Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[Horizon22]

The throughput has probably increased dramatically with the success of the Elizabeth Line.

I'd say expectations have changed with the universal flat boarding on the central section

Also it is the area cloest to the lift that is the worst gap. Those with mobility issues are less likely to walk down towards the front of Platform 4 where the gap substantially decreases.

 

[Crithylum]

Whilst i believe this may cause more issues than solve, I do wonder how possible it is to attempt a Thameslink style hump around mainly the accessible car 5 area of the platform(aka raising a Specfic part of the platform to level of the train(mainly here being the 345s)

From the news reports, it appears the problem is "normal" passengers injuring themselves due to the large gaps, and I find it unlikely that the more vulnerable passengers will reliably make their way to carriage 5. However, anecdotally I have heard that the large vertical gap means the wheelchair ramp is too steep for many users, meaning that for some it is still inaccessible despite the ramps. This would be (at least partially) fixed by a 915mm hump.

I think the only realistic solution is to raise the whole platform at Ealing Broadway to 915mm. Furthermore, it would make sense to fix the platforms at other stations at the same time, as when Ealing Broadway is no longer the scapegoat, the media will be sure to highlight what they will (fairly imo) describe as negligence when someone gets injured somewhere else.

 

[Purple Train]

Using Ealing Broadway platform 4 yesterday, it definitely seemed to be a large step, although not enough of a gap/step to make me need to physically jump off the train, such as at Maidenhead. However, I usually use the front half of the train, and it did look bigger at the rear. Platform 3 was fine.

Given the layout of the station, only a one-carriage hump is needed. Even a Harrington hump to 915mm would reduce the issue substantially. The platforms aren't on enough of a curve to cause issues, surely?

 

[matt_world2004]

From the news reports, it appears the problem is "normal" passengers injuring themselves due to the large gaps, and I find it unlikely that the more vulnerable passengers will reliably make their way to carriage 5. However, anecdotally I have heard that the large vertical gap means the wheelchair ramp is too steep for many users, meaning that for some it is still inaccessible despite the ramps. This would be (at least partially) fixed by a 915mm hump.

I think the only realistic solution is to raise the whole platform at Ealing Broadway to 915mm. Furthermore, it would make sense to fix the platforms at other stations at the same time, as when Ealing Broadway is no longer the scapegoat, the media will be sure to highlight what they will (fairly imo) describe as negligence when someone gets injured somewhere else.

They have some sort of forklift on platform 2 for wheelchairs the gap is so steep.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Surely the answer is much more straightforward?

CPO and demolish the multi-storey car-park on the opposite side of the bridge. This would be a massive win for decarbonising Ealing and would promote active travel.

Then build a brand new station with a freight loop. Problem solved, they could even install platform doors on the Elizabeth line platforms to raise the standard to core.

 

[Benjwri]

Surely the answer is much more straightforward?

CPO and demolish the multi-storey car-park on the opposite side of the bridge. This would be a massive win for decarbonising Ealing and would promote active travel.

Then build a brand new station with a freight loop. Problem solved, they could even install platform doors on the Elizabeth line platforms to raise the standard to core.

With what money? Where are you building a totally new station? Do you just close the entire station while the rebuild happens? And are you suggesting further line blocks of the GWML after chaos for many years, and many more to come already?

 

[Crithylum]

I don't see any space for platforms AND freight loops. Also, would the District and Central lines be moved, because, if not, the interchange becomes far more of a hassle. And what about all the other troublesome stations that have avoided media attention? Are these also being rebuilt?

 

[mr_jrt]

Surely the answer is much more straightforward?

CPO and demolish the multi-storey car-park on the opposite side of the bridge. This would be a massive win for decarbonising Ealing and would promote active travel.

Then build a brand new station with a freight loop. Problem solved, they could even install platform doors on the Elizabeth line platforms to raise the standard to core.

Remind me again...if loops are apparently needed, how on earth are those freights getting past the platforms at the other stations? And following on from that, why not just raise the platforms to match those at the other stations'?

 

[BlueLeanie]

I don't see any space for platforms AND freight loops. Also, would the District and Central lines be moved, because, if not, the interchange becomes far more of a hassle. And what about all the other troublesome stations that have avoided media attention? Are these also being rebuilt?

What's the hassle? The District and Central lines can remain in the same place It's simply going to be a matter of walking the length of the new platforms to the Central & District platforms. No worse than changing at Paddington.

Whatabootery is just silly.

You don't ignore a problem, where vulnerable people are experiencing harm, just because it'll set a precedent.

 

[Crithylum]

You don't ignore a problem, where vulnerable people are experiencing harm, just because it'll set a precedent.

