Significant Steps: summary of research findings

About this document

Significant Steps - Summary is one of three related documents produced as part of a research project into rail vehicle accessibility. It provides a summary of empirical research undertaken to determine the acceptability of different stepping distances between station platforms and trains. It also makes recommendations for improving the task of boarding and alighting trains.

The relationship between the 3 documents is illustrated below:-

1 Introduction

When you get on or off a train there is usually a step up or down and also a gap between the train and the platform. The size of the step and the gap can vary enormously. The bigger the size of the step and gap, the more difficult it is for people to get on and off trains. In some cases the step and gap are so big that it is physically impossible for some people to get on or off a train.

2 Significant Steps research study

To gain a better understanding of this problem a research study was commissioned by the Department for Transport. The purpose of the research was to establish from a users perspective what constitutes an acceptable gap and step and to provide recommendations for updating the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998⁽¹⁾ (RVAR).

People with a variety of disabilities were asked to get on and off a full size test train. The size of the step and gap were varied each time they did this. In the case of wheelchair users the ramp angle was increased or decreased.

Each time the participants got on or off the train they were asked to rate how much effort was required to complete the task and how safe they felt. Participants were asked to treat the exercise as if they were really getting on or off a train at a station. So if they normally asked for assistance from station staff then this was provided. Similarly if they normally used a walking stick or a frame they were asked to use this. Wheelchair users self-propelled if this is how they normally expected to board a train, otherwise assistance was provided. For further details see the Significant Steps Research Report.

2.1 What the research showed

Unsurprisingly, the research found that the smaller the step and gap the easier it was for participants to get on and off trains. As the step and gap size increased so did the time taken to board and alight the train. The ratings recorded for the effort required and anxiety experienced also increased.

The step height and the gap width were found to be equally important. Getting off the train (stepping down and away from the train) was generally found to be more difficult than getting on the train (stepping up and towards the train).

The results obtained from participants with walking difficulties were considered separately to those obtained from visually impaired volunteers. The participants with a visual impairment generally spent most time assessing the nature of the task rather than actually getting on or off the train. The participants with walking difficulties were generally slower in the physical task of getting on or off the train.

Many of the participant comments highlighted the importance of consistency of design. Ideally all doorway designs, including the position of handrails and steps and the step height and width should be identical.

Handrails played a significant role in helping participants get on the train, but were less useful for getting off trains. Handrails should be as close to the user as possible, with consideration given to the use of extending handles. Perhaps handrails which extend outwards as the doors open?

2.2 What is an adequate step and gap?

The best solution would be to have no step or gap at all between trains and platforms. This is particularly difficult to achieve, and the reasons why are presented later. Therefore, a definition of an acceptable step and gap combination is required. For this work, the following definitions were used:

1. The use of moderate physical effort was acceptable, whereas the use of exceptional physical effort was unacceptable.
2. Feeling safe but needing to be a bit careful was acceptable, whereas feeling a little unsafe and needing to be quite careful was unacceptable.

These definitions were used to determine what comprised an acceptable stepping task, or in the case of wheelchair users an acceptable ramp gradient. This led to the following key conclusions:

• The step height and the gap width when added together should preferably not exceed 200mm and should definitely not exceed 300mm.
• Wheelchair ramps should not exceed an angle of 8 degrees.

3 Why is there a step and gap?

Most of the British railway system was built prior to nationalisation in 1948 by different private companies. They built to their own standard which means there was no agreement in the height of platforms or the width of vehicles that pass them. Many of these platforms remain in use today.

Trains need to pass through stations without touching the platform edge. Therefore, technically there is logic in making the gap as big as possible to provide the widest safety margin possible.

The floor height of trains is often a lot higher than the platform, particularly on Inter-City type trains. This is the result of inherited design features being carried over from one design to the next, and more recently the desire to install equipment on the underside of the train. Many years ago it was normal to use wooden steps to help people get on and off trains and there are a few remote locations where these are still used today.

The high floor height is therefore typically accompanied by a footstep on the outside of the train. Our research showed that these are generally useful, but only if they are of an adequate size, as required by RVAR regulations 6(1)(f) and 6(1)(g). The research found that they can also be a source of confusion for passengers with visual impairments, because of a lack of consistency between different types of trains.

Trains sway on their suspension and the faster the train the greater the sway. An allowance has to be made for this in the form of a larger gap, particularly at platforms where trains pass through at a high speed.

