Should all new trains be accessible to the disabled without the need for station staff or a phone call to the station 1 - 2 days before?

[RobShipway]

I must confess I have not been in a position to try any of the new rolling stock that has been allowed for public use. But have seen videos of some of them on the likes of Youtube such as as

where it shows at about 13:20 in the video that the level of the floor of the train is level with the platform with the station being served.

For most types of trains, disabled people whether in wheelchairs or use sticks or frames to walk, have to call their nearest station at least 1 - 2 days beforehand so that station staff if any available, can assist those passengers who if there is no station staff, the guard of the train be made aware that he will have to find the passenger ramp at the station to help the passengers on.

Now, it maybe that Greater Anglia have come to same agreement with Network Rail to enable the class 755's to be at the same level as the platform. But I would have thought that the same could be done with the likes of say the class 730 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briti...dia/File:Bombardier_Aventra_Class_730_EMU.jpg, but the doors do seem at a higher level than those of the class 755 flirt trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_755#/media/File:755407_at_Wymondham.jpg.

I know that there is going to be a certain few, that will say that we should be grateful for new trains. But should that be at the cost of the elderly that are not able to walk as well as well as they once did and many of whom may have worked on the railway when many of us where kids or those that are disabled either from birth or from an accident?

 

[mmh]

The answer is probably something like "yes, all new trains should be, but unfortunately they cannot be because there are vast variations in platform heights, curvatures and gaps. It's a really difficult problem to solve.

 

[A0]

It should be wherever is reasonably practical - but should the rail network have to make stations like Berney Arms, Sugar Loaf or Dovey Junction compliant ? The cost would be huge and the reality is no disabled person is likely ever to use them given their remote nature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Level boarding at standard UK platform height (915mm?) with gap bridges in at least one vehicle should be mandatory for all new stock ordered, effective immediately, and the recent large deliveries of 80x and Aventras were a massive missed opportunity (but could something be done about that, e.g. by swapping out one vehicle for a low floor trailer and using the spare one to extend another set?).

The answer is probably something like "yes, all new trains should be, but unfortunately they cannot be because there are vast variations in platform heights, curvatures and gaps. It's a really difficult problem to solve.

Curvature and gaps are handled by "moving steps" as fitted to the FLIRTs.

Yes, some platforms are the wrong height, but a policy on this can, and should, be accompanied by a progressive policy to standardise platform heights. In the meantime, a ramp can be used at stations where they aren't standard.

 

[py_megapixel]

Currently TOCs aren't allowed to require a phone call in advance unless they require the same as able-bodied passengers - otherwise it is treated as discrimination against a person based on a characteristic defined as protected by the equality act (disability in this case) and is therefore illegal.

That said, yes I do think we should be working towards level boarding - not all at once, but in a gradual rolling programme, just as electrification dhould be.

 

[Bayum]

Absolutely. I have a ‘hidden’ disability that affects my mobility - my hips allow neither of my feet to rise more than a few inches from the ground, so steps up (and down but not to the same extent) are exceedingly difficult. The HSTs used to be a nightmare at some stations for me. I appreciate that the cost of aligning platform heights to trains will cost money - and? It’s bad enough that there are still loopholes that allow companies to effectively ‘bar’ disabled people from entering a shop due to steps into the building as long as a service is available by a staff member coming to the door.

 

[Tio Terry]

The short answer is "Yes".

There are, of course, problems in reaching that state, but ignoring it or putting it in the "too difficult" box is no longer acceptable. Things have to change, that's what the law requires - and the railways are, and never will be, exempt.

 

[Purple Orange]

Simple answer... yes.

 

[dm1]

Level boarding is a must, at least on one vehicle per train. Long-term all trains should have level boarding as standard. It may even be worth doing guage-clearing work to allow it without the narrower width at solebar level, which has long been used as the argument against building such trains in the past.

I think sooner or later, we'll need to do what Zürich did (as I mentioned on another thread recently). There they replaced one coach out of each set (3 cars + loco) with a new car with level boarding, then formed extra sets out of the removed coaches for use at peak times (where there are other trains with level boarding anyway).

On an EMU this may be slightly more challenging, but I think replacing a trailer car in this way should be possible and will sooner or later need to happen.

As for non-standard platform heights - there will have to be a rolling programme of standardisation - whenever a station is significantly rebuilt in any way, ensuring the platforms conform to the standard height of 915mm is a must. I believe this is already happening to some extent.

Major stations should be standardised even if there isn't a rebuild planned. For minor stations, in particular those without guards, other approaches will be needed, but the aim should be for people to be able to board all trains autonomously wherever possible, and for assistance to be guarantied without pre-booking where it is not.

Arguing that the platforms aren't standard, so there's no point in buying trains to that standard misses the point entirely in my opinion. You have to start somewhere, and you need both. There's not really much point in rebuilding platforms if the trains you are running still require ramps to board them either.

I remember having lively discussions on this forum a few years ago, when gap fillers were suggested as a soluton for curved platforms. Numerous users were arguing that for some reason they could never work in the UK, despite being fairly standard in Europe for decades now. Then Stadler came along and proved that they work just as well here as they do anywhere else. Much of western Europe went through this process (and is still going through it in many countries) - build the trains and the platforms to the same standard and it's perfectly feasible. I think there's a lot that UK rolling stock could learn from its european counterparts, notwithstanding the smaller UK loading guage.

Then there's the genius that is the Giruno/ Stadler SMILE train, which has level boarding at two different heights! Thameslink, Crossrail and the Heathrow extension will in time probably need a similar solution, due to the somewhat questionable decision to build platforms at 1100mm instead of the standard 915mm.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then there's the genius that is the Giruno/ Stadler SMILE train, which has level boarding at two different heights! Thameslink, Crossrail and the Heathrow extension will in time probably need a similar solution, due to the somewhat questionable decision to build platforms at 1100mm instead of the standard 915mm.

I seem to recall HS2 was going to make a similarly stupid mistake, too, which unless they do a Giruno style solution means no level boarding at classic stations

Thameslink is done with Harrington humps, isn't it? In that case those could be removed.

 

[telstarbox]

Of course level boarding is useful to all sorts of users so it should be, er, rolled out wherever practical.

On a tangent, does anyone know if the proportion of PRM (persons of reduced mobility) is going up or down in the UK? I would expect the former as people live longer?

Of course level boarding is useful to all sorts of users so it should be, er, rolled out wherever practical.

On a tangent, does anyone know if the proportion of PRM (persons of reduced mobility) is going up or down in the UK? I would expect the former as people live longer?

 

[dm1]

I seem to recall HS2 was going to make a similarly stupid mistake, too, which unless they do a Giruno style solution means no level boarding at classic stations

They are

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794108/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf

1115mm apparently.

It'll be interesting to see what the bids for the trains look like - I was once lucky enough to talk with someone involved in the Giruno procurement process. The specifications were specifically looking for innovative solutions to allow level boarding at both heights. If I recall correctly, every single other bidder refused outright to comply with this requirement - submitting their bids with their standard 250km/h train platforms, basically telling the SBB to "take it or leave it", being unwilling to develop a new train platform or to modify an existing one to enable this. Unsurprisingly, they left it...

That makes me wonder whether, if one of the bidders was to submit a bid for HS2 for a train that offers this, whether they could win on that alone.

 

[RobShipway]

This is going to sound like a strange suggestion, but could you not have airbags below the main floor of the disabled carriage that is above the travelling frame, that is able to lift the floor of the carriage to varying heights?

If you could have enough airbags to be either lowering or lifting the carriage floor, surely then it would not matter what height the platform was at, as the airbags would rise to the same level as the platform so that disabled passengers could get off without assistance.

When I am saying airbags, I am not meaning the sort that are in a car, I am thinking more of technology used with the hovercraft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794108/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf

1115mm apparently.

It'll be interesting to see what the bids for the trains look like - I was once lucky enough to talk with someone involved in the Giruno procurement process. The specifications were specifically looking for innovative solutions to allow level boarding at both heights. If I recall correctly, every single other bidder refused outright to comply with this requirement - submitting their bids with their standard 250km/h train platforms, basically telling the SBB to "take it or leave it", being unwilling to develop a new train platform or to modify an existing one to enable this. Unsurprisingly, they left it...

