Deliverable D8.1 Current specifications and technical problems with Platform Interface

Project acronym: IN2STEMPO Starting date: 01/09/2017 Duration (in months): 60 Call (part) identifier: H2020-S2R-CFM-IP3-2017-01 Grant agreement no: 777515 Due date of deliverable: Month 28 Actual submission date: 31/03/2020 Responsible/Author: Przemysław Brona – PKP/IK Dissemination level: PU Status: Final

Reviewed: Yes

This deliverable is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 777515.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 1 | 87

Document history Revision Date Description 1 05/11/2019 First issue 2 11/12/2019 Second issue 3 23/12/2019 Third issue after internal revision 4 22/01/2020 Fourth issue after external revision by TL and TDL 5 23/03/2020 Final version

Report contributors Beneficiary Name Details of contribution Short Name Przemysław Brona PKP / IK Deliverable coordinator Janusz Poliński PKP / IK Contributor for technical sections Iwona Wróbel PKP / IK Contributor for technical sections Adam Dąbrowski PKP / IK Contributor for technical sections Garry Bosworth NR Contributor for technical sections Arja Aalto FTIA Contributor for technical sections Merja Saarela FTIA / HAMK Contributor for technical sections Esa Suoyrjö FTIA Contributor for technical sections Leonor Azevedo Mendes IP Contributor for technical sections Nuno Fragoso da Silva IP / IPP Contributor for technical sections

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 2 | 87

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...... 6 2. Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... 7 3. Background ...... 8 4. Objective/Aim ...... 9 5. Analysis of specifications regarding the PTI defined in various existing standards ...... 10 5.1 EU legislation ...... 10 5.2 National legislation, normative standards and internal regulations of railway infrastructure managers and station operators ...... 14 5.3 Conclusions ...... 16 6. Identification of existing infrastructure problems with access to from platforms...... 18 6.1 Evaluate, assess and catalogue existing state context for PTI issues in existing stations ...... 18 6.2 Technical parameters of passenger infrastructure and rolling stock ...... 18 6.2.1 Platforms ...... 18 6.2.2 Structure gauge ...... 26 6.2.3 Rolling stock ...... 34 6.3 Existing problems with access to trains from platforms ...... 54 6.4 Examples of solutions to facilitate access from a platform to a train (in partners’ countries) ..... 58 6.5 Passenger needs and expectations regarding accessibility in accordance with the survey ...... 64 6.5.1 The Survey concerning problems with PTI ...... 64 6.5.2 Questionnaire Findings ...... 65 6.5.3 Survey Conclusions ...... 66 7. Conclusions on existing technical problems concerning the Platform Train Interface ...... 67 8. References ...... 68 9. Appendices ...... 69 9.1 Appendix 1 – Survey template ...... 69 9.2 Appendix 2 – Survey findings in ...... 73 9.3 Appendix 3 – Survey findings in the UK ...... 76 9.4 Appendix 4 – Survey findings in Finland ...... 80 9.5 Appendix 5 – Survey findings in Portugal ...... 84

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 3 | 87

Table of figures Figure 1: Description of TD3.11 Future stations ...... 8 Figure 2. The gap between the platform edge and the vehicle ...... 10 Figure 3. Platform location on curved track ...... 11 Figure 4. Distribution of platform heights on Polish railway network ...... 19 Figure 5. “Ground level” platform on the local railway line ...... 20 Figure 6. Platforms located on the curve ...... 20 Figure 7. Platform types in southern part of Finland ...... 21 Figure 8. Diagram for tolerance on platform height (not to scale) ...... 23 Figure 9. Most common average platform offset and platform height in the UK ...... 23 Figure 10. Example of platform surface in Portugal ...... 25 Figure 11. Geometry of platform edge ...... 25 Figure 12. Some technical details about the platform edge ...... 26 Figure 13. Structure gauge GPL-1 used on Polish railway network ...... 27 Figure 14. Minimum width of single-track platforms without obstacles...... 28 Figure 15. Minimum width of island platforms without obstacles ...... 28 Figure 16. Minimum width and clear height of an island platform and distance between platform shelter and track, when the platform includes an obstacle over 10 000 mm in length ...... 29 Figure 17. Principal dimensions of the structure gauge in Finland (source Finnish Railway Network Statement, Appendix 3E) ...... 30 Figure 18. Example of lower sector infrastructure gauge applied to a standard platform adjacent to canted track (not to scale) ...... 32 Figure 19. Principal dimensions of the reference profile for kinematic gauge PTb+ on Portuguese rail network ...... 33 Figure 20. Single-track and island platform location on the railway line in Portugal ...... 33 Figure 21. Distribution of rolling stock used by railway passenger operators in Poland ...... 34 Figure 22. New multiple units (ED160 and ED161) for long distance services in Poland ...... 34 Figure 23. Old type of for regional service in Poland ...... 35 Figure 24. (45WE “Impuls”) for regional service with adjusted level floor to platform height ...... 35 Figure 25. train in Finland ...... 37 Figure 26. Allegro train between (Finland) and St. Petersburg (Russia) ...... 37 Figure 27. Allegro train with retractable step at the Helsinki station (photo: Przemysław Brona) ...... 38 Figure 28. Allegro train taking passengers in St. Petersburg (photo: Arja Aalto) ...... 38 Figure 29. Double-deck Intercity train at the station of Vaasa (photo: Arja Aalto) ...... 39 Figure 30. Regional train in Finland (photo: VR) ...... 40 Figure 31. Flirt passenger car composition ...... 41 Figure 32. Low floor train Flirt (Stadler) on Airport station in Helsinki (photo: Arja Aalto) ...... 41

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 4 | 87

Figure 33. Low floor train Flirt Stadler (photo: Arja Aalto) ...... 42 Figure 34. Source: Analysis from TOC, RDG and ROSCO data for the end of December 2017...... 44 Figure 35. Examples of replacement rolling stock in the UK...... 44 Figure 36. ATP requirements (ORR Travel Policy Guidance, 2019)...... 45 Figure 37. Image from Virgin Trains Making Rail ...... 45 Figure 38. Traditional train ramp (Transport for All) ...... 46 Figure 39. ‘Stubby Train Step’ Marsden Station, UK ...... 46 Figure 40. New Mersey Rail trains with integrated step ...... 46 Figure 41. Cross-sectional profile of Corail carriages used in the Intercity train ...... 48 Figure 42. Cross-sectional profile of the Tilting train – CPA ...... 49 Figure 43. Cross-sectional profile of Triple Electric Units (UTE 2240 and UTD 592) ...... 50 Figure 44. Cross-sectional profile of EQUs (Quadruple double deck electric units)...... 51 Figure 45. Cross-sectional profile of Electric Triple Unit (ETUs)...... 52 Figure 46. Cross-sectional profile of Electrical Multiple Units (EMUs)...... 53 Figure 47. Lifts assembled on rolling stock entrance ...... 58 Figure 48. Foldable ramps used in Polish rolling stock ...... 59 Figure 49. Moving/ejected or rotated steps and gap fillers...... 60 Figure 50. Coping mechanism – lift assembled in Finnish Pendolino train...... 61 Figure 51. Elevated part of platform (platform edge ramp) ...... 61 Figure 52. Example of mobile lifts located on the platform ...... 62 Figure 53. Example of rolling stock technical equipment in Portugal ...... 62

List of tables Table 1 Platform height requirements according to TSI Infrastructure ...... 13 Table 2 Platform offset requirements according to TSI Infrastructure ...... 13 Table 3 Basic platform heights in European countries ...... 17 Table 4 Placement of a high passenger platform and installation tolerances on a straight track ...... 27 Table 5 Placement of a low passenger platform and installation tolerances on a straight track ...... 28 Table 6 Heights of level floors in Polish rolling stock ...... 36 Table 7 Current UK fleet composition ...... 43 Table 8 The key findings from recent research by the RSSB ...... 56 Table 9 Ranked importance of issues with rail transport accessibility in Poland ...... 73 Table 10 National Organisations in UK contacted for WP8 Questionnaire ...... 76 Table 11 List of organisations in Finland ...... 80 Table 12 Ranked importance of rail transport accessibility in Finland ...... 80 Table 13 Average evaluation of particular issues ...... 84

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 5 | 87

1. Executive Summary In the IN2STEMPO project, Work Package 8 (WP8) “Improved Accessibility to Trains - Platform Train Interface” will address several objectives, including improving accessibility to trains for all passenger groups, specifically by addressing issues related to the platform-train-interface (PTI). This will improve ease- of-transfer, as well as, the customer experience. The majority of existing platforms cater for a variety of rolling stock with varying floor heights. Curvature of existing platforms also creates gaps between trains and the platform. Reconstruction of existing platforms is very expensive and cannot be justified where rolling stock is variable. Based on these observations the ambition of WP8 is to develop strategies that will allow safe and inclusive access to the train, that will not be too demanding on maintenance, and that will not increase the dwell time of the train significantly.

In this deliverable, the analysis of specifications regarding PTI defined in various existing standards is presented first. These include national legislation, normative standards, and internal regulations of railway infrastructure managers and station operators. As a result of this analysis, basic platform heights in European countries are presented.

The next task focused on the identification of existing problems with access to trains from platforms. In this section the evaluation, assessment and cataloguing of existing state context for PTI issues in existing stations and technical parameters of passenger infrastructure and rolling stock is presented. Existing problems regarding access to trains from platforms are then identified.

The work performed consisted also of the survey conducted among organisations representing people with different disabilities in the partner countries of WP8 (Poland, The United Kingdom, Finland, Portugal). The survey questions were developed by a team of partners participating in WP8 based on previous experience from other surveys in the partners’ respective countries. The scope of the questions concerned the issues related to the accessibility of rail transport for people with disabilities, their experiences with train travel, and the observed facilities and solutions used in other modes of transport. The survey template is presented in Appendix 1. The survey findings from four countries are specified in Appendices 2-5.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 6 | 87

2. Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation / Description Acronym ATO Accessible Travel Policy GUS Main Statistics Office in Poland MAAP Multi Annual Action Plan PRM Persons with reduced mobility PTI Platform Train Interface TD Technical Demonstrator TSI The technical specifications for interoperability WP Work Package

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 7 | 87

3. Background The present document constitutes the Deliverable D8.1 “Specifications” in the framework of: the TD3.11 “Future stations”; Task 8.1 “Analysis of specifications defined in various existing standards”; Task 8.2 “Identifying existing problems of access to trains from platforms”; and building block BB3.11.3 “The improvement of accessibility to trains” of IP 3 (MAAP part A 2018 version).

In Work Package 8 there are 4 companies from 4 different countries, where there are 3 different track gauges: • 1435 mm – Used by the Railway Institute (Instytut Kolejnictwa) – as a third link party of PKP S.A. – from Poland and Network Rail (NR) from the UK • 1524 mm – Used by the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency (FTIA) and Häme University of Applied Sciences (HAMK) as a third link party of FTIA from Finland, • 1668 mm – Used by Infraestruturas de Portugal (IP) from Portugal.

Work Package 8, together with 3 other Work Packages (WP6, WP7, WP9) are part of Technical Demonstrator TD3.11 Future Stations.

WP6 WP7 Crowd Management in High Improved Station Designs and Capacity Stations Components TD3.11 Future Stations WP8 WP9 Improved Accessibility to Trains - Safety Management in Public Platform Train Interface Areas

Figure 1: Description of TD3.11 Future stations

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 8 | 87

4. Objective/Aim WP8 is focused on researching strategies for improving accessibility to trains for all passenger groups by addressing issues related to the platform-train-interface (PTI). Based on the current state, the ambitions of WP8 are to develop strategies that will allow safe and inclusive access to the train that will not be too demanding on maintenance and that should not increase the dwell time of the train significantly.

