Stevenage platform 5

[Railwaynerd69]

I agree. With a blank canvas, no tight curves to worry about, and the fact that its only been a few months since the 717s came into services so have 20-40 years (assuming they last as long as the 313s they replaced ) then they could have made the platforms a "better" fit. Maybe there was a particular reason for the gap ?

A mate of mine works at a general consultancy for Rail, he told me before that companies are given a brief at the start of the job to either stick to NR standards or given a specific height for platforms etc. Possible with this design that NR standards were given as the brief and I believe, from what he told me that there is a specific height for platforms on the NR standard which is offset from the rails and nothing to do with the class of train that will run down the platform. It might be that, albeit the majority of the time 717's will be the train down there, that they also expect to use it at times for other stock and therefore the NR standard should be applied. Just a guess, but it seems the most logical reason to me

 

[plugwash]

I suspect the honest answer (though noone will directly say it in public) is that NR consider operational flexibility more important than improved disabled access, probably combined with the fact that disabled organisations will cry much louder about regressions in access than about access they have never had.

Sure, on the normal timetables for the foreseeable future it will likely be served exclusively by 717s, but service things can and do change over time and I doubt network rail want to lock themselves into the current service structure any more than they already are.

 

[edwin_m]

If there is level access then a wheelchair passenger may get on at any door and then when they try to get off find out that the high section of platform (if there is one) or the person waiting with the assistance ramp (if there isn't) is somewhere else.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I agree. With a blank canvas, no tight curves to worry about, and the fact that its only been a few months since the 717s came into services so have 20-40 years (assuming they last as long as the 313s they replaced ) then they could have made the platforms a "better" fit. Maybe there was a particular reason for the gap ?

Maybe one to tweet Network Rail on when they announce the opening with great fanfare.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I suspect the honest answer (though noone will directly say it in public) is that NR consider operational flexibility more important than improved disabled access, probably combined with the fact that disabled organisations will cry much louder about regressions in access than about access they have never had.

Sure, on the normal timetables for the foreseeable future it will likely be served exclusively by 717s, but service things can and do change over time and I doubt network rail want to lock themselves into the current service structure any more than they already are.

But it's difficult to see what other units might operate the line, given the 717s are specific to the route because of the City Line tunnels, and the platform is a dead end. And given the platform is a bit out on a limb with the rest of the station, operationally, knowing that disabled users don't need assistance would presumably be helpful to the operator of the station too.

I sometimes think disability access campaigners are a little OTT when complaining on social media when inevitable assistance fails occur, as occasional human error is inevitable when the right person needs to be at the right point at the right time for it all to work. But I think they would be justifiably be enraged to know that a new platform hasn't been built level when it clearly could have been.

 

[class717]

Even a Harrington Hump would have been better

 

[malc-c]

Now obviously I'm not in the industry so just take what I say here with a pinch of salt, but could there ever be a case where say they made the platform height the same as the step on the 717, but then when they are withdrawn the replacement has a slightly lower step, any wheelchair access would be worse ?

Regretfully all my contacts at Spencers are furloughed so I can't find out what the brief was etc....Looking at the triangular gauge used in the video, there seem to have sections marked presumably where the height and gap are in tolerances for any given specification?

 

[Class 170101]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Class 717s only last twn years or so and are replaced by something else if a new bidder wins. Just look what happened with the Class 707s at SWR to see what I mean.

 

[plugwash]

But it's difficult to see what other units might operate the line, given the 717s are specific to the route because of the City Line tunnels, and the platform is a dead end. And given the platform is a bit out on a limb with the rest of the station, operationally, knowing that disabled users don't need assistance would presumably be helpful to the operator of the station too.

Right, if you assume that the "line" is stevenage to moorgate via Hertford then you are pretty much stuck with either 717s or a custom made replacement, but I don't think (I could be wrong) that a train from Stevenage to Kings cross via Hertford would have any such restrictions.

