Solutions for wheelchair access to trains

[Haywain]

things like lifts and level access to all platforms on new-builds means that some new stations that would have been intensely useful to the majority of potential passengers living locally simply become unaffordable.

Whilst this is true, I think there also needs to be more consideration of what is reasonably affordable to provide the appropriate access - it does seem that sometimes lifts are built when ramps might be a suitable alternative

 

[OneOfThe48]

Both of which are the case in the TGT incident.

This is very true

I doubt LNER will release the details of what went wrong in the TGT case, unless TGT herself chooses to share the details, but as both the train and station have staff, I suspect it was a mix of bad processes (like the train staff seeming to not have any responsibility after they arrived at KGX) and cock-up by station staff.

Staff cock-ups will happen as humans are not infallible, but having the station / train staffed are prerequisites to providing station <> train accessibility.

Once you have that it’s about trying to refine how it works in practice with training and monitoring to make sure the staff are doing it properly.

 

[Pigeon]

Hinge the doors at the bottom edge.

 

[Crithylum]

Hinge the doors at the bottom edge.

Apart from people getting whacked in the shins, this could actually be a good idea if the bottom portion of the door hinged into a ramp. Although I am unsure how this compares to low floors in terms of complexity

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Apart from people getting whacked in the shins, this could actually be a good idea if the bottom portion of the door hinged into a ramp.

That should be fine if the bottom part of the door opened slowly and with a warning noise. Might need the ORR to become a bit more sensible about safety regulations, but in practice it's not going to be unsafe. You'd probably want the top part of the doors to open last and close first, otherwise someone will probably try jumping out over the opening ramp.

An alternative might be a 'normal' full length door together with a ramp that in the vertical position is just on the inside of the door and opens out as soon as the door is open. More technically complex could be a ramp that sits horizontally just under the floor, and slides horizontally out before hinging down. If done that way, then it could be manually controlled by pressing a button, so it doesn't open automatically - only when required.

Although I am unsure how this compares to low floors in terms of complexity

I'd expect it to be a lot less complex than low floors on trains because you wouldn't have to worry about the problem of the low-floor carriage fouling against a platform. I think the main practical issue is that it makes the door more complex compared to a 'normal' door and therefore more prone to failure. It also has the slight extra benefit that if the ramp means that the 'disabled' door opens a bit more slowly than all the other doors, then that acts as a slight disincentive to people who don't need that space from occupying it.

Sounds to me like the kind of idea that is actually very sensible, but won't happen because the safety people will dream up all sorts of weird and implausible situations in which it might be unsafe and ban it on that basis (although in practice it actually would be quite safe).

 

[Haywain]

this could actually be a good idea if the bottom portion of the door hinged into a ramp

This is an idea that fails to take into account how long ramps need to be.

 

[BrianW]

Hinge the doors at the bottom edge.

This is the kind of 'outside the box' thinking that might generate, after however many iterations, a really goof good solution or mitigation.

it's a big enough issue to warrant the attention of (part of?) a small dedocated team.

BTW- I commend the differently-abled Tom Shakespeare on Radio4 speaking of his train experiences, including praise for his trip to Norwich: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0022cq9

 

[Haywain]

This is the kind of 'outside the box' thinking that might generate, after however many iterations, a really goof good solution or mitigation.

The problem with a built in ramp pf any sort is that it still requires a member of staff to assist, and at the same time becomes something else that can go wrong.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem with a built in ramp pf any sort is that it still requires a member of staff to assist, and at the same time becomes something else that can go wrong.

I can understand why you'd need someone to assist getting on the train: The wheelchair would need to go up the ramp and unless it's an electric wheelchair with enough power to get up a ramp, someone is going to have to push it up. But what would stop a wheelchair user getting off the train by going down the ramp unassisted, assuming only that they are able to control their wheelchair?

 

[Haywain]

. But what would stop a wheelchair user getting off the train by going down the ramp unassisted, assuming only that they are able to control their wheelchair?

The fact that they may fail to control it

 

[SynthD]

Hinge the doors at the bottom edge.

The ramps put in place by staff are about the height of the door. We can’t have doors, even one per train, fully open from the bottom hinge, even if this is the only way to provide a shallow ramp. It negatively affects a lot of other not-100% or unaware users. It needs at least 5m wide platforms, I'd be surprised if it was allowed on islands at all.