This document has been prepared to provide an analysis of specific situations on existing stations relating to issues with the PTI, such as different platform heights located on different sections of railway lines (in particular - curved track lines), as well as different types of rolling stock with different floor levels. The analysis also refers to existing boundary conditions e.g. in various standards (Task 8.1 and Task 8.2).

The specific objectives for this WP in the current Deliverable were: 1. Task 8.1 Analysis of legal acts, normative standards and internal regulations of infrastructure and/or station managers concerning the technical parameters of platforms. This analysis refers to three different track gauges in the partners’ respective countries: • 1435 mm in Poland and the UK, • 1524 mm in Finland, • 1668 mm in Portugal. 2. Task 8.2 Identification of existing problems with access to trains from platforms: • Identification and analysis of current problems with accessibility from platforms to trains for all groups of passengers; • Identification of users’ experiences with using rail transport during their travel. This examination is based on the survey distributed amongst passengers with reduced mobility; • Identification and analysis of currently used solutions for improved access to trains from platforms.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 9 | 87

5. Analysis of specifications regarding the PTI defined in various existing standards The accessibility of passengers from platforms to trains is strongly related to the gap between the platform edge and the rolling stock stopping at that platform. The level of the platform in relation to the train´s floor level is also a very important parameter concerning accessibility and any problems when stepping from the platform on to the train. On the European rail network there are various track gauges (typical gauge is 1435 mm) and various types of passenger rolling stock are used. Thus, the question of interoperability is a very important target when developing the European railway network. The basis for consideration is the analysis of legal acts and regulations and technical standards at the European and national levels, which define the basic parameters of passenger infrastructure relating to the gap between the edge of the platform and the rolling stock. From the point of view of the accessibility to trains, the gap dimensions (vertical and horizontal) are crucial. These dimensions should allow independent and safe access to the train for all travellers, and in particular persons with reduced mobility who may be using a wheelchair or other mobility aid. 5.1 EU legislation The basic document defining the main parameters and definitions for the gap between the platform and the train is EN15273-3 Railway applications – Gauges – Part 3 Structure gauges [1].

Definition of gap The gap is the distance between the platform edge and the vehicle step. It can be broken down into a vertical component hlac and a horizontal component blac. The nominal value depends on the values chosen for bq and hq and on the mounting measurements of the step and its position relative to the bogie centres, the geometric characteristics of the vehicle and the nature of the platform for the line (concave, convex or straight platform).

Figure 2. The gap between the platform edge and the vehicle

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 10 | 87

1 – Platform 2 – Vehicle’s Step 3 – Limit Gauge 4 – Vehicle hlac – Vertical distance measuring between the platform edge and vehicle step blac – Horizontal distance measuring between the platform edge and vehicle step

Values of hlac and blac parameters depend on:

• bq - Distance from centre track to platform edge – offset [m],

• hq - Platform height [m].

In addition, this norm defines the main dimensions determining the distance between the platform and the centerline of the track located on the curve. These dimensions are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Platform location on curved track Where: 1 – Platform 2 – Running surface 3 – Track centreline

The size of the free space between the edge of the platform and the step of the vehicle is affected by a number of parameters. These parameters should be distinguished by several factors: • Permanent parameters, related to infrastructure (e.g. platform height and its localisation on the straight track or on the curved track, and the size of the radius of the curve on which the cant of the track depends) and variable parameters related to infrastructure (e.g. structural and maintenance tolerances). • Permanent parameters related to the vehicle specification (e.g. the position of the floor relative to the running surface of the rail head, the number of entry steps and the spacing between them, the distance between the bogie pivot, and the localisation of entrance doors in the wagon).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 11 | 87

• Variable parameters, resulting from the position of steps in relation to the track centreline (it is influenced by clearances and wear, e.g. on the edges of wheel sets).

Another legal act at the European level regarding the technical requirements of European railway systems (infrastructure and rolling stock) is the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI). Regarding railway transport accessibility for all travellers (i.e. platform-train interface issues) the following TSI’s were identified:

TSI – Persons with Reduced Mobility (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 of 18th of November 2014 [2] with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/772 of 16th of May 2019 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility). This TSI defines the requirements of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. It also describes essential requirements for the infrastructure and rolling stock subsystems in the scope of disability accessibility to railway transport. In relation to the gap issue, it concerns the following infrastructure elements: • Obstacle-free route, • Platform width and edge of platform, • End of platform, • Boarding aids on platforms, • Visual information: signposting, pictograms, printed or dynamic information.

In the case of the rolling stock, requirements include the following elements: • Step position for vehicle access and egress, • Boarding aids.

TSI Infrastructure – (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1299/2014 of 18th of November 2014 [3] with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/776 of 16th of May 2019 of the technical specifications for interoperability relating to the “infrastructure” subsystem of the rail system in the European Union). This TSI specifies the basic technical parameters for building new platforms or upgrading existing platforms. In terms of the platform-train interface, platform parameters are related to: platform height above the rail head, and the recommended distance from the centre track (offset). These parameters have been established for different track gauges. Table 1 and table 2 present the requirements for 3 different track gauges in the countries of the WP’s partners i.e. for standard gauge 1435 mm (Poland and The United Kingdom) and for two broad gauges 1524 mm (Finland) and 1668 mm (Portugal).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 12 | 87

Table 1 Platform height requirements according to TSI Infrastructure

Nominal Technical area 1435 mm 1524 mm 1668 mm NEW Nominal platform 550 mm platforms for height (R ≥ 300 m) 760 mm trains (INF TSI, 4.2.9.2, p. 1) complying adjusted depending on the platform offset to minimise the stepping with Nominal platform distance between the train and the platform LOC&PAS TSI height (R < 300 m) (INF TSI, 4.2.9.2, p. 2) requirements NEW platforms where trains, which are outside of the scope of different provisions for the nominal platform height might apply the LOC&PAS TSI, are intended to (INF TSI, 4.2.9.2, p. 3) stop − it shall be allowed to apply to other nominal platform heights for EXISTING platforms consistency with a particular upgrade or renewal programme of a line (upgrade or renewal of the or a section of a line “Infrastructure” subsystem) − it shall be allowed to apply to other nominal platform heights, if the work requires structural alterations to any load bearing element (INF TSI, 7.4)

Table 2 Platform offset requirements according to TSI Infrastructure

Nominal track gauge Technical area 1435 mm 1524 mm 1668 mm Set in accordance with chapter 13 of EN 15273-3:2013 on the basis of the installation limit

gauge (bqlim) for the gauge G1.

(INF TSI, 4.2.9.3, p. 1) Platform offset The platform shall be built close to the gauge within a maximum tolerance of 50 mm, i.e.:

bqlim ≤ bq ≤ bqlim + 50 mm

(INF TSI, 4.2.9.3, p. 2)

In addition, the TSI Infrastructure specifies specific cases concerning the parameters of the platforms' height and the distance of the platform edge from the track centre. The following are specific cases for the project partner countries, i.e. Poland, The United Kingdom, Finland and Portugal.

TSI Rolling Stock Loc and Pas – (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 of 18th of November 2014 [4] with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/776 of 16th of May 2019 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union). In the scope of this TSI (p. 4.2.5 Passenger-related items) a non-exhaustive list gives an overview of the basic parameters covered by the TSI PRM. Regarding the PTI issues it concerns the step position for vehicle access and egress, including steps and boarding aids.

UIC 741 Passenger stations - Height of platforms - Regulations governing the positioning of platform edges in relation to the track According to Code UIC 741, the nominal height of the platform edge above the running surface is 550 mm. This height corresponds to the position of the lowest step of a 4-step entrance (565 mm) and the level floor in a low entrance without steps. G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 13 | 87

According to the UIC Code for three-step coaching, it can be used with a platform edge with a height of 760 mm above the running surface. This height corresponds to the position of the second step of a 4-step entrance or the first step of a 3-step entrance with a level floor of 1250 mm. This Code also describes the horizontal distance of the platform edge from the centre of the track (platform offset).

5.2 National legislation, normative standards and internal regulations of railway infrastructure managers and station operators In terms of national law and available technical standards, local requirements are available in each partner country (Poland, UK, Finland, Portugal). There are complementary or more detailed requirements contained in documents at the European level. The following are the documents from the partner countries containing detailed guidelines for the platform parameters depending on the different track gauges.

In Poland, the overarching documents in relation to national regulations and legal acts are the Technical Specifications for Interoperability related to the Infrastructure and Persons with reduced mobility subsystem. They provide guidelines for the construction of new railway lines, and the modernization of existing railway lines, which should meet the interoperability requirements.

In Poland, the main legal act that contains requirements relating to individual elements of the railway infrastructure, including platforms, is Regulation no. 151 of the Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of September 10th, 1998 on technical conditions to be met by railway structures and their location (Journal of Laws of 1998 No. 151, item 987, as amended). It contains the basic requirements for railway infrastructure parameters.

The guidelines regarding the principles of building new passenger infrastructure elements or modernizing existing passenger infrastructure elements include instructions published by the national infrastructure manager (PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.). These include: • Technical Standards for the modernization or construction of railway lines for speed vmax ≤200 km/h for conventional rolling stock and 250 km/h for tilting body rolling stock – PKP PLK S.A. – Volume II Structure Gauge Railway Lines; • Architectural guidelines for railway passenger service facilities (Ip-1 Wytyczne architektoniczne dla kolejowych obiektów obsługi podróżnych); • Guidelines for the selection of platform heights on railway lines managed by PKP PLK S.A. (Id – 118 Wytyczne w sprawie doboru wysokości peron6w na liniach kolejowych zarządzanych przez PKP PLK S.A.); • Technical conditions for the construction and commissioning of passenger platforms. Aspects: platform access edges, surfaces and body of platforms (Id-22 Warunki techniczne budowy i odbioru peronów pasażerskich. Aspekty: peronowe krawędzie dostępu, nawierzchnie i korpus peronu).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 14 | 87

In relation to the UK railway network, the following legal acts and guidelines apply: • GB Requirements for Platform Height, Platform Offset and Platform Width (Railway Group Standard GIRT7020); • Requirements for the Positioning of Infrastructure and for Defining and Maintaining Clearances (Railway Group Standard GIRT7073); • Interface between Station Platforms, Track, Trains and Buffer Stops (Rail Industry Standard RIS- 7016-INS).

In Finland, the main requirements concerning platform standards and basic parameters are included in Railway Engineering Guidelines (RATO) part 16, Routes and platforms, and the Guidelines of the Finnish Transport Agency – period of validity from 1 January 2018 until further notice.

RATO refers to the technical instructions for railway tracks, which include basic information on development, inspection and maintenance of a track and its equipment. RATO is based on the provisions issued by the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency Traficom. RATO is published by the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency.

Railway Engineering Guidelines (RATO) part 16, Routes and platforms has been approved by the Finnish Transport Agency (from 1.1.2019 the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency) and it entered force on 1st of January 2018. The guideline is applicable to all contracts and maintenance work commissioned by FTIA. The guideline is used in railway area design, and in construction and maintenance contracts commissioned by FTIA after the document’s entry came into force.

Part 16 of the Railway Engineering Guidelines (RATO), “Routes and platforms”, defines the requirements and instructions for the design and construction of passenger and loading platforms and passenger access routes at railway station areas.

