Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access  (Read 9984 times)

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« on: December 08, 2012, 07:18:16 AM »
Media Release
Assistant Minister for Public Transport
Mr Steve Minnikin

Labor failed to improve station access

The Newman Government is again left cleaning up a Labor mess after a review of train stations showed Queensland Rail would not meet the Federal 2012 disability access targets.

Assistant Minister for Public Transport Steve Minnikin said the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) has had a clear target of 55 per cent compliance by December 31 and the review showed Queensland Rail would fall well short.

“Many disabled passengers rely on public transport but because Labor failed to properly plan, only 23 out of the 144 stations will meet the standards,” Mr Minnikin said.

“We have been left in a position where there is not enough time or money to fully meet the DDA compliance legislation despite the previous government spending more than $400 million on new and upgraded stations.

“In 2009 more than $15.76 million was spent constructing Beerburrum station with all the bells and whistles but only has about 60 passengers during the three-hour peak period.

“This compared with a station like Newmarket that has almost 850 passengers during the peak but absolutely no wheelchair access to the platform.

“This is another example of Labor waste, gold plating and an irresponsible use of taxpayer money that should have gone to ensuring our city network was accessible for the disability standards.”

The review showed it would cost about $1.5 billion to make the entire city network DDA compliant.

The Newman Government has requested a four-year action plan be developed and released for public consultation in early 2013 detailing accessibility priorities.

“Our focus initially will be on the four areas of the network where there are three or more non-accessible stations in a row,” Mr Minnikin said.

“We have also asked Queensland Rail to explore all options to improve access for customers who use wheelchairs, mobility scooters, have a sensory disability, older adults, and customers with young children."

Queensland Rail work closely with an Accessibility Reference Group which functions as a consultation and advisory body on the requirements of customers with disabilities whether in relation to infrastructure or rollingstock.

Queensland Rail also holds regular Rail Safety Orientation Days for people with disabilities and carers to familiarise themselves with trains and stations and accessibility on the network.

[ENDS] 8 December 2012
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2012, 03:06:46 PM »
Or just an underpass like Cardinia Rd, Melbourne.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7553
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2012, 03:42:38 PM »
I wonder if we can request a list of the 23 stations that they consider to be DDA compliant?  I would be very interested to see what they believe.
Ride the G:

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2012, 03:47:06 PM »
http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/AllStations/Documents/queensland-rail-station-access-guide_0811.pdf
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2012, 04:22:52 PM »
How pathetic a 'review' has identified issues with meeting DDA requirements.  We have been pointing it out for years and the list has been on the Queensland Rail website for years as well.  Nothing surprising at all.  Just more political opportunism. 

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline Stillwater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2012, 04:36:34 PM »
More politics.  Nambour Station was ready to be made DDA compliant, but LNP pulled the plug on a fix.  We should ask where that money went -- where was it reallocated to DDA work elsewhere on the network?

Clearly, Mr Minnikin is learning his cheap politics from his senior minister, Mr Emerson.  If he cannot answer where the $4 million for DDA works at Nambour, which his government canned, has been spent, how can he criticise the non-expenditure of money for DDA works at Newmarket and elsewhere?

The Beerburrum station upgrade did not come from the pot of money set aside for DDA compliance.  It formed part of an ALP commitment to duplicate the SCL to Landsborough -- itself never met.

Can we now expect the LNP to tell the people of the Sunshine Coast that their duplicated track to Nambour will have to be delayed beyond 2031 while money otherwise earmarked for that activity is redirected to DDA upgrades across the rest of the network?

Clearly money needs to be allocated for both DDA compliance, as that is important, and also for SCL duplication.  Cheap politics that seeks to portray able-bodied Sunshine Coasters as fighting for the same bucket of money as people with disabilities is beneath contempt, Mr Minnikin.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 05:20:06 PM by Stillwater »

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7553
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2012, 05:54:28 PM »
The Station Access Guide is only an indication of what accessible features you find there - just putting down TGSIs and installing a lift doesn't cut it.

I'm more interested in what stations they think are actually compliant in all respects (because I have a suspicion it might be fewer than they are claiming)!
Ride the G:

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2012, 07:04:10 PM »
From the accessible stations list about 17 or 18 (depending on whether one accepts partial platform adjustments) appear to be fully compliant.

