In the beginning

For years Sydenham station was a wayside stop on the empty plains north-west of Melbourne enroute to Bendigo.

SLV photo H1077

But the suburbs of Melbourne eventually grew north to Sydenham, and so in 2000 the decision was made to extend suburban trains from St Albans five kilometres north to a new station called ‘Watergardens’.

Weston Langford photo

Which opened in 2002.

The new terminus was well provisioned for a terminus station – three platforms, with centre turnback for terminating trains.

Sidings at the down end for stabling trains to form peak services.

Three lifts – one of the street on both sides, and a third to the central island platform.

With stairs in parallel.

However the footbridge across the tracks is narrow compared to what stations have today.

And the lifts were undersized compared to current standards – of 12 person capacity rather than 18.

But the lifts don’t work

As Watergardens station aged, the lifts weren’t exactly the most reliable – from 2016:

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 past two years, and sometimes took a week to fix.

“For people to have to wait for up to a week for a broken down lift to be fixed seems to me to be quite insane. That is just ridiculous,” he said. “It is a major concern, particularly for people with disabilities and for elderly people.”

Public Transport Victoria and Metro Trains have been forced to provide maxi taxis for special needs commuters, who could not access the train to get to doctors’ appointments.

Mr Finn has also called for a second ramp to be built to service both sides of the station.

“I find it just astonishing that we have a lift there that has broken down so often. There is only one ramp for people to use, and it is on the opposite side of the platform,” he said.

“I just do not understand how the PTV could allow such a situation to exist.”

A PTV spokesman said it would continue to provide “alternative transport arrangements” for passengers when lifts are out of order.

“PTV is committed to finding a permanent solution for passengers – which at this stage could involve replacing the lifts,” he said.

Lift failures rendering stations inaccessible being the reason why 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 from 2013.

But in the case of Watergardens station it was too late for that, so the only option was to upgrade the control and power supply systems for the existing lifts to improve their reliability – requiring one outage from 1 to 5 May 2017, and a second from 18 September to 3 November 2017.

And spending the big money

But even upgraded lifts can still fail, so in 2016 PTV commissioned Jacobs Group to study possible options to bring Watergardens station up to current standards, and provide a redundant method of access if the existing single lift to a platform failed.

They looked at going under, over and through the tracks. As you might expect, building a new level crossing got knocked on the head pretty quickly, and going under option was less than salubrious, so also got knocked out.

This left three options to upgrade the existing overpass – duplicating the three existing lifts, providing a ramp beside each lift, or a hybrid option with a additional lift to the island platform and two ramps to the street entrances.

Fitting in the new ramps on the street site was easy.

Artist’s impression, Jacobs 2016

But the island platform was more constrained, with a DDA compliant ramp taking up much the space at the Melbourne end.

Artist’s impression, Jacobs 2016

The Jacobs report also looked at the costs of the three options:

3.2 Constructability and Whole of Life Costings
An estimate of the turn out and life cycle cost for the 3 options – out to 30 years – is attached as Appendix D.
In precis, the full lifts option is the cheapest in the short term, the full ramps the most expensive:
Option 1 – All Lifts $5,276,700.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $5,595,000.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 3 – All ramps $6,568,200.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.

When factoring in the costs to service and maintain each option for 30 years (non-discounted cashflow) the costs become:

Option 1 – All Lifts $9,868,230.00 – adding $4,591,530.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $7,661,793.00 – adding $2,066,793.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 3 – All ramps $7,632,994.00 – adding $1,064,794.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.

For the first 10 years Option 1 has the lowest WOL cost.
Between year 10 to year 29 Option 2 has the lowest WOL cost.
After 30 years Option 3 has the lowest WOL cost.

Surprisingly the lift option was cheaper to build initially, through obviously the ramps became cheaper once ongoing maintenance costs were included.

Decision time

The 2018-19 State Budget committed $8.9 million to upgrade Watergardens station, with community consultation taking place in July 2018.

But there was a problem – the preferred option was installing additional lifts, but the PTV Network Technical Standards at the time required lift, stairs and a ramp for a vertical change of 5.6 metres – and so a waiver was required to provided a second lift, as well as to infringe on the minimum platform width where the new lift would land on the island platform.

However a waiver was granted, and work started on the project in early 2021.

The new lifts being located in plain grey towers, beside the existing brick ones.

An additional lift added at the end of the western entry.

And to the eastern entry.

While the additional lift to the island platform was snuck in beneath the existing concourse.

The stairs to the platform rebuilt.

To pass around the new lift shaft.

Which looks like it was always there.

PTV having this to say about the upgrade.

We have opened three new lifts at Watergardens Station to help people move around the station precinct and catch the train more easily.

This is part of the Public Transport Accessibility Improvements Program, which sees several metropolitan train stations upgraded to comply with current access guidelines for people with disabilities.

The new lifts feature:

• more space to increase lift capacity and allow for social distancing
• improved lighting
• a back up power supply, making them more reliable and avoiding breakdowns
• improved security with new CCTV coverage and windows
• more open design than the existing lifts with partially transparent lift walls.

Other completed works at Watergardens Station:

• We have increased the number of wheelchair accessible parking spaces in the Sydenham Road car park from five to nine.
• A back up power generator has been constructed to help power the lifts and station in the event of a blackout.
• Six extra CCTV cameras have been installed to cover blind spots around the stairs.
• Toilet refurbishments have been completed on the central platform and concourse to improve passenger amenities.
• New tactile ground surface indicators have been installed on all three platforms to improve accessibility.

A lot of work for a railway station only 20 years old!

Footnote: ramps vs lifts

Back in 2016 the Level Crossing Removal Authority also had to fight to avoid building massive ramps as part of the Mernda rail extension, but since then it seems to be a non-event – most new stations built since then feature dual redundant lifts to each platform, rather than ramp and a lift.

Footnote: platform extensions

The 2016 Options Report by Jacobs touched on the need for platform extensions at Watergardens station for the upcoming fleet of High Capacity Metro Trains, and flagged at changes at the city end would be the logical option.

1.5 Provision for other works – Future 10-car HCMT

Possible options should consider other works that may occur at or around the station in the future. The most important of these – in fact, the only one known to Jacobs – is the platform extensions for the new 10-car High capacity Metro trains (HCMT).

