beleben

die belebende Bedenkung

The step-free route in HS2 inclusivity

with 3 comments

Setting new standards in customer experience and inclusivity ‘requires HS2 Ltd to deliver a step-free route from street to seat’.

Setting new standards in customer experience and inclusivity 'requires HS2 Ltd to deliver a step-free route from street to seat'

‘Step free inclusivity’

But would that ‘inclusivity’ include stations on the legacy network — such as Newcastle upon Tyne, York, Liverpool Lime Street, Stafford, Carlisle Citadel, and Sheffield Midland?

Department for Transport tweet mentioned only step-free access at *new* HS2 stations

A Department for Transport tweet mentioned only step-free access at new HS2 stations

How double deck HS2 captive trains — as proposed by Alstom — could ever be fully ‘step-free’, is difficult to imagine. Access to seats on the lower deck might be possible without steps, but would probably entail steep ramping from vestibule level.

One of the opportunity costs of HS2 is no remediation of hundreds of inaccessible stations on the existing rail network

One of the opportunity costs of HS2 is no remediation funding for hundreds of inaccessible stations on the existing rail network

Advertisements

Written by beleben

April 3, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Posted in HS2, Planning, Politics

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. But the HS2 Phase 2b West Midlands to Leeds Route Engineering Report
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2b-west-midlands-to-leeds-route-engineering-report
    created as recently as the 10th November 2016 said

    “2.3.8 …. The platforms are designed to GC gauge, the height of such platforms being 760mm above rail level.”

    Back in 2013 the EU rail agency [ERA] finally decided to consult European disability groups regarding changes to the technical standards.
    Accompanying Report to the RECOMMENDATION N. ERA-REC-02-2013 on the PRM-TSI
    http://www.era.europa.eu/document-register/documents/prm_rec_002_accompanying_report_v1.pdf

    “4.4.1. Access to the rolling stock
    EDF [European Disability Forum] proposed the TSI to mandate preferable solutions when it comes to boarding and alighting, similarly to the legislation in force in the USA requiring, in the following order of preference:
    – Level access all along a platform,
    – Partial local raising of platforms,
    – On-board boarding aids,
    – Platform boarding aids.
    After discussions, this proposal was not retained: the situation in Europe is much different from the situation in the USA and technical solutions do not exist that would enable this requirement to be fulfilled (for example, high speed trains have a high access level, it would not be possible to mandate that they can be accessed from a low platform of 550mm or 760mm, there is no technical solution).”

    “Regarding boarding ramps, EDF also asked for the maximum allowed slope to be reduced. The value of 18% allowed by the TSI is considered excessive: such a ramp is dangerous for as well PRMs as for the personnel, and first and foremost prevent PRMs from boarding and alighting the train on their own. After discussion, it was decided not to modify the value of 18% which purpose is to define the area of use of the boarding ramp as an interoperability constituent…. The consequences of a reduction of the maximum allowable slope for boarding aids from 18% to 12% would therefore be their replacement by lifts, a solution that is favoured neither by the sector nor by users.”

    A high speed train with a floor height of 1250mm and a platform at the standard UK height of 915mm would require a ramp 1.86m long at 18% or 2.8m at 12%.
    The review of the TSI largely ignored the views of users. The Department for Transport has failed to take the lead regarding improvements to the passenger train interface even though it knows that a very significant proportion of the population have a mobility problem which affects their ability to travel. (National Travel Survey: England 2015 – Page 41). Some sources suggest it is over 14% and everyone seems to accept that it will increase.

    johnma

    April 3, 2017 at 2:37 pm

  2. What astounds me is the discussion about “platform-train” interface (a horrible nerd´s term). What is being talked about quite plainly is the height of the station platform with respect to the height of the entry door to the train carriage.
    When one considers that the heightening of the platforms over a whole network (or even part of it) is a tremendously expensive item then why is it necessary?
    Any train sets bought for the HS or Inter-City networks will never leave this country, so will never have to be “Continental Compatible”. Is it not, therefore, more logical to buy bespoke vehicles that serve our network and satisfy the needs of passengers, both those of normal and limited capacities? Any such vehicles might be something more expensive than those bought off the shelf, but with Brexit (et al) will we not be demanding that more of our industrial needs are satisfied at home thus justifying any aditional expense?
    It seems to me to be an unnecessary discussion.

    transtraxman

    April 10, 2017 at 10:23 am

    • I agree the PTI is a horrible term but it is not just about the height of the door as the PRM-TSI allows steps inside the door which is a cop out. It also includes the gap, but that is much easier to deal with if platforms are straight. Hundreds of millions have been spent on stations and trains to make them supposedly “accessible” and good trains are set to be scrapped because they don’t meet some particular aspect of the PRM regs. While it is possible to build low speed trains with floor heights that match existing UK platforms this is not possible if trains travel at high speeds because larger wheels and brakes are needed. Existing platforms could be raised over a limited length. What is noticeably lacking is any lead from DfT and HS2 Ltd don’t have a solution.

      johnma

      April 19, 2017 at 10:02 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: