Lord Blunkett injured in Tube platform gap fall

[Recliner]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rxzj9pe3yo

Lord Blunkett has called for an urgent review into what he described as
"death trap" Tube platforms after he was injured falling into a gap as he
boarded a train at Westminster station.

It happened as the Labour Peer, who is blind, slipped while getting on to a
District Line train with his guide dog, last month. He wants Transport for
London (TfL) to do more to ensure visually impaired people are kept safe.

"I didn't fully know what had happened. I felt enormous pain in both my
legs; they were bruised and grazed," the 77-year-old former home secretary
and health secretary wrote in the Sun on Sunday., external
London Underground said it was "extremely sorry" that Lord Blunkett was
injured and will be meeting with him to ensure that lessons are learned
from the incident.

Lord Blunkett, who served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and
Hillsborough between 1987 and 2015, said: "As I took a step to get on to
the Tube train I suddenly felt both my feet disappearing down the gap.

"In an instant my body had been propelled forward into the carriage and I
was face down on the floor,"
"My legs had somehow been scraped out of the gap and into the carriage."

The fall comes after Lord Blunkett had a recent heart attack which means he
must take blood thinners - making any bruising or bleeding more dangerous.

He explained that an X-ray confirmed "extraordinary bruising", but no
broken leg, and he was "angry" about what had happened.

Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."

He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms and make sure
there is always someone there to help, especially during rush hour.

He added "some of our platforms are death traps. The gap between the
walkway and train is huge and they are unsafe for everyone, but
particularly for blind people."

Lord Blunkett is expected to request TfL launch an urgent review into the
safety of the busiest tube stations.

Nick Dent, London Underground's director of customer operations, said: "We
were extremely sorry that Lord Blunkett was injured on our network.

"We have written to, and will be meeting with, him to discuss how we could
have managed the incident better and to ensure that lessons are learned.

"The safety of our customers and staff is at the forefront of everything we
do, and while injuries like the one experienced by Lord Blunkett are rare,
we are undertaking a huge range of work aimed at eradicating such incidents
and making travelling even safer for everyone."

[M***@DastartdlyHQ.org]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 00:26:31 GMT

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."

Didn't Khunt wax lyrical about staff taken out of the now closed ticket
offices would be out and about within the station helping and keeping an
eye on passengers? IME all thats happened is they've all buggered off into the
back office.

[Marland]

Post by Recliner
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rxzj9pe3yo
Lord Blunkett has called for an urgent review into what he described as
"death trap" Tube platforms after he was injured falling into a gap as he
boarded a train at Westminster station.
It happened as the Labour Peer, who is blind, slipped while getting on to a
District Line train with his guide dog, last month. He wants Transport for
London (TfL) to do more to ensure visually impaired people are kept safe.
"I didn't fully know what had happened. I felt enormous pain in both my
legs; they were bruised and grazed," the 77-year-old former home secretary
and health secretary wrote in the Sun on Sunday., external
London Underground said it was "extremely sorry" that Lord Blunkett was
injured and will be meeting with him to ensure that lessons are learned
from the incident.
Lord Blunkett, who served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and
Hillsborough between 1987 and 2015, said: "As I took a step to get on to
the Tube train I suddenly felt both my feet disappearing down the gap.
"In an instant my body had been propelled forward into the carriage and I
was face down on the floor,"
"My legs had somehow been scraped out of the gap and into the carriage."
The fall comes after Lord Blunkett had a recent heart attack which means he
must take blood thinners - making any bruising or bleeding more dangerous.
He explained that an X-ray confirmed "extraordinary bruising", but no
broken leg, and he was "angry" about what had happened.
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms and make sure
there is always someone there to help, especially during rush hour.
He added "some of our platforms are death traps. The gap between the
walkway and train is huge and they are unsafe for everyone, but
particularly for blind people."
Lord Blunkett is expected to request TfL launch an urgent review into the
safety of the busiest tube stations.
Nick Dent, London Underground's director of customer operations, said: "We
were extremely sorry that Lord Blunkett was injured on our network.
"We have written to, and will be meeting with, him to discuss how we could
have managed the incident better and to ensure that lessons are learned.
"The safety of our customers and staff is at the forefront of everything we
do, and while injuries like the one experienced by Lord Blunkett are rare,
we are undertaking a huge range of work aimed at eradicating such incidents
and making travelling even safer for everyone."

When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time. May be he is just
getting a bit doddery which will affect many people of his age sighted or
not.
As for his demands that all these “deathtraps” have action taken perhaps
that isn’t physically possible.
Trouble is in todays world there is a trend for the disabled to demand that
lots of facilities should be altered or provided so they can move around as
easily as an able bodied person despite the costs and practicalities ,and
with the Wokeness of a world with safe spaces , people getting uppity when
they are called Mr when they want to be a Miss no one dares tell the
disabled that while a lot can be done for them having a disability is just
that , other wise they would not be in that category.

GH

[M***@DastartdlyHQ.org]

On 17 Nov 2024 09:58:22 GMT

Post by Marland
When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.

There was another incident at High Barnet and the woman involved was
interviewed on Times Radio this morning. Somehow she fell through the gap
between the train and platform (she must be quite small) and got run over
twice by the train leaving and another train entering. Somehow no one heard
her cries but the first thing I'd ask how the f-ck didn't the 2nd train
driver not see a body on the track when he was coming into a terminus at
probably only 10mph if that. We're told what highly skilled individuals these
are - yeah I know its bollocks - so wtf was he doing , scratching his arse
and reading The Sun while the ATO drove the train?

[Recliner]

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rxzj9pe3yo
Lord Blunkett has called for an urgent review into what he described as
"death trap" Tube platforms after he was injured falling into a gap as he
boarded a train at Westminster station.
It happened as the Labour Peer, who is blind, slipped while getting on to a
District Line train with his guide dog, last month. He wants Transport for
London (TfL) to do more to ensure visually impaired people are kept safe.
"I didn't fully know what had happened. I felt enormous pain in both my
legs; they were bruised and grazed," the 77-year-old former home secretary
and health secretary wrote in the Sun on Sunday., external
London Underground said it was "extremely sorry" that Lord Blunkett was
injured and will be meeting with him to ensure that lessons are learned
from the incident.
Lord Blunkett, who served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and
Hillsborough between 1987 and 2015, said: "As I took a step to get on to
the Tube train I suddenly felt both my feet disappearing down the gap.
"In an instant my body had been propelled forward into the carriage and I
was face down on the floor,"
"My legs had somehow been scraped out of the gap and into the carriage."
The fall comes after Lord Blunkett had a recent heart attack which means he
must take blood thinners - making any bruising or bleeding more dangerous.
He explained that an X-ray confirmed "extraordinary bruising", but no
broken leg, and he was "angry" about what had happened.
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms and make sure
there is always someone there to help, especially during rush hour.
He added "some of our platforms are death traps. The gap between the
walkway and train is huge and they are unsafe for everyone, but
particularly for blind people."
Lord Blunkett is expected to request TfL launch an urgent review into the
safety of the busiest tube stations.
Nick Dent, London Underground's director of customer operations, said: "We
were extremely sorry that Lord Blunkett was injured on our network.
"We have written to, and will be meeting with, him to discuss how we could
have managed the incident better and to ensure that lessons are learned.
"The safety of our customers and staff is at the forefront of everything we
do, and while injuries like the one experienced by Lord Blunkett are rare,
we are undertaking a huge range of work aimed at eradicating such incidents
and making travelling even safer for everyone."