The biggest single issue is platform heights, which is one of the reasons why some here were fairly scathing of Indooroopilly, Oxley and Darra upgrades which failed to resolve that issue, are fully compliant otherwise .... 

Station access is the next issue.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 07:24:01 PM by ozbob »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2012, 07:54:45 PM »
More politics.  Nambour Station was ready to be made DDA compliant, but LNP pulled the plug on a fix.  We should ask where that money went -- where was it reallocated to DDA work elsewhere on the network?

Clearly, Mr Minnikin is learning his cheap politics from his senior minister, Mr Emerson.  If he cannot answer where the $4 million for DDA works at Nambour, which his government canned, has been spent, how can he criticise the non-expenditure of money for DDA works at Newmarket and elsewhere?

The Beerburrum station upgrade did not come from the pot of money set aside for DDA compliance.  It formed part of an ALP commitment to duplicate the SCL to Landsborough -- itself never met.

Can we now expect the LNP to tell the people of the Sunshine Coast that their duplicated track to Nambour will have to be delayed beyond 2031 while money otherwise earmarked for that activity is redirected to DDA upgrades across the rest of the network?

Clearly money needs to be allocated for both DDA compliance, as that is important, and also for SCL duplication.  Cheap politics that seeks to portray able-bodied Sunshine Coasters as fighting for the same bucket of money as people with disabilities is beneath contempt, Mr Minnikin.

The other thing though that the constant bagging of the ALP by the LNP indicates is how woeful the opposition was to allow these things to accumulate unresolved.  The LNP as opposition was a real non-performer too.  Time they stopped the blame game and just got on with it.

I think the ALP opposition, effectively 7 members since the last election has been a lot more effective as an opposition than the LNP ever was. 
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2012, 07:55:21 PM »
There's 22 by my count however they have Robina listed as not having high platforms which I'm pretty sure is wrong. South Brisbane and Sandgate aren't included either although Narangba is. So should be 25 once South Brisbane, Narangba and Sandgate upgrades are complete.

Beerburrum
Elimbah
Narangba
Petrie
Sandgate
Grovely
Ferny Grove
Domestic Airport
International Airport
Fortitude Valley
Roma St
Richlands
South Brisbane
Coopers Plains
Banoon
Sunnybank
Altandi
Runcorn
Fruitgrove
Ormeau
Coomera
Helensvale
Nerang
Robina
Varsity Lakes

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2012, 08:08:37 PM »
I will attempt to get hold of the 'official list' but it depends a bit on whether partial platform height adjustments and the fact that some stations don't have all platforms high level actually comply. 
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7553
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2012, 08:20:35 PM »
There's 22 by my count however they have Robina listed as not having high platforms which I'm pretty sure is wrong. South Brisbane and Sandgate aren't included either although Narangba is. So should be 25 once South Brisbane, Narangba and Sandgate upgrades are complete.

26 if you include Alderley which is still programmed in unless something has changed.  28 once Springfield opens next year, and another 6 for MBRL in 2016.  Assuming the current dismal rate of improvement (maybe 2 a year), by that time there might be 42 out of 150+ stations.

The following stations get through with a "technical" pass because the low-level platform is never scheduled for use and may as well not be there:

Altandi
Runcorn
Fruitgrove

The following stations are only partially raised:

Petrie
Grovely
Fortitude Valley
Roma St

(Roma St and the Valley are heavily manned so there is no real issue.  Grovely I think the raised platform might cover both of the doors closest the middle of the train, but it still should have been a full raising.  Petrie really should be redone once MBRL opens, but they probably won't.)

Bethania has humped platforms as well but there is no access between platforms or actually to or from the station.

As far as I'm concerned, Banoon and Sunnybank shouldn't be anywhere near that list.  No high-level platform at all, despite all the TGSIs and bright colours.
Ride the G:

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • My train... My people... My money!
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2012, 09:58:31 PM »
This list is out of date. Even says on the front cover via the published date. South Brisbane is full DDA. Petrie has 3/4 raised so disabled boarding isn't really a problem if its a 3/6 car train if you abide by the recommend boarding areas ie middle of platform. Depending on how Petrie is configured for the MBRL spur that could become a redundant issue long term if they decide to go to DOO.
"What housing crisis?? There are plenty of free mobile apartments rolling around on the rails every day"

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2012, 10:55:42 PM »
From the accessible stations list about 17 or 18 (depending on whether one accepts partial platform adjustments) appear to be fully compliant.

