Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News

[Taunton]

All of the other stations are built to level boarding specs for LO. The mayor wanted LO to be level access. I'm actually not sure about what the height and offsets are for 'new' platforms on the route but I know they are much higher than the disused sections. I'll do some digging but I think level access with strict control measures (like slab track in the case of Barking Riverside and Lizzy Line) mean that deviation from the standards is acceptable.

However can The Mayor just decide to override a stated national technical standard. Especially in a way that leaves things at Ealing etc worse off.

 

[zwk500]

I understand we can't rebuild every station in the country (immediately), but what's the point of having a standard if it isn't enforced on new stations (the core) and new trains?

Heathrow opened in 1998. The Standard then in force appears to be GC/RT5161 Issue 1 (Issued 1995) - which says:

5.2.3 The edge of the platform shall be located such that the distance from the top edge of the platform to the top edge of the step board or floor of passenger rolling stock using the platform is kept to a minimum necessary to maintain structural clearance. Stepping distances shall not exceed the following nominal dimensions without the dispensation of the HMRI: • horizontal 275mm; • vertical 250mm; • diagonal 350mm.

It does not specifically say 915mm. Issue 2, from 2000, does specify 915mm.

So Heathrow was built to minimise the stepping distance to the conventional floor height of 1,100mm and is grandfathered in. Leading to the present mess. Rail Vehicles Accessibility Requirements was only passed into law in 2010, so there's lots of relatively recent schemes that didn't need to meet it, and thus the same problem exists.

 

[Haywain]

Only thing is... Freight use the goblin more than TfL trains?! It's possibly tight to freight too. I'm not too sure.

I think it is safe to assume that freight will not be using Barking Riverside.

 

[Horizon22]

I vaguely recall ages ago reading somewhere TfL were keen on the ideal of having a non-standard core if they could get away with it as it helped prevent things like freight and open access operators et al. wanting to use it as it's strictly speaking part of the national network...?

Only thing is... Freight use the goblin more than TfL trains?! It's possibly tight to freight too. I'm not too sure.

Think the two of you (and in fact the thread) is talking at cross-purposes.

The "core" referring to Paddington-Whitechapel here I believe, so not the GOBLIN

 

[BrianW]

Probably because the Heathrow platforms had already been built to that height to give level boarding for Heathrow Express, so a low-floor Crossrail train would have been below platform level at the airport stations. I'm sure I've pointed that out on this thread several times already.

Sadly, Edwin_m, with your 25,434 very fine Forum contributions, it seems it is a lot to expect others to read back over now 300 or so earlier contributions (including one or two of my own!) addressing this issue.
I am still at a loss to understand (ie to agree with) that it was better to met the 'standard' of one part of one station (Heathrow) than to comply with the standard standard.
Can we be directed to the email/ minute of a meeting that decided this, and on what advice? Can no-one be expected to show weakness by owning up when getting something wrong?
I imagine the man who fell at Ealing Broadway would find comfort in that rather than the satisfaction of losing in court over a derogation excusing unsatisfactory provision.

 

[edwin_m]

Sadly, Edwin_m, with your 25,434 very fine Forum contributions, it seems it is a lot to expect others to read back over now 300 or so earlier contributions (including one or two of my own!) addressing this issue.
I am still at a loss to understand (ie to agree with) that it was better to met the 'standard' of one part of one station (Heathrow) than to comply with the standard standard.
Can we be directed to the email/ minute of a meeting that decided this, and on what advice? Can no-one be expected to show weakness by owning up when getting something wrong?
I imagine the man who fell at Ealing Broadway would find comfort in that rather than the satisfaction of losing in court over a derogation excusing unsatisfactory provision.

I've responded multiple times on the issues on this thread, trying to address the confusion of others between several related but separate issues.

I don't have any inside information or indeed any information or comment that I haven't posted already.

It appears not to have helped much, so I won't be posting here again.

 

[SynthD]

However can The Mayor just decide to override a stated national technical standard. Especially in a way that leaves things at Ealing etc worse off.

Crossrail was a Parliamentary bill, not from the London Assembly or Mayor.

In comparison to the other conversation going on, the Transport and Works Act Order for Barking Riverside was from TfL. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nd-barking-riverside-extension-order-decision

 

[miikey]

Crossrail was a Parliamentary bill, not from the London Assembly or Mayor.

In comparison to the other conversation going on, the Transport and Works Act Order for Barking Riverside was from TfL. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nd-barking-riverside-extension-order-decision

Indeed! I was going to comment - what the mayor wants, the mayor gets... It seems.

