Should level boarding be a requirement for all new trains?

[H&I]

Moderator note: Split from

LNER announce CAF fleet (Class 897)

Taken from LNER website, link below from announcement that 10 x 10 car CAF trains will be introduced from 2027, to replace the intercity 225 and provide some extra trains...

www.railforums.co.uk

No.

Seems like a pretty basic feature one should expect on a new train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems like a pretty basic feature one should expect on a new train.

While I do agree it should be legally mandated for all new stock, it's less of an issue on InterCity type trains which will generally only depart platforms which are staffed and will never operate DOO.

Most European countries seem to be going down the line of high floor for IC and low floor for DOO regional services, for that sort of reason.

 

[172007]

Seems like a pretty basic feature one should expect on a new train.

Yes in a ideal world it's a basic feature. To introduce level boarding then every train, every platform will need to be at the same height. Tightly curved platforms would probably have to be closed thereby decimating platforms at many stations su h as York, Birmingham New Street and Bristol Temple Meads for a start. Other platforms would have to.be rebuilt to accommodate the new height.

The cant or banking of track on curves at stations would need to be removed thereby slowing the speeds of trains through stations and make journey times longer.

It would make rail travel so e pensive and limited that the very people that would require the level boarding such as the elderly and inform would most probably be priced off the railway.

HS2 will have level boarding as its brand new much like the majority of the e
Elizabeth line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes in a ideal world it's a basic feature. To introduce level boarding then every train, every platform will need to be at the same height. Tightly curved platforms would probably have to be closed thereby decimating platforms at many stations su h as York, Birmingham New Street and Bristol Temple Meads for a start. Other platforms would have to.be rebuilt to accommodate the new height.

The cant or banking of track on curves at stations would need to be removed thereby slowing the speeds of trains through stations and make journey times longer.

It would make rail travel so e pensive and limited that the very people that would require the level boarding such as the elderly and inform would most probably be priced off the railway.

I need this on a macro.

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Better to have it where you can have it and progressively improve things than not have it at all. These trains are guarded so the guard can place a ramp at platforms where it wouldn't be possible, but even the gap bridges alone are useful.

It's not like an InterCity TOC (Greater Anglia) hasn't already done this. It's not impossible, it's happening. But people on this Forum love to say something that's actually happening is impossible, for some reason I've always been unable to fathom.

HS2 will have level boarding as its brand new much like the majority of the e
Elizabeth line.

HS2 actually has a serious design flaw which means it won't, just like the Elizabeth Line doesn't - it's being designed for a 1100mm floor/platform height, which means it'll have level boarding at, er, Old Oak Common and the two Birmingham stations (and possibly Euston if they bother with that), but not at any of the 20-30 or so other stations it'll serve. This is utter stupidity.

 

[H&I]

Yes in a ideal world it's a basic feature. To introduce level boarding then every train, every platform will need to be at the same height. Tightly curved platforms would probably have to be closed thereby decimating platforms at many stations su h as York, Birmingham New Street and Bristol Temple Meads for a start. Other platforms would have to.be rebuilt to accommodate the new height.

The cant or banking of track on curves at stations would need to be removed thereby slowing the speeds of trains through stations and make journey times longer.

It would make rail travel so e pensive and limited that the very people that would require the level boarding such as the elderly and inform would most probably be priced off the railway.

HS2 will have level boarding as its brand new much like the majority of the e
Elizabeth line.

But when Greater Anglia introduced the 745s and 755s they didn’t need to re-do the platforms, or relocate stations at curves.

They needed to replace the trains anyway so the additional cost over not specifying level boarding must have been quite reasonable.

 

[H&I]

While I do agree it should be legally mandated for all new stock, it's less of an issue on InterCity type trains which will generally only depart platforms which are staffed and will never operate DOO.

Most European countries seem to be going down the line of high floor for IC and low floor for DOO regional services, for that sort of reason.

For InterCity-type trains a significant proportion of passengers have luggage, so level boarding would be beneficial to them. If they are going to be getting new trains anyway, it is much cheaper to specify level boarding now rather than having to retrofit level boarding later should better disability legislation come to fruition in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For InterCity-type trains a significant proportion of passengers have luggage, so level boarding would be beneficial to them. If they are going to be getting new trains anyway, it is much cheaper to specify level boarding now rather than having to retrofit level boarding later should better disability legislation come to fruition in the future.

It is extremely unlikely that legislation requiring level boarding would require retrospective provision, because that would be infeasible. Laws are generally not made that can't reasonably be complied with.

 

[H&I]

It is extremely unlikely that legislation requiring level boarding would require retrospective provision, because that would be infeasible. Laws are generally not made that can't reasonably be complied with.

Still, I find it disappointing that they decided not to have level boarding on these trains, years after the first trains with level boarding were introduced to the UK mainline network.

 

[AdamWW]

It is extremely unlikely that legislation requiring level boarding would require retrospective provision, because that would be infeasible. Laws are generally not made that can't reasonably be complied with.

And yet that's what happened with Pacers. (As I recall, although 143/4s could be made compliant at considerable expense, it wasn't considered feasible at all for 142s).