Currently the 3 platforms are 160 m long. The island platform is approximately.8.9 m wide at the down end; tapering on the Platform 3 side to c.7 m at the up end. All platforms will require an extension of 70m to bring them 230 m and, depending upon where this extension occurs, Platform 3 may need straightening.

Informal advice from PTV indicates that it is likely that it would be simpler and less costly to extend the platforms toward the city.

Jacobs’ own study of aerial photographs indicates that the gates to the stabling yards down from the station are c. 200 m from the NW end of the platform and that there are at least 7 sets of points in this area. The corridor to the SE is significantly less congested with 5 sets of points within c.250 m of the station after which it appears to be completely unencumbered until it reaches the next station at Keilor Plains.

For these reasons it seems most likely that the platform extensions would occur to the SE (up end); widening Platform 3 to remove the existing taper to provide an island of consistent width for its full length. Although the platform extension has no immediate bearing on the provision of secondary (or contingency) means of access to and from the station, as the widening would create additional space on the platform that would ease a pinch point in one of the options (see below), an up end extension to the platforms has been presumed in the development of the options..

And then look at what happened in 2022 – the entire lead into the yard at the down end of Watergardens was rebuilt.

Platform 1 extended by 15 for a 7-car HCMT.

And platform 2 and 3 extended by an even shorter 12 metres.

They also completed a major track slew at the down end of the yard at Watergardens, taking the sidings from 329 metres (two 6-car trains) long to 560 metres (three 7-car trains) long.

Footnote: the gory technical details

First – the options study by Jacobs.

Watergardens Accessibility Study
Options Study
December 2016

Watergardens station was designed and constructed between c. 2000 – 2002. The station was officially opened in January 2002.

The design provided for a single lift and stair access only to and from the island platform and the adjacent streets on either side of the station. However, the lifts have proved to be unreliable and, for those unable to use the stairs, access and egress to and from or across the station from either side has been made difficult.

With this in mind, PTV commissioned Jacobs to carry out an Options Study to draw out such options as might exist to provide a secondary means of access from one side of the station to the other and to the station’s central island platform for those unable to use a flight of stairs

The station contains 3 platforms – Platform 1 to the NE on the shopping centre side of the line and platforms 2 and 3 forming an island platform. Access to Platform 1 is made by one of two sets of stairs – one of 12, the other 13 risers – or one of two ramps – rising from the kerbside footpath. From the level of Platform 1 access is provided to the concourse level (c. 5600 mm above Platform level) by means of a lift or stair of 33 risers (two flights – of 17 and 16 risers).

From the SW side of the line, access to the station is made at concourse level. This is some 7000 mm above the pavement level, with access provided by means of lift or stairs. This stair consists of two flights – of 20 and 21 risers – 41 risers in all.

From the concourse access is provided to the island platform by lift and stair of two flights.

Looking at going under, over and through the tracks.

2. Options
Based upon the limitations noted above, there are three basic approaches – to cross the rail line / gain access to the platforms:
– At grade
– Under the permanent way
– Over the permanent way

As you might expect, building a new level crossing got knocked on the head pretty quickly.

2.1 Options – At-grade

Whilst recognising that both pedestrian and vehicular at-grade crossings both are, as a matter of PTV guidelines, no longer considered suitable, for completeness the possibility of at-grade options has been considered.

An at-grade point of egress has been provided at the down (NE) end of the island platform. This was previously used to provide emergency egress for the mobility impaired from the platform to the kerb-side on Sydenham Road, but the practice has since been discontinued. Presently, in the event of a lift failure, mobility impaired patrons are re-entrained and taken to the nearest accessible station from whence they are returned to Watergardens by taxi.

The ramp is still used by the Train drivers to access the stabling yard down line from the station.

In discussion with PTV and MTM at an initial Stakeholder consultation, it was agreed, for the above reasons and more, that an at-grade option is not feasible and was not pursued as a viable design option.

The going under option was less than salubrious, so also got knocked out.

2.2 Options – Under the permanent way

One underpass option was considered.

This is based upon using ramps of a maximum length of 6000 mm at an inclination of not more than 1:14 (one metre rise over 14 metres of length). Landings of not less than 1200 mm length are provided between each section of ramp. Larger landings are provided at changes in direction.

The scheme provides a straight ramp (of 10 x 6000 mm sections) descending from ground level adjacent the existing lift and stairs on the SW side of the station to a horizontal underpass lying c. 5600 mm below the level of the platform.

This ramp runs through the area currently used as a retention basis for storm water runoff from the adjacent carpark.

From the bottom end of this ramp, the underpass runs under Sydenham Road and the up end of the platform to emerge on the NE side of the lines with a switchback ramp (of 8 x 6000 mm sections) in an open area between the Telstra communication tower and existing station ramps. This delivers users c.60 m to the south of the existing station entry. The underpass is c. 50 m long.

A third ramp (of 13 x 6000 mm sections) runs from the mid-point of the underpass to deliver patrons to the far SE (up) end of the island platform.

The overall length of ramps and underpass is c. 190 m. There is a further c. 95 m of ramp from the underpass to the island platform.

In discussion with PTV and MTM at the initial Stakeholder consultation, it was agreed by all that due to the excessive ramp length required, particularly for the elderly and people with a disability, site drainage issues, issues surrounding potential local contaminated soil and the potential public safety risks associated with a long, unsupervised tunnel that this option was unfeasible and not to be pursued further.

Leaving options to upgrade the existing overpass.

2.3 Options – Over the permanent way

Three approaches suggest themselves to provide access over the permanent way:
• An all lift option – duplicating the three existing lifts
• An all ramp option and
• Hybrids of the above – the main version involving two external ramps with a lift to access the island platform

2.3.2 Three Additional Lifts

Duplicating the existing lifts is the most obvious approach to providing redundancy / contingency access to and across the station. There is some flexibility with the placement of these lifts but in each case, one position generally seems to recommend itself over the alternatives.

At the station entrances, new lifts can be located adjacent each of the existing entrance lifts. Subject to the final geometry of the lifts to be used, there appears to be sufficient space at both ends of the existing concourse to land a second lift.

