|
|
Post by thc on May 25, 2016 23:26:38 GMT
simon and anyone else interested I spent a lot of time thinking the whole compromise platform thing through when Bakerloo services back to Watford Junction were mooted alongside the Met extension. It can't be that hard to modify sections of platform for Tube stock and others for Class 378/S stock and sign them accordingly, can it? That way bumped heads and/or slippy feet can be a thing of the past, and no PRM-TSI rules need be flouted. Or is that naïve? And I type as someone well acquainted with the demands of the 1995 Act part III from back in the day (reasonable adjustments will out). Thoughts people? Thank you in advance. THC
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on May 26, 2016 0:11:41 GMT
On the thread about Goblin electrification there was this series of posts about platform height, to save going too off topic there I've quoted them all here and will respond below. Interesting they're doing track lowering at Upper Holloway over the next two weekends. I also hadn't realised there was a swish enclosed waiting area at Upper Holloway on the w/b platform. (see video clip in the tweet) Should be fun telling passengers to step up to the platform from the train as the track might be lower... If you want to see a massive step. Try boarding or alighting a 72TS at Kenton. I'm fairly tall and once grazed the top of my head on the frame, I now make sure that I don't step too quickly down, but when you see the train already at the platform. Your first reaction is always to get on asap before the doors close on you. I doubt that the gap will be as severe at Upper Holloway. that sort of step would never be allowed 'today'. I once slipped over because of the step... the ground was wet and so was the floor on the train. That sort of step is inevitable on a line which shares two different loading gauges. A common sight in fact across many outer branches. Hopefully you didn't fall or hurt yourself, however 'Gap' Incidents are becoming frequent and widespread. Patrick, I landed on my backside and the shock of unexpectedly ending up on the floor meant that it was both a physical and emotional pain in the ass. I understand the history behind the floor height differences, and that short of building double length platforms with different heights for the different sized rolling stock there is no solution that does not end up disbenefiting some passengers. simon and anyone else interested I spent a lot of time thinking the whole compromise platform thing through when Bakerloo services back to Watford Junction were mooted alongside the Met extension. It can't be that hard to modify sections of platform for Tube stock and others for Class 378/S stock and sign them accordingly, can it? That way bumped heads and/or slippy feet can be a thing of the past, and no PRM-TSI rules need be flouted. Or is that naïve? And I type as someone well acquainted with the demands of the 1995 Act part III from back in the day (reasonable adjustments will out). There really is only a very limited set of things you can do if you have stocks with different floor heights that need to call at the same platform face. If you are lucky enough to have a sufficiently long straight section of track with sufficient width you can make the platforms the length of both stocks with one section at the higher level and one at the lower level and a slope in the middle. If you have space for about 1.5 train lengths then you can do the same, but use selective door opening on your trains. If track capacity and throughput is not an issue then you could rearrange the platforms so that instead of e.g. north and southbound platforms you have a bi-directional one at each height. This is done at Birkbeck station in Bromley for example, with one platform for National Rail and one for Tramlink. If you don't have space enough for extra long platforms, you need to run a high frequency service, and your stocks have non-overlapping door positioning, you can have a series of humps and/or dips lining up with the appropriate doors. This isn't ideal and runs the risks of people stumbling on the slopes - fencing perpendicular to the platform edge may be required to guard against this. It could also cause problems if drivers over or undershoot the stopping mark or have to stop with only part of the train in the platform (e.g. due to an emergency during departure). Fences may cause additional problems or injuries in a dragging incident (or may make sensitive edge activation more likely? more thought needed on this) You could have the front section of the platform move up or down to match the floor height of the next train. This would be very expensive to install and maintain and could cause problems if the mechanism failed. It would almost certainly need to be accompanied by doors or gates to keep passengers off the edge of the platform while it was moving and prevent prams, wheelchairs, luggage, etc rolling down a slope towards the track (c.f. accidents at Southend Central and Whyteleaf). I'm not sure there are other options. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on May 26, 2016 5:29:10 GMT
Westminster station tracks was lowered for new buildings above in 1990s for JLE
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on May 26, 2016 7:55:27 GMT
Are there still 'wrong-height' platforms on the Piccadilly, west of Acton Town, on the section where no other operator runs?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 26, 2016 8:20:48 GMT
The original Watford Joint Stock used a different compromise. The train floor was about 5" higher! I'm not sure how that affected tall people.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on May 26, 2016 12:28:06 GMT
From recent photo's Ealing broadway district platforms look to have a lower section at the far end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2016 16:18:40 GMT
Are there still 'wrong-height' platforms on the Piccadilly, west of Acton Town, on the section where no other operator runs? Sub Surface trains used to run on the Rayners Lane branch and also as far as Hounslow West (Old Station layout) on the now Heathrow Branch |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on May 26, 2016 17:01:14 GMT
It was the District service between North Ealing and South Harrow I was thinking of. Now exclusively Piccadilly, I seem to remember that some platforms were still packed to either District or 'compromise' height.