 

[Domh245]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Class 717s only last twn years or so and are replaced by something else if a new bidder wins. Just look what happened with the Class 707s at SWR to see what I mean.

707s and 717s are a whole different kettle of fish. 717s are very much custom designed for working Moorgate services and were ordered for that reason, 707s were a small fleet ordered because they were the only readily available suburban EMU. The only real reason you'd ditch the 717s is because you want to put handrails on the ceiling of the stock (and have far too much money to spaff up the wall)

 

[Class 170101]

707s and 717s are a whole different kettle of fish. 717s are very much custom designed for working Moorgate services and were ordered for that reason, 707s were a small fleet ordered because they were the only readily available suburban EMU. The only real reason you'd ditch the 717s is because you want to put handrails on the ceiling of the stock (and have far too much money to spaff up the wall)

Or a better service was wanted and more trains were needed as such it was cheaper to have more new trains than only a few resulting in a mixed fleet.

 

[Domh245]

I somehow doubt any service enhancements will be big enough to merit a whole new fleet - there's only so many trains you can funnel along the ECML slows and to moorgate. It'll be cheaper to pay over-the-odds for additional 717s (assuming that they aren't outdated by new regulations with no wriggle room) than a whole new fleet of over 150 vehicles at £1million plus.

Either that or coming to the maybe regrettable solution that such enhancements will have to be postponed until it becomes economically viable to replace the fleet, or just hand it off to whoever gets the 'rump' GN service

 

[Hadders]

Doubt there will be any service enhancements in the short to medium term. Covid has killed the passenger numbers and it'll take some considerable time for it to recover.

Think service level reductions rather than enhancements....

 

[Brissle Girl]

Right, if you assume that the "line" is stevenage to moorgate via Hertford then you are pretty much stuck with either 717s or a custom made replacement, but I don't think (I could be wrong) that a train from Stevenage to Kings cross via Hertford would have any such restrictions.

But that would be highly unlikely. It would mean that you would want to operate a service to KX, via the Hertford loop, starting and terminating at Stevenage, and not using Class 717s. Whilst 717s are running the service, which will be the next 40 years, I can't see that happening. And even if it did, say for some exceptional operating reason, you could still use Platform 4 as now (assuming the turnback facility will still exist from Platform 4).

Much better to have a level access platform than try and dream up scenarios that aren't going to happen.

 

[malc-c]

Trying to bring this back on track (no pun intended) it does seem strange though in that the whole package of a new turnback, new additional platform for Stevenage, and a fleet of new trains, that there wouldn't have been a better fit.

It's been mentioned above that the 717's were designed for this route, and my guessing is that as they have to serve older existing platforms that the step height is governed by this more so than anything else. So it would therefore only have the option to simply build platform 5 at Stevenage a little higher, if this made things easier for wheelchair access. But I think we have really said enough on this topic as given that there was no real obvious moments of concern when the train ran into the station on its first test fit, nor at last weeks H&S test that no change to the platform or the fleet of 717's is likely to happen.

I've received a reply to one of my emails sent to various sources enquiring about the opening date, which was a personal acknowledgement and assurance that my request for information is receiving their attention and a reply will be forthcoming in due course.... fingers crossed it's informative and not an exercise in red tape bureaucracy

 

[hwl]

Trying to bring this back on track (no pun intended) it does seem strange though in that the whole package of a new turnback, new additional platform for Stevenage, and a fleet of new trains, that there wouldn't have been a better fit.

It's been mentioned above that the 717's were designed for this route, and my guessing is that as they have to serve older existing platforms that the step height is governed by this more so than anything else. So it would therefore only have the option to simply build platform 5 at Stevenage a little higher, if this made things easier for wheelchair access. But I think we have really said enough on this topic as given that there was no real obvious moments of concern when the train ran into the station on its first test fit, nor at last weeks H&S test that no change to the platform or the fleet of 717's is likely to happen.