Access to the island platform is more constrained. There does not appear to be anywhere adjacent the existing lift or on the existing concourse where a new lift could be placed without significant and deleterious effect upon the existing flow and function of the concourse.

The only suitable place is on the platform – on the up side from the stairs. To accommodate this, the existing concourse – complete with its glazed screen is to be extended. The concourse would extend to fill in the spaces on either side of the existing stairs and thence extend as a “U” to the new lift.

The new lift placement would require the relocation of the existing platform canopy and its associated furniture.

2.3.3 Additional Ramps and Central Platform Lift

After an all Lifts option, the next option is to replace lifts with ramps where these might be done easily i.e. outside the limits of the station but to keep a lift to the island platform.

The option is based upon providing two 1 in 14, 1.8m wide ramps – one on either side of the station – linking these into the existing stairs. This was a part of the original design – allowing the stairs and ramps to sit side by side – sharing the same landings at ground / platform and concourse levels.

As in the all Lift Option, the lift option requires an extension of the concourse and reconfiguration of the canopies.

On the NE (shopping centre) side, the ramp consists of 13 x 6 m sections for an over-all rise of c.5600 mm from platform level to the concourse. The rise from the street to the platform is provided by existing ramps. On the SW side, the ramp rises c. 7 m – 17 x 6 m sections – and is over 125 m in length.

2.3.4 Additional Three Ramps

The third option is that of 3 ramps consisting of a ramp at either station entrance (as per Option 2) and a third ramp on the island platform.

To install the required ramp on this platform at least one switch back is required. (The platform is not quite long enough to accommodate a single length ramp – being short by perhaps 3 m plus ramp run-off.) The difficulty that emerges is to maintain a 1.8m clear width between handrails on the ramp (and a zone on either side for screening on it) and maintain clearances at platform level to the coping.

In the layout as proposed, as the platform tapers a pinch point is reached where the width to the coping must be reduced to c. 3.1m. This “pinch” decreases as the ramp drops to platform level – opening out to c. 3.6 m at platform level.

The report also covered the suitability of lifts in general.

The current 12 person public lifts are smaller than is required by the current standard and are subject to vandalism.

Lift reliability is currently a problem because they operate publicly for 24 hours and are the only method of DDA entrance to and egress from the platform.

The additional lifts proposed in Option 1 & 2 will be larger 18 person lifts (3.5 x 3.5m footprint) and compliant with current design standards.

Discussion took place during the initial stakeholder meeting about whether new lifts should be introduced considering the maintenance issues associated with the existing 24 hour public use. The example of Coolaroo Station was given as a successful case where the introduction of duel public lifts works successfully. In addition, it was suggested that the majority of vandalism occurred within working hours as opposed to at night.

The current lift renewal programme was also discussed. It was noted that it could be 18 months before the existing lifts will be replaced and that some action will be required to improve reliability in the interim.

It was also noted that during the replacement of the existing lifts a means of temporary alternative access and egress will need to be provided. No solution to this was suggested, but Jacobs notes that it may be preferable to defer the upgrade of the existing lifts until after the installation of the alternative means of access considered in this study.

During the stakeholder meeting it was noted that by introducing ramps; the lifts may be turned off after hours, reducing maintenance and safety concerns, noting also that ramps are easier to install and of low maintenance comparatively to lifts. Ramps are likely to be less expensive over the long term however this is sensitive to maintenance costs.

Discussions took place around what would happen if no ramp upgrades occurred and lifts were closed at night. It was decided that removing an amenity that was previously provided would cause complaints and is not a suitable option.

Turning Lifts off after hours was generally accepted as an option that could be explored further.

And the costs of the three options:

3.2 Constructability and Whole of Life Costings
An estimate of the turn out and life cycle cost for the 3 options – out to 30 years – is attached as Appendix D.
In precis, the full lifts option is the cheapest in the short term, the full ramps the most expensive:
Option 1 – All Lifts $5,276,700.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $5,595,000.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 3 – All ramps $6,568,200.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.

When factoring in the costs to service and maintain each option for 30 years (non-discounted cashflow) the costs become:

Option 1 – All Lifts $9,868,230.00 – adding $4,591,530.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $7,661,793.00 – adding $2,066,793.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 3 – All ramps $7,632,994.00 – adding $1,064,794.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.

For the first 10 years Option 1 has the lowest WOL cost.
Between year 10 to year 29 Option 2 has the lowest WOL cost.
After 30 years Option 3 has the lowest WOL cost.

Next – the PTV Network Technical Standard Waiver.

PTV-NTS-002-W004 – Watergardens Dual Lift to Island Platform

Currently the central island platform (Platforms 2 and 3), Watergardens Station has DDA-compliant vertical transport with lifts and stairs, but the lifts have no operational redundancy. In the case of a lift failing, passengers with a DDA-accessible requirement would need to travel to the next accessible station and be provided with a taxi to return to Watergardens.

Up until 2017, lifts at Watergardens have not been reliable with many people having to travel to other stations to maintain access. In 2017 lifts at Watergardens were upgraded to increase their reliability lack of redundancy remained an issue.

Recently the State budget provided $8.9 million funding to provide for 3 lifts and increased concourse area at Watergardens Station. Design options for Watergardens were canvassed in a report by Jacobs on behalf of PTV: Watergardens Accessibility Study – Options Study – 02 December 2016.

Compared with the current arrangements, accessing the island platform (Platforms 2 and 3) requires a vertical change of about 5.6 metres above the platform. Normally this would trigger the need for a lift, stairs and a ramp (as opposed to two lifts).

However, providing a switchback ramp here with appropriate concourse modification, has been assessed as being a higher risk than providing a second lift with concourse modification. Providing a continuous grade (non-switchback) ramp would require platform extension, which would trigger expensive track work and will not be considered.

A Waiver is required to be provided to allow two lifts to be used in lieu of a lift, stairs and a ramp. Compliance with minimum platform width standard (MTM Structure and Facilities Standard (MCST 020 100-01)) cannot be achieved with either ramp or lift solutions. Ramp non-compliance would occur over a much longer length of the platform than a lift. This clearance will be subject to a Safety In Design Review once design has been completed. The lift non-compliance will need to be assessed further during detailed design and a potential subsequent MTM standards waver, separate to this application will need to follow process.