The construction and improvement of passenger platforms that are designed and implemented in accordance with this guideline complies with the requirements of the EU Commission Regulation (EU) No 1299/2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to the ‘infrastructure’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union (hereinafter “INF TSI”). Unless otherwise stated, the instructions specified in this guideline are, in every case, requirements that apply to both new constructions, and improvements and renewals of existing structures. Instructions that can be considered as recommendations are always indicated separately. Exceptions to the requirements of this guideline are granted by the Finnish Transport Agency (now FTIA), insofar as the essential requirements concerning the technical specifications for interoperability of the EU’s rail system and national regulations and legislation are not derogated.

In compliance with the Rail Transport Act (1302/2018), the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency (FTIA), as the manager of the state-owned railway network, publishes the Finnish Railway Network Statement (hereinafter the Network Statement) for each timetable period.

The Network Statement describes the access conditions, the state-owned railway network, the rail capacity allocation process, the services supplied to railway undertakings and their pricing as well as the principles for determining the infrastructure charge. The Network Statement is published for applicants requesting capacity for each timetable period.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 15 | 87

In Portugal, national requirements concerning platform parameters are in the following documents: • Decree-Law 163/2006 – August 8th - Approves the accessibility regime for buildings and establishments that receive public, and residential buildings; • Decree-Law 35/2015 – March 6th – First amendment to Decree-Law No. 58/2008 of 26th of March, which establishes the conditions to be observed in the rail passenger contract, in accordance with the national rules governing the rail passenger contract with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd of October 2007. Establishes that it is the train operators’ obligation to guarantee platform to train accessibility; • Decree-Law 125/2017 of 4th of October - Changes the accessibility regime to buildings and establishments receiving public, public roads and residential buildings; • Internal Norm - GR.MN.011 – Train Station Characterization Manual - The Station Characterization Manual systematizes the concepts that should be present in the design, organization and management of network passenger stations and stops in the Portuguese national railway; • Internal Norm – IT.CCE.001.02 - Platform edge; • Internal Norm – GR.IT.CCA.008 – Tactile warning line for the blind; • Internal norm – GR.IT.CCA.010 – Tactile warning line for stairs and ramps (including platforms); • Internal norm – GR.IT.CCA.011 – Guiding lines for the blind.

5.3 Conclusions Chapter 5 presented the basic legal conditions at the European and national level in partners’ countries. There are: European norms, regulations (TSI’s), national legal acts and technical standards and guidelines concerning gap issues.

In addition, basic issues related to the gap have been defined for the same understanding in basic terms. Particular documents are available on e.g. European Commission web site (TSI) and on the web sites in particular countries and railway companies.

Table 3 presents the main national regulations with the standard platform heights used in the partner countries.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 16 | 87

Table 3 Basic platform heights in European countries

No. Country Length of railway Basic platform National documents lines in operation heights [km] [mm] (according GUS from 2018) 1 Poland 19231 760, 1. Regulation no. 151 of the Minister of Transport and Maritime 380,550,960 Economy of September 10th, 1998 on technical conditions to be met by railway structures and their location (Journal of Laws of 1998 No. 151, item 987, as amended) 2. Technical Standards for modernization or construction of railway lines for speed vmax ≤200 km/h for conventional rolling stock and 250 km/h for tilting body rolling stock – PKP PLK S.A. – Volume II Structure Gauge Railway Lines 3. Architectural guidelines for railway passenger service facilities (Ip-1)); 4. Guidelines for the selection of platform heights on railway lines managed by PKP PLK S.A. (Id – 118 ) 5. Technical conditions for the construction and commissioning of passenger platforms. Aspects: platform access edges, surfaces and body of platforms (Id-22)

2 UK 16132 760, 1. GB Requirements for Platform Height, Platform Offset and (550), 915, Platform Width (Railway Group Standard GIRT7020); 2. Requirements for the Position of Infrastructure and for Defining and Maintaining Clearances (Railway Group Standard GIRT7073); 3. Interface between Station Platforms, Track, Trains and Buffer Stops (Rail Industry Standard RIS-7016-INS).

3 Finland 5923 550, 265 1. Railway Engineering Guidelines (RATO) part 16, Routes and platforms.

4 Portugal 2599 685, 900 2. Decree-Law 163/2006 – August 8th - Approves the accessibility regime for buildings and establishments that receive public, residential buildings; 3. Decree-Law 35/2015 – March 6th – First amendment to Decree-Law No. 58/2008 of 26th March, which establishes the conditions to be observed in the rail passenger contract, in accordance with the national rules governing the rail passenger contract with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd October 2007. Establishes that it is the train operators’ obligation to guarantee platform to train accessibility; 4. Decree-Law 125/2017 of 4th October - Changes the accessibility regime to buildings and establishments receiving public, public roads and residential buildings; 5. Internal Norm - GR.MN.011 – Train Station Characterization Manual - The Station Characterization Manual systematizes the concepts that should be present in the design, organization and management of network passenger stations and stops in the Portuguese national railway; 6. Internal Norm – IT.CCE.001.02 - Platform edge; 7. Internal Norm – GR.IT.CCA.008 – Tactile warning line for the blind; 8. Internal norm – GR.IT.CCA.010 – Tactile warning line for stairs and ramps (including platforms); 9. Internal norm – GR.IT.CCA.011 – Guiding lines for the blind.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 17 | 87

6. Identification of existing infrastructure problems with access to trains from platforms 6.1 Evaluate, assess and catalogue existing state context for PTI issues in existing stations

The wider issue of passenger accessibility onto trains from platforms is related to several key categories of issues. There are 4 categories of issues to be distinguished: • Platform heights – the platforms operated in various European countries have different heights. This could cause difficulties regarding safety and inclusive accessibility to trains by travellers, including disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility; • Track gauge - this is directly connected to structure and rolling stock gauge. The European railway network doesn’t have one standard track gauge, which results in the use of rolling stock of various widths; • Types of rolling stock used – different solutions to improve platform to train accessibility vary between the types of operated rolling stock used (e.g. double-deck wagons, wagons with entrance doors at the end or in the middle of vehicle etc.); • Possibilities of operating rolling stock running on different track gauges - e.g. the possibility of operating standard gauge rolling stock on the wide gauge railway network. However, this would increase the gap between the platform edge and the step, or the edge of the wagon floor.

6.2 Technical parameters of passenger infrastructure and rolling stock 6.2.1 Platforms In Poland, there are five line infrastructure managers who also manage their own point-to-point passenger infrastructure. These are: PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (the largest infrastructure manager in Poland); Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa; PKP SKM in Trójmiasto; Dolnośląska Służba Dróg i Kolei in Wrocław and Pomorska Kolej Metropolitalna (Pomeranian Metropolitan Railway).

The length of the Polish railway network is just over 19000 km. Passenger traffic uses about 18500 km of line. There are nearly 4800 platforms with varying heights on the network. This causes a lot of difficulties for passengers trying to access the train safely, in particular, disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of specific platform heights on the Polish railway network.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 18 | 87

Figure 4. Distribution of platform heights on Polish railway network On the Polish railway network, it is recommended to use platforms with a height of 760 mm, which is in accordance with the standards specified in the TSI Infrastructure, on the basis of which relevant guidelines have been developed. This height is a universal height, which ensures good access conditions to all types of passenger train entrances. It is also compatible with the UIC 741 OR code.

In Poland, platforms with a height of 960 mm (e.g. on railway lines in the agglomeration and on a separate line of the Fast Urban Railway in the Tri-City) are permitted for use on railway lines intended for agglomeration trains. However, this requires the use of rolling stock with an appropriate configuration of the entrance zone to the wagons.

In many cases, on regional/local lines (i.e. this applies mainly to lines before modernisation or renovation) there are still platform heights that do not meet the regulations in practice (e.g. 380 mm higher or lower). This is a major cause of problems related to the safe and inclusive access of passengers onto the train.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 19 | 87

Figure 5. “Ground level” platform on the local railway line

Regarding the distance/width of the gap between the entrance to the wagon and the edge of the platform, a significant problem is the location of the platforms on the track sections located on a curve. Therefore, during the modernisation of railway lines, platforms are built at straight sections where possible.

Figure 6. Platforms located on the curve

The length of the Finnish state-owned railway network in operable condition is 5926 km, of which 5244 km is single-track and 682 km is double or multi-track line sections. The number of stations in operation is 195.

According to the FTA’s Accessibility database of passenger stations, at Finnish stations both types of platforms can be installed: • High platforms of 550 mm • Low platforms of 265 mm.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 20 | 87

High platforms of 550 mm are used in: • All stations 64% (131/206); • Used stations 65% (125/195); • A part of all platforms 66% (231/350).

When upgrading main railway lines, the target speed is a maximum of 160÷200 km/h, and on new lines the maximum speed is 220 km/h. This often means upgrading stations along key rail lines for a platform height of 550 mm.

STATIONS IN USE Red = low platform Green=high platform Black = both type of platforms in use Lilac= TEN-T Network Figure 7. Platform types in southern part of Finland Requirements for platforms on Finnish railway network: • New and upgraded passenger platforms must have a nominal height of 550 mm and they may not be designed with a lower nominal height. • The nominal distance between the platform and track on straight tracks is 1,800 mm. • In the case of renewal of the platform, the nominal height may be either 265 mm (low platform) or 550 mm (high platform). • Renewed low platforms should be altered to a nominal height of 550 mm, where possible. • The placement of passenger platforms must ensure that passengers have easy and safe access to and from trains. • The placement of passenger platforms may not impede the detectability and visibility of signal posts or their signals.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 21 | 87

Locations of passenger platforms: • In terms of accessibility, the suitable location of a passenger platform is in the vicinity of underpasses and overpasses. • All passenger platforms should be situated for quick and easy access by pedestrians and cyclists and from the stops and parking areas for connecting traffic. • Stops and parking spaces for connecting traffic should be arranged to ensure that access to and from the trains is of a roughly equal distance. Danger Area: • New, renewed and upgraded passenger platforms must include marked danger areas upon their commissioning. • The danger area of the passenger platform begins from the edge of the platform on the side of the track. • The minimum width of the danger area is determined according to the highest permitted track speed, as presented in table 16.5:3. • In determining the track speed, it may not be presumed that all passing trains stop at the passenger platform. • The danger area is not included in other dimensions of the platform.

Requirements for the platform height and offset in The United Kingdom Platform height For new platforms and alterations (as defined) to existing platforms, the design height at the edge of the platform measured perpendicular to the plane of the rails shall be 915 mm (within a tolerance of +0 mm, - 15 mm), except for platforms where defined legacy rolling stock is permitted to operate. For new platforms and alterations (as defined) to existing platforms where defined legacy rolling stock is permitted to operate, the design height at the edge of the platform measured perpendicular to the plane of the rails shall be 915 mm (within a tolerance of +0 mm, -25 mm). An additional +10 mm tolerance is permitted when a new platform or platform extension is constructed. Where this +10 mm is used, the related values for the lower sector vertical clearance (given in GIRT7073) shall be reduced by 10 mm. GIRT7073 sets out the requirements for clearances at station platforms which takes into account the additional +10 mm tolerance. Where a new platform or an alteration (as defined) to an existing platform abuts an existing platform, any discrepancy in height of the platform shall be gradually tapered into the existing platform. The transition gradient shall not exceed 1:40.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 22 | 87

Figure 8. Diagram for tolerance on platform height (not to scale) Platform offset For new platforms and alterations (as defined) to existing platforms, the platform edge shall be the distance from the adjacent track (within a tolerance of +15 mm, -0 mm) as detailed by the lower sector infrastructure gauge set out in GIRT7073. The offset is measured parallel to the plane of the rails. Where a new platform, or an alteration (as defined) to an existing platform, abuts an existing platform, any discrepancy in the alignment of the platform shall be tapered over a length commensurate with complete platform coper unit lengths, but at a rate not exceeding 1:80.

