# MISC | Comparison of European and Japanese Platforms



## iloveshinkansen (Dec 27, 2008)

Most Japan's look standard and always as high as the train's door while in Europe (even TGV) always lower than the train's door.


----------



## pcrail (Jan 10, 2009)

*History*

In Europe in earlier days post carts had to be transported over the tracks as well as passengers walked over the tracks. Therefore the platforms had to be low for the connection to the overpass.

See this picture from a railway station in Germany, where you see the overpass in front of the station building.









There are even railways using both systems at the same time. New Jersey Transit has cars which can stop on low level platforms as well as high level platform. Depending on the kind of stop, the driver opens either the low level doors or the high level doors.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

iloveshinkansen said:


> Most Japan's look standard and always as high as the train's door while in Europe (even TGV) always lower than the train's door.


That's not right, there is no european rule for the height of platforms, we have many different platform types all over Europe.
Example: In the UK all and in Russia most platforms on the mainlines are as high as the trains' floor.


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Why? There's no standard for platform heights in Europe. Therefore, train and platform often don't have the same height (also, because of lots of different MU and wagon types, even from several countries).
There ar sone exceptions, e.g. on the German S-Bahn system lots of platforms have the same height of the trains. But that's only possible because they are used only for S-Bahn services and in general, only one type of train is used.


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

Ok, lets be constructive: What do you propose for standard unified level of doors from track in Europe?


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

lets start with the obvious: over 30 countries!?!, that have (had, and still do) not much in common, not even the gauge is the same everywhere...

not even within individual countries is the rail infrastructure uniform


lets pick switzerland:
- at least 4 different gauges that i know of
- at least 3 different electrification voltage that i know of
- security systems from 50 years variety
- station platforms are between 0-100 years old

but this is why we like the swiss


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

Yep, even in more or less each country there's different "rules" (if they're even rules).

Another example is here in Belgium: 3 different heights for platforms, but most of the time they're just a rough way to put them in groups: a low platform, a platform at door-height and one in between. I think all high-speed train stations have door-height platforms though (but it wouldn't surprise if there's an exception somewhere).

My answer to why there's such a difference: history. While it was possible to plan most platforms in Japan at a certain moment, in Europe it just expanded and got too expensive and impractical to change it around everywhere.

Most likely all these stations will require a decent overhaul within 50 years or so and by then - perhaps - there'll be rules in each country to get all the platforms alike. But basically they could just refuse to do that seeing there's no pressing issue when having lower platforms. Whether you take the stairs to get on the platform or to get into the train only affects efficiency (loading - unloading) according to me.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

I think there is some chicken-first or egg-first issue there.
Because the platform is low, trains were designed to accommodate that. Which means, we can't build level platform because trains are not designed that way.

I think it is a legacy of the times when people used to ride trains from the ground in 19th century.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

thun said:


> Why? There's no standard for platform heights in Europe.


There are some.

250 mm above the top of the rail in Italy (old platforms)
550 mm the standard for new platforms in Italy (also in Europe, eg Switzerland)
760 mm some platforms in Germany
914 mm in the UK


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

55cm is the standard in central Europe for main lines. Only some S-Bahn systems have higher platforms. Many old stations have platforms below 55cm but are upgraded now.


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

Current German at-grade standards:
960mm _(high-floor)_ is only used in S-Bahn networks where ET420 or ET423 trains are used, and that height precludes that track from being used by other trains (clearance limits).
760mm _(mid-floor)_ is used in all other S-Bahn and a good number of electrified mixed S-Bahn/regional networks.
560mm _(low-floor)_ is used everywhere else.
In networks where no vehicles with at-grade entry are used (i.e. stairs are used), it's usually 560mm in new-built platforms, hence why its more prevalent than 760mm.
The difference of 20cm between the three standards is fully intentional, as this is the legal maximum allowed for at-grade doors to open to a _lower_ platform (hence a 960mm ET420 can stop at a 760mm platform, a 760mm ET425.2 can stop at a 560mm platform).

Older standards still found are:
- 160mm (used with old stops only mostly)
- 320/360mm (used with old stations mostly, relatively prevalent)


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Examples for different platforms in Europe:

Velaro E in Spain:










Velaro RUS in Russia:










ICE3 in Germany:


----------



## Qaabus (Aug 4, 2006)

The European Union Commission issued a TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability) on May 30, 2002, that provides four standard platform heights for passenger steps on high-speed rail, presumably measured from the top of the rail. These standards are 550 mm and 760 mm for most Member States, with 915 mm for the UK, and 840 mm for the Netherlands. (wikipedia)


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

Ok, then it seems that *760 mm *is the clear best compromise. Anybody can step 20cm up or down... And it allows everybody to adapt with time...


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ 550mm is the most widely used standard in Europe.


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

This thread shows why people think the EU will never work...


----------



## Euklidisk (May 14, 2005)

Micrav said:


> Ok, then it seems that *760 mm *is the clear best compromise. Anybody can step 20cm up or down... And it allows everybody to adapt with time...


550 mm is better when constructing double decker coaches and having almoast no step down into lower deck from platform. Wheelchairs need no lift.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

iampuking said:


> This thread shows why people think the EU will never work...


Yes, because these guidelines they issue for train platform heights are a priority for the EU :nuts:


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

iampuking said:


> This thread shows why people think the EU will never work...


come back after, say, 2011, when the low-cost international trains will appear :sly:


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

gramercy said:


> come back after, say, 2011, when the low-cost international trains will appear :sly:


We have low cost fares already.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

:lol: Something tells me that iampuking wasn't talking about just railways.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Yes, but the question is, do we need a standard for everything in Europe? Why should we need a standard platform height? It makes no sense, a Velaro E will never go to Germany or Russia, a Velaro RUS will never go to Germany or Spain and a TGV will never go to northern England or Scotland. For connections between France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany we have special trains, which can deal with different standards, that's less expensive than creating standards for everything and everyone.