And the project requirements document.

Client Requirements Document
Watergardens Station Accessibility Upgrade
December 2018

As a part of the Public Transport Accessibility Improvements Program, several stations within the Metropolitan train network have been stated to receive upgrades in order to achieve compliance with current access guidelines for people with disabilities. Watergardens Station is identified as being in critical need of accessibility improvements. The reasons for this are summarised below:

• The current station has been prone to frequent lift failures causing reduced access to Patrons/Passengers and increased travel times. This has been attributed to unreliable lifts, lack of backup power systems and vandalism.
• With the concourse between the car park and shopping centre serving as a 24×7, primary access path for station patrons and general public alike, reliability issues with the lifts and vandalism lead to accessibility issues.
• The current issue is exacerbated as the lifts in the station are not complaint with DSAPT standards which raises major concerns with regards to safely accessing and moving casualties from the station.

There are some unpleasant customer experience complaints (from Jan 2017 to Oct 2018) against Watergardens Station regards to the DSAPT non-compliance station amenities. These complaints were lodged through MTM customer feedback system.

The main complaint topic is expressing the unpleasant reliability of the existing station lifts and inconvenience to enter and exit platforms when the lift/lifts are out of service. The other streams, one is about no level access or poor direct assistance for mobility impediment passenger boarding, and the other one is about inefficient/misleading notification to passenger with impediment.

If the concourse is inaccessible, the closest access path to cross the tracks is located about 750 meters on the Down side of the station and the other access is located about 1.5km from the station on the Up side of the station. There is no backup power supply for the existing three lifts.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post The saga of lifts at Watergardens station appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

In the beginning

The story starts in 1993 when V/Line bought 22 new single carriage diesel railcars for use on commuter services – their 130 km/h top speed saw them named ‘Sprinter’ trains.

Weston Langford photo

Able to run solo and in multiple with their classmates, the Sprinter trains saw use all over the V/Line network until the first 160 km/h capable VLocity trains entered service in 2005.

But in later years they were moved onto peak hour commuter runs, as well as Seymour services, where their lower top speed wasn’t a concern.

Enter Deer Park station

Until 2010 Deer Park station was a gravel covered platform on the edge of Melbourne that only saw a train every two hours.

But the opening of Regional Rail Link in 2015 saw a massive increase in trains serving the station – among them the Sprinter trains.

And then in 2022 it was announced that the level crossing at Mount Derrimut Road would be removed, with a new elevated station to be provided at Deer Park.

The incomplete station opened to passengers in April 2023.

But there was one minor difference to the old station that made all the difference – the platform.

Apparently V/Line has changed their standard platform height in order to reduce the step up into trains – with the new standard being around 100mm higher, as seen on this platform extension constructed at Sunshine station.

But the Sprinter trains have a design feature that the VLocity train lack – outward swinging plug doors that extend below the floor height of the train.

And so V/Line had to issue a notice.

OPERATING RESTRICTION – DEER PARK STATION
SPRINTER RAILCARS

Upon advice from V/Line Network Engineering, Sprinter Railcars will NOT be permitted to stop at Deer Park Station at KP 17.943.

Any Sprinter Railcars travelling towards/from Wyndham Vale and Geelong or Melton and Bacchus Marsh will be required to run express through Deer Park Station.

The Operating Restriction will apply until further advised due to clearance issues between the Sprinter Railcar and the new Platform when the doors are in the Open position.

Sprinter trains being free to travel through the station, but not stop there.

And a solution?

In January 2024 something new emerged from the workshops – a Sprinter railcar with modified doors.

V/Line sent it out to Deer Park late one night with a group of engineers onboard, ready to run a measuring tape over the open doors.

And testing out the wheelchair ramp.

There looked to be plenty of space between the platform and the modified doors.

Especially when compared to the plug doors on the unmodified set that came along for the ride.

But there was a sticking point – would the modified doors let in more exterior noise? Well, the microphone setup in the saloon can measure that!

So problem solved? I suppose it is a case of wait and see.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Sprinter trains and V/Line platform heights appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

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.

Mind the gap

This can be seen on Melbourne’s fleet of Siemens trains.

The carriages are linked by rubber intercarriage gangeways.

But they feature a gap between it and the platform.

But a recent change has been made – a new style of bellow.

New Hubner gangway bellows fitted to Siemens (703M-2502T-704M

Which closes the gap.

According to Metro Trains Melbourne.

Siemens trains are receiving significant upgrades, with new bellows now installed on 20 per cent of the fleet.

The bellows provide an “outer wall” that fills the gap between the train and the platform, making it safer for passengers and rail employees.

The story behind the rollout

In 2002 Martin Stewart fell into the gap, losing his lower right leg and right arm at Richmond station.

Martin Stewart warned everybody that a catastrophe like this was bound to happen. He didn’t anticipate that it would happen to him.

Mr Stewart, 39, has been blind since birth, but he had lived a normal life. He has a wife, Katrina, who is also blind, two small children and a job that he used to travel to every day by train.

“Public transport is critical for blind and vision-impaired people,” he said. But he had always known of its dangers. For years he lobbied the State Government and the railways on the risks to blind people of injury or death on a system that no longer had guards or platform staff.

Then, in February, Mr Stewart stepped into what he thought was an open carriage doorway and fell into the space between carriages and on to the tracks at Richmond station.

Despite the desperate attempts of an onlooker to flag down the driver, the train took off and dragged Mr Stewart 200 metres along the tracks. The train tore off his lower right leg, his right arm and the top of his left ear. It fractured his cheekbone and ribs and left him with painful friction burns down the front of his body.

Starting a crusade.

Mr Stewart is not seeking sympathy but he is determined to do everything he can to ensure he is the last blind person to suffer like this. In the 1980s he worked with an advocacy group, People in Equality, Not Institutions, that unsuccessfully fought the loss of train guards and conductors because of the safety implications for people with disabilities.

Maryanne Diamond, executive officer of Blind Citizens Australia, said the association got about a call a week from a blind person who had had an accident on the transport system. Most were not reported to authorities because they did not involve injury, she said, but some blind people now refused to travel by train because they felt unsafe on stations.

