On 25.02.16 12:23, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:11:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 05:33:50 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

Why is it in this country - and elsewhere in europe it has to be said -
that we really don't like building platforms that are level with the train
floor? There's always a step up. This is understandable on curved
platforms where the gap would be an issue, but on dead straight ones there
is no excuse yet they're still lower. Only recently have we started
building them level. Even the 1960s Victoria line tube suffers from
platforms lower than the train floor
other than on short sections where LU has raised them.

The S Stock has changed that of course.

Up to a point. Though it brings its own problems - the gap at the highly
curved Aldgate platforms is borderline dangerous for anyone with poor
eyesight.

Have they installed the bright below-platform lights there, as at
other curved platforms? That would help people not fail to spot, and
fall into, the gap. I also think the mind-the-gap announcements be
limited to those stations where there is a dangerously large gap.

But I think that's your answer: it was deemed to be safer to overhang
platforms than to be at the identical level with a large gap on curved
platforms. And presumably on general purpose lines all trains aren't
the same height anyway, so you'd have had both a gap and a height
difference.

I looked at the pics I took in Japan and see that even on recent
Shinkansen lines, the train floors are a bit higher than the platform,
though the height difference is quite small, and there's almost no
gap:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...1720/lightbox/


Have they ever used gap fillers in London, similar to what they have at
three stations on the New York City Subway?

I thought that there were a couple of stations with them here.