been suggested that the standard uniform platform height is raised to a uniform height of 1115mm.

Key Findings​

The specialist analysis established that the offset from a 1,115 mm high platform to the track would have to be generally increased by 150mm relative to the offset for a 915 mm high platform, to maintain gauge clearance for passing trains. It indicated that whilst the vertical step onto trains would be reduced by 200mm the horizontal gap would be increased by 150mm. The reduced vertical step was also established to be variable. Today passengers, in general step up into a train. With the proposed raised platform, the step would be up into some trains and down into others.

Site investigations revealed a series of construction and other site issues to be addressed in order to achieve the objective of raising platform height. Potential problems highlighted were a reduction in platform width, the impact of a 200mm rise in platform level on lifts and escalators and the presence of listed structures.

The human factors study considered a wide range of disabled and non-disabled passengers, including people with sensory and mobility impairments and wheelchair users. This established that raising the standard platform height to 1115mm will not help in solving current accessibility issues and will provide no overall advantage.

Conclusions / Benefits​

The overall conclusion is that there is no overall benefit to be obtained from raising the standard platform height to a uniform height of 1,115mm above rail level. In fact, there is likely to be a disbenefit arising from the larger horizontal gap between train and platform and the irregular nature of the vertical step.

At that date, moveable gap-fillers were not even considered, hence the insoluble problem with horizontal offsets. One big cost factor in some stations was altering escalators and lifts, since this uplift was too big to adapt to by adjusting lift stopping points or adding ramps. Of course since then a lot more lifts have gone into smaller stations, so this would be a much bigger factor in a network-wide programme costing now.

There really should by now be a plan for the network to move to level boarding. That is obviously the way to avoid any more piecemeal decision-making with incompatible results. It might take decades, with decisions taken now needing to match others taken much later, but at least it would start everyone moving in the right direction. I don't think there is even an initial plan - a plan to get a plan - at the moment. Has there been any serious analysis of this by the "official" railway organisations since 2007?

RSSB research studies are available in the RSSB Research Catalogue (not called Spark any more). Registration is required, but open to all.

 

[Deepgreen]

In 2007 the RSSB commissioned a study into the issues of raising the standard platform height towards level boarding, called T610. Its results were:


At that date, moveable gap-fillers were not even considered, hence the insoluble problem with horizontal offsets. One big cost factor in some stations was altering escalators and lifts, since this uplift was too big to adapt to by adjusting lift stopping points or adding ramps. Of course since then a lot more lifts have gone into smaller stations, so this would be a much bigger factor in a network-wide programme costing now.

There really should by now be a plan for the network to move to level boarding. That is obviously the way to avoid any more piecemeal decision-making with incompatible results. It might take decades, with decisions taken now needing to match others taken much later, but at least it would start everyone moving in the right direction. I don't think there is even an initial plan - a plan to get a plan - at the moment. Has there been any serious analysis of this by the "official" railway organisations since 2007?

RSSB research studies are available in the RSSB Research Catalogue (not called Spark any more). Registration is required, but open to all.

I suspect the vast cost puts it in the 'distant future' box. The cost is not just the capital outlay but the huge disprution to services needed to achieve uniformity. It took decades to grasp the nettle at Clapham Junction, just on the Victoria side, and even now that is far from ideal. In fact, level boarding everywhere is probably unachievable where curved platforms exist, especially with any significant cant.

 

[MarkyT]

In 2007 the RSSB commissioned a study into the issues of raising the standard platform height towards level boarding, called T610. Its results were:


At that date, moveable gap-fillers were not even considered, hence the insoluble problem with horizontal offsets. One big cost factor in some stations was altering escalators and lifts, since this uplift was too big to adapt to by adjusting lift stopping points or adding ramps. Of course since then a lot more lifts have gone into smaller stations, so this would be a much bigger factor in a network-wide programme costing now.

There really should by now be a plan for the network to move to level boarding. That is obviously the way to avoid any more piecemeal decision-making with incompatible results. It might take decades, with decisions taken now needing to match others taken much later, but at least it would start everyone moving in the right direction. I don't think there is even an initial plan - a plan to get a plan - at the moment. Has there been any serious analysis of this by the "official" railway organisations since 2007?

RSSB research studies are available in the RSSB Research Catalogue (not called Spark any more). Registration is required, but open to all.