She wanted all stations fitted with tactile ground surface indicators – long narrow grooves that indicate direction and lines of raised dots that indicate hazard. “It helps blind people walk in a straight line and prevents them walking off the platform,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Connex trains could not comment on Mr Stewart’s case as it was being investigated by the Transport Accident Commission. She said the company knew of two deaths involving people with wheelchairs and seven other cases of minor injury involving people with disabilities. One involved a blind man and his guide dog who walked off the end of a platform. She said Connex was working with researchers and disability groups to improve the system.

A government spokesman said yesterday: “Obviously this is a terrible tragedy. The government has already raised the issue with Connex and is investigating whether anything can be done to make sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen in the future.

“Government representatives will also be meeting friends of Mr Stewart next week to discuss the issue further.”

But the government forgot all about the gap during the design of the new High Capacity Metro Train fleet.

A similar concertina gangway provided between the two carriages.

With a gap so big that the mockup train required a piece of plywood from falling into the gap.

A flaw replicated on the first HCMT set to emerge from the factory.

But advocacy group Blind Citizens Australia didn’t forget.

In June 2019, the Victorian government will begin the roll-out of 65 new high capacity trains on the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines, with plans to introduce more if they prove successful. BCA and other organisations were consulted during the procurement process, and as a result, we recognised four critical design flaws in a prototype train.

We’re very pleased to report that those flaws won’t appear in the new trains when they’re introduced next year. BCA was represented by Martin Stewart, who energetically and eloquently lobbied for the correction of the errors he discovered. This consultation process has resulted in a historic advocacy victory, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Martin.

In the prototype, Martin discovered a large gap between each of the train’s carriages. This was an error that could cause serious injury or death.

To fill that gap, Martin had to get personal. At one meeting, frustrated by slow progress and determined to defend his community from the trauma he’d suffered, he deliberately removed his artificial leg. “I said this will be the result. And then I touched my arm. Here’s another one.”

Martin’s dramatic approach certainly did have an impact. At a recent stakeholder meeting, Michael Dunn, Assistant Director of governance and reporting for the project, announced that all the new high capacity trains would have “gangway gap barriers” built in, to prevent passengers from falling between carriages.

Dunn also told Martin that this protective feature would be included in all future Melbourne trains. That moment was the absolution he’d waited 16 years to find. “Yesterday was the most satisfying advocacy day that I have ever had,” he told us after that meeting.

The end result – gap filling panels progressively fitted to the new HCMT sets.

And the improved bellows being added to the Siemens train fleet.

But work still to come

X’Trapolis train from the 2000s also have rubber gangway bellows between carriages, but only leave a small gap.

But the Comeng trains from the 1980s that form the bulk of Melbourne’s fleet of suburban trains were built with open walkways between carriages.

But with doors either side.

In 2017 work started on the Comeng Life Extension project, which saw the trains patched up for a few more years of service.

One of the upgrades was enclosed gangways between carriages – supposedly to prevent train surfers gaining access to the carriage roof.

But these gangways still leave a gap between the carriage and the platform.

A flaw that I don’t see being addressed in the short time these trains have left in service.

Footnote: going backwards on the Washington Metro

In 2017 the Washington Metro introduced new trains that lacked the safety barriers that their previous trains had, with predictable results.

For years, David Kosub lived in fear of falling onto the train tracks during his daily Metro commute.

Then, it finally happened.

He was attempting to board a Red Line train — one of Metro’s new 7000-series trains — when he stepped into the gap between two rail cars, falling onto the tracks and finding himself wedged between “giant metal behemoths.”

Kosub believes the reason he fell between the train cars was because Metro used a new, untested design on the new fleet of 7000-series trains.

On older trains, all the gaps between cars feature a simple chain barrier that is meant to protect riders from mistaking the empty space for a doorway into the train.

On the new trains, some of those barriers are guarded by a pair of rubber shields that are recessed from the edge of the platform and feature a nine-inch gap in the middle — just enough space to create what Kosub called “a David-sized hole, just perfectly sized for me to slip right through.”

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Filling the gap between the carriages appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Trouble on the tracks

V/Line has a major issue with inaccessible trains.

Ray, Warnambool: In my area, it’s almost impossible to use the V/Line in a wheelchair. Even when I book I can get to the railway station and find there is no accessible carriage. Why are people with disabilities stuck in a #LifelongLockdown we fought to end last century? #PWD pic.twitter.com/A1Dz6P65ok

— Voices of DRC Advocacy (@DRCadvocacy) May 14, 2020

With thousands of dollars spent in 2018 calling up accessible taxis to transport passengers unable to board inaccessible trains.

Two north-east Victorian residents have claimed V/Line regularly pays more than $1,000 for return taxi trips to Melbourne due to train and coach services being wheelchair inaccessible.

Albury-based Luke Sefton said V/Line had recently arranged a taxi for at least three return trips to Melbourne.

“If there’s more than two wheelchairs they tell you the train’s full and you can’t get a ticket. If it’s not running you’ve got to get a taxi and they pay the money for that — maybe $700 or more, one way,” he said.

But Mr Sefton said V/Line would sometimes turn him away.

“I’ve called up a few times and there’s only two [people with wheelchairs] allowed on there and they say ‘we’ve sold out today’,” he said.

“In that case they don’t get you a taxi either, they just say they’ve sold out.”

The chair of The Victorian Disability Advisory Council, Colleen Furlanetto, said she had used replacement taxi services from Euroa and Seymour more than a dozen times at a cost to V/Line of around $300 each way.

Ms Furlanetto said she felt guilty depriving local residents of a wheelchair accessible service whenever V/Line arranged a taxi for her to Melbourne.

But this tale from the Warrnambool line really takes the cake.

In May 2019 Janet and Susan, who use wheelchairs, decided to travel from Melbourne to Warrnambool on V/Line trains.

For both it was a work-related visit, they were attending a forum hosted by All Abilities Advocacy and supported by Warrnambool City Council’s Rural Access program.

Janet, after first checking with V/Line, booked a first class ticket in order to sit next to colleagues. On May 14 when she arrived at the Southern Cross platform she was advised she could not sit next to her colleagues and was segregated.

On the way to Warrnambool she received a call from V/Line advising that the return booking was not an accessible service and she was requested to use an earlier train. This was not possible because Susan would still be at the forum.