Unless you get it exactly level height wise it can be quite a big trip hazard as most people don't notice small difference in height, the way to reduce this risk is to have a normal stair step height difference to reduce the trip hazard risk so contact with a vertical surface is less likely. There are far more people with poor sight or who are ambulatory but with mobility issues (often there is an overlap for these issues in the older population - often stairs are better than ramps for both) than wheelchair users.

 

[Hadders]

The platform edge barrier that has been in place during construction has now been removed. There can't be much more to be done now.

Speaking to some station staff they think the platform will open in August, apparently more station staff have got to be recruited because the platform 5 barrier line has got to be manned. Given the low passenger numbers I'm surprised they're not remotely monitoring it from the main gateline. If it has to be manned from first to last train it will increase operating costs considerably.

 

[Fred26]

The platform edge barrier that has been in place during construction has now been removed. There can't be much more to be done now.

Speaking to some station staff they think the platform will open in August, apparently more station staff have got to be recruited because the platform 5 barrier line has got to be manned. Given the low passenger numbers I'm surprised they're not remotely monitoring it from the main gateline. If it has to be manned from first to last train it will increase operating costs considerably.

View attachment 79973

Gateline staff have been interviewed. Four staff will be employed, giving coverage for most of the day, seven days a week.
There is a remote monitor on the new gateline.

GTR have no intention of employing platform staff. No idea how that will work given the rest of the station is manned.

 

[Hadders]

Gateline staff have been interviewed. Four staff will be employed, giving coverage for most of the day, seven days a week.
There is a remote monitor on the new gateline.

GTR have no intention of employing platform staff. No idea how that will work given the rest of the station is manned.

Platform staff not really required given the dispatch arrangements on the 717s and how few people use the Hertford Loop trains to/from Stevenage. Be interesting to know what will happen if a passenger requires assistance.

Given the remoteness of P5 compared to the rest of the station there is a risk that it could become a magnet for the local riff-raff if it is not manned throughout the day. The waiting rooms might be attractive place for the hooded youth to eat their MaccyDs (purchased next door) or the local homeless who are a full time fixture on the other side of the station.

 

[malc-c]

Given the remoteness of P5 compared to the rest of the station there is a risk that it could become a magnet for the local riff-raff if it is not manned throughout the day. The waiting rooms might be attractive place for the hooded youth to eat their MaccyDs (purchased next door) or the local homeless who are a full time fixture on the other side of the station.

Well that new walkway bridge to the steps would provide cover for the homeless unless the staff monitor with cameras or patrols. I also wonder how long it will be before some of the local hoody brigade cover the infrastructure in graffiti

 

[Fred26]

Platform staff not really required given the dispatch arrangements on the 717s and how few people use the Hertford Loop trains to/from Stevenage. Be interesting to know what will happen if a passenger requires assistance.

Given the remoteness of P5 compared to the rest of the station there is a risk that it could become a magnet for the local riff-raff if it is not manned throughout the day. The waiting rooms might be attractive place for the hooded youth to eat their MaccyDs (purchased next door) or the local homeless who are a full time fixture on the other side of the station.

Dispatch may not be required, but to have unmanned platforms on a station where every other platform is manned isn't right. There'll be no-one to check terminating trains, no-one to do passenger assists, no-one to deal with any problems that may occur. There will be no security checks.
I find the whole idea absurd.

 

[Minstral25]

The platform edge barrier that has been in place during construction has now been removed. There can't be much more to be done now.

Speaking to some station staff they think the platform will open in August, apparently more station staff have got to be recruited because the platform 5 barrier line has got to be manned. Given the low passenger numbers I'm surprised they're not remotely monitoring it from the main gateline. If it has to be manned from first to last train it will increase operating costs considerably.

View attachment 79973

From GTR Webinar it was stated that platform will be ready to open in late July or early August but dependant on safety case and ORR approval

 

[Bald Rick]

Dispatch may not be required, but to have unmanned platforms on a station where every other platform is manned isn't right. There'll be no-one to check terminating trains, no-one to do passenger assists, no-one to deal with any problems that may occur. There will be no security checks.

On what grounds is it not right?

Just because there is no one on the platfrom permanently, doesn’t mean there will never be any staff on the platform.

The driver can check terminating trains, like they do at other terminating stations all over the GTR Network.

Passenger assists and security checks can be performed by station staff from elsewhere on the station (There certainly will be security checks!)

Any ‘problems’ that occur that aren’t related to the above will also be picked up by the station staff, or by the driver.


The existing platform staff at Stevenage are there to help dispatch long trains (which platform 5 doesn’t have), provide assistance and info to long distance passnegers(which platfrom 5 won’t have) and to maintain the safety of passnegers on the platforms from trains passing at 125mph (see where I’m going here).

 

[Fred26]

On what grounds is it not right?

Just because there is no one on the platfrom permanently, doesn’t mean there will never be any staff on the platform.

The driver can check terminating trains, like they do at other terminating stations all over the GTR Network.

Passenger assists and security checks can be performed by station staff from elsewhere on the station (There certainly will be security checks!)

Any ‘problems’ that occur that aren’t related to the above will also be picked up by the station staff, or by the driver.


The existing platform staff at Stevenage are there to help dispatch long trains (which platform 5 doesn’t have), provide assistance and info to long distance passnegers(which platfrom 5 won’t have) and to maintain the safety of passnegers on the platforms from trains passing at 125mph (see where I’m going here).

You completely invalidated any other point you may have had with that last paragraph. That is not why Stevenage has platform staff.

 

[Bald Rick]

You completely invalidated any other point you may have had with that last paragraph. That is not why Stevenage has platform staff.

What are they there for then, if not those things?

 

[Fred26]

What are they there for then, if not those things?

They are not just there for LNER trains, or passengers. They are there for everyone, even those travelling to Watton or Hertford.
'Maintain the safety of passengers from 125mph trains'? What an odd thing to say. They are there for the safety of everyone, regardless of whether there are fast trains or not.

 

[Hadders]

I really don't think it is justified to have two full time members of staff on platform 5, one supervising the platform and the other looking after the barrier line.

 

[edwin_m]

They are not just there for LNER trains, or passengers. They are there for everyone, even those travelling to Watton or Hertford.
'Maintain the safety of passengers from 125mph trains'? What an odd thing to say. They are there for the safety of everyone, regardless of whether there are fast trains or not.

Stevenage has other platforms where longer-distance trains stops and others pass at 125mph so there is more need for staff there. But platform 5 is no different from all the other suburban stations where trains can be caught for Watton or Hertford, so like those stations it doesn't need a continuous staff presence on the platform.

 

[Bald Rick]

They are not just there for LNER trains, or passengers. They are there for everyone, even those travelling to Watton or Hertford.
'Maintain the safety of passengers from 125mph trains'? What an odd thing to say. They are there for the safety of everyone, regardless of whether there are fast trains or not.

I didn’t say they were just there for LNER passengers.

I said they were there:

1) to dispatch long trains - the longest trains being GTR

2) to provide assistance and information to long distance passengers - which could just as easily be GTR passengers to the south coast, or changing at Cambridge for East Anglia, or Peterborough for the East Midlands, West Midlands or further afield, as (of course) an LNER passenger.

3) maintain the safety of passengers on platforms from trains passing at 125mph. These can be any passengers. You might think it’s odd, but the risk assessments for busy stations with unfenced platforms open to traffic at 125mph show otherwise. The provision of staff is a mitigating action.

Passengers from Stevenage travelling to Watton, Hertford (or indeed anywhere on the Hertford loop) who need assistance will simply ask the P5 gateline staff. An additional member of staff on the platform would, frankly, be doing nothing all day, and b3 a complete waste of taxpayers money.

 

[St. Paddy]

Station staff at Stevenage do not dispatch any GTR services unless a 365 happens to call there or if there’s a fault with the in cab monitors on other traction.