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet that's what happened with Pacers.

Pacers were not converted for level boarding. Where did you get that from?

If you mean PRM-TSI generally, it was possible to modify them for that, but as they were unpopular and worn out it was decided to simply replace them. But fitting a modular accessible bog, painting the handrails and fitting an electronic PIS (and similar things of that sort of magnitude) is hardly in the same league as the major structural modifications required to make a vehicle that wasn't built low floor into one that is. You can always change the stuff inside a vehicle, it's changing the vehicle's structure that's hard.

 

[AdamWW]

Pacers were not converted for level boarding. Where did you get that from?

No of course not. Converted to make them compliant with accessibility legislation that wasn't a requirement when they were built.

If you mean PRM-TSI generally, it was possible to modify them for that, but as they were unpopular and worn out it was decided to simply replace them. But fitting a modular accessible bog, painting the handrails and fitting an electronic PIS (and similar things of that sort of magnitude) is hardly in the same league as the major structural modifications required to make a vehicle that wasn't built low floor into one that is.

Agreed.

But - and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong - my understanding was that it nevertheless wasn't considered possible to modify a 142 to meet the current accessibility requirements even using a wheelchair ramp. I not know why but that is what I've read.

(And the funny thing about them being unpopular is that while there was a lot said about how unsuitable Northern's Pacers were, they didn't seem to bother people much in Wales.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But - and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong - my understanding was that it nevertheless wasn't considered possible to modify a 142 to meet the current accessibility requirements even using a wheelchair ramp. I not know why but that is what I've read.

I believe that prototype unit was as close as they could get (and thus likely to get a derogation). But if not, the structural modifications required would have come into the same territory as making a high floor unit low floor.

(And the funny thing about them being unpopular is that while there was a lot said about how unsuitable Northern's Pacers were, they didn't seem to bother people much in Wales.)

143s and 144s which made up most of the Welsh ones were a lot less rubbish than 142s.

 

[LYuen]

But when Greater Anglia introduced the 745s and 755s they didn’t need to re-do the platforms, or relocate stations at curves.

They needed to replace the trains anyway so the additional cost over not specifying level boarding must have been quite reasonable.

Low entry trains are rarely used in higher speed intercity trains because they do need the underfloor space for inverters and motors, and having a lower centre of gravity to enable better ride
In addition this is a tri-mode fleet, so inverter motors, engines and batteries all need to fit underneath, which I don't think is very feasible with current technology
To be honest, even modifying platform heights or electrifying more lines are easier than to develop a tri-mode fully low floor intercity train

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, even modifying platform heights or electrifying more lines are easier than to develop a tri-mode fully low floor intercity train

Given that in the UK low-floor just means 960mm, the Stadler Giruno begs to differ.

Yes, that's only an EMU in its current form, but no reason a power pod couldn't be inserted, it's just the Swiss don't want one as their system is fully electrified.

 

[hwl]

I need this on a macro.

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Better to have it where you can have it and progressively improve things than not have it at all. These trains are guarded so the guard can place a ramp at platforms where it wouldn't be possible, but even the gap bridges alone are useful.

It's not like an InterCity TOC (Greater Anglia) hasn't already done this. It's not impossible, it's happening. But people on this Forum love to say something that's actually happening is impossible, for some reason I've always been unable to fathom.



HS2 actually has a serious design flaw which means it won't, just like the Elizabeth Line doesn't - it's being designed for a 1100mm floor/platform height, which means it'll have level boarding at, er, Old Oak Common and the two Birmingham stations (and possibly Euston if they bother with that), but not at any of the 20-30 or so other stations it'll serve. This is utter stupidity.

The angled gap fillers required as part of the HS2 rolling stock specification tendered will sort most of the lower floor heights elsewhere provided they are 915mm ish or higher and not super low.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The angled gap fillers required as part of the HS2 rolling stock specification tendered will sort most of the lower floor heights elsewhere provided they are 915mm ish or higher and not super low.

No, they won't, because an "angled gap filler" isn't level boarding.

 

[H&I]

Low entry trains are rarely used in higher speed intercity trains because they do need the underfloor space for inverters and motors, and having a lower centre of gravity to enable better ride
In addition this is a tri-mode fleet, so inverter motors, engines and batteries all need to fit underneath, which I don't think is very feasible with current technology
To be honest, even modifying platform heights or electrifying more lines are easier than to develop a tri-mode fully low floor intercity train

Granted, these only go up to 75 mph, but aren't the Class 756s also tri-modes? The engines and batteries in the Class 756s are located in a Power Pack rather than underneath the floor. I imagine a tri-mode train capable of going up to 125 mph might also use the Power Pack design, albeit with a higher power output.

 

[43096]

143s and 144s which made up most of the Welsh ones were a lot less rubbish than 142s.

The Welsh fleet were 142s and 143s. The 144s were Neville Hill based for their entire lives.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I believe that prototype unit was as close as they could get (and thus likely to get a derogation). But if not, the structural modifications required would have come into the same territory as making a high floor unit low floor.



143s and 144s which made up most of the Welsh ones were a lot less rubbish than 142s.