When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time. May be he is just
getting a bit doddery which will affect many people of his age sighted or
not.
As for his demands that all these “deathtraps” have action taken perhaps
that isn’t physically possible.
Trouble is in todays world there is a trend for the disabled to demand that
lots of facilities should be altered or provided so they can move around as
easily as an able bodied person despite the costs and practicalities ,and
with the Wokeness of a world with safe spaces , people getting uppity when
they are called Mr when they want to be a Miss no one dares tell the
disabled that while a lot can be done for them having a disability is just
that , other wise they would not be in that category.

I think Blunkett has been completely blind since birth. Few people like
that would be brave enough to travel on the Tube on their own, and he
probably only still does it as he’s been a Tube user for so long (37 years
as a member of parliament), and is very familiar with his routes. Most
‘blind’ people do have some limited vision, which makes travel much easier.

[Marland]

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rxzj9pe3yo
Lord Blunkett has called for an urgent review into what he described as
"death trap" Tube platforms after he was injured falling into a gap as he
boarded a train at Westminster station.
It happened as the Labour Peer, who is blind, slipped while getting on to a
District Line train with his guide dog, last month. He wants Transport for
London (TfL) to do more to ensure visually impaired people are kept safe.
"I didn't fully know what had happened. I felt enormous pain in both my
legs; they were bruised and grazed," the 77-year-old former home secretary
and health secretary wrote in the Sun on Sunday., external
London Underground said it was "extremely sorry" that Lord Blunkett was
injured and will be meeting with him to ensure that lessons are learned
from the incident.
Lord Blunkett, who served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and
Hillsborough between 1987 and 2015, said: "As I took a step to get on to
the Tube train I suddenly felt both my feet disappearing down the gap.
"In an instant my body had been propelled forward into the carriage and I
was face down on the floor,"
"My legs had somehow been scraped out of the gap and into the carriage."
The fall comes after Lord Blunkett had a recent heart attack which means he
must take blood thinners - making any bruising or bleeding more dangerous.
He explained that an X-ray confirmed "extraordinary bruising", but no
broken leg, and he was "angry" about what had happened.
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms and make sure
there is always someone there to help, especially during rush hour.
He added "some of our platforms are death traps. The gap between the
walkway and train is huge and they are unsafe for everyone, but
particularly for blind people."
Lord Blunkett is expected to request TfL launch an urgent review into the
safety of the busiest tube stations.
Nick Dent, London Underground's director of customer operations, said: "We
were extremely sorry that Lord Blunkett was injured on our network.
"We have written to, and will be meeting with, him to discuss how we could
have managed the incident better and to ensure that lessons are learned.
"The safety of our customers and staff is at the forefront of everything we
do, and while injuries like the one experienced by Lord Blunkett are rare,
we are undertaking a huge range of work aimed at eradicating such incidents
and making travelling even safer for everyone."

When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time. May be he is just
getting a bit doddery which will affect many people of his age sighted or
not.
As for his demands that all these “deathtraps” have action taken perhaps
that isn’t physically possible.
Trouble is in todays world there is a trend for the disabled to demand that
lots of facilities should be altered or provided so they can move around as
easily as an able bodied person despite the costs and practicalities ,and
with the Wokeness of a world with safe spaces , people getting uppity when
they are called Mr when they want to be a Miss no one dares tell the
disabled that while a lot can be done for them having a disability is just
that , other wise they would not be in that category.

I think Blunkett has been completely blind since birth. Few people like
that would be brave enough to travel on the Tube on their own, and he
probably only still does it as he’s been a Tube user for so long (37 years
as a member of parliament), and is very familiar with his routes. Most
‘blind’ people do have some limited vision, which makes travel much easier.

Indeed , but he his now 77 and not in the best of health. Even many able
bodied people start to get issues as they age like one of my elderly
neighbours who fell off stepping off a (lowered ) bus ramp last week and
considers himself lucky to get away with just bruising.

It must be worse for someone who already has some difficulties , as you say
he should be familiar with the situation so has he raised it so strongly
before or only now it has happened to him. .
Perhaps it is time to accept he needs more assistance than a dog can
provide. It is not practical for a public transport system to cope with
all requirements of people with various disabilities who all wish to be
independent. Sometimes the requirements clash, an Autistic Son of an
acquaintance gets stressed on a train because of the noisy environment
much of which is created by the PI announcements and the door alarms but
the blind need them.

GH

[Recliner]

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rxzj9pe3yo
Lord Blunkett has called for an urgent review into what he described as
"death trap" Tube platforms after he was injured falling into a gap as he
boarded a train at Westminster station.
It happened as the Labour Peer, who is blind, slipped while getting on to a
District Line train with his guide dog, last month. He wants Transport for
London (TfL) to do more to ensure visually impaired people are kept safe.
"I didn't fully know what had happened. I felt enormous pain in both my
legs; they were bruised and grazed," the 77-year-old former home secretary
and health secretary wrote in the Sun on Sunday., external
London Underground said it was "extremely sorry" that Lord Blunkett was
injured and will be meeting with him to ensure that lessons are learned
from the incident.
Lord Blunkett, who served as the MP for Sheffield Brightside and
Hillsborough between 1987 and 2015, said: "As I took a step to get on to
the Tube train I suddenly felt both my feet disappearing down the gap.
"In an instant my body had been propelled forward into the carriage and I
was face down on the floor,"
"My legs had somehow been scraped out of the gap and into the carriage."
The fall comes after Lord Blunkett had a recent heart attack which means he
must take blood thinners - making any bruising or bleeding more dangerous.
He explained that an X-ray confirmed "extraordinary bruising", but no
broken leg, and he was "angry" about what had happened.
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms and make sure
there is always someone there to help, especially during rush hour.
He added "some of our platforms are death traps. The gap between the
walkway and train is huge and they are unsafe for everyone, but
particularly for blind people."
Lord Blunkett is expected to request TfL launch an urgent review into the
safety of the busiest tube stations.
Nick Dent, London Underground's director of customer operations, said: "We
were extremely sorry that Lord Blunkett was injured on our network.
"We have written to, and will be meeting with, him to discuss how we could
have managed the incident better and to ensure that lessons are learned.
"The safety of our customers and staff is at the forefront of everything we
do, and while injuries like the one experienced by Lord Blunkett are rare,
we are undertaking a huge range of work aimed at eradicating such incidents
and making travelling even safer for everyone."

