Lord Blunkett injured in Tube platform gap fall

[M***@DastartdlyHQ.org]

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

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

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]

Well, I went along to check out the chasmic gaps at Westminster. And I was
not impressed—my journey into town on an S stock train involved two other
stations with much larger gaps than at Westminster.

S stock trains have three pairs of double doors. Two pairs are over the
bogies, and therefore have consistent gaps (obviously wider at stations
with curved platforms than straight). The variation comes with the centre
pair. This doorway has a narrower gap when using a platform with a convex
curve, and wider gap when the platform is concave.

At Westminster, the westbound platform is concave, and so the middle doors
have larger gaps. The platform curvature seems fairly uniform, but is
perhaps a little more acute at the western end.

TfL obviously regard it a station worthy of extra precaution, and it has
multiple signs on the platform surface, particularly by the central doors,
as well as under-platform warning lights. Of course, none of those would
help a blind passenger.

Even if you use the station regularly, you might be surprised by the
variation in gap, depending on direction of travel and which doors you use.
As these trains have through gangways, it’s not instantly obvious which
doors are over bogies (small variations in gaps) or central (much more
variation), and perhaps that’s what caught out Lord Blunkett?

But after all that, the gap isn’t all that large, even at the western end
of the platform. I estimate it as perhaps 150-200mm. And, at least, there’s
very little difference in height.

See
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720324284852/

Baker Street and Finchley Road northbound Met platforms definitely have
bigger gaps. And none comes close to Central Line Bank.

[Roland Perry]

the gap isn’t all that large, even at the western end of the
platform. I estimate it as perhaps 150-200mm. And, at least, there’s
very little difference in height.
See
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720324284852/

That's what I thought, back at the start of the thread.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

the gap isn’t all that large, even at the western end of the
platform. I estimate it as perhaps 150-200mm. And, at least, there’s
very little difference in height.
See
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720324284852/

That's what I thought, back at the start of the thread.

Yes, you were right. But I think there’s not much difference in the curve
radius along the platform, so the difference in the maximum gaps is
probably just a few mm from one end of the platform to the other. There’s
a much bigger difference in the gaps between adjacent doorways in each
carriage.

My guess is that he was accustomed to boarding through the outer doors of
the carriage, but, that day, was standing in a slightly different position
on the platform to normal, and boarded through the middle doors, where the
gap is perhaps 60mm larger. That might be enough to trip him up.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Sat, 08 Mar 2025 17:12:36 GMT

Post by Recliner
S stock trains have three pairs of double doors. Two pairs are over the
bogies, and therefore have consistent gaps (obviously wider at stations
with curved platforms than straight). The variation comes with the centre
pair. This doorway has a narrower gap when using a platform with a convex
curve, and wider gap when the platform is concave.

Just noticed this post for some reason.

Metro Cammell solved this in the 60s with the A stock. The trains were very
wide at floor level but that level was higher than the platforms so could
overlap them. Even on the tightest curves there wouldn't be much of a gap.

Of course now with disability regs floors have to be level with the platform
to accomodate those once in a blue moon mythical wheelchair users. Meanwhile
everyone else particularly the elderly get fucked over and risk a leg break
getting on and off trains at these stations.

Isn't progress wonderful.