If this does set a precedent, then we will have to rebuild most if not all GWML stations. This is basically a 6 tracking of the GWML, in terms of complexity. It is unfortunate that even with the 915mm platform, there will still be a gap, but it would be extremely (many would say prohibitively) expensive to remedy by building an (effectively) new line for freight. The failure to insist on low floor trains from the start is going to cause serious problems.

Raising the platforms to 915mm and spending the money on other accessibility measures would have much more positive impact. The cost of rebuilding EB is probably more than raising to 915mm the whole line, some of which have even worse gaps than EB

 

[jfowkes]

Not saying this is a good idea, but if you're going to do a load of infrastructure work, it would almost certainly be simpler and cheaper to work out how to bypass freight around the area than to basically rebuild the GWML in order to accommodate it.

 

[coppercapped]

My take on the whole issue is that if Crossrail/TfL want to run an intensive metro-style service along the Thames Valley corridor it should build its own line and not muscle in on what is already a busy route. The stations can then be designed to match the facilities on the central core so people are not caught unawares and the freight trains and the outer-suburban GW services to Reading and points west can run without interruption and fewer pathing problemsand still leave room for some expansion in the longer distance services.

Adding tracks was done in Germany in several places, the one of which I have had most experience (having moved to Ulm in the mid-1970s) is the Munich S-Bahn being extended along the route to Augsburg, Ulm and Stuttgart. Initially, around 1972, it used the main lines but increasing delays for both passenger and freight trains as services intensified meant that a decision was made to start a process of building a separate pair of lines for the S-Bahn. This was expensive and took ten or fifteen years to complete but this move decoupled the operations of the two very different service patterns to both their benefits.

This 'six tracking' would make the new Crossrail tracks serve the same logical function as the 'DC Lines' do on the West Coast main line out to Watford Junction by taking the shorter distance traffic off the main line leaving the Mains and Reliefs for more remunerative longer distance traffic. It would need to go as least as far as Airport Junction and preferably to the Slough area.

 

[Haywain]

To put in two extra tracks from Ealing through yo Reading would be unbelievably expensive, even it was practical. Have you considered how many commercial and domestic properties would need to be bought, demolished and replaced to facilitate this? I suspect not.

 

[Benjwri]

The only way you will ever achieve something like this is to ‘HS2’ it, ie probably dig a massive hole uneed Paddington and tunnel the fast lines to either before or after Reading.

Given how HS2 has gone, and that even that has to be justified on increased speed, there is not anywhere near the appetite for such a project, and capacity issues elsewhere would make the CBR terrible because benefits would be limited.

As for 6 tracking it above ground, as mentioned above, simply not happening. You’d have to demolish a significant amount of stations, houses, businesses and protected assets such as bridges at astronomical cost to the tax payer. This wouldn’t even happen in European countries with more liberal planning laws, there is not a chance of it happening here.

 

[Horizon22]

My take on the whole issue is that if Crossrail/TfL want to run an intensive metro-style service along the Thames Valley corridor it should build its own line and not muscle in on what is already a busy route. The stations can then be designed to match the facilities on the central core so people are not caught unawares and the freight trains and the outer-suburban GW services to Reading and points west can run without interruption and fewer pathing problemsand still leave room for some expansion in the longer distance services.

Muscle in? What are you talking about? There was already a suburban service running on the route.

The project never intended mass rebuilding of 30 miles worth of railway, just like Thameslink didn't.

People already thought Crossrail was overbudget! Building 2 new lines is making a mountain out of a molehill for 3 reported (yes there are likely more that atre minor) injuiries over 3 years out of the 20,000 average passengers per day at one station.

 

[SynthD]

My take on the whole issue is that if Crossrail/TfL want to run an intensive metro-style service along the Thames Valley corridor it should build its own line and not muscle in on what is already a busy route.

It’s not that busy a route if you took all passenger services off the slow lines. It doesn’t justify six tracks, and there’s not the demand from freight or passengers for the capacity of exclusive lines.

 

[Taunton]

Surely the answer is much more straightforward?

CPO and demolish the multi-storey car-park on the opposite side of the bridge. This would be a massive win for decarbonising Ealing and would promote active travel.

Then build a brand new station with a freight loop. Problem solved, they could even install platform doors on the Elizabeth line platforms to raise the standard to core.

Even better, knock down the station and non-stop through the site. Then the "problem" entirely goes away.

 

[FOH]

To put in two extra tracks from Ealing through yo Reading would be unbelievably expensive, even it was practical. Have you considered how many commercial and domestic properties would need to be bought, demolished and replaced to facilitate this? I suspect not.