When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time. May be he is just
getting a bit doddery which will affect many people of his age sighted or
not.
As for his demands that all these “deathtraps” have action taken perhaps
that isn’t physically possible.
Trouble is in todays world there is a trend for the disabled to demand that
lots of facilities should be altered or provided so they can move around as
easily as an able bodied person despite the costs and practicalities ,and
with the Wokeness of a world with safe spaces , people getting uppity when
they are called Mr when they want to be a Miss no one dares tell the
disabled that while a lot can be done for them having a disability is just
that , other wise they would not be in that category.

I think Blunkett has been completely blind since birth. Few people like
that would be brave enough to travel on the Tube on their own, and he
probably only still does it as he’s been a Tube user for so long (37 years
as a member of parliament), and is very familiar with his routes. Most
‘blind’ people do have some limited vision, which makes travel much easier.

Indeed , but he his now 77 and not in the best of health. Even many able
bodied people start to get issues as they age like one of my elderly
neighbours who fell off stepping off a (lowered ) bus ramp last week and
considers himself lucky to get away with just bruising.
It must be worse for someone who already has some difficulties , as you say
he should be familiar with the situation so has he raised it so strongly
before or only now it has happened to him. .
Perhaps it is time to accept he needs more assistance than a dog can
provide. It is not practical for a public transport system to cope with
all requirements of people with various disabilities who all wish to be
independent. Sometimes the requirements clash, an Autistic Son of an
acquaintance gets stressed on a train because of the noisy environment
much of which is created by the PI announcements and the door alarms but
the blind need them.

Yes, agreed, it's not feasible to make the whole public transport system fully accessible to all. The incremental cost
of doing so would be far too great; it would be much cheaper to provide a personal limo service to the few people who
really need it.

[Theo]

Post by Marland
When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time. May be he is just
getting a bit doddery which will affect many people of his age sighted or
not.
As for his demands that all these “deathtraps” have action taken perhaps
that isn’t physically possible.
Trouble is in todays world there is a trend for the disabled to demand that
lots of facilities should be altered or provided so they can move around as
easily as an able bodied person despite the costs and practicalities ,and
with the Wokeness of a world with safe spaces , people getting uppity when
they are called Mr when they want to be a Miss no one dares tell the
disabled that while a lot can be done for them having a disability is just
that , other wise they would not be in that category.

That's quite some victim blaming you've got going on there.

ISTM quite a straightforward point that 'mind the gap' doesn't work if you
can't see the gap to mind it. Most of the time you'll miss it by chance,
but sooner or later you'll put a foot in the wrong place and fall down it.

One way to solve it, that works on other trains, is doorsteps which pop out
to bridge the gap between the train and the platform, and achieve level
boarding without the need for ramps. It's surprising that this isn't the
norm on all new trains - given the UK's generous platform height there
should be no need to climb up into the train.

There are problems with curved platforms where the gaps are larger, but for
wide doorways a multi section doorstep where the pieces can overlap or mitre
at the corners would solve that problem.

Theo

[Recliner]

Post by Theo

Post by Marland
When all is said and done is there much that can be physically done to
alter things that were laid out more than a 100 years ago? Gradually
access is being improved from streets to platform
level and the S stock designed to have floors level with the platform but
not everywhere, Westminster appears to have lifts but not any level
boarding.
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time. May be he is just
getting a bit doddery which will affect many people of his age sighted or
not.
As for his demands that all these “deathtraps” have action taken perhaps
that isn’t physically possible.
Trouble is in todays world there is a trend for the disabled to demand that
lots of facilities should be altered or provided so they can move around as
easily as an able bodied person despite the costs and practicalities ,and
with the Wokeness of a world with safe spaces , people getting uppity when
they are called Mr when they want to be a Miss no one dares tell the
disabled that while a lot can be done for them having a disability is just
that , other wise they would not be in that category.

That's quite some victim blaming you've got going on there.
ISTM quite a straightforward point that 'mind the gap' doesn't work if you
can't see the gap to mind it. Most of the time you'll miss it by chance,
but sooner or later you'll put a foot in the wrong place and fall down it.
One way to solve it, that works on other trains, is doorsteps which pop out
to bridge the gap between the train and the platform, and achieve level
boarding without the need for ramps. It's surprising that this isn't the
norm on all new trains - given the UK's generous platform height there
should be no need to climb up into the train.
There are problems with curved platforms where the gaps are larger, but for
wide doorways a multi section doorstep where the pieces can overlap or mitre
at the corners would solve that problem.

One difference with the S stock is that the lower floors mean they can’t
hang over the platforms. So you have much less of a step up, but wider gaps
in all stations, but especially so with curved platforms. Westminster SSL
platforms are curved.

[Peter Johnson]

Post by Marland
One would have thought Lord Blunkett was familiar with the arrangements
unlike a person using the station for the first time.

Familiiarity wouldn't have helped him much when he slipped.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do. But it would extend station
stops, which would be a problem on a metro service with frequent stops. One
compromise might be to only do so at the stations with particularly large
gaps.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run any Stadler
trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run any Stadler
trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

[Ken]

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.
When the door open sequence begins the steps try to extend to their
full extent then retract a bit if necessary. They do a remarkably good
job at most stations.

There are places where the combination of curve and superelevation are
too much for the steps (e.g. Bishop's Stortford P1) but they still
mitigate the situation to a considerable extent. Few platforms are
that curved and banked for their entire length; those who find gaps
difficult could be directed to the places with the smallest remaining
gap (although that doesn't happen at the moment).

[M***@DastartdlyHQ.org]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:17:34 +0000

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.
When the door open sequence begins the steps try to extend to their
full extent then retract a bit if necessary. They do a remarkably good
job at most stations.

Speaking of train steps (and hence xposted to uk.railway), I don't quite
understand why the design of a lot of modern trains has the bodyside curving
in yet has fixed step plates sticking out 6 inches at floor level. eg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#/media/File:700119_at_Bedfo
rd.jpg

Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

[Theo]

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Speaking of train steps (and hence xposted to uk.railway), I don't quite
understand why the design of a lot of modern trains has the bodyside curving
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#/media/File:700119_at_Bedfo
rd.jpg
Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

I don't know about 700s, but some trains are only cleared on certain routes
if step plates are removed. eg class 165/166 comes to mind.

From that pic it looks like the step plate might manually fold up and fit
into the door well. Maybe that's needed for certain ECS moves?

Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Speaking of train steps (and hence xposted to uk.railway), I don't quite
understand why the design of a lot of modern trains has the bodyside curving
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#/media/File:700119_at_Bedfo
rd.jpg
Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

I don't know about 700s, but some trains are only cleared on certain routes
if step plates are removed. eg class 165/166 comes to mind.