Figure 9. Most common average platform offset and platform height in the UK G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 23 | 87

Platform width The usable width of a new single face platform, and alterations (as defined) to existing single face platforms, shall not be less than: 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. Where the characteristics of the railway infrastructure do not provide a reasonable opportunity to achieve what is mentioned above, it is permitted that the minimum usable width of a single face platform extension can be reduced to 2000 mm over the last 20 m of the platform where all of the following apply: a) the permissible or enhanced permissible speed on the line adjacent to the platform does not exceed 100 mph (160 km/h), b) the last 20 m does not constitute a normal access to, or egress from, the platform, c) the last 20 m is not a location where passengers congregate, for example commuters positioning themselves to be nearest the exit for their arrival station, d) agreement has been reached with all affected parties, e) the last 20 m is not an emergency access route or refuge area. The usable width of a new double face platform, and alteration (as defined) to existing double face platforms, shall not be less than: a) 6000 mm where the permissible or enhanced permissible speed on both lines adjacent to the platform exceeds 100 mph (160 km/h), b) 5500 mm where the permissible or enhanced permissible speed on only one line adjacent to the platform exceeds 100 mph (160 km/h), c) 4000 mm at other platforms. Any new buildings, structures, furniture or equipment on platforms and alteration (as defined) to existing buildings, structures, furniture or equipment, 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. Where particular site constraints prevent compliance, isolated columns shall not be located within a distance of 2000 mm from the platform edge. The position of supports for new DOO CCTV and other DOO equipment (for example, stop markers) on platforms and alterations (as defined) relative to existing DOO CCTV and other DOO equipment on platforms shall take into account both: a) the need to provide a clear area between the support and the platform edge, b) the need for the driver of the train to be able to see the DOO CCTV screen or other DOO equipment. If the distances to the platform edge of the DOO equipment meet the requirement for new buildings, structures, furniture or equipment (see above), no further justification is required. In all cases, the DOO equipment shall be at least 450 mm clear of the swept envelope (as defined in GIRT7073) of trains using or passing through the station, and shall be positioned so as not to restrict the movement of people (see also RIS-8060-CCS).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 24 | 87

Platform heights most used in Portugal are:

• 0,685 mm • 0,900 mm • 0,760 mm – according to TSI PRM this platform height is used on new buildings or renovated/modernised railway lines.

The platform surface in Portugal:

Figure 10. Example of platform surface in Portugal Requirements concerning the platform edges in Portugal: There are currently several types of platform border in stations and platforms within the national railway network, depending on the time they were built, the region and the criteria of the designer. In order to standardise the typology of platform edges, ensuring greater quality and optimisation of the construction process, some internal standards were written to define the rules to be applied to all platforms to be built or raised, in the railway domain. Thus, it is defined that the edges of the platforms are constructed by prefabricated reinforced concrete parts, with 0.40 m width, 0.16 m height and that after laying, they form a console of 0.16 m, as shown in figure 10.

Figure 11. Geometry of platform edge

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 25 | 87

Figure 12. Some technical details about the platform edge 6.2.2 Structure gauge According to Polish law, i.e. “Regulation no. 151 of the Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of September 10th, 1998 on technical conditions to be met by railway structures and their location (Journal of Laws of 1998 No. 151, item 987, as amended) the distance of the platform edge from the centre of the track shall be designed to meet the requirements of the structure gauge”. This requires the obligatory use of the norm PN-EN 15273-3. The provisions of the technical specification for interoperability of the “Infrastructure subsystem” of the rail system in the European Union and relevant internal regulation of Polish infrastructure manager (Id-1) are also consistent with this requirement.

According to Technical Standards on the Polish national infrastructure manager by PKP PLK S.A. the following types of structure gauge are used: G1, G2, GA, GB, GC. During the design process it is required to keep the Standardised Structure Gauge in accordance with its intended use: • GPL - 1 – This is applied in the case of modernisation or when building new sections of railway lines with the speed v<200 km/h (see the figure 13); • GPL-2 – This shall be mandatorily applied in the case of: o Modernisation or when building new sections of railway lines with the speed v>200 km/h, o New engineering structures and new platform roofs - regardless of speed, o Railway lines where freight wagons or transport units on the wagons are planning to operate (for which the GC gauge is required to be met).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 26 | 87

A - Available space for the construction of platforms, loading ramps, equipment and structures used directly for railway traffic. Figure 13. Structure gauge GPL-1 used on Polish railway network According to the amended national regulations and internal regulations of PKP PLK S.A., depending on the assumed height of the platform, the designed distance of the platform edge from the centre of the track – without the influence of curvature of the curve and cant of the track – should be: • 1675 mm – for the platform heights 550 mm, 760 mm and 960 mm; • 1585 mm - for the platform height 380 mm.

Requirements for the alignment of platform edge in relation to the track centreline in Finland.

High passenger platform The placement of passenger platforms must ensure that passengers have easy and safe access to and from trains. The placement of passenger platforms may not impede the detectability and visibility of signal posts or their signals. Table 4 Placement of a high passenger platform and installation tolerances on a straight track

Dimension Normal value Installation tolerance +20 Distance from track centre [mm] D=1800 -0 +10 Height from top of the rail [mm] H=550 -30

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 27 | 87

Low passenger platform The top edge of a low passenger platform adjacent to a straight track shall be positioned as indicated in the table below. Table 5 Placement of a low passenger platform and installation tolerances on a straight track

Dimension Normal value Installation tolerance +20 Distance from track centre [mm] D=1600 -0 +10 Height from top of the rail [mm] H=265 -20

Figures 14 and 15 present the minimum width of single-track platforms and island platforms without obstacles.

Figure 14. Minimum width of single-track platforms without obstacles.

Figure 15. Minimum width of island platforms without obstacles Long obstacles over 10 000 mm in length, such as walls, seats, lifts and stairs, must have at least 1 600 mm of clear space to the edge of the danger area on the side of the platform. It is recommended that both sides of the obstacle have clear space of at least 2 500 mm (see figure 16).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 28 | 87

Figure 16. Minimum width and clear height of an island platform and distance between platform shelter and track, when the platform includes an obstacle over 10 000 mm in length Figure 17 shows the form and dimensions of the structure gauge on the Finnish railway line (1524 mm) on the straight track, on an open line, and in the railway yard. The structure gauge is used as a guideline for building and mounting new structures and installations in the vicinity of the track. The structure gauge, or the deviations from it, constitute the so-called effective structure gauge (i.e. the passing clearance, for special consignments). Information on the passing clearance is collected for each line section and continuously updated by the track maintenance providers.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 29 | 87

Figure 17. Principal dimensions of the structure gauge in Finland (source Finnish Railway Network Statement, Appendix 3E)

Requirements for the alignment of the platform edge in relation to the track centreline in The United Kingdom. Interface between Station Platforms, Track, Trains and Buffer Stops (Rail Industry Standard RIS-7016-INS)

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 30 | 87

Requirements for locations of platforms Station platforms shall not be located on horizontal curves with radii less than 1000 m. Where the particular characteristics of the geography and railway at the proposed location of a platform extension do not provide a reasonable opportunity for achieving what is mentioned above, it is permitted for platform extensions to be located on horizontal curves with radii less than 1000 m but not less than 500 m. Guidance for vertical track alignment through platforms The mandatory requirement for vertical track alignment through station platforms was withdrawn in issue four of GIRT7016, based on work carried out to support deviations against issue two of GIRT7016 for specific stations and the findings of RSSB Research Report T815: ‘Limits on vertical track alignment through station platforms. For many years it had been considered good practice in GB to locate platforms on gradients not steeper than 1:260, except where geographic constraints made this unavoidable. This requirement was later changed to refer to a gradient of 1:500, possibly because of a shift from plain bearings to roller bearings across all rolling stock. In the circumstances where the INF TSIs impose limiting gradients through passenger platforms, the limit is 2.5 mm/m; that is, 1:400. Where platform extensions or new platforms are proposed, it is good practice to implement a vertical and horizontal alignment scheme although, usually, the overall track gradient profile will not be altered. The platform extension or new platform will, in most cases, be constrained as to where it can be located with respect to the existing track gradient. It is good practice for the gradient through a platform to be constant, unless the particular geographical characteristics of the site and associated railway infrastructure at the proposed location of the platform do not provide a reasonable opportunity for achieving this. Requirements for the Position of Infrastructure and for Defining and Maintaining Clearances are set out in Railway Group Standard GIRT7073. Alterations to reduce stepping distances at platforms It is permissible for platforms to be altered to reduce stepping distances by making clearances smaller to vehicles that use the route, or to have a statement of compatibility for the route involved, provided the control measures appropriate to the resulting clearance category, for example, reduced clearance, are implemented. Requirements for the altering of platforms relative to adjacent track are set out in RIS-7016-INS. Requirements for the assessment of platform stepping distances if a change is made to the platform edge are set out in GERT8273. Position of the Platform Edge The minimum offset from the running edge of the nearest rail at a position 14 mm below the head of the rail to platform edge is labelled ‘X’. For straight track and curved track with a radius greater than or equal to 360 m: X = 730. Note: Tolerances for the platform offset is given in GIRT7020. For curved track with a radius less than 360 m but greater than or equal to 160 m: X = 658 + (26000 / R).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 31 | 87

Where R is the curve radius in m and X is in mm.

Figure 18. Example of lower sector infrastructure gauge applied to a standard platform adjacent to canted track (not to scale) The special cases (class 373 routes and 2,6 m wide container routes) require non-standard platform positions. Where such special cases are introduced onto a route, the requirements set out in GERT8273 are applicable. Structures adjacent to curves with radii less than 160 m shall be subject to a special assessment.

In the case of the railway network in Portugal, there are different types of structure gauges. An example of a type PTb+ structure gauge is shown in figure 19. This figure also shows the basic dimensions of the distance between the edge of the platform and the centre of the track.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 32 | 87

Figure 19. Principal dimensions of the reference profile for kinematic gauge PTb+ on Portuguese rail network

Figure 20 shows the conditions of the platform location in relation to the track on the Portuguese railway network.

Figure 20. Single-track and island platform location on the railway line in Portugal

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 33 | 87

6.2.3 Rolling stock Passenger railway transport in Poland is performed by 18 licensed railway undertakings. They have different types of rolling stock depending on the type of service provided (e.g. long-distance services use Intercity and InterRegio trains, and local services use regional and agglomeration(urban) trains).

Figure 21 shows the distribution of rolling stock used in Poland.

28.6%

65.8%

5.6%

electric multiple units diesel multiple units passenger coaches

Figure 21. Distribution of rolling stock used by railway passenger operators in Poland In long-distance services, classic train sets with locomotives are usually used. However, for several years, electric traction units (ED160, ED161 and ED250) have been in operation. These train sets are becoming increasingly popular among passengers due to their modern design and their adaptation to the transport of disabled people (i.e. fitting-out of wheelchair spaces, dedicated compartments and toilets, Braille seat numbering, and voice and visual information for passengers).

Figure 22. New multiple units (ED160 and ED161) for long distance services in Poland

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 34 | 87

In the case of regional services, in most cases traction units (electric or diesel) with different floor heights are used, with either a completely high floor or a partially lowered floor. It should be noted that vehicles used for regional traffic also run partially on-line sections located in agglomeration areas. New vehicles meeting the requirements of TSI PRM are increasingly common. However, there is still a significant number of vehicles in service that do not have facilities for people with reduced mobility.