On May 15, at 12.30pm, both women were contacted by V/Line and informed that the accessible carriage was not available. They had no alternative means of returning home to Melbourne.

V/Line asked Susan if she could leave her wheelchair in the conductor’s area and sit down, which she had been required to do on the trip to Warrnambool. Susan said this did not work properly and she needed her wheelchair with her.

V/Line advised Janet and Susan they return to Melbourne in separate taxis with the bill of about $1200 to be covered by taxpayers.

At 5pm Janet and Susan arrived at the Warrnambool Station to catch the taxis back to Melbourne.

They then discovered the disabled toilet at Warrnambool Railway Station was not accessible. The toilet was behind swinging doors and at the end of two cubicles for ambulatory people. The room was narrow with insufficient space for a wheelchair to turn into the “accessible” cubicle.

When the taxi arrived, V/Line initially wanted Janet and Susan to share a ride home – impossible given the size of their two wheelchairs. With the insistence of a support person V/Line eventually called a second taxi.

So why are V/Line trains so dysfunctional?

In the beginning

Back in the ‘good old days’ accessible public transport wasn’t a concern.

Photo by Weston Langford

Country carriages consisted of a series of small compartments, located through narrow doorways at the end of skinny corridors.

Later carriages dumped compartments for open saloons, but the narrow doorways and end vestibules remained.

The last of these carriages entered serivce in the 1980s, and are still in service today.

The only space for wheelchairs and mobility aids being the luggage van.

But the area cannot be used by passengers.

Customers are not permitted to travel in the conductor’s van on locomotive–hauled services, unless you are travelling between an unstaffed station and a staffed station where alternative transport will be arranged. You can store your mobility aid in the conductor’s van if you are able to move to a seat in the carriage.

Dumb luck from the 1980s

In the 1980s the New Deal for Country Passengers saw the retirement of clapped out non-air conditioned timber bodied carriages, replacing them by retired suburban trains refurbished for country use.

Photo by Weston Langford

These carriages are still in use today on on commuter services, and have wide doors thanks to their suburban heritage, providing easy access for wheelchairs and mobility aids.

But only ‘normal’ toilets were installed, with no accessible toilet access provided – so you’re on your own.

Enter the Disability Discrimination Act

In 1992 the Disability Discrimination Act was passed, right in the middle of the procurement process for the ‘Sprinter‘ railcar fleet.

They were built with doors wide enough for wheelchairs and mobility aids, allocated spaces to park them, and an accessible toilet.

However the provision of luggage areas in the doorway limited the number of mobility aids that could be parked inside each carriage – a problem not resolved until a 2018 refit.

Now to play catchup – and one big problem

With an existing fleet of carriages that were inaccessible to many passengers, in 1995 V/Line commenced the ‘BZN’ carriage program. Each converted carriage has a wider door at one end, accessible to mobility aids.

With a disabled toilet and allocated parking area inside.

These newly converted carriages were then coupled onto their fixed 3-car locomotive hauled sets, which solved the accessibility problem – provided that a train was more than three carriages long.

A constraint that bit V/Line in the arse in 2013, after bogie cracks were discovered beneath the accessible carriages.

V/Line played down the impact of the problem.

Public Transport Victoria said today that V/Line had decided to immediately remove 22 of its older carriages from service for testing and repairs.

V/Line decided to remove the carriages from service following a safety audit which revealed fatigue cracks in some critical areas of the ‘bogies’ or undercarriages of ‘Z’ class carriages.

Shepparton, Warrnambool, Swan Hill, Bairnsdale, and a small number of Geelong and Traralgon trains will have fewer seats while this essential work is carried out, so road coaches will be made available when necessary.

V/Line trains have a total of 70,000 seats each weekday and the withdrawal of these carriages involves less than 10 per cent of seats, not all of which are occupied. Most of the affected trains will operate with four carriages instead of five.

But the reality was different for anyone with special needs.

A fleet-wide audit has been called on V/Line’s ‘Z’ class carriages; the only carriages on Bairnsdale services with wide enough doorways to allow mobility vehicles on board.

While V/line spokesperson Clare Steele said some “narrow” wheelchairs may still fit through the doors on remaining Bairnsdale carriages, most people with mobility needs were being urged to phone V/Line to order multi-purpose taxis 24 hours in advance.

A total of 22 carriages were impacted by the bogie cracks, with 13 returned to service by 30 June 2014, the last finally fixed by the end of 2016.

So close, but still not quite

And now to V/Line’s newest trains – the VLocity railcars. The first of which entered serivce in 2005, and on paper ticked all of the accessibility boxes – wide doors, allocated spaces for mobility aids, and an accessible toilet – but they still managed to miss the mark!

With overcomplicated toilet doors that could not be used by the visually impaired.

Eventually fixed by an even more complicated system in 2017.

And doorways not quite wide enough for easy manoeuvring of mobility aids.

From 2016 the handrails beside the wheelchair access door were modified to provide more space.

A change that required the removing the crew access to ground level!

With the problem not resolved properly until 2019, when they made the doorway itself wider.

This change is now being applied to all new-build VLocity trains, but cannot to be retrofitted to the first 75 VLocity trains without a massive amount of work, which just goes to prove – get it right the first time!

Further reading

V/Line has more information about accessibility on their website, with their 2019-2022 Accessibility Action Plan detailing where they aim to improve in the next three years.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post V/Line’s sorry history of inaccessible trains appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

I first became aware of it years ago when a mate who uses a mobility scooter tried to travel to Seymour on a weekend when rail replacement buses were running, but no accessible road coaches were available. Result – V/Line called up a maxi taxi to take him there, the finaly fare coming to around $200!

Some more examples

During V/Line’s 2016 VLocity fleet crisis taxis were called up when accessible road coaches were unavailable.

On Wednesday, V/Line paid $350 dollars for Gary Mitchell to get from Traralgon to Melbourne after the coach he attempted to get on did not have wheelchair access.

In 2017 a V/Line train to Warrnambool was diverted via Werribee, leaving behind passengers on the usual route, who had to complete their journey by taxi.

Two V/Line passengers were transported from Geelong to Terang and Warrnambool by taxi on Monday night at a cost of $365 to the rail operator.

