Step-free access: Lifts vs Ramps

[DynamicSpirit]

Locally (to me) in Abbey Wood, a few people are loudly complaining on social media that the new Abbey Wood station that opened a couple of weeks ago has no ramps to give step-free access to platforms. Instead, there is a single lift to each platform. The main argument being used by the complainants is that if this single lift fails, wheel-chair-bound people wishing to use the station will be stuck - and on this basis they are arguing that a ramp should've been provided, since a ramp cannot fail.

This made me wonder what people's view are on lifts vs ramps? It seems obvious that lifts are likely to be more quicker to use (ramps have to be very long to get you to a safe height above a railway track) and better able to fit into confined spaces, But is there any merit in the argument about lifts failing? How likely is that in practice? Are current practices regarding accessibility for new/rebuilt stations adequate?

Any thoughts welcome.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Title of this thread should be Step-free acess: Lifts vs Ramps. Can a mod please correct? Thanks!

(EDIT: OK done it now. I figured out how to edit it)

 

[Bletchleyite]

An advantage of lifts is that they are more direct - often ramps are no easier than stairs for those with heavy luggage or those with a limited ability to walk.

 

[swt_passenger]

Title of this thread should be Step-free acess: Lifts vs Ramps. Can a mod please correct? Thanks!

You should be able to edit the thread title yourself, if you started the thread. Unless of course you've already tried and perhaps the new forum software has changed that.

 

[Taunton]

Lifts failing are unusual, but if it happens the passenger would be rerouted forward to the next station where it was possible to cross step-free (eg where there was an island platform, or two lifts), and then return. They would never be stuck. These things have been thought about by those with a bit more experience than your average Twitter poster.

If there is land and space, a ramp is preferable because it is cheaper, and has no running/maintenance costs. However, the distance required for a ramp is considerable, and with each ratcheting-up of the regulations the ramp gradient seems to become shallower, and thus the required length longer. Maybe those complaining can put together compliant drawings for their ramped proposal. Because Abbey Wood effectively has island platforms in the centre, the extra land take for ramps would have been considerable.

If you want to understand how intrusive ramps can be to comply with current regulations, look elsewhere in London, here. How would you like this in front of your own house?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5...4!1sHbhv18clGguioCLsXtoWtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You should be able to edit the thread title yourself, if you started the thread. Unless of course you've already tried and perhaps the new forum software has changed that.

Thanks! I had tried but couldn't see how to do it, so assumed I didn't have permission. After reading your post, I had another go, and discovered I can do it - it's in the Thread Tools drop-down menu which I'd previously missed.

 

[edwin_m]

Lifts failing are unusual, but if it happens the passenger would be rerouted forward to the next station where it was possible to cross step-free (eg where there was an island platform, or two lifts), and then return. They would never be stuck. These things have been thought about by those with a bit more experience than your average Twitter poster.

If there is land and space, a ramp is preferable because it is cheaper, and has no running/maintenance costs. However, the distance required for a ramp is considerable, and with each ratcheting-up of the regulations the ramp gradient seems to become shallower, and thus the required length longer. Maybe those complaining can put together compliant drawings for their ramped proposal. Because Abbey Wood effectively has island platforms in the centre, the extra land take for ramps would have been considerable.

Continuing to the next station isn't really an option at Abbey Wood - would have to be taxi to/from one of the Woolwich stations I presume.

I'm a little surprised that ramps weren't provided at Abbey Wood, as it's effectively a new station. The other problem with lifts is that people with pushchairs and wheelie suitcases tend to use them, so one small lift at a major station could get quite a queue (as at many Underground stations).

 

[route:oxford]

Any thoughts welcome.

Ramps break hearts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-27909761

If this had been built with lifts, so many lives wouldn't be ruined.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What on earth problem do the parents have with the bridge other than mild ugliness? Do they think it'll be full of paedophiles watching the kids every day?

(Actually, I bet they do think that... )

 

[route:oxford]

What on earth problem do the parents have with the bridge other than mild ugliness? Do they think it'll be full of paedophiles watching the kids every day?

(Actually, I bet they do think that... )

Paedophiles in wheelchairs...

 

[Busaholic]

Could TWO lifts per platform not have been provided, or is this overkill? I suppose it depends on whether you regard Abbey Wood as being a terminal station in perpetuity, or as regarding it as a transitory one.