----------



## honwai1983 (Dec 24, 2005)

I think, if platform level is same as train level, get on and off of train will faster and safe.
However, different standard of praform height will affect to achieve that goals.

(If train can adjust its height to plaform level is more easy to achieve that goal)


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

JoKo65 said:


> Yes, but the question is, do we need a standard for everything in Europe? Why should we need a standard platform height? It makes no sense, a Velaro E will never go to Germany or Russia, a Velaro RUS will never go to Germany or Spain and a TGV will never go to northern England or Scotland. For connections between France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany we have special trains, which can deal with different standards, that's less expensive than creating standards for everything and everyone.


I disagree completely. Standards are things that reduce costs if impletmented correctly and sensibly. In fact, lowering costs and raising efficiency is the reason standards exist! 

However, I dont think that platform heights are crucial... The Eurostar already copes with the low platforms in France with the steps that come down. Also, to say that a train from russia wont go to spain and that a tgv wont go to scotland, I think you may be wrong. When the UK builds its line to Scotland theres no reason not to have a long distance Glasgow to Paris train taking about 4 hours.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Republica said:


> I disagree completely. Standards are things that reduce costs if impletmented correctly and sensibly. In fact, lowering costs and raising efficiency is the reason standards exist!
> 
> However, I dont think that platform heights are crucial... The Eurostar already copes with the low platforms in France with the steps that come down. Also, to say that a train from russia wont go to spain and that a tgv wont go to scotland, I think you may be wrong. When the UK builds its line to Scotland theres no reason not to have a long distance Glasgow to Paris train taking about 4 hours.


This train won't be a normal TGV but a special train for this connection like the Eurostar for example.
That's what I say, there will be special trains for special connections.


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

Just install hydraulics.  









I wonder if Japan's platforms are the same standard as Korea's or China's. I somehow doubt it.

Japan's trains were largely built as a sealed system by one country which was more or less homogenous when it started building rail. It's not surprising that Japan's platforms are the same.

One could also say: How come the metro for [insert major city like Tokyo|London|New York) here] wasn't built 100% fully accessible for people with limited mobility(wheelchairs/scooters), but the metro in [insert city with newer metro here] was?

Because when these systems were built, accessibility wasn't as big an issue, and not as important...

The same is true with platform heights. It simply wasn't as important when it was built to co-ordinate with other countries... especially when trips were measured in days, and not hours.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Yes, its a long long way off, but never say never. I think in the end the standards will be Harmonised to a large degree, inc. loading guage on HS2 and the only sticking point will be channel tunnel safety regulations. So yes if they can get past that a Eurostar could go from Glasgow to Paris in a viable time.


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

bluemeansgo said:


> Just install hydraulics.


I agree, hydraulics or air or a similar system! This is an interesting way to regulate height in stations and also to make pendolino trains and have extra confort 3 in 1. I already thought about it but not for this precise problem of platform height 

It already works for busses to lean to allow wheelchairs to get in easyer...


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

I'm surprised France didnt invent trains with hydraulic suspension like their crazy citroens


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

JoKo65 said:


> Yes, but the question is, do we need a standard for everything in Europe? Why should we need a standard platform height? It makes no sense, a Velaro E will never go to Germany or Russia, a Velaro RUS will never go to Germany or Spain and a TGV will never go to northern England or Scotland. For connections between France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany we have special trains, which can deal with different standards, that's less expensive than creating standards for everything and everyone.


yeah right... trains that go up and down... lol. Do you have a clue how much it costs to build trains which are able to cope with all the different types of electrifications, signalling, etc.?

And you clearly don't live close to a border. Well I do and here we have trains from Switzerland, Germany and Austria and they all use the same platforms and tracks and they work because at least there are some standards.

In fact standardization is much cheaper than each shitty village having it's own rules and ways of doing things.


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

iloveshinkansen said:


> Most Japan's look standard and always as high as the train's door while in Europe (even TGV) always lower than the train's door.


Newer system, more modern design. 

Japan's system was designed by set of governing rules. Europe on the other hand...

And plus, high platforms cost money.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

rheintram said:


> yeah right... trains that go up and down... lol. Do you have a clue how much it costs to build trains which are able to cope with all the different types of electrifications, signalling, etc.?


Do you have a clue how much it would cost to change electrification types, signalling and gauges to achieve a european standard?
No chance, forget about it!




rheintram said:


> And you clearly don't live close to a border. Well I do and here we have trains from Switzerland, Germany and Austria and they all use the same platforms and tracks and they work because at least there are some standards.


I live near the Belgian border and I know that Thalys works well.




rheintram said:


> In fact standardization is much cheaper than each shitty village having it's own rules and ways of doing things.


You mean in theory, not in fact.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Yes, in theory and most of the time in practice standardisation is cheaper in the long term, its obvious. Its the way that you get to standardisation that is the tricky bit.


----------



## Grunnen (Jan 16, 2008)

UD2 said:


> Newer system, more modern design.
> 
> Japan's system was designed by set of governing rules. Europe on the other hand...


Why do you lump all of Europe together? In the Netherlands and the UK, all platforms have the same height, just like in Japan.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Republica said:


> Yes, in theory and most of the time in practice standardisation is cheaper in the long term, its obvious. Its the way that you get to standardisation that is the tricky bit.


An example: On the way from Paris to Cologne we have three electrification systems, six train control systems and three platform heights. What do you think is cheaper, to buy trains like Thalys PBKA which can cope with these different systems or to change the whole infrastructure?