If the platform is on a curve, this generally results in a larger gap between the train and the platform. However, this is dependent upon the direction of the curve and the position of the doors in relation to the train wheels. This is demonstrated in the following diagram.

If a platform is on a curve, the track may slope to help passing trains go round the curve at higher speeds. Where the train leans away from the platform a greater stepping distance results.

3.1 Existing stepping distances

The stepping distance was calculated for a number of trains at different platform configurations. The smallest stepping distance was 152mm (step height + gap width), the largest stepping distance was 528mm. Of the 25 scenarios for which stepping distance was calculated only 3 (12%) were less than the 200mm requirement, as found to be acceptable by the majority of users and 18 (72%) exceeded the 300mm requirement, which was generally found to be unacceptable. Whilst most of the distances exceeded our recommendations, a few achieved less than the 200mm requirement, showing that given the correct circumstances a small stepping distance can be achieved.

4 Improving accessibility

It is recognised that there is limited scope for improving stepping distances by simply moving the platform or the step with the current range of vehicle dimensions and infrastructure gauging requirements. Consideration is given here to other methods of improving accessibility. For each proposal listed below, a brief description has been included, along with an indicative costing for those that are obtainable. In the case of vehicle modifications the cost for the first doorway includes design, detail arrangement and assembly drawings, procedures and briefs, stress approvals, type testing, modification, materials and installation. This is per vehicle type.

The discussion is followed by a table listing advantages, disadvantages and the potential viability of implementation for both new build and retro-fitting for the favoured solutions. In providing ratings, each option has been considered on a network wide basis. It is accepted that if specific locations were considered, e.g. terminal stations in large cities where a significant number of staff are available to operate additional equipment, the relative ratings would change. Combinations of the proposals are also possible.

There are more individual vehicles than platforms to modify. This would mean more initial expenditure for modifying vehicles assuming modification costs per item (vehicle or platform) are similar.

The cost of ensuring that there are sufficient staff at the majority of the platforms in order to implement fixed modifications and subsequent maintenance (especially at remote outlying stations) will be significant. However implementation of modifications to vehicles and subsequent maintenance could be achieved through the current maintenance schedule and performed when the unit is in a depot.

Vandalism is also more of an issue for an infrastructure based solution, especially in outlying stations. The effect of this can be reduced by the addition of fences or cages, but at an additional cost and potential delay to deployment.

4.1 Stepping distance improvements obtained by vehicle design

4.1.1 Retractable step

The stepping distance could be reduced significantly by fitting retractable steps which only deploy when the vehicles are stationary at the platform. This is used on the Class 390 (Pendolino) and Eurostar where the step deploys to a fixed position.

4.1.2 Adjustable onboard step/Intelli-step

Rather than having a fixed position step (with respect to the vehicle body), the gap could be bridged by a step that varied in the horizontal and vertical planes. The step would be stowed when in transit to allow minimum gauge clearance. Such a step is an evolution of the Retractable Step as used on the Class 390 (Pendolino). When the vehicle reaches a platform, an intelligent controller could either:

• use GPS (Global Positioning System) to identify where the platform is and extract the physical parameters of that platform from those stored in an onboard computer; or
• have an inbuilt sensor that measures the distance between the step and the platform.

The controller could then deploy the step accordingly to give the least H+V value for that vehicle/platform combination.

Total indicative cost for first retrofit doorway modification (inbuilt sensor variant) = £50,000.

Indicative cost for additional retrofit doorways (inbuilt sensor variant) = £8,000 per doorway.

4.1.3 Transfer ramp

Ramps can be used by wheelchair users and passengers with walking difficulties. A manually operated ramp permanently attached to the vehicle body and stowed inside the floor, under the vestibule could be employed. It would be hinged on the body-side and so could easily accommodate different platform heights, although this would give rise to different ramp angles. Staff would need to be trained and made available to operate the ramp when required. It would need to have protective rails to prevent a wheelchair from going off the sides of the ramp.

Total indicative cost for first retrofit doorway modification = £41,500.

Indicative cost for additional retrofit doorways = £6,000 per doorway.