The will to be seen to be doing something is dangerous, and has easily led to problems being made worse.

Asking the driver to leave the cab may work on an infrequent rural line, but not any mainline or popular urban area.

 

[stadler]

Surely a simple manual fold out ramp just like what almost all buses outside of London have could be installed on our trains. This is such a simple thing to install and requires no electrics or anything. It is just a manual fold out ramp. The bonus of this is that it could even be operated by a carer or fellow passenger if staff were unavailable as all you do is simply fold it out.

Russia has installed them on a lot of their newer suburban trains and newer regional trains:



So i am sure something like this would be easy to install on our trains.

Although i think the best option in the long term is raising platforms to enable level boarding like at the Elizabeth Line core and East London Line core and Thameslink core and Heathrow stations.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The fact that they may fail to control it

That logic could apply anywhere in any station or on any train: What if a wheelchair user travelling along the platform fails to control their wheelchair, for example? It leads to the absurd conclusion that you should not allow any unaccompanied wheelchair user anywhere on the railway, just in case they can't control their wheelchair. I think in the end if you want to have a workable transport system, you have trust passengers to some extent.

 

[JLH4AC]

Surely a simple manual fold out ramp just like what almost all buses outside of London have could be installed on our trains. This is such a simple thing to install and requires no electrics or anything. It is just a manual fold out ramp. The bonus of this is that it could even be operated by a carer or fellow passenger if staff were unavailable as all you do is simply fold it out.

Russia has installed them on a lot of their newer suburban trains and newer regional trains:

A ramp short enough to be mounted on most current UK trains would be way too steep to use without assistance meaning that ORR would be unlikely to sign off on it being put on trains let alone being operated by the public. The fixed Russian Wheelchair ramps are only able to be a workable situation due to the Russian trains being much wider and their standard for high-level platform height being more closely aligned to the de facto standard for Russian train floor heights yet their use is limited to the relatively few platforms as many stations in Russia only have low-level platforms requiring people to climb steps to board the train. Due to the various train floor heights and a fair number of their high-level platforms being out of spec due to wear and lax standard enforcement, the ramps are often at vastly different angles this lack of consistency can be dangerous, especially to disabled people with additional disabilities.

simple manual fold out ramp
Although i think the best option in the long term is raising platforms to enable level boarding like at the Elizabeth Line core and East London Line core and Thameslink core and Heathrow stations.

The actual best option in the long term is what Merseyrail has done raising and lowering platforms as needed to the 915mm GB standard and buying more Stadler units (Unless Alstom releases a multiple unit family that has the correct floor height.). Rasing platforms as the Elizabeth Line core did increases the horizontal offset required to allow trains especially freight trains to pass thus increasing the horizontal gap between the train and the platform.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think a lot of people here are overcomplicating things. Really, all that needs to happen is two things:

- A programme to bring platforms to the existing UK platform standard (915mm), and provide level access to these platforms (via e.g. ramps, lifts depending on situation)
- All new rolling stock should be required to offer level boarding with gap fillers, as classes 231,745,755,756,777 already do. At least 3 manufacturers (Stadler, CAF, Siemens) are capable of delivering this, and the rest could do it for future designs. All manufacturers in mainland Europe offer this, it.

Automatic ramps aren't going to be retrofitted to existing stock anyway, and for new stock going straight for level boarding makes more sense, as it benefits everyone, people with mobility needs, people with baby strollers, people with a lot of luggage, etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think a lot of people here are overcomplicating things. Really, all that needs to happen is two things:

- A programme to bring platforms to the existing UK platform standard (915mm), and provide level access to these platforms (via e.g. ramps, lifts depending on situation)

How many platforms across the country are we talking about? How is raising or lowering them going to work where platforms have buildings on them, or access to ticket offices etc.? How long does a platform have to be closed for so the work can be carried out? How much would it cost?