That makes me wonder whether, if one of the bidders was to submit a bid for HS2 for a train that offers this, whether they could win on that alone.

Thanks for posting the spec - interesting reading, and also interesting that good window alignment is specified!

 

[D365]

This is going to sound like a strange suggestion, but could you not have airbags below the main floor of the disabled carriage that is above the travelling frame, that is able to lift the floor of the carriage to varying heights?

If you could have enough airbags to be either lowering or lifting the carriage floor, surely then it would not matter what height the platform was at, as the airbags would rise to the same level as the platform so that disabled passengers could get off without assistance.

When I am saying airbags, I am not meaning the sort that are in a car, I am thinking more of technology used with the hovercraft.

Far far easier to build ramps into each carriage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Far far easier to build ramps into each carriage.

It's not at all hard to build a 915mm floor vehicle, it just has to be a bit narrow as it gets down to platform level so it doesn't whack stuff (as the FLIRTs are). That does mean 3+2 seating isn't possible in that section, but the section could be as short as the bit between two "doors at thirds", provided the wheelchair space, accessible bog and a few priority seats are there.

Obviously the whole train like that is best, but in terms of modifying existing kit (and capacity, if you want 3+2) that is a pragmatic hybrid.

 

[RobShipway]

Far far easier to build ramps into each carriage.

It is not easier if you are the disabled person in using those ramps.

It's not at all hard to build a 915mm floor vehicle, it just has to be a bit narrow as it gets down to platform level so it doesn't whack stuff (as the FLIRTs are). That does mean 3+2 seating isn't possible in that section, but the section could be as short as the bit between two "doors at thirds", provided the wheelchair space, accessible bog and a few priority seats are there.

Obviously the whole train like that is best, but in terms of modifying existing kit (and capacity, if you want 3+2) that is a pragmatic hybrid.

Totally agree, if one manufacturer can do it. Then all should be able to do so. For me it is like someone saying that only Toyota cars can have airbags in their steering wheels, yet all cars within the last 20 years within the UK have had to be built with an airbag in the steering wheel by all car manufacturers. The same should be with train manufacturers with having their disability carriage access at the same level of most platforms. If that was implemented, then you can either spend lots of money standardising all platforms to the same size or have the disabled carriage on a new train be such that it can bring itself to the level of the platform. Which do you think is likely to be the cheaper option?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not easier if you are the disabled person in using those ramps.

Totally agree, if one manufacturer can do it. Then all should be able to do so.

They all can - they all make low floor EMUs for the Euro market now. It's just down to what we specify.

 

[RobShipway]

They all can - they all make low floor EMUs for the Euro market now. It's just down to what we specify.

Exactly.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Never mind the trains, at my local station a wheelchair user, or anyone else who could need the use of a lift, is limited to reaching one platform out of the four in the station. They can't even reach the trains.

 

[dm1]

It's a chicken and egg problem.

You have to start somewhere, and making the decision to only specify low floor entry on new stock would be an important first step. In time, the stations and platforms would follow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a chicken and egg problem.

You have to start somewhere, and making the decision to only specify low floor entry on new stock would be an important first step. In time, the stations and platforms would follow.

And that's exactly what Greater Anglia did - and it was the right choice.

 

[etr221]

Apparently when specifying (what became) class 777, Merseytravel decided on level boarding, saw that the (Network Rail) standard platform height was 915mm, and told the train builders to work to that. And that any non standard platforms would be adjusted to it...

My thinking agrees: 915mm is the standard, work to it, as new trains and platforms come about... and eventually - everything is to it, no problem...

 

[dm1]

Gareth Dennis made a very illustrative graphic of this for one of his Youtube videos (see here) talking about level boarding.

The green lines are the standard, the shaded areas are the tolerances, and the red dots are the platforms. Note the small clump at 1115mm.

There's some work to be done, to put it lightly...

