Train v platform heights

[YorksLad12]

Hello,

I'm between jobs, and a bit bored, so I thought I'd amend the old MetroTrain diagram in West Yorkshire to show which stations are accessible and which aren't (info in WYCA's 2024 Rail Strategy). Then I had two random thoughts about step-free access to the train, not just the platform.

Is there a list of door heights for rolling stock? They're not shown on the Wikipedia pages. I'm assuming 915mm above rail height for modern stock, but this is the railway - assume nothing.

The really 'out there' thought was; is there a public list of platform heights anywhere. I realise that rolling stock can vary, but if the same units are always used on, say, Leeds to Ilkley (currently class 333, going to be class 331) then level boarding should be possible there (with investment, of course). Going out with a steel tape and set square didn't seem a sensible way to get the answer, especially if someone else has done it.

Hopefully I'll get a job soon, and I can stop having these daft thoughts...

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Isn't the Elizabeth line core (and Heathrow) at 1100mm or something like that to be level boarding with standard trains.
I assume the 333s are at the height that the 332s used for Heathrow.

 

[plugwash]

As I understand it on the UK national rail network.

* There is a standard platform height which will presumablly be used for most new platforms, but some existing platforms vary significantly from said height.
* Rolling stock entry height also varies, but is nearly always a significant step up from standard platform height. Trains are usually designed to overhang the platform, minimising horizontal gaps.
* Portable ramps are the normal means of boarding and offloading wheelchairs.

Afaict the only examples of level boarding from platform to train on the UK mainline rail network are.

* The Stadler flirt trains used by Greater Anglia have a low floor, allowing level boarding from NR standard platform heights.
* Heathrow airport and the Elizibeth line "core" stations have taller platforms to allow level boarding with standard-ish height trains.

 

[Spartacus]

My first thought is that it wouldn't be a simple answer, as, taking somewhere relatively simple like Batley you've got different levels of curvature on either platform, and indeed along the platforms, along with the super-elevation of the track, all of which not only affect the platform but where the train doors sit un relation to it, say of the nearside rail is above or below the height of the offside rail, and getting off at the rear could give you a very different answer to getting off at the front. Then think about how the doors of stock with 1/3 & 2/3 doors sit in relation to a curved platform compared to those with end doors. Seems like a minefield of epic proportions.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Hello,

I'm between jobs, and a bit bored, so I thought I'd amend the old MetroTrain diagram in West Yorkshire to show which stations are accessible and which aren't (info in WYCA's 2024 Rail Strategy). Then I had two random thoughts about step-free access to the train, not just the platform.

<SNIP>

Hopefully I'll get a job soon, and I can stop having these daft thoughts...

Perhaps you could just annotate/amend the map with a message like "Mind the gap between the train and the platform" or "Take care when stepping to or from the train" or something?

Best wishes in the job hunt, anyway.

 

[Sorcerer]

As well as the different door layouts, curvature of platforms relating to the overhang, along with the historically non-standard platform height (sometimes even at different stations with parts adjusted for level boarding access), some of the trains also have naturally higher floors. The Pendolino of course is the prime example because it's floor height is higher than standard stock to house the tilting mechanism, hence the retractable steps. Getting a full list of the rolling stock or platform heights would be no easy feat, but maybe such a list actually exists out there somewhere.

 

[cool110]

Afaict the only examples of level boarding from platform to train on the UK mainline rail network are.

* The Stadler flirt trains used by Greater Anglia have a low floor, allowing level boarding from NR standard platform heights.
* Heathrow airport and the Elizibeth line "core" stations have taller platforms to allow level boarding with standard-ish height trains.

The Stadler Metro used by Merseyrail is also low floor.

 

[Taunton]

* Heathrow airport and the Elizabeth line "core" stations have taller platforms to allow level boarding with standard-ish height trains.

Am I correct that this means that other "standard" rolling stock cannot use the line because they would be foul of the higher platforms?

 

[zwk500]

Is there a list of door heights for rolling stock? They're not shown on the Wikipedia pages. I'm assuming 915mm above rail height for modern stock, but this is the railway - assume nothing.

Standard platform height is 915mm however this has not been explicitly specified for that long, hence the disparity.
Train floor height is usually 1,100 or thereabouts. Newer trains designed for level boarding are around the 960mm height.

