A tale of legacy platform stops

Melbourne has a number of ‘legacy’ platform stops that predate the rollout of low-floor trams, and so don’t provide a level boarding experience – but to the average passenger, they look no different to an accessible tram stop.

One of these trams stops was in the news back in 2016, after a man who uses a mobility scooter said the tram driver refused to deploy a ramp so he could board the tram.

A Melbourne man with MS who uses a mobility scooter says a tram driver repeatedly refused to deploy a ramp to help him board so he could get to hospital for treatment, and he had to be lifted on by passengers.

Sean Cox said he tried to get onto the 19 tram at the intersection of Royal Parade and Brunswick Road in Brunswick on three separate days this week, but each time the driver did not allow him to use the wheelchair ramp.

“Even though they’re all kitted out, they’ve all got ramps, [the drivers] are saying ‘No, the manager says we can’t put the ramp down’,” he told 774 ABC Melbourne

Mr Cox said he needed the ramp to help get his scooter over a two-inch step.

A spokeswoman for Yarra Trams told the ABC the ramps were only for emergency situations and not to be used to help passengers board the trams at old stops.

The tram stop at Royal Parade and Brunswick Road on route 19 in Brunswick looks like an accessible platform stop.

But the ‘platform’ is actually just an asphalt footpath on the traffic island, with a kerb separating it from the tram tracks.

Similar ‘platform’ tram stops exist elsewhere on the Melbourne tram network, like this one on route 57 at Abbotsford Street and Flemington Road.

This one in the middle of Kings Way on route 58.

All of these tram stops are accessed via traffic lights, unlike the stops only accessible via stairs, as I’ve mentioned before.

Towards standards

Melbourne entered the low floor tram era with the C class ‘Citadis’ trams delivered in 2001, followed by D class ‘Combino’ trams from 2002.

With the first accessible platform stop opened on Collins Street in October 2001.

However the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport only specify the size of boarding gaps.

8.2 – When boarding devices must be provided.

(1) A manual or power assisted boarding device must be available at any accessible entrance to a conveyance that has:

(a) a vertical rise or gap exceeding 12 mm (AS/NZS3856.1 (1998) Clause 2.1.7 (f)); or
(b) a horizontal gap exceeding 40 mm (AS/NZS3856.1 (1998) Clause 2.1.8 (g)).

Which presented difficulties when determining a standard for tram floor and platform heights, given we purchsed off-the-shelf low-floor trams from Europe.

Where a platform stop exists, most passengers with a mobility impairment will be able to board a low floor tram safely and independently unless there is a boarding gap acting as a barrier to access. Victoria’s objective is to provide independent access which is best achieved with low floor trams and level access stops.

The current boarding gap of 12mm (vertical) and 40mm (horizontal) specified in DSAPT is based on an Australian Standard for hoists and ramps used for road transport including buses and taxis. However, there is no specific standard for trams and European standards have different vertical and horizontal gap requirements for deployment of ramps. Victoria recommends that the current standard in 8.2 be reviewed with the aim of developing a specific standard for trams.

Hence gaps like this one between a D1 class Combino tram and the platform stop at Melbourne University.

And this C2 class Citadis tram on Bourke Street.

Rubber gap filling panels were fitted to C2 class trams in an attempt to make boarding easier.

But gap fillers fitted to D1 class trams caused another problem – the trams would now hit the platform, so a 30 km/h speed restriction was imposed!

Made in Melbourne for Melbourne?

The new E class trams were the first low-floor trams built in Melbourne, for Melbourne, so one might think they’d be designed to fit our existing platform stops.

But they weren’t.

Disability rules bypassed in low-floor tram rush
Josh Gordon
September 12, 2011

The Department of Transport knowingly breached federal anti-discrimination laws by ignoring wheelchair accessibility rules on trams.

A tender assessment from September last year for 50 new “low-floor trams” reveals that the department decided a Disability Discrimination Act requirement for a step height between platforms and trams of no more than 12 millimetres was too onerous, instead asking for a cheaper 50 millimetre option, which is the European standard.

“It was determined that the 12mm option was not feasible and should not be actively pursued”, the briefing to Martin Pakula, transport minister in the former Labor government, says.

The documents, obtained under freedom of information laws by Greens MP Greg Barber, warn that no tenders had developed a “workable system” to meet the requirement, saying the impact on delivery times and maintenance was too great.

The result vertical gap doesn’t look all that big.

But at other tram stops, there is a big horizontal gap.

And to reduce the gaps, a convoluted ramp had to be created inside each doorway of the tram, creating a slip hazzard.

But still not good enough

In 2014 Yarra Trams started ripping up a number of existing platform stops.

Closing them to passengers.

While they pulled up the bluestone paving.

Then put it all back into place.

The only difference – the platform edge was 30 mm higher.

Yarra Trams detailed the reason for the work in their Q3 2014 Accessibility Update.

Yarra Trams continues to work closely with Public Transport Victoria to enhance the accessibility of Melbourne’s tram network. As part of this commitment, resurfacing works are scheduled to be completed at a number of existing level access stops on the network this year.

The works involve raising existing level access stops approximately 30mm to improve accessibility for all passengers, particularly those using a mobility aid.

Stops that have benefitted from this work so far include stops in the sporting precinct near the MCG, AAMI Park, Hisense Arena and Rod Laver Arena, Melbourne University, Alfred Hospital and Bourke Street Mall.