 

[D365]

It is not easier if you are the disabled person in using those ramps.

Totally agree, if one manufacturer can do it. Then all should be able to do so. For me it is like someone saying that only Toyota cars can have airbags in their steering wheels, yet all cars within the last 20 years within the UK have had to be built with an airbag in the steering wheel by all car manufacturers. The same should be with train manufacturers with having their disability carriage access at the same level of most platforms. If that was implemented, then you can either spend lots of money standardising all platforms to the same size or have the disabled carriage on a new train be such that it can bring itself to the level of the platform. Which do you think is likely to be the cheaper option?

I’m talking from an engineering perspective. As nice as your idea is, it’s a total non-starter. What happens if the system fails while the vehicle is travelling at speed?

The platforms (or platform-edge ramps) will definitely be the cheaper option.

 

[RobShipway]

I’m talking from an engineering perspective. As nice as your idea is, it’s a total non-starter. What happens if the system fails while the vehicle is travelling at speed?

The platforms (or platform-edge ramps) will definitely be the cheaper option.

If the ramps are coming out of the trains then yes. But speaking as someone that for one reason or another has has to push either relatives or friends in a wheelchair on to a train or off it on the ramps left at stations to be used with trains that are not built to be level with trains, the people in those wheelchairs are being treated like third class citizens through no fault of their own. That is because engineers like yourself, are not seeing the bigger picture of how people are getting around in the world. As a country we have an ageing population, that means there is potentially many people that either through accident or something that they suffer from may end up with either being in a wheelchair or having to walk with aides that requires them to enter the train on the platform edge ramps that you suggest.

Apologies if the above seems personal, it is not meant to be. I just get annoyed that people make comments 'That life is what it is" without really thinking what that means and giving the impression that they could not care about an ever growing group of people that they themselves could be part of one day.

 

[Ken H]

This is going to sound like a strange suggestion, but could you not have airbags below the main floor of the disabled carriage that is above the travelling frame, that is able to lift the floor of the carriage to varying heights?

If you could have enough airbags to be either lowering or lifting the carriage floor, surely then it would not matter what height the platform was at, as the airbags would rise to the same level as the platform so that disabled passengers could get off without assistance.

When I am saying airbags, I am not meaning the sort that are in a car, I am thinking more of technology used with the hovercraft.

like a kneeling bus, which does what you suggest, methinks

 

[RobShipway]

like a kneeling bus, which does what you suggest, methinks

Yes, very much so.

I think many of the train engineers need to spend at least a day trying to do normal everyday things inside a wheelchair, like catching a train and seeing how the fact of placing the ramp down at a platform is having not on the person in the wheelchair, but can also have an effect on the guard as well where they may realise how lucky they are in having use of both of their legs. But also what a struggle it sometimes can be for people trying to get around in a wheelchair or with sticks or a wheelable trolley just to get around to do what the rest of us take for granted.

 

[Ken H]

Yes, very much so.

I think many of the train engineers need to spend at least a day trying to do normal everyday things inside a wheelchair, like catching a train and seeing how the fact of placing the ramp down at a platform is having not on the person in the wheelchair, but can also have an effect on the guard as well where they may realise how lucky they are in having use of both of their legs. But also what a struggle it sometimes can be for people trying to get around in a wheelchair or with sticks or a wheelable trolley just to get around to do what the rest of us take for granted.

They should try getting a baby buggy on a train too.

 

[Irascible]

I’m talking from an engineering perspective. As nice as your idea is, it’s a total non-starter. What happens if the system fails while the vehicle is travelling at speed?

The platforms (or platform-edge ramps) will definitely be the cheaper option.

Presumably it falls onto it's stops like any other current air suspension. The problem seems to be that it'd need seperate gauge clearance for every station too, because it might well go out of gauge vertically - what do you do about OHLE?.

Properly standardising platform height is the sensible way - even if you're not mobility-limited it just makes life easier for everyone. Platforms don't need quite as much maintenance as regularily moving bits of train too. What to do about stations on curves is a bit of a problem no matter what solution you use though. What is the ramp angle on these Stadler units when they're sitting in a station on canted track?