Does this situation persist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2016 17:08:24 GMT
Believe so but don't hold me on that
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223 
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 26, 2016 20:14:31 GMT
It was the District service between North Ealing and South Harrow I was thinking of. Now exclusively Piccadilly, I seem to remember that some platforms were still packed to either District or 'compromise' height. Does this situation persist? I suspect District Dave knew the answer! |
|
|
|
Post by t697 on May 26, 2016 21:35:38 GMT
It was the District service between North Ealing and South Harrow I was thinking of. Now exclusively Piccadilly, I seem to remember that some platforms were still packed to either District or 'compromise' height. Does this situation persist? I think Sudbury Town caters for all tastes. The track gradient and platform gradient aren't the same so at one end you step down to the train and at the other end up to the train and there are some bits about level. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2016 21:55:51 GMT
It was the District service between North Ealing and South Harrow I was thinking of. Now exclusively Piccadilly, I seem to remember that some platforms were still packed to either District or 'compromise' height. Does this situation persist? I think Sudbury Town caters for all tastes. The track gradient and platform gradient aren't the same so at one end you step down to the train and at the other end up to the train and there are some bits about level. It's like that at Wembley Park on the Jubilee platforms. At the north end its a step down to the train,at the south end its level with the train. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 3, 2016 15:27:53 GMT
The step up at the London end of Uxbridge station to the first double doors of an A stock was always a large one.
|
|
|
|
Post by countryman on Jun 8, 2016 13:48:55 GMT
Perhaps this is slightly off topic. In New York, South Ferry station at the southern end of the 1 line is on a loop with a very sharp curve. The platform is on the outside of the curve, and would make the gap between the platform and the doors in the centre of the train huge. Their solution is to have platform extensions which, when the train has stopped, extend out to the doors.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 8, 2016 15:33:29 GMT
Perhaps this is slightly off topic. In New York, South Ferry station at the southern end of the 1 line is on a loop with a very sharp curve. The platform is on the outside of the curve, and would make the gap between the platform and the doors in the centre of the train huge. Their solution is to have platform extensions which, when the train has stopped, extend out to the doors. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Jun 8, 2016 16:06:44 GMT
As a note about South Ferry, the station has since been rebuilt, straightening the platforms and removing the loop.
What confuses me is that for London Undergorund, the system and stock were specifically built for one purpose. As new stations and lines have been built and new stocked rolled out, why are there such differences, especially in the core. Ignoring platforms that share track with multiple trains, why weren't trains designed for the platforms or platforms designed for the trains?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 8, 2016 16:17:51 GMT
As a note about South Ferry, the station has since been rebuilt, straightening the platforms and removing the loop. The original South Ferry is still in use, temporarily, while the 'new' station opened 16 March 2009, is repaired following substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Jun 8, 2016 16:35:20 GMT
As a note about South Ferry, the station has since been rebuilt, straightening the platforms and removing the loop. The original South Ferry is still in use, temporarily, while the 'new' station opened 16 March 2009, is repaired following substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. Something did seem odd about the 2014 date of that video. I thought it had reopened but I was wrong |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jun 8, 2016 16:57:20 GMT
As a note about South Ferry, the station has since been rebuilt, straightening the platforms and removing the loop. What confuses me is that for London Undergorund, the system and stock were specifically built for one purpose. As new stations and lines have been built and new stocked rolled out, why are there such differences, especially in the core. Ignoring platforms that share track with multiple trains, why weren't trains designed for the platforms or platforms designed for the trains? I wondered this for a long time and came to the conclusion that it was to accommodate curved platforms. If the platform is at train floor height then the gap between train and platform must be set for that. If there is some overhang, the train floor can extend over the lateral extremities meaning a smaller horizontal gap for passengers. Whilst that certainly provides a possible explanation for lower platforms at some stations I suspect there are straight platformed stations that are unnecessarily out of kilter. |
|
|
|
Post by countryman on Jun 8, 2016 18:10:28 GMT
As a note about South Ferry, the station has since been rebuilt, straightening the platforms and removing the loop. The original South Ferry is still in use, temporarily, while the 'new' station opened 16 March 2009, is repaired following substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. The old station was still in operation in late April 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 8, 2016 19:45:55 GMT
What confuses me is that for London Undergorund, the system and stock were specifically built for one purpose. Why weren't trains designed for the platforms or platforms designed for the trains? With the exception of the Drain, every line of the Underground includes at least a few platforms originally intended to be used by other railways. Thus it is unusual for all platforms on a line to be of a standard design. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 8, 2016 23:56:29 GMT
Also, the relative height of track and platform can change when the latter is tamped, reballasted or relaid. Until circa the 1980s I suspect very little thought was given to platform height changes not on the order of 10s of centimetres as long as there were no gauging issues.
|
|