The passengers were attempting to board the 7.05pm service from Southern Cross at Tarneit and Wyndham Vale, but were left behind as the train didn’t stop at those stations.

After some confusion and a considerable wait, the passengers were advised to catch a later service to Geelong.

The Warrnambool-bound passengers were then transported from Geelong to Terang and Warrnambool in a taxi paid for by V/Line, arriving just before midnight.

On New Years Eve 2019 V/Line ran out of rail replacement buses and had to call for a cab.

Taxis were needed to ferry stranded commuters home to Geelong after V/Line ran out of buses at Southern Cross Station on New Year’s Day.

About 100 people were left languishing in the bus terminal in the early hours of Monday morning after buses to Geelong and Ballarat quickly filled up.

It forked out money for 12 taxis to transport stranded commuters on the Geelong and Ballarat lines, but a V/Line spokeswoman said she did not know how much was spent.

Services on the Albury line are chronically unreliable – as well as inaccessible to many.

Two north-east Victorian residents have claimed V/Line regularly pays more than $1,000 for return taxi trips to Melbourne due to train and coach services being wheelchair inaccessible.

Albury-based Luke Sefton said V/Line had recently arranged a taxi for at least three return trips to Melbourne.

“If there’s more than two wheelchairs they tell you the train’s full and you can’t get a ticket. If it’s not running you’ve got to get a taxi and they pay the money for that — maybe $700 or more, one way,” he said.

But Mr Sefton said V/Line would sometimes turn him away.

“I’ve called up a few times and there’s only two [people with wheelchairs] allowed on there and they say ‘we’ve sold out today’,” he said.

“In that case they don’t get you a taxi either, they just say they’ve sold out.”

The chair of The Victorian Disability Advisory Council, Colleen Furlanetto, said she had used replacement taxi services from Euroa and Seymour more than a dozen times at a cost to V/Line of around $300 each way.

Ms Furlanetto said she felt guilty depriving local residents of a wheelchair accessible service whenever V/Line arranged a taxi for her to Melbourne.

V/Line has used taxis to replace a broken down rail replacement coach.

V/Line has forked out around $750 for a maxi-taxi to ferry passengers to Melbourne after two breakdowns on regional train service left passengers fuming.

The saga for passengers began when a V/Line train bound for Melbourne from Albury broke down at Chiltern in the state’s north east on Sunday.

Passengers were then moved to a replacement coach service which also broke down.

Two maxi taxis were called to replace the coach.

Chiltern resident Sheridan Williams said passengers were stranded on the coach for up to 20 minutes before they were told what had happened.

Ms Williams said the taxis arrived from Wangaratta to take the passengers to Melbourne. She said the meter showed $750 when it arrived in Melbourne at 11:45pm — two hours late.

It is not known what the fare was on the second taxi.

But this tale from the Warrnambool line really takes the cake.

In May 2019 Janet and Susan, who use wheelchairs, decided to travel from Melbourne to Warrnambool on V/Line trains.

For both it was a work-related visit, they were attending a forum hosted by All Abilities Advocacy and supported by Warrnambool City Council’s Rural Access program.

Janet, after first checking with V/Line, booked a first class ticket in order to sit next to colleagues. On May 14 when she arrived at the Southern Cross platform she was advised she could not sit next to her colleagues and was segregated.

On the way to Warrnambool she received a call from V/Line advising that the return booking was not an accessible service and she was requested to use an earlier train. This was not possible because Susan would still be at the forum.

On May 15, at 12.30pm, both women were contacted by V/Line and informed that the accessible carriage was not available. They had no alternative means of returning home to Melbourne.

V/Line asked Susan if she could leave her wheelchair in the conductor’s area and sit down, which she had been required to do on the trip to Warrnambool. Susan said this did not work properly and she needed her wheelchair with her.

V/Line advised Janet and Susan they return to Melbourne in separate taxis with the bill of about $1200 to be covered by taxpayers.

At 5pm Janet and Susan arrived at the Warrnambool Station to catch the taxis back to Melbourne.

They then discovered the disabled toilet at Warrnambool Railway Station was not accessible. The toilet was behind swinging doors and at the end of two cubicles for ambulatory people. The room was narrow with insufficient space for a wheelchair to turn into the “accessible” cubicle.

When the taxi arrived, V/Line initially wanted Janet and Susan to share a ride home – impossible given the size of their two wheelchairs. With the insistence of a support person V/Line eventually called a second taxi.

So how much is being spent on replacement taxis?

Back in 2006 Shadow Minister for Transport Terry Mulder inquired in question time about V/Line’s usage of rail replacement taxis on the Warrnambool line.

920. Mr MULDER to ask the Minister for Transport with reference to taxis used to transport excess passengers on the 5.15 pm Geelong to Warrnambool road coach on Sunday 16 October 2005 —

(1) Were four taxis used to transport the excess passengers; if not, how many taxis were requisitioned.
(2) What was the final destination of each taxi.
(3) What was the cost of each taxi.
(4) How many passengers did each taxi transport and to where.
(5) Was there any attempt made to secure a second coach and driver to run part of the way such as to Birregurra or Colac; if not, why.
(6) Does V/Line assess the respective costs of rail replacement taxis versus coaches for particular unscheduled journeys and the relative availability and time taken to secure either mode.
(7) Would a coach have been cheaper than four taxis.
(8) What would be the likely cost of a replacement coach between —
(a) Geelong and Birregurra;
(b) Geelong and Colac.

ANSWER:
As at the date the question was raised, the answer is:

(1) No, three taxis were used.
(2) One taxi went to Birregurra and two taxis to Colac.
(3) The Birregurra taxi fare cost $90 and the Colac taxi fares cost $130 each.
(4) The Birregurra taxi carried four passengers and the two Colac taxis carried five and four passengers respectively.
(5) No, as it would have delayed passengers for up to a further hour waiting for the coach.
(6) Yes.
(7) In this case no.
(8) The coach would have travelled through to Colac at a cost of $400.

As well as the wider usage of taxis by V/Line.

922. Mr MULDER to ask the Minister for Transport with reference to rail or coach services that were full or partly replaced or augmented by taxis in September 2005 —

(1) On what dates were taxis used to convey V/Line passengers.

