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?

[43096]

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.

Which is why the Stadler solution is ideal. Having seen it used at a random station in Norfolk with standard height platforms, it just works. Passenger in wheelchair on platform, opens doors, step slides out, wheel themselves on, doors close, off you go. So many benefits for passengers, staff (no ramp to deploy) and the railway generally (fewer delay minutes while ramps are deployed for a start): the only question is why is no other manufacturer offering level boarding.

 

[D365]

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.

It’s nothing to do with ”bigger picture”. The whole point of engineering is to make things as accessible, convenient and user-friendly as possible within a given set of constraints. In a railway environment, everything is safety first. Safety is our #1 constraint.

What we have to do is demonstrate that, if the air suspension (or any other component) on your novel kneeling train fails, will the failure happen in a safe manner and bring the train to a stop? Or will it cause a catastrophic failure at speed? Or as @Irascable points out, will a failure cause the train to foul the loading gauge, causing significant damage and disruption. I’m really not confident.

Engineering wouldn’t exist if we accepted ”life for what it is”. Otherwise, we would still be using horse and cart in our everyday lives. Although there are still major hurdles to be overcome with accessibility on trains - nobody will deny it - it’s great to see how far we have come. I don’t want to get personal either, but blaming engineers for platform-train interface, a problem that has been fundamental to railways since the very beginning, is the exact opposite of constructive.

I agree with Irascible that platform heights are the way to go about this.

 

[RobShipway]

It’s nothing to do with ”bigger picture”. The whole point of engineering is to make things as accessible, convenient and user-friendly as possible within a given set of constraints. In a railway environment, everything is safety first. Safety is our #1 constraint.

What we have to do is demonstrate that, if the air suspension (or any other component) on your novel kneeling train fails, will the failure happen in a safe manner and bring the train to a stop? Or will it cause a catastrophic failure at speed? Or as @Irascable points out, will a failure cause the train to foul the loading gauge, causing significant damage and disruption. I’m really not confident.

Engineering wouldn’t exist if we accepted ”life for what it is”. Otherwise, we would still be using horse and cart in our everyday lives. Although there are still major hurdles to be overcome with accessibility on trains - nobody will deny it - it’s great to see how far we have come. I don’t want to get personal either, but blaming engineers for platform-train interface, a problem that has been fundamental to railways since the very beginning, is the exact opposite of constructive.

I agree with Irascible that platform heights are the way to go about this.

If platforms heights could be made standard for all stations, great. But I cannot see it happening in the next 30 years, that you will have all station platforms at the same height.

As some have noted curved platforms such as Dorchester South for example are not going to be easy platforms to standardise such that the likes of the class 755/745 units can be operated without having an extra ramp.

But as many have said in this thread, such as 43096 all the person that is disabled needs to do is press a button to open the door to the disability carriage which is no different to any other passenger. In your comment about the ramp that is then causing a delay and also making the disabled person feel guilty for wanting to catch the train as they are the cause of the delay.

I believe that prior to ordering the class 755/745 units, Greater Anglia did approach disability charities as to how they can make things better for people and I believe that GA does have a member of staff that is in a wheelchair, that helped with speaking to Stadler about the design of the trains, while GA pressed Network Rail to make sure that the stations within their area are of a standard height. I have not read or heard about any of the other railway companies doing the same, prior to ordering their new trains. This is the point that many people are making, that if the likes of GA can think about the disabled in that way in ordering their new trains. Why have the others not done the same?

You also will now have the problem that the height of the doors on some of those new trains are higher than others when it comes to someone having to reach a leg up to get into a train. How do you think that effects the wonderful ramp of yours for something in a wheelchair to get into a train? Hence why I suggest that maybe, you should take the time for at least a day go travelling on trains in a wheelchair and see what issues you face.

 

[D365]

Did you just completely gloss over the fact that railways have to be safety first? That comes above everything. If you want to propose a novel ”kneeling” system, great, but you need to explain to the safety authorities how you will prevent it from causing a catastrophic failure if it fails. That’s an engineer’s job.

There are three options. Ramps, low floor trains or raised platform edges. Any of the above are an improvement from ”do nothing”. All are proven and all are viable options. If it wasn’t for engineers, none of those options would exist.

