|
|
Post by blackhorsesteve on Jan 16, 2016 19:36:41 GMT
I've often wondered why there is a vertical gap between the platform and train, which has been alleviated somewhat by the addition of humps in the central section of the platform. Using the Victoria line as an example, why, when the line was being built, was there a vertical gap between the train and the platform? Could the platforms and trains not be built at the same level for ease of access? And could the 2009 stock not have been built with a lower floor at the doors rather than adding humps to the platform, which would allow the whole train to have level access?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,386
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 17, 2016 2:26:22 GMT
Lowering the car floor at the doors would meant the trains would needs steps or slopes inside, which would reduce capacity slow down boarding/alighting and make it harder (or impossible) for people of reduced mobility to move between cars, e.g. in the event of an evacuation, and it would only work if all the platforms are the same height (they certainly aren't on the Central, I don't know about other lines). I suspect it would also make the cars more expensive.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724 
|
Post by class411 on Jan 17, 2016 15:13:41 GMT
I wondered this for many years. You'd think that someone, at the very start of the development of the railways would have decided on a platform/carriage floor height, and train makers and station builders would have stuck to it and we would all have found ingress to, and egress from, carriages a much easier and more satisfactory.
Then one day I decided to have a real think about the problem and the answer was apparent: Curved platforms!
Many stations have curved platforms. If carriage floor is at the same height as the platform, you would need a (n even bigger) gap between the carriage and the platform in order to stop the carriage hitting the platform.
By making the carriage floor higher than the platform you can have it overhanging, reducing the necessary gap on curved platforms.
At least, I think that's the answer. It's by deduction, only, I have not been able to verify it as a fact.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jan 17, 2016 18:18:53 GMT
I've often wondered why there is a vertical gap between the platform and train, which has been alleviated somewhat by the addition of humps in the central section of the platform. Using the Victoria line as an example, why, when the line was being built, was there a vertical gap between the train and the platform? Could the platforms and trains not be built at the same level for ease of access? And could the 2009 stock not have been built with a lower floor at the doors rather than adding humps to the platform, which would allow the whole train to have level access? Perhaps part of the answer lies in different lines being built by different companies, each company would have the same loading gauge. Now, lots of these individual companies have been joined up to make London Underground. With the age of the system, accessibility wasn't on the agenda of the constructors, unlike the DLR. |
|