----------



## loefet (Dec 30, 2008)

Europe have developed a new controlling system that is going to be implemented in the future to replace all old train control systems with a standard one.
So one step in the right direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETCS


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

loefet said:


> Europe have developed a new controlling system that is going to be implemented in the future to replace all old train control systems with a standard one.
> So one step in the right direction.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETCS


Yes and it is overpriced and does not work correctly. So perhaps it will be a standard in mmmmh, let me say 20–30 years?


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

You are thinking short to medium term Joko. In the long run the standards will replace older ones and EU standards will be more widely used. 

That doesnt equate to ripping up all platforms etc!


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

Funny that you mentioned Thalys... 



> Äußerlich ähneln sich der Thalys PBKA und der TGV-Duplex durch die gerundete Nase, technisch gesehen sind sie aber dem TGV-Réseau ähnlich. Neu an diesem Zug ist, dass er mit vier unterschiedlichen Strom- und sieben verschiedenen Signalsystemen zurechtkommt. Vor allem deshalb ist der Thalys PBKA um 50 % teurer als der TGV-Réseau


Short translation: The Thalys PBKA trains, based on TGV-Réseau are 50% more expensive than TGV-Réseau because it has to cope with four different electrification and seven different signalling systems. Hence the initial plan to order 27 units was dropped and only 17 were ordered, the other 10 were TGV-Réseau units.

ETCS was only necessary because France and Germany were both so stubborn to insist on their national systems and not accept either one of them as a common standard, hence a new standard had to be implemented.

As railcorridors are upgraded and modernized all the time, it makes much more sense to build or upgrade them according to a common standard and in contrast to JoKo65's claims it isn't more expensive, rather the contrary.


----------



## pcrail (Jan 10, 2009)

*ETCS:*
There will be a very long way to have this system working European wide. The vehicles equipped with ETCS can up to today only work on the lines where they are designed for. Locomotives which can work the Betuwe route in Holland may not work in Switzerland or in Austria without expensive adaption. The actual status is:

The definitions of signalling terms is standardised
The interface train - track is almost standardised
The software is definitely *not *standardised. Up to now each country uses different functionalities. For not delaying start of the revenue service on a particular project the functionality of ERTMS software has been limited to the functionality the railway lines really use. 
Homologation and validation of ETCS software is very time consuming and too complicated till now.
A good overview about the actual status of ETCS you can find in Schweizer Eisenbahn Revue 2/2009 (in German).

*Electrification systems:*
No, this is not a problem anymore. Today's technology can handle that.

*Signaling:*
Yes, this is a serious problem, doesn't matter if it is ETCS or not. The apparatus of the signalling system is always very expensive.

*Platforms:* (the original topic)
Ripping out all the platform seems to me too expensive. It is better to adapt the railway cars to different platform heights. Technique for that is today available.


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

Where's the problem with the platforms? Every station is renovated once in a while, usually after a few decades at latest. Perfect time to build new platforms.


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

Grunnen said:


> Why do you lump all of Europe together? In the Netherlands and the UK, all platforms have the same height, just like in Japan.


This is a good point. 

In actual fact, Japan's system, if I'm not mistaken, was modelled after the British system... which could partially explain why it's standardized. 

Getting the European nations together is a challenge. Not only are they different countries, but to a large extent, built their systems separately.

One could make a counter point and ask why Japan's rail system has mixed gauges in one country.

The answer is the same as the platforms question.

When the track was put down, they didn't foresee needing to spend the greater amounts of money to achieve the higher speeds that standard gauge allowed for.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

rheintram said:


> Funny that you mentioned Thalys...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





rheintram said:


> Where's the problem with the platforms? Every station is renovated once in a while, usually after a few decades at latest. Perfect time to build new platforms.


There are probably a MILLION railway platforms in europe ... or even more ??? :lol:

_Standard_ door heights are either 1 ,2 steps higher than the platforms (regional and old mainstations) or even NO platform at all (some old regional stations) ... most modern comuter-stile stations have high platforms in lot''s of urban areas ... but nonetheless it's very common to have 1 step down coming out of ANY train in europe (At least). hno:

On the other hand ... not every train is built with the same door height either. :lol:


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

pcrail said:


> The vehicles equipped with ETCS can up to today only work on the lines where they are designed for. Locomotives which can work the Betuwe route in Holland may not work in Switzerland or in Austria without expensive adaption.


But would they work any better without ETCS?



JoKo65 said:


> a TGV will never go to northern England or Scotland. For connections between France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany we have special trains, which can deal with different standards, that's less expensive than creating standards for everything and everyone.


Why do you think it will never go to Scotland? Because it's too difficult and they would need special trains. In the long run, standardisation is _always_ more cost-effective and opens up a lot of opportunities.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

rheintram said:


> Funny that you mentioned Thalys...
> 
> Short translation: The Thalys PBKA trains, based on TGV-Réseau are 50% more expensive than TGV-Réseau because it has to cope with four different electrification and seven different signalling systems. Hence the initial plan to order 27 units was dropped and only 17 were ordered, the other 10 were TGV-Réseau units.
> […]


Thalys PBKA is more expensive than TGV but it is cheaper than rebuilding the whole Paris–Cologne line.




rheintram said:


> As railcorridors are upgraded and modernized all the time, it makes much more sense to build or upgrade them according to a common standard and in contrast to JoKo65's claims it isn't more expensive, rather the contrary.


How often railcorridors are upgraded and modernised? Once in 100 years? Do you know how old are many lines and stations in Germany?


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Maxx☢Power;32969880 said:


> But would they work any better without ETCS?


Why not?




Maxx☢Power;32969880 said:


> Why do you think it will never go to Scotland? Because it's too difficult and they would need special trains. In the long run, standardisation is _always_ more cost-effective and opens up a lot of opportunities.


It cannot go to Scotland because it cannot use the Chunnel.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Why cant people see that introducing standards means that *over the long term* costs can be reduced and things become easier. Standards dont mean ripping up huge amounts of platforms.

And I would bet that within 30 years we see trains travelling to scotland direct from paris.


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

I saw a DB ICE3 in Brussels today coming from Frankfurt (about 400km trip)... So we see now something else than TGVs, Eurostar and Thalys in Brussels... 

Speaking about different standards...


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Republica said:


> Why cant people see that introducing standards means that *over the long term* costs can be reduced and things become easier. Standards dont mean ripping up huge amounts of platforms.
> 
> And I would bet that within 30 years we see trains travelling to scotland direct from paris.


It is no problem to go from Paris to Scotland, but a special train like the Eurostar is needed, with a normal TGV it is not possible to cross the Channel. It would be to expensive to build all trains according to the safety rules of the Chunnel. That is a good example for a case where standardisation would not make a sense.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Micrav said:


> I saw a DB ICE3 in Brussels today coming from Frankfurt (about 400km trip)... So we see now something else than TGVs, Eurostar and Thalys in Brussels...
> 
> Speaking about different standards...


That was no ICE 3 but an ICE 3M. It is a special train, which can run in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. A normal ICE 3 cannot go to Belgium.

ICE 3 = normal ICE 3 for Germany.
ICE 3M = Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany (M = *M*ehrsystem --> multisystem).
ICE 3MF = France, Germany (MF = *M*ehrsystem *F*rankreich --> multisystem France).


----------



## london24/7 (Jan 9, 2009)

JoKo65 said:


> It is no problem to go from Paris to Scotland, but a special train like the Eurostar is needed, with a normal TGV it is not possible to cross the Channel. It would be to expensive to build all trains according to the safety rules of the Chunnel. That is a good example for a case where standardisation would not make a sense.


The Chunnel is the only obstacle that stops a TGV going to northern england, (assuming a high speed line is built), since all new HSR lines are built with ERTMS and hence are interoperable (the ICE3 and TGV both use the LGV Est). The Chunnels strict fire rules make it expensive for passenger trains. The eurostar has extensive fireproofing and fireproof doors between carriages, not to mention two parallel systems in each half of the train so it can split into two.
In face rail companies, DB especially i think, are now lobbying Eurotunnel to relax the rules so they can make inter-regional services between south east england and norther france / belgium


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

london24/7 said:


> […]
> In face rail companies, DB especially i think, are now lobbying Eurotunnel to relax the rules so they can make inter-regional services between south east england and norther france / belgium


Lobbying won't work there, the strict rules make sense. This is the reason why DB now is interested in buying the british part of Eurostar.


----------



## kato2k8 (May 4, 2008)

rheintram said:


> yeah right... trains that go up and down... lol.


You do realize there are trains that physically "adapt" to different platform heights already? Good example would be the ET425.15 of S-Bahn Hannover, which use full at-grade entry on 760mm platforms, and when encountering a line section with lower platforms lower a step right behind the door to form a stair to the platform.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ The whole point of standard platforms is that you don't have steps in the train, even when they can be lowered up and down automatically.


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

JoKo65 said:


> Why not?


Wouldn't the systems be different anyway? Standardisation doesn't mean everything has to change, it means that if we're going to change something or build something new, let's make sure we do it the same way so it's interoperable. There are no downsides to doing that.


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

JoKo65 said:


> Lobbying won't work there, the strict rules make sense. This is the reason why DB now is interested in buying the british part of Eurostar.


No - only *SOME* of the rules make sense.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

JoKo65 said:


> It is no problem to go from Paris to Scotland, but a special train like the Eurostar is needed, with a normal TGV it is not possible to cross the Channel. It would be to expensive to build all trains according to the safety rules of the Chunnel. That is a good example for a case where standardisation would not make a sense.


Why do you people always make bias out of everything ... 


This IS a REGULAR TGV trainset ... they use them by the dozen:











Actually SNCF could start today to link northern scotland with belgium and italy if they so desired ... they ACTUALLY OWN the trains to do so if they wish. :cheers:

And I bet you that it wouldn't bother them to get some 16Kv versions in a scotland-france-germany service. :lol:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Mostly Lurking said:


> No - only *SOME* of the rules make sense.


Germany uses a different current than france and the UK ... ERTMS solves the signaling problems ... strict safety rules apply ... what remains to be done is for Siemens to built a ICE3-whatever trainset that actually fill's all the required points. :lol:


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Germany uses a different current than france and the UK ... ERTMS solves the signaling problems ... strict safety rules apply ... what remains to be done is for Siemens to built a ICE3-whatever trainset that actually fill's all the required points. :lol:


And to rebuild all stations for the check in procedures. Thats's not very likely!


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

JoKo65 said:


> Lobbying won't work there, the strict rules make sense. This is the reason why DB now is interested in buying the british part of Eurostar.


I'm shure the Gotthard base tunnel will have less strict rules (though being longer), because international trains will go though it.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

^^
And because Switzerland is in the Schengen area.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

earthJoker said:


> I'm shure the Gotthard base tunnel will have less strict rules (though being longer), because international trains will go though it.


The Gotthard is no sea tunnel, it has emergency exits that's something different.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

wonwiin said:


> ^^
> And because Switzerland is in the Schengen area.


The main reason for the check-in are security checks like in an airport, not the passport inspection.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

JoKo65 said:


> The main reason for the check-in are security checks like in an airport, not the passport inspection.


Let's be serious. All this security and safety madness in and around the
channel tunnel are pure politics. When the construction of the channel
tunnel was discussed, between the french and the british, there was a
fierce competition between them, the french pushing a railway solution,
and the british a road solution. To make the road solution look more feasable
in comparison with the railway solution, the british overloaded the project
with safety and security rules. This was in Margaret Tatcher"s times, and,
right wing like she was, she despised trains and anything that looked "public".
But despite that, the railway solution won. And since that, the british can't
admit that they were wrong and abolish all those stupid rules without loosing
their face. That's all, folks. There is nothing logic behind all those rules, just
politics.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Silly indeed:


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

MarcVD said:


> Let's be serious. All this security and safety madness in and around the
> channel tunnel are pure politics. When the construction of the channel
> tunnel was discussed, between the french and the british, there was a
> fierce competition between them, the french pushing a railway solution,
> ...


