• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Station Platform evacuation safe refuge areas - eg Cambridge North

Status
Not open for further replies.

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
I am aware of Platform Evacuation Safety Refuges at both Cambridge North and Stratford-upon-Avon Parkway.
Hopefully something that is never used, but at the same time an essential/mandatory? safety feature of New Station Design where escape by normal routes could be restricted.

Has been on my mind for a little while now and I have been unable to find any design criteria. In particular:
How many persons is an area sized to hold for any given Station platform? ie 'nominal' platform capacity, expected train capacity, normal loadings, crush loadings? Usage at times of perturbation? etc. etc.
Maximum design density of persons for a refuge?
Critical design features for a route between a platform and a refuge?
And who would be expected to sign off on the numbers? Fire and Rescue? ORR? Station Operator?

Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
3,044
Given that lifts can't be used if the place is on fire, I would assume that they are for the safe accommodation of people who can't evacuate by staircase - so essentially wheelchair users and possibly other people with disabilities.

If I am right in that, then presumably size will follow from the number of wheelchair users to be expected on the platform at any time.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,559
I think there’s a slight difference at Cambridge north because rather than emergency stairs there’s a ground level refuge area off the island platform end, but still between the running lines and sidings. It looks as though it acts as a sort of holding area to avoid people crossing live tracks, I don’t recall another recent example.

it’s possible the requirement is mentioned somewhere in the hundreds of Cambridge council planning application files, the planning reference is 15/0994/FUL

Examples such as at Reading and London Bridge are more about a refuge on the platform for people who cannot use the escape stairways and passageways underneath that go to an alarmed exit door...

(At Reading the full facilities were only provided on the brand new and fully rebuilt platforms, the main fast line islands aren’t fitted with escape stairs, just refuge areas.)
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
They are provided in lieu of having a 'proper' secondary means of escape (i.e. emergency exit bridge), for all passengers, able bodied or not. Usually where installing such a bridge would be tricky or expensive.

Basically a safe area for passengers away from a building or train on fire. Sized presumably for a 'typical' number of passengers.

E.g. at Cambridge North, if the station building were on fire, evacuation to the extremity of the platform/station without worrying about pasengers falling onto the track
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
Thanks all, I did indeed have in mind an emergency refuge pen as installed at Cambridge North.
Where a risk assessed secondary egress cannot be allowed for in the design (practically or economically), is it now Mandatory for new stations? I thought that it would be.
Sized presumably for a 'typical' number of passengers.
One of my questions! Would you want to be at Court defending why, on a 'non-typical day' (say wires down on another route and trains crush loaded), (blank blank) number of passengers had been put at risk? Along with all the extras on the platform?
And when sizing said pen do you allow for (per square metre) 4, 5 persons or even more in your calculations?
Or is it all finger in the wind stuff? 'The Railway' would normally defer to a Standard, TSI or set of Safety Rules?
Thanks again.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
The principle requirements are set out in BS9999:2008, other useful information is contained in BS5839-9:2011.

The PRM TSI gives some information but does not directly address Fire Safety Systems.
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,107
Location
St Albans
Railway Stations do come under the Building Regulations in Purpose Group 5 - Place of Assembly, Entertainment or Recreation. The way in which requirements for means of escape in case of fire can be met are detailed in Approved Document B, Volume 2 "Buildings other than dwellings" which is available to download from the government's website. (Current edition is 2019, but likely to be further updated once all enquiries into the Grenfell Tower disaster have been completed and the lessons learnt incorporated into the Building Regulations.)

All premises also have to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which in effect follows on from the Building Regulations (which ensure the premises should be safe) to see that fire safety is maintained and users of the building remain protected.

Clearly one of the problems of a railway station is that there is likely to be a high transient population controlled by a small number of staff. You can train the staff but not, of course, those passing through. Not an easy task therefore when things go wrong!
 
Last edited:

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
@Tio Terry : @John Webb
Thank you both. I have a lot of reading!
Have also come across:
Station Design Principles for Network Rail - Document no.BLDG-SP80-002
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Station-design-principles.pdf
and
STATION CAPACITY PLANNING GUIDANCE Network Rail November 2016
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Station-capacity-planning-guidance.pdf
They may not be the absolute latest versions but I cannot think that too much will have been relaxed.
The latter in particular has guidance which has been enshrined from many other standards and regulations. It will certainly help with many of my questions!
The guidance shall be used by all parties involved in the station design process including, but not exclusive to, Network Rail staff, architects, train operating companies (TOC) and engineering and planning consultants.
The application of this guidance ensures station design supports the Industry and Network Rail’s objectives, namely:
  1. Develop and maintain consistently high performing stations that support safe movement of passengers and customer satisfaction.
  2. Deliver station improvements and designs that are fit for purpose, cost effective and sustainable.
This guidance provides the information required by architects and designers to produce an outline station design focussing on public areas. It includes all calculations required to assess whether a station meets Network Rail’s aspirations regarding passenger comfort and safety in the station environments, during normal operations and emergency/perturbation situations.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
One of my questions! Would you want to be at Court defending why, on a 'non-typical day' (say wires down on another route and trains crush loaded), (blank blank) number of passengers had been put at risk? Along with all the extras on the platform?
And when sizing said pen do you allow for (per square metre) 4, 5 persons or even more in your calculations?
Or is it all finger in the wind stuff? 'The Railway' would normally defer to a Standard, TSI or set of Safety Rules?
Thanks again.

I would imagine managing risk to a level "as low as reasonably practicable" would come into play, i.e. showing the size is large enough for reasonably forseeable scenarios without driving significant engineering scope to cover absolutely every theoretical (but unlikely) possible scenario.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
I would imagine managing risk to a level "as low as reasonably practicable" would come into play, i.e. showing the size is large enough for reasonably forseeable scenarios without driving significant engineering scope to cover absolutely every theoretical (but unlikely) possible scenario.
I think it is covered in the second document that I just linked, probably will not get a chance to read till at least Tuesday now.
The extent to which AFAIRP is allowed may also be included.
One thing that is 'reasonably foreseeable' for our Railway is of course growth, planning should not just be for the here and the now.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
@Tio Terry : @John Webb
Thank you both. I have a lot of reading!
Have also come across:
Station Design Principles for Network Rail - Document no.BLDG-SP80-002
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Station-design-principles.pdf
and
STATION CAPACITY PLANNING GUIDANCE Network Rail November 2016
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Station-capacity-planning-guidance.pdf
They may not be the absolute latest versions but I cannot think that too much will have been relaxed.
The latter in particular has guidance which has been enshrined from many other standards and regulations. It will certainly help with many of my questions!


Beware of relying on Network Rail documents, they are very often not updated to account for current legislation, better to look at the original documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top