The biggest single issue is platform heights, which is one of the reasons why some here were fairly scathing of Indooroopilly, Oxley and Darra upgrades which failed to resolve that issue, are fully compliant otherwise .... 

Station access is the next issue.
I think station access is a bigger issue. If a platform is low at least the guard can put out a ramp.
But if someone can't get into the station in the first place well then.........

Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2012, 01:15:31 AM »
I don’t understand why Banoon and Sunnybank don't have high platforms. I thought all of the stations between Salisbury and Kuraby had their platforms raised. At Grovely I think the eastern third of the platform wasn’t raised. I don’t understand why they didn’t raise the whole platforms as I doubt it would have cost much more money.

Anyway I didn’t think stations needed high platforms to be DDA compliant as the guards can simply use a ramp at the stations that aren’t. It’s not as if the handicapped are prevented from using these stations. If they are required then why hasn’t QR bothered raising the platforms at many of the stations which have only recently been upgraded?

Also Nambour would be a very low priority to have its platforms raised as it’s one of the least busiest stations on the network.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2012, 02:40:16 AM »
From the accessible stations list about 17 or 18 (depending on whether one accepts partial platform adjustments) appear to be fully compliant.

The biggest single issue is platform heights, which is one of the reasons why some here were fairly scathing of Indooroopilly, Oxley and Darra upgrades which failed to resolve that issue, are fully compliant otherwise .... 

Station access is the next issue.
I think station access is a bigger issue. If a platform is low at least the guard can put out a ramp.
But if someone can't get into the station in the first place well then.........

Obviously, I am just stating as it is with respect to meeting the requirements.  30 stations don't have assisted or unassisted wheelchair access, around 124 don't have high level platforms.  If the issue of non-compliance was just due to lack of wheel chair access than a lot more would be compliant ....  priority needs to be given to access but they will need to address the platform height issue as well to meet compliance eventually.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 03:00:30 AM by ozbob »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2012, 02:43:26 AM »
.

 If they are required then why hasn’t QR bothered raising the platforms at many of the stations which have only recently been upgraded?


Because it is was a blunder and have suggested the platforms should have been raised in hindsight.  QR has now indicated that all upgrades/station rebuilds etc. will now involve platform raising.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2012, 07:20:48 AM »
If high level platforms are required for DDA access, I would say that EVERY platform on the Cityrail network is non compliant.  There must be more to it.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2012, 07:24:08 AM »
I have been informed that to be compliant high level platforms are the deal (there is probably a distance, but many of our platforms the step up is actually greater than normal step standards for stairs etc.) 

The broader issue of DDA compliance is a taxing one, and I doubt if any of the older rail systems will be fully compliant, if ever.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2012, 07:32:59 AM »
If you take away the platform height issue, compliance is actually a lot better than the Ministerial Statement and data suggests.

Maybe more camel humps might be seen as the solution here.  Getting access sorted is the greater priority but the figures will still look poor overall even if every station has unassisted wheel chair access. 
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7553
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2012, 08:37:55 AM »
I don’t understand why Banoon and Sunnybank don't have high platforms.

Platform curvature was probably the excuse used to not do it.

I think the most egregious failures in recent times have to be Indooroopilly, Eagle Junction and Fortitude Valley.  The Valley is partly done but I have trouble working out why it wasn't done properly - Central 6 has worse curvature than the platforms at the Valley.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2012, 08:43:06 AM »
I think Fortitude Valley was the worst failure by far.  Platforms closed down for months on end but not fully raised, even though they are dead straight? IIRC.

Indooroopilly has a fair bit of curvature but still could have been done better even if not made high level.

Offline mufreight

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2012, 08:52:33 AM »
Add to the failure list, Toowoong Station refurbished but nothing done at platform level, Darra new platforms constructed at low level, complete closure for the reconstruction of platform 2& 3, Oxley new platform built at low level.
The camel humps at Fortitude Valley only came about after it was publicly pointed out by RBoT members to QR that the platforms were below the height needed for DDA compliance during the reconstruction.   :-t

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2012, 08:53:54 AM »
Fortitude Valley (then Brunswick Street) was an interesting circumstance.  When the project first started this coincided with a visit we had with QR Passenger to Mayne.  The platform heights was raised by us as a group, and it was after those representations that the camel humps appeared.  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=145.msg1569#msg1569
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2012, 09:16:47 AM »
If we're having a list of failures, then it's only fair to have a list of successes as well (however short it may be). I'd put the new Ferny Grove on that list. Full height, small ramp down to the concourse, 2 wide go card gates.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2012, 09:18:46 AM »
If we're having a list of failures, then it's only fair to have a list of successes as well (however short it may be). I'd put the new Ferny Grove on that list. Full height, small ramp down to the concourse, 2 wide go card gates.