I agree that in principle having one single uniform platform height across the entire country is a very good idea (although I guess HS2 is already putting paid to that one), but that seems an incredibly long term aspiration. To my mind that errs a bit towards saying, a lot of people are overcomplicating things. Really, all that needs to happen is that we demolish the railway network and rebuild it again from scratch to modern standards

Automatic ramps aren't going to be retrofitted to existing stock anyway, and for new stock going straight for level boarding makes more sense, as it benefits everyone, people with mobility needs, people with baby strollers, people with a lot of luggage, etc.

Existing stock presumably includes stock that has just been built and has an expected lifetime of 30-40 years. Do we want to wait that long before we do anything to the stock to improve things for disabled passengers on the lines where that stock is in use?

 

[Trainbike46]

How many platforms across the country are we talking about? How is raising or lowering them going to work where platforms have buildings on them, or access to ticket offices etc.? How long does a platform have to be closed for so the work can be carried out? How much would it cost?

I agree that in principle having one single uniform platform height across the entire country is a very good idea (although I guess HS2 is already putting paid to that one), but that seems an incredibly long term aspiration. To my mind that errs a bit towards saying, a lot of people are overcomplicating things. Really, all that needs to happen is that we demolish the railway network and rebuild it again from scratch to modern standards

I'm not saying that last bit at all - the vast majority of platforms are at or close to the standard platform height of 915mm, so the amount of work needed is limited to platforms that are really far from the standard. The only real exceptions are the thameslink core, which should be dealt with when the current thameslink trains are end of life, and the Elizabeth line core including Heathrow. HS2 is also currently using a non-standard platform height, which is a terrible idea that shouldn't have happened.

tldr; most platforms are at 915mm or very close to it

The bigger infrastructure work is providing step-free access to and from the platforms (with lifts and ramps), but that is necessary regardless.

Note how GA, merseyrail, and TfW are providing level boarding on some of their fleet without major works on platforms? that is because they offer level boarding at the existing 915mm platform height standard.

Existing stock presumably includes stock that has just been built and has an expected lifetime of 30-40 years. Do we want to wait that long before we do anything to the stock to improve things for disabled passengers on the lines where that stock is in use?

Well, ideally all units would be level-boarding tomorrow, but complicated underfloor lifts aren't going to be retrofitted either so whether you pick level boarding or complicated underfloor lifts, the units that have just been built and aren't as accessible as they should be are going to be a problem going forward.

There are things that could mitigate the impact of this, like having a guard present on every non-level-boarding train, making it easier for passengers to contact the guard, having the guard do a walk-through of the whole train at every terminus, and you know, ensuring that booked assistance actually shows up!

none of those are as good as level-boarding that allows independent entry/exit, but there isn't a way to provide that on existing stock short of extending the trains with extra coaches

 

[stadler]

Using the method of ordering low floor trains is going to take much much much longer than if we just simply raised all platforms. Most trains last in service for about 40 years (and sometimes even longer up to 50 years) before withdrawn. So considering that standard high floor trains are still being built it will take ages. Even if we specify that every train built from today onwards is low floor it will still take decades until all of the current trains are withdrawn. We are probably talking about the year 2060 or 2070 before full 100% step free access is achieved. That is like 40 years (maybe even 50 years depending how long the trains last) until we achieve 100% level boarding.

If we were to simply raise platforms (like the East London Line and Elizabeth Line and Thameslink and Heathrow examples given) then it could be done in a much shorter time frame. If the government actually bothered to put in the effort and money then every station could probably be done within five years. So if the money was put in to it we could probably raise every platform at every station in the UK by 2030 and have full level boarding by then.

This seems like a no brainer to me. Simply raising the platforms can be done in less than quarter of the time it would take until all trains get replaced. So this is why i think the raising platforms method is far better.

I also think one of the best things about British rolling stock is the flat low floor all throughout. This makes accessibility onboard the train great and you have a nice level floor throughout. On the new low floor trains like the 745s and 755s you have all these ramps and the ends of carriages and these steps going up to seats. So it would be a shame to completely get rid of trains that have a flat floor throughout.

Also i am not sure why raising platforms would increase the horizontal gap as mentioned. If freight trains can pass the platforms at their current height then surely it would be no different if the platforms were raised as it is still the same freight trains. What is different about freight trains compared to passenger trains.