If it makes it marginally more accessible and is regularly highlighted in the news then it's obviously worth it

 

[Horizon22]

If it makes it marginally more accessible and is regularly highlighted in the news then it's obviously worth it

No it isn’t.

Have you not heard of “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP)?

There is absolutely no way that two tracking the railway, costing £bns, causing who knows how much disruption and knocking down thousands of homes is going to be a reasonable adjustment for this issue.

 

[Crithylum]

Striping out all 3rd rail and installing OLE almost certainly will come out better in a CBR analysis. I don't get all the fuss about 1 station which is suddenly a problem despite dozens if not hundreds of other stations having similar or worse gaps for decades. I think EB has just been picked up in the media just like how a minor fault on a Boeing plane gets picked up in a way it doesn't on Airbus.

I accept the current situation is a problem but raising every low platform in the country to 915mm would deliver far better overall value

 

[Horizon22]

Striping out all 3rd rail and installing OLE almost certainly will come out better in a CBR analysis. I don't get all the fuss about 1 station which is suddenly a problem despite dozens if not hundreds of other stations having similar or worse gaps for decades. I think EB has just been picked up in the media just like how a minor fault on a Boeing plane gets picked up in a way it doesn't on Airbus.

I accept the current situation is a problem but raising every low platform in the country to 915mm would deliver far better overall value

It’s because it’s seen a big increase in usage and because people think the Elizabeth line is “new” so don’t know why it’s like this and the reporting is very light on how this is an existing station with grandfathered rights like thousands of others around the country.

 

[Benjwri]

It’s because it’s seen a big increase in usage and because people think the Elizabeth line is “new” so don’t know why it’s like this and the reporting is very light on how this is an existing station with grandfathered rights like thousands of others around the country.

Also worth mentioned that even existing users are surprised by this because the problem is made significantly worse by the middle door on a curve, which is as I understand it where the accidents happened. This middle door creates an added complexity which other lines don't face

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Also worth mentioned that even existing users are surprised by this because the problem is made significantly worse by the middle door on a curve, which is as I understand it where the accidents happened. This middle door creates an added complexity which other lines don't face

What curve exists at Ealing Broadway?

 

[Crithylum]

What curve exists at Ealing Broadway?

A very slight curve, such that the platform* is concave. This means the horizontal gap for a middle door is slightly larger than for an end door. You need a straight line parallel to the platform to see it from a satellite view easily. It likely causing only a centimeter of additional gap

edit: *platform 4

 

[AM9]

A very slight curve, such that the platform* is concave. This means the horizontal gap for a middle door is slightly larger than for an end door. You need a straight line parallel to the platform to see it from a satellite view easily. It likely causing only a centimeter of additional gap

edit: *platform 4

1cm is probably less than the range of gap sizes that different resting positions of the trains cause or even their sway that the loading on one side might happen. I doubt that even the most regular passenger steps onto a train with that degree of provision that a 1cm variation would cause them to miss their footing.

 

[800001]

Also worth mentioned that even existing users are surprised by this because the problem is made significantly worse by the middle door on a curve, which is as I understand it where the accidents happened. This middle door creates an added complexity which other lines don't face

Could they not have the middle door on that carriage locked out of use at EB? I’ve seen them doors locked when they used to use Paddington High Lever

 

[AM9]

Could they not have the middle door on that carriage locked out of use at EB? I’ve seen them doors locked when they used to use Paddington High Lever

That would cause panic in busy times and possibly more missed footings.

 

[800001]

That would cause panic in busy times and possibly more missed footings.

They manage to not open doors on whole carriages of the tube at certain stations, people manage.
They don’t open a full carriage of EL at Hanley?
Plenty of announcements approaching station, graphics displayed on the PIS on board etc

 

[Recessio]

They manage to not open doors on whole carriages of the tube at certain stations, people manage.
They don’t open a full carriage of EL at Hanley?
Plenty of announcements approaching station, graphics displayed on the PIS on board etc

Generally it's expected if it's the first/last carriage of a train. "Passengers for X should be in the first Y carriages to leave the train". Whereas it's extremely rare for a middle carriage door to be locked out of service, normally only for technical failures - I don't think there's anywhere a middle carriage door is regularly locked out anywhere in the network? Therefore I think it would really confuse people and be difficult to communicate effectively to passengers.

 

[boiledbeans2]

A very slight curve, such that the platform* is concave. This means the horizontal gap for a middle door is slightly larger than for an end door. You need a straight line parallel to the platform to see it from a satellite view easily. It likely causing only a centimeter of additional gap

edit: *platform 4

Are all the accidents occurning at one specific door position at Ealing Broadway? If so, possibly install a movable gap filler. TfL could call it a trial of the first gap filler in the UK.

Platform gap - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org