 ;D
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7553
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2012, 09:27:14 AM »
I think Fortitude Valley was the worst failure by far.  Platforms closed down for months on end but not fully raised, even though they are dead straight? IIRC.

P2 and 3 are.  P4 has a mild curve, P1 has a more dramatic one, but it can't be too dissimilar from Central P6.
Ride the G:

Offline Cam

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2012, 10:53:00 AM »
Beerburrum
Elimbah
Narangba
Petrie
Sandgate
Grovely
Ferny Grove
Domestic Airport
International Airport
Fortitude Valley
Roma St
Richlands
South Brisbane
Coopers Plains
Banoon
Sunnybank
Altandi
Runcorn
Fruitgrove
Ormeau
Coomera
Helensvale
Nerang
Robina
Varsity Lakes

Not one station on the Ipswich Line?

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2012, 10:59:23 AM »
You got it Cam ...
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline boblldo

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2013, 07:01:09 AM »
Why are our trains and platforms different heights.
One would think if they were to buy a train you would buy one the correct height to fit the platform and
One would also think it a basic engineering principal that if you build a train station you make them all the same height and the same height as your trains.
Who was the genius that designed QLD Rail?

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2013, 07:10:10 AM »
Welcome Bob.

Originally platform heights were built to suit stock older wooden passenger carriages in the main that ran on the network.  More modern rollingstock was built to different heights, which meant a lot of platforms on the older stations were low level with respect to the newer trains.

Progressively some platforms have been raised eg. South Brisbane, others have been built at the new height eg. Varsity Lakes, Richlands.  Some stations that have been upgraded have not had platform heights raised, eg. Indooroopilly, Darra and Oxley.

Some attempts have been made at compromise solutions, eg. humps at Fortitude Valley, Petrie.

At present there are only around 22 of 144 stations that are fully DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant from memory.  Much money and work will be needed.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 10:10:05 AM by ozbob »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • My train... My people... My money!
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2013, 12:38:48 PM »
One would also think it a basic engineering principal that if you build a train station you make them all the same height and the same height as your trains.

And they did that exactly. You have to remember that the majority of the network is well.... very old. The electrics have all the running gear under each carriage while the old wooden carriages had all the running gear in the locomotive pulling at the front. If you go to many of the stations along the NCL (Northgate and beyond) you can see the different platform heights over the decades as rollingstock and the railway progression from steam and disel locos to the electrics has changed. Geebung is a great example of this as you can see the old brickwork and then the new slab of cement on top and you still have to step up to get on the train. If you go to the now DDA compliant South Brisbane station and remove all the balast to get to the original track bed that the current platform height would be up to the door handles on electric rollingstock because of the evolution of the network.

The more you know! :P
"What housing crisis?? There are plenty of free mobile apartments rolling around on the rails every day"

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2013, 12:47:25 PM »
Did the carriage floor height and/or wheel diameter actually change?  I would assume that low height platforms were always that.

colinw

  • Guest
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2013, 12:59:24 PM »
Remembering also that the separate Southside system had many very low level platforms right up to the 1970s, while the Ipswich Line & Northside system had higher level platforms much earlier.

Higher level platforms on the Northside dated to the introduction of the SX sets, or possibly earlier (open to correction).

The original low level of the Southside system platforms can be seen at South Brisbane, where a remnant of the original terminal platforms remains beyond the barriers at the northern end (towards the river).

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2013, 01:30:10 PM »
Bit here on platform heights --> http://freespace.virgin.net/johnk.pb15/crsg.html

I have a book of plans for all QGR rolling stock somewhere, can't place it at the moment unfortunately.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • My train... My people... My money!
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2013, 01:48:15 PM »
Did the carriage floor height and/or wheel diameter actually change?  I would assume that low height platforms were always that.