These changes to the surface of the level access stops are designed to ensure a standard height for level access tram stops in Melbourne.

And provided a full list in their 2015–18 Accessibility Action Plan.

In 2014, Yarra Trams completed work to retrofit several accessible tram stops that were built to old standards. The tram stops were raised from 260mm to 290mm at the following locations:

· Melbourne University
· Flinders Street at Spencer Street
· Flinders Street at King Street
· Flinders Street at Market Street
· The Alfred Hospital
· Spencer Street at Collins Street (Southern Cross Station)
· Bridge Road at Hawthorn Bridge
· Collins Street at Swanston Street (Town Hall)
· MCG / Hisense Arena
· Rod Laver Arena
· AAMI Park
· Batman Avenue at William Barak Bridge
· Bourke Street at Elizabeth Street
· Bourke Street at Swanston Street

But even this wasn’t good enough – in 2016 Yarra Trams trialled the use of ramps at platform stops.

Access problems at super stops prompt trial of wheelchair ramps on new trams
Adam Carey
May 3, 2016

Boarding ramps will be trialled on Melbourne’s new E-Class trams to bridge an excessive step height at super stop platforms that prevents some wheelchair passengers safely entering the tram.

The height difference between platforms and tram floors is big enough to have put the Victorian government in breach of national disability discrimination laws, a problem that was identified before E-Class trams were first ordered in 2010, but has never been fixed.

Instead this year, under a trial proposed by Yarra Trams, manual ramps will be deployed by tram drivers at platform stops along route 96 between East Brunswick and St Kilda Beach, one of Melbourne’s busiest tram routes.

Ray Jordan of disability access group All Aboard said the group welcomed all efforts to improve access to trams, given some super stops still leave a problem gap.

“There are a lot of people who find themselves still unable to use the [E-Class] trams because their particular wheelchair won’t get up that step,” Mr Jordan said. “The step could be 30 to 60 millimetres, it varies. Some wheelchairs can handle that, many can’t,” he said.

But they’re still building non-compliant ‘platform’ stops

As part of the rebuild of the tram tracks along Elizabeth Street in 2012, a new ‘platform’ stop was created at La Trobe Street.

But it wasn’t actually accessible – but just a section of tram tracks sunken beneath the level of the neighbouring road, waiting for a real platform stop to be built.

Something that wasn’t provided until 2013.

And another screw up occurred in 2020, following the rebuilding of the tram tracks through Royal Park on route 58.

9 News Melbourne

The ‘platform’ was built too far from the tracks, and so forced to close for repair work.

Route 58 – Stop 23 Royal Park closure
Wednesday 9 December to Tuesday 22 December 2020

Date and time
Wednesday 9 December until further notice.

Tram stop changes
Stop 23 Royal Park towards West Coburg is closed. Passengers can connect to trams towards West Coburg from Stop 19 Royal Children’s Hospital (up to 350m / 4 minute walk) or Stop 24 Elliott Avenue (up to 400m / 5 minute walk).

We’ve got a long way still to go

Postscript

Thankfully the tram stop on route 19 Sydney and Brunswick Road was upgraded in 2018 – and it’s now a real platform stop.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post When is a platform tram stop not accessible? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Stop 31 Queens Way, Windsor

Stop 31 on route 5 and 64 is located in the middle of Queens Way.

The tram stop consisting of two narrow strips of concrete linked by a pedestrian crossing.

And the only connection to the rest of the world being a single flight of stairs to the Upton Road overpass.

The tram stop opened in 1969 as part of the St Kilda Junction project, which saw 2 kilometres of tram track along Wellington Street relocated to the current grade separated alignment at a cost of $458,000.

Stop 33 Hornby Street/Dandenong Road, Windsor

Only a short distance away on route 5 and 64 is another tram stop only accessed via steps.

Again the tram stop is just two narrow concrete strips, linked by a pedestrian crossing.

A pedestrian bridge crosses the eight lanes of Dandenong Road, with two flights of steps connecting it to the tram stop.

Agitation for a safe crossing location of Dandenong Road between Hornby and Westbury streets commenced in the 1970s, with local member D. G. Elliot raising the issue in parliament in 1973.

The current three span, 59 metres long by 1.8 metres wide prestressed and reinforced concrete beam bridge was completed in 1976 by the Country Roads Board as part of the ‘grade-separated crossings to serve schools’ program.

Stop 63 Deakin University/Burwood Highway, Burwood

The outer end of the route 75 runs in the middle of Burwood Highway, and outside the Deakin University campus in Burwood is an inaccessible platform tram stop.

A pedestrian crossing links the citybound and outbound platform stops.

But the only way out is via the pedestrian underpass.

Accessed via a single narrow flight of steps.

Leading to a thankfully well lit underpass.

The northern end entering the Deakin University campus.

And the southern end disappearing into a small park.

The pedestrian underpass opened in 1978 as part of the East Burwood tramway extension from Warrigal Road to Middleborough Road, the remainder of the tram stops having been provided with a pedestrian crossing for access.

By 2005 the underpass was described as dirty and poorly-lit.

Whitehorse Leader
Move for safe crossing
20/04/2005
Jan Harkin

Students are dangerously dodging Burwood Highway traffic to avoid a dirty, poorly-lit underpass near a tram stop outside Deakin University, Burwood state Labor MP Bob Stensholt says.

“If you stand there at four o’clock and watch the students, they come across the road like Brown’s cows,” Mr Stensholt said.

Mr Stensholt said the long-term plan was for a superstop with an enhanced pedestrian crossing and lights although that would not happen before 2007.

But a meeting of university, VicRoads and Yarra Trams representatives has come up with short-term measures to improve pedestrian safety.

Yarra Trams will upgrade the stop with extra safety rails and VicRoads will tackle the underpass.

“They are going to extend the railings as a temporary measure and put some signage on to tell people to be careful and hopefully put in more lighting,” Mr Stensholt said.

But in the years since a ‘enhanced pedestrian crossing’ has never happened – but the current pair of ‘accessible’ platforms were provided in May 2007.

Grade separated – but thankfully accessible

On route 70 there are three grade separated tram stops serving the spots precinct, but thankfully all are accessible.

Stop 7A William Barak Bridge/Melbourne Park has steps and a lift.

Stop 7B Rod Laver Arena/MCG Gates 1-3 has a loooong ramp to each platform.

And stop 7C 7C-MCG Gates 4-7/John Cain Arena has stairs and lifts.

All three tram stops opened in 1999 as part of the rerouting of route 70 trams onto a new reserved track to the Exhibition Street extension, freeing up the previous route via Swan Street and Batman Avenue to make way for the Federation Square project.

And since removed

Stop 14 on St Kilda Road at the Arts Centre once had a set of stairs connecting it to the City Road underpass – opened in 1971 it was replaced by the current ground level tram stop in 2008.

Footnote: close, but not quite on route 59

Route 59 has a number of tram stops beside the Tullamarine Freeway.

A footbridge crosses the freeway at each tram stop.

But the tram stops themselves are not connected – access is via a pedestrian crossing.

St Kilda Junction

The St Kilda Junction tram stop is surrounded by cars.

Served by a maze of pedestrian underpasses.

Running beneath the surrounding roads.

But thankfully there are no steps – just steep ramps.

And there is one ground level access route – this dark footpath between overgrown trees.

Leading to a pedestrian crossing at the Punt Road / St Kilda Road traffic lights.

Google Street View

And two aborted proposals

Early plans for the Metro Tunnel featured direct access between trams and trains on Royal Parade at Parkville station.

As well as the Domain Interchange tram stop on St Kilda Road as Domain station.

But direct tram stop access at Parkville station has been dropped from the current plans.

But thankfully at the renamed Anzac station, plans show the main station entrance is connected to the tram stop.

With a total of three station entrances – one either side of St Kilda Road, and a third between the tram tracks, with a large atrium looking down on the station concourse below.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Melbourne’s triply inaccessible tram stops appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

In the beginning

Melbourne’s first trains were short and steam powered, so there bridges didn’t need to be high above the track.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1123

But the introduction of electric trains from 1919 saw a need for increased clearances, to accommodate the overhead wires.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P4, item RS 0391

The 1953 Victorian Railways General Appendix gave the contact wire height as follows:

• Average height above rail: 16 feet – 16 feet 6 inches (4.48 m – 5.03 m)
• Minimum height under bridges (suburban area): 14 feet 6 inches (4.42 m)
• Minimum height under bridges (country area): 15 feet (4.57 m)
• Minimum height over sidings: 17 feet (5.18 m)
• Minimum height over level crossings: 18 feet (5.49 m)
• Maximum height: 19 feet (5.79 m)

Many footbridges already crossed the tracks prior to electrification, such this one in Moonee Ponds – constructed in 1890.

Ripponlea station – opened in 1912.

And Footscray station – rebuilt in 1901.

But these tight clearances remained for projects completed post electrification, such as Hawksburn station – rebuilt in 1914.

Camberwell – rebuilt in 1919.

And Middle Footscray – grade separated in 1928.

And later years

By the 1970s the clearance between trains and overhead bridges started to grow, with Yarraman station being one example – opened in 1976.

But it appears that exceptions were still permitted, such as West Footscray – rebuilt in the same year, 1976.

Enter double deck trains

In 1992 Melbourne introduced a trial double deck train – the 4D.

Weston Langford photo

As you might expect, a whole lot of infrastructure changes were required to accommodate a taller train – including the Swanston Street bridge at Flinders Street Station, and numerous overhead bridges along the Belgrave and Lilydale lines. The exception was the City Loop tunnels – designed with double-deck trains in mind, no modifications were necessary.

But still the 4D train was shorter than the double deck trains of Sydney – 4270 mm tall, compared to the 4380 mm tall Sydney Tangara train it was based upon.

It also also interesting to compare the height of the double 4D train, to Melbourne’s single deck train fleet:

WTT Network Configuration-Metro Rolling Stock (L1-CHE-MAN-016)

• Hitachi: 3759 mm
• Comeng: 3835 mm
• Siemens: 4141 mm
• X’Trapolis: 4214 mm

Turns out bolting air conditioning units to the roof of a train really eats up that vertical clearance!

Current standards

Metro Trains Melbourne standard L1-CHE-STD-011 “Overhead Line Electrification” gives the overhead wire heights as follows:

• Open route (nominal at support): 5.20 m
• Open route – slab track (absolute minimum): 4.46 m
• Open route – ballast & sleepers (absolute minimum): 4.61 m
• Open route (absolute maximum, excluding lead up to level crossings) 5.85 m
• Station platforms (nominal)5.20 m
• Station platforms (minimum): 4.94 m
• Level crossings (minimum): 5.64 m
• Level crossings (maximum): 6.10 m
• Pedestrian crossings (minimum): 5.00 m

Compared with the overhead wiring standards from 1953, only an extra 190 mm clearance is required under bridges – that’s less than one step! So why are such massive bridges being built?