4.1.4 Use of thin steps

Step Margin is measured from the bottom of the step, stepping distance is measured from the top, and it is known that the Mark III has a wooden stepboard which is at least 40mm thick (some other types of stock also have a similar stepboard). If the stepboard was to be replaced with a thinner one (10mm) of a stiffer material such as steel or extruded aluminium (similar to that fitted to the Class 58 Locomotive), the H+V stepping distance could be reduced by approximately 30mm. The top surface (currently 1143mm) would be lowered to about 1113mm. This would however have the effect of increasing the secondary vertical step dimension from 157mm to 187mm in order to reach the 1300mm floor height (still within the 200mm RVAR requirements).

Total indicative cost for first retrofit doorway modification = £35,750.

Indicative cost for additional retrofit doorways = £1,750 per doorway.

4.1.5 Train mounted lift

A train mounted lift could be used to bridge the gap. Particularly useful to wheelchair users, this would need to negotiate the steps that are already present on the train (that would be required to be kept in order to maintain dwell times when the lift is not in use). A lift would be required on each side of the train even if the known route of a train contained only platforms on one side. This allows for platform alterations, reverse formations or diversionary routes. It would need to be operated by staff to avoid misuse and would take up storage space inside the train.

Total indicative cost for first retrofit doorway modification = £98,000.

Indicative cost for additional retrofit doorways = £13,000 per doorway.

Cost for already designed and used kit in Europe in 1999 ⁽²⁾ = €12,900 to €25,000.

4.1.6 Use of smaller diameter wheels

Vehicles with smaller diameter wheels will give a lower body to ground clearance and hence a lower step height. This would have the effect of reducing the stepping distance for vehicles that currently have a step down from the train to the platform. For vehicles with oversailing steps, care would be needed to maintain clearances with the bottom of the step. Smaller wheels will wear faster than larger wheels as they rotate faster. Transmission parts will also be rotating faster and will hence need to be of a heavier duty to provide the same service life.

4.1.7 Selective lower floor heights

Multiple units could be designed with floor heights lowered at the doorways. This will necessitate the use of internal ramps or steps and a lift in order to have a raised floor above the bogies and the traction motors.

With different floor levels inside a vehicle, there is a greater risk of tripping and increased difficulties for the transit of wheelchairs and catering trolleys.

4.1.8 Standard floor height across all passenger vehicles

Currently, as floor heights are not regulated, the choice of floor height is at the discretion of train operators and manufacturers. For example, the Class 220 and 221 floor height is inter-city level because the trains are classed as inter-city according to Virgin's specification. Historically these trains were a direct replacement for HST (High Speed Train) loco-hauled stock and the standard Inter-City floor height was carried through to the design of the current DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit).

Instead of the current practice of stipulating the stepping distance between vehicles and platforms on Network Rail Infrastructure, the height of the vehicle floor above rail level could be stipulated along with a horizontal step dimension. This could control the stepping distance (if the step height was the same as the floor height) as the platform height is already controlled. However, to provide such control, suspension displacements and end and centre throws would also have to be controlled when designing a new train. This would result in regulating these other parameters in addition to static floor height.

4.1.9 Standard step position across all passenger vehicles

Railway Group Standards could mandate a step height and semi-width ⁽³⁾ and it would be at the discretion of the train operators and manufacturers to determine where the rest of the interior floor step was relative to this. This would be more relaxed than stipulating the entire floor height, but interior steps or ramps would still be needed if a different height floor was used than at the doorway.

Fixing the step height and semi-width alone would not be enough; overthrow effects would also need to be mandated, as these result in the stepping distance varying. As overthrows are calculated using the longitudinal distance from the bogie, this would also need to be mandated. A standard comprising of:

• step height;
• semi-width; and
• longitudinal distance from the bogie.

would need to be supplied for suburban 'inboard' door position vehicles and a separate standard for inter-city outboard door position vehicles.

Although this seems to be the ideal solution, it would be restrictive on vehicle manufacturers and could lead to more expensive vehicles. It is more logical to control the end result (i.e. the stepping distance). How the train operator and vehicle manufacturer meets this limit is then at their discretion.

4.1.10 Doors above bogies to eliminate end and centre throws

End throw and centre throw at platforms on curved track contribute significantly to the horizontal stepping distance. Steps at doorways located at the bogie pivot would have no throw.

The saloon area of inter-city trains is usually isolated from the vestibules by sliding doors. These maintain the air conditioned atmosphere of the saloon area when the external doors are open.