The development of the Aventra as a traditional UK high floor train was a massive strategic mistake for the industry in my view. When new lower floor trains were being ordered en-masse already in mainland Europe for level boarding, and TfL had sensibly gone for a lower floor on the S-stock, UK mainline operators and suppliers failed to see the coming revolution. It was up to Anglia and Stadler to demonstrate what was possible only a very few years later on their regional and express fleet, but since then London Overground, SWR, EL, the suburban parts of Anglia and C2C have once again been locked into high floor for the life of those fleets. I curse the Aventra. It was a major opportunity missed. I will not mourn its passing and replacement by a more up-to-date design under Derby's new owners, hopefully.

 

[edwin_m]

Heathrow Express was mentioned above, and is probably at the root of the problem here. This was a premium service for airport passengers, many of whom had heavy luggage and others would have checked theirs at Paddington which was then loaded into trolleys and pushed onto the train. None of the platforms it used where shared with any other trains so it made sense to build them (or raise them in the case of Paddington) to 1100mm for level boarding.

Crossrail was then proposed to share the tracks and platforms at Heathrow, so it was logical to specify the train to have a floor height of 1100mm, as a lower floor would result in a step down into the train which was seen as more hazardous than a step up. This was the first Aventra fleet, but I don't know if that persuaded the designers to go for the same floor height in the standard design or whether they would have done so anyway. And as previously posted that ruled out level boarding over the majority of the rail network where clearances prevent an 1100mm platform without a big gap. I believe there's also some regulation that considers a platform above 1m as a greater fall hazard than a lower one.

The 345s use some of the same platforms as the Anglia Aventras, which in turn share platforms with the Stadler fleets, so there is certainly no easy way out here. Having said that the Continent faced similar problems a few years ago, and do have a much wider variation in platform heights than we do, with a few trains even having internal lifts so wheelchairs can access both high and low platforms via different doors.

 

[stuving]

Here are a few things (e.g. news reports) that document what platforms heights were and how that evolved. This is not in the numerous Railway Regulation Acts - those statutes are about who regulates and how, not the content of the regulations.

There was a somewhat farcical case in the Court of Session in 1869, brought by William Stewart against the Caledonian Railway Company. He had sprained his ankle, suffering permanent damage, climbing down from a train. He maintained that the platform was too low, so this was discussed in the reports of the case. The platform was said to be at "the common height of station platforms in Scotland" at 12-15 inches. However, that height was referred to as "low", though still suitable according to some experts. From the platform, there was a footboard 6 inches, a step 1 ft 10 in , and the floor 3 ft 2 in higher.

Discussions about the Regulation of railways Bill in 1886 included a proposal that the Board of Trade could issue orders that platforms should be raised to a specified height. However, this never made it into the act in 1889. Included in the press reports was data from the Caledonian Railway saying that their standard platform height was 2 ft 6 in, with a third of them at that level or above, up to 3 ft. So the trend was evidently upwards.

The Railway Archives has a version of the Board of Trade regulations for new railways showing the changes made in 1902. From then, platform height was to be 3 ft, or in very rare cases less but not below 2 ft 6 in. Previously the height had been 2 ft 6 in, but only as "desirable".

There are several other reports of raising platforms to the standard height around 1900, including a proposal at Cambridge in 1908, but with no heights given. However, it seems likely that this is when 3 feet became the norm, having been made a requirement for new build. Companies committed to making the change when rebuilding, and resisted demands (even from the MP for Haddenham) to do so otherwise. But the process was slow, with many small stations never needing their platforms rebuilt.

 

[HSTEd]

If you were willing to make the slow platforms on Crossrail dedicated to only crossrail trains, I suppose you could narrow the platforms slightly, raise them to 1100mm high and fit gauntlet track for Crossrail trains to move towards the platforms, without fouling the route for freight.

Unfortunately thanks to Heathrow and the Crossrail core, 1100mm is frozen in permanently on Crossrail and it will never be interoperable with the rest of the railway.

Ofcourse, it is even worse with HS2, which is doing it and isn't even a self contained railway!

 

[MarkyT]

Heathrow Express was mentioned above, and is probably at the root of the problem here. This was a premium service for airport passengers, many of whom had heavy luggage and others would have checked theirs at Paddington which was then loaded into trolleys and pushed onto the train. None of the platforms it used where shared with any other trains so it made sense to build them (or raise them in the case of Paddington) to 1100mm for level boarding.