Turns out standard L1-CHE-STD-025 “Transit Space Clearances” has the answer:

Section 9.2 shall apply to any new, or alterations to existing Infrastructure constructed or installed by MTM, or on behalf of MTM or PTV.

The minimum Vertical Clearance shall be 5.75m for new bridges or structures above the track. The Vertical Clearance may be reduced subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer, or delegate, following adequate demonstration of requirements in Appendix A – Reduced Vertical Clearance to Structures Requirements.

This explains the massive footbridges built in the past decades at rebuilt railway stations – such as Watergardens.

And Westall.

As well as the depth of rail underpasses such as Nunawading.

Gardiner.

And St Albans.

But why are some stations even taller?

If the climb out of the above stations seems bad enough, there are stations such as Sunshine where the ascent is even more formidable.

Metro Trains standard L1-CHE-STD-025 “Transit Space Clearances” alludes to the reason:

On tracks operated or maintained by Accredited Rail Transport Operators (ARTOs) or Rail Infrastructure Managers (RIMs) other than MTM, consideration shall be given to their minimum vertical clearances, particularly on Double Stacked freight corridors.

A double stacked freight train is far taller than any Melbourne train.

With the only Australian examples running through the ‘outback’ – between Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Parkes.

But the capability to run double stack freight trains in Victoria is on the roadmap for the Australian Rail Track Corporation, operator of the interstate freight network in Victoria.

Tottenham to Albury (T2A) is one of 13 projects that complete Inland Rail. This section of Inland Rail is planned along 305km of existing rail corridor from metropolitan Melbourne to the Victoria-NSW border at Albury-Wodonga. This project will see enhancements of existing structures to provide increased clearances along the rail corridor. The enhancement works are required to accommodate double stack freight trains of 1,800 metres in length to be run on the track.

With their clearance requirements detailed in Section 7 “Clearances” of their Code of Practice:

New Structures on the Defined Interstate Rail Network (DIRN) and the Inland Railway Route

Unless otherwise formally approved by appropriate ARTC Executive General Manager, all new structures over mainlines and passing loops/sidings shall be constructed to give full plate “F” – i.e. this will give 7.1m clearance above rail.

In Melbourne the Defined Interstate Rail Network runs west and north-east from the Port of Melbourne, paralleling the following suburban tracks.

• Sunbury line, Footcray to Albion
• Werribee line, Newport to Werribee
• Craigieburn line, Jacana to Craigieburn

Which explains the massive footbridges found at West Footscray.

Laverton.

And Coolaroo.

As well as the Sunshine example from earlier.

Footnote – how long are the ramps?

I found this in a report by Opus Consulting regarding development concepts for Donnybrook station:

There is a preference for the provision of a footbridge for access across the tracks for the following reasons:
» The nature of the basalt ground conditions, along with anecdotal information regarding ground water and inundation conditions, suggests the use of a footbridge rather than a subway.
» Construction interfaces with the live train running lines make it more favourable to build a footbridge
» Footbridges are also preferred over subways because they provide a more favourable security environment
» It is expected that a footbridge will be more cost effective to provide

And the kicker:

Clearance requirements over the standard gauge interstate track is 7.1m which dictates:
» 128.8m of ramp length to ground level
» 15.9m of stair length to ground level

Clearance requirements over the broad gauge regional tracks is 5.75m which dictates:
» 97.2m of ramp length to ground level
» 13.2m of stair length to ground level

That 1.35 m of extra vertical clearance really makes a difference to the length of a DDA compliant ramp!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Why are Melbourne railway footbridges so high? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Entering the age of the accessible stations

In 1992 the Commonwealth Government passed the Disability Discrimination Act, with the aim to eliminate discrimination ‘as far as possible’ against people with disabilities.

Section 23 set out ‘access to premises used by the public‘, with the technical details codified under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT) of 2002 and Australian Standard AS1428.1.

The first major railway stations upgrade in Melbourne following this legislative change was Dandenong station in 1995. The existing pedestrian subway was replaced by an overhead concourse spanning the tracks, with stairs and lifts to platform level, and ramps to both street entrances.

This was followed in 1998 by the Boronia Road grade separation project, which saw Boronia station rebuilt. The tracks were lowered below ground, with an concourse at ground level linked by steps and a pair of lifts to the island platform below.

The extension of suburban trains to Sydenham in 2002 saw the construction of a new station called Watergardens. Featuring stairs and lifts between street, platform and overhead concourse, this now appeared to be the de facto access standard for new railway stations in Melbourne.

But an important thing to keep in mind was that the above three stations were all staffed full time.

The provision of lifts at unstaffed stations appears to have been considered a vandalism and security risk, as the reconstruction of Laburnum station in 2007 shows, where long ramps and stairs were provided between elevated platform and street below.

The construction of a new station at Roxburgh Park in 2007 reinforces this – this unstaffed station was provided with an island platform accessed by overhead footbridge, with stairs for the able bodied, paralleled by Melbourne’s first example of a zig-zagging DDA compliant ramp.

Up until this point all DDA compliant stations built in Melbourne had featured stairs, not escalators, but this changed with the 2009 upgrade of North Melbourne. A new overhead concourse and station entrance was built at the city end, with escalators and lifts transporting passengers to the platforms below, replacing the steep ramps that once formed the only access route.