Inter-city trains with doorways at the bogie positions would require similar sliding door arrangements that would complicate the saloon layout and may separate passengers from the luggage areas. This could be a cause of concern for passengers. Another consideration is that if suburban trains were to have doors over the bogies, this would cause more passenger congestion at and around the ends of the vehicles.

Although there would be a zero lateral throw dimension at the bogie centre, centre throws and end throws would still be present on the vehicle and gauge clearances would still need to take these into account. This means that a train with inboard doors will have a smaller stepping distance than a train with doors over the bogie pivots on a convex platform. Conversely, a train with outboard doors will have smaller stepping distances than a train with doors over the bogie pivots on a concave platform. Having doors over the bogie pivots provides a compromise for a mixture of convex and concave platforms.

4.2 Stepping distance improvements obtained by infrastructure design

4.2.1 Through roads and stopping roads

At present at most stations, trains have to run over the tracks that are adjacent to a platform, whether they are stopping or not. This restricts line speed for the trains that are just passing or increases the stepping distance for those that are stopping (as the tracks need to be a significant distance from the platform to give clearance to the passing trains). If these two clearly different uses were to be restricted to separate roads, more tracks may need to be laid, but the benefits in both stepping distance and route capacity are clear. As it never needs to stop at a passenger platform, all freight could be run on the through roads.

Maidstone East is an example of 2 platform roads with a bi-directional shared through road.

4.2.2 Selected positions for easier access

This would need to be used in conjunction with one of the vehicle modifications and would decrease the cost of any modification to rolling stock as fewer doorways would need modifying. These access points could be used by both passengers with disabilities and people with luggage.

To take into account the need of a train to run in either direction, one doorway on each side would need modification. This solution would require the train to stop in the same position each time which may present problems with different train lengths and train types.

The position could be clearly marked on the platform with for example paint or tactile flooring. Audio announcements at this position would aid visually impaired passengers in boarding and alighting the train. In addition, a help point could be installed in this area. This option would present relatively little cost to amend the infrastructure and would make it cheaper to modify the trains.

4.2.3 Station mounted lift

A lift could be used to raise passengers to the level of the train floor height. Lateral movement of the lift could reduce the step from the lift edge to the train. This could be used by wheelchair users as the train to platform gap would become small. If a portable unit was used, only one would be required at smaller stations where there is good access between platforms.

Cost for already designed and used kit in Europe in 1999 ⁽²⁾ = €4,400 - €8,100.

4.2.4 Platform/track offset rule

There may be scope for reducing the offset of the platform for uncanted, convex platforms. Offset of the standard platform from the track is currently increased where the track radius is anything less than 360m, regardless of the side of the track that the platform is on.

If a new rule was designed that gave values for the offset of convex platforms separately to those for concave platforms, the stepping distance would be improved in the convex case. However it is likely that there are only a small number of platforms that meet these criteria and clearances to other vehicle types would need to be calculated. If a platform did meet these criteria, it would have to use a reduced line speed (for passing trains) to reduce the effects of having no track cant.

It is considered cheaper and easier to reposition the track closer to the platform than to reposition the coping stones.

Nominal cost for repositioning the track = £10,000.

Additional cost to new build platforms = negligible.

4.2.5 Reduce line speed at all stations

This will reduce the line capacity. Whether this is acceptable is dependent upon the route in question. This may be most acceptable on metro routes where all trains stop at all platforms and there is very little if any freight to take into account.

The initial cost for this is very small (speed restriction signs) but it would eliminate fast through train services which has commercial implications. In addition there would be the cost of relocating the track closer to the platform (as stated in 4.2.4 above) in order to benefit from the reduced line speed.

4.2.6 Variable height platform

By having a platform with sections at various heights, the optimum height could be used for a specific vehicle with a specific floor/step height. This would only really have benefit where vastly different stock (i.e. suburban floor height and inter-city floor height) pass through a platform.

If a platform were already long enough or land could be purchased to make the platform longer, this could be implemented over a complete 12 car long section of the platform (effectively having a 'high' end to the platform and a 'low' end).

If it was only practicable to have part of the platform raised/lowered (i.e. for one doorway), then the driver would need to know where to stop each time and the specific doorway highlighted in the train.

This would not improve the horizontal gap and passing clearances would still need to be met. Current services using vehicles with oversailing step designs would limit the height of the platform and may prevent the correct platform height being produced for other vehicles.