 

[Recessio]

Heathrow opened in 1998. The Standard then in force appears to be GC/RT5161 Issue 1 (Issued 1995) - which says:

It does not specifically say 915mm. Issue 2, from 2000, does specify 915mm.

So Heathrow was built to minimise the stepping distance to the conventional floor height of 1,100mm and is grandfathered in. Leading to the present mess. Rail Vehicles Accessibility Requirements was only passed into law in 2010, so there's lots of relatively recent schemes that didn't need to meet it, and thus the same problem exists.

Thank you @zwk500 , that's very informative. I guess Heathrow just missed out on being at the 915mm standard then. I also guess the Crossrail act being in 2008 means it won't have been covered by RVAR, even if it did meet issue 2 of the GC/RT5161?

I am still at a loss to understand (ie to agree with) that it was better to met the 'standard' of one part of one station (Heathrow) than to comply with the standard standard.

I'm afraid this is where I'm at too. Let's say Crossrail core and trains had been built to 915mm. Yes there'd be a mismatch between Heathrow Express at 1100mm and Crossrail at 915mm for some time, but the GWML platforms would be a lot better off. Furthermore, at some stage, HEx trains will be replaced, and the new trains could be built to match the new standard, and therefore match the Crossrail trains. (And the few platforms at Heathrow could be lowered to 915mm, if they weren't already lowered in prep for Crossrail).

Now though, with the Crossrail core being built to match Heathrow at 1100mm, it would be a lot harder to rebuild Heathrow AND the entire Crossrail core to 915mm, as it is a lot more platforms to alter (and it would require the HEx and 345s to be replaced at the same time with 915mm stock, else again we'd have a mismatch at Heathrow). So instead, could we raise GWML platforms to 1100mm, to match the higher Crossrail core and Heathrow? No - partially because it would break the standard, but mostly because of the freight clearances preventing that, and as others have said, the massive amount of work that would be needed on GWML stations to redo lifts, elevators, staircases, doorways etc.

Maybe there's something I'm not understanding, but it seems to me that in order to avoid having step downs at a few platforms at Heathrow for some period of time, we've instead permanently enshrined steps at a lot more platforms on the GWML for eternity? (Or we'd have to bin off all of the freight on the GWML, which is a non-starter.)

I've responded multiple times on the issues on this thread, trying to address the confusion of others between several related but separate issues.

I don't have any inside information or indeed any information or comment that I haven't posted already.

It appears not to have helped much, so I won't be posting here again.

I appreciate all of your contributions in this thread @edwin_m , thank you for the information you have added.

 

[Haywain]

Let's say Crossrail core and trains had been built to 915mm.

The floor level of the trains is entirely normal. That is why Heathrow Express trains are formed of class 387 stock and can use the same platforms at the airport.

 

[zwk500]

I'm afraid this is where I'm at too. Let's say Crossrail core and trains had been built to 915mm.

Important point (as made by @Haywain) that the platforms are 915mm, 1,100mm is a fairly standard floor height. What could have been done is to build the trains to 960mm (as GA and I think merseyrail have) floor height to minimise the stepping distance.

Yes there'd be a mismatch between Heathrow Express at 1100mm and Crossrail at 915mm for some time, but the GWML platforms would be a lot better off. Furthermore, at some stage, HEx trains will be replaced, and the new trains could be built to match the new standard, and therefore match the Crossrail trains. (And the few platforms at Heathrow could be lowered to 915mm, if they weren't already lowered in prep for Crossrail).

In the same way it is very hard and costly to raise platforms, I suspect shaving 95mm of a platform at Heathrow stations will similarly have problems. Services immediately come to mind but also escalator landings and so on.

Now though, with the Crossrail core being built to match Heathrow at 1100mm, it would be a lot harder to rebuild Heathrow AND the entire Crossrail core to 915mm, as it is a lot more platforms to alter (and it would require the HEx and 345s to be replaced at the same time with 915mm stock, else again we'd have a mismatch at Heathrow).

yes

So instead, could we raise GWML platforms to 1100mm, to match the higher Crossrail core and Heathrow? No - partially because it would break the standard, but mostly because of the freight clearances preventing that, and as others have said, the massive amount of work that would be needed on GWML stations to redo lifts, elevators, staircases, doorways etc.

Correct

Maybe there's something I'm not understanding, but it seems to me that in order to avoid having step downs at a few platforms at Heathrow for some period of time, we've instead permanently enshrined steps at a lot more platforms on the GWML for eternity? (Or we'd have to bin off all of the freight on the GWML, which is a non-starter.)

Stepping down into the train encounters the problem of door heights, as the clearance is no longer the height of the door frame. It is also much easier to put a ramp from a platform to a train above, than to a train below. Again, it is worth pointing out that in any case the floor height of the trains themselves could well have been 1,100mm even without the Heathrow platform conundrum.

I suspect (but have not been to Ealing Broadway so can't confirm) that a design could be produced for a compliant platform at 915mm, which would involve demolishing anything on the platform and then installing railings on stair landings and lift entrances such that they could incline at the required slope along the platform length to reach the platform height. The waiting room would then be rebuilt after the platform surface had been raised. This would be fiendishly awkward to actually build, but almost certainly it's technically possible. The question is whether sufficient political will is there and how to justify the finances. It could also potentially take a couple of years to finish.

 

[jfowkes]

In the same way it is very hard and costly to raise platforms, I suspect shaving 95mm of a platform at Heathrow stations will similarly have problems. Services immediately come to mind but also escalator landings and so on.

I'm guessing raising the track at Heathrow would be the way to go, if required...?

 

[dosxuk]

One of the (several) problems with 915mm height floors is that they have to be significantly narrower at floor level compared to waist level. Not so much a problem on a fully seated train like the FLIRT's, but a much bigger problem with the 345's where a significant amount of passengers are expected to stand. Even more of a problem when you want to maximise luggage storage and can't get it to the walls at floor level.

Worth remembering that the FLIRT's still have to deal with a large horizontal gap to allow for the same gauging concerns that exist with higher platforms. They do this with gap fillers. There is no reason 1100mm platform heights and gap fillers couldn't be adopted as standard (ignoring the temporary disruption when you need to change stock).

The main problem is that we have standardised on a platform height optimised for reducing the horizontal gap between door and platform, at the sacrifice of the vertical gap. This doesn't meet with the modern demands for level boarding without compromising either the rolling stock or the platform height. One team (Heathrow Express) went one way and adjusted the platform height, another (Stadler) went the other and adjusted the stock height.

 

[zwk500]

I'm guessing raising the track at Heathrow would be the way to go, if required...?

It's slab track all the way through the tunnels so equally as awkward. Cracking it up and relaying it to a new spec would be pricey as well. I think the Platforms are probably easier to shave off!

One of the (several) problems with 915mm height floors is that they have to be significantly narrower at floor level compared to waist level. Not so much a problem on a fully seated train like the FLIRT's, but a much bigger problem with the 345's where a significant amount of passengers are expected to stand. Even more of a problem when you want to maximise luggage storage and can't get it to the walls at floor level.

Class 777s are 960mm floor height and don't appear from images to have an interior with particularly narrow walk-through sections. I'd personally go for 960mm + gap Fillers as the new standard for all UK trains.

 

[Crithylum]

One of the (several) problems with 915mm height floors is that they have to be significantly narrower at floor level compared to waist level. Not so much a problem on a fully seated train like the FLIRT's, but a much bigger problem with the 345's where a significant amount of passengers are expected to stand. Even more of a problem when you want to maximise luggage storage and can't get it to the walls at floor level.

I don’t think it would be any worse on a 345. The longitudinal seating is probably more compatible than transverse seating. The only potential limitation would be the doors, however feet take up a smaller footprint than bodies, in addition to leaning on doors being discouraged.

However the Stadler approach of moving stuff from beneath the floor into cabin space, and raising the floor at bogies to accommodate larger wheel diameters would both limit capacity

 

[SynthD]

Heathrow is a private station, NR don't have the power they do everywhere else. If the DfT determined it was best for Crossrail that the airport change their private property, it would be expensive. Even if the HEx ended, that would still be the case.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The Standard then in force appears to be GC/RT5161 Issue 1 (Issued 1995).

I remember that Standard all too well as I was at Thames at the time and I got into a serious row with Railtrack over stepping distances.

When we had introduced the Turbos on both Chiltern and Thames, we spent a small (NSE) fortune getting the train/platform interface at our stations as close as it could be. So when, one day, Railtrack put a sudden ban on us using a particular platform, I went ballistic. As we held the passenger safety case, The Railtrack account executive was tasked with telling us, station by station, platform by platform, the measurements along their whole length. To his credit, we got the figures.

It became obvious that RT were now not maintaining the interface and the vertical stepping distances were starting to rise. RT instantly stopped trying to ban us elsewhere in the Thames Valley but, because of the RT contract with its maintainers, it wasn’t prepared to insist on putting it right except when it got too serious. We had to carry the risk.

