All we want for xmas is a modest modular station...

[Blackpool boy]

And where is your evidence that the wooden stations are becoming unsafe for users, pray tell ?

Typical "just because this is the way things are done now, we must always do them this way" attitude.

If something needs 'patching' then that means it is becoming unsafe or else why would you 'patch it'

Please see my previous post which i have edited which is about accessibility design standards for new stations

 

[yorksrob]

If something needs 'patching' then that means it is becoming unsafe or else why would you 'patch it'

Please see my previous post which i have edited which is about accessibility design standards for new stations

Are you suggesting that any structure that requires maintenance is "becoming unsafe" ? If so, you'll find that most structures are "becoming unsafe".

As far as accessibility is concerned, a ramp to the platform from the nearest road/footpath should suffice.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Are you suggesting that any structure that requires maintenance is "becoming unsafe" ? If so, you'll find that most structures are "becoming unsafe".

As far as accessibility is concerned, a ramp to the platform from the nearest road/footpath should suffice.

Lots of basic wooden platforms ended up with chamfered panels crudely screwed over the holes. Still easy to trip on. Needless to say, no tactile edges either.

Current complaint ramps for unassisted wheelchair users have to be far shallower and with break landings and barriers compared to the 1980s ones. A ‘cheap’ wooden ramp to Dronfield station was condemned several years ago.

(Having been involved in 35 station (re-)openings back in the 1980s and 90s I am in no doubt about how things have changed for the better, for the user. Plus CCTV, help points, ticket machines, information displays and so on.)

 

[yoyothehobo]

I think stations are prohibitively expensive and measures could be taken to reduce them, however i think it would take a lot to get the costs down to anything reasonable for such small stations as this would be.

With regards accessibility, so few station locations are suitable to have a ramp of suitable angle for access for both sides from the nearest road that you need a bridge with lifts. This immediately adds considerable cost to a project. (Obviously this shouldnt be applicable to a single platform and single track)

But land is considerably more expensive than it was in the 80s.
As is the workforce
As is the materials


The platform itself is probably one of the areas where savings are least likely to be able to made. Look at Reston, the platform there is pretty much all plug and play elements of concrete and steel. Lots of the effort there was in widening the embankment to put the station on.

You will still have to do a ground investigation, a proper foundation design, drainage considerations, planning, signalling (if required), power etc...

 

[Indigo Soup]

Here is some design standards for accessibility on the railways for new stations https://assets.publishing.service.g...be5d/design-standards-accessible-stations.pdf

Notably nothing in that document prohibits or mandates certain materials. There are certain requirements placed on their qualities - sensible things like 'floors shouldn't be slippery' - but there's no reason timber couldn't be used. I'm curious where that idea has come from!

In fact, reading the standards it doesn't seem like there's any reason a properly designed platform with nothing on it other than a bench, a PIS display, and a call button couldn't be fully compliant.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Notably nothing in that document prohibits or mandates certain materials. There are certain requirements placed on their qualities - sensible things like 'floors shouldn't be slippery' - but there's no reason timber couldn't be used. I'm curious where that idea has come from!

In fact, reading the standards it doesn't seem like there's any reason a properly designed platform with nothing on it other than a bench, a PIS display, and a call button couldn't be fully compliant.

I am not a structural engineer/designer but this guidance likely interacts with other standards of design and construction. There will be design loadings to take into account, design life ie 60 years, 120 years.

The structural design of the station has to be compliant based on British and Eurocode design standards with regards to loadings

 

[Blackpool boy]

Are you suggesting that any structure that requires maintenance is "becoming unsafe" ? If so, you'll find that most structures are "becoming unsafe".

As far as accessibility is concerned, a ramp to the platform from the nearest road/footpath should suffice.

No, I didn't say that, I said using your words of 'Patching' of wood flooring that you stated had happened many times had, in YOUR example, become unsafe. remember, I am quoting YOUR posts here. Everything at some point will need maintenance however using concrete over wood will require that maintenance period to be a lot less that of wooden structures where even just a small hole in the covering can hide a multitude of issues in the structure underneath.

Notably nothing in that document prohibits or mandates certain materials. There are certain requirements placed on their qualities - sensible things like 'floors shouldn't be slippery' - but there's no reason timber couldn't be used. I'm curious where that idea has come from!

In fact, reading the standards it doesn't seem like there's any reason a properly designed platform with nothing on it other than a bench, a PIS display, and a call button couldn't be fully compliant.

No one has come out and said that wood couldnt be used just its a lkot better idea to use a material that is more robust.

And are you saying that stations shouldnt have ramps for people in wheelchairs? But as long as they have a bench a PIS and a call button then everything is A ok for access.

Brilliant, exclusion of people from the railway marches on on on


P.S. Thats design standards for accessibility , not the main design standards for construction of a station

 

[yoyothehobo]

If we dial back from the above arguments and can we look at the original question of modular stations.

What do people actually mean by "modular" stations.

Most recent new stations have been modular in that they are precast concrete sections dropped onto piled foundations. Its about as modular as you can get.

Are people when they say modular actually meaning "i want a couple of breeze blocks with some plywood on top"?

 

[Indigo Soup]

I am not a structural engineer/designer but this guidance likely interacts with other standards of design and construction.

Certainly - and Building Regulations, and all sorts of other things.

Those, too, are unlikely to prohibit the use of timber. That it isn't used isn't because it's banned, but because it isn't appropriate for building railway station platforms.

And are you saying that stations shouldnt have ramps for people in wheelchairs? But as long as they have a bench a PIS and a call button then everything is A ok for access.

Of course they should. They'll need them for people not in wheelchairs too. My point was that - depending on the requirements of the site - you don't necessarily need waiting rooms, toilets, lifts etc.

In practice you'd probably provide a bus shelter as well. But it, too, would have to be accessible.

Are people when they say modular actually meaning "i want a couple of breeze blocks with some plywood on top"?

I think people are saying 'modular' and thinking 'cheap and nasty'. In fact, actually building the platforms is probably a very minor part of providing a new station.

 

[3RDGEN]

Lots of basic wooden platforms ended up with chamfered panels crudely screwed over the holes. Still easy to trip on. Needless to say, no tactile edges either.

Cottingley is one of the basic wooden stations from the late 1980's and now has tactile surfaces on the platform edge.

 

[Blackpool boy]

I think people are saying 'modular' and thinking 'cheap and nasty'. In fact, actually building the platforms is probably a very minor part of providing a new station.

Well without a platform you dont really have a station do you as nothing would ever be able to call there

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

In practice you'd probably provide a bus shelter as well. But it, too, would have to be accessible.

Ive never seen a bus stop that isnt accessible

 

[Indigo Soup]

Well without a platform you dont really have a station do you as nothing would ever be able to call there

Well yes. But once you've done the engineering governance, resignalled, acquired the land, and done the necessary groundworks - the materials and labour for the actual platform are comparatively minor.

Ive never seen a bus stop that isnt accessible

I'm sure someone's managed. The requirements are written so that if they try, they have to work hard to justify it.

Bear in mind, I have seen a specification that had an explicit requirement that 'The Ship shall float.' Yes, in those words. Because if it wasn't there, someone might try to argue that floating wasn't in the specification.

 

[Blackpool boy]

Well yes. But once you've done the engineering governance, resignalled, acquired the land, and done the necessary groundworks - the materials and labour for the actual platform are comparatively minor.

im well aware of all that - you said ' In fact, actually building the platforms is probably a very minor part of providing a new station.'

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ive never seen a bus stop that isnt accessible

I'm sure someone's managed. The requirements are written so that if they try, they have to work hard to justify it.

Kirklees Council and WYPTE managed it by planting a bus shelter with a solid panel on top of a Kassel kerb!

 

[yorksrob]

Lots of basic wooden platforms ended up with chamfered panels crudely screwed over the holes. Still easy to trip on. Needless to say, no tactile edges either.

Current complaint ramps for unassisted wheelchair users have to be far shallower and with break landings and barriers compared to the 1980s ones. A ‘cheap’ wooden ramp to Dronfield station was condemned several years ago.

East Garforth had been patched in that way a few years back. However I noticed recently that it seems to have had a new surface attached, so it's obviously solvable. I can't be sure, but I think that the glue on tactile edges are also on some of them as well now.

You have a point about ramps, however in a location with level access either side, that wouldn't be an issue. In terms of Dronfield, better to have a station ramp condemned than no station at all.

(Having been involved in 35 station (re-)openings back in the 1980s and 90s I am in no doubt about how things have changed for the better, for the user. Plus CCTV, help points, ticket machines, information displays and so on.)

Things have got considerably worse - where a potential user might have had a chance of getting a railway station in the past, they probably don't have now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

No, I didn't say that, I said using your words of 'Patching' of wood flooring that you stated had happened many times had, in YOUR example, become unsafe. remember, I am quoting YOUR posts here. Everything at some point will need maintenance however using concrete over wood will require that maintenance period to be a lot less that of wooden structures where even just a small hole in the covering can hide a multitude of issues in the structure underneath.

No one has come out and said that wood couldnt be used just its a lkot better idea to use a material that is more robust.

And are you saying that stations shouldnt have ramps for people in wheelchairs? But as long as they have a bench a PIS and a call button then everything is A ok for access.

Brilliant, exclusion of people from the railway marches on on on


P.S. Thats design standards for accessibility , not the main design standards for construction of a station

As I mentioned to @Dr Hoo, East Garforth was a bit patchy for a while. It's now good as new. At no point has the station been closed due to being unsafe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

Certainly - and Building Regulations, and all sorts of other things.

Those, too, are unlikely to prohibit the use of timber. That it isn't used isn't because it's banned, but because it isn't appropriate for building railway station platforms.

Of course they should. They'll need them for people not in wheelchairs too. My point was that - depending on the requirements of the site - you don't necessarily need waiting rooms, toilets, lifts etc.

In practice you'd probably provide a bus shelter as well. But it, too, would have to be accessible.

I think people are saying 'modular' and thinking 'cheap and nasty'. In fact, actually building the platforms is probably a very minor part of providing a new station.

There's truth to this. Approach roads and huge car parks shouldn't always be necessary.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

On the wooden platforms thing, it's worth noting that West Yorkshire PTE didn't invent them in the 1980s...

How often does Berrylands in South West London need closing to have timbers replaced?

 

[JGurney]

Ive never seen a bus stop that isnt accessible

The Northbound stop at Castle Cary station must be a contender.

 

[Dr Hoo]

With regard to inaccessible bus stops, Stretfield Mill on the B6049 in the Hope Valley is up a flight of steps from the sunken footpath - Street View screen grab attached below shows the stop. (The real point being that it can be quite easy for a new station to be ‘inaccessible’, e.g. because of a lack of ‘disabled’ parking.)