Crossrail was then proposed to share the tracks and platforms at Heathrow, so it was logical to specify the train to have a floor height of 1100mm, as a lower floor would result in a step down into the train which was seen as more hazardous than a step up. This was the first Aventra fleet, but I don't know if that persuaded the designers to go for the same floor height in the standard design or whether they would have done so anyway. And as previously posted that ruled out level boarding over the majority of the rail network where clearances prevent an 1100mm platform without a big gap. I believe there's also some regulation that considers a platform above 1m as a greater fall hazard than a lower one.

If they'd known the HEX fleet was to be replaced for signalling compatibility from the start, both operations could have specified lower floor vehicles and the relatively small number of platforms at Heathrow and Paddington modified to match. As it was, by the time the issues came to light, much of the core infrastructure was complete and most if not all the EL trains were delivered.

The 345s use some of the same platforms as the Anglia Aventras, which in turn share platforms with the Stadler fleets, so there is certainly no easy way out here. Having said that the Continent faced similar problems a few years ago, and do have a much wider variation in platform heights than we do, with a few trains even having internal lifts so wheelchairs can access both high and low platforms via different doors.

Rural lines in particular retained very low platforms in many parts of Europe, even rural stops on main lines. Urban areas and their suburban feeders gradually got higher platforms. Much work has taken place in recent decades to standardise heights on local networks to make LB easier, with matched fleets. Platforms have generally got higher which even helps with any traditional floor height vehicles that might turn up, at least from a vertical perspective.

 

[Falcon1200]

Did the problem at Ealing Broadway exist with the trains serving the station previously, ie Classes 387, 165/166, and before that 117? In other words, is the issue as much with train design as platform construction?

 

[MarkyT]

Did the problem at Ealing Broadway exist with the trains serving the station previously, ie Classes 387, 165/166, and before that 117? In other words, is the issue as much with train design as platform construction?

Yes. That the new trains don't have lower floors means the situation has not been improved. 3ft floor height wouldn't have exactly matched these particular substandard platforms, but it would at least reduce the vertical stepping distance. The ideal solution would have been to use 3ft floor stock with a raised platform to properly achieve FB. Not possible now. Raising all to ~1100mm is more difficult than to 913mm and then that locks in everything else that uses the same platform to be no lower.

 

[Falcon1200]

Thanks @MarkyT

 

[Geogregor]

I curse the Aventra. It was a major opportunity missed. I will not mourn its passing and replacement by a more up-to-date design under Derby's new owners, hopefully.

Depending on your age you might not have chance to "mourn", or not, the Aventras. They are still entering service in some of the fleets. They'll be in service for the next three decades or more. I'm 46 and I think in one form or another I'll be probably riding them to the end of my days.

 

[MarkyT]

Depending on your age you might not have chance to "mourn", or not, the Aventras. They are still entering service in some of the fleets. They'll be in service for the next three decades or more. I'm 46 and I think in one for or another I'll be probably riding them to the end of my days.

That's very true. They'll be around for decades, unfortunately. I just hope there will be no more new fleets of this design. The same applies to all the new CAF trains, again a new customised UK bodyshell design that wasn't adjusted to local platform height like manufacturers, including Bombardier and CAF, have done everywhere else in Europe. It seems to get trains nicely matched to our traditional 3ft platforms in the British Isles we have to buy them from Switzerland, or Poland in the case of the new Irish units from Alstom.

 

[Thames99]

Eurostar trains seem to have very large gaps between the platform and the train and a big step up to get on board. What is the history of that? They don't seem to match platforms at either Paris GdN or St Pancras.

 

[MarkyT]

Eurostar trains seem to have very large gaps between the platform and the train and a big step up to get on board. What is the history of that? They don't seem to match platforms at either Paris GdN or St Pancras.

That's a problem with all older high speed trains from many traditional European manufacturers. Even the latest Siemens Velaro Novo has a high floor level of around 1100mm. German ICE services are all formed of such high floor stock. DB may have broken the mould however with a recent order for 79 ICE-L trains (push-pull with locos) from Talgo and have announced all future orders will specify level boarding from standard German 760mm platforms. A push-pull low-floor solution has also been devised for Austrian Railjet services, by Siemens.

 

[BrianW]

Did the problem at Ealing Broadway exist with the trains serving the station previously, ie Classes 387, 165/166, and before that 117? In other words, is the issue as much with train design as platform construction?

