Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[edwin_m]

Is that true? Look at new stations that have freight running through them.

Haven't we established that this platform could be raised considerably (but not enough to be level with the train doors), without affecting passing freight?

 

[MarkyT]

Haven't we established that this platform could be raised considerably (but not enough to be level with the train doors), without affecting passing freight?

3ft standard height and offset should be possible.

 

[miikey]

Standard platform height and offset is Y915 X730
This is nothing new, rolling stock are designed with their steps to be set at this height.

 

[Haywain]

Haven't we established that this platform could be raised considerably (but not enough to be level with the train doors), without affecting passing freight?

We have also established that it might not be so simple if structures, lifts, stairs and so on would then be below platform height.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Are some of the most modern stock designed with level boarding in mind at suitable platforms? Yesterday I travelled from Paddinton to Maidenhead on a GWR 387. It seemed a distinct climb up at Paddington, platform 10 and a distinct jump down at Maidenhead platform 3. The 165 on platform 5 for the Marlow connection seemed less of an issue, The 165 has an intermediate step, the absence of which on the 387 and presumably also the 345 makes for a bigger gap to mind. That could at least in part be the issue at Ealing Broadway where steps on previous generations of local trains made a difference.

 

[AM9]

Are some of the most modern stock designed with level boarding in mind at suitable platforms? Yesterday I travelled from Paddinton to Maidenhead on a GWR 387. It seemed a distinct climb up at Paddington, platform 10 and a distinct jump down at Maidenhead platform 3. The 165 on platform 5 for the Marlow connection seemed less of an issue, The 165 has an intermediate step, the absence of which on the 387 and presumably also the 345 makes for a bigger gap to mind. That could at least in part be the issue at Ealing Broadway where steps on previous generations of local trains made a difference.

Such an intermediate protrusion might fall outside the structure gauge of the level boarding stations.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Such an intermediate protrusion might fall outside the structure gauge of the level boarding stations.

Certainly relevant for Elizabeth 345s. 387s don't go there, but I suppose they do go to Heathrow when in Heathrow Express colours, It's one of those tradeoffs that introduction of level boarding and trains designed with this is mind at some stations, has made matters worse at others.

S stock on the London Underground is level. Did they make that work by having lower floors than the previous sub surface stock?

 

[Haywain]

S stock on the London Underground is level.

Not at every station.

 

[JamesT]

S stock on the London Underground is level. Did they make that work by having lower floors than the previous sub surface stock?

S Stock floor height is 1005mm above rail level. If that’s level with a platform, that implies a platform height above the national rail standard of 915mm. Though TfL can manage abnormal heights like that as they only have to cater for their own stock.

 

[miikey]

S Stock floor height is 1005mm above rail level. If that’s level with a platform, that implies a platform height above the national rail standard of 915mm. Though TfL can manage abnormal heights like that as they only have to cater for their own stock.

Not for stations where LUL stock and NR stock both stop. TfL have platform categories they gauge their platforms to, this tells you what the design height and offset are. For a platform where two different stock operate this is classes as a compromise platform. Meaning it's not level boarding for either stock. I.e. bakerloo line north of Queens Park.

 

[Recessio]

And this again is the ridiculous situation where we have multiple different standards for platform heights and gauges.

I can understand that street running trams vs tube gauge vs mainline rail gauge needs to have separate heights, sure. But for mainline rail, why are we still ordering new trains with different heights, locking in entire routes for 40+ years? It's ridiculous.

 

[miikey]

And this again is the ridiculous situation where we have multiple different standards for platform heights and gauges.

I can understand that street running trams vs tube gauge vs mainline rail gauge needs to have separate heights, sure. But for mainline rail, why are we still ordering new trains with different heights, locking in entire routes for 40+ years? It's ridiculous.

We're not. GERT7020 sets out the requirements and it has been adhered to since the early 00s.

 

[Benjwri]

We're not. GERT7020 sets out the requirements and it has been adhered to since the early 00s.