The UIC standard for train wheel diameter is 920mm, I think, which is useful to bear in mind when discussing these things, and I think a standard UIC freight wagon deck height is 950mm but could be wrong

The most likely answer to 'how would you achieve fully level boarding nationally' probably involves lifting platform heights to 950mm and dropping the required floor heights. Stations higher than this such as crossrail and Hex would need to be lowered, evidently.

 

[skyhigh]

I realise that rolling stock can vary, but if the same units are always used on, say, Leeds to Ilkley (currently class 333, going to be class 331)

Unfortunately that's a poor example, as it will still see a mix of both classes. Doncaster will only require 3x 333 diagrams, and there's 16 in the fleet.

 

[Spartacus]

As well as the different door layouts, curvature of platforms relating to the overhang, along with the historically non-standard platform height (sometimes even at different stations with parts adjusted for level boarding access), some of the trains also have naturally higher floors. The Pendolino of course is the prime example because it's floor height is higher than standard stock to house the tilting mechanism, hence the retractable steps. Getting a full list of the rolling stock or platform heights would be no easy feat, but maybe such a list actually exists out there somewhere.

That's just made me remember the 802s, with different floor heights for the driving cars.

 

[Sorcerer]

That's just made me remember the 802s, with different floor heights for the driving cars.

I actually had no idea that was even a thing. Is this all Hitachi units or just the 802s specifically?

 

[Spaceship323]

Unfortunately that's a poor example, as it will still see a mix of both classes. Doncaster will only require 3x 333 diagrams, and there's 16 in the fleet.

The announcement on the trains sometimes warns of a "lower than usual" platform, Darlington is one.
The gap at Carnforth is bad, both height and horizontal distance (probably due to the cant on the curved platform).
In the Thameslink core (and maybe some other places) they use a "harrington" hump to raise the platform height where the accessible coach stops.
Edit...(sorry, quoted the wrong person)

 

[Spartacus]

I actually had no idea that was even a thing. Is this all Hitachi units or just the 802s specifically?

I've only noticed it with 802s, not travelling on others very often. my guess is those vehicles with engines have a higher floor, the driving ones are just trailers. You only really notice it if you walk through the gangway, there's a sloped floor to compensate.

 

[urbophile]

Clapham Junction is lethal.The higher-numbered platforms in particular.

 

[YorksLad12]

Perhaps you could just annotate/amend the map with a message like "Mind the gap between the train and the platform" or "Take care when stepping to or from the train" or something?

Best wishes in the job hunt, anyway.

Oh, I would have to explain what the symbols mean. It's definitely not "step free from street to seat", anywhere!
And - thanks.

Standard platform height is 915mm however this has not been explicitly specified for that long, hence the disparity.
Train floor height is usually 1,100 or thereabouts. Newer trains designed for level boarding are around the 960mm height.

The UIC standard for train wheel diameter is 920mm, I think, which is useful to bear in mind when discussing these things, and I think a standard UIC freight wagon deck height is 950mm but could be wrong

The most likely answer to 'how would you achieve fully level boarding nationally' probably involves lifting platform heights to 950mm and dropping the required floor heights. Stations higher than this such as crossrail and Hex would need to be lowered, evidently.

Thanks for this, and the other replies so far. My feeble mind thinks that the height of the platform and the doors should be the same above-rail height! Platform curvature is a whole different kettle of tea.

I do find it interesting anyway, that various organisations talk grandly about more services and new trains but you rarely hear them say they're going to invest in the train-platform interface, or proper (not just a shelter) passenger waiting facilities.

 

[Sorcerer]

I've only noticed it with 802s, not travelling on others very often. my guess is those vehicles with engines have a higher floor, the driving ones are just trailers. You only really notice it if you walk through the gangway, there's a sloped floor to compensate.

Fascinating. Perhaps it could be due to the kind of terrain the 802s have to navigate with their more powerful diesel engines. I must keep a keen eye out to notice the differing floor heights in future though.

 

[SynthD]

I do find it interesting anyway, that various organisations talk grandly about more services and new trains but you rarely hear them say they're going to invest in the train-platform interface

They stick to the imperfect norm, because it is compatible with everything. The privately built Heathrow wasn’t trying to suit anything that existed at the time.

or proper (not just a shelter) passenger waiting facilities.

It still happens, but on larger stations like Reading. Wixams (Bedfordshire) will be one of the largest brand new stations for a while, worth seeing if that has a waiting room.