The step plates had to be removed from 365's (the Happy Trains) when
redeployed from the southeast to Scotland.

[M***@DastartdlyHQ.org]

On 19 Nov 2024 11:40:11 +0000 (GMT)

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Speaking of train steps (and hence xposted to uk.railway), I don't quite
understand why the design of a lot of modern trains has the bodyside curving

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#/media/File:700119_at_Bedf
o

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
rd.jpg
Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

I don't know about 700s, but some trains are only cleared on certain routes
if step plates are removed. eg class 165/166 comes to mind.

IIRC they're quite long for their width so tight corners can be an issue.

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
From that pic it looks like the step plate might manually fold up and fit
into the door well. Maybe that's needed for certain ECS moves?

I think they're fixed. Theres no sign of them being (re)movable when you're
up close but it could be a very subtle hinge.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On 19 Nov 2024 11:40:11 +0000 (GMT)

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Speaking of train steps (and hence xposted to uk.railway), I don't quite
understand why the design of a lot of modern trains has the bodyside curving

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#/media/File:700119_at_Bedf
o

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
rd.jpg
Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

I don't know about 700s, but some trains are only cleared on certain routes
if step plates are removed. eg class 165/166 comes to mind.

IIRC they're quite long for their width so tight corners can be an issue.

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
From that pic it looks like the step plate might manually fold up and fit
into the door well. Maybe that's needed for certain ECS moves?

I think they're fixed. Theres no sign of them being (re)movable when you're
up close but it could be a very subtle hinge.

IIRC the instructions for working over foreign parts only say
"removed" rather than e.g. raised/dropped/repositioned/stowed etc.

[Bob]

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:17:34 +0000

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.
When the door open sequence begins the steps try to extend to their
full extent then retract a bit if necessary. They do a remarkably good
job at most stations.

Speaking of train steps (and hence xposted to uk.railway), I don't quite
understand why the design of a lot of modern trains has the bodyside curving
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#/media/File:700119_at_Bedfo
rd.jpg
Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

The body throws over in the centre and at the ends on curves, so that is
where the bodyshape is most constrained by the loading gauge. While in
theory carriages could be made with narrow middles and ends and broader
bodies over the bogies, generally for ease of design and construction,
they are made with a single profile over the length. That means there is
more clearance in the loading gauge near the bogies, which is where
doors on designs like the class 700 are, so the step can be fitted
within the loading gauge. On vehicles with end doors, like the Mk3
carriages, there is much less of a protruding step.

Robin

[M***@DastartdlyHQ.org]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:01:45 +0100

Post by Bob

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Why not just make the body come straight down to floor level so not only
obviating the need for these step plates but creating more room inside the
carraige at lower leg level? It can't be a loading gauge issue or the step
plates would foul it.

The body throws over in the centre and at the ends on curves, so that is
where the bodyshape is most constrained by the loading gauge. While in
theory carriages could be made with narrow middles and ends and broader
bodies over the bogies, generally for ease of design and construction,
they are made with a single profile over the length. That means there is
more clearance in the loading gauge near the bogies, which is where
doors on designs like the class 700 are, so the step can be fitted
within the loading gauge. On vehicles with end doors, like the Mk3
carriages, there is much less of a protruding step.

Hmm, I'm not convinced. Those steps protrude a long way. It would have to be
a VERY tight curve for the body centre to foul the gauge but not the step
plates. Anyone who has been on a 7** series knows that if you sit near the
window it can be a bit uncomfortable trying to find somewhere to put your
foot next to the wall due to the curve inwards.

[Recliner]

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.

Yes, but it wouldn’t have to be that way for ‘curved platform floor
extensions’ on TfL trains. The trains know where they are, and the
extensions might only be deployed at stations with heavily curved
platforms. They wouldn’t need to completely fill the gap, just make it
narrow enough that a person couldn’t slip between them and the platform.

There’s a different, more difficult problem at some Liz stations outside
the core, where platforms are the wrong height. Ealing Broadway is a
particular problem, especially if someone has a heavy suitcase, as I know
from personal experience. And many airline passengers transfer from the Liz
to the Tube at that station. They might have luggage and may not be
familiar with the station.

Mind the gap: Third passenger hurt on Elizabeth line
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqe6zm53neyo

[Ken]

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.

Yes, but it wouldn’t have to be that way for ‘curved platform floor
extensions’ on TfL trains. The trains know where they are, and the
extensions might only be deployed at stations with heavily curved
platforms. They wouldn’t need to completely fill the gap, just make it
narrow enough that a person couldn’t slip between them and the platform.

Might be better built into the platforms where needed, rather than the
trains.

Post by Recliner
There’s a different, more difficult problem at some Liz stations outside
the core, where platforms are the wrong height. Ealing Broadway is a
particular problem, especially if someone has a heavy suitcase, as I know
from personal experience. And many airline passengers transfer from the Liz
to the Tube at that station. They might have luggage and may not be
familiar with the station.

Southall used to be very bad indeed in pre-Liz days. Strong banking
and a tight curve. There gap was wide and required a considerable step
up onto the train. I don't know if it's now been mitigated.

Post by Recliner
Mind the gap: Third passenger hurt on Elizabeth line
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqe6zm53neyo

[Recliner]

Post by Ken

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.

Yes, but it wouldn’t have to be that way for ‘curved platform floor
extensions’ on TfL trains. The trains know where they are, and the
extensions might only be deployed at stations with heavily curved
platforms. They wouldn’t need to completely fill the gap, just make it
narrow enough that a person couldn’t slip between them and the platform.

Might be better built into the platforms where needed, rather than the
trains.

Yes, that could well be so. The problem to be solved then would be to only
(partly) fill the gaps near the doorways, and only when the train was
stationary. The gap fillers would have to retract after the doors closed,
but before the train moved. So, quite a lot of interlocking between the
train and the gap filling system, but the steps should be easier to
engineer and install.

Post by Ken

Post by Recliner
There’s a different, more difficult problem at some Liz stations outside
the core, where platforms are the wrong height. Ealing Broadway is a
particular problem, especially if someone has a heavy suitcase, as I know
from personal experience. And many airline passengers transfer from the Liz
to the Tube at that station. They might have luggage and may not be
familiar with the station.

Southall used to be very bad indeed in pre-Liz days. Strong banking
and a tight curve. There gap was wide and required a considerable step
up onto the train. I don't know if it's now been mitigated.

I’ve not stepped on or off a Liz train at Southall, so can’t comment. But
I’ve not seen any reports of problems there, unlike Ealing Broadway, which
regularly makes the local news.

[Marland]

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken
Might be better built into the platforms where needed, rather than the
trains.

Yes, that could well be so. The problem to be solved then would be to only
(partly) fill the gaps near the doorways, and only when the train was
stationary. The gap fillers would have to retract after the doors closed,
but before the train moved. So, quite a lot of interlocking between the
train and the gap filling system, but the steps should be easier to
engineer and install.

New York has had them for some time but only one installation now remains.
They don’t retract till the train has started moving which I suppose is
needed for those who would stand on the extension with their nose against
the doors hoping that they will be opened for them,
Retracting when such people are stood on them would cause other issues.
The design doesn’t look too friendly to certain types of footwear either.
Once again the problem of designing something that can be used safely by
all rears its head, you solve one issue and create others.

GH

[Recliner]

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken
Might be better built into the platforms where needed, rather than the
trains.

Yes, that could well be so. The problem to be solved then would be to only
(partly) fill the gaps near the doorways, and only when the train was
stationary. The gap fillers would have to retract after the doors closed,
but before the train moved. So, quite a lot of interlocking between the
train and the gap filling system, but the steps should be easier to
engineer and install.

New York has had them for some time but only one installation now remains.
They don’t retract till the train has started moving which I suppose is
needed for those who would stand on the extension with their nose against
the doors hoping that they will be opened for them,

Yes, I suppose so, but it's still really surprising that the sliding grilles remain extended against moving trains.

By London standards, those gaps aren't large enough to need filling anyway. The northbound Met platforms at Finchley
Road and Baker St have much larger gaps.

Post by Marland
Retracting when such people are stood on them would cause other issues.
The design doesn’t look too friendly to certain types of footwear either.

Yes, high heels might get trapped in the grille.

Post by Marland
Once again the problem of designing something that can be used safely by
all rears its head, you solve one issue and create others.

Very true!

Post by Marland
http://youtu.be/rxGUL8oPI5c
GH

[Recliner]

Post by Ken

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.

Yes, but it wouldn’t have to be that way for ‘curved platform floor
extensions’ on TfL trains. The trains know where they are, and the
extensions might only be deployed at stations with heavily curved
platforms. They wouldn’t need to completely fill the gap, just make it
narrow enough that a person couldn’t slip between them and the platform.

Might be better built into the platforms where needed, rather than the
trains.

Post by Recliner
There’s a different, more difficult problem at some Liz stations outside
the core, where platforms are the wrong height. Ealing Broadway is a
particular problem, especially if someone has a heavy suitcase, as I know
from personal experience. And many airline passengers transfer from the Liz
to the Tube at that station. They might have luggage and may not be
familiar with the station.

Southall used to be very bad indeed in pre-Liz days. Strong banking
and a tight curve. There gap was wide and required a considerable step
up onto the train. I don't know if it's now been mitigated.

I’ve found this image of Southall station:
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/resources/ini1d-flebu-bgan0-ca324-m5itl

There’s a vertical gap between the low platform and high train floor, but
no significant horizontal gap (it’s a straight platform). Ealing Broadway
has bigger gaps in both directions.

Ideally, both stations need their tracks lowering by at least 6”, but I
don’t know if this would cause interference problems with the many passing
freight (and occasional steam) trains

[Ken]

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken

Post by Recliner

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.

Yes, but it wouldn’t have to be that way for ‘curved platform floor
extensions’ on TfL trains. The trains know where they are, and the
extensions might only be deployed at stations with heavily curved
platforms. They wouldn’t need to completely fill the gap, just make it
narrow enough that a person couldn’t slip between them and the platform.

Might be better built into the platforms where needed, rather than the
trains.

Post by Recliner
There’s a different, more difficult problem at some Liz stations outside
the core, where platforms are the wrong height. Ealing Broadway is a
particular problem, especially if someone has a heavy suitcase, as I know
from personal experience. And many airline passengers transfer from the Liz
to the Tube at that station. They might have luggage and may not be
familiar with the station.

Southall used to be very bad indeed in pre-Liz days. Strong banking
and a tight curve. There gap was wide and required a considerable step
up onto the train. I don't know if it's now been mitigated.

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/resources/ini1d-flebu-bgan0-ca324-m5itl
There’s a vertical gap between the low platform and high train floor, but
no significant horizontal gap (it’s a straight platform). Ealing Broadway
has bigger gaps in both directions.
Ideally, both stations need their tracks lowering by at least 6”, but I
don’t know if this would cause interference problems with the many passing
freight (and occasional steam) trains

That looks MUCH better than it was.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Someone did!!!!!!
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

The 'steps' (actually extensions to the train floor, and level with
it) on the Stadlers that call at Ely are, so far as I know, not able
to be disabled. They always deploy, whatever the platform profile.
When the door open sequence begins the steps try to extend to their
full extent then retract a bit if necessary. They do a remarkably good
job at most stations.
There are places where the combination of curve and superelevation are
too much for the steps (e.g. Bishop's Stortford P1) but they still
mitigate the situation to a considerable extent. Few platforms are
that curved and banked for their entire length;

Westminster District Line probably is.

Post by Ken
those who find gaps difficult could be directed to the places with the
smallest remaining gap (although that doesn't happen at the moment).

Yes, the Noble Lord could start his journey at Westminster Jubilee Line,
or if for some reason he *has* to use the District, walk to the station
either side. However, the Palace of Westminster has a "Secret Entrance"
to the Westminster Station concourse, so he's probably very likely to
want to use that station.

[Ken]

Post by Roland Perry
Westminster District Line probably is.

Post by Ken
those who find gaps difficult could be directed to the places with the
smallest remaining gap (although that doesn't happen at the moment).

Yes, the Noble Lord could start his journey at Westminster Jubilee Line,
or if for some reason he *has* to use the District, walk to the station
either side. However, the Palace of Westminster has a "Secret Entrance"
to the Westminster Station concourse, so he's probably very likely to
want to use that station.

I meant, as you knew, that the optimum part of the platform should be
used, analogous to the existing situation with Harrington Humps.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
Westminster District Line probably is.

Post by Ken
those who find gaps difficult could be directed to the places with the
smallest remaining gap (although that doesn't happen at the moment).

Yes, the Noble Lord could start his journey at Westminster Jubilee Line,
or if for some reason he *has* to use the District, walk to the station
either side. However, the Palace of Westminster has a "Secret Entrance"
to the Westminster Station concourse, so he's probably very likely to
want to use that station.

I meant, as you knew, that the optimum part of the platform should be
used, analogous to the existing situation with Harrington Humps.

Then you should have written "...could be directed to the place ON THE
PLATFORM with the smallest remaining gap..."

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Ken

Post by Ken
those who find gaps difficult could be directed to the places with the
smallest remaining gap (although that doesn't happen at the moment).

I meant, as you knew, that the optimum part of the platform should be
used, analogous to the existing situation with Harrington Humps.

That's no good if the smaller gap at the destination station is at the
other end of the train. The 'accessible' place needs to be either the whole
train, or in the same place on every station.