A second change in design philosophy came a year later in 2010, when the newly built Coolaroo station became the first unstaffed station to receive lifts, in conjunction with stairs.

Lifts continued to trump ramps during this period. The expansion of Westall station in 2010 seeing four lifts provided at the new three platform station.

Nunawading station was also rebuilt in 2010 as part of the grade separation of Springvale Road, receiving stairs and two lifts – one either side of Springvale Road.

Thomastown and Epping stations also received lifts and stairs when rebuilt as part of the South Morang Rail Extension Project in 2012, as did the new terminus station at South Morang.

One thing to notable about each of the previous projects is the lack of redundancy – with the exception of Boronia and Nunawading stations, each platform was served by a single lift – leaving less agile passengers stranded if the lift broke down. However this flaw went unnoticed by both railway management and the general public, at least until the next project…

All aboard the fail train

2009 saw the rebuilding of Laverton station on the Werribee line. Here the existing footbridge and steep ramps were demolished, replaced by a much higher enclosed structure, linked to the platforms by stairs and lifts.

Nothing revolutionary on the design front, but within a few months the lifts at Laverton station soon became a lighting rod for discontent – they were too small to fit and ambulance stretchers, forcing the shutdown of trains to evacuate an ill passenger, and so chronically unreliable they were raised in State Parliament.

A year later the new footbridge at Footscray station also attracted similar criticism – passengers were only given lifts, stairs and a single lift per platform, despite being a major interchange station.

In early 2010 Colleen Hartland from the Greens expressed concern about both projects:

Many people have contacted me, including senior citizens coming in to my office, to express their concern and distress that the Footscray railway station upgrade will have steep stairs and lifts, but no ramps. But many people cannot walk up steep stairs, including senior citizens, people with prams and some people with disabilities.

There will only be three lifts for the four platforms, including one lift shared between platforms 2 and 3. If the lift breaks down, people getting off the train will be stranded on the platform.

Each platform at Footscray has some street access, which is better than nothing in an emergency, but we cannot say the same for Laverton station. Two weeks ago I was at Laverton station when an elderly woman got off the train. The lift was broken and the only alternative was the steep stairs. She had to call on the help of some fellow passengers to carry her up the stairs. This was a demeaning and dangerous situation.

My request for the minister is to ensure that every railway platform may be accessed by Disability Discrimination Act compliant ramps, and to make escalators available at Footscray station. I would also urge him to avoid dismissing the question with an answer like, ‘They’re DDA-compliant lifts and that makes the station okay, and beyond that I don’t care’

As did opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder, who used the failing lifts as an opportunity to sink the boot into the Labour Government:

Premier John Brumby’s myki is three years late today, while his refusal to provide ramps or subways at new or renovated metropolitan railway stations is resulting in passengers being trapped on platforms such as Laverton when the lifts break down and causing gross inconvenience to local residents, Shadow Minister for Public Transport Terry Mulder said today.

Mr. Mulder said that John Brumby’s obsession with myki and his neglect of public transport basics was creating a problem for a future government to fix, with new stations at Coolaroo and Williams Landing lacking disabled access when the lifts were out of service.

“When its new footbridge is opened, Footscray station, one of the busiest in Melbourne, will also lack easy access when its lifts break down.” Mr. Mulder said.

“Historically, Melbourne railway stations have had excellent access, with subways or ramps being far preferable to the typical stairs-over-tracks design of many Sydney railway stations.

“These new stations are totally or partly ‘island platform’ designs, with a platform sandwiched between two rail lines. John Brumby will maroon passengers on these desert island-like platforms, often without access to water or toilet facilities when lifts are unserviceable.” Mr. Mulder said.

In the lead up to the 2010 State Election, the opposition raised the issue again for political mileage:

“You have to wonder what is being done with the design of these stations,” opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said.

The opposition has promised that, if it is elected on Saturday, all new railway stations that require footbridge access will be built or re-fitted with ramps instead of just lifts.

Ramps meant disabled and emergency access would be available at all times, Mr Mulder said.

Ted Baillieu and the Liberal Party won the election, and the rest was history.

A belt and braces approach

Today the trio of stairs, lifts and long zig-zagging ramps with a DDA compliant 1 in 14 gradient has became the standard at new and upgraded railway stations in Melbourne.

Williams Landing was the first example – completed in 2013.

Followed by the rebuilt station at Mitcham in 2014.

And the rebuilt Springvale station a few months later.

Since then all stations upgraded as part of the Regional Rail Link project have included lifts and ramps, as have all stations rebuilt as part of the Level Crossing Removal Project, and the new stations to be built as part of the Mernda Rail Extension Project.

But the debate continues

The debate about lengthy DDA compliant ramps just won’t die – in 2014 a leaked memo showed the Liberal Government was having second thoughts on their election promise:

A leaked memo has revealed the State Government has changed its stance on ­installing ramps at train ­stations, raising concerns for commuters with limited ­mobility.

In Opposition, the Coalit­ion criticised the Brumby government for refusing to provide ramps at new or renovated train stations and promised to provide both options.

But in a leaked Public Transport Victoria memo seen by the Herald Sun, an engineer claims Transport Minister Terry Mulder has “shifted his position” on building ramps at railway stations because of the cost blowout at the new Will­iams Landing station.

The document also reveals that Mr Mulder raised concerns about the “visual impacts of ramps” at upgraded stations in Mitcham and Springvale.

