The fact that a bus kneels down to about 200 mm when the doors open makes
it pretty easy to ramp a wheelchair off in an emergency. People did have it
hard in the old days, though the Sydney system did have a few platforms
here and there to ease the task. In Europe they've been building
kerb-height platforms for generations, so they don't have too much of a
step-up problem for low-floors, even for prams.
The biggest problem in addressing access issues nowadays is that most
people think of the problem as "just wheelchairs" (I have observed that
Melbourne tram fans are notorious for this!). There's also the matter of
prams and the like but, most importantly, what most people don't realise is
that somewhere around 20% of the population have mobility issues of some
sort, mostly revolving around arthritic-related issues and they're not all
elderly people either. This is why step-free access (both external and
internal) is such a big and significant issue - apart from the operational
issue that vehicles work more efficiently and load better when they're
step-free (internally as well as externally).
If anybody wants a living demonstration of this, I invite them to ride any
rural Australian bus service where most of the clientele are elderly/infirm
and parents with prams and the bus is low-entry (part high floor) only,
since most operators don't think of their passengers when making purchases.
Soon on the ride the wheelchair/pram spaces will be filled together with
the few remaining low-floor seats (crud Australian bus design except
Volgren who do better) and the front of the bus will be as packed as a
Bondi peak service while there are dozens of empty seats at the back
because nobody can climb the aisle steps to get to them. However, all that
the transit agencies, operators and designer/builders are interested in is
complying with the bare minimum standards under legislation. I can only
wish them all karma when they get older and cop the same issues themselves
and find out how they like it. However, kudos to PTV, Latrobe Valley Bus
Lines and CDC Melbourne for finally seeing the light.
Enough of that. I think WL is one agency that will insist on the highest
technical standards and Bombardier would have been expected to address all
the issues, including not grinding away tracks on curves. I'm sure that
experience with the Toronto design would also have contributed something
towards the Vienna design.
Tony P
On Friday, 14 December 2018 11:00:13 UTC+11, Matthew Geier wrote:
>
> On 14/12/18 10:43 am, Prescott wrote:
> > The typical fold-out (or electro/hydraulic, e.g. Perth) wheelchair
> > ramp in trams and buses isn't designed to go down to the ground. It
> > would be too long to fit if it was to comply with the required
> > gradient. It's designed to bridge to a kerb (or a standard European
> > bus and tram platform) which is typically about 150 mm high off the
> > ground.
>
>
> Given our buses tendency to catch on fire, getting wheel chairs off to
> the ground safely could be an issue. The driver won't always be in a
> position to pull over to the curb when the engine compartment bursts
> into flames :-)
>
>
> > To bridge to the ground from a typical 300 mm high tram doorway you
> > need a wheelchair lift:
> >
> >
> http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/InnoTrans_2010_Skoda_interior_7_sm.jpg
>
>
> A large complex machine that will have a tendency not to work when you
> need it most..... (Like when your engine has just burst into flames :-)
>
>
> >
> > On the other hand, our accomplished friends at PETS at Whiteman Park
> > have obviously taken a leaf from the ferry handbook and built a
> > "wharf" and gangway!
> >
> > http://www.historyworks.com.au/W1017e.jpg
> >
> The ramp I pictured on 2107 is used in a similar way with the 'back
> platform' to get guests on and off the Y1 and other similar large
> compartment trams. It's wasn't bought for the Vario, I just thought I'd
> try it out when I discovered the supplied ramps wouldn't work.
>
> On Saturday a younger member's grandmother did comment that she could
> actually get in and out of 2107 relatively easily, while getting up into
> the P was a struggle. Sydney Toastracks may have moved the masses, but
> they were not for those with 'mobility challenges'.
>
> In Vienna it will be interesting to see of the new Flexities can get
> around corners with out flange squeal and destroying the track. Wiener
> Linien may have swapped the maintenance pain of the ULF design for the
> maintenance pain of having to replace all their curves every 5 years.
>
> One thing can be said of the ULF design, it goes around sharp curves
> almost silently.
>
>
>
>
>
>