4.2.7 Single elevation portable platform ramp

This is the solution that is currently used at the majority of UK stations. A portable ramp is either stowed on the train or at the platform. This takes the form of a single ramp straight from the platform into the train.

Cost of ramp currently used in Europe in 1999 ⁽²⁾ = €500.

4.2.8 Double elevation portable platform ramp

This is a variation to the single elevation portable platform ramp. By linking a ramp to a base at an intermediate height between the platform and the train and then another ramp on from the base into the train, the gap would be bridged with a reduced incline. The base could have lockable wheels in order to make it portable from platform to platform. However this solution would be too big and cumbersome to be carried onboard and would be unworkable at outlying stations. It does not meet the aims of providing safe and manageable stepping distances for the majority of people at the majority of stations. However it could be used at busier stations with the default being the single elevation platform ramp at quieter stations.

4.2.9 Facilities at Terminal Stations Only

This solution has a cost saving benefit where only terminal solutions would be made accessible. Terminal stations have the most passengers and hence will be the best value for money with respect to the number of people using the solution versus the overall cost of its implementation. This could, however cause emotional discomfort to passengers who would have easier access when boarding (at the improved terminal) and then have the concern of getting off the train at their destination (that would be unimproved).

The advantages and disadvantages of the most viable options are summarised in the table below. In the final two columns a score in the range of 1 to 10 has been provided, a score of 1 indicating 'impossible to include' and a score of 10 indicating 'straightforward to include'.

Vehicle Solutions	Advantages	Disadvantages	Retro-Fit Viability	New Build Viability
Retractable step and retractable step with split door	Fully automatic	H+V = 0 unobtainable Reliability Difficult to fit	3	8
Adjustable onboard step / intelli-step	Can provide small stepping distance Accommodate everything that is out there No infrastructure cost Fully automatic	System development (Cost) Reliability Interlocking with traction must be fail safe Complex and still won't accommodate a wheelchair Dwell time increased	3	7
Transfer Ramp	Can achieve H+V= 0 (ramp) for wheelchair users Reliable Cheaper than previous two	Difficult to fit No interlocking Light platform modification to allow 'keep clear zone' Dependence on staff	5	9
Use of 'thin' step boards	Will achieve smaller stepping distances on vehicles currently with thick steps Relatively simple to implement Thinner step builds already in use on more recent builds	Only improves the situation for vehicles with thick step boards Will still not make Stepping Distance acceptable for MKIII Will increase secondary stepping distance	9	10
Train Mounted Lift	Can be used at all platform locations	Staff dependant if user operator solution cannot be achieved May need to modify vehicle for retro-fitting Does not improve situation for all	8	9
Use of smaller diameter wheels	Will reduce stepping distance when the train is higher than the platform Will always be present	Will only improve vertical gap Will make matters worse where the platform is higher than the train	1	10
Standard floor height across all passenger vehicles	Will be one standard vehicle height to design infrastructure to.	May present rolling stock design difficulties if floor height standardised at suburban level Compromise between gauge clearance and stepping distance will be more to resolve if floor height is standardised at inter-city level	1	10
Through roads and Stopping roads	Increased line capacity Good stepping distances attainable No modification needed to vehicles Passengers wouldn't be standing near high speed passenger trains	Infrastructure costs (land prices) Points (cost, control, maintenance, installation) Highly dependant on cost of land and station location	6	7
Selected positions for Disabled access	Reduce rolling stock modification costs Best position on platform for H+V used	Users might not like being singled out / branded Trains will need to stop at the same position	7	7
Station Mounted Lift	No modification to rail vehicles Modular fixture (could be moved around the station to other stations) Low cost	Longer dwell time Staff needed to operate Signalling out of users Potential for vandalism	6	6
Track/platform offset rule	Smaller stepping distances attainable for convex uncanted platforms No need to modify vehicles	Doesn't need help at concave platforms No cant means reduced speed for passing trains	7	10
Single elevation portable platform ramp	Cheap to mass produce Can also be stored on train for outlying station use	Staff operated (high staff dependency) Long dwell time	10	10

4.3 Other methods to improve general boarding

These methods are proposed not only to improve safety, by reducing or mitigating accidents, but they simultaneously increase people's confidence in 'bridging the gap'. This can lead to a decrease in boarding and alighting times and reduce dwell times for the train at the platform.