Margaret Thatcher is the ultimate in scum.

BUT, I doubt your take on things. In fact, its the first ive heard of any of it. Is it all hearsay or do you have any links to this stuff?

The reason for the security is schengen and us not signing up fully, really.

As for safety, well I dont want to sound like a bit of a twazzock, but health and safety standards are clearly higher in the UK compared with Germany, France and Spain. Take our plug design for one.


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

Because originally the systems were developed before globalization & shipment of large quantities of rolling stock & motive power between different countries & global regions.

In the US there is a standard loading gauge called "AMTRAK" and it basically means there are specific dimensions for every part of the railcar or locomotive. Included are platform height, maximum length, maximum height, and turning radius or length between truck pivots. The AMTRAK standard is used on most transit rolling stock as well as Amtrak trains. Some rolling stock is "restricted" meaning it is restricted to certain trackage. For example, the superliners would be restricted from operation into/out of new york or connecting tracks since the loading gauge there is height sensitive from the PRR and B&O etc days.

- A


----------



## perdurabo (May 16, 2006)

JoKo65 said:


> How often railcorridors are upgraded and modernised? Once in 100 years? Do you know how old are many lines and stations in Germany?


mainlines prabably around 20 years get main modernisation, local lines prabably around 40 years.
Tough ETCS will be implemented for sure in Poland around 2010-2012 on one or two corridors (CMK and prabably E-30 and maybe E-65)
Also EU is promoting idea of one current with modernization of lines. IMHO in next 50 or so there will be more and more unification and going into one standard in gauges, current and menagment systems.
Stations while modernization of lines get new platforms:








like this small station on E-30 line beatwin Opola and Wrocław, basicly eatch station on this modernized line (from Zgorzelec up to Opole, apart from Wroclaw and Opole stations) is modernised and has platforms like this one.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

gramercy said:


> lets start with the obvious: over 30 countries!?!, that have (had, and still do) not much in common, not even the gauge is the same everywhere...
> 
> not even within individual countries is the rail infrastructure uniform
> 
> ...


Well if we take the EU at least, there are a number of very complex undertakings to cut down the differences and incompatibilities. I think that can only be compared in scale with the time back when the chaos within the nation states was slowly transformed into a more coherent national system.

Progress is slow but at insanely complex and difficult things like the speed control and signalling standards used all over Europe even that little progress is a step forward. New tracks as well as modernized ones often are compatible to the new Europe wide standard ETCS. There exists a European railways agency and there are lots of attempts of making the railway system increasingly compatible.

I don't know if the question of platform heights is addressed already, but I would not wonder if it would be eventually. Of course as with all things with such a long life time as railways, any change can only happen very slow.

PS:
Even the non member state Switzerland takes part in that effort, they have already an ETCS track operational. Operational ETCS tracks can already be found furthermore in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Hungary. 


Belgien, Deutschland, Italien, Luxemburg, Österreich, den Niederlanden, der Schweiz, Schweden, Spanien und Ungarn


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Republica said:


> Margaret Thatcher is the ultimate in scum.
> 
> BUT, I doubt your take on things. In fact, its the first ive heard of any of it. Is it all hearsay or do you have any links to this stuff?
> 
> ...


That can't be the only reason. When I travelled to Switzerland while it still wasn't part of Schengen, I was not even always controlled and if, it was simply someone going through the train during the journey and controlling only the passports. No x-ray something whatsoever. That means so much less hassles than the tiring security checks. But then I think they have security checks also on the Spanish high speed system I think, even within the country.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

metsfan said:


> Because originally the systems were developed before globalization & shipment of large quantities of rolling stock & motive power between different countries & global regions.
> 
> In the US there is a standard loading gauge called "AMTRAK" and it basically means there are specific dimensions for every part of the railcar or locomotive. Included are platform height, maximum length, maximum height, and turning radius or length between truck pivots. The AMTRAK standard is used on most transit rolling stock as well as Amtrak trains. Some rolling stock is "restricted" meaning it is restricted to certain trackage. For example, the superliners would be restricted from operation into/out of new york or connecting tracks since the loading gauge there is height sensitive from the PRR and B&O etc days.
> 
> - A


The unified nature is great, sadly however some of the regulations are so terribly outdated that one has to ask oneself how the hell this could happen. Some safety regulations are like using regulations for horse carriages on modern cars. Everyone would call that insane, but with trains it seems to be perfectly fine it seems. Take the Acela train, because of completely irrational outdated regulations it has to have double the weight of the French TGV even though it bases on the TGV. Its like a tank on rails.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> The unified nature is great, sadly however some of the regulations are so terribly outdated that one has to ask oneself how the hell this could happen. Some safety regulations are like using regulations for horse carriages on modern cars. Everyone would call that insane, but with trains it seems to be perfectly fine it seems. Take the Acela train, because of completely irrational outdated regulations it has to have double the weight of the French TGV even though it bases on the TGV. Its like a tank on rails.


Do not forget also that very often, those pretended "security regulations" are
nothing else than disguised protectionism. If you are in a big market with a
prosperous rolling stock building industry, putting in place rules that are not
applied anywhere else in the world will almost forbid any foreign competitor to
bid efficiently in your market. Disguising it as security measures will ensure that world trade organisation and the like do not complain. I won't cite examples but those to which the above applies will easily recognize...


