Should level boarding be a requirement for all new trains?

[Trainbike46]

I'm firmly on team level-boarding, and am disappointed that LNER didn't require level boarding on the new CAF fleet

True level boarding is difficult to achieve when platform heights still vary as much as they do. And of course, with our high platforms, low floor vehicles cannot have level boarding.

When referring to level-boarding, people mean trains that have a height to match the standard UK platform height and gap fillers, as various stadler fleets across the country do. There is no immediate requirement to have all platforms meet the standard, platforms can be improved as and when work is needed for other reasons at the stations in question. Even for non-compliant platforms, there is an improvement as the step is reduced. And most platforms are pretty close to standard, meaning that full level is available from most stations from the start. There is no situation where the situation will be worse by requiring level boarding on new stock, and many where it will get better.

Trains often last 35 to 50 years, many stations will be upgraded in a 35 year timeframe, so specifying trains that can take advantage of that is only sensible.

Could you clarify your second sentence? I don't get what you mean

 

[Speed43125]

The latest issue of Modern Railways has an interesting series of articles on Scotrail. It covering a variety of topics surrounding scotrail and the devolved aspects of NR, but the interesting area for this thread is the following quote:

One important change ScotRail wishes to incorporate with new trains as a means of making the railway more attractive is level boarding. 'The intention is to make this a requirement' Mr Hynes says. 'We've been working with manufacturers as part of our pre-procurment engagement - we want a good competition and need all the main manufacturers to offer level boarding so we can choose the most economically advantageous offer.'

This may work to pave the way for those other than Stadler to offer level boarding and enable future procurement less additional costs incurred for 'new' R&D work to accommodate it.

 

[HSTEd]

I firmly believe that level boarding should be specified for all new trains, which would open the way to finally making the vast majority of railway platforms comply with the nominal standard.

Although, unfortunately, HS2 has done huge damage to this by specifying a totally non standard platform height for its platforms, although I guess there are far fewer of those than originally planned!

 

[etr221]

I firmly believe that level boarding should be specified for all new trains, which would open the way to finally making the vast majority of railway platforms comply with the nominal standard.

Although, unfortunately, HS2 has done huge damage to this by specifying a totally non standard platform height for its platforms, although I guess there are far fewer of those than originally planned!

To have level boarding, the platform and train floor (at entrance) levels (heights above rail level, which gives datum) have to be the same ... as (traditionally) they have not been, to have it you either have to 'redo' (whatever that means - rebuild, replace,...) one or other.

The standard for platform height has, I believe, been 3 feet or 915mm for at least a century (and the extent to which platforms are not to this standard, after so many years, is an indication of the size/difficult/cost of resolving the issue); train floors are, what, 6-12 inches above this? to any standard?

The big problem is that different projects to introduce level boarding for some services (however defined - by area, TOC, whatever) have made different choices as to what the level should be, and so what should be redone (or done differently). So Merseyrail and Anglia have gone for new trains with 915mm entrances (or near enough) to match the platforms; Elizabeth line and HS2 (new construction bits), higher platforms (also done at some other new/rebuilt stations) to match the trains... So what should be done where you have new Anglia trains for lower level boarding and equally new Elizabeth line ones for higher level boarding wanting to use the same platform?

 

[miklcct]

So what should be done where you have new Anglia trains for lower level boarding and equally new Elizabeth line ones for higher level boarding wanting to use the same platform?

Why do these trains have to use the same platform? Anglia trains run on the main line and Elizabeth line trains run on the electric line, and they don't share tracks.

 

[HSTEd]

To have level boarding, the platform and train floor (at entrance) levels (heights above rail level, which gives datum) have to be the same ... as (traditionally) they have not been, to have it you either have to 'redo' (whatever that means - rebuild, replace,...) one or other.

The standard for platform height has, I believe, been 3 feet or 915mm for at least a century (and the extent to which platforms are not to this standard, after so many years, is an indication of the size/difficult/cost of resolving the issue); train floors are, what, 6-12 inches above this? to any standard?

The big problem is that different projects to introduce level boarding for some services (however defined - by area, TOC, whatever) have made different choices as to what the level should be, and so what should be redone (or done differently). So Merseyrail and Anglia have gone for new trains with 915mm entrances (or near enough) to match the platforms; Elizabeth line and HS2 (new construction bits), higher platforms (also done at some other new/rebuilt stations) to match the trains... So what should be done where you have new Anglia trains for lower level boarding and equally new Elizabeth line ones for higher level boarding wanting to use the same platform?

Ultimately, given that HS2 is not open and designs are not even finalised for many of its platforms (Euston), HS2 should be ordered to convet to the 915mm standard.
The Elizabeth line is harder but should probably be given sole service over the platforms it uses and they should be converted to match their trains.

 

[RobShipway]

To have level boarding, the platform and train floor (at entrance) levels (heights above rail level, which gives datum) have to be the same ... as (traditionally) they have not been, to have it you either have to 'redo' (whatever that means - rebuild, replace,...) one or other.

The standard for platform height has, I believe, been 3 feet or 915mm for at least a century (and the extent to which platforms are not to this standard, after so many years, is an indication of the size/difficult/cost of resolving the issue); train floors are, what, 6-12 inches above this? to any standard?