Has it been adhered to though? CrossRail, HS2 etc beg to disagree.

 

[miikey]

Has it been adhered to though? CrossRail, HS2 etc beg to disagree.

Of course. It's legislation.
You can deviate from the requirements by submitting a change proposal, for example the heights and offsets at Barking Riverside are non compliant to GERT7020 but this has been approved by the RSSB due to sacrificial gap fillers being installed to improve stepping distances.
Rest assured, new infrastructure is built to level boarding legislation as per the requirements of RVAR. Old infrastructure is maintained to the relevant NR standards which dictate the maximum and minimum height and offset values acceptable for maintenance.

 

[Recessio]

We're not. GERT7020 sets out the requirements and it has been adhered to since the early 00s.

So then why do we have the 345s and Crossrail core stations being built to 1100mm if the national standard is 915mm? I don't understand why we are continuing to lock in divergence from a standard.

 

[Benjwri]

Of course. It's legislation.
You can deviate from the requirements by submitting a change proposal, for example the heights and offsets at Barking Riverside are non compliant to GERT7020 but this has been approved by the RSSB due to sacrificial gap fillers being installed to improve stepping distances.
Rest assured, new infrastructure is built to level boarding legislation as per the requirements of RVAR. Old infrastructure is maintained to the relevant NR standards which dictate the maximum and minimum height and offset values acceptable for maintenance.

Except as you’ve just admitted it is being built without level boarding. The comment you replied to claimed stock is still being ordered that will make level boarding impossible for its lifetime. That is undeniably true. Whether it is in compliance with regulations is neither here nor there.

As in my example HS2 will mean level boarding is not possible on the WCML for the lifetime of the units.

 

[edwin_m]

So then why do we have the 345s and Crossrail core stations being built to 1100mm if the national standard is 915mm? I don't understand why we are continuing to lock in divergence from a standard.

Probably because the Heathrow platforms had already been built to that height to give level boarding for Heathrow Express, so a low-floor Crossrail train would have been below platform level at the airport stations. I'm sure I've pointed that out on this thread several times already.

 

[Recessio]

Probably because the Heathrow platforms had already been built to that height to give level boarding for Heathrow Express, so a low-floor Crossrail train would have been below platform level at the airport stations. I'm sure I've pointed that out on this thread several times already.

Right. So what I'm saying is that clearly these regulations aren't fit for purpose, if the entire new Crossrail core is allowed to be built at a non-standard height, and new rolling stock ordered at a non-standard height, because of a few existing non-standard platforms at Heathrow.

 

[AM9]

Right. So what I'm saying is that clearly these regulations aren't fit for purpose, if the entire new Crossrail core is allowed to be built at a non-standard height, and new rolling stock ordered at a non-standard height, because of a few existing non-standard platforms at Heathrow.

Or, conversely, the trains could skip non -TfL standard platforms on the GWML.

 

[Taunton]

Of course. It's legislation.
You can deviate from the requirements by submitting a change proposal, for example the heights and offsets at Barking Riverside are non compliant to GERT7020 but this has been approved by the RSSB due to sacrificial gap fillers being installed to improve stepping distances.
Rest assured, new infrastructure is built to level boarding legislation as per the requirements of RVAR. Old infrastructure is maintained to the relevant NR standards which dictate the maximum and minimum height and offset values acceptable for maintenance.

I'm getting a bit lost here. Why has a brand new station been built with platforms at a non-standard height, and presumably different to all the other stations on the line it serves.

Have RSSB and RVAR come up with two different standards?

 

[Benjwri]

I'm getting a bit lost here. Why has a brand new station been built with platforms at a non-standard height, and presumably different to all the other stations on the line it serves.

Have RSSB and RVAR come up with two different standards?

Basically it couldn’t be built at 915mm because the step from a 710 would be too large. It was granted an exception from the standards on that basis.

 

[Taunton]

Basically it couldn’t be built at 915mm because the step from a 710 would be too large. It was granted an exception from the standards on that basis.