----------



## dl3000 (Aug 7, 2004)

MarcVD said:


> Do not forget also that very often, those pretended "security regulations" are
> nothing else than disguised protectionism. If you are in a big market with a
> prosperous rolling stock building industry, putting in place rules that are not
> applied anywhere else in the world will almost forbid any foreign competitor to
> bid efficiently in your market. Disguising it as security measures will ensure that world trade organisation and the like do not complain. I won't cite examples but those to which the above applies will easily recognize...


That sounds really logical, but the USA doesn't have a rolling stock manufacturer. Isn't Bombardier Canadian? Other companies like Siemens have operations in the US, I think giving them contracts can still make American jobs and other benefits. The system is just outdated anyway because its all about crash survival rather than prevention since all kinds of positioning and signaling technology has come out since then.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ The locomotives are mostly from American companies like EMD and GE Transportation.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

MarcVD said:


> Do not forget also that very often, those pretended "security regulations" are
> nothing else than disguised protectionism. If you are in a big market with a
> prosperous rolling stock building industry, putting in place rules that are not
> applied anywhere else in the world will almost forbid any foreign competitor to
> bid efficiently in your market. Disguising it as security measures will ensure that world trade organisation and the like do not complain. I won't cite examples but those to which the above applies will easily recognize...


Well if its there for the sake of protectionism it sucks anyway. ACELA wasn't built by an US company, was it? Nonetheless these standards did not only succeed in inflating the costs for the trains tremendously while making their operation considerably less efficient and considerably more energy consuming as much as more harmful to the tracks they run on.

Next time the US wants to try out some hidden protectionism it maybe should choose some which is not backfiring so terribly.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Something that I have noticed is that all the platforms in England are high level. But not in France, Spain and Italy etc...Russia has loads of very low platforms


----------



## dl3000 (Aug 7, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> Well if its there for the sake of protectionism it sucks anyway. ACELA wasn't built by an US company, was it? Nonetheless these standards did not only succeed in inflating the costs for the trains tremendously while making their operation considerably less efficient and considerably more energy consuming as much as more harmful to the tracks they run on.
> 
> Next time the US wants to try out some hidden protectionism it maybe should choose some which is not backfiring so terribly.


Acela came from a joint venture between Alstom who makes TGV's and Bombardier. 


And GE does not make High Speed trainsets.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

On the point of standardisation, I think it has to be the way forward. This doesn't mean everything having to change over-night, but when rolling-stock replacements and station refurbishment take place they should be carried out using standard dimentions. In the interim stage discrepancies will occur but I doubt things would be more than 2 steps up or down.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

dl3000 said:


> Acela came from a joint venture between Alstom who makes TGV's and Bombardier.
> 
> And GE does not make High Speed trainsets.


Indeed, so it was produced by two non US companies. It still had to cope with terrible regulations that do nothing except for making passenger rail considerably less efficient, more energy wasting and more expensive. 

Whats the point of it other than obviously the aim to make successful passenger rail harder - simply for the sake of it?


----------



## metsfan (Apr 14, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> The unified nature is great, sadly however some of the regulations are so terribly outdated that one has to ask oneself how the hell this could happen. Some safety regulations are like using regulations for horse carriages on modern cars. Everyone would call that insane, but with trains it seems to be perfectly fine it seems. Take the Acela train, because of completely irrational outdated regulations it has to have double the weight of the French TGV even though it bases on the TGV. Its like a tank on rails.


I agree, trains should be light so they use less electricity/diesel to move, and can go faster.



MarcVD said:


> Do not forget also that very often, those pretended "security regulations" are
> nothing else than disguised protectionism. If you are in a big market with a
> prosperous rolling stock building industry, putting in place rules that are not
> applied anywhere else in the world will almost forbid any foreign competitor to
> bid efficiently in your market. Disguising it as security measures will ensure that world trade organisation and the like do not complain. I won't cite examples but those to which the above applies will easily recognize...


True to an extent sadly. There are so many rolling stock manufacturers that cannot make anything for usa's rails. hno:



dl3000 said:


> That sounds really logical, but the USA doesn't have a rolling stock manufacturer. Isn't Bombardier Canadian? Other companies like Siemens have operations in the US, I think giving them contracts can still make American jobs and other benefits. The system is just outdated anyway because its all about crash survival rather than prevention since all kinds of positioning and signaling technology has come out since then.


We have Brookville Equipment. Colorado Railcar recently went bust, GE and EMD only make EMU and locomotive, not push/pull cars. What we really need is another brookville type company, and for brookville to expand. MNRR and SIR recently took delivery and started running brookville BL20GH, and the MNRR units are not only popular, but after "teething" they seem to be quite reliable and met or surpass expectations.



Momo1435 said:


> ^^ The locomotives are mostly from American companies like EMD and GE Transportation.


Correct. EMD, GE, Brookville, Alstom, Bombardier all make locomotives for use in the usa. The last 2 being foreign owned.



Slartibartfas said:


> Well if its there for the sake of protectionism it sucks anyway. ACELA wasn't built by an US company, was it? Nonetheless these standards did not only succeed in inflating the costs for the trains tremendously while making their operation considerably less efficient and considerably more energy consuming as much as more harmful to the tracks they run on.
> 
> Next time the US wants to try out some hidden protectionism it maybe should choose some which is not backfiring so terribly.


Actually, the thing preventing Acela from reaching its full potential, are old overhead line, and outdated FRA safety regulations.



dl3000 said:


> Acela came from a joint venture between Alstom who makes TGV's and Bombardier.
> 
> 
> And GE does not make High Speed trainsets.


No, but they are a solid performer in the powered market (locomotive, EMU).



Slartibartfas said:


> Indeed, so it was produced by two non US companies. It still had to cope with terrible regulations that do nothing except for making passenger rail considerably less efficient, more energy wasting and more expensive.
> 
> Whats the point of it other than obviously the aim to make successful passenger rail harder - simply for the sake of it?