Figure 23. Old type of multiple unit for regional service in Poland In the case of agglomeration services, electric multiple units are usually operated. The height of the level floor is adjusted to high platforms (i.e. 760 mm or 960 mm above the rail surface).

Figure 24. Electric multiple unit (45WE “Impuls”) for regional service with adjusted level floor to platform height G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 35 | 87

Examples of the heights of level floors in rolling stock in Poland are presented in table 6. Table 6 Heights of level floors in Polish rolling stock

Height of level floor Agglomeration services Regional services Intercity and Interregio [mm] services 500 33WE 570 214M 600 13WE 760 Stadler Flirt Stadler Flirt Pesa Dart 850 Newag Impuls (45WE) 1150÷1160 EN71, 14WE, 19WE EN 57 1180 EW60

Type of trains and rolling stock used in Finland: Railway equipment has been manufactured in Finland for decades, and the structure of the different types of rolling stock is based on the standards in force at the time and other technical requirements. The oldest currently used wagons were designed in the 1960s and manufactured in the 1970s.

Pendolino The Pendolino is a high-speed train operating between major cities. It operates rush-hour services and has fewer stops than other trains. The new tilt-body Pendolino train fleet enables travelling at 30 to 40% higher speeds, up to 220 km/h, in comparison with conventional trains. Each line section has, however, its own speed limits. The trains are manufactured by Alstom of . The pressure-tight tilt-body ensures that a steady speed is maintained even during curves, and also ensures smooth and quiet travelling when running at top speeds or in a tunnel. Services for the disabled: 2 wheelchair spaces, train crew call button, WC for the disabled, seat numbers in Braille, lift for wheelchair in restaurant-car. The Sm3 Pendolino (originally branded as Pendolino S220, and usually referred to simply as the Pendolino) is a class of high-speed body-tilting trains operated by VR Group. It is a member of the Pendolino train family; its design is based on the ETR 460. The trains serve most of Finland's major cities such as Helsinki, Turku, Oulu and Joensuu with a maximum speed of 220 km/h (140 mph), although this speed is only attained between Kerava and Lahti. The train has a power output of 4,000 kW (5,400 hp) and weighs 328 tonnes (323 long tons; 362 short tons).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 36 | 87

Figure 25. Pendolino train in Finland

Figure 26. Allegro train between Helsinki (Finland) and St. Petersburg (Russia) Allegro is a high-speed train service between Helsinki, Finland and St. Petersburg, Russia. The service started on 12 December 2010. The Allegro service is operated using Class Sm6 trainsets built by Alstom. The Sm6 is equipped to operate on both the Finnish and the Russian railway networks. The units have dual- voltage electrical equipment able to use both the Finnish 25 kV 50 Hz alternating current and the Russian 3 kV direct current electrification. The wheelsets are built to run at over 200 km/h (120 mph) speeds on both the Finnish 1,524 mm (5 ft) and the nominally slightly narrower Russian 1,520 mm gauge, and the doors are equipped with a retractable step to make boarding from both Finnish 550 mm (21.7 in) high and Russian 1,100 mm (43.3 in) high platforms easy. The units are equipped for both the Finnish and Russian railway technical systems, which differ substantially. The train has places for people in wheelchairs and for people travelling with pets, a conference compartment, and a play area for children. The play area is the first of its kind in high-speed trains like these. The Allegro also provides money exchange and tax-free refund services. Border and customs checks are carried out during the trip while the train is moving. Services for disabled passengers: 2 wheelchair spaces, accessible toilet and lift for easy boarding.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 37 | 87

Figure 27. Allegro train with retractable step at the Helsinki station (photo: Przemysław Brona)

Figure 28. Allegro train taking passengers in St. Petersburg (photo: Arja Aalto) InterCity InterCity trains offer passengers on business and pleasure trips the possibility to effectively utilize their travel time on journeys between cities and major population centres. The needs of families, persons with reduced mobility, passengers with allergies and travellers with pets are taken into account. The InterCity trains were introduced at the turn of the 80s and 90s. There are altogether 80 single-floor InterCity cars in G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 38 | 87

operation, of which 12 are restaurant-cars. The double-deckers complement the on-board services with their special services provided for families, passengers with allergies, and physically impaired travellers. InterCity trains are composed of single and double-deck cars. InterCity cars have been renovated and during 2006 four cars were modified to be suitable for operations in Russia. The InterCity cars were manufactured by Pasila Workshop and Transtech Ltd. The top speed of InterCity trains is 140-160 km/h. Services for disabled passengers: two wheelchair spaces on lower floor, push-button operated wheelchair ramp, power outlet behind wheelchair space, and seat numbers in Braille.

The express trains are conventional blue-car trains travelling over long distances and between major population centres in south Finland. Together with the InterCity trains, they form VR's basic supply of train services. The old so-called "blue" wagon for long-distance traffic is designed to run on a network with 265 mm high platforms. This fleet is still in service on both day and night trains and does not meet the current accessibility requirements. However, seven of these wagons are equipped with wheelchair lifts, wheelchair spaces and accessible toilets. All in all, 39 fleets and 30 sleeping vehicles are in service, all of which are completely disabled. Sleeping cars are used for night train services between Helsinki and Northern Finland. There are two type of trains. Double-deck sleeping cars have a wide range of modern services for all passengers, e.g. adjoining compartments for families and easily accessible sleeping berths for disabled passengers. The blue sleeping cars also offer a comfortable overnight trip between southern Finland and Lapland, but sleeping cars are not for disabled people.

Services for disabled passengers: wheelchair spaces, turning seat with air-spring suspension, hydraulic wheelchair lift (120 x 80 cm), wider corridor from luggage compartment to passenger compartment, call buttons to conductor at wheelchair spaces, WC for the disabled with wider door, support grips and call button, and narrow transfer wheelchair.

Figure 29. Double-deck Intercity train at the station of Vaasa (photo: Arja Aalto) The regional trains offer passengers VR's basic travel services in the different parts of the network. The regional trains have frequent stops. The Railcars are manufactured by Czech state company ČKD Vagonka. Railcars have three 2nd class

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 39 | 87

compartments and between them two vestibules. There are 62 seats and standing room for 50. Top speed is 120 km/h. Three trainsets can be coupled together if required. Services for disabled passengers: wheelchair place and WC for the disabled.

Figure 30. Regional train in Finland (photo: VR)

Electric multiple units Electric multiple units are Sm1 and Sm2 type EMUs or new low-floor trains. There is a total of 100 older EMU trainsets which have been refurbished from the year 2000. VR operates 30 new low-floor trains which entered service between 1999-2005. Services for disabled passengers: no services for disabled passengers.

Commuter trains Helsinki Metropolitan Area commuter trains run on the main line between Helsinki and Tampere; on the Coast line (Helsinki–Siuntio); on the Ring Rail Line between Helsinki and the Airport and on the direct line between Helsinki and Lahti. In addition, commuter trains run between Lahti and Riihimäki. The Implementation of the Ring Rail Line in 2009-2015 as an example of agglomeration services train: • The new railway line and new accessible stations including investments for park-and-ride facilities, bus terminals as well as roads and streets. • Length 18 km, double-track urban line for passenger traffic. The tunnel section is 8 km. Max speed 120 km/h, in tunnels 80 km/h. Total of 38 bridges have been built. • The development of the Tikkurila Office and Business Centre, Travel Centre and the Station bridge. • Stations: Two tunnel stations at Aviapolis and Airport, and three surface stations at Vehkala, Kivistö and Leinelä.

Pääkaupunkiseudun Junakalusto Oy has ordered a total of 32 low-floor electrical multiple units SM5 Flirt (EMU) from Swiss Stadler Bussnang AG. The new trains will partly replace old rolling stock in commuter services. More trains will be needed as the ring rail line is constructed and a new connection is established between Helsinki centre and Helsinki- airport.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 40 | 87

Figure 31. Flirt passenger car composition

Figure 32. Low floor train Flirt (Stadler) on Airport station in Helsinki (photo: Arja Aalto) The new commuter train is easily accessible to all passengers, including persons with reduced mobility and passengers with prams since it has a mainly low-floor setup and there are no interior doors to hinder movement. The trains have air conditioning and have information displays to provide information (e.g. for passengers travelling to the airport). The brand name Flirt is an acronym for Fast Light Innovative Regional Train.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 41 | 87

Figure 33. Low floor train Flirt Stadler (photo: Arja Aalto)

Direct from the platform to trains • Persons with reduced mobility and with prams can travel independently using Ring Rail line trains. Functional, innovative and high-level solutions in construction. Safety, Accessibility, and Environmental-friendliness used as planning principles. • Services for the disabled on board – space for wheel chairs on the low-floor, and compartment toilets for the disabled. • Basic services on board – space for prams, for pets and for cycles and skis, air conditioning, passenger information displays, and security cameras.

Boarding the train At the largest stations, platforms and platform-to-platform connections are obstacle-free. No vehicle traffic is allowed on the platforms. A number of stations have raised platforms (height 550 mm) allowing passengers in wheelchairs to board InterCity trains and low-floor suburban trains unassisted. Trains with services for the disabled have a ramp (InterCity trains) or a lift allowing you to board the car unassisted. The equipment may be only be used at stations with raised platforms (550 mm) because the platform surface and the train entrance must be on the same level. Conductor uses wheelchair lift in Pendolino and assists if needed with wheelchair ramp in InterCity train. Pendolino’s wheelchair lift can only be used to lift passengers in a wheelchair for security reasons. VR only uses ramps and lifts that are specifically approved for the purpose. After the journey the disabled person should turn to the train staff for assistance in the use of ramps and lifts.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 42 | 87

United Kingdom In the UK the rolling stock is primarily owned by Rail Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCO’s) and managed by various train operating companies (TOC’s) and freight operating companies (FOC’s) and not the infrastructure manager, Network Rail. The current and future rolling stock is categorised by one of seven generic types of train (RDG, Long-term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry, 2018): • Shorter Distance Self-Powered (e.g. diesel, generally with 75 mph maximum speed); • Middle Distance Self-Powered (e.g. diesel, with 90/100 mph capability); • Long Distance Self-Powered (e.g. diesel, with 100/110/125 mph capability); • Shorter Distance Electric (generally with 75 mph maximum speed); • Middle Distance Electric (with 90/100/110 mph capability. (Some future trains may require 125 mph capability)); • Long Distance Electric (with 100/110/125/140 mph capability); and • Very High-Speed Electric (140 mph and above, for domestic services on HS1 and HS2).

Table 7 shows the current UK fleet composition (RDG, Long-term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry, 2018). Table 7 Current UK fleet composition Generic Types Total Vehicles, March 2018 A. Shorter Distance Self-Powered (e.g. diesel, generally with 75 mph maximum 1055 B. Middle Distance Self-Powered (e.g. diesel, with 90 or 100 mph capability); 1384 C. Long Distance Self-Powered (e.g. diesel, with 100 or 125 mph capability); 1432 D. Shorter Distance Electric (generally with 75 mph maximum speed); 2521 E. Middle Distance Electric (with 90/ 100/ 110 mph capability); 6211 F. Long Distance Electric (with 100/ 125/ 140 mph capability); 1248 G. Very High-Speed Electric (140 mph and above) 174 TOTALS 14,025

Figure 34 below shows the present age of the national passenger rolling stock fleet in the UK.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 43 | 87

Figure 34. Source: Analysis from TOC, RDG and ROSCO data for the end of December 2017.