[Recliner]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Ken

Post by Ken
those who find gaps difficult could be directed to the places with the
smallest remaining gap (although that doesn't happen at the moment).

I meant, as you knew, that the optimum part of the platform should be
used, analogous to the existing situation with Harrington Humps.

That's no good if the smaller gap at the destination station is at the
other end of the train. The 'accessible' place needs to be either the whole
train, or in the same place on every station.

The idea is that only a minority of platforms curve enough for there to be
a real problem. So it would be unusually bad luck if both the stations in a
journey had the problem. And it would be even worse luck if the smaller gap
sections at the two stations were at different parts of the train. Of
course, if it’s an S stock train (as in this case), you can walk along
inside the train, if it’s not too busy. So the idea doesn’t eliminate the
problem, but does significantly reduce it, relatively cheaply, easily and
quickly.

Any solution that involves extending gap fillers from either the trains or
the platforms will have all sorts of complications, so will be complex,
expensive and take years to install. It may even be impossible with the
current rolling stock.

So I wonder what will happen with the 24TS? Was any thought put into
reducing the gaps? These trains have the complication that they share
platforms at some stations with higher floor, wider SSL trains. At others,
SSL trains pass through Piccadilly line stations without stopping, but must
obviously clear the platforms.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in London you
hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But too often there are no
staff members to actually help you if, like me, you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that slide/swing
out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run any Stadler
trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run any Stadler
trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

[Theo]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run any Stadler
trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

See the absence of the word 'curved' in Recliner's sentence? That's
something you've come up with from elsewhere.

Stadler's doorsteps are straight. They don't fully fill the gap at a curved
platform. They 'partly fill the gap'. Smaller gap = less chance of people
falling down it.

If you want to fill the gap better, you could have a multi-piece step with
some kind of variable throw. That's something that's technically feasible
but not currently deployed on UK trains.

But even a straight fill is better than no fill, and a straight doorstep
that overlaps the platform does cover the whole gap at the expense of not
entirely level boarding - an 'extend and drop' design would handle that.

Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the
gap exists at stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

See the absence of the word 'curved' in Recliner's sentence? That's
something you've come up with from elsewhere.

Not from elsewhere, from Westminster Station.

Post by Theo
Stadler's doorsteps are straight. They don't fully fill the gap at a curved
platform. They 'partly fill the gap'. Smaller gap = less chance of people
falling down it.
If you want to fill the gap better, you could have a multi-piece step with
some kind of variable throw. That's something that's technically feasible
but not currently deployed on UK trains.
But even a straight fill is better than no fill,

Not if the platform is sufficiently curved.

Post by Theo
and a straight doorstep that overlaps the platform

And can accommodate the varying heights between platform and train that
one sees all over TfL?

Post by Theo
does cover the whole gap at the expense of not
entirely level boarding - an 'extend and drop' design would handle that.

Does Stadler have one of *those*? And if they did, could it be
retrofitted to District line trains.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the
gap exists at stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

See the absence of the word 'curved' in Recliner's sentence? That's
something you've come up with from elsewhere.

Not from elsewhere, from Westminster Station.

Post by Theo
Stadler's doorsteps are straight. They don't fully fill the gap at a curved
platform. They 'partly fill the gap'. Smaller gap = less chance of people
falling down it.
If you want to fill the gap better, you could have a multi-piece step with
some kind of variable throw. That's something that's technically feasible
but not currently deployed on UK trains.
But even a straight fill is better than no fill,

Not if the platform is sufficiently curved.

Post by Theo
and a straight doorstep that overlaps the platform

And can accommodate the varying heights between platform and train that
one sees all over TfL?

Post by Theo
does cover the whole gap at the expense of not
entirely level boarding - an 'extend and drop' design would handle that.

Does Stadler have one of *those*? And if they did, could it be
retrofitted to District line trains.

Obviously, no Stadler mechanism will be fitted to any TfL trains. But I think fold-out flaps could possibly be fitted to
S-stock trains. They would only be deployed at a few stations. But, as with any retrofitting, it would be very expensive

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run any Stadler
trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap
exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

OK, so your solution is to only partly fill the gap.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap
exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

OK, so your solution is to only partly fill the gap.

Obviously. Unlike you, I'm a pragmatic engineer, not a professional arguer.

All LU platforms have a gap with S Stock trains, but in most cases, it's narrow enough to be safe. There's a small
number of stations where it's wide enough to justify some sort of partial gap filler. Westminster is by no means the
worst, but after this episode, it'll probably be top of the list for attention.

The easiest solution in most cases would be simply to identify the section of the platform with the narrowest gap (few
platforms have constant curvature). This could then be identified and sign-posted on relevant stations. I'm not sure how
blind people could be notified of the safest boarding area, but there may be conventions used elsewhere (some sort of
sound signal?)..

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap
exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

OK, so your solution is to only partly fill the gap.

Obviously. Unlike you, I'm a pragmatic engineer, not a professional arguer.

Obviously, I disagree in the sense that I'm a practical engineer and not
a professional arguer. For the latter, you give a greater impression of
the "hat fitting".

Post by Recliner
All LU platforms have a gap with S Stock trains, but in most cases,
it's narrow enough to be safe. There's a small
number of stations where it's wide enough to justify some sort of
partial gap filler. Westminster is by no means the
worst, but after this episode, it'll probably be top of the list for attention.
The easiest solution in most cases would be simply to identify the
section of the platform with the narrowest gap (few
platforms have constant curvature). This could then be identified and
sign-posted on relevant stations. I'm not sure how
blind people could be notified of the safest boarding area, but there
may be conventions used elsewhere (some sort of
sound signal?)..

Simplest would be to install those bumps in the paving which are
commonplace at zebra crossings etc.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Mon, 18 Nov

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap
exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

OK, so your solution is to only partly fill the gap.

Obviously. Unlike you, I'm a pragmatic engineer, not a professional arguer.

Obviously, I disagree in the sense that I'm a practical engineer and not
a professional arguer. For the latter, you give a greater impression of
the "hat fitting".

You are in constant arguments in every thread you participate in. It’s
clearly why you’re here. The S/N ratio improved markedly when you were away
for a while.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
All LU platforms have a gap with S Stock trains, but in most cases,
it's narrow enough to be safe. There's a small
number of stations where it's wide enough to justify some sort of
partial gap filler. Westminster is by no means the
worst, but after this episode, it'll probably be top of the list for attention.
The easiest solution in most cases would be simply to identify the
section of the platform with the narrowest gap (few
platforms have constant curvature). This could then be identified and
sign-posted on relevant stations. I'm not sure how
blind people could be notified of the safest boarding area, but there
may be conventions used elsewhere (some sort of
sound signal?)..

Simplest would be to install those bumps in the paving which are
commonplace at zebra crossings etc.

