Gap between train and platform has increased

[JW16]

I have noticed a number of announcements at future Crossrail stations on the GEML warning passengers that the gap between the train and platform has increased. However, I can't say I've really noticed an increase, at least not at first glance. Does anyone know what work has been carried out that might have caused the gap to increase? And why?

 

[Domh245]

I would guess that they either changed the height of the platform (or the track), and quite possibly brought the edge back (to keep it in gauge) so that when the new stock comes in, it'll be step free.

 

[Ships]

Have they done any platform work? They might have built the new platform to a design and the corresponding track design hasn't been implemented yet. The gauging engineer won't sign off a track design which makes stepping distances worse

 

[superkev]

Assisting a disabled friend onto one of those 4 wheeled trucks at Shipley the other week made wonder why trains allways have a step up even on new stations.
Trams have level access and buses have ramps often powered. Why not trains.
K

 

[yorkie]

Assisting a disabled friend onto one of those 4 wheeled trucks at Shipley the other week made wonder why trains allways have a step up even on new stations.
Trams have level access and buses have ramps often powered. Why not trains.
K

All platforms at Shipley are on a curve and the trains you refer to have doors nearer the middle of the train, so how could it ever be completely step-free?

OK, you could argue that there shouldn't be a step up, just a gap, but in order to achieve that, surely you wouldn't be able to cant the track at any platforms on curved track, which would reduce line speeds.

 

[superkev]

All platforms at Shipley are on a curve and the trains you refer to have doors nearer the middle of the train, so how could it ever be completely step-free?

OK, you could argue that there shouldn't be a step up, just a gap, but in order to achieve that, surely you wouldn't be able to cant the track at any platforms on curved track, which would reduce line speeds.

Pacers have doors near the ends.
As I said all buses have a 'drawbridge' often powered. Why not new trains.
K

 

[swt_passenger]

Have they done any platform work? They might have built the new platform to a design and the corresponding track design hasn't been implemented yet. The gauging engineer won't sign off a track design which makes stepping distances worse

The 345s are longer vehicles. This subject has been aired in the forums before but I'm having no joy finding the previous discussion at the moment.

 

[philthetube]

trains overhang curved platforms at the corners, if the train floor is level with the platform this makes the gap even bigger, this has been adequately demonstrated by the S stock on the underground, there has been a large increase in the number of people falling between train ans platform since it was introduced. Particularly noticeable on sharply curved platforms like Farringdon and Baker Street.

I have no knowledge on this but I would not be surprised if it was down to new stock being introduced.

 

[route:oxford]

Pacers have doors near the ends.
As I said all buses have a 'drawbridge' often powered. Why not new trains.
K

At many stations the gradient on a "drawbridge" would exceed what could be used safely.

The main ones I'm thinking of the Aberdeen platforms at Perth, Bristol TM & North end of Stirling.

 

[najaB]

I have noticed a number of announcements at future Crossrail stations on the GEML warning passengers that the gap between the train and platform has increased. However, I can't say I've really noticed an increase, at least not at first glance.

It may not have increased much but it might be enough to make the gap *just* wide enough that it needs to be announced. The change could be as little as half a centimetre.

 

[edwin_m]

If the platform is built up level with the train floor then it will foul passing freight trains. Heathrow Express and East London Line have done this where freight trains aren't a problem (about 1.1m above top of rail, Crossrail will also do this on its central section). If the train floor is lowered to be level with the platform then, as mentioned for the S stock, the horizontal gap is likely to be bigger on curved platforms.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For platforms on curves if the passenger stock has the same layout (numbers of doors, locations of doors, inc distance between the doors and from the doors to the end) then a retractable platform bit could be an option, just like what the New York subway used to use at the stop for the Statten island Ferry

 

[Bletchleyite]

The NY Subway still uses it in many locations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[edwin_m]

Imagine the conditions a retractable platform would have to face on the main line railway, being buffeted by slipstream and sprayed with dirt. Not to mention the safety issues (what happens if someone is standing on it when it retracts?). And then consider that a 9-car 345 would need 27 sections, any that fails in the extended position would prevent any train passing that platform, and you will see why this is not something anyone wants to do.

 

[transmanche]

what happens if someone is standing on it when it retracts?

People seem to cope with escalators, why do you think platform gap fillers would be any different?

[youtube]ijXJQlzGNlg[/youtube]

 

[Alfie1014]

Stepping distances will continue to be a problem on the mixed traffic railway with many historical vehicle types in use. It's much easier to achieve level or almost level access on closed metro systems. Boarding devices have been resisted thus far primarily on the grounds of their impact on dwell times. That said I'm sure more could be done - the platfoms at my local station are on a curve and one has a large gap in both axis but it is the height one (around 9 inches) which causes the most problem. Even fit and able as I am I still take care when stepping down on to the platform and will use the handrails by the doors when available. Ideally a Harrington Hump on part of the platform could improve matters but as that platfom can't exited without going up stairs there seems to be little emphasis on finding a solution. But as so often with accessibility small changes can make a difference.

 

[edwin_m]

People seem to cope with escalators, why do you think platform gap fillers would be any different?

[youtube]ijXJQlzGNlg[/youtube]

An escalator can't drop someone into the gap between the train and the platform, in imminent danger of being mutilated as the train departs.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

An escalator can't drop someone into the gap between the train and the platform, in imminent danger of being mutilated as the train departs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQ2jEJed5M

The gap fillers don't retract until the train has started moving, at that point people should be stood back anyway

 

[edwin_m]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQ2jEJed5M

The gap fillers don't retract until the train has started moving, at that point people should be stood back anyway

So if they fail to retract, both they and the train are likely to be damaged and to put the line out of action. And sometimes people stand at the door trying to open it even as the train starts to move.

Or this one: http://nypost.com/2011/01/19/train-crush-guy-to-sue-for-15m/

Dion, 41, was waiting for the subway Dec. 10 when he fell into the notoriously wide gap between the platform and a 4 train that had pulled in.

As he turned to push his way back up, a hydraulic platform extender activated and drove into his midsection — trapping Dion and grotesquely crushing his abdomen as onlookers gasped in horror.

I can see why these might be needed on a tight loop like this where the gap is huge without them, but I can't see that they are necessary to reduce the gap by a few centimetres on a relatively straight platform anywhere else.

 

[Chris125]

This article from 2014 suggests that gap fillers were being investigated for the Thameslink core, anything likely to come of this?

Due to platform curvature at Farringdon, for example, gaps here are larger and necessitate a creative solution. It is here where a mechanical gap filler is proposed. It will integrate with the HUMP to ensure a seamless method of boarding for PRMs and is currently under development with a company who have them installed and commissioned for Parisian subways RATP and RER.

 

[edwin_m]

That isn't a horizontal gap filler as discussed above for New York, just a vertical hump as provided on many Underground stations.

http://www.pipexpx.com/products/pipex-px-platform-level-access-hump-bumps-fastbuild/68/

 

[Chris125]

Sorry, that quote was added by a moderator but I've now changed it. I was referencing the following section:

Due to platform curvature at Farringdon, for example, gaps here are larger and necessitate a creative solution. It is here where a mechanical gap filler is proposed. It will integrate with the HUMP to ensure a seamless method of boarding for PRMs and is currently under development with a company who have them installed and commissioned for Parisian subways RATP and RER.