Harrington Hump in new Stations

[800034]

Having visited new Thameslink Programme stations, notably London Bridge and Blackfriars, I noticed that they both feature Harrington Humps in the middle. This is obviously a good way of raising platform heights at a low cost but given that they are new stations, could the platforms not have been made that height for the entire length? I can't imagine that cost of building the entire platform to a reasonable height would bankrupt Network Rail.

 

[Leo1961]

But then people who got on via doors not lining up with the Harrington Humps at their destinations would be stuffed, wouldn't they?

Surely the Harrington Humps only work if ALL humps are in the same position for all trains?

 

[gazthomas]

But then people who got on via doors not lining up with the Harrington Humps at their destinations would be stuffed, wouldn't they?

Surely the Harrington Humps only work if ALL humps are in the same position for all trains?

I think the OP's question is why not have the WHOLE platform at the level of the Harrington Hump. The OP is right in saying that the stations are relatively new but I guess they were originally used by 319's so maybe they couldn't have been at the right height

 

[Bletchleyite]

The humps are also a really cheap and nasty job, with concrete slabs with gaps put over the existing very nice marble type flooring. They also aren't quite to train height, there's a drop of about 2" which must make things awkward.

All in all, really shoddy and sloppy.

 

[30907]

Having visited new Thameslink Programme stations, notably London Bridge and Blackfriars, I noticed that they both feature Harrington Humps in the middle. This is obviously a good way of raising platform heights at a low cost but given that they are new stations, could the platforms not have been made that height for the entire length? I can't imagine that cost of building the entire platform to a reasonable height would bankrupt Network Rail.

They are not Harrington Humps, which simply raise platforms to standard height to avoid the traditional use of portable steps.
They provide actual level access for (eg) wheelchairs, and can only be provided on dead straight platforms (and are only useful where all trains are identical).

 

[800034]

They are not Harrington Humps, which simply raise platforms to standard height to avoid the traditional use of portable steps.
They provide actual level access for (eg) wheelchairs, and can only be provided on dead straight platforms (and are only useful where all trains are identical).

Technicalities aside, given the Thameslink fleet is identical would it not be beneficial to have the whole platform the height of the 'Level Access Providing Utility'?

 

[gazthomas]

Technicalities aside, given the Thameslink fleet is identical would it not be beneficial to have the whole platform the height of the 'Level Access Providing Utility'?

I guess the issue is even outside of the core (Bedford - Brighton and the Sutton Loop) it's difficult to meet this given the variety of rolling stock operated. Even within the core I suspect this would be a challenge

 

[hwl]

Technicalities aside, given the Thameslink fleet is identical would it not be beneficial to have the whole platform the height of the 'Level Access Providing Utility'?

The train stopping positions at all stations ensure the wheelchair locations in all 700 units (8 & 12car) line up with the ramps so it guides the wheelchair users to be in the right place on the platform for the wheelchair spaces.

 

[D365]

I imagine that because of the service frequency through the core it make more sense there to raise the platform. Outside of the core there's less pressure to minimise dwell times, which along with the already stated variance in rolling stock types, means the case for platform alterations isn't as strong elsewhere.

 

[Bald Rick]

Technicalities aside, given the Thameslink fleet is identical would it not be beneficial to have the whole platform the height of the 'Level Access Providing Utility'?

I guess the issue is even outside of the core (Bedford - Brighton and the Sutton Loop) it's difficult to meet this given the variety of rolling stock operated. Even within the core I suspect this would be a challenge

Main reason is that you don’t want a person needing the ramp rolling on a service at, say, St Pancras on any part of the train, and then have the staff at, say, Flitwick having to find out where they are and get the ramp to them. Far better and more customer friendly for everyone if those who need assistance are guided t9 a consistent part of the train.

 

[FOH]

The humps are also a really cheap and nasty job, with concrete slabs with gaps put over the existing very nice marble type flooring. They also aren't quite to train height, there's a drop of about 2" which must make things awkward.

All in all, really shoddy and sloppy.

Agreed. I took my baby out of a train at London Bridge and the wheels of the pram properly fell through the gap. I was shocked given this was the disabled access and both train and platform are brand new.

 

[spinba11]

The ramps for the 700 trains can only fit on the middle two doors anyway.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

The ramps for the 700 trains can only fit on the middle two doors anyway.

This was something I can't understand. All stations served by the 700s needed new ramps to use with the 700s, and can only be used on specific doorways. This means that at Bromley South, they've got one set of ramps for the 465s, and 375s-377s, and then there's a separate set of ramps exclusively for the 700s that work exclusively for certain doors.

What was it about the existing ramps that meant they couldn't be used with the 700s?

 

[swt_passenger]

This was something I can't understand. All stations served by the 700s needed new ramps to use with the 700s, and can only be used on specific doorways. This means that at Bromley South, they've got one set of ramps for the 465s, and 375s-377s, and then there's a separate set of ramps exclusively for the 700s that work exclusively for certain doors.

What was it about the existing ramps that meant they couldn't be used with the 700s?

I haven't looked at the details, but it'll potentially be something to do with either locating pins/sockets or tabs/slots which don't match. Older ramps just seem to be laid in the doorway, but more modern ramps are positively located, and it seems there are no standards. Probably another area where there ought to be a standard, which would reduce both physical hardware and platform staff training requirements.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

I haven't looked at the details, but it'll potentially be something to do with either locating pins/sockets or tabs/slots which don't match. Older ramps just seem to be laid in the doorway, but more modern ramps are positively located, and it seems there are no standards. Probably another area where there ought to be a standard, which would reduce both physical hardware and platform staff training requirements.

I was very impressed when I was in Stuttgart and saw ramps magically pop out of the side of a DBAG Class 430 so that a wheelchair passenger could board. I'm sure there's a reason we can't have nice things like that, however.

 

[snowball]

I was very impressed when I was in Stuttgart and saw ramps magically pop out of the side of a DBAG Class 430 so that a wheelchair passenger could board. I'm sure there's a reason we can't have nice things like that, however.

I think the new Merseyrail stock will have them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the new Merseyrail stock will have them?

They'll have level boarding with a moving step, not quite the same thing.

 

[tsr]

I haven't looked at the details, but it'll potentially be something to do with either locating pins/sockets or tabs/slots which don't match. Older ramps just seem to be laid in the doorway, but more modern ramps are positively located, and it seems there are no standards. Probably another area where there ought to be a standard, which would reduce both physical hardware and platform staff training requirements.

Not quite.

The Class 700 ramps are designed with an extended metal plate which sticks out from the top end of the ramp, which covers one of the sensors on the doors when the ramp is lowered. This means the sensor detects an obstruction for the time the ramp is in use. This is important because there is nobody to activate a local door switch, so there is no way to prevent the door from trying to close unless something is physically in the way of the movement sensor.

It's a bit of a bodge job, with a very odd looking ramp as a result, but I've not heard of any problems with it.

Locating pins are another gripe I have with portable ramps. It would be better to have a slight indentation in the door step where the whole width of the ramp naturally rests. Instead, the ramp has pins which are hard to locate when they are on the bottom of the ramp and you're looking at it from the top. The pins can also end up obstructing the two halves of a ramp from closing properly, and they tend to end up catching on stuff. The whole wheelchair access method for trains frankly feels like a bit of an afterthought, which is such a shame.

 

[superkev]

When every bus in the country has an integral wheelchair ramp powered in London I fail to understand why even new trains don't have them.
K

 

[mallard]

When every bus in the country has an integral wheelchair ramp powered in London I fail to understand why even new trains don't have them.
K

Who's going to operate it? With a bus, the ramp is by the entrance and can be operated by the driver. On a train, it would have to be operated by the guard, which would require them to remain in that section of the train for most of the journey (at least on local/commuter routes with fairly frequent stops)... Good news for fare evaders...

 

[Bletchleyite]

When every bus in the country has an integral wheelchair ramp powered in London I fail to understand why even new trains don't have them.
K

Because the driver of a bus can't leave his cab, an electric ramp makes sense. A train ramp is operated by the guard or platform staff so why have something vulnerable to breakdown?

 

[jon0844]

I haven't looked at the details, but it'll potentially be something to do with either locating pins/sockets or tabs/slots which don't match. Older ramps just seem to be laid in the doorway, but more modern ramps are positively located, and it seems there are no standards. Probably another area where there ought to be a standard, which would reduce both physical hardware and platform staff training requirements.

387 ramps (and I assume Bombardier variants) are impossible to put down quickly. 700 ones are far easier as the fixings are visible. Older ramps are easier still but not secure so I can see why they aren't used on new trains.

 

[takno]

When every bus in the country has an integral wheelchair ramp powered in London I fail to understand why even new trains don't have them.
K

Why are all the wheelchair ramps in the country powered in London?

More seriously, they've only been able to introduce these because of a successful-ish move to low-floor buses over 20 years (buses having about half the expected lifespan of trains anyway), and even then it has come with a loss of flexibility as buses now have to queue up to get to their assigned stop and need to get closer into the kerb. Trains in the UK loading gauge have pretty high floors, and it's fundamentally not possible to lower the floors and still fit across the network, or raise the platform and still have the trains fit through.

Even on buses powered ramps are far from ubiquitous. Edinburgh for example seem to be actively moving away from powered ramps and back to manual driver-operated ones because the powered ones are unreliable and often slower to use than just having the driver get out of the cab.