(2) What rail or coach services were fully or partly replaced or augmented by taxis.

(3) Between what stations or locations were passengers conveyed by taxi.

(4) Was each service partly replaced or augmented due to —
(a) locomotive breakdown;
(b) ‘Sprinter’ railcar breakdown;
(c) locomotive-hauled carriage breakdown such as an airconditioning fault;
(d) accidents;
(e) signalling faults;
(f) unscheduled track repairs;
(g) breakdown of a Connex train;
(h) breakdown of a Pacific National train;
(i) overbooking of a booked seat V/Line service;
(j) excess number of passengers arriving to travel on an unbooked rail or coach service;
(k) other unavailability of locomotives, ‘Sprinters’ or locomotive-hauled carriages.

ANSWER:
As at the date the question was raised, the answer is:

(1) September 1,2,3,4,7,10,13,14,15,17,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30.

(2) V/Line was unable to identify the fully or partly replaced or augmented rail and coach services from the taxi dockets.

(3) Melton–Newport; Ballarat–Melbourne; Bendigo–Castlemaine; Anderson–Cowes; Broadmeadows–Tullamarine; Bendigo–Sunbury; Warrnambool–Casterton; Bega–Cooma; Swan Hill–Bendigo; Shepparton–Cobram; Geelong–Barwon Heads; Bendigo–Echuca; Geelong–Torquay; Melbourne–Seymour; Lara–South Geelong; Werribee–Geelong; Ballarat–Beaufort; Shepparton–Melbourne; Ballarat–Daylesford; Woodend–Daylesford; Camperdown–Warrnambool; Ballarat; Beaufort; Geelong–Anglesea; Ararat–Hamilton; Wangaratta–Chiltern; Warrnambool–Port Fairy; Sunshine–Sunbury; Footscray–Geelong; Werribee–Geelong; Ararat–Hamilton; Bendigo Kerang; Morwell–Traralgon; Ballarat–St Arnaud; Footscray–South Geelong; Lara–South Geelong; Lara–Newport; Lara–Geelong; South Geelong–Geelong; Traralgon–Caulfield; Ballarat–Creswick.

(4)
(a) In part
(b) No.
(c) No.
(d) In part.
(e) In part.
(f) No.
(g) No.
(h) No.
(i) No.
(j) In part.
(k) No.

And the most expensive fares.

923. Mr MULDER to ask the Minister for Transport —

(1) What was the highest individual bill in September 2005, between what locations the taxi travel and on what date did the journey occur for the use of a taxi to convey —
(a) V/Line passengers;
(b) V/Line train drivers;
(c) other V/Line staff.

(2) How much was spent on taxis conveying V/Line train drivers in September 2005 between —
(a) Sunbury and Bendigo;
(b) Spencer Street and Bendigo.

(3) Does V/Line pay a standard per kilometre rate for every taxi hire, the same as any member of the public, or does it contract with taxi operators at a lower rate per kilometre; if not the latter, why not.

ANSWER:
As at the date the question was raised, the answer is:

(1)
(a) V/Line passengers–Spencer Street to Albury, $408.18.
(b) V/Line train drivers–Warragul to Melbourne, $161.82.
(c) V/Line staff–Airport to Carrum, $78.55.

(2) No amount was spent on taxis for driver travel between Sunbury and Bendigo or Spencer Street and Bendigo during September 2005.

(3) V/Line pays the metered fare rate for every taxi hire, the same as any member of the public. The reason V/Line does not have a contract with taxi operators at a lower rate is due to the number of taxi companies used throughout the State.

As for more recent figures, someone identified as ‘BC8’ lodged a freedom of information request with V/Line for:

A document listing the cost of all incidents where V/Line has paid for a train replacement Taxi, including the date, line, station and cost, in date order from [date] to the date of this request.

A document listing the cost of all unplanned or unscheduled incidents where V/Line has paid for a train replacement bus, including the date, line, station and cost, in date order from [date] to the date of this request.

A document listing all planned station or line closures where V/Line has utilised replacement transport.

V/Line identified three documents falling within the terms of the request; granting access to two of them and refusing access to a third, resulting in a request being made to the Information Commissioner to have the decision reviewed. They found:

The document subject to review was a spreadsheet listing types of incidents and total costs incurred by the Agency in paying for train replacement taxis

V/Line claiming.

… [the data set] is incomplete as regional stations also provide taxi vouchers directly to customers. This data is not always captured …

As well as a much more interesting reason.

V/Line is currently in the process of releasing a Request For Proposal to selected vendors in the Commercial Passenger Vehicle space (including taxis) and release of this data may corrupt the tender process.

However the Information Commissioner found that the document was not exempt from access, and so should be released.

I wonder who submitted the FOI request, and how long until V/Line puts into place a cost effective method of hiring replacement taxis.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post V/Line spending big on rail replacement taxis appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Thankfully inaccessible high floor buses are becoming a thing of the past – on paper the bulk of buses are now accessible to passengers using wheelchairs or mobility aids.

Some buses can be lowered by the driver so they are closer to the kerb. If needed, the bus driver will also use a ramp to help passengers board the bus. Low-floor buses have allocated spaces for passengers using wheelchairs or mobility aids. This area is marked on the floor with a wheelchair symbol.

But for some reason during major works, passengers requiring accessible transport are directed to taxis instead of buses.

Sent to a separate pickup area.

Where wheelchair accessible taxis are waiting for intending passengers.

Each with a ‘DDA approved train replacement bus’ signs in their front window.

So why provide a separate mode of transport for passengers using wheelchairs or mobility aids?

I suspect clueless passengers is one reason – as soon as the driver had to deployed the ramp, some dumbarse will try and walk over it.

Multiply by that by the number of buses needed to replace a rail service, it’s easier to keep the fleet of buses moving with the ‘self loading freight’ crammed aboard, and use taxis running point to point, unconstrained by zombie passengers getting in the way of manoeuvring wheelchairs and mobility aids.

Footnote

Accessible taxis are also used to transport passengers while lifts are being repaired or upgraded at City Loop stations.

Transporting passengers to the nearest station that is still accessible.

They have also been used to transport passengers from stations where there are lifts but not ramps.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post All aboard the train replacement accessible taxi 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.