Welcome to the usa, where trains have been looked down upon since 1946. :nuts:

- A


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

metsfan said:


> Because originally the systems were developed before globalization & shipment of large quantities of rolling stock & motive power between different countries & global regions.
> 
> In the US there is a standard loading gauge called "AMTRAK" and it basically means there are specific dimensions for every part of the railcar or locomotive. Included are platform height, maximum length, maximum height, and turning radius or length between truck pivots. The AMTRAK standard is used on most transit rolling stock as well as Amtrak trains. Some rolling stock is "restricted" meaning it is restricted to certain trackage. For example, the superliners would be restricted from operation into/out of new york or connecting tracks since the loading gauge there is height sensitive from the PRR and B&O etc days.
> 
> - A


None of that applies to the EuroTunnel case ... 

There are simplu SRICT security measures that EACH AND EVERY train must follow ... people always forget that it is a 60km UNDERWATER railway crossing ... 




MarcVD said:


> Do not forget also that very often, those pretended "security regulations" are
> nothing else than disguised protectionism. If you are in a big market with a
> prosperous rolling stock building industry, putting in place rules that are not
> applied anywhere else in the world will almost forbid any foreign competitor to
> bid efficiently in your market. Disguising it as security measures will ensure that world trade organisation and the like do not complain. I won't cite examples but those to which the above applies will easily recognize...


What the hell are you trying to pull here ??? 


There are measures that must be followed in each and every train that crosses the tunnel ... live with it. 

In fact SNCF (eurostar + shuttle?) and DB (old chunnel freight locomotives) already have ample knowledge about such security measures ...

1- each and every train projected to take that particular route MUST comply with those rules and the rules of the railways in both ends (if not ERTMS compatible) 

2- all major players in european railway construction/operation have their share in the tunnel compatible stock ... oh ... wait ... siemens has no rollingstock currently going there ... is that you problem ??? :lol:

3- the Eurotunnel is a PRIVATELY owned enterprise ... you BIAS against whatever has no groundsupport whatsoever. :dunno:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> Well if its there for the sake of protectionism it sucks anyway. ACELA wasn't built by an US company, was it? Nonetheless these standards did not only succeed in inflating the costs for the trains tremendously while making their operation considerably less efficient and considerably more energy consuming as much as more harmful to the tracks they run on.
> 
> Next time the US wants to try out some hidden protectionism it maybe should choose some which is not backfiring so terribly.



ACELA is a 100% Canuk (???is it ok to say canuk???) train ...


Rollingstock is made by bombardier in north america and to north american standards (with electric systems suplied by sub-franchised Alsthom) and is NOT in any way a TGV trainset ... it just looks like one. :bash:


Nowadays Bombardier (canadian) owns factories in Canada , USA , Europe , and other places so ... I think it was built by a (north) american company. :cheers:


About the cost/eficiency of the operation ... people always forget to do the proper math:


rapid/frequent services at 160/180km/h are BETTER than 230/250km/h

rapid/frequent services at 200/220km/h are better than 270/300km/h 


simply because the COST's completely overrun the BENEFITS of going faster ... :cheers:

But in the end you forget that you even had that "cheaper" option back then when you decided to upgrade. 


Just look at the british folks all happy with the _crappy*_ 225km/h Javelins in a FULL BLOODED HSL (no train with top speed UNDER 300km/h should be bought in the XXI century for services there in the first place). :dunno: 

*) in top speed terms only ... that's even lower than the expected top speed of the APT some 30 years ago. hno:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Something that I have noticed is that all the platforms in England are high level. But not in France, Spain and Italy etc...Russia has loads of very low platforms




Historically some places have had rules to define platform heights .. .others didn't ... simple as that. :cheers:

In Europe usually the height is that of 1/2 the distance between the floor and the car floor .. .and take this with a grain of salt. 

Usually what is done is to reduce the floor height of the cars ... so we end up with low-floor trains nowadays ... 

URban/comuter/metro/subway in continental europe usually go with the British way ... just put the platforms at the same level of the train floor. 


So we have two tipes of heights ... comuter (high platforms) and long distance (low platforms with seps on cars)


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

wonwiin said:


> ^^
> And because Switzerland is in the Schengen area.


No Schengen has nothing to do with it. The passport controls where always made within the train, and are still made there just not with the same ammount. You are still checked for goods at the border anyway.


JoKo65 said:


> The Gotthard is no sea tunnel, it has emergency exits that's something different.


There are only two exits in Faido and Amsteg and a there is a distance of 33km between them. How is it something different if there is a sea over you or a thousand meters of rock.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> URban/comuter/metro/subway in continental europe usually go with the British way ... just put the platforms at the same level of the train floor.
> 
> 
> So we have two tipes of heights ... comuter (high platforms) and long distance (low platforms with seps on cars)


It just seams a bit pointless to build a platform if they aint gonna do it to the correct height...


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> It just seams a bit pointless to build a platform if they aint gonna do it to the correct height...


"passenger alighting at XXXX please use the 2nd door of the first coach"


We hear this kind of anouncements aboard british trains a little all over the place ... something to do with having the "proper" heigh .. .but lacking the "proper" lenght ... 


there are two car trains stopping in platforms where only ONE DOOR can be used .. .others are served by 8 car pendolinos where only 6 cars can fit.

A lot of other cases ou there ...



That's the drawback of high platforms without stairs ... you get dumped outside ??? or you travell to the other end of te train to aligt :cheers:


medium sized (or rail height) are a compromise from the old days ... :lol:


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

But Britain is quite fortunate in that adapting to longer trains only requires lengthening the platforms, and long platforms are no problem whatsoever for short trains. The height problem in Europe is more difficult to overcome, as platform and train-floor heights affect each other in a much more complex way.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> "passenger alighting at XXXX please use the 2nd door of the first coach"
> 
> 
> We hear this kind of anouncements aboard british trains a little all over the place ... something to do with having the "proper" heigh .. .but lacking the "proper" lenght ...
> ...


