|
grahame
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2016, 06:03:07 » |
|
access from platforms to trains is somewhat harder – presumably something could be achieved by standardising the heights and platform to door gaps of all rolling stock and platforms, maybe enough to get most wheelchair and stick users across a much reduced gap, but would probably require rebuilding almost every platform and redesigning almost every carriage. So no.
Again, something that London Underground have succeeded with, in terms of coming up with a cheap and cheerful alternative to the complete rebuilding of platforms - standardised rolling stock on each line or group of lines of course, but they have addressed the issue of platform to rolling stock height by installing a simple raised, ramped platform edge which coincides with the section of the train where wheelchairs can fit. Very simple and effective design solution. That ramp's on National Rail too - the "Harrington Hump" - and indeed it was specifically raised an an inclusivity / access day I attended on Tuesday. I'm familiar with the on the Cambrian Coast; also at Exeter St Thomas |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
NickB
|
|
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2016, 09:36:29 » |
|
Problem solved as soon as Crossrail takes over the station
The issue occurred at Paddington rather than Maidenhead. Are crossrail/tfl taking over Paddington? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2016, 09:46:04 » |
|
The platforms for Crossrail - yes, I think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
chrisr_75
|
|
« Reply #48 on: September 29, 2016, 09:48:15 » |
|
access from platforms to trains is somewhat harder – presumably something could be achieved by standardising the heights and platform to door gaps of all rolling stock and platforms, maybe enough to get most wheelchair and stick users across a much reduced gap, but would probably require rebuilding almost every platform and redesigning almost every carriage. So no.
Again, something that London Underground have succeeded with, in terms of coming up with a cheap and cheerful alternative to the complete rebuilding of platforms - standardised rolling stock on each line or group of lines of course, but they have addressed the issue of platform to rolling stock height by installing a simple raised, ramped platform edge which coincides with the section of the train where wheelchairs can fit. Very simple and effective design solution. That ramp's on National Rail too - the "Harrington Hump" - and indeed it was specifically raised an an inclusivity / access day I attended on Tuesday. I'm familiar with the on the Cambrian Coast; also at Exeter St Thomas I didn't realise they had been employed on the 'big' network too, credit therefore also due to NR» & relevant TOC▸ 's! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2016, 11:57:23 » |
|
Ooh, I've not seen those – or not noticed them, anyway. Hopefully they work better on rails than at bus stops, where sometimes the bus stops with its door alongside the built-up part, and sometimes one or two bus lengths behind it (or even a bus width away from the kerb!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
chrisr_75
|
|
« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2016, 14:07:41 » |
|
Ooh, I've not seen those – or not noticed them, anyway. Hopefully they work better on rails than at bus stops, where sometimes the bus stops with its door alongside the built-up part, and sometimes one or two bus lengths behind it (or even a bus width away from the kerb!)
I think they're mostly on the Victoria line, though I am sure I have seen them on other parts of the network. LUL▸ as you may know have made a fine art out of accurate stopping and their trains don't normally get turned around at all, so they work quite well. Main downside appears to be the lack of joined up routes between accessible stations, which is slowly improving, but a long long way to go for TfL» ! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NickB
|
|
« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2016, 19:08:25 » |
|
The platforms for Crossrail - yes, I think so.
Ah ok, just so that I've got this straight, once crossrail starts running disabled people can use it but they still should avoid GWR▸ which is for able bodied people? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #52 on: September 29, 2016, 19:20:01 » |
|
Don't put your words into my mouth!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NickB
|
|
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2016, 19:28:21 » |
|
A tongue in cheek reply to a tongue in cheek reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2016, 23:44:53 » |
|
Eh? My reply to your question certainly wasn't tongue-in-cheek
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
brizzlechris
|
|
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2016, 10:14:34 » |
|
More from Sophie Christiansen on Twitter today... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2016, 10:27:37 » |
|
Ooh, I've not seen those – or not noticed them, anyway. Hopefully they work better on rails than at bus stops, where sometimes the bus stops with its door alongside the built-up part, and sometimes one or two bus lengths behind it (or even a bus width away from the kerb!)
I think they're mostly on the Victoria line, though I am sure I have seen them on other parts of the network. LUL▸ as you may know have made a fine art out of accurate stopping and their trains don't normally get turned around at all, so they work quite well. Main downside appears to be the lack of joined up routes between accessible stations, which is slowly improving, but a long long way to go for TfL» ! Just coming back to these "humps", if I understand it correctly they allow a wheelchair user to simply wheel themself from the platform into the carriage without any ramp etc being needed. Is that right? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2016, 11:38:37 » |
|
Siphie Christiensen has to realise that there are still limitations & processes that she needs to follow. Not doing so & letting rip won't be getting her very far.
Yes. Of course it would be nice to turn up & go @ every station. Realistically, its far better now than a decade ago & is still improving but rverything costs money inc extra staff.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2016, 11:59:30 » |
|
Siphie Christiensen has to realise that there are still limitations & processes that she needs to follow. Not doing so & letting rip won't be getting her very far.
It's Sophie Christiansen. I'm not surprised she was 'letting rip' - I expect she was extremely frustrated to be let down twice in one week! I think it's excellent that someone with a high profile is able to highlight problems with the system, as I've said before the majority of assistance requests go very smoothly, but where there are problems they need to be highlighted. She points out the possibility of developing an app (and offered to help develop it IIRC▸ ) which would be an excellent thing for ATOC» to develop - a national app rather than each TOC▸ having their own. Imagine being able to book your assistance in advance easily and quickly on one of those rather than having to make time consuming phone calls. That way, a person needing assistance could submit their entire journey via an app, rather than the cumbersome current arrangements where, as I understand it, you have to contact each operator with your requirements, some (like GWR▸ ) can be submitted online, but others (such as CrossCountry and Chiltern) require you to make a phone call. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2016, 12:27:34 » |
|
So she approaches ATOC» , even by twitter, rather than simply shouting generally from the rooftops? There are better ways about it, surely?
I don't think asking one TOC▸ to develop their own is sensible, and you seem to agree, suggesting ATOC. Otherwise each TOC nay/may not develop their own, and an integrated solution is whats needed.
There must be suitable charities that would help her approach the right organisation?
There's nothing from Sophie that suggests she booked assistance, nor on what route. If she travelled again from Burnham with friends assistance, of course that won't work.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
