|
|
Post by nnan on Dec 15, 2020 20:27:27 GMT
Hi all, over the last couple of weeks I’ve seen platform humps (yes, you’ve heard correctly) being installed on the Jubilee Line extension.
Have the 1996 stock trains got higher, are the platforms sinking, or was there never really true level access on the JLE from inception?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 15, 2020 22:35:20 GMT
I find it highly unlikely the platforms are sinking. I suspect the platforms were built slightly lower than the door access level.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Dec 16, 2020 0:41:43 GMT
It's very close but the Jubilee Line Extension certainly isn't stepless, there is a small but definite distance between the train floor and the platform with the former being higher up.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480 
|
Post by londoner on Dec 16, 2020 1:00:16 GMT
Are they "Harrington Humps"?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 16, 2020 10:11:04 GMT
If they are the same as the humps on the Victoria line then no, they are more substantial.
|
|
|
|
Post by linus on Dec 16, 2020 17:09:44 GMT
Preparation for leaving the EU - an even leveller playing field
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 16, 2020 21:46:50 GMT
I seem to remember the original JLE concept was that the 'level access' would be biased to the train floor almost never being lower than the platform. So in theory, floor and platform would be level when the vehicle was crush loaded with fully 'crept' suspension rubbers and fully worn wheel treads just before wheel turning and height resetting. Nobody had an answer as to how the wheelchair would then use that absolutely level access to get into the already crush laden car!
Perhaps the new intent is to be nearer level most of the time and accept a down step or up step range that are about equal. Must admit I can't now recall why that wasn't the original concept. I'm surprised money is being spent on it just now, unless it's at places with the gaps vertical or horizontal that aren't RVAR compliant. Actually it could be the lateral gap that needed change and they are taking the opportunity to do the vertical in the same work.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 18, 2020 8:39:06 GMT
A possible reason for the original set-up is that early in the 1996TS design, it became clear that the floor level needed to be about 25mm higher than the traditional Tube Stock height, to accommodate underfloor equipment and the hollow extrusion body construction method. Possibly the JLE platform height had already been fixed at that time and too difficult to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2020 19:23:25 GMT
How would humps work on platforms with PEDs?
|
|
|
|
Post by quex on Dec 18, 2020 20:14:04 GMT
|
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 885
|
Post by vincenture on Dec 20, 2020 18:17:46 GMT
Might as well they go for more humps on other lines too...
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Dec 20, 2020 19:25:18 GMT
vincentureAt that cheap price, yes, as long as the rest of the station is accessible...
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 20, 2020 20:03:22 GMT
Humps can help some people even if the station isn't "accessible" (which generally just means for wheelchair users), for example people who can manage small steps but not large ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 23:38:00 GMT
A hump would massively help me on the westbound central line platform at Mile End.
|
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 885
|
Post by vincenture on Dec 21, 2020 6:33:59 GMT
Yes a big step is a problem for me too im afraid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2021 13:10:18 GMT
Can someone post a photo of the one at Waterloo or another platform with PED?
|
|
|
|
Post by nnan on Jan 6, 2021 12:14:36 GMT
Can someone post a photo of the one at Waterloo or another platform with PED? There are a couple of different designs; one appears to have had the actual ground altered and is paved in, whereas the other seems to be a temporary plug in style attachment. I wonder if the FOI request was only referring to the plug in type? Altering the physical platform surface surely would cost considerably more than is stated<in the FOI>.    |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Jan 6, 2021 13:00:27 GMT
The message is surely wrong. It's egress at stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 6, 2021 20:17:30 GMT
The change of height from the unmodified condition seems very small. Surely they were compliant before? Must be better places to improve so as to actually go from non compliant to compliant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 1:23:00 GMT
I would say it was on the limit of being compliant, don’t forget as well the actual PED have been raised, I can tell that by the stripe being higher. I don’t think the one in the bottom photo is done as when they were doing the platform humps they did them over a few nights and put temporary surfaces over the incomplete bits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 22, 2021 12:04:16 GMT
seems the team have completed the Jubilee Line RVAR works 18 days early and are now moving onto the Bakerloo to do other RVAR humps, obviously not involving platform doors.
|
|
