Hi v low platforms - how the Canadians got around it

[najaB]

I'm in Toronto today and took the Airport - City Center train to have a wander. They had a similar high v low platform issue as faces HS2 classic-compatible stock as the track is shared with commuter services which use low floored units.

Their solution: simply double the length of the platforms and make half low and the other half high!

The things you can get away with when your country is fourteen times the size of France (admittedly, I think the longest airport trains are four carriages).

Are there any UK stations where they could get away with that?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'm in Toronto today and took the Airport - City Center train to have a wander. They had a similar high v low platform issue as faces HS2 classic-compatible stock as the track is shared with commuter services which use low floored units.

Their solution: simply double the length of the platforms and make half low and the other half high!

The things you can get away with when your country is fourteen times the size of France (admittedly, I think the longest airport trains are four carriages).

Are there any UK stations where they could get away with that?

Bournemouth perhaps (down direction only)?

 

[Via Bank]

I’m not sure pax would like the idea of having to do a significant amount of extra walking to board the correct train.

It’s enough of a pain at termini where only the front x coaches on a platform form the train I want. I commuted from King’s Cross for a little over a year, and it was a pain in the neck. It led to confusion (people boarding the wrong unit), inconvenience and discomfort (not only do you have to walk to the far platforms, you then have to walk most of the way *up* the platform), delay (as people would miss their trains) and injury (because people would run, slip and hurt themselves.)

Adding this to through stations seems like a sub-optimal solution for a problem that shouldn’t really exist.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's not a meaningful solution for the UK because it's the distance from the rail to the platform edge that matters here. Most countries have loading gauges which don't narrow below platform level, so they can have platforms at any level without it affecting the passage of trains.

 

[D365]

Bournemouth perhaps (down direction only)?

And that helps HS2 how?

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 intends to have platforms at 1.1m above rail level on its high speed lines. This can't happen on classic lines because a platform at that height positioned for acceptable stepping distance to a UK-gauge passenger train would foul passing freight trains. So, with the possible exception of platforms where no freight train passes (termini?), HS2 trains will have stepped boarding on the classic network. This is no different from East London Line and Crossrail.

 

[eastwestdivide]

...Are there any UK stations where they could get away with that?

That's the solution currently being built for Rotherham Central for the tram-trains - a platform extension at the Sheffield end for the new vehicles.

 

[Bayum]

And that helps HS2 how?

Doesn't stipulate anywhere that the OP was wanting discussion wholly around which stations on HS2 route could be extended.

 

[PermitToTravel]

HS2 intends to have platforms at 1.1m above rail level on its high speed lines. This can't happen on classic lines because a platform at that height positioned for acceptable stepping distance to a UK-gauge passenger train would foul passing freight trains. So, with the possible exception of platforms where no freight train passes (termini?), HS2 trains will have stepped boarding on the classic network. This is no different from East London Line and Crossrail.

At stations with goods lines, like West Hampstead Thameslink, could step-free boarding be introduced and freights banned from passing through the station? Does the reduced clearance to passing passenger trains necessitate a speed reduction past the platforms?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The problem you face with going over to a 1.1m platform height would be cost. 200mm extra on reasonably standard 4m wide platform (a standard crossfall of 1 in 50) is going to need the back of the platform raising 120mm (which will cause issues with stairs, ramps, lifts, doors to platform buildings, reduced distances to canopies, possible reduced clearance to OLE and even possibly sighting of DOO equipment.

Or you could just go round and lower the track by at least 200mm, 350mm in places. At 2563 stations, some of them having over 15 platforms and many of them having road under rail bridges at one end. Even at an average of two platforms and £250k per platform (massive under-estimate as many have complex junctions at one or both ends) that's £1.28bn.

 

[Ploughman]

How many stations have subways or bridges in the middle of the platforms?
I know there are many that have either shallow depth sleepers or timbers due to minimal depth of ballast below the sleepers.

 

[Skutter]

I'm in Toronto today and took the Airport - City Center train to have a wander. They had a similar high v low platform issue as faces HS2 classic-compatible stock as the track is shared with commuter services which use low floored units.

Their solution: simply double the length of the platforms and make half low and the other half high!

The things you can get away with when your country is fourteen times the size of France (admittedly, I think the longest airport trains are four carriages).

Are there any UK stations where they could get away with that?

Sunderland has Metro at one end, heavy rail at the other. That was halving the previous platform rather than doubling I think. Is there something similar somewhere for the Sheffield tram-train?

 

[Mojo]

I'm in Toronto today and took the Airport - City Center train to have a wander. They had a similar high v low platform issue as faces HS2 classic-compatible stock as the track is shared with commuter services which use low floored units.

OT but I went there earlier in the year and was quite amused that the Airport and city centre stations have platform edge doors but the trains themselves are diesel.

 

[IanXC]

Sunderland has Metro at one end, heavy rail at the other. That was halving the previous platform rather than doubling I think. Is there something similar somewhere for the Sheffield tram-train?

At Sunderland the platforms are all the same height; Rotherham Central will have 1 and 2 for heavy rail, and 3 and 4 at a lower level for trams.

 

[Taunton]

End-on-end different platform heights have been used in various places, especially where shared with trams. Cleveland, Ohio, did it, where trams shared with a rather lightweight (sometimes 1-car trains) rapid transit system. In fact they have done it in two separate ways over time, initially they had different platform heights on different sides of a single track, and the different trains opened doors left or right as appropriate. Subsequently, to allow transfer between the two types at platform level, it was changed to an end-on-end arrangement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_55th_(RTA_Rapid_Transit_station)

 

[edwin_m]

Some of the pre-metro lines on the Continent have dual height platforms. I seem to recall them in Stuttgart - dual gauge too - and Brussels has them today but the high parts are not used.

 

[IanXC]

If I have understood correctly, this is exactly what is being constructed at Rotherham Central for the Tram train project.

 

[RSimons]

On most VIA Rail trains, the carriage floor just inside the door hinges up to reveal steps that extend to about six inches above the rail. At stops where there is no platform of any kind (like our local station) the conductor then drops a small hop-up that wobbles around on the edge of the ballast. A couple of months ago, getting an elderly passenger with a walking frame on to the train was accomplished far more easily than I expected.