The memo also suggests three stations — Clayton, Carnegie and Murrumbeena which are to be redeveloped in the Cranbourne-­Pakenham Rail Corridor Project — have been designed without ramps.

In 2016 the Level Crossing Removal Authority also attempted to avoid building massive ramps as part of the Mernda rail extension:

Designs released so far show stations will have stairs and lifts to the platforms, but a lack of ramps have raised concerns similar to those voiced when the rail line was extended from Epping to South Morang in 2010.

Whittlesea Councillor Mary Lalios said she was advised by Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) appointed to design and construct the Mernda extension that ramps were too long for the stations.

“If there were to be ramps, they would be roughly 150m in length,” she said.

“When I asked how long the platforms are, they (LXRA) advised they were 162m long.

“That means that a person in a wheelchair, to get to the front carriage behind the train driver, will have to travel the same distance or more.

“Doesn’t make sense.”

Playing catch up

Turns out the lifts at Watergardens aren’t all they’re cracked up to be either:

A malfunctioning lift at Watergardens train station that reportedly breaks down nearly every second week, on average, is likely to be replaced.

Western Metropolitan MLC Bernie Finn told state parliament recently the Watergardens lift had broken down 43 times over the two years to 2016, and sometimes took a week to fix.

They have since been replaced – the work taking month and a half during 2017.

Similar lift upgrade works were also completed at Dandenong station during 2017.

Hopefully these upgrades will reduce the impact of these single points of failure.

And a footnote on Footscray

When asked in 2010 about the lack of ramps and escalators at Footscray station, the Minister for Public Transport stated:

Ramps and escalators were considered by the design team but would have resulted in very lengthy ramps, and a much longer path of travel than the lifts provide. Escalators were also considered but found to be unsuitable for a number of reasons, including exposure to the weather which can result in frequent failure.

A prophetic statement, given the issues encountered with the open air escalators at North Melbourne station since 2012!

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Belt and braces – why Melbourne stations have lifts and ramps appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The very early years

The story of ramps versus stairs starts with Melbourne’s first railways. Built to link country Victoria with the markets of the growing metropolis, railways were built on the cheap – tracks laid at ground level and level crossings where roads crossed the tracks.

Stations were also simple affairs – a pair of platforms with two tracks running through the middle, and a single station building on the city bound platform. Bridges over or under the tracks were rare, only being built in conjunction with cuttings through hills or embankments over valleys, which eased the grades for trains to climb.

Yarraville station is an early example. Opened in 1871 beside the Anderson Street level crossing.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 4836

Passengers accessed the platforms via the existing street network, but had to cross the tracks via the level crossing.

There were few exceptions to this configuration – one being South Yarra, which opened to passengers in 1860. Located north of the Toorak Road overbridge, platforms flanked the two tracks, with steps linking the two.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1123

In the early years even the central stations of Flinders Street, Princes Bridge and Spencer Street didn’t have ramps or stairs – as terminal stations each track formed a dead end, with nothing to prevent ground level access between platform and street.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1109

But once the tracks linking Flinders Street Station to Spencer Street Station were completed in 1891, the question of having to cross the tracks at major stations emerged. A preference for ramps instead of stairs appears to have emerged early on, as this 1905 photo of the original Flinders Street Station shows.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 2770

The Railway Inquiry Board in 1895 saw the ramps linking platforms at Flinders Street Station as inconvenient, with the Victorian Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, being questioned by the chairperson over it.

1589. Can you name any station in a city, even down to 10,000 people, in any of the other colonies, where you have to go up ramps and along an uncovered bridge to catch another train?

I cannot name such a station at present.

But they just didn’t get the reason why the ramps were needed.

1595. You have read of the stations in London?

Yes.

1596. I do not know of any one there except South Kensington where you have to climb up bridges and so on?

Nearly all their large stations are terminals, and the trains arrive at what are called “dead ends,” and they go out again from the same place in the same direction that they came in. Our Flinders Street Station is a through traffic station, that is to say, the train from Essendon at present runs through Flinders Street Station to Brighton, and it is intended that a good many more trains shall run through in future.

1597. I can quite understand an underground railway such as the Metropolitan District Railway in London necessitating people going down stairs and upstairs to get to the railway line; but in a railway that is on the surface of the earth, I do not understand it?

But wherever there is more than one platform, there must be some means for the passengers to cross the rails.

Once planning commenced for the present day Flinders Street Station in the late 1890s, a debate about crossing over the tracks via bridge or subway emerged, with Deputy Traffic Manager William Francis Fitzpatrick being questioned about the planned station.

I think myself that a subway, on the whole, is the best, chiefly for these reasons – I am now speaking with regard to the comfort of the traveller; in the first place it is conceded on all sides that the greatest comfort to the traveller is to take him on the level. Next to that, bridges on that station will be very unpleasant places, owing to the large number of locomotives that will be passing to and fro, owing to the smoke and smell from them, and one thing and another.

Then the question of whether it is easier to mount a ramp or go down the same height on steps is one that I am too young and active a man to settle, but, bearing in mind what little experience we have had, in that direction at several suburban places where we have subways, they lead to no complaint, and I think, on the whole, they are preferable, that is from the point of view of the travellers’ convenience.

But the merits of ramps versus stairs was also debated. Victoria Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, gave this reasoning when questioned by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 1899.