4.3.1 Safety paving on platform

Similar to that in children's playgrounds, this rubber matting would provide a softer fall if a passenger were to lose their footing. It would be useful either boarding (if the passenger were to fall backwards) or alighting (if the passenger were to fall forwards).

4.3.2 Better platform lighting

Platforms may have poor lighting and even where it is adequate, it is almost exclusively overhead. Stepping from a well-lit train onto a dimly lit platform can cause errors when it comes to distance and surface profile judgement. If platforms had enhanced lighting, it could go some way to improving the perception of boarding and alighting.

4.3.3 Handle on platform

The study performed in Stage 1 showed that an un-intentional handle on the platform aided participants with reduced mobility as it enabled support when boarding and when alighting. For this to be practical, the train would have to stop with the doorways at the same specific location every time. This would be impractical for platforms that have a mix of inboard door stock and outboard door stock unless single access doorways were adopted.

4.3.4 Change Profile of Platform

In the case of large gaps between train and platform, there is a possibility of passengers (especially children) falling down the gap. Rather than them falling all the way to ballast height, if the platform had a shelf half-way down it would limit a fall. However, clearances to the most protruding parts of the train (e.g. the yaw damper) would need to be considered and may be restrictive.

4.3.5 Brush type gap filler

This would yield in the direction of the train travel, but not vertically. It would prevent passengers falling down the gap and could even be stiff enough to step on, hence giving a very small stepping distance. By yielding in the direction of train travel, it would still allow passing trains.

(Note: We are not aware of any proven application of this kind, and any proposed solution would need to be fully developed and made fit for purpose).

4.3.6 Retractable Handles

A retractable handle or grabrail that bridges the gap could be deployed. Such a handle could increase passengers feelings of safety and decrease the effort required to board or alight. This could either be a selective aid that would only deploy when a button was pressed, or could be linked in to deploy every time the doors opened. This offers the user the option of a handle available throughout the stepping process. They could also be illuminated to aid passengers with visual impairment.

4.3.7 Narrow doorway

By having a narrow doorway, support can be gained from handles on both sides. However a user that needs to take more time to board or alight might be concerned about slowing up other users. Narrow doorways will also adversely affect station dwell times.

4.3.8 Wide doorway with partition

By having a wide doorway with a partition in it, the same advantage can be gained as above (handles on both sides of the aperture to give additional support). This will supply another point of exit/entry to the narrow doorway solution and hence remove the potential bottleneck; doorway capacity will be increased, however more seats / space will be lost as the area of the doorway will have to increase. Wheelchair access could also be limited so careful design of the partition dimensions would be essential.

4.3.9 Separate doorway for alighting and boarding

This is currently found on larger buses. Passengers could enter the train through one direction specific door and exit the vehicle through a different direction specific door. This will aid the flow of commuters at very busy stations, but may lead passengers to become concerned about becoming 'trapped' at the wrong end. It will increase station dwell time where the majority of commuters are boarding as there will be less entrance points.

4.3.10 Accessible station scheme

As modifications are made to improve accessibility at platforms, the station could be awarded an accessibility rating. This could be published with the timetables and would be widely available to anyone that might need it. This would help when planning a journey, especially in the transition period between a partially accessible network and a fully accessible one.

5 Recommendations and guidance

5.1 Recommendations arising from the user trials

1. The step height and gap width, when added together should not exceed 200mm.
2. Wheelchair ramps should not exceed an angle of 8°. For a typical 1500mm long ramp, this means that the step height must be 200mm or less.
3. In the interests of providing a predictable environment, especially for visually impaired people, the design solutions should be capable of deployment throughout the entire rail network. A plethora of different solutions for different circumstances would be self-defeating.
4. Further consideration should be given to incorporating extended hand rails into design solutions, however, their configuration should be carefully assessed. The design should discourage passengers using handrails for excessive direct weight support.
5. Further research should be undertaken regarding the use of secondary steps and footboards that are employed to assist with the boarding and alighting of vehicles. Consideration should be given to; size, feel, colour contrast and integration with the vehicle.
6. An industry standard is required to provide consistency in the fixing arrangement between ramps and vehicles to ensure safe and efficient deployment for staff and passengers.
7. Wheelchair ramps and in particular their surface should be maintained to a high standard, including portable ramps that may be subject to neglect.

5.2 Guidance for developing a more accessible railway

Opportunities for improving accessibility occur at several levels, these include:

• building new railway systems;
• building new railway vehicles;
• building new stations;
• refurbishing existing railway vehicles; and
• refurbishing existing stations.

