• East West Rail: First train tests on multi-billion pound route (BBC)
• Paddington tube station design error is finally righted after a century! (London Rail)
• Exploring Paris Métro Line 11’s eastern extension (Fabric of Paris)
• Ouigo, the impact of this low-cost, 3rd class, high-speed rail concept (Mediarail)
• Japan’s $40BN Airport is Sinking: Video (B1M)
• Transit-oriented development built without the transit (Transport for New Homes)
• Mass Transit on Orbital Boulevards (Pedestrian Observations)
• Northumberland is back on track: a new railway line is opening up one of England’s wildest counties (The Guardian)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
Why is it that the BBC only ever reports on “multi-billion pound routes” when they are rail? Nothing else in transport gets reported that way. You have to go back to 2008 on the BBC News site for find the super-sewer described that way.
Just what is going on over the Beam Park development?
The DfT’s claim of “Probable insufficient demand” (Or equivalent) is plainly false, so what’s the real reason behind this fiasco?
Clear answers on a postcard, please!
The London Rail article makes some good points, but totally glosses over the fact that Caledonian Road was an outlier among early deep-level stations in having lifts reaching platform level. The vast majority of those stations required passengers to navigate a flight of steps between lift and platform. Not “accessible” by any standard.
And this was because generally the platforms were tightly squeezed directly under roads whilst lift shafts had to be in station buildings to one side.
As inconvenient as it is for disabled people, I think it’s fair to say that if today’s full accessibility standards had been in place in the 1900s these lines would never have been built at all, as the additional cost of providing full step free access would have made the whole concept of deep underground railways unviable – remember it was a crazy new idea at the time.
Greg T,
Sorry, no postcard but under the previous government the DfT stated there would be insufficient extra revenue at Beam Park because, in their opinion, most of the demand would be abstracted from a nearby station or stations.
If you believe the current government’s determination to increase housing stock is genuine, I suppose things could change.
The London Rail article re Paddington station makes the following claim:
“There is no doubt the early tube systems sought to have level boarding at every opportunity”
Really? I would like to see some evidence that is remotely true, especially a contemporary source
@Paul: Re Cally Road. It wasn’t an outlier as you suggest. There were other tube stations, even some that have escalators now! Some creative solutions were used to overcome the wayleave issues. I can think of at least ten early tube stations that once had this opportunity. These days just four survive.
@Paul @Herned: The world’s first tube railway built its stations with lifts (or step free) from street to platform level. In two of those the former arrangement at least can still be experienced. As a disabled person I am surprised the very early tube even had something approaching what we now call level boarding and deducted that the intent was to make access to the new tube line as easy as possible. Of course actually getting onto the train itself was a different matter, but then so was getting on a train anywhere!
Its why I said “There is no doubt the early tube systems sought to have level boarding at every opportunity.” They didn’t actually seek ‘level boarding’ per se, but they did at least seek to ensure the route from street level to platform level was convivial.
Where possible the newer tube lines (eg 1906-1907) did employ a similar arrangement at some stations, but due to expense the more usual arrangement was employed, which is lifts and then stairs to the platforms.
@Herned
Yes. And much as “Accessibility” is an important and worthy thing to achieve for public transport systems, we must recognise that it comes at a cost, one that many will argue is necessary and right, but nevertheless a cost, and a cost that doesn’t always apply to other modes.
Bringing in what @Brian said; cycling infrastructure attracts large sums of money too but has to meet no accessibility requirements because cycling itself is not an accessible activity for everyone. Similarly driving is not accessible to those with visual impairments or severe physical disabilities, yet more “£multi-billions” are poured into roads.
So Rail and Bus services are uniquely required to fly the accessibility for all flag, without this being factored into any “value for money” analyses, or without anyone acknowledging that a new station without step free access would still be more accessible than no station at all.
Through this lens it sometimes feels like political interests have piled costs and expectations upon the rail industry in the hope of making it altogether less viable.
If I can depart from the London-centred nature of here, it’s to say that the article on the Northumberland re-opening seems absolutely Guardian-typical in its number and range of errors. For example:
“From here [Morpeth], the east coast mainline charges into the wilds of north Northumberland, at one point straddling a cliff edge for about 10 miles, with the ground seeming to disappear from beneath the tracks. Stunning sea views to the right contrast with a lush expanse of countryside to the left. The approach to Berwick-upon-Tweed, at the northernmost tip of Northumberland, offers a glimpse …”
A point can’t be 10 miles long, the likeliest stretch in question (much shorter) is north of Berwick, unlike the implication that the cliffed bit comes before in the progression up the coast. Also, the article implies that there will be a split service, to Ashington and to Morpeth (news to me, am I wrong?). There is also the suggestion that an occasional train to/from (near) Blyth will help the revitalisation of Whitley Bay, miles away and already having a frequent Metro service. Are hordes of people from the north going to change at Northumberland Park in sufficient numbers to affect the economy of the erstwhile holiday resort?
.
@Paul: The concept of accessibility is far beyond the horizons of many, even those who are campaigning for better accessibility. Cost is of course a part of the equation. The issues discussed however do not address a number of things and yet many think ‘level boarding’ is somehow the magic wand trick that covers everything. It does not matter what one does, one is going to exclude a group of people somehow. Even the railways they shout about equality and the rest of it but when it comes to certain issues, well they apparently would rather discriminate than for example accommodate a said protected characteristic or a need. Its a game of chess with the most skilled and best players/campaigners apparently winning but leaves others behind. Cost is part of the problem as has just been said, but again its how society envisions what is the done thing – eg economics such profit/gain/subsidy and any perceived benefits that may arise as a result. Ultimately its all down to the money men who think money is something that is tangible and concrete and if they don’t get their hands on the wad floating around, then money loses its value. That’s why we have the city, the stock exchange, stocks and shares and the rest of it – the very means of keeping money on its highly elevated pedestal and satisfying those who own the banks etc – and its why the railways take a back seat (and must make economies, cuts, sacrifices etc) as opposed to the roads industry for example. And accessibility, well that takes a well positioned back seat almost right at the rear of the auditorium – and that is why most groups will have to struggle to see that their needs are rightfully and dutifully served.
@BB News reporting by BBC lost it’s way some time ago
“first test train journey on the multibillion-pound East West Rail route”
The cost of the Oxford to Bletchley reinstatement was £760m.
The two further stages are classed as poor value by NAO and unaffordable in current circumstances.
Christian Irwin, Network Rail’s director “restoring train services between Oxford and Milton Keynes for passengers”
Milton Keynes Central Opened 17 May 1982 and Varsity Line closed in 1968
I’m working on software to upgrade what the OLJP (rail planner) can do. It’s very interesting, when it comes down to it, as @Rog says, there are considerable and vital nuances.
Take, for example, the oddity of ORR class B (B1, B2 and B3) stations which have SOME platforms with step-free access. Yes, some. That all-important difference between being able to get TO a a platform and not. And that’s not even taking into account the possibility that a lift might be out of action, but no one gives a flying ferret that it is.
TfL system are slightly better because of the inclusion of step-free-to-vehicle data, but sometimes that’s level and sometimes it’s ramped. And even if it’s level, then it might be a gap, and the gap might be unsuitable for a given wheelchair.
So, getting back to the point, a “step free” lift might be “step free” but not if there’s a steep ramp (like East Croydon) or just a single step.
(My personal bête-noire are escalators turned off! The accessibility requirements for moving and stationary escalators but staff just think it’s a question of exercise. )
The Paris Metro Line 11 article has to get the best cross-language pun prize for “Onze in a lifetime”
@Brian Butterworth
“My personal bête-noire are escalators turned off! ”
Mine too.
Escalators at National Rail stations seem to be turned off for faults or maintenance far more often than on London Underground. (Does anyone have any statistics to support or contradict that perception?)
Also, if an escalator at a NR station is turned off, people are not allowed to walk up it as a staircase. I’ve been told this is because the escalators don’t have brakes (or locks), so they might start uncontrolled movements as people are walking on them. I’ve never seen that at an LU escalator (other than when work is actually in progress, of course). Who in the NR / BR world devised escalators that are so inconveniently different from those on LU?
On Rail Forums the ‘Paddington Design Error’ (which I wrote – the link is given above) is being discussed quite comprehensively. Thought it might interest some to read that and perhaps consider whether I’m wrong to suggest it was a design error and there wasn’t even a ban anyway for disabled people using the tube.
I don’t think it was wrong to suggest it was a design error – and besides to all purposes and intents there was a ban on disabled people using the tube. Besides the post in question was written from a disability perspective. Maybe that was wrong, I don’t know.
Mods: I don’t know if this is the right place to discuss this and post a link to that discussion.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tube-station-design-error-accountability.276641/