So how does that work at all the other stations these trains serve?

 

[Benjwri]

So how does that work at all the other stations these trains serve?

As far as I’m aware they are all non standard platform heights by the same process or grandfather rights.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Why has a brand new station been built with platforms at a non-standard height, and presumably different to all the other stations on the line it serves.

The Heathrow stations over 20 years ago which have perpetuated their heights onto the new Elizabeth line stations. This makes for problems at the older GWR stations such as Ealing Broadway. These are exacerbated by the absence of steps on some of the newer stock.

I believe the new 8xx series which are now getting everywhere have steps. Certainly on a recent journey involving a 158, 801, S-7, 387, 165 it was the 387 that was the most difficult with luggage, The S-7 the easiest of course.

 

[Taunton]

As far as I’m aware they are all non standard platform heights by the same process or grandfather rights.

Seems strange, as all the other stations on the route were substantially rebuilt during the lengthy electrification project. Isn't one of the aims of a stated standard that it is what you are aiming for in any new works. Certainly in other railway areas, such as electrification clearances, it's "that's the standard we want - stick to it".

 

[Horizon22]

The Heathrow stations over 20 years ago which have perpetuated their heights onto the new Elizabeth line stations. This makes for problems at the older GWR stations such as Ealing Broadway. These are exacerbated by the absence of steps on some of the newer stock.

I believe the new 8xx series which are now getting everywhere have steps. Certainly on a recent journey involving a 158, 801, S-7, 387, 165 it was the 387 that was the most difficult with luggage, The S-7 the easiest of course.

I believe @Taunton was referring to Barking Riverside. The issues with Heathrow level boarding & GWML (and GEML of course) stations has been mentioned plenty of times when looking at what the new Crossrail core was built towards.

 

[Recessio]

The Heathrow stations over 20 years ago which have perpetuated their heights onto the new Elizabeth line stations. This makes for problems at the older GWR stations such as Ealing Broadway. These are exacerbated by the absence of steps on some of the newer stock.

I believe the new 8xx series which are now getting everywhere have steps. Certainly on a recent journey involving a 158, 801, S-7, 387, 165 it was the 387 that was the most difficult with luggage, The S-7 the easiest of course.

Seems strange, as all the other stations on the route were substantially rebuilt during the lengthy electrification project. Isn't one of the aims of a stated standard that it is what you are aiming for in any new works. Certainly in other railway areas, such as electrification clearances, it's "that's the standard we want - stick to it".

This is what I don't understand. I could understand if the issue was "Heathrow meets the new standard. Let's build the core and order trains to the new standard. We grandfather in the GWML stations don't meet that standard, and for now there will be a gap+step there."

But if I understand correctly, what has happened is instead "Heathrow doesn't meet the new standard. Let's build the core and order new trains to match Heathrow anyway, and now we have an even worse gap+step on the GWML"?

I understand we can't rebuild every station in the country (immediately), but what's the point of having a standard if it isn't enforced on new stations (the core) and new trains?

 

[miikey]

All of the other stations are built to level boarding specs for LO. The mayor wanted LO to be level access. I'm actually not sure about what the height and offsets are for 'new' platforms on the route but I know they are much higher than the disused sections. I'll do some digging but I think level access with strict control measures (like slab track in the case of Barking Riverside and Lizzy Line) mean that deviation from the standards is acceptable.

 

[mr_jrt]

I vaguely recall ages ago reading somewhere TfL were keen on the ideal of having a non-standard core if they could get away with it as it helped prevent things like freight and open access operators et al. wanting to use it as it's strictly speaking part of the national network...?

 

[miikey]

I vaguely recall ages ago reading somewhere TfL were keen on the ideal of having a non-standard core if they could get away with it as it helped prevent things like freight and open access operators et al. wanting to use it as it's strictly speaking part of the national network...?

Only thing is... Freight use the goblin more than TfL trains?! It's possibly tight to freight too. I'm not too sure.