 

[spinba11]

One lift is not enough IMO.

 

[Harbouring]

Ramps that have the wrong gradient can be quite dangerous (e.g Barnham is quite an adventure) and if you are pushing or manually operating a wheelchair then some ramps can also be a challenge (Salisbury is a tough one as well) so a lift is definitely preferred where it can be supplied.

Saying that lifts still need to be looked after well. I can think of a few places where they have been out of order a few times. And id like to see more information posted in social media when step free access is unavailable, it is available on journey check for SWR but is sometimes out of date.

 

[eotw]

As a wheelchair user I think that one well maintained lift is adequate. I don't know what the height to be overcome is in this case but ramps may have been ruled out as they would be indefeasibly long.

Personally I have no problem sharing lifts with people with luggage/buggies as I have never thought the lift was put in for my exclusive benefit.

 

[John Webb]

Lifts in tall buildings designed for fire-fighters to use have to have duplicate power supplies. Do lifts at stations - much shorter vertical distances, I appreciate - also have duplicate supplies to minimise the risk of them becoming unusable? Or is it commonly the lift mechanism itself which fails in some way, so duplicate supplies would make little difference?

 

[pdeaves]

I find that the biggest problem with ramps is that they often (regularly? usually?) come without steps as well. Some people find ramps very difficult and steps easier (my gran who can't walk for long distances, or an amputee I know who can get by with artificial legs but not on non-level ground, for example). Please, ramp designers, provide both!

Note: I am not advocating doing away with ramps. For those that need ramps, they are immensely helpful. For those that struggle, they provide as big a barrier as the ramp-only option solves for others.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Lifts failing are unusual, but if it happens the passenger would be rerouted forward to the next station where it was possible to cross step-free (eg where there was an island platform, or two lifts), and then return. They would never be stuck. These things have been thought about by those with a bit more experience than your average Twitter poster.

I'm guessing that forwarding passengers is only possible if staff are available. Do stations with lifts always have staff whenever the station is open? Even Abbey Wood - which seems to be relatively well staffed - only has staff on the concourse level, not on the platforms.

 

[stut]

The difficulty with forwarding passengers is that it's (quite rightly) only available for passengers with a genuine disability. However, there's a huge number of other types of passenger who may have difficulty accessing platforms, including the elderly, those with children in pushchairs (particularly multiple children), those with temporary injuries... Help, formal or informal, certainly isn't always available for these people and it can make their journey significantly more difficult, or just plain impossible.

 

[BRX]

It's a good question - lifts seem to me to be the better solution in most cases except for the issue about them breaking down. I too would like to know how often this actually happens - or at least, how infrequently it can be expected to happen if the lift is maintained properly.

The failed-lift issue is obviously a greater one in rural locations where sending a passenger back a station isn't a practical option with infrequent trains, and/or where it can take a long time for someon to get to the site to fix the lift.

I've recently seen some monstrosities constructed by Network Rail to provide ramped access; things that totally ruin the environment of previously attractive stations, and which in some cases seem to be so large that I wonder if the cost of maintaining them is any less than a lift.

The most bonkers example I can think of is at Gomshall station on the North Downs line; photos below. There surely has to be a better design solution than what they've done there. It's quite unbelievable.

 

[BRX]

For rural stations on quiet lines with an infrequent service, I've pondered whether a level-crossing solution would work. That is, a track-level crossing, locked out of use but which could safely be opened up by train staff when necessary. It would only need a ramped section between track and platform level. Either as a back-up when lifts were out of order, or something that could be used on request by passengers unable to use steps.

 

[Harbouring]

For rural stations on quiet lines with an infrequent service, I've pondered whether a level-crossing solution would work. That is, a track-level crossing, locked out of use but which could safely be opened up by train staff when necessary. It would only need a ramped section between track and platform level. Either as a back-up when lifts were out of order, or something that could be used on request by passengers unable to use steps.

There used to be a barrow crossing somewhere west of Salisbury (templecombe?) as the only other option were stairs. I believe trains now leave from the westbound platform in both directions removing the need for it. Certainly on 3rd rail lines it would be very risky.

 

[BRX]

There used to be a barrow crossing somewhere west of Salisbury (templecombe?) as the only other option were stairs. I believe trains now leave from the westbound platform in both directions removing the need for it. Certainly on 3rd rail lines it would be very risky.

Plenty of existing examples of level crossings on 3rd rail lines. The 3rd rail is simply interrupted, and wooden angle strips are normally placed each side to stop people straying away from the crossing.

 

[Harbouring]

Plenty of existing examples of level crossings on 3rd rail lines. The 3rd rail is simply interrupted, and wooden angle strips are normally placed each side to stop people straying away from the crossing.

I was thinking of barrow crossings, my apologies. Ie just across the rails without barriers.

 

[BRX]

I was thinking of barrow crossings, my apologies. Ie just across the rails without barriers.

What I mean is like this

 

[sefton]

Perhaps the issue is not the lift breaking, but the lack of interest in getting them repaired.

The lifts at my local station, St Neots, were out of use for several weeks. Recently one of the lifts at Kings Cross was out of order for three weeks.

There was never any information about what was being done to repair them or what was causing the delay as it was always someone else's problem.

 

[DarloRich]

Lifts failing are unusual, but if it happens the passenger would be rerouted forward to the next station where it was possible to cross step-free (eg where there was an island platform, or two lifts), and then return. They would never be stuck. These things have been thought about by those with a bit more experience than your average Twitter poster.

If there is land and space, a ramp is preferable because it is cheaper, and has no running/maintenance costs. However, the distance required for a ramp is considerable, and with each ratcheting-up of the regulations the ramp gradient seems to become shallower, and thus the required length longer. Maybe those complaining can put together compliant drawings for their ramped proposal. Because Abbey Wood effectively has island platforms in the centre, the extra land take for ramps would have been considerable.

If you want to understand how intrusive ramps can be to comply with current regulations, look elsewhere in London, here. How would you like this in front of your own house?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5...4!1sHbhv18clGguioCLsXtoWtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

No - a ramp is not preferable. A lift is more accessible to more people. It also isnt cheaper to build a ramp. Legislative compliance makes for difficult designs.

I've recently seen some monstrosities constructed by Network Rail to provide ramped access; things that totally ruin the environment of previously attractive stations, and which in some cases seem to be so large that I wonder if the cost of maintaining them is any less than a lift.

The most bonkers example I can think of is at Gomshall station on the North Downs line; photos below. There surely has to be a better design solution than what they've done there. It's quite unbelievable.

View attachment 39465 View attachment 39466 View attachment 39467

Perhaps you are unaware of the legislation and the design requirements for ramps and stairs. Perhaps you should look them out.

 

[OneOffDave]

Last time I experienced a lift failure at MKC, it took me an hour to get from Platform 6 to the concourse as they had to send me to Northampton and back. As it wasn't a train delay I couldn't claim for anything for the extra hour I'd had to spend getting home.
The thing that does concern me with platforms with just lift access is fire evacuation. Most of the lifts aren't firefighting lifts so would be unable to be used. I've not had a reasonable explanation as to how they'd do it

 

[DarloRich]

Last time I experienced a lift failure at MKC, it took me an hour to get from Platform 6 to the concourse as they had to send me to Northampton and back. As it wasn't a train delay I couldn't claim for anything for the extra hour I'd had to spend getting home.
The thing that does concern me with platforms with just lift access is fire evacuation. Most of the lifts aren't firefighting lifts so would be unable to be used. I've not had a reasonable explanation as to how they'd do it

Not seeking to diminish real problems but looking at the lay out of MKC where could you build a ramp, meeting all of the legislative requirements, in the space available?

BTW - I am surprised a claim isnt possible.

 

[OneOffDave]

Not seeking to diminish real problems but looking at the lay out of MKC where could you build a ramp, meeting all of the legislative requirements, in the space available?

BTW - I am surprised a claim isnt possible.

From a lift breaking down point of view these things happen and you just have to deal with it. I was thinking more of an emergency only barrow crossing that would bring you out to the service road behind the station with a locked gate. Something very difficult to access on a day to day basis but staff could manage the use of if they had to. If there's a proper fire and the FRS are spraying water about I assume all lines would have the juice turned off and nothing would be running through, making use of a barrow crossing possible.

 

[pdeaves]

The thing that does concern me with platforms with just lift access is fire evacuation. Most of the lifts aren't firefighting lifts so would be unable to be used. I've not had a reasonable explanation as to how they'd do it

Stations have safe refuges (usually, but don't have to be, platform end areas) where people can wait rather than evacuate onto the street.