Should island platforms be removed ?

[Halifaxlad]

Obviously subject to feasibility, but should island platforms be removed ?

Im not talking about all island platforms but those which form single platform stations with services in either direction!

I was looking at the thread on Wigan to Bolton electrification, in particular the photos on Ince station.

Im already aware that we have several island platforms on the national rail network like Ince, where..

a) it prohibits level access

b) makes it difficult to provide level access

c) the cost to provides steps or lifts wouldn't be favourable

Others include..

Thirsk, Seamer, Billingham

Im suprised Ince wasn't rebuilt prior to electrification as it would have removed the need to construct this new footbridge, which still doesn't have a lift. To me the sensible thing would be to rebuild these stations prior to upgrade works so that the platforms are upon either side of the running lines, thereby opening access up for everybody whilst simplifying track through stations.

 

[30907]

Thirsk, Seamer,

Both have (supervised) level access, and Thirsk doesn't fit your category.

To me the sensible thing would be to rebuild these stations prior to upgrade works so that the platforms are upon either side of the running lines, thereby opening access up for everybody whilst simplifying track through stations.

You wouldn't normally move the track, adds complication and cost

It depends on local geography, surely (not to mention relative costs) - is there room for two long ramps if the station is not at ground level? And as a newbie wheelchair-pusher I rather prefer lifts anyway (so long as they work!)

 

[The Planner]

Obviously subject to feasibility, but should island platforms be removed ?

Im not talking about all island platforms but those which form single platform stations with services in either direction!

I was looking at the thread on Wigan to Bolton electrification, in particular the photos on Ince station.

Im already aware that we have several island platforms on the national rail network like Ince, where..

a) it prohibits level access

b) makes it difficult to provide level access

c) the cost to provides steps or lifts wouldn't be favourable

Others include..

Thirsk, Seamer, Billingham

Im suprised Ince wasn't rebuilt prior to electrification as it would have removed the need to construct this new footbridge, which still doesn't have a lift. To me the sensible thing would be to rebuild these stations prior to upgrade works so that the platforms are upon either side of the running lines, thereby opening access up for everybody whilst simplifying track through stations.

Surely an Island platform needs just the one lift, so it saves cost?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Both have (supervised) level access, and Thirsk doesn't fit your category.

The aspired network for all users in the UK is one where you can turn up and go without requiring assistance!

No need to get uptitty about Thirsk as I never said this applies to all island platform stations! Pretty sure Thirsk would come under C anyway.

As for being 'supervised' that doesn't really mitigate the fact that something needs doing, the ECML is a high speed line. There is common concensus in Network Rail that crossings ought to be closed and avoided where possible and that is on pretty much most lines not just ones with a maximum speed of 125mph.

Surely an Island platform needs just the one lift, so it saves cost?

A good point, provided you could fit one in although still ramps or just paths are much cheaper to maintain than lifts and dont break down. Many accessible users do rather prefer ramps for this very reason.

 

[Grimsby town]

Obviously subject to feasibility, but should island platforms be removed ?

Im not talking about all island platforms but those which form single platform stations with services in either direction!

I was looking at the thread on Wigan to Bolton electrification, in particular the photos on Ince station.

Im already aware that we have several island platforms on the national rail network like Ince, where..

a) it prohibits level access

b) makes it difficult to provide level access

c) the cost to provides steps or lifts wouldn't be favourable

Others include..

Thirsk, Seamer, Billingham

Im suprised Ince wasn't rebuilt prior to electrification as it would have removed the need to construct this new footbridge, which still doesn't have a lift. To me the sensible thing would be to rebuild these stations prior to upgrade works so that the platforms are upon either side of the running lines, thereby opening access up for everybody whilst simplifying track through stations.

Seamer is used for interchanges for people travelling from Bridlington/Filey to York and onwards. An island platform is obviously easier for interchanging. I really don't think island platforms an issue from an accessibility point of view. Sure if some are overly curved it might be an issue, in terms of gap between the train and the platforms, but surely straightening them is a better option than a complete rebuild.

As somebody who's been around and surveyed rail stations for accessibility requirements, there's a lot of issues at non-island platforms too. Quite often platforms are accessed by ramps that are nowhere near disability compliant gradients and therefore would need a lift anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

A good point, provided you could fit one in although still ramps or just paths are much cheaper to maintain than lifts and dont break down. Many accessible users do rather prefer ramps for this very reason.

Then again, an island platform only needs a single ramp!

 

[Halifaxlad]

Seamer is used for interchanges for people travelling from Bridlington/Filey to York and onwards. An island platform is obviously easier for interchanging. I really don't think island platforms an issue from an accessibility point of view. Sure if some are overly curved it might be an issue, in terms of gap between the train and the platforms, but surely straightening them is a better option than a complete rebuild.

As somebody who's been around and surveyed rail stations for accessibility requirements, there's a lot of issues at non-island platforms too. Quite often platforms are accessed by ramps that are nowhere near disability compliant gradients and therefore would need a lift anyway.

Island platforms are an issue at stations such as Ince which arn't accessible because its an island as it would be accessible if it wasn't!

Im not interested in meeting standards what Im interested in is making stations accessible in the best possible way. Northallerton ramps were taken out to put in stairs so now everyone with a pram, buggy or wheelchair has to rely on a lift!

Then again, an island platform only needs a single ramp!

Then again thats dependant on having room for a ramp. Your comment made me chuckle btw.

 

[deltic]

I would suggest island platforms are preferable - all services only need to be provided once eg toilets, waiting rooms, retail and they are on the platform you are on. The platform is used by more people improving feeling of safety for many. Way finding on and off the station is often easier. Accessibility can be provided by ramps or lift.

 

[aaronspence]

Surely an Island platform needs just the one lift, so it saves cost?

Depends on the island platform I guess, my nearest station is an island platform and you have to go up, over the first track, then down again to access it, so that would be 2 lifts if it was level access (which it isnt yet).

 

[EyeKay]

It really depends on the local geography. There are many stations where the only access is from an overbridge. So an island platform requires less infrastructure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2024 ==

Ultimately, remodelling stations is expensive. In effect a new station is being built which based on recent examples is likely to be over £10 million

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2024 ==

There are cheaper ways to make stations accessible.

 

[Grimsby town]

Island platforms are an issue at stations such as Ince which arn't accessible because its an island as it would be accessible if it wasn't!

Im not interested in meeting standards what Im interested in is making stations accessible in the best possible way. Northallerton ramps were taken out to put in stairs so now everyone with a pram, buggy or wheelchair has to rely on a lift!

What are the standards for if not to meet accessibility in the best way?

Looking at Ince on street view at least one single faced platform would have to connect into the overbridge which would require a ramp or lift anyway.

Its going to be quite geography specific. Aren't stations that are currently single face being rebuilt as island platforms for TRU? That doesn't suggest they're an issues for accessibility.

 

[JonathanH]

It really depends on the local geography. There are many stations where the only access is from an overbridge. So an island platform requires less infrastructure.

Ultimately, remodelling stations is expensive. In effect a new station is being built which based on recent examples is likely to be over £10 million

There are cheaper ways to make stations accessible.

If we were to take North Sheen as our example of an inaccessible island platform, I suspect it would be easier to close it and direct passengers to Richmond and Mortlake than to ever make it accessible given the limited amount of space available.