The central subway it is proposed to have approached by steps from all the platforms, because ramps would take up too much length of the platforms. The gradient is 1 in 10, and the length of the ramp about 136 feet. If a lift is found to be a necessity it can always be added; ramps are far easier and safer for old people than steps.

Little did these engineers know, but their opinions on station design were to hold sway for many decades.

Transformation into a suburban railway

The start of the 20th Century was also the start of work to transform the Melbourne railway system from a handful of lines leading into the country, into a modern electric suburban railway.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P4, item RS 1855

The current Flinders Street Station building was built between 1900 and 1910, with ramps chosen as the main access to the platforms from Swanston and Elizabeth Streets, but with stairs to the central subway due to space limitations.

Footscray station was rebuilt in 1901, with a timber footbridge provided to link the four platforms at this important junction station.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P3, item ADV 1353

As part of quadruplication and regrading of the track between South Yarra and Caulfield completed in 1914, new low level stations were built at Malvern, Armidale, Toorak and Hawksburn. Footbridges carried passengers across the sunken tracks, with ramps leading down to the platforms.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P3, item ADV 1357

The tracks between Hawthorn and Camberwell were also regraded during the same period, with new stations at Glenferrie and Auburn completed in 1916. Access was at ground level under the elevated tracks, with ramps taking passengers up to the platforms.

The facilities for suburban passengers at Spencer Street Station were also upgraded between 1918 and 1924 with the addition of platforms 11 though 14, linked to the main concourse via ramps to a new pedestrian subway.

PROV image VPRS 12800/P1, item H 1508

New stations built during this same period took into account the increased number of suburban trains now running in Melbourne.

Ripponlea, opened 1912 shortly before electrification of the Sandringham line, followed the previous practice of two platforms flanking the tracks next to a level crossing, but added an overhead footbridge to allow able bodied passengers to avoid the closed gates.

Similar works were completed at existing stations to make life easier for pedestrians stuck at level crossings – such as this pedestrian underpass beside the Koornang Road level crossing at Carnegie station.

This footbridge at Westgarth station.

And the pedestrian subway at Blackburn, built in 1928.

A pedestrian subway is in course of construction at Blackburn. This will be completed shortly, and the necessity for passengers to cross the running tracks will then be obviated.

A few early grade separation projects were also carried out, such as the rebuilding of Middle Footscray station in 1928, which was provided with ramps for passenger access.

The railways then entered a long period of underinvestment, thanks to World War II and the rise of the motor vehicle.

One of the projects that ended this malaise was the rebuilding of Richmond station in 1952-1960. Ten platforms were provided, linked at each end to a pedestrian subway via ramps, as well an additional centre subway via stairs.

A boom of grade separation projects from the late 1950s also saw the upgrade of many stations. Moorabbin station was lowered into a trench in 1959, with a footbridge carried passengers across the sunken tracks, with ramps leading down to the platform.

Another rebuild was Albion station in 1961 as part of the Melbourne-Sydney standard gauge railway project. The Ballarat Road level crossing was replaced with a bridge and the pair of side platforms were replaced by the current island platform, with a subway passing beneath the tracks, with a ramp leading to platform level.

The same island platform and pedestrian subway design was applied at Ruthven, opened in 1963.

Tottenham, rebuilt in 1981 as an elevated station to remove the Ashley Street level crossing.

And Werribee, rebuilt in 1983 with the extension of suburban services.

But a different design was applied at Yarraman – a new station opened on the Dandenong line in 1976. A single island platform between the tracks was still used, but here a concrete footbridge over the tracks was provided, with three long ramps linking each side to the street, as well as to the platform.

It took the construction of the City Loop in the 1980s to bring the first escalators and lifts to a Melbourne railway station – but given the stations were up to 40 metres below the surface, ramps or stairs were out of the question.

This was followed in 1983-1985 by the rebuilding of sleepy little Box Hill station into a modern transport interchange. Escalators and lifts featured, but the station was still not completely accessible – steep ramps were the only wheeled route to platforms 1 and 4.

It took until 1992 for accessibility to finally be taken seriously, when the Commonwealth Government passed the Disability Discrimination Act, with the aim to eliminate discrimination ‘as far as possible’ against people with disabilities.

Since then, all upgraded railway stations in Melbourne have had accessibility built into their design, with varying measures of success.

How steep are the ramps anyway?

The gradient of a ramp is given as rise over run – for example a 1 in 20 gradient rises 1 metre for every 20 metres of horizontal distance.

Over at the State Library Victoria historical Victorian building regulations can be found, with the ‘Uniform Building Regulations’ 1945 having this to say about ramps:

2716. Ramps

(a) Ramps may be substituted for stairways provided they conform to such of the requirements of this chapter for stairways as are applicable.
(b) Ramps shall be in straight lengths with a landing at each change of direction having a length and a width at least equal to the width of the ramp.
(c) Ramps serving as exits or giving access to exits shall have a slope not greater than 1 in 8.
(d) Ramps used for purposes other than exit travel shall not be limited as to gradient.
(e) Ramps shall be provided with an approved non-slip surface.

1 in 8 is a pretty steep grade – which seems to match the ramps found at older railway stations in Melbourne.

But these ramps were an optional extra – it took the ‘Public Building Regulations’ 1958 to make the provision of ramps mandatory, at least in public buildings, and where it wasn’t inconvenient to do so.

Provided that unless impracticable, at least one exit in every new building shall be provided with an incline or ramp at a grade not steeper than 1 in 8 from door-sill to ground level.