I suppose that would tell you you’d reached the safe(r) boarding area, but
there would also need to be some sort of direction indicators to lead blind
people to that zone.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Obviously. Unlike you, I'm a pragmatic engineer, not a professional arguer.

Obviously, I disagree in the sense that I'm a practical engineer and not
a professional arguer. For the latter, you give a greater impression of
the "hat fitting".

You are in constant arguments in every thread you participate in. It’s
clearly why you’re here. The S/N ratio improved markedly when you were away
for a while.

I'm "in arguments" because people quibble/argue about more stuff I write
than everyone else put together. You being one of the prime offenders.

What I rarely do is express dissent about another person's posting, when
that was itself not a quibble aimed at me. Maybe (and I know you never,
ever do this) you could cite a recent example.

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Mon, 18 Nov

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap
exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

OK, so your solution is to only partly fill the gap.

Obviously. Unlike you, I'm a pragmatic engineer, not a professional arguer.

Obviously, I disagree in the sense that I'm a practical engineer and not
a professional arguer. For the latter, you give a greater impression of
the "hat fitting".

Post by Recliner
All LU platforms have a gap with S Stock trains, but in most cases,
it's narrow enough to be safe. There's a small
number of stations where it's wide enough to justify some sort of
partial gap filler. Westminster is by no means the
worst, but after this episode, it'll probably be top of the list for attention.
The easiest solution in most cases would be simply to identify the
section of the platform with the narrowest gap (few
platforms have constant curvature). This could then be identified and
sign-posted on relevant stations. I'm not sure how
blind people could be notified of the safest boarding area, but there
may be conventions used elsewhere (some sort of
sound signal?)..

Simplest would be to install those bumps in the paving which are
commonplace at zebra crossings etc.

Arn’t they already in use to mark the edge of platforms anyway when
stations get upgraded?

For someone with poor or no sight who travels around how would they
differentiate or know if the tactile edge paving is a std installation
warning they are getting close to a platform edge or is marking just a safe
boarding area? The two situations would seem to at odds with each other.

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Mon, 18 Nov

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap
exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
*** It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.
Noting that it's probably the case Stadler only have moving steps for
straight platforms, whereas the TfL gaps are on **CURVED** platforms.

Oh dear, Roland, do I have to sell you consulting services to explain some
very basic engineering?

Not at all, I can see the requirements for this proposal perfectly well
already.

Very obviously not.

It's filling a curved gap. What's difficult about that as a requirement?

It’s partly filling a dangerously wide gap. The fact that there’s a slight
concave curve on one side of the gap is irrelevant.

OK, so your solution is to only partly fill the gap.

Obviously. Unlike you, I'm a pragmatic engineer, not a professional arguer.

Obviously, I disagree in the sense that I'm a practical engineer and not
a professional arguer. For the latter, you give a greater impression of
the "hat fitting".

Post by Recliner
All LU platforms have a gap with S Stock trains, but in most cases,
it's narrow enough to be safe. There's a small
number of stations where it's wide enough to justify some sort of
partial gap filler. Westminster is by no means the
worst, but after this episode, it'll probably be top of the list for attention.
The easiest solution in most cases would be simply to identify the
section of the platform with the narrowest gap (few
platforms have constant curvature). This could then be identified and
sign-posted on relevant stations. I'm not sure how
blind people could be notified of the safest boarding area, but there
may be conventions used elsewhere (some sort of
sound signal?)..

Simplest would be to install those bumps in the paving which are
commonplace at zebra crossings etc.

Arn’t they already in use to mark the edge of platforms anyway when
stations get upgraded?
For someone with poor or no sight who travels around how would they
differentiate or know if the tactile edge paving is a std installation
warning they are getting close to a platform edge or is marking just a safe
boarding area? The two situations would seem to at odds with each other.

There's tactile ridges too (which famously are hard for cyclists to
negotiate on the approaches to zebra crossings on shared pavements).

But cycling is forbidden on UndergrounD platforms.

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry
Simplest would be to install those bumps in the paving which are
commonplace at zebra crossings etc.

Arn’t they already in use to mark the edge of platforms anyway when
stations get upgraded?
For someone with poor or no sight who travels around how would they
differentiate or know if the tactile edge paving is a std installation
warning they are getting close to a platform edge or is marking just a safe
boarding area? The two situations would seem to at odds with each other.

There's tactile ridges too (which famously are hard for cyclists to
negotiate on the approaches to zebra crossings on shared pavements).
But cycling is forbidden on UndergrounD platforms.

There are quite a few designs some of which seem to be associated with
different
situations. I can now see I am having to go on a tactile paving spotting
exercise next time I’m in a place that will have some , it appears that
lozenge shaped bumps are reserved to mark the platform edges for on street
tramways. I wonder how easy it is to differentiate between the different
types through the feet.
The official document is quite long.

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61df0c91e90e07037794fe90/guidance-on-the-use-of-tactile-paving-surfaces.pdf>

but this site is a briefer read
< https://www.pavingexpert.com/tactile01>

Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-300-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-300-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

I think Network Rail can't have tactile boarding points because of the
wide variation in classes (and length of trains) stopping at a typical
platform. TfL, on the other hand, has a much more consistent match.

But I can see the disincentive to have such a facility if it requires
digging up every platform when a fleet on a particular line gets
upgraded.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-300-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

I think Network Rail can't have tactile boarding points because of the
wide variation in classes (and length of trains) stopping at a typical
platform. TfL, on the other hand, has a much more consistent match.

True, but several stations have both S7s and S8s, which probably don’t stop
with the doors aligned. And there quite a few stations served by both Tube
and SSL stock.

Post by Roland Perry
But I can see the disincentive to have such a facility if it requires
digging up every platform when a fleet on a particular line gets
upgraded.

One other point hits me: disabled or blind passengers travelling *to* a
‘difficult’ station need to know which carriage(s) to use, even if their
departure station has easy boarding.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-30
0-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

I think Network Rail can't have tactile boarding points because of the
wide variation in classes (and length of trains) stopping at a typical
platform. TfL, on the other hand, has a much more consistent match.

True, but several stations have both S7s and S8s, which probably don’t stop
with the doors aligned. And there quite a few stations served by both Tube
and SSL stock.

Post by Roland Perry
But I can see the disincentive to have such a facility if it requires
digging up every platform when a fleet on a particular line gets
upgraded.

One other point hits me: disabled or blind passengers travelling *to* a
‘difficult’ station need to know which carriage(s) to use, even if their
departure station has easy boarding.

There used to be a book which told people where on the platform to wait
for a train, so they'd be close to the exit at their
destination/next-change. Maybe extend that concept, or even have an app
(voice activated of course: Siri, where...)

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-30
0-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

I think Network Rail can't have tactile boarding points because of the
wide variation in classes (and length of trains) stopping at a typical
platform. TfL, on the other hand, has a much more consistent match.