I've never been to any station in the UK thats like that... My local station (Prestbury) has very long platforms and the trains are only 3 coaches...


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Loughborough and Beeston come to mind. It's particularly interesting in the case of two-set Meridians (2*5=10 cars) - coming from London if passengers in the rear set wanted to alight at Loughborough or Beeston they'd need to alight at Leicester and get on the front set because the rear set wouldn't be platformed at Loughborough or Beeston.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

I can't believe that's actually allowed in Britain. In Holland it won't happen because the maximum length of a train is limited to the shortest platform. We have to extend the platform if the NS wants ride with longer trains, often with a (sometimes not so) temporary platform made out of scaffolding.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

Momo1435 said:


> I can't believe that's actually allowed in Britain. In Holland it won't happen because the maximum length of a train is limited to the shortest platform. We have to extend the platform if the NS wants ride with longer trains, often with a (sometimes not so) temporary platform made out of scaffolding.


We British like to put our passengers through a bit of torture, just to keep them on their toes.


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

Momo1435 said:


> I can't believe that's actually allowed in Britain. In Holland it won't happen because the maximum length of a train is limited to the shortest platform. We have to extend the platform if the NS wants ride with longer trains, often with a (sometimes not so) temporary platform made out of scaffolding.


I know in the past that the some platforms were too short (I believe 10 years ago). For example in Goes the intercity couldn't fit on the platform. They always warned you, but it was still a little bit strange.


----------



## dmarney (Jul 26, 2008)

ive only seen a couple of places where its been like that in the UK, but usually the platforms are long enough. sometimes part of the platform is cut of to reduce maintenence costs


----------



## entfe001 (Jul 2, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> But then I think they have security checks also on the Spanish high speed system I think, even within the country.


That's true even for long-distance trains not running on high speed lines, but security checks are installed only on major stations. This means that a train can carry people who passed a security check on a major station (say Barcelona Sants) and also other people who hadn't passed any (Tarragona on the Barcelona - Valencia line) :nuts: So I truly believe that security checks made by Renfe are completely useless, only justified by the 2004 Madrid bombings, which happened at commuter trains not affected by those checkings.

About spanish international high speed trains, there are none. The Spain-France connection, due to February 2009, is unused because the spanish connection is unfinished and it will be at least until 2012. The few international trains must change their gauge at the border (Spain has 1668mm but France uses 1435mm). The Spain-Portugal connection is also unfinished.

About the platforms, Spain has some commuter trains (Civia) which have a lower door at the platform level. Also, the Talgo trainsets have a lower floor than the rest of trains, so lifting platforms will make access to those trains more difficult. Nonetheless, stations where Talgo trains do not stop are progressively lifted.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Micrav said:


> Ok, then it seems that *760 mm *is the clear best compromise. Anybody can step 20cm up or down... And it allows everybody to adapt with time...



The standard platform height in portugal is around 90cm/120cm in the mainlines.



Euklidisk said:


> 550 mm is better when constructing double decker coaches and having almoast no step down into lower deck from platform. Wheelchairs need no lift.


Only if the doors are at the lower level ... there are double deckers with doors above the bogies also and those benefit from the increased height:


----------



## ArtManDoo (Aug 5, 2008)

Question regarding 550mm and 760mm. As I understand it is fully interoperable, 21cm is usual allowed step then? If it is possible to choose, 550mm would be preferred option I think, stepping upwards into train seems more common and safe option. What about possible pendolino connection Warszawa - Praha, both stock variants ČD Class 680 and PKP Class ED250 should be compatible for both platforms 550mm in Czech Rep and 760 in Poland?


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

In Poland we also have 550 mm platforms and I haven't heard about any compatibility problems of our ED250 with them.

For example in Gdańsk Główny there are 550 mm platforms and ED250 stops there.

See here: https://www.plk-sa.pl/files/public/...2017/21.12.2016/N_ZAL_2.11_20161220144257.pdf - this is a list of platforms in Poland and the penultimate column is the height in mm. From 2016, it would be probably possible to find a more up to date one, but this is what I first found by Google.

There are also plans of sending Pendolino to Zakopane and the platforms there have heights of: 330, 370, 380 and 390 mm.

And they stop, for example, in Czechowice-Dziedzice, where the height is 350 mm (one platform is 200 mm, but I assume ED250 use rather those higher ones - 200 mm has a short platform directly at the station building).

550 mm is quite a common standard in Poland, one which is used in newly build platforms apart from 760 mm.


----------



## Viac (Apr 2, 2011)

Kpc21 said:


> In Poland we also have 550 mm platforms and I haven't heard about any compatibility problems of our ED250 with them.
> 
> For example in Gdańsk Główny there are 550 mm platforms and ED250 stops there.
> 
> ...


Right now in whole EU with 1435 mm guage is a requirements for 550 mm and 760 mm platform height when the railway is rebulit, modernized or a new rail is built. For other heights, permission from local railway authority is needed.
This is related to the implementation of TSI.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

Yes, but there is plenty of stations and train stopping points with legacy platform heights. There are even still some (very few) with no platforms where the passengers board the train directly from the ground. And the trains must - in practice - be compatible also with them.

Compatibility with both 550 and 760 mm is, of course, crucial.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

These platform heights combined with the level boarding requirement for disabled travellers unfortunately also cause all modern trains to have a 'sagging banana' look, because over the bogies the carriage floor needs to higher. 960 mm, as used by German S-Bahn seems much more convenient to me. To me the ideal platform height seems to be about 1250 mm, which already happens to be the traditional floor height of many existing carriages and trains around the world and is suitable for both single and double deck trains.


----------