The big problem is that different projects to introduce level boarding for some services (however defined - by area, TOC, whatever) have made different choices as to what the level should be, and so what should be redone (or done differently). So Merseyrail and Anglia have gone for new trains with 915mm entrances (or near enough) to match the platforms; Elizabeth line and HS2 (new construction bits), higher platforms (also done at some other new/rebuilt stations) to match the trains... So what should be done where you have new Anglia trains for lower level boarding and equally new Elizabeth line ones for higher level boarding wanting to use the same platform?

Great Anglia I believe currently have the situation where class 745/755 are level boarding at most of their platforms, however like the Elizabeth line trains their class 720 units are not level boarding.

In an ideal world, all platforms would be at the same level. But the cost to Network Rail to enable that to happen is quite large and possibly maybe a case that some stations may have to close as the platforms may not be able to be rebuilt to the required height in this case 3 feet or 915mm.

Don't get me wrong I do believe that level boarding should be a requirement for all new trains, so for instance the HS2 trains should not only be able to be used on any new platforms for HS2 at Euston station, but should also be able to be used with existing platforms in the station.

The best solution I believe is that any new stock trains should have a ramp come out from below the door and be flexible in be able to find the level of the platform, even if it means that said ramp is either on an upward slope or downward slop to the platform. Alternatively, the frame of the carriage should be able to be made either lower or higher to the platform level where required in the same way that happens with most buses in the last 10 years, which I believe is something that has before happened with train stock within Europe over the 15 years?

 

[supervc-10]

I think getting perfectly level boarding for every door across every train at every platform is just not going to happen.
We have a standardised 915mm platform height for *most* platforms. We should aim to have level access to at least one coach on each train from this 915mm semi-standard. The approach seen in a lot of Europe with a single door being dropped down between the bogies seems extremely sensible.

We already have Harrington Humps in a lot of stations, so having to tell people who need to use level boarding to wait for the train in a certain spot doesn't seem unreasonable.

Regarding building up the Lizzie Line platforms - this would require gauge clearing those built up platforms with all the other stock. Making the tracks exclusively for the Elizabeth Line wouldn't be practical. Out west the GWML slows are shared with freight and some GWR services, and whilst on the Shenfield line the majority of it is semi-segregated, C2C use the Lizzie Line platforms at Stratford at the weekend and I'm quite sure that further east the slows would be used by freight and GA services during disruption and maintenance (not sure about freight all the time).

An argument against Stadler style low floors and gap fillers is that by virtue of our slightly weird loading gauge a floor level at 915mm has to be quite narrow, and isn't wide enough for 5-abrest seating. Having a couple of dropped floor sections which have a narrower floor where the wheelchair space and the robobog are located with a few extra seats wouldn't loose out on too much floorspace, but would gain enormously in allowing wheelchair users to roll on and off easily. For the few stations where the platform isn't quite level, and the gap filler isn't quite big enough, then a ramp can be used (like they are now, so no great disadvantage)

Would a nationwide program to rebuild every platform to a standard height and every train to a standard height so everything is perfectly level be perfect? Sure! But only if you ignore the costs. As Bletchleyite said...

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

 

[HSTEd]

Regarding building up the Lizzie Line platforms - this would require gauge clearing those built up platforms with all the other stock. Making the tracks exclusively for the Elizabeth Line wouldn't be practical. Out west the GWML slows are shared with freight and some GWR services, and whilst on the Shenfield line the majority of it is semi-segregated, C2C use the Lizzie Line platforms at Stratford at the weekend and I'm quite sure that further east the slows would be used by freight and GA services during disruption and maintenance (not sure about freight all the time).

On the western route you could always withdraw the rump GWR relief line services and then pay for new rakes of freight wagons that comply with the high platform loading gauge. Mendip stone and petroleum products trains won't really care if their wagons are a marginally different shape after all. A lot of the rest can be accomodated on the fast lines outside of passenger service hours.

As to the east end, in disruption you could always just tip out the trains and put the passengers onto Crossrail at Shenfield......
It is not a perfect solution but it still gets them where they need to go.
And vast numbers of people get to benefit from level boarding every single day of the year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the western route you could always withdraw the rump GWR relief line services and then pay for new rakes of freight wagons that comply with the high platform loading gauge. Mendip stone and petroleum products trains won't really care if their wagons are a marginally different shape after all. A lot of the rest can be accomodated on the fast lines outside of passenger service hours.

Other option is that you use moving gap fillers on the raised platforms so they're a fair way back from normal. The New York Subway has had them for years. It'd be costly to do that for all doors, but you could do it for a Harrington hump like Thameslink aligned with where the wheelchair spaces are.

But building the Lizzie to a 1100mm platform height was probably one of the most stupid decisions on the whole project. There was absolutely no need to do so - sure, you'd have needed to reduce the height of the Heathrow platforms, but that would surely have been better than locking in the problem forever.

As for HS2, not using 960mm between-bogie floor height for at least one vehicle is nothing but *stupid*. Again it's locking in inaccessibility.