 

[RobShipway]

Did you just completely gloss over the fact that railways have to be safety first? That comes above everything. If you want to propose a novel ”kneeling” system, great, but you need to explain to the safety authorities how you will prevent it from causing a catastrophic failure if it fails. That’s an engineer’s job.

There are three options. Ramps, low floor trains or raised platform edges. Any of the above are an improvement from ”do nothing”. All are proven and all are viable options. If it wasn’t for engineers, none of those options would exist.

No I have not glossed over safety first, but you seem to have glossed over my post above. Have you ever been in a wheelchair trying to get on a train using a ramp?

Before you ask, I have and can tell you it is no fun. What I found in using a wheelchair to find out what it is like for disabled people in a wheelchair to travel over a three day period was that even though many staff working for the train operating where helpful, they did find it difficult in pushing more than one person in a wheelchair into a train up a ramp and helping them down when it came for them to be getting off the train.

For me trains such as the class 720, 730, mk5 coaches etc... should have been built with low floors as was done with the class 755/745 units. Platform edges around the country should be standardised to the same height. Falling that then you are going to have to have coaches on trains where the disability area resides such that they can lower to the height of the platform.

The trains such as the class 720, 195, 331, 730 are going to mean that you will have yet another generation of disabled people that will not be travelling by train as many do not like the fact that they have to rely on the guard of a train being sympathetic to them being able to travel, which is not always the case.

 

[D365]

So I’ve given you the three options. At this point, it’s up to the TOCs and Network Rail.

 

[RobShipway]

So I’ve given you the three options. At this point, it’s up to the TOCs and Network Rail.

You have not answered the question in my above post.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with raised platform edges is them obstructing freight vehicles, isn't it? So you could do it to Merseyrail (though they've chosen low floor), but you couldn't do it on the WCML.

That said, I've noticed that DB's high platforms have the high bit set back from the edge with the train's folding step covering the gap - could that allow us to raise platforms (Harrington humps or completely) without whacking freight vehicles on the raised bit? As if HS2 vehicle spec is for normal floor height and raised platforms, as it seems it is, that will be the only way to get level boarding on the whole WCML and all stock using it due to the need for interoperability on the northern bit where HS2 trains will run too.

 

[D365]

You have not answered the question in my above post.

I generally prefer to not comment on my personal life.

 

[JamesT]

The problem with raised platform edges is them obstructing freight vehicles, isn't it? So you could do it to Merseyrail (though they've chosen low floor), but you couldn't do it on the WCML.

That said, I've noticed that DB's high platforms have the high bit set back from the edge with the train's folding step covering the gap - could that allow us to raise platforms (Harrington humps or completely) without whacking freight vehicles on the raised bit? As if HS2 vehicle spec is for normal floor height and raised platforms, as it seems it is, that will be the only way to get level boarding on the whole WCML and all stock using it due to the need for interoperability on the northern bit where HS2 trains will run too.

Rather than a step as the Pendolinos have, could the Classic Compatible HS2 trains have some sort of extending ramp that was only deployed for legacy platforms?

 

[Ken H]

Rather than a step as the Pendolinos have, could the Classic Compatible HS2 trains have some sort of extending ramp that was only deployed for legacy platforms?

Or they could look at gauntlet track, like they do in the US.

Link to Wiki article with more detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track

 

[JamesT]

Or they could look at gauntlet track, like they do in the US.

Link to Wiki article with more detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track

Is there gauntlet track that copes with different heights?
The issue is not with the width of the train or the tracks, but that like most UK rolling stock, the level of the floor of the carriage is above the normal level of the platform.
On HS2 dedicated platforms the proposal is the platform will be at the same height as the carriage floor, but that leaves the issue of HS2 trains calling at legacy platforms.

 

[RobShipway]

I generally prefer to not comment on my personal life.

It is not about your personal life, it is about whether you are prepared to put yourself in a position that others cannot take themselves out of and have to live with everyday.

Rather than a step as the Pendolinos have, could the Classic Compatible HS2 trains have some sort of extending ramp that was only deployed for legacy platforms?

Or they could look at gauntlet track, like they do in the US.

Link to Wiki article with more detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track

Is there gauntlet track that copes with different heights?
The issue is not with the width of the train or the tracks, but that like most UK rolling stock, the level of the floor of the carriage is above the normal level of the platform.
On HS2 dedicated platforms the proposal is the platform will be at the same height as the carriage floor, but that leaves the issue of HS2 trains calling at legacy platforms.

All the classic stations that the HS2 classic compatible trains stop at, would all need to be top a standard size that is possibly similar to what I believe has been done with all the platforms that are used by the class 755/745 units. The trains would also need to be having low floors, so I am not sure if that would work with trying to get the fast speeds that they would need to be operating on HS2.

 

[CBlue]

I must be missing something here - how aren't powered retractable ramps in a train doorway a decent solution to this vice some slightly odd idea about having an entire train vehicle lower and raise itself at platforms?

I've boarded a bus plenty of times as carer to someone using a wheelchair - they were more than capable of wheeling themselves up the ramp into the bay without my assistance. Why would that be any different for a train so long as the ramp gradient isn't excessive - and if it is, then the platform needs remodelling.

 

[D365]

It is not about your personal life, it is about whether you are prepared to put yourself in a position that others cannot take themselves out of and have to live with everyday.

You asked if I’ve ever been in a wheelchair, I don’t want to comment on that. Especially after your increasingly numerous slights against the very railway professionals who enable the railway to operate with increasing levels of safety.

 

[RobShipway]

I must be missing something here - how aren't powered retractable ramps in a train doorway a decent solution to this vice some slightly odd idea about having an entire train vehicle lower and raise itself at platforms?

I've boarded a bus plenty of times as carer to someone using a wheelchair - they were more than capable of wheeling themselves up the ramp into the bay without my assistance. Why would that be any different for a train so long as the ramp gradient isn't excessive - and if it is, then the platform needs remodelling.

But that is part of my point, due to different levels of platforms the ramp that the guards put down will be at different levels. Some maybe more steep than others depending on the height of the platforms. You also have the issue, depending on the persons issue as to whether they could haul themselves up a ramp without help. This is where either lowering the carriage for the disabled in some way after the train has stopped at the station so that a ramp can come out of it to be level with the platform or having the platforms at the same height, such that gain just like the class 755 units a short ramp just needs to come out such that someone in a wheelchair can wheel themselves on.

But we have to remember that not all disabled are in a wheelchair, some may have sticks to help them walk, some may have a frame to help them walk. Neither are easy to use when you are having to use them up a sloped ramp.

You asked if I’ve ever been in a wheelchair, I don’t want to comment on that. Especially after your increasingly numerous slights against the very railway professionals who enable the railway to operate with increasing levels of safety.

I am only slighting the so called railway professionals that I know have many times refused to put the ramp to allow disabled people to get on a train, which I have not only heard about many times, but also witnessed.

You have stories such as https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...orker-was-denied-rail-assistance-three-times/ This goes against the Equality act of 2010 which states "companies that provide public transport services, such as buses, trains, the underground and taxis cannot discriminate against Disabled people and requires them to take steps to make their services accessible for Disabled people."

I have read many such stories over the last few years, even before some people in the railway profession in the last year gave the excuse about not being able to put the ramp down due to covid-19 even when the wheelchair being used by the person wanting to get on the train had an electric motor built into it, so the guard would not have had to be helping the passenger physically at all.

There is I believe many people within this thread, that have recognised that even though the large majority of people that work in the railway are brilliant when it comes to helping the disabled, there is a few that is letting the side down. Besides what I or anyone is suggesting in this thread are things that will not only make it easier for the disabled person to get aboard a train, but also make life easier for the very railway professionals you believe that I am slighting.

 

[D365]

There is I believe many people within this thread, that have recognised that even though the large majority of people that work in the railway are brilliant when it comes to helping the disabled, there is a few that is letting the side down. Besides what I or anyone is suggesting in this thread are things that will not only make it easier for the disabled person to get aboard a train, but also make life easier for the very railway professionals you believe that I am slighting.

Which is exactly why I’ve given you the two options alongside the automatic built-in ramp and stated that it’s now up to the TOCs and Network Rail to take this further.

