Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said - that
we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train floor?
There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved platforms where
the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there is no excuse yet
they're still lower. Only recently have we started building them level. Even
the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from platforms lower than the train floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

--
Spud

In article , d () wrote:

Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said -
that we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train
floor? There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved
platforms where the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there
is no excuse yet they're still lower. Only recently have we started
building them level. Even the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from
platforms lower than the train floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

The S Stock has changed that of course.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:33:50 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said -
that we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train
floor? There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved
platforms where the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there
is no excuse yet they're still lower. Only recently have we started
building them level. Even the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from
platforms lower than the train floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

The S Stock has changed that of course.

Up to a point. Though it brings its own problems - the gap at the highly
curved Aldgate platforms is borderline dangerous for anyone with poor
eyesight.

--
Spud

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:11:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:33:50 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said -
that we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train
floor? There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved
platforms where the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there
is no excuse yet they're still lower. Only recently have we started
building them level. Even the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from
platforms lower than the train floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

The S Stock has changed that of course.

Up to a point. Though it brings its own problems - the gap at the highly
curved Aldgate platforms is borderline dangerous for anyone with poor
eyesight.

Have they installed the bright below-platform lights there, as at
other curved platforms? That would help people not fail to spot, and
fall into, the gap. I also think the mind-the-gap announcements be
limited to those stations where there is a dangerously large gap.

But I think that's your answer: it was deemed to be safer to overhang
platforms than to be at the identical level with a large gap on curved
platforms. And presumably on general purpose lines all trains aren't
the same height anyway, so you'd have had both a gap and a height
difference.

I looked at the pics I took in Japan and see that even on recent
Shinkansen lines, the train floors are a bit higher than the platform,
though the height difference is quite small, and there's almost no
gap:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...1720/lightbox/

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:23:09 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:11:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Up to a point. Though it brings its own problems - the gap at the highly
curved Aldgate platforms is borderline dangerous for anyone with poor
eyesight.

Have they installed the bright below-platform lights there, as at
other curved platforms? That would help people not fail to spot, and

Can't remember TBH, its been a few months since I last went there.

But I think that's your answer: it was deemed to be safer to overhang
platforms than to be at the identical level with a large gap on curved
platforms. And presumably on general purpose lines all trains aren't
the same height anyway, so you'd have had both a gap and a height
difference.

Curved platforms sure, but on straight platforms I can't see a good reason
for not having the platform the same height as the train. Even if the trains
floor height varies by a few inches, that's preferable to the large step up
you get at some places. And if only one type of train is going to run on
a new built line, eg victoria line, they really had no excuse. At least they
got it right with the JLE and ELLX. Presumably the lizzyline will do the same.

I looked at the pics I took in Japan and see that even on recent
Shinkansen lines, the train floors are a bit higher than the platform,
though the height difference is quite small, and there's almost no
gap:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...33542371720/li
htbox/

Good pics.

--
Spud

I like the ones where you have to abseil down.

On 2016-02-25 10:58:18 +0000, d said:

Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said - that
we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train floor?

Because the loading gauge at platform level is about a foot narrower
than about a foot above it, also because space is needed under the
floor for engines and similar equipment on a modern MU.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:00:28 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-02-25 10:58:18 +0000, d said:

Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said - that
we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train floor?

Because the loading gauge at platform level is about a foot narrower
than about a foot above it, also because space is needed under the
floor for engines and similar equipment on a modern MU.

Whats that got to do with making the platforms the same height as the train
floor?

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said -
that
we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train
floor?
There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved platforms where
the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there is no excuse
yet
they're still lower. Only recently have we started building them level.
Even
the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from platforms lower than the train
floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

At least in the UK we don't *usually* have to have a little set of steps on
the platform by each door, or a mini-step ladder built into each doorway on
the train; I saw plenty of instances of the latter on Michael Portillo's
Great American Railroad Journeys programmes.

You'd think it would be fairly obvious from the early days of railways:
decide on a standard floor height above the tracks for all trains, and built
all platforms at that height +/- a small tolerance to allow for the problem
of curved platforms. Certainly putting platforms at rail level is never
going to be right! Especially now rail companies need to cater for people in
wheelchairs, who tended to get forgotten about in bygone days.

On 25/02/2016 22:00, NY wrote:
wrote in message ...
Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said
- that
we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train
floor?
There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved platforms
where
the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there is no
excuse yet
they're still lower. Only recently have we started building them
level. Even
the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from platforms lower than the
train floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

At least in the UK we don't *usually* have to have a little set of steps
on the platform by each door, or a mini-step ladder built into each
doorway on the train; I saw plenty of instances of the latter on Michael
Portillo's Great American Railroad Journeys programmes.

You'd think it would be fairly obvious from the early days of railways:
decide on a standard floor height above the tracks for all trains, and
built all platforms at that height +/- a small tolerance to allow for
the problem of curved platforms. Certainly putting platforms at rail
level is never going to be right! Especially now rail companies need to
cater for people in wheelchairs, who tended to get forgotten about in
bygone days.

In the early days of the railways wheelchairs in the modern sense didn't
exist. Though bath chairs have been around since the mid 18th Century
when they slowly took over from sedan chairs, another example of a more
modern technology destroying a traditional form of transport :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.