As I recall, Ealing Broadway was all over the place and don’t forget a pre RHM Turbo had quite a low stepboard. 1100mm floor level for a 345 and I can well imagine it would have been quite a “launch” to get out of the vehicle at certain points of the platform if, in theory, they had been operating then and I suspect the issue hasn’t really been put right since my Thames days - effectively the track may well “too high” for the platform structure.

 

[Haywain]

I don’t think it would be any worse on a 345. The longitudinal seating is probably more compatible than transverse seating. The only potential limitation would be the doors, however feet take up a smaller footprint than bodies, in addition to leaning on doors being discouraged.

However the Stadler approach of moving stuff from beneath the floor into cabin space, and raising the floor at bogies to accommodate larger wheel diameters would both limit capacity

Another issue with the low floor Stadler trains (which I very much llike) is thst there has to be varying floor height through the trains, so they are less accessible and slightly more prone to accidents for passengers. I do not think they would be well suited to a London metro operation.

 

[Benjwri]

Worth noting shaving platform height off is significantly more expensive. The typical approach is to add platform height by effectively creating a long ramp up, therefore avoiding having to change door, lift, escalator heights that are far away.

However this is frowned upon in reverse as it will cause things like pushchairs to roll onto the tracks. This will be a particular issue at Heathrow with wheeled suitcases.

 

[boiledbeans2]

I was at Ealing Broadway today and took a close look at the gap.

In terms of width, it seems pretty normal. In terms of height, I can understand the concern, as the train is on a cant and tilted away from the platform. However, Clapham Junction and Lewisham are still significantly worse than Ealing Broadway.

I think what compounds the Ealing Broadway problem is that the gap is right next to the staircase/lift, so there are a lot of people in that area, including the less mobile. This is also where the latecomers board, running down the staircase and into the train. Therefore, this becomes an area with a high probability of accidents.

In contrast, at Lewisham and Clapham Junction, the areas with wide gaps are some distance away from the entrances/exits. So these parts of the platforms is less likely to be used by the less mobile or latecomers.

Maybe a simple solution to Ealing Broadway is to install a barrier on the platform in the position of the train doors?
Like Liverpool Street station, Central Line platforms: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2440/3551393041_bcab613b50.jpg
Or like Waterloo station, Bakerloo Line platforms https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca8...Q.5OmzMYfrIEK2mZ08MPPeeSRz0WHK0HKlEQK2b-xFRcI

The barriers discourage people from standing/waiting in that area - so it will push people to use other doors.

Alternatively, extend the useless* footbridge on the east end of the station so that it connects the Elizabeth line platforms with LU platforms. Therefore, people changing between LU and Elizabeth would use the footbridge, avoiding the main entrance/exit staircase which is next to the large gap.

*useless because it connects the fast and slow NR platforms, and no fast trains stop there during normal times.

 

[Horizon22]

I think what compounds the Ealing Broadway problem is that the gap is right next to the staircase/lift, so there are a lot of people in that area, including the less mobile. This is also where the latecomers board, running down the staircase and into the train. Therefore, this becomes an area with a high probability of accidents.

You are correct; it is a double whammy; the infrastructure (cant, gap & height) increases the risk which is then compounded by the exact location and typical behaviour (late running & less mobile passengers due to the proximity to the lift & stairs).

Towards the front of the train is a much smaller gap.

 

[Taunton]

Needed to change on the Liz last week, so did so at Ealing Broadway to look at the issue.

Firstly, it now seems flooded with staff, three on each platform. Not particularly apparent to me (or them it seems) what they are meant to do. One on the Down side had however taken to barking incessant PA messages about being being behind the yellow line "at all times" whenever they saw any transgression, and was glowering down for further recipients. This didn't seem to have penetrated another of the staff, storming along towards me on the platform just at the narrowest point there and causing me to have to step out of their way across the line - whereupon I instantly got one of these shouted reprimands as well.

The PTI issue is apparently on the Up side, went over there, didn't particularly seem an issue _ I would say no different to Slough Up side. Wasn't apparent whether it was more a boarding or alighting issue.

There was however a very elderly old gentleman, with walking stick, who alighted from the rear of an Up train, and started to walk on his own very slowly and quite unsteadily forward towards the exit. This was of no consequence to two of the platform staff there, who were engaged deep in conversation, while the third did the dispatch. It would have been nice if they would have gone to assist the old chap as the 345 accelerated away just a few feet from him, or even help him to the lift, but there we go.

I went back onto the Down side, noticing the apparently humorous conversation across the tracks was still in progress. I did think about asking the yellow line barker if I could borrow their microphone to make a station announcement that all staff should pay attention to their responsibilities. "At all times".