Each of these levels are discussed in turn, and based upon the previous discussion, preferred solutions for improving accessibility are proposed.

5.2.1 Building new railway systems

The opportunities provided when building a new railway system that is fully accessible have already been proven. This provides the only realistic opportunity of developing a consistent design for the platform train interface.

Many of the new tram systems are fully accessible and the Heathrow Express system is fully accessible. Therefore the requirements for new railway systems should be flat access that does not exceed the 50 x 75mm requirements set out in the RVAR requirements for wheelchair boarding without assistance.

5.2.2 Building new railway vehicles

Historically, on Network Rail Infrastructure, the policy of 'over sailing' steps, amongst other things, has led to a system where rail vehicle floor heights are predominantly higher than the standard 915mm platform height. New rolling stock should be built to meet the requirement that H + V should not exceed 200mm. Possible means of achieving this are discussed in section 4.1 for both retrofit and new builds. Of particular relevance to new build are sections 4.1.6 - 4.1.10.

Section 4.1.8 proposes that the standard floor height for all new passenger vehicles be mandated. Given that there is the standard platform height on Network Rail Infrastructure, a similar vehicle height would result in near level access, but would also present challenges to manufacturers regarding the space available for under slung equipment.

Section 4.1.9 proposes that a standard step position across all passenger vehicles be mandated. This proposal was also viewed as restrictive upon vehicle manufacturers that would be serving an international market. Therefore it is proposed that the stepping distance requirement of H + V not exceeding 200mm, is the requirement placed upon the manufacturer, requiring the manufacturer to determine the best way of achieving this for their particular vehicle design, perhaps involving the use of retractable "intelligent" steps. This would provide greater flexibility in where trains can be deployed. If level access cannot be provided a user operated fail safe ramp or lift should be incorporated into the vehicle.

5.2.3 Building new stations

The national platform height is 915mm. Unless an entirely new railway system is being built, it would appear impracticable to change this height considerably. However, favourable changes in platform geometry that go outside of current standards compliance should be considered and employed where route accepted rail vehicles permit.

It is clear that platforms on curves is a significant contributor to larger stepping distances and therefore all new stations should have straight platforms. Railway Group Standards already mandate that all new platforms should not have curves of a radius less than 1,000m.

A station mounted lift is possible, however a vehicle based solution is generally preferred as the passenger is required to both board and alight the train at different locations and a lift fitted on a vehicle would be less exposed to environmental factors and vandalism.

5.2.4 Refurbishing existing railway vehicles

When rail vehicles undergo major refurbishment consideration should be given to the location and nature of the secondary steps and footboards provided. It has been identified that some benefit can be achieved by changing the materials used for the step (section 4.1.4).

A vehicle mounted user operated fail safe lift or ramp should also be incorporated at selected doorways located at the designated wheelchair spaces. This would require considerable safety evaluation. Ideally, these locations should be located centrally on the train or asymmetrically (when there is more than one), so that they are always in the same position irrespective of train direction or formation.

5.2.5 Refurbishing existing stations

Where station platforms are below the standard platform height, they should be raised to meet the 915mm requirement or produce the smallest allowable stepping distance or clearance for all rolling stock cleared for the route (see discussion in 4.2.4 regarding platform/track offset rail). Consideration should be given to straightening platforms where curves are acute and where land is available for rectification. The decision should take a long-term view (e.g. a platform life of greater than 100 years) and take account of the moral issues relating to accessibility.

If a platform has both straight and curved sections, changes should be made to focus boarding and alighting where the better stepping distance is achieved, this may involve relocating platform entrances and facilities.

Preferred boarding locations should be provided, aimed primarily towards passengers for whom boarding and alighting is difficult. This may also form a 'late night' travel zone to encourage lone travellers to travel in the same coach of the train. This area should be provided with enhanced lighting, safety paving and for staffed platforms, be the location from which the platform is worked.

6 Notes and references

1. Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998, (as amended by the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Amendment) Regulations 2000).
2. COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research 335; Passengers' Accessibility of Heavy Rail Systems.
3. Semi-width is the distance from the centre line of the train to the outer edge of the tread plate or footboard.

7 Further information

Further information is available from:
Mobility and Inclusion Unit, Department for Transport, Zone 4/23, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR.