Not obviously tried it but a 378?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Disabled Passenger Over-Carried
- Thread starter Essexman
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I suspect yes, but I would call that a "standee train" anyway.
If the 700 layout can fit a wheelchair through the whole train, great - maybe all local trains should have that sort of layout. Wouldn't suit InterCity type services, though - the seats are too narrow for long distance travel.
Wonder if you can wheel one through a 777? They have a similar setup to the 700 with narrow 2+2 seating and a wide aisle. As I think do the 730s intended for the Brum Cross City line (the other 730s not).
Falcon1200
Established Member
Fair points, but I cannot see how that is a reason for not having the disabled access vehicle in a centre vehicle of a set, whereas (as shown in Post #1 of this topic) there are very good reasons for not having it in a randomly-located end vehicle !
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you had it between the doors rather than at the end as is typical, it could potentially be designed to be accessible from both doors of that vehicle and thus it would be unlikely that both would end up blocked.
I would say that having your access blocked by infrastructure is a perfectly valid reason. I'm unsure why you are dismissing that. However, the matter at hand isn't that a centre vehicle is or isn't the best placed vehicle but one of it doesn't matter which set of doors is chosen, there will always be some kind of issue to overcome. It also wouldn't resolve potential platform length issues if the formation was 10-Cars (5+5)
I drive stock where the accessible area is at the front/end behind the Driver. I can see the logic as you would typically be on the platform at all times if you were behind the Driver and it allows for a higher level of awareness during an incident. It is also where the accessible ramp is located so again, a logical place to put someone.
I also drive stock with the middle coach of a 5-Car set having the accessible space. Because we stop at various location along the platform is causes the issues highlighted. It hasn't solved anything, just changed from one problem to another.
Again, taking Thameslink as an example. If your going through 'The Core' The stopping points are designed in such a way that either an 8 or a 12 will always have the accessible space at the same place on the platform. For me, this proves that having trains and infrastructure working together is the best 'solution' Also, because the stopping point is universal, the humps have offered a cheaper alternative to a complete platform rebuild and allows level(ish) boarding points.
I think that the point is that the middle of the train / unit is the least likely place to be hanging off the end of a platform, given that there is no guarantee of which way round a train is. Clearly the "infrastructure blocking the ramp" is an issue - but there is probably nowhere in the length of a train that is guaranteed not to be adjacent to some kind of "blocking infrastructure" at a platform somewhere in the country. Yet another argument for standard boarding heights and "level boarding". If there is no / negligible slope between the platform and train floor, any gap can be bridged by an extendable footstep.
This has a lot going for it, were it not for the fact that to guarantee this, you need to have provision at both ends of each unit. There is nothing wrong with this (indeed, as many have said, in an ideal world we wouldn't have "accessible areas" - just "accessible trains") - but in our non-ideal world, which is what we have to start from, it immediately opens things up to confusion, especially if the train reverses en route. The perfectly positioned space "just behind the driver" then becomes a carriage overhanging the far end of a platform at the back of a 10 (or whatever) coach train. Met this very problem in Germany many years ago when putting a bicycle in a brake van was still a normal thing. Long train had two vans - one at the front; one at the rear. The one that was platformed where I got on was the one that wasn't where I got off. Fortunately - jumping down onto the ballast and then being handed down my bicycle was an option for me (in those days!)
O L Leigh
Established Member
See, this is why I’ve got my head in my hands and am reading this thread through my fingers. Because, having seen where they’re erecting the stop boards along the WA route, it’s not just going to be the back of the train hanging off the end of the platform. At certain locations, such as Elsenham on the Up and Shelford on the Down (and no doubt others too), it will be the front of the train that’s not platformed.
Even if we assume that the infrastructure causes no issues, at a lot of GA stations where the platforms can only accommodate a train up to 8 x 20 metres, a full length Cl720 will probably only have 6 or 7 cars on the platform and 3 or 4 hanging off. This means that, even if the accessible coach was in the middle of a 5 car unit, only one accessible coach in any 10 car formation will be platformed, and it wouldn’t be the same coach at every station. Given the way that these units are actually being configured, and if we take GA at their word that no unit will ever be turned [laughs uncontrollably], the only accessible place on the train that you can guarantee will be platformed at every station will be in the lead coach of the rear unit.
But can we assume that the platform/assistance staff will be aware of all these foibles? Can we seriously expect that GA can keep the entire fleet facing the same way? I suspect not. I suspect that this has clusterf**k writ large all over it.
Go and ask GA…? Yeah, right.
Falcon1200
Established Member
What I am questioning is the view that centre vehicle disabled access is more liable to be blocked than access elsewhere.
Which has explained it better, clearly, than I did. Thanks !
In that worst case scenario, if the stop boards were positioned so that the leading two and rear two vehicles of a 10-car were off the platform, both accessible vehicles (if in the centre vehicle) would be platformed; There may of course be other factors, eg signal positioning, preventing that.
An honest question, having not been to Anglia - with their gap fillers, can you get on/off the train in a wheelchair without an additional ramp being placed down, or is the ramp still required?
It's difficult to provide a complete assessment and its almost impossible to say; But, in my recent experience, it's the more central locations on a platform where there are the most infrastructure problems. Platform awnings, coffee shops, lifts, bridges and various platform buildings all tend to be towards the middle of the platform or towards entry/exit points.
If you compare and contrast two very modern stations (London Bridge and Blackfriars) you can see the different approaches that have been taken. Blackfriars has very wide and open platforms almost devoid of any infrastructure. The harmony between train and platform works very well. With London Bridge you have escalators and lifts centrally located and the focus is to push the passengers down into the belly of the beast but there are places on the platform where you are heavily restricted and the platform is barely wide enough for two people to pass each other. Ramps need a fair amount of space (about 2.5m) and sometimes a bespoke ramp. At my TOC the largest amount of space is at the ends of the platforms. I have also found that the ends of the platforms are more susceptible to track related problems. (TPWS/AWS/Signals etc.)
Each TOC will have their own issues to overcome and I'm not saying that central vehicles are more or less liable for issues, just that unless we are mindful of the potential hazards then its just swapping one problem for another.
I think people are being economical with the truth. From GA's website you can see that they have designed a new ramp for their trains : https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/ramp-testing as well as stating that their new trains work with the 'Vast majority' of stations to provide 'level boarding' https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/abo...ew-trains-recognised-accessibility-innovation I think its safe to say that the ramp will still be required at some locations.
O L Leigh
Established Member
It is because of the location of level crossings, to ensure that a train making a stop does not block the crossing. As such, there are a multitude of stations which will be affected. Unless there has been a programme of platform lengthening in the last 10 years, this means that, on the WA routes, this will that the front of the train will not be platformed on at least one platform at Northumberland Park, Brimsdown, Enfield Lock, Cheshunt, St Margarets, Ware (possibly) and Sawbridgeworth as well as the aforementioned Elsenham and Shelford.
Stopping with the middle of the train platformed is fraught with peril. These are DOO units and, as such, the driver has to be confident that the train is correctly positioned before opening the doors. This will require additional stop boards to give the driver that confidence. It also has to be compatible with the SDO equipment which usually selects the doors from the front or, more recently, from the rear of the formation. Selecting "in the middle" currently isn't possible. It also assumes that the driver is even aware that the stopping point needs to be adjusted to ensure that the accessible area is platformed. Besides, it would mean that the crossings would once again be blocked by a stopping train, which seems to be the situation that they are trying to avoid. If you're going to do that you might as well just stop at the end so that the rear is hanging off, as we did in days of yore.
No, pending platform lengthening to ensure that all trains fit all platforms it would be far better to leave the plan as it is and concentrate on getting the right information and instructions out to staff and passengers to try and ensure that the chance of a foul-up is minimised. Frankly I think I'm hoping for the impossible, but given the corner that GA have just painted themselves into I see no realistic alternative.
Sorry, should have picked up on this yesterday when responding to your other point about platforming.
As I mentioned up-thread, this is not going to be an easy thing to achieve without quite a lot of infrastructure changes and without causing a lot of unintended consequences. Locations like Tamworth High Level has a big gap to bridge, but that is as a consequence of it's location on a gentle curve where the linespeed is high (125mph) and a lot of freight also passes through. Any work done to provide level boarding is likely to have to result in a reduction in linespeed with it's consequent impact on journey times.
Don't get me wrong, I like the extending steps and can see how they will be a help, but I can also see that they are not a panacea. My preferred option which I mentioned up-thread would be a train-mounted ramp that could more easily deal with variations in platform height and gap width, but no-one seems to be running with that at present.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's a dinky wee ramp. I like that better than the existing long ramp designs. Just maybe this shorter design will help to mitigate against issues of infrastructure interfering with ramp deployment.
I wonder where these might be found. Staffed stations only...? Carried by travelling assistance staff (make sure you book early to avoid disappointment, folks)...? I can't see them being carried on the trains themselves, but we shall see.
The FLIRTs, predictably. Nothing mentioned about the Aventras.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If the platform is UK standard height yes, you can do it without a ramp, which is what they were designed for (and will be possible at every* Merseyrail station), but some platforms on the regional lines won't have been adjusted yet, so in those cases you'd still need it.
* Not every Merseyrail station has step free access to the platforms, and at some (e.g. Aughton Park) it would be extremely difficult to provide it - I wonder will this be better featured on the maps and announcements if "self assistance" becomes the norm to prevent people getting stuck?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Possibly, though it does look quite steep and the guy doing the testing did look to have to "push" quite hard to get his chair up it, so I'm not sure it shouldn't be a little longer to reduce the gradient.
It looks like that ramp is designed specifically for the FLIRTs at platforms which aren't standard height. The "demo train" appears to have the FLIRT style moving step incorporated.
Are any FLIRTs DOO? If not then they presumably will either be on board or at all stations they serve and the guard will deploy where the platform isn't at the right height for step free access.
It is a shame those were even ordered - 100% step free would have been great. I guess they're almost from another era - you can't really do 3+2 in the low floor unit as it's quite narrow at floor level. Now of course that isn't really needed.
The reason I suggested going and looking at them was in response to those saying you couldn't use the FLIRT design at non-adapted platforms - GA prove you can (though a ramp is still needed).
The level crossing at Northumberland Park was taken out when the third track to Meridian Water went in. Cheshunt has 12 car platforms complete with DOO monitors on the up platform. I've no idea when the last 12 car 317 stopped there. All the others still apply.
Are there any stations where trains stop on a level crossing now? I think Littlehaven down platform was lengthened during the recent nine day block. Of course there are still plenty of stations where the crossing is shut whilst the train stops at the platform just before the crossing.
O L Leigh
Established Member
OK. Thanks for the update. I’ve not seen parts of the WA network for almost 10 years so am not fully up to speed. I suspect that some of these issues will be replicated on the GE side also.
Did they ever run 12 car Cl317s? I thought that all the 12 car workings were Cl379s.
I think there were a handful in the peaks on the WA Outers at one point, though they were limited as to where they could stop due to platform lengths.
Is the carriage of a design that is level with the platform so that wheelchair users can self-board? If so, I can see why someone would wuite reasonably not book assistance and assume that the same would be the case at the destination.
O L Leigh
Established Member
It wasn't.
All 12 cars have been 379s since they arrived. I think the 12 car platforms are Tottenham, Cheshunt, Broxbourne, Harlow Town, Bishop's Stortford, Audley End and Whittlesford Parkway. Any others?
O L Leigh
Established Member
Yes, that tallies with my memory.
Did they ever sort out the mess at Broxbourne? They lengthened the platforms but only the through lines were 12 car length with the loops remaining at 8 cars. Because the Cl379 SDO system couldn’t cope with this anomaly, it only recognised Broxbourne as an 8 car station, thereby totally obviating the benefit of lengthening the platforms in the first place.
Plus Stansted Mountfitchet, Stansted Airport and Cambridge/Cambridge North.
The loops are still eight car. I think I'm right in saying that only five car 720s are allowed to release the doors in the loops so I don't know what they plan to do with the rush hour trains that terminate at Broxbourne.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thanks. I was at Stansted Mountfitchet the week before last so I should have remembered that. I don't think the bay platform at Cambridge North has seen any 12 cars recently as it's rather rusty and overgrown. During the first lockdown some 12 car 317s went there overnight, presumably just to keep them moving.
- Status