It took until 1992 for the Commonwealth Government passed the Disability Discrimination Act, aiming to to eliminate discrimination ‘as far as possible’ against people with disabilities.

Section 23 set out ‘access to premises used by the public‘, with the technical details codified under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSPART) of 2002 and Australian Standard AS1428.1

These state that 1 in 14 is the maximum gradient allowed for a ramp – half as steep as ramps built in the past.

So how did these accessibility regulations change the way railway stations were built in Melbourne? That is a story for part two!

Further reading

Daniel Bowen has a piece titled “Step-free” doesn’t mean DDA – compliant which starts on the topic of ramps, and then details the ways that inadequate information about station accessibility makes life difficult for people trying to plan a journey.

For those interested in more of the early history of Melbourne’s railways, The History Of The Victorian Railways by Robert Lee (2009) is well worth the read, tying the railway story back to the development of the state as a whole.

Sources

The “Step free access at all stations except Heyington” note on the Victorian rail network map can be found here:

Here is the full text of Victorian Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, being questioned by the Railway Inquiry Board in 1895 regarding the ramps linking platforms at Flinders Street Station.

The Railway Inquiry Board : report of the Board to Inquire into the Working and Management of the Victorian Railways
14th May 1895

1589. Can you name any station in a city, even down to 10,000 people, in any of the other colonies, where you have to go up ramps and along an uncovered bridge to catch another train?

I cannot name such a station at present. The uncovered part is only part of the incompleteness.

1590. I need not tell you the ordinary passenger does not want to have to climb stairs and go along bridges and down ramps if he can avoid it; Can you name any station in the whole of Australia (we asked one Commissioner if he could name one in the rest of the world) where a station was so inconvenient as the Flinders Street one?

Certainly. If I were to cudgel my brains sufficiently I could think of stations quite as inconvenient as this. I cannot think of one at the minute.

1591. Do you not think in a city such as this, with a population of 500,000, and where we are catering for the suburban traffic, that the least possible inconvenience that we can put in the way of ordinary travellers is what we should aim at ?

Yes.

1592. Take Spencer Street; you walk in on a level road, and go to any platform you require without having to go up steps?

You cannot do that now that there is a bridge from Spencer Street. You cannot go to the suburban platform in Spencer Street without going over a bridge.

1593. The old way the Spencer Street station was you could do it?

That was before the suburban traffic was carried through.

1594. At Princes Bridge it is the same, and you can get out of any train from there. That being so, do you think it wise that you concentrate the bulk of your traffic in a station where you have to walk up steps and so on ?

It is unavoidable to have a foot-bridge or subway where you have to provide for through trains. The passengers must cross overhead or underneath.

1595. You have read of the stations in London?

Yes.

1596. I do not know of any one there except South Kensington where you have to climb up bridges and so on?

Nearly all their large stations are terminals, and the trains arrive at what are called “dead ends,” and they go out again from the same place in the same direction that they came in. Our Flinders Street Station is a through traffic station, that is to say, the train from Essendon at present runs through Flinders Street Station to Brighton, and it is intended that a good many more trains shall run through in future.

1597. I can quite understand an underground railway such as the Metropolitan District Railway in London necessitating people going down stairs and upstairs to get to the railway line; but in a railway that is on the surface of the earth, I do not understand it?

But wherever there is more than one platform, there must be some means for the passengers to cross the rails.

Victorian Railways Deputy Traffic Manager William Francis Fitzpatrick being questioned by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 1896 on the merits of bridges or subways for pedestrian access at railway stations.

Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways on the Plan for New Railway Station at Flinders Street
1st April 1896

781. With reference to bridges or subways, which are the most convenient?

I think that is largely a matter of opinion.

782. I mean, convenient for you, as Traffic Manager, wanting to give the travellers every convenience to induce them to travel by the trains ?

I think myself that a subway, on the whole, is the best, chiefly for these reasons – I am now speaking with regard to the comfort of the traveller; in the first place it is conceded ou all sides that the greatest comfort to the traveller is to take him on the level. Next to that, bridges on that station will be very unpleasant places, owing to the large number of locomotives that will be passing to and fro, owing to the smoke and smell from them, and one thing and another.

Then the question of whether it is easier to mount a ramp or go down the same height on steps is one that I am too young and active a man to settle, but, bearing in mind what little experience we have had, in that direction at several suburban places where we have subways, they lead to no complaint, and I think, on the whole, they are preferable, that is from the point of view of the travellers’ convenience.

And Victoria Railways Engineer for Existing Lines, Charles E. Norman, being questioned by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways in 1899 on the ramps at the new Flinders Street Station.

Progress report from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways on the proposed Central Railway Station at Flinders Street
21st February 1899

27. How will the people get up and down?

The central subway it is proposed to have approached by steps from all the platforms, because ramps would take up too much length of the platforms.

379. What is the width of the first ramp?

10 feet, the second 10 feet, the third 10 feet. The gradient is 1 in 10, and the length of the ramp about 136 feet. The first is not quite so long, it is 120 feet. The present ramps, I believe are 1 in 10, but they may be 1 in 8. we have a ramp leading from the Swanston street footbridge to each platform, we have five ramps altogether.

380. Do you propose that they shall all walk?

Yes. Of course if a lift is found to be a necessity it can always be added; ramps are far easier and safer for old people than steps.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Why Melbourne built ramps not stairs at railway stations appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.