Deviation from a Railway Group Standard

Transcription

1 Deviation from a Railway Group Standard (In accordance with the Railway Group Standards Code, Issue Four, part 7 and the Standards Manual, part 16) Deviation number: DEV 1. Problem statement Installation of a lift to provide step free access at Maryland station, on a narrow platform within a cutting, where restricted available platform width is a constraint to achieving compliant platform widths. 2. Title of deviation certificate Maryland Station, Platform 1, 2 & 3, Restricted Platform Width. 3. What is the requirement you can't comply with? Requirement Number: Document Number: Issue Number: Issue Date: Title of document: b) GIRT7016 Five 01/03/2014 Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains New buildings and structures, and alterations (as defined) to existing buildings and structures, shall be located to provide the following minimum distances to the platform edge: a) 3000 mm where the permissible or enhanced permissible speed on the line adjacent to the platform exceeds 100 mph (160 km/h). b) 2500 mm at other platforms. 4. Why can't you comply with the existing requirement? The minimum practical width of a new lift shaft structure, together with the existing constraints arising from the platform layout and adjacent structures (the platform 1 retaining wall) are such that platform widths of 2.5 m or greater cannot be achieved alongside the new lifts. The new lifts are proposed so as to provide improved access to the platforms for passengers of reduced mobility, including the disabled, who would be unable to use the stairs, or who could only use the stairs with difficulty. The internal width of the lift cars is set to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Department for Transport (DfT) "Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations". 5. Where can't you comply with the requirement? For the 3.90 m length of the platform 2/3 lift, on both the platform 2 and 3 sides of the lifts. For a 3.88 m length of platform 1 eastwards from the corner of the new lift shaft. Deviation number: dev 1 of 6

2 6. What are you proposing to do instead of the existing requirement? Achieve platform widths as close to the requirement as possible. 7. How long would you like the deviation to last and is there anything that would affect the length of the deviation? Start date 23/03/2016 N/A Permanent deviation. End date 8. Demonstrate that what you are proposing to do instead is reasonable. The original scope of the Crossrail project would have left seven stations that are to be served by Crossrail trains without step free access to the platforms, one of which is Maryland station. This station was reconstructed in the 1940s with a new four track layout, and with a new station building and new access steps to the four platforms. That reconstruction resulted in platform widths of less than 2.5 m on platforms 1, 2 and 3 at locations adjacent to the stairs that provide access from the station structure above. The platforms are located in a cutting bounded by retaining walls, with the wall to the rear of platform 1 being a reinforced concrete structure. The attached drawing MMD C- SK-MYL-0005 provides key dimensions for the current layout. Following feasibility and option selection studies, a preferred scheme for the provision of lifts to provide step free access to all platforms was selected. The layout of the proposed lifts for platforms 1, 2 and 3 is shown on the attached drawing MMD C-SK- MYL-0005 and 0006 The lift to serve platform 4 will be located in existing platform buildings, and does not affect the clear width of platform 4. The proposed lift structure on platform 1 will replace an existing disused stairwell. The existing disused stairwell will be demolished to enable the construction of the new lift. The removal of this existing stairwell provides additional platform area by reducing the length of the current non-conforming platform width by m. This will also increase the minimum platform width from the current m to m. What is proposed is reasonable: On platform 2/3, the proposed lift structure will be located between the two existing stair structures which are 15 m apart. The platform widths either side of the lift will be m (P3) and m (P2), which are wider that the current platform widths to the sides of the stair structures. Maryland station has narrow platforms at present. A separate passenger modelling study "Maryland Station Static Pedestrian Flow Analysis Ref. NML1B-EHF-REP-AKB Rev A03" undertaken by Atkins demonstrated that the existing platforms are adequate to cater for the predicted 2026 design year passenger numbers for Crossrail and other train services. Platform 1 will see the greatest number of passengers waiting to board trains, and the proposed lift scheme increases the overall platform area and slightly increases its width at the narrowest point. Platform 2 will see the greatest numbers of alighters, but the proposed lift location does not provide a restriction to passenger flows to the two exit stairs that will Deviation number: dev 2 of 6

3 be available (the existing stair and the reopened stair). Platform 3 is not used in normal service, and is separated from platform 2 by 'fatality fencing'. The fencing is to be locally realigned as a result of the lift installation but, on completion, will maintain compliance with the requirements set out in the Network Rail document "Probalistic Fire Risk Assessment, Crossrail On Network Works (NE) ref NAA1B-EFR-ASS-NCA Rev 2" which covers this station. The proposed lift shafts will have no effect on signal sighting. The proposed scheme achieves a significant enhancement to accessibility to the railway, and should additionally result in the likelihood of trips, slips and falls on the stairs being reduced as disabled and encumbered passengers switch to using the lifts. The proposed lift scheme does not impact on the reliability and availability of the operational railway. Consideration has been given to platform evacuation in the event of a train fire or similar emergency. The provision of the lifts themselves does not affect evacuation times, but the associated reopening of the disused stair will halve platform egress times from platforms 2 and 3. While not specified as fire fighting or evacuation lifts, the lifts may be available to assist in the evacuation of disabled passengers in an emergency. Risk assessment approach: The GRIP 3 feasibility and optioneering studies that were undertaken addressed the advantages and disadvantages of the shortlisted options, including health and safety risks and non compliances. The following factors were addressed at the platform location under consideration: The accessibility benefits of providing step free access The safety benefits from providing a lift through reduction of slips, trips and falls on the stairs The reduction in length of the existing substandard platform width Safety risks arising from passenger movement and crowding on a length of platform that is of a substandard width. Company procedures, processes and instructions: Mott MacDonald, as designer, have developed their design with due consideration of their duties as designer under the CDM regulations. Risk Assessment: During the development of the GRIP 4 design, a designer s risk assessment has been undertaken and a risk log prepared. The Form F001 included a Designers Hazard Elimination Management Risk assessment. A Static Pedestrian Flow Analysis has been undertaken, which demonstrates platform widths are adequate for predicted passenger flows for a 2026 design year, with Crossrail services. Deviation number: dev 3 of 6