A little bit. I think the wheel diameter changed by about 10-20mm between the wooden and the current carriages but the overall carriage height remained the same (wooden carriages had more head room than the electrics). The biggest difference came from the equipment under the carriage. The old wooden carriages had a steel step up plate or two depending on the carriage model that stuck out running along the length of the carriage or at the exit points. Suspension was almost non existant compared to todays standards which are big and to give added clearence for the motors, compressors and braking systems underneath the carriages.

The original low level of the Southside system platforms can be seen at South Brisbane, where a remnant of the original terminal platforms remains beyond the barriers at the northern end (towards the river).

Yep. In 77-78 the trackbed was raised up for the bridge over Melbourne street and over the Brisbane River. The platforms were slightly raised but costs and non existant DDA played its part in not getting high level platforms.

Remembering also that the separate Southside system had many very low level platforms right up to the 1970s, while the Ipswich Line & Northside system had higher level platforms much earlier.

Higher level platforms on the Northside dated to the introduction of the SX sets, or possibly earlier (open to correction).

IIRC the northside and southside had slightly different platform curves and heights due to loco restrictions in the steam era but they were still the same. Heavier, bigger and faster locos ran the Ipswich-NCL corridor while there were restrictions for the southside for only lighter/smaller locos. The bigger locos still derailed along the corridor... the oldies here know what loco I'm talking about :P NCL-Ipswich corridor platforms were raised first due to SX/SVX sets running those lines (no step up plates).
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 02:12:56 PM by HappyTrainGuy »
"What housing crisis?? There are plenty of free mobile apartments rolling around on the rails every day"

Offline Fares_Fair

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4682
  • Duplicate the Sunshine Coast Line (#2tracks)
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2013, 08:34:02 PM »
Did the carriage floor height and/or wheel diameter actually change?  I would assume that low height platforms were always that.

A little bit. I think the wheel diameter changed by about 10-20mm between the wooden and the current carriages but the overall carriage height remained the same (wooden carriages had more head room than the electrics). The biggest difference came from the equipment under the carriage. The old wooden carriages had a steel step up plate or two depending on the carriage model that stuck out running along the length of the carriage or at the exit points. Suspension was almost non existant compared to todays standards which are big and to give added clearence for the motors, compressors and braking systems underneath the carriages.

The original low level of the Southside system platforms can be seen at South Brisbane, where a remnant of the original terminal platforms remains beyond the barriers at the northern end (towards the river).

Yep. In 77-78 the trackbed was raised up for the bridge over Melbourne street and over the Brisbane River. The platforms were slightly raised but costs and non existant DDA played its part in not getting high level platforms.

Remembering also that the separate Southside system had many very low level platforms right up to the 1970s, while the Ipswich Line & Northside system had higher level platforms much earlier.

Higher level platforms on the Northside dated to the introduction of the SX sets, or possibly earlier (open to correction).

IIRC the northside and southside had slightly different platform curves and heights due to loco restrictions in the steam era but they were still the same. Heavier, bigger and faster locos ran the Ipswich-NCL corridor while there were restrictions for the southside for only lighter/smaller locos. The bigger locos still derailed along the corridor... the oldies here know what loco I'm talking about :P NCL-Ipswich corridor platforms were raised first due to SX/SVX sets running those lines (no step up plates).

Hello HTG,

OT I know.
Shouldn't your avatar read "My train, My people, Your money?"  ;D
Regards,
Fares_Fair


Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • My train... My people... My money!
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2013, 07:01:37 AM »
Its a quote from the movie 'Money Train'.

"What housing crisis?? There are plenty of free mobile apartments rolling around on the rails every day"

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85389
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2013, 02:58:00 AM »
Couriermail Quest --> A Brisbane mum's plea for universal access at train stations
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline Set in train

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Ministerial Statement: Labor failed to improve station access
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2013, 08:49:11 AM »
The Beeburrum station shows the govt is a victim of its own no-risk DAA policies for new work. We all know it should have been built with no overbridge and lifts with just a flat pedistrian LX with active protection + other cost reduction/deferment measures.


I would like to see this concept introduced at more stations. Really hate the up/down two stair shuffle forced at so many stations. Wellington Point is a shocker. With island platform, should be underground access (at grade with surroundings) or flat ped LX with active protection.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan