Why new UK trains are not made level boarding

[hkstudent]

When having a look at continental European trains especially German and the Lowland countries, trains from 10 years old are already made to level platform boarding.

However, apart from GA local trains, there are not a single train even TL trains are made platform level, which cause high dwell times when having ramp access required. Which in stations like London Bridge / Manchester Piccadilly plat is 13-14 which has tight dwell time would cause massive delays.

What are the reason why DfT just decide not to have it?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What are the reason why DfT just decide not to have it?

Because it'd cost more. (there's probably more reasons too)

 

[Bletchleyite]

One possible reason in the case of the GA 720s is that the floor has to be considerably narrower at 960mm than at higher than that. This means 3+2 seating isn't feasible.

But that aside, I think it's just conservatism, and it really needs dealing with.

 

[hkstudent]

One possible reason in the case of the GA 720s is that the floor has to be considerably narrower at 960mm than at higher than that. This means 3+2 seating isn't feasible.

But that aside, I think it's just conservatism, and it really needs dealing with.

Given that more people are having accessibility needs or baggage carrying needs, that’s not gonna be sustainable

 

[SargeNpton]

When having a look at continental European trains especially German and the Lowland countries, trains from 10 years old are already made to level platform boarding.

However, apart from GA local trains, there are not a single train even TL trains are made platform level, which cause high dwell times when having ramp access required. Which in stations like London Bridge / Manchester Piccadilly plat is 13-14 which has tight dwell time would cause massive delays.

What are the reason why DfT just decide not to have it?

Level boarding throughout GB will only be practical if you rebuild every single platform to the same height.

This has been discussed in various other threads here in the past so if you do a search you will find the reasons why it is very difficult to acheive.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

One possible reason in the case of the GA 720s is that the floor has to be considerably narrower at 960mm than at higher than that. This means 3+2 seating isn't feasible.

I think you mean the 745/755's!

The main problem is the standard platform height is different to standard floor height (940mm vs 1100mm). Whilst it would be more expensive, the best overall long-term option would be to adapt platforms up to the standard platform height. The platforms at Heathrow are very good examples of this. Stadler gap fillers could then additionally be used, as required.

It also seems outlandishly stupid that new stations aren't built to this new height of 1100mm (unless you are Crossrail or HS2)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2023 ==

Platforms in general are also too low, particularly in the US and continental Europe

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you mean the 745/755's!

No, I meant the 720s, i.e. it would not be possible to do a 3+2 layout like the 720 in the narrower floorspace you get in a low floor unit like a 745/755.

The main problem is the standard platform height is different to standard floor height (940mm vs 1100mm). Whilst it would be more expensive, the best overall long-term option would be to adapt platforms up to the standard platform height. The platforms at Heathrow are very good examples of this. Stadler gap fillers could then additionally be used, as required.

It also seems outlandishly stupid that new stations aren't built to this new height of 1100mm (unless you are Crossrail or HS2)

You can't do this because it would exclude the use of existing rolling stock including freight because the platform would impinge on the loading gauge. It can only be done (and so only has been done) at stations where only dedicated rolling stock operates, such as the Lizzie and the central London Thameslink stations.

To avoid this, the sensible fix for it is to order new stock with 960mm floors* and give up on 3+2 as a bad idea.

* I believe platform height is 915mm, but you need a small step to allow for space to make the folding step mechanism, you can't go totally flat, so all the FLIRTs are 960mm floor.

 

[RailWonderer]

When having a look at continental European trains especially German and the Lowland countries, trains from 10 years old are already made to level platform boarding.

However, apart from GA local trains, there are not a single train even TL trains are made platform level, which cause high dwell times when having ramp access required. Which in stations like London Bridge / Manchester Piccadilly plat is 13-14 which has tight dwell time would cause massive delays.

What are the reason why DfT just decide not to have it?

TfW has Stadler class 231s and 756s on their Valley lines entering service. Many 231s are already running, all with level boarding. in addition to GA's Stadler fleet. Most manufacturers don't have a level boarding product ready and would charge a premium to adapt an existing product to UK gauges which no one has been willing to pay so far. That said the Heathow Express had level boarding at Paddington and Heathrow terminals with it's old 332 stock.

 

[30907]

As a matter of interest, what other European manufacturers offer true level boarding (as opposed to having compatible platform heights)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a matter of interest, what other European manufacturers offer true level boarding (as opposed to having compatible platform heights)?

All of them. Low floor and sliding steps are the norm for regional units throughout Europe now.

 

[30907]

All of them. Low floor and sliding steps are the norm for regional units throughout Europe now.

I must get out more, obviously!
It helps that the European loading gauge has a flat profile almost down to rail level, and a choice of standardised platform heights when renewals are done.

 

[Snow1964]

All of them. Low floor and sliding steps are the norm for regional units throughout Europe now.

This is a photo I took in November, it is an ETR 104 unit stabled in loop platform at Fasano, Southern Italy. Didn't take a picture of sliding floor when doors are open, but note how the platforms have been rebuilt to a set height so that train floor is level boarding. On these units only centre of carriage gives level boarding, the gangways have a ramp to higher floor section over bogies. The 2+2 seating over bogies is on raised level flat floors bit like at back of most buses. Notice how the windows are lower in the centre section where floor is lower

 

[stuu]

No, I meant the 720s, i.e. it would not be possible to do a 3+2 layout like the 720 in the narrower floorspace you get in a low floor unit like a 74You can't do this because it would exclude the use of existing rolling stock including freight because the platform would impinge on the loading gauge. It can only be done (and so only has been done) at stations where only dedicated rolling stock operates, such as the Lizzie and the central London Thameslink stations.

Why? I may be missing something but the structure gauge is vertical above nominal platform height. A platform can be any height as long as it doesn't foul the structure gauge, just fit it with steps as per the 345s or retractable ones as Stadler have used

 

[bib]

It'd be a pretty huge job to rebuild every platform and train in the UK to the same height, and even then you'd have residual issues with curved platforms/cant etc, albeit sliding steps /ramps could help up to a certain point. I saw this in one of Gareth Dennis's youtube videos showing the actual platform locations in the UK vs the 'standard' positions.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2023 ==

I'm pretty sure it must be difficult to achieve with 915mm ARL platforms otherwise you'd think that multi-billion £ projects such as HS2, crossrail, thameslink would have just done it, rather than going with 1100mm humps etc. Obviously it is possible as there are trains that exist but I guess it must require various compromises in other aspects of the train design that might be undersirable. Eg it might require articulation, ramped floors, narrower floors. A lower floor reduces the space for underfloor equipment so maybe that rules out underfloor engines and DMUs, might cause issues with space for transformers and batteries if you want a BEMU. I think there's also an idea that you want the floor to be higher than the platform, maybe so you can always fall out of the train if it catchs fire or something, or maybe just for sensible gauging, not sure if that's actually a rule though.

Some previous discussion on HS2 floor heights - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/uk-platform-height-question.149756/ -
And a fairly detailed PTI document from HS2, although specific to high speed rail - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ... Train Interface PTI.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_platform_height - it looks like most new railways in Asia have platfroms >1100mm high , presumably to help with level boarding.

 

[stevieinselby]

Level boarding throughout GB will only be practical if you rebuild every single platform to the same height.

This has been discussed in various other threads here in the past so if you do a search you will find the reasons why it is very difficult to acheive.

Realistically, new train fleets take some time to introduce, and we aren't going to be replacing existing fleets until they have reached the end of their useful life. A phased approach would allow any platform alterations needed to ensure they were at the same level as the trains to be completed at the appropriate time.

How much work has been needed to get the Anglia, Merseyrail and TFW stations ready for the Stadlers? Why couldn't that be replicated on other parts of the network? Sure, we are not going to get to 100% immediately, maybe not ever, but we could and should be doing a hell of a lot more than we are.