4 A Probalistic Fire Risk assessment has been undertaken, which indicated that the life safety risk arising from a train on fire incident on Maryland station was equivalent to a single fatality once every 2,552 years.. A Fire Safety Report for the station has been prepared to address the implications to platform and station evacuation of providing lifts. While the installation of the lift does not adversely affect current evacuation times, a recommendation is made to achieve significant reduction in evacuation times by running trains on fire through to Stratford station. See attachments for Specific explanatory drawings, illustrations and diagrams. 9. Demonstrate consultation with all affected parties has been carried out and their agreed support. The proposed works are detailed in a Form F001 design submission that has been subject to IDC and IDR review processes with the following organisations: Rail for London Crossrail as Station Asset Owners. In addition, the scheme details have been submitted to MTR Crossrail, Network Rail and Crossrail for review and for integration with other proposed works at this station. A Planning Application for the overall step free access scheme has been submitted to London Borough of Newham and formal approval has been granted. No issues relating to the platform widths alongside the proposed lifts have been raised, other than the need to seek a deviation. 10. What alternative options have been rejected and the rationale? During GRIP 3 option selection the following options for providing step free access to platform 1, 2 & 3 were considered, and were rejected for the stated reasons: Ramped access. Rejected due to: Limited width of platform Other structural constraints to ramp layout Presence of OLE Signal sighting issues Length of accessible route Potential revenue and security issues due to requiring a separate entrance from the street Cost. Lifts in alternative locations. Rejected due to: Complexities of constructing access structures to lifts at booking hall level Platform widths < 2.5 m adjacent to lift structures Presence of OLE Signal. The alternative options include: Deviation number: dev 4 of 6

5 Installation of ramps to the existing footbridge - insufficient length and width to allow the construction of ramps Replacement of footbridge at existing location with lifts /ramps - this would require the removal of the existing bridge to install a compliant structure in its location. This was classed as a non-viable option due to cost, access difficulties and the disruption it would cause to the station. The removal of the bridge would require closure to the station or the installation of a temporary bridge. Due to the existing constraints on the platform widths, impact on signals and the presence of buried services, it would be difficult for a temporary bridge to be constructed at the station. New footbridge with lifts - this would require the construction of a new footbridge at the station within the confines of the station footprint. A review of the station concluded that it would be very difficult to locate a compliant structure at the station. This is particularly problematic as Platform 2/3 is widest at the eastern end of the station where platforms 1 and 4 are narrower. 11. What supporting documents/information are you providing? Upon receipt, the applicant is required to identify affected, interfacing parties and copy this certificate, together with supporting information, to those parties. The holder of the certificate is responsible for checking that the original assumptions and conclusions contained in the deviation certificate remain valid whenever any material changes occur. If the conditions of the deviation certificate change, the deviation will no longer be valid. In these circumstances, the holder of the deviation certificate may consider applying for a new deviation. The holder of the certificate is also requested to inform RSSB if the deviation has been addressed or superseded so that it may be closed. Attachments: Appendix A: Drawing MMD C-SK-MYL-0005: Existing Platform Layout Drawiing MMD C-SK-MYL-0006: Proposed Platform Layout Appendix B: Maryland Station Static Pedestrian Flow Analysis Ref. NML1B-EHF-REP- AKB Appendix C: Designers Risk Assessment MMF110 Maryland DHEMR Revision B Appendix D: from Crossrail dated 05/02/ Is the application for a project requiring authorisation for placing in service under the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011? No 13. Applicant details and status Applicant job title Applicant company Applicant company address Senior Structural Engineer Mott MacDonald on behalf of 10 Templeback, Bristol, BS1 6FL Deviation number: dev 5 of 6

6 Applicant job title Applicant company Applicant company address ONSIP Project Manager Rail for London Windsor House, Victoria Street, London, SQ1H 0TL Applying as: Mott McDonald: A third party acting on behalf of, and with the support of, any party who must currently comply, or may reasonably be expected to have to comply in the future, with the RGS. Rail for London: The party who must currently comply, or may reasonably be expected to have to comply in the future, with the RGS. Your reference number MMD G-DO-MYL-2602 Applicant's signature Senior Structural Engineer Date 05/02/2016 Name of Committee Date of meeting Minute reference Infrastructure 02/03/ /INS/03/060 Authorised by Director of Research and Standards: Date of Authorisation: Approval No /03/2016 Deviation number: dev 6 of 6