 

[RobShipway]

Which is exactly why I’ve given you the two options alongside the automatic built-in ramp and stated that it’s now up to the TOCs and Network Rail to take this further.

The best option is to have the built in ramps as per the class 755 units and I believe that it is going to be the same with the class 756, but we will have to wait and see on that point. This does mean that like the class 755 that the floor is a bit lower in the disability carriage, but my point is that class 195, 196, 197, 331, 701, 710, 720, 730 etc... should have been built the same way for the disabled carriage.

I have not been able to find their actual heights, but as you have stated you will possibly have a problem in that the platform height at say the platforms at Lewes station is different in height to those at Cambridge, with difference between the space at the side of a class 377 to a platform in comparison with class 755 unit to the side of the platform as well. A class 377 "height is 3.78m(12ft 4 7/8ins) and width is 2.80m(9ft 2 1/4ins)" according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_377. Whereas class 755 unit has a "height of 3.95m(13.0ft) and width of 2.72M(8ft 11ins) on a passenger vehicle" as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_755.

 

[D365]

Just to be clear, when I mentioned ”ramps” as an option earlier, I was always only intending for the option to be automatic extending ramps. The type that is far more common in mainland Europe.

I certainly wasn’t proposing the existing type of manual ”fold-down” ramps as a permanent solution. Apologies if it looked that way

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to be clear, when I mentioned ”ramps” as an option earlier, I was always only intending for the option to be automatic extending ramps. The type that is far more common in mainland Europe.

I've not seen automatic ramps anywhere (other than buses). Are you referring to the extending flat steps (gap bridges) as found on FLIRTs and the likes, and for that matter (in a slightly different style) Pendolinos?

 

[RobShipway]

Just to be clear, when I mentioned ”ramps” as an option earlier, I was always only intending for the option to be automatic extending ramps. The type that is far more common in mainland Europe.

I certainly wasn’t proposing the existing type of manual ”fold-down” ramps as a permanent solution. Apologies if it looked that way

My apologies as well, as I did think that meant the existing ramps rather than automatic extending ramps.

I've not seen automatic ramps anywhere (other than buses). Are you referring to the extending flat steps (gap bridges) as found on FLIRTs and the likes, and for that matter (in a slightly different style) Pendolinos?

He will probably correct me, but yes I believe D365 is referring to the flat steps on flirts or similar extending platform areas that come out of a train to bridge the gap between the train and the platform. As D365 says, that type is more common in Europe and is basically what I believe should be more common here in the UK.

 

[D365]

My apologies as well, as I did think that meant the existing ramps rather than automatic extending ramps.

Agree that those should never be considered as a solution. It’s really not a good situation that the drop-in ramps still have to be used for the foreseeable.

He will probably correct me, but yes I believe D365 is referring to the flat steps on flirts or similar extending platform areas that come out of a train to bridge the gap between the train and the platform. As D365 says, that type is more common in Europe and is basically what I believe should be more common here in the UK.

Yes that’s the idea. I can’t remember exactly what they look like. As you can imagine, it’s been a while since I’ve been overseas..!

 

[RobShipway]

Agree that those should never be considered as a solution. It’s really not a good situation that the drop-in ramps still have to be used for the foreseeable.


Yes that’s the idea. I can’t remember exactly what they look like. As you can imagine, it’s been a while since I’ve been overseas..!

The only example I have been able to find is this from SBB: https://www.sbb.ch/en/timetable/tra...-with-reduced-mobility/accessible-travel.html You can see that at every door that there is a floating ramp that has come out from underneath each of the doors and not just the disabled door to enable passengers to take off luggage that is on wheels. You can possibly see it better in the attached photo.

The NaviTeaser photo below, shows another ramp that comes from the train on to the platform itself. This will need to have the platforms at all stations at the same level. In an ideal world, this is what is needed with all the trains in the UK. Failing that, the only other answer would be if any of the new trains where this does not exist can have the disability carriage lower itself in some form. Where the carriage lowers itself at the ends in some form, past the point each end of the connection gangway to other coaches in the train or lower by some other method.

 

[rdlover777]

it might be easier to have all new built stock to have a automatic ramp that folds out when the doors open

 

[D365]

it might be easier to have all new built stock to have a automatic ramp that folds out when the doors open

100% easier in every way.

 

[zwk500]

The only example I have been able to find is this from SBB: https://www.sbb.ch/en/timetable/tra...-with-reduced-mobility/accessible-travel.html You can see that at every door that there is a floating ramp that has come out from underneath each of the doors and not just the disabled door to enable passengers to take off luggage that is on wheels. You can possibly see it better in the attached photo.

The NaviTeaser photo below, shows another ramp that comes from the train on to the platform itself. This will need to have the platforms at all stations at the same level. In an ideal world, this is what is needed with all the trains in the UK.

To be fair, this doesn't require all platforms at the same level, only that all platforms to be within a certain tolerance (i.e. the ramp maximum gradient). This is achievable, even if it will take far too long.

Failing that, the only other answer would be if any of the new trains where this does not exist can have the disability carriage lower itself in some form. Where the carriage lowers itself at the ends in some form, past the point each end of the connection gangway to other coaches in the train or lower by some other method.

This is not feasible as it introduces the risk of a safety critical incident should the mechanism to lower/raise the carriage fail. If a carriage lowered for a wheelchair user but then couldn't get back up, there is a risk it could be foul of the lower sector gauge. Clearing that risk involves repositioning anything along the track side (which may include the 3rd rail and Ground Signals). It'll also be damned expensive to install and maintain such a system on trains.

To me (very much with 0 experience in accessible travel), the best solution would appear to be automatically deployed train-borne bridging ramps, with a connected programme of rebuilding platforms that sit outside of the ramps tolerances to bring them up to code. The issue will be agreeing where the money comes from.

 

[Irascible]

To me (very much with 0 experience in accessible travel), the best solution would appear to be automatically deployed train-borne bridging ramps, with a connected programme of rebuilding platforms that sit outside of the ramps tolerances to bring them up to code. The issue will be agreeing where the money comes from.

It's an interesting problem when the platform is on the inside of a canted curve - if you install an angled ramp that's usefully compatible with level track ( and if it's long enough, outside of curves ) then it might well end up pretty steep if the train's leaning inwards. The fully compatible solution would probably be to extend the ramp horizontally & then in a second operation angle it downwards until it makes contact with something, but that's a bit more to go wrong ( and maintain ) than a simple ram... if you raise the platform to step height then you need a new bridge because the ramp won't work & there's a gap between platform & steps unless the doors are central!. I guess a two-action ramp really is the fully compatible option.

Actually there is another one - fold down ramps - but where do you store them, and how fast do you think you can safely deploy? lowering & raising ramps 90 deg is going to increase dwell times a fair bit & you'd have to stow them on the outside of the door ( or actually use the external door! would still need something internally because you don't want people walking on a wall, really ).

 

[zwk500]

It's an interesting problem when the platform is on the inside of a canted curve - if you install an angled ramp that's usefully compatible with level track ( and if it's long enough, outside of curves ) then it might well end up pretty steep if the train's leaning inwards. The fully compatible solution would probably be to extend the ramp horizontally & then in a second operation angle it downwards until it makes contact with something, but that's a bit more to go wrong ( and maintain ) than a simple ram... if you raise the platform to step height then you need a new bridge because the ramp won't work & there's a gap between platform & steps unless the doors are central!. I guess a two-action ramp really is the fully compatible option.

Actually there is another one - fold down ramps - but where do you store them, and how fast do you think you can safely deploy? lowering & raising ramps 90 deg is going to increase dwell times a fair bit & you'd have to stow them on the outside of the door ( or actually use the external door! would still need something internally because you don't want people walking on a wall, really ).

At stations where the problems are particularly acute you have 2 options, short of a full rebuild: Deploy staff, or standardise calling stock and install Harrington Humps or even platform-mounted movable sections. At stations like Wolverton and Long Buckby these would be significant issues to disabled travel (the steps can be well over a foot horizontally and vertically), although Wolverton has the additional problem of no step-free access to platforms 1-3.

 

[AngusH]

platform-mounted movable sections

something similar to this seems a possibility:

(see at 46s in)

 

[zwk500]

something similar to this seems a possibility:

(see at 46s in)

Good luck on a gap like this! https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wolverton-buckinghamshire-england-april-11-2017-1193404771