I note an expectation of the Rail Safety and Standards Board that vertical and horizontal gaps should be considered:

Keeping Passengers Safe on the Platform

The Platform Train Interface (PTI) is a term used to describe the area where trains and platforms meet, and where people get on and off trains. It plays a critical role in ensuring safe journeys for millions of passengers who use UK railways daily. However, the PTI can also pose significant...

www.rssb.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

Eurostar trains seem to have very large gaps between the platform and the train and a big step up to get on board. What is the history of that? They don't seem to match platforms at either Paris GdN or St Pancras.

The original Eurostars had to fit the standard UK platform profile.
The new class 374s are noticeably closer to the platforms at St Pancras than the class 374s, although the standard European heights of 550/760mm would not allow a level floor within the train, so they still have a step up.

 

[MarkyT]

The original Eurostars had to fit the standard UK platform profile.
The new class 374s are noticeably closer to the platforms at St Pancras than the class 374s, although the standard European heights of 550/760mm would not allow a level floor within the train, so they still have a step up.

It's only recently that low floor very high speed (300+kph) trains have become available with the Avelia and Avril which can do it largely because they're reverted to, or in the case of Talgo never departed from, end power car traction architecture. Others have achieved it at a lower speed (250kph) with the Giruno for example. That, like the FLIRT, also clusters traction equipment at a limited number of non-articulated power bogies over which electrical equipment and cabs can be accommodated. If they want to stay in the German HS market, Siemens will have to come up with a solution if DB's stated intention to only order LB@760mm trains in the future holds true.

 

[Horizon22]

There is unfortunately a signififcant number of people (not necessarily on these forums) who believe the Elizabeth line is completely new, across the whole route. This is not isolated to just members of the public but journalists and politicans too.

See this quote from the passenger:

What particularly annoys Eric is he thinks that for a new railway, this is a missed opportunity. The Elizabeth line was opened in May 2022, a cost of £19bn.

"It's a brand new line and a brand new station. It's difficult enough getting on but getting off is even more dangerous.

Okay the station entrance at Ealing Broadway and the lifts are new, but of course many don't realise the platforms had not been amended.

Explaining that the majority of the route is under Network Rail infrastructure management with regards to the signalling, power and track and that station buildings and platforms are - whilst modernised - well over a century old and have the Elizabeth line has to deal with all of these factors whilst attempting to deliver a unified passenger rail service can be surprising too many, especially those use to the way London Underground works.

Of course TfL Rail services (as they were at the time) ran for 5 and 4 years respectively on the GEML & GWML with 345 units and into every platform (including Liverpool St and Paddington) before the central section opened so also had to be considered with this on mind.

Therefore whilst I wouldn't quite consider this a 'non-story' (as it is worth a discussion), it is also not anything going to be solved any time soon.

 

[plugwash]

In short, then - it's understandable that someone without any railway history knowledge, and who has been injured, would be outraged by what he perceives as an oversight by a project that was so late in coming to fruition. However, I suspect the reality is that nothing practical can be done for years/decades

Equally though. if you truly belive wheelchair users should have the ability to get about indepently without having to rely on unreliable and inconvinient staff assistance, not having a complete soloution for decades is not a great excuse for not having a plan for getting there and bringing in multiple incompatible soloutions to the problem (high platforms on lizzie and HS2, low floor trains on GA) which will make it virtually impossible to get to a true and comprehensive soloution.

 

[Dougal2345]

Sorry to be a bit dim, but I'm not quite understanding how platform height can depend on the types of train passing. Surely nothing on a train can actually overhang a platform? I naïvely assumed you could build a brick wall the height of a train along a platform edge with no ill effects? Evidently not, but why not?

 

[JamesT]

Sorry to be a bit dim, but I'm not quite understanding how platform height can depend on the types of train passing. Surely nothing on a train can actually overhang a platform? I naïvely assumed you could build a brick wall the height of a train along a platform edge with no ill effects? Evidently not, but why not?

If you look at the picture at the top of https://www.imeche.org/news/news-ar...ains-and-platforms-level-is-a-'complex'-issue for example, you’ll see the train bulges out above the normal level of the platform.

 

[Meerkat]

If you look at the picture at the top of https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/mind-the-gap-keeping-trains-and-platforms-level-is-a-'complex'-issue for example, you’ll see the train bulges out above the normal level of the platform.

I am pretty sure this is a stupid question......but my brain just doesn't like the fact that the loading gauge squeezes the side of the coach in, but then the step sticks out - make this make sense please!?