True, but several stations have both S7s and S8s, which probably don’t stop
with the doors aligned. And there quite a few stations served by both Tube
and SSL stock.

Post by Roland Perry
But I can see the disincentive to have such a facility if it requires
digging up every platform when a fleet on a particular line gets
upgraded.

One other point hits me: disabled or blind passengers travelling *to* a
‘difficult’ station need to know which carriage(s) to use, even if their
departure station has easy boarding.

There used to be a book which told people where on the platform to wait
for a train, so they'd be close to the exit at their
destination/next-change. Maybe extend that concept, or even have an app
(voice activated of course: Siri, where...)

The apps already do that (not sure about the voice activation, though), so
it would be a natural extension. I don’t know if there are specialist apps
for disabled/blind people that automatically select suitable stations to
deal with their disability and knows about non-working lifts and
escalators. You can specify some of those requirements in the TfL journey
planner.

[Theo]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-300-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

I think Network Rail can't have tactile boarding points because of the
wide variation in classes (and length of trains) stopping at a typical
platform. TfL, on the other hand, has a much more consistent match.

True, but several stations have both S7s and S8s, which probably don’t stop
with the doors aligned. And there quite a few stations served by both Tube
and SSL stock.

Post by Roland Perry
But I can see the disincentive to have such a facility if it requires
digging up every platform when a fleet on a particular line gets
upgraded.

One other point hits me: disabled or blind passengers travelling *to* a
‘difficult’ station need to know which carriage(s) to use, even if their
departure station has easy boarding.

Wouldn't it make sense to align the infrastructure? ie if you board at the
accessible spot, it will line up with the accessible spot when you wish to
leave the train.

On some tube stock you can't move along the train (even if it wasn't rammed)
so you couldn't switch to a different door anyway.

If they're on something like the Jubilee or EL, where some stations are
fully accessible and some aren't, then it's easier to board at an accessible
spot that doesn't line up with the limited accessibility at an older
station. Maybe those still need a concept of an accessible boarding area,
even if all the points look identical.

It would also make sense in that it would line up with wheelchair spaces on
the train and might be where any booked assistance would meet you.

Theo

[Recliner]

Post by Theo

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-300-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

I think Network Rail can't have tactile boarding points because of the
wide variation in classes (and length of trains) stopping at a typical
platform. TfL, on the other hand, has a much more consistent match.

True, but several stations have both S7s and S8s, which probably don’t stop
with the doors aligned. And there quite a few stations served by both Tube
and SSL stock.

Post by Roland Perry
But I can see the disincentive to have such a facility if it requires
digging up every platform when a fleet on a particular line gets
upgraded.

One other point hits me: disabled or blind passengers travelling *to* a
‘difficult’ station need to know which carriage(s) to use, even if their
departure station has easy boarding.

Wouldn't it make sense to align the infrastructure? ie if you board at the
accessible spot, it will line up with the accessible spot when you wish to
leave the train.

That’s what they do with the disabled carriage and raised platform. But
with the easy boarding (low gap) section, they’re stuck with using the
least curved part of the platform, which could be anywhere, depending on
how the Victorian serveyers designed the route.

Post by Theo
On some tube stock you can't move along the train (even if it wasn't rammed)
so you couldn't switch to a different door anyway.

The idea is to choose the right carriage to board.

Post by Theo
If they're on something like the Jubilee or EL, where some stations are
fully accessible and some aren't, then it's easier to board at an accessible
spot that doesn't line up with the limited accessibility at an older
station. Maybe those still need a concept of an accessible boarding area,
even if all the points look identical.

The accessible zones all line up.

Post by Theo
It would also make sense in that it would line up with wheelchair spaces on
the train and might be where any booked assistance would meet you.

It does, but that wouldn’t apply to the marked easier boarding zones.

[Recliner]

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry
Simplest would be to install those bumps in the paving which are
commonplace at zebra crossings etc.

Arn’t they already in use to mark the edge of platforms anyway when
stations get upgraded?
For someone with poor or no sight who travels around how would they
differentiate or know if the tactile edge paving is a std installation
warning they are getting close to a platform edge or is marking just a safe
boarding area? The two situations would seem to at odds with each other.

There's tactile ridges too (which famously are hard for cyclists to
negotiate on the approaches to zebra crossings on shared pavements).
But cycling is forbidden on UndergrounD platforms.

There are quite a few designs some of which seem to be associated with
different
situations. I can now see I am having to go on a tactile paving spotting
exercise next time I’m in a place that will have some , it appears that
lozenge shaped bumps are reserved to mark the platform edges for on street
tramways. I wonder how easy it is to differentiate between the different
types through the feet.
The official document is quite long.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61df0c91e90e07037794fe90/guidance-on-the-use-of-tactile-paving-surfaces.pdf>
but this site is a briefer read
< https://www.pavingexpert.com/tactile01>
Network Rail also have their own guidance but there is nothing about
marking boarding points as such.
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NR-GN-CIV-300-06-Tactile-Paving-wayfinding.pdf>

Unsurprisingly, this problem has long been noticed and studied:
http://www.metadyne.co.uk/mind_the_gap.htm

[Ken]

Post by Roland Perry
I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

So some places are better than others to board the train at
Westminster, without the need to resort to adjacent stations? That's
odd, because you implied otherwise yesterday.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry
I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

So some places are better than others to board the train at
Westminster, without the need to resort to adjacent stations? That's
odd, because you implied otherwise yesterday.

I don't think I ventured an opinion on that. What I said was the Jubilee
Line platforms were safer.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Lord Blunkett said: "Whenever you step into a Tube station in
London you hear the tannoy warn people to 'mind the gap'. But
there are no staff members to actually help you if, like me,
you cannot see."
He is calling for TfL to fill the widest gaps on platforms

That'll stop the trains permanently. There's a reason the gap exists at
stations with curved platforms.

It would be possible to fit the trains with moving steps that
slide/swing out to partly fill the gaps, as Stadler do.

Do Stadler have multi-segment moving steps which fill the gaps at
stations each with their unique platform curvature?

You should know, as it’s your local TOC.

My local TOCs are GA/GN/Thameslink/EMR, not TfL.

There are FLIRTs with extending steps at Ely. TfL doesn’t run
any Stadler trains.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
In any case, your invented requirement isn’t necessary.

But some are claiming it is.

It was clearly not what I was suggesting.

Someone did!!!!!!

Yes, me, but where did I say anything about variable width steps?

Not variable *width* but variable extension, to fill the crescent shaped
gap. Needs to extend further in the middle than the edges.

Absolutely no need for any such thing! I thought you used to use that
station?

I did, which is why I remember it has a curved platform (especially at
the western end).

I’m going to have to check this out personally, but OSM suggests that the
curve is greater at the (north)eastern end:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.501527/-0.124688