 

[Trainbike46]

Using the method of ordering low floor trains is going to take much much much longer than if we just simply raised all platforms.

except that isn't possible without impeding on the loading gauge. This can be fine for routes where only specific classes of passenger trains go, like the Elizabeth line core, but is a disaster on most of the rail network, where a wide range of different classes and freight operate.

If you raise the platform, you have to move it further backwards to stay outside the loading gauge. So doing that reduces the vertical gap, but increases the horizontal one.

 

[stadler]

except that isn't possible without impeding on the loading gauge. This can be fine for routes where only specific classes of passenger trains go, like the Elizabeth line core, but is a disaster on most of the rail network, where a wide range of different classes and freight operate.

If you raise the platform, you have to move it further backwards to stay outside the loading gauge. So doing that reduces the vertical gap, but increases the horizontal one.

In that case surely existing trains could be fitted with a simple manual fold out ramp to cover the larger gap. This would only have to be a very small short one (so not a long one like a bus ramp) to cover the gap so would certainly be possible to install. Then for all new trains they could be fitted with an automatic gap filler. Also i am sure there are some lines where only trains of the same loading gauge are used where you could achieve level boarding without the wider gap. Of course in future specifying all trains to have the same loading gauge would work best to avoid any of this.

 

[SynthD]

How do you tell Heathrow to change their platforms in a way that survives judicial review? It didn’t happen before they rebuilt Ealing, so I don’t think it will happen soon.

 

[Haywain]

Simply raising the platforms can be done in less than quarter of the time it would take until all trains get replaced.

But it's not simply raising the platforms - there are buildings, stairways, lifts, signage, ticket barriers and goodness knows what else that are built according to the level of the platform.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2024 ==

That logic could apply anywhere in any station or on any train: What if a wheelchair user travelling along the platform fails to control their wheelchair, for example? It leads to the absurd conclusion that you should not allow any unaccompanied wheelchair user anywhere on the railway, just in case they can't control their wheelchair. I think in the end if you want to have a workable transport system, you have trust passengers to some extent.

But we are talking about control on a ramp that is, for a wheelchair user, at a steep angle and they are going down. A loss of control could lead to them falling off the ramp or hitting the platform at the bottom of the ramp and the wheels catching and throwing them out. There's a reason wheelchairs are taken off trains backwards...

 

[Falcon1200]

provide level access to these platforms (via e.g. ramps, lifts depending on situation)

The bigger infrastructure work is providing step-free access to and from the platforms (with lifts and ramps), but that is necessary regardless.

Necessary but unaffordable; As I have mentioned here before, of the 9 intermediate stations on my local line between Glasgow Central and Neilston, 5 have no step-free access to the platforms. In one case, Crosshill, providing step-free access would be incredibly difficult. And that is just on one line (and we have not mentioned the London Underground network either, so far!)

 

[JLH4AC]

Also i am not sure why raising platforms would increase the horizontal gap as mentioned. If freight trains can pass the platforms at their current height then surely it would be no different if the platforms were raised as it is still the same freight trains. What is different about freight trains compared to passenger trains.

GB loading gauge allows rolling stock to protrudes about a metre above the railhead. It more an issue for freight trains because vehicles moving at speed need more clearance and Intermodal containers are an set size which can't be changed to fit within the loading gauge.

How do you tell Heathrow to change their platforms in a way that survives judicial review? It didn’t happen before they rebuilt Ealing, so I don’t think it will happen soon.

It has long been establish that the government and parliament can impose requirements to make non-compliant systems, structures and vehicles compliant to the latest standards, that why the pacers are no long in service and why refurbishment to public buildings are generally expected to include high-quality disabled access.

 

[jupiter]

Lower the track.

 

[stadler]

Lower the track.

Actually that is a very good idea. I had never thought about that until you mentioned it. This has been done at a few bridges and tunnels when overhead wires have been installed. Lowering the trackbed might work out cheaper and simpler than raising the platforms.

 

[Ken H]

What about stations which are on a curve with other trains pass at speed, an the rails are canted? On the outside of the curve you get a big gap and a gradient across the train. Doors in the middle of vehicles are badly affected.

 

[Trainbike46]

In that case surely existing trains could be fitted with a simple manual fold out ramp to cover the larger gap. This would only have to be a very small short one (so not a long one like a bus ramp) to cover the gap so would certainly be possible to install. Then for all new trains they could be fitted with an automatic gap filler. Also i am sure there are some lines where only trains of the same loading gauge are used where you could achieve level boarding without the wider gap. Of course in future specifying all trains to have the same loading gauge would work best to avoid any of this.

So you're proposing changing almost every platform in the country, changing every single train, and changing the loading gauge, and you're saying that's impler than replacing the trains with trains that offer level-boarding at the existing platform height???

Lower the track.

Actually that is a very good idea. I had never thought about that until you mentioned it. This has been done at a few bridges and tunnels when overhead wires have been installed. Lowering the trackbed might work out cheaper and simpler than raising the platforms.

You'll still run into the same problems of the platform fouling the loading gauge

What about stations which are on a curve with other trains pass at speed, an the rails are canted? On the outside of the curve you get a big gap and a gradient across the train. Doors in the middle of vehicles are badly affected.

I have never experienced cant at a platform in the UK, but then I haven't been everywhere. In the Netherlands, Sliedrecht Baanhoek is in a curve and the track is canted alongside the platform, which is an odd experience

 

[Pigeon]

Some geometry: The standard maximum gradient for accessibility is 10 degrees. Say the ramp is 2m long (which seems to be roughly how long the yellow ones the staff put in place are). At a 10 degree angle this gives a height difference of 35cm. The standard platform height of 915mm is only 20cm below the standard/recommended/whatever train floor height of 1115mm, so we've got buckets of margin there.

But at that same 10 degree angle the 2m ramp still sticks out 1.97m from the side of the train. The minimum allowed width for a single platform is 3m/2.5m/2m depending on line speed and layout. So there is already an incompatibility between the existing accessibility measures and the platform widths that might be encountered - you might not have room to get your wheelchair off the end of the ramp anyway. This problem needs to be addressed whether the ramps are automatic or not.

Less geometry: Even in the ideal case of all platforms and all train floors being at the same, equal, standard height, some kind of bridging device will always be necessary. The tolerance in the lateral positioning of the train when it stops at the platform is too great to be sure of guaranteeing a small enough gap that the narrow castor wheels on the front of wheelchairs can't end up twiddling sideways and falling down the crack.

Not geometry: The discussion seems to assume that it's all about people in "standard" manual wheelchairs that you scoot along with your hands on the rims of the wheels. I would venture to suggest that if someone using one of these contraptions has managed to get all the way to the station and onto the platform in the first place, chances are they've either got someone else with them to push it already, or else they've got pretty strong arms and are quite accustomed to using and controlling their wheelchair on gradients that go on for a lot longer than 2 metres. Not all, of course, but many.

These days scoot-along wheelchairs are going the way of the steam locomotive anyway. Ones with batteries and motors are much cheaper and more widely available than in days of yore, and people tend to go for them because why wouldn't you. And there are even more people who use electric mobility scooters to get about the place. (For which reason it is also a useful facility to have 240V sockets in the disabled area so you can bring your charger with you and top up your batteries.)

There will always be some point at which accessibility measures cease to be sufficient for some people's impairments and make assistance necessary. But the value of being able to deal with locomoting yourself on your own without needing to call for help is tremendous, and it would certainly be worth including mobility scooter users, electric wheelchair users, and most manual wheelchair users among the people who can get themselves on and off a train without needing railway staff to come and help them, even if it isn't possible to include all manual wheelchair users.

(Note that I find the railway staff to be extremely helpful; no complaint about them, it's just the need to call for them instead of being able to do it independently which is a bummer.)

 

[Ken H]

I used Manchester Metrolink back in the mid 1990's. They had put in short lengths of 'sleeper' with a pandrol clip and baseplate to fasten it to the rails. The end butted against the platform structure at rail level so the rail vehicles were correctly positioned so no big gap. On ex BR sections.

@Pigeon talks about heavy battery wheelchairs on trains. T&W metro had an incident where someone drove one onto a metrocar, failed to stop and smashed into the doors on the non platform side, causing them to burst outwards. Sorry, that from memory, no source. Remember there is no licence or test to drive these wheelchairs, and no need for 3rd party insurance. Maybe thats wrong.