 

[stuu]

Fascinating. Perhaps it could be due to the kind of terrain the 802s have to navigate with their more powerful diesel engines. I must keep a keen eye out to notice the differing floor heights in future though.

All the diesel-powered 800s have higher floors in the vehicles that have engines

 

[Sorcerer]

All the diesel-powered 800s have higher floors in the vehicles that have engines

I never would've noticed, and now I'm curious to see if the electric ones have a similar design seeing as some of them are equipped with backup diesel generators in the even of an electrical failure.

 

[stuu]

I never would've noticed, and now I'm curious to see if the electric ones have a similar design seeing as some of them are equipped with backup diesel generators in the even of an electrical failure.

I use them regularly and can't say I have ever actually noticed either. There was some mad debate on here before their introduction about how unacceptable an idea it is

 

[Taunton]

They stick to the imperfect norm, because it is compatible with everything. The privately built Heathrow wasn’t trying to suit anything that existed at the time.

So what are "level platforms" not compatible with? Why are all new and rebuilt platforms not done like this?

 

[DaveyJones]

I never would've noticed, and now I'm curious to see if the electric ones have a similar design seeing as some of them are equipped with backup diesel generators in the even of an electrical failure.

Avanti's Class 807 - fully electric, still have the ramp between the driving vehicles and the rest of the train

 

[cool110]

So what are "level platforms" not compatible with? Why are all new and rebuilt platforms not done like this?

Freight is the big one, many wagon types get wider above platform height. So they would end up smashing into taller platforms.

 

[Caersws]

Just an observation on the Cambrian line. We still have class 158s and to my knowledge none of the station platforms are level even though some like Aberdyfi have been “rectified”.

We get the usual message to please take care but it is followed by a pleasant “please take extra care when leaving us here”.

 

[Sorcerer]

I use them regularly and can't say I have ever actually noticed either. There was some mad debate on here before their introduction about how unacceptable an idea it is

It isn't the worst idea in the world, but it certainly doesn't help with progress towards a more accessible railway. It'd be hard to mandate level boarding for manufacturers if some units need higher floors on different carriages in order to accommodate the diesel engines of a bi-mode u n it.

Avanti's Class 807 - fully electric, still have the ramp between the driving vehicles and the rest of the train

Fascinating. I must ask my friend who travels by train a fair bit to look out for the difference if he hasn't noticed it already. I would've hoped that a fully electric unit was more evenly designed.

 

[plugwash]

So what are "level platforms" not compatible with? Why are all new and rebuilt platforms not done like this?

The current "normal" is that trains "hang over" the platform. This mitigates any gap between train and platform. Freight wagons also often widen out above platform site.

So if you simply raised the platforms, you would have to cut them back to allow adequate clearange. This is likely to cause horizontal gaps, which present far more danger to passengers than a step.

There is also the question of "level with what", the floor height of different passenger rolling stock is different.

On a newly built line, that is only served by newly built trains, will never see any freight services and where all trains stop at every station. These issues can be managed. For a new platform on an existing line served by a wide mix of trains, only some of which stop it's more difficult.

The low floor stadlers mitigate the gap with pop-out gap fillers. Which works for a new design of rolling stock, but isn't really an option for existing stock.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It isn't the worst idea in the world, but it certainly doesn't help with progress towards a more accessible railway. It'd be hard to mandate level boarding for manufacturers if some units need higher floors on different carriages in order to accommodate the diesel engines of a bi-mode u n it.


Fascinating. I must ask my friend who travels by train a fair bit to look out for the difference if he hasn't noticed it already. I would've hoped that a fully electric unit was more evenly designed.

They're probably all the same to avoid having different tooling, parts, etc for different bodies

 

[stuu]

It isn't the worst idea in the world, but it certainly doesn't help with progress towards a more accessible railway. It'd be hard to mandate level boarding for manufacturers if some units need higher floors on different carriages in order to accommodate the diesel engines of a bi-mode u n it.

The doors are all the same height, the floors ramp up slightly from the internal doors, so it doesn't have any effect on accessibility

 

[Sorcerer]

They're probably all the same to avoid having different tooling, parts, etc for different bodies

The doors are all the same height, the floors ramp up slightly from the internal doors, so it doesn't have any effect on accessibility

My mistake then. Thank you both for the correction.