Wales had 142s and 143s, the 144s never left the North. Why does every discussion of Pacers (even when it's off topic anyway) result in falsehoods and errors being stated as fact?

It is disappointing that we're once again a generation away from true level-boarding, outside of those lucky places that have or will have Stadler units. It is of course possible to actually rebuild high-floor vehicles into low-floor ones, but at a cost. Just look at the modified Tatra T3s in Prague.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is disappointing that we're once again a generation away from true level-boarding, outside of those lucky places that have or will have Stadler units. It is of course possible to actually rebuild high-floor vehicles into low-floor ones, but at a cost. Just look at the modified Tatra T3s in Prague.

The usual way this is done is by inserting a new-build low-floor trailer, as per the Swiss "Domino" EMUs. It appears this is how it was done with the T3s too. You don't after all need the whole thing to be low floor, though it's better if it is.

 

[AdamWW]

The usual way this is done is by inserting a new-build low-floor trailer, as per the Swiss "Domino" EMUs. It appears this is how it was done with the T3s too. You don't after all need the whole thing to be low floor, though it's better if it is.

A T3 is (although perhaps somewhat off topic) a single "carriage". They added a low floor bit in the middle of the vehicle away from the bogies.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It is disappointing that we're once again a generation away from true level-boarding, outside of those lucky places that have or will have Stadler units. It is of course possible to actually rebuild high-floor vehicles into low-floor ones, but at a cost.

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.

 

[H&I]

The usual way this is done is by inserting a new-build low-floor trailer, as per the Swiss "Domino" EMUs. It appears this is how it was done with the T3s too. You don't after all need the whole thing to be low floor, though it's better if it is.

Recently, I have been thinking about this concept as well. New trailer coaches could be built with a lowered centre section between the bogies, and one could be added to each Azuma train, replacing an existing coach or as an additional coach. Wheelchair spaces and an accessible toilet would be located in this trailer coach, with level boarding to the standard platform height.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Recently, I have been thinking about this concept as well. New trailer coaches could be built with a lowered centre section between the bogies, and one could be added to each Azuma train, replacing an existing coach or as an additional coach. Wheelchair spaces and an accessible toilet would be located in this trailer coach, with level boarding to the standard platform height.

This would certainly be the way to do it for the recent fleets like 80x and CAF where the production lines remain open.

 

[fishwomp]

I was surprised when using St Pancras Thameslink that the mid section of the platform had level boarding, but the rest did not. Bonkers. A captive fleet for the next two decades and only half the platform is good for a wheelchair?? This photo shows the section..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/150169173@N05/26608020917

Equally nuts: the low platforms at St Pancras Eurostar, for high trains. Again, captive fleet. Why the insanity? In the case of Eurostar there are about two small Harrington Humps for wheelchair access. Considering the rising level of disabilities as the population ages, and the amount of luggage on Eurostar.. you couldn't make this up. - why not match the platform to the train..

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Harrington hump on Thameslink does line up with the wheelchair bays.

 

[JonathanH]

A captive fleet for the next two decades and only half the platform is good for a wheelchair??

It could be seen as making sure that passengers seeking level boarding are in the relevant place elsewhere where the fleet works alongside other units, and that passengers have access to the universal toilet.

 

[JamesT]

Equally nuts: the low platforms at St Pancras Eurostar, for high trains. Again, captive fleet. Why the insanity? In the case of Eurostar there are about two small Harrington Humps for wheelchair access. Considering the rising level of disabilities as the population ages, and the amount of luggage on Eurostar.. you couldn't make this up. - why not match the platform to the train..

Aren’t St Pancras international platforms built to the EU standard height of 760mm? We have a derogation for our existing 915mm platforms, but I seem to recall before Brexit there was a lawsuit regarding HS2 choosing anything other than those two heights.

 

[fishwomp]

The Harrington hump on Thameslink does line up with the wheelchair bays.

The other way to do that is to mark the area with white lines/braille/signage etc. and would give level access for people who need level access, don't want to walk half the length of the platform to reach the higher part, and aren't in a wheelchair.

It could be seen as making sure that passengers seeking level boarding are in the relevant place elsewhere where the fleet works alongside other units, and that passengers have access to the universal toilet.

That's a good point, you could almost believe that was intentional.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2023 ==

Aren’t St Pancras international platforms built to the EU standard height of 760mm? We have a derogation for our existing 915mm platforms, but I seem to recall before Brexit there was a lawsuit regarding HS2 choosing anything other than those two heights.

I thought it was something like that. Well, time for a Brexit benefit? This, this is it - we found one!!! ie. retro fit St Pancras.

[edit] Just looked up HS2 platform height - it's 1,115mm. That sounds like common sense prevailed - 915mm is too low for today's IC stock like Voyagers and Hitachis, it's mad to have steps everywhere.

 

[hwl]

No, they won't, because an "angled gap filler" isn't level boarding.

It is level at either end and and the ramp angle is suitably shallow that it fulfils the functional requirement (this has been well reviewed by experts).

Level boarding doesn't require low floor products from Stadler and can be achieved in other ways so prepare yourself and don't get too upset when most other OEMs don't do it like Stadler.