On 14 July, 10:44, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Andy wrote:

* * * * * * * * * * *The number of accessible stations certainly mean
that the trains should be accessible as well, regardless of the law
saying that they must be.

The accessibility of stations today is something of a red herring.

Trains tend to have wheels and can move from one route to another;
a non-accessible train will not be able to be used on routes which
do have accessible stations - or will be probably unacceptable
reduction in service if they do.

Secondly, trains have a lifetime of 20 or 30 years. *In that time
accessibility is likely to improve on the current routes. *It would
be a waste to have a station with platforms all can reach, but
trains that only some can use.


Ahh, but the question would be do you make the trains fit the stations
or the stations fit the trains. One of the problems with accessibility
on the LO lines will be the section from Queens Park - Harrow &
Wealdstone where trains with different floor heights will be in use
for the foreseable future (1972 Mk II Bakerloo and 313/378 LO trains).
Any solution to allow level boarding of trains is going to have to
take this difference into account. The 'ideal' solution for this
route, in isolation, would be low-floor LO units allowing the
platforms to be lowered, but the 'real life' costs would be huge as
all the other routes would have to be adjusted to fit the trains and
you'd get the problem moved to lines shared with other high floor
stock such as Gunnersbury - Richmond and the West London Line. So the
stations will have to be made to fit the trains; level access at most
locations, but an alternative solution for the route shared between
Bakerloo and LO. The existing 313 units are already as accessible as
their replacements will be, from the point of view of level access and
having spaces for wheelchairs.