Figure 35. Examples of replacement rolling stock in the UK. In the UK, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) (who are the regulatory body) require all Train Operating Companies to provide an Accessible Travel Policy (ATP) as part of their licensing condition. These ATP’s provide a detailed body of arrangements, procedures, services and other benefits to be implemented or provided by the licence holder designed to protect the interests of people who are disabled in their use of trains of which the licence holder is the operator pursuant to this licence and to facilitate such use (together ‘the Disabled People’s Protection Policy’). Figure 33 below shows the requirements of an ATP.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 44 | 87

Figure 36. ATP requirements (ORR Travel Policy Guidance, 2019).

Figure 37. Image from Virgin Trains Making Rail

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 45 | 87

Figure 38. Traditional train ramp (Transport for All)

Figure 39. ‘Stubby Train Step’ Marsden Station, UK

Figure 40. New Mersey Rail trains with integrated step

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 46 | 87

As has been highlighted above, the age and complexity of the UK rail rolling stock combined with the age and varying type of station platform means that there is no single or straightforward solution for passengers with reduced mobility accessing the network at all stations. However, the UK Government, Network Rail and Train Operating Companies are committed to making the rail network fully accessible to all and are working collaboratively to achieve this. As old rolling stock is replaced, and station platforms modernised and renewed, the platform train interface problem will inevitably reduce. In the meantime, UK regulation and railway licensing conditions require all parties to improve accessibility for passengers.

Passenger rolling stock in Portugal Passenger transport in Portugal is provided by two railway operators. One operates a single type of rolling stock (double-deckers) on a single route (Lisbon-Setúbal (32.900 km), a suburban service). The other operates all of the remaining routes on the national railway network with different types of rolling stock depending on the type of service provided (e.g. long-distance services, Intercity, regional, inter- regional and suburban). Type of trains and rolling stock used in Portugal: • InterCity - Machine (5600 series and carriage). The services are operated using an electric locomotive (5600 Series) and with two types of carriages. The modernized carriages allow maximum speeds of 160 km/h and the Corail carriages allow maximum speeds of 200 km/h. The intercity services is also operated using the Pendular trains. This is an active tilting train that runs the Lisbon-Oporto and Braga-Oporto-Lisbon-Faro routes, which allows operation at a maximum speed of up to 220 km/h. • Regional and interregional The regional and interregional services are operated using electric and diesel compositions, depending on whether the lines are electrified or not. These services are provided by electrical equipment (UTE 2240) and by diesel equipment (UTD 592), which allow a speed of 120 km/h. • Urban and suburban - The urban/suburban services are operated using electric compositions (UQE, UQE double deck and UTE). o Electric quadruple units (EQUs) operate at a maximum speed of 140 km/h. o The electric triple units (ETUs) operate at a maximum speed of 120 km/h. o Electrical Multiple Units (EMUs) can operate at a maximum speed of 140 km/h.

For the several types of trains and rolling stock used in Portugal, shown in the pictures below and briefly characterised, respective cross-sectional profiles are also provided, showing the gap between the steps of the carriages and the different platform heights currently exist in Portugal: 550, 685 and 900 mm.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 47 | 87

Figure 41. Cross-sectional profile of Corail carriages used in the Intercity train

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 48 | 87

Carriage steps - in green Exterior profile of the carriage - in blue Different platform heights - in black

Figure 42. Cross-sectional profile of the Tilting train – Alfa Pendular CPA

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 49 | 87

Carriage steps - in darker blue Exterior profile of the carriage - in blue Different platform heights - in black

Figure 43. Cross-sectional profile of Triple Electric Units (UTE 2240 and UTD 592)

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 50 | 87

Carriage steps - in red Exterior profile of the carriage - in blue Different platform heights - in black

Figure 44. Cross-sectional profile of EQUs (Quadruple double deck electric units).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 51 | 87

Carriage steps - in light green Exterior profile of the carriage - in blue Different platform heights - in black.

Figure 45. Cross-sectional profile of Electric Triple Unit (ETUs).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 52 | 87

Carriage steps - in red/blue Exterior profile of the carriage - in blue Different platform heights - in black

Figure 46. Cross-sectional profile of Electrical Multiple Units (EMUs).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 53 | 87

Conclusions: In particular partners’ countries there are different platform heights (the biggest variation is in Poland, the smallest in Finland). In the case of building new platforms or upgrading existing platforms, the basic document is the TSI Infrastructure, which recommends the use of two standard heights (i.e. 550 mm or 760 mm).

There are 3 standard track gauges in the EU area: 1435 mm (standard gauge), 1520 mm (Baltic countries) and 1524 mm (Finland) and also 1668 mm (Portugal and Spain). At the same time, on different sections of railway lines there are different structure gauges with different parameters. These parameters directly address the gap issues, including the distance from the track centre to the platform edge and the height of the platform above the rail head.

Differences in the distance from the track centre to the platform edge depend on particular structure gauge parameters. The size of the gap problem is particularly visible in cases where the platform is located on a curved section of track. Depending on the position of the platform (i.e. outside or inside the curve), the gap between the platform and the train may be larger or smaller.

Passenger railway transport is carried out by rolling stock of various designs. The height of the rolling stock floor relative to the edge of the platform is relevant to the gap problem. The smaller the difference between the height of the level floor and the height of the platform, the greater the availability for travellers (i.e. safety, ease and effective boarding and alighting).

6.3 Existing problems with access to trains from platforms The size of the gap on different railway networks is various and depends on several factors e.g.: heights of used platforms, level floor in the rolling stock, track gauge and dimensions of structure gauge in particular countries. This causes a significant obstacle with the accessibility to railway transport, in particular for people with reduced mobility.

The importance of these factors is various in particular countries. Despite this some of the problems are common. The main problems of accessibility to trains in the selected countries are described below.

Most of the problems related to the accessibility of travellers from platforms to trains in Poland results from technical issues of railway infrastructure (platforms) and rolling stock.

The main problem is the lack of homogenous height of existing platforms in accordance with current European standards (TSI) as well as national standards (see technical standards in Chapter 5). This can result in situations when platform edge is on different level (above or below) than floor on the rolling stock. As it show on the Figure 4 only about 26% of platforms are adjusted to the standard height 550 and 760 mm (standard height in the TSI Infrastructure). However, currently widely implemented investment projects aim to unify platform heights on the Polish railway network.

The availability from platforms to trains is also significantly affected by the different parameters of used structure gauges. This determines the horizontal distance of the platform edge from the rolling stock. This is due to that on the most of railway lines are mixed railway traffic (passenger and freight trains). In addition, there are sections of railway lines dedicated to transport oversized loads, where passenger trains

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 54 | 87

are also operated. Several sections of railway lines also have a structure gauge to allow run rolling stock designed for 1520 mm track gauge.

Another problem is different level floor in used rolling stock. Examples are presented in the Table 6. This problems arise from the past and concerns both older and new types of rolling stock. In new one (in particular the electric multiple units) there are installed technical devices allows overcome the gap between platform and vehicle (example solutions are presented in Chapter 6.4)

A significant problem with access to the trains is also location of platforms on sections of railway lines located on curve. It concerns in particular to small radius curves. This platform location and the location of the entrance doors in the rolling stock affect the different sizes of the gap (see Figure 6).

The most significant accessibility deficiencies in Finland´s stations are related to the height and width of the platforms. In addition, there are deficiencies in wind and rain shelters, danger area markings, guidance and lighting. There are also no elevators or ramps on many platforms, and ramps and stairs to the platform that are frequently installed are too steep. Criteria for deficiency analysis have been developed to prioritize the needs of traffic repairs to direct investments to urgent destinations. In addition, problems regarding accessibility to trains are also due to the fact that: • There are 5 different train types in use with different accessibility • There is a big gap between the platform and the train for some train types • There are two different platforms with two different heights: 265 mm (low platform) and 550 mm (high platform) -> a target when upgrading is 550 mm. • Freezing /defrosting conditions at platforms with snow and ice can cause accessibility issues (i.e. slippery) • Ice and snow can freeze electronics or hydraulics of trains and prevent them from working (e.g. extra steps not opening) • Many platforms are too short for trains with many cars (i.e. Double-deckers IC) • The trains do not always stop at the right place (how is this communicated to passengers with reduced mobility)

United Kingdom – Train and PTI Problems Incidents at the platform-train interface (PTI) account for almost half of the total passenger fatality risk on the mainline railway network, and about one-fifth of the overall passenger fatality and weighted injury risk in the UK (RSSB, Step-Gap Influences on Accidents at the Platform Train Interface, 2016).

A combination of factors including varying train floor and platform heights, gauging clearances for trains travelling on a route track curvature and cant (or the super-elevation of track, which is the difference in height between the higher and lower rails on curves to counteract the effect of centrifugal force), affect the stepping distances observed across the UK network.

Since 2007 there has been an increase in the level of harm occurring as a result of accidents when boarding or alighting from the train, even when accounting for the generally increasing trend in passenger journeys. The RSSB (2013) special topic report on incidents and accidents at the PTI states that this increasing trend is likely to continue, which is why a greater understanding of the relative risk of step-gap dimensions is needed to effectively target measures to reduce the potential for harm at the PTI (RSSB, Step-Gap Influences on Accidents at the Platform Train Interface, 2016).

Due to the history of the infrastructure of the rail network in Britain, many stepping distances do not comply with current standards (RSSB, 2016). The UK network allows different rolling stock, including freight

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 55 | 87

vehicles to pass through stations. This means that it may not be possible to provide the optimal configuration for stopping trains. Many stations are built on tightly curved track. In simple terms track curvature and cant has the impact of increasing or decreasing the stepping distance. Stepping distances can vary greatly along the length of a curved platform (RSSB 2016). Platforms on curves can also reduce the visibility of the PTI along the full length of the train during train dispatch and can also reduce the ability to identify passengers experiencing any difficulties in traversing the PTI (RSSB 2006). In addition to the physical problems caused by rolling stock and station platform infrastructure, recent research by the RSSB has focussed on human factors/behaviours and how this can impact PTI incidents. The key findings from this body of research are presented in table 8 and summarised below.

Table 8 The key findings from recent research by the RSSB

Hazardous event Top contributory factors 1. Standing too close to the platform edge 2. Running or rushing 3. PTI gap Fall between train and platform 4. Encumbrances 5. Walking along the platform on the wrong side of the yellow line 1. Running or rushing 2. Walking along the platform on the wrong side of the yellow line Slips, trips and falls 3. Encumbrances 4. Crowding 5. Passenger conflict 1. Standing dangerously close to the platform edge 2. Walking along the platform on the wrong side of the yellow line Fall from platform onto track 3. Distracted 4. Crowding 5. Technology use 1. Late boarding and alighting 2. Obstructing the doors Trapped in train doors 3. Encumbrances 4. Running or rushing 5. Crowding 1. Walking along the platform on the wrong side of the yellow line. 2. Dangerously close to the platform edge Contact with train exterior 3. Running or rushing 4. Distracted 5. Crowding Source: Platform Train Interface Strategy, Technical Report, RSSB 2015 [5]

1. Human Factors and Behavioural Issues – research suggests that specific passenger characteristics will increase the likelihood of risk when boarding or alighting via the PTI, for example; the elderly, children, females, intoxicated passengers, those who are unfamiliar with the specific step-gap, or those with luggage or pushchairs. The reason that these passenger characteristics have an impact on the ability to traverse the step-gap is suggested to be due to either anthropometric size relative to the step-gap (such as children and females), reduction in visual capabilities (such as the elderly and the intoxicated), reduction in physical capabilities (such as the elderly, the intoxicated and G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 56 | 87

those with luggage or pushchairs) or incorrect expectations of the step-gap size (such as those unfamiliar with a specific step-gap). 2. Train Design - research indicates that the footstep (stubby step) used on UK rolling stock is not currently sufficient in size to be considered as a step. Research that has been conducted on individuals with mobility restrictions and/or visual impairments indicates that the footstep is often ‘stepped over’ thus widening the step-gap that is being traversed. The provision of handrails and also the width of the train doors were also identified as potential hazards or aids depending on design and position. Further research is ongoing to more fully determine optimal design. 3. Station and Platform Factors – in addition to the problems of platform curvature and differential cant increasing the width and height of the step gap, there are three other major platform-based factors. Congestion on the platform and whilst exiting the train are thought to be contributory factors to PTI accidents although whether this is a primary or secondary influence has not yet been established. The literature indicates that improved or uniform platform lighting could have an impact on movement strategies at the PTI by enhancing the visual perception of the step-gap. Likewise, clear and consistent platform edge markings can help passengers to raise awareness of the platform train gap.

In conclusion, it is a combination of historic railway station infrastructure, rolling stock variability and human behaviours that all combine to result in PTI incidents and risk. The railway is a highly dynamic environment and the demographics and habits of railway users will also continue to change over time. There may well be other human factors that will either increase or reduce the risk of PTI incidents; i.e. the almost continual use of mobile devices and of headphones is an area that is ripe for further research. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on the rail industry to do all that it can to eliminate where possible, or minimise PTI risk for rail passengers.

The problems with access to trains in Portugal are similar to the problems presented above by other countries in Europe. Nevertheless, the more commonly found problems are: • Rolling stock with different floor levels stop on platforms with different heights - even though they are standardised at 0,90 m, 0,685 m and 0,76 m – which makes it impossible to guarantee accessibility to all trains. Some trains are accessible, some are not; • There are big distances between platform edge and rolling stock steps, both vertically and horizontally (combination of both difference in height between platform level and rolling stock floor level and, at the same time, a big horizontal gap between the platform edge and the rolling stock steps). More often we find platform edges that are bellow rolling stock level floor rather than above; • Platform location on the curved sections of the track always increases difficulty in access; • Trains stop in different places everyday – this increases difficulty to PRM users that can’t find the doors and are afraid to fall in the space between carriages; • Manually opening doors on rolling stock make it very difficult to access the train (mainly on intercity train services); • Narrow door width on rolling stock makes it very difficult to access the trains (again mainly in intercity services); • Rolling stock automatic door opening push buttons are very difficult to use (i.e. need a lot of pressure on the button (e.g. Sintra Line)).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 57 | 87

6.4 Examples of solutions to facilitate access from a platform to a train (in partners’ countries) Reducing the impact of a gap between the platform and the train can be achieved by using different types of technical solutions on platforms or rolling stock. This chapter presents examples of such solutions used in the countries of the WP’s partners.

In Poland, due to significant differences in platform heights and the variety of types of rolling stock used, on many stations and passenger stops there are a lot of problems with safe and independent access to trains during boarding and alighting. For several years, during the modernisation or renovation of railway lines, the passenger infrastructure has also been rebuilt. This mainly concerns platforms, which are adjusted to standard heights specified in TSI Infrastructure (i.e. 760 mm or 550 mm above the rail head). As part of the reconstruction of platforms, the access routes to the platforms are also improved by building ramps, installing lifts for footbridges or tunnels with stairs, installing escalators (at large stations) and other facilities to improve accessibility for people with reduced mobility. (e.g. by installing visual and voice passenger information systems). However, there are no commonly used technical solutions on platforms facilitating boarding and alighting to the train. The vast majority of solutions facilitating the access of disabled people from the platform to the train concerns devices installed in passenger rolling stock. In the case of the production of new rolling stock or the modernisation of existing passenger rolling stock (mainly multiple units), accessibility is facilitated by the installation of various types of lifts. An example of such a solution is presented in figure 47.

Figure 47. Lifts assembled on rolling stock entrance

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 58 | 87

In other cases, to improve accessibility for disabled persons, folding ramps or floor elements are provided at the entrance doors to the wagons, which are operated by train crew (see figure 48). It should be noted that, according to Polish regulations, for safety reasons the train crew cannot carry a person in a wheelchair.

Figure 48. Foldable ramps used in Polish rolling stock Other examples of rolling stock solutions are factory installed different types of ejected or movable steps, or other devices (gap fillers) that cover the gap between the edge of the platform and the steps or floor of the rolling stock. Examples of such solutions are shown in figure 49.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 59 | 87

Figure 49. Moving/ejected or rotated steps and gap fillers In Finland, the following solutions for facilitating access to trains are used: • Platforms have been regulated for one standard height and operators are required to provide accessibility. However, there is still work to be done. • All trains are equipped with different coping mechanisms, but still only one train type works without the help of the staff (regional passenger trains - Flirt) – see figure 50. • Platforms are built with a slight tilt away from the tracks. • Heavy maintenance is completed during winter. • Signs and electronic boards are used to give an estimation of where each passenger car will stop.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 60 | 87

Figure 50. Coping mechanism – lift assembled in Finnish Pendolino train

In Portugal, the solutions facilitating boarding and alighting to the train concern both the solutions used on the platform and the solutions used in the rolling stock. However, in 2015, Decree-Law 35/2015 of March 6th was passed which establishes that it is the train operators’ obligation to guarantee platform to train accessibility.

In the case of platform solutions, elevated parts of the platform (e.g. the platform edge ramp) to the floor level of the train are used. Examples of such solutions are shown below in figure 51.

Figure 51. Elevated part of platform (platform edge ramp) In addition, on the platforms there are various types of lifts for disabled people to help them to overcome the differences in height between the platform and the wagon. Figure 52, below, shows an example of these lifts.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 61 | 87

Figure 52. Example of mobile lifts located on the platform In the case of rolling stock solutions, additional steps are used at the entrances to the wagons, as well as various types of lightweight folding ramps to facilitate the entry of persons in wheelchairs or parents with prams onto the train. Examples of these solutions are shown below in figure 53.

Figure 53. Example of rolling stock technical equipment in Portugal G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 62 | 87

The United Kingdom Infrastructure solutions are located on the platform side and can be divided into: 1. Fixed platform mounted devices and alterations. Examples of modifications to platform infrastructure include platform length applications and modifications that are concentrated solely at doorway stopping positions. Several examples of fixed platform mounted devices are listed below: • Boards fixed to the platform edge to reduce the gap between the platform and the train • Modular platform humps for high floor level rolling stock • Rubber fingers protruding from the train to the platform edge, effectively closing the horizontal gap between the platform edge and the train bodyside. These are designed to provide enough stiffness for a passenger to stand on, but to also offer a degree of flexibility in the event of a rolling stock body coming into contact with the fingers. 2. Active platform mounted devices. Deployable platform edges, typically used at doorway stopping locations, have been used internationally but at present no installations have been completed in the UK. Such devices are installed in conjunction with platform edge doors or screen gates that prevent passenger access to the platform edge until the train has pulled in and the devices have been deployed. For station platforms that are served by multiple rolling stock types, the complexities of fitting these devices would be increased due to variation in door stopping positions and the size of the gap. 3. Further infrastructure Solutions. From the infrastructure side, there are multiple rail tracks (‘gauntlet’) to bring the stopping service closer to the platform edge. The gauging requirements for non-stopping traffic are therefore maintained, although the overthrow on tight curvature would again reduce the benefits of such a solution at curved platforms. There are no examples of this being used in the UK yet. Rolling stock solutions were generally found to be focussed on improving accessibility to the vehicle. Such solutions can be divided into: 1. Fixed rolling stock mounted devices. Fixed solutions on rolling stock range from extending the width of the existing footstep plate (gauge clearance allowing) through to fitting body length ‘running boards’ that reduce the gap along the full length of the vehicle. 2. Active rolling stock mounted devices: • Deployable footsteps in rolling stock are popular in Europe, but the only current examples in the UK are the Virgin Pendolino trains which use a horizontal deployable footstep and the Class 373 trains which feature a two-step design. • Automatic ramp options provide coverage of the gap with the added accessibility benefits for wheelchair users. 3. Further rolling stock solutions: • The possibility of using the train's active suspension to allow 'kneeling' towards the platform, like low-floor buses, although there is no evidence of this practise being used on the railways yet. • Airbags under the doors deployed at stations during stop. 4. Gauging Solutions: • The concept of designing rolling stock to a 'route specific' gauge. Nowadays rolling stock is designed to fit the most restricted gauge to access as much of the network as possible. By designing bespoke gauges for specific routes, a tailored gauge could be developed which, if vehicles were built to fill the available space, could significantly reduce the gap between the train bodyside and the platform edge. • The potential exists for vehicle manufacturers to add body panelling to existing rolling stock to achieve optimum filling of a route specific gauge.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 63 | 87

Conclusions: • In particular countries there are various solutions for overcoming the gap between the platform and the train. The equipment used to overcome this gap is related to infrastructure or rolling stock. • The operation of platform equipment is usually provided by the infrastructure manager and the operation of equipment on board is usually provided by the railway undertaking. • There are several pieces of equipment which could be used independently by travellers.

6.5 Passenger needs and expectations regarding accessibility in accordance with the survey In addition to above analysis, the existing problems, needs and expectations regarding accessibility to trains are presented from the perspective of travellers. For this purpose, within the framework of Task 8.2, a survey among railway users was developed. 6.5.1 The Survey concerning problems with PTI Main assumptions The survey concerns disabled travellers using rail transport who often experience problems during boarding or alighting to/from the platform to the train.

The basis of the survey is to obtain answers from organisations associated with disabled people. Answers will be treated as the opinion/viewpoint of a specific group of people with disabilities.

At the beginning of the preparation of the survey, partners proposed that answers for the survey questions should be “yes” or “no”. However, after internal discussion, it was decided that it would not be possible to draw appropriate conclusions from “yes” or “no” responses. Therefore, it was decided that some of the questions will be answered by an answer proposal or a ranking scale. Answers for the remaining questions will be given in the form of free responses with their proposals or suggestions.

Target groups of respondents The target group of respondents was organisations or associations representing people with different disabilities in the partner countries of WP8 (Poland, The United Kingdom, Finland, Portugal). These were divided into four main groups: blind people, deaf people, people with reduced mobility and others.

In the first approach for defining target groups of respondents, it was assumed that the respondents will include, among others: railway infrastructure managers, railway operators (passenger carriers) and railway users (travellers) including disabled persons using railway transport.

Following a review by WP partners and further consultation with Infrastructure Managers and Train Operators it was decided to re-focus the questionnaire on PRM passengers to better understand, from their perspective, the issues and challenges they have when accessing the rail network. Again, after further consultation and research it has been decided that the questionnaire needs to have a wider scope to include the station environment and the associated information that enables or inhibits PRM passengers from using the rail network.

This adds additional benefit and depth to the WP research and enables us to analyse this problem at a whole-system level rather than at just the PTI. This is critical because whilst the PTI is still the main focus of the WP, it is essential that we gain a better and more detailed understanding of the problems our PRM passengers encounter when trying to access the rail network. It is expected that the outputs from this questionnaire will also feed-in to WP7 – Improved Station Design & Components. This amended approach will add additional value and benefits to both work packages.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 64 | 87

Survey template The questions in the survey were developed by a team of partners participating in WP8 on the basis of previous experience from other surveys in the partners’ countries. The scope of the questions concerned the issues related to the accessibility of rail transport for people with disabilities, their experiences with train travel as well as facilities and solutions observed in other modes of transport. The survey template is given in Annex 1.

In order to carry out the survey, each partner translated the questions into their national language, enabling the respondents to provide the answers in their national language. The answers were collected by the partners, who then developed the results. The results of the surveys are presented below. Results from each country (The United Kingdom, Poland, Finland, Portugal) are presented in the Appendices 2 – 5.

6.5.2 Questionnaire Findings From the surveys carried-out, responses were received from national organisations in 4 WP’s partner countries (Poland, the United Kingdom, Finland, Portugal). These organisations and associations are representing persons with different health dysfunctions and types of disabilities. From the received responses, the following conclusions can be distinguished: 1. For the assessment of accessibility of railway transport for people with disabilities, the highest ranked priorities were: ensuring that accurate, necessary and up-to-date information is available before arriving at the station (i.e. prior to starting a rail journey); providing competent and empathetic personnel to provide assistance to people with disabilities; ensuring the availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.); and providing dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers and up-to-date information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure). 2. For most of the respondents the gap between the platform and the train makes it difficult to travel (97% in Finland, 63% in Poland, 60% in Portugal and most respondents in the UK e.g. in wheel chairs and visual impairment) and sometimes stops them from using the train as a means of transport. 3. The most preferable solution for overcoming the gap between the edge of the platform and the carriage was identified by respondents as the assistance of railway staff and the use of technical equipment or other facilities (e.g. a lift or ramp). In their opinion, technical equipment or facilities helping to overcome the gap between the platform and the rolling stock should be installed on the train. 4. Technical equipment/facilities were preferred by respondents to be installed on the platform, and most of the respondents indicate that they would prefer technical equipment/facilities to be usable by both the traveller and railway staff (71% in Poland and 55% in Finland and in Portugal). In the UK wheelchair users preferred a platform-based solution as this provides more time to plan and gives the PRM greater confidence and assurance that they will be able to board the train. 5. Almost all respondents in the surveyed countries felt that the provision of real-time information (e.g. train capacity, staff availability, assets availability/failure and station accessibility for disabled persons) would be very useful, and would give PRM passengers much greater confidence in accessing the rail network. In order to provide relevant and timely information for PRM passengers, the use of a ‘mobile app’ with ‘push notifications” for providing accurate information (e.g. current availability of staff, real-time info on train capacity/seating, train carriage with smallest PTI gap etc.), was assessed by respondents in all countries as an extremely useful tool. 6. For stations without staff, respondents indicated that the following solutions would be necessary for ensuring access to trains: • Different types of ramps, lifts, platform lifts and other technical equipment helping to overcome the gap between the platform edge and the train. Most importantly, this equipment

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 65 | 87

should be easy to use e.g. an electronically movable ramp / ramp on the train that has a sufficiently long movement and can also be adjusted up and down. • Modern information systems (i.e. information boards, interactive kiosks, platform boards), and a Dynamic Visual Passenger Information system. Some suggestions included using dynamic lighting or an indoor GPS wayfinding solution to help to identify the right location for boarding the train. This information system should also provide information regarding exceptional situations like: train delays, change of platform, technical equipment (lifts, elevators, escalators etc.) failures or breakdowns. • Appropriate (i.e. improved or proper) platform signage and properly installed tactile paving for all types of disabilities.

6.5.3 Survey Conclusions The gap between the platform and the train is a problem for many travellers, but it mostly impacts people with mobility limitations. For this reason, the questionnaire was centred around 3 main groups of people: blind or visually impaired; deaf and hearing-impaired; and people with reduced mobility.

Most of the answers received concerned the assessment of the availability of rail transport with particular emphasis on the issue of the gap. In their answers, respondents identified the main problems they face when getting on and off the train.

They also provided suggestions for future solutions that could minimise the inconveniences that they face related to the gap. These suggested solutions included: • The use of technical facilities and the assistance of railway staff in operating these facilities during boarding and alighting from the train. • In the case of a lack railway staff on the platform, use of these facilities should be simple and easy. For this reason, respondents prefer that technical devices should be installed on the rolling stock • Using the correct markings on the platforms to allow for easy and intuitive movement and orientation on the platform. • The real-time provision of correct and appropriate information concerning: availability of railway staff for helping disabled persons; availability or failure of technical devices (i.e. escalators, elevators, lifts etc.); and other crucial information related to railway traffic and timetables (e.g. arrival or departure platform, on time or delayed trains, availability of rolling stock for disabled travellers).

Opinions and suggestions obtained from the survey will be used in the next Tasks of this work package. Detailed results of surveys from individual countries are presented in appendices 2-5.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 66 | 87

7. Conclusions on existing technical problems concerning the Platform Train Interface The implementation of the first two tasks (Task 8.1 and 8.2) of WP8 allows to conclude that the main problem with the passengers’ accessibility from platforms to trains is the gap between the edge of the platform and the floor level in the rolling stock. Its size results from the existing conditions and parameters of both the elements of the railway infrastructure for which the infrastructure manager is responsible and also the vehicles used for passenger services, which are used by the railway operators. The existence of a gap often constitutes a limitation in the use of rail transport. This concerns in particular to persons with reduced mobility. The lack of standardisation of the current use platforms and the diversity of design solutions for the rolling stock used in the different countries are the cause of different problems of accessibility to trains.

Infrastructure Managers from Poland, UK, Finland and Portugal were also consulted and provided technical input into the current challenges of managing platforms, stations and rolling stock of variable age, condition and technical specifications. Their input is included throughout the sections in this document. Construction of new or upgrading of existing platforms will lead to their standardisation in accordance with the requirements of the TSI Infrastructure, i.e. 550 or 760 mm. This will partially allow for a progressive elimination of the current problems.

Problem with accessibility of travellers from platforms to trains also results from differences in the construction of current rolling stock used by railway operators. The size of the gap is also related to the level floor above the rail head and depends on different design solutions applied to passenger rolling stock. For this reason the rolling stock manufacturers use different technical equipment in new vehicles (e.g. various types of lifts or retractable steps) to help overcome the gap. Priorities for the selection of solutions are the responsibility of the individual railway company’s management.

Within the framework of Task 8.2 a survey was carried out among travellers with reduced mobility. The aim of this surveys was to obtain information concerning the most important barriers in accessing the railway network. The response to the questionnaires highlighted that overcoming the gap between the platform and the train is a significant problem, especially for people with reduced mobility. The assistance of railway staff who should operate the technical equipment for boarding and alighting the train plays an important role. In the opinion of the respondents other factors could also have an impact on improving accessibility to rail transport, i.e.: ensuring correct and up-to-date information is readily available, the provision of a safe path on the platform to a designated waiting point for the train, use of modern solutions, such as mobile applications with appropriate information for the travellers (i.e. up-to-date information about failure of technical equipment, platform and arrival and departure times of the train changes etc.).

The work conducted also suggests that the next Tasks (Task 8.3 and 8.4) should take into account the suggestions expressed by railway users (travellers), including travellers with reduced mobility. Organisational activities should play an significant role in improving accessibility for these people.

Deliverable D8.2 “Proposals of technical solutions to improve accessibility to trains for all groups of passengers and for passengers with reduced mobility PRM”, due M43, will be focused on presenting technical solutions. These proposals will be based on findings from public consultations and potential collaborations with other projects of supplements for TSI PRM.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 67 | 87

8. References [1] EN 15273-3:2013+A1:2016 Railway applications - Gauges - Part 3: Structure gauges [2] Commission Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 of 18 November 2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility Text with EEA relevance. [3] Commission Regulation (EU) No 1299/2014 of 18 November 2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to the ‘infrastructure’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union Text with EEA relevance. [4] Commission Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 of 18 November 2014 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union Text with EEA relevance. [5] Platform Train Interface Strategy, Technical Report, RSSB 2015 (https://www.rssb.co.uk/en/Insights- and-News/Case-Study-Library/Plaform-train-interface)

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 68 | 87

9. Appendices 9.1 Appendix 1 – Survey template

WP8 – Questionnaire of problems related to PTI issues in EU Countries (PL, UK, FIN, PT)1

Context: This questionnaire is part of an EU research programme that is looking at solutions to improve the experience of persons of reduced mobility (PRM) who use the railway. The main focus is using new technology to reduce the impact of the ‘gap’ at the platform train interface (PTI). Your support in answering the questions below is much appreciated and will be used to future rail infrastructure and direct future research activities.

1. Respondent: □ Organisation or association representing passengers with reduced mobility □ Individual person with disability.

2. Type of disability: □ Blind, □ Deaf, □ Mobility, □ Other – please specify.

3. How often do you use the railway (please indicate): □ Daily, □ Weekly, □ Monthly, □ Less Frequently.

4. Which type of rail travel do you use often □ Urban / suburban, □ Regional, □ Long distance / intercity.

1 Please indicate which country the Survey concerns G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 69 | 87

5. Please rank the issues below in order of importance (0= not applicable, 1= lowest – 5 highest) □ Availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at station 0 1 2 3 4 5 □ Appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers 0 1 2 3 4 5 □ Availability of competent and empathetic staff 0 1 2 3 4 5 □ Availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 □ Availability of dedicated area and services for PRM passengers 0 1 2 3 4 5 □ Availability of real-time information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure) 0 1 2 3 4 5

6. Does overcome the gap between the platform and the train makes you difficult to travel by train? □ Yes, □ No, □ Sometimes.

7. If you answered ‘Yes or Sometimes’ to Q6 can you, please give us additional information on what help, or support would be preferable. □ Assistance railway staff, □ Technical equipment or facilities (lifts, ramps, etc.), □ Applications on smartphone, □ Other (please specify).

8. Where technical equipment/facilities should be installed (please indicate one): □ On the train, □ On the platform, □ Other (describe).

9. In case when technical equipment/facilities are installed on the platform, it should be used by (please indicate): □ Traveller (independently without assistance), □ Railway staff, □ Both are acceptable.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 70 | 87

10. Would the availability of real-time information on train capacity, staff availability, asset availability/failure and station accessibility be useful? □ Extremely useful, □ Very useful, □ Somewhat useful, □ Limited usefulness, □ Not at all useful.

11. For stations without staff what facilities or technology are necessary to ensure you can use the train for your journey? Please describe:

12. In order to provide relevant and timely information for PRM passengers, would the use of a ‘mobile app’ with ‘push notifications’ be useful in providing accurate information (e.g. current availability of staff, real-time info on train capacity/seating, train carriage with smallest PTI gap etc.). □ Extremely useful, □ Very useful, □ Somewhat useful, □ Limited usefulness, □ Not at all useful.

13. Please provide any suggestions to improve rail travel for PRM passengers. (max. 3-5 sentences)

14. If you are aware of any examples of best practice from other transport or public sector organisations, please provide details below. (max. 3-5 sentences)

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 71 | 87

15. If the rail network in your country held open days to educate and learn from PRM passengers if this something you would participate in and feel is valuable. (max. 3-5 sentences)

Thank you for your help in answering these questions and if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact: Insert country details.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 72 | 87

9.2 Appendix 2 – Survey findings in Poland This survey concerned disabled people’s experiences of rail travel, and in particular the assessment of rail transport accessibility. The additional purpose of this survey was to take into consideration existing problems occurring at the interface between the platform and the rolling stock. The questionnaires were distributed to Polish organisations and associations representing persons with different health dysfunctions and types of disabilities. These were: • Association for Help Persons with Disabilities „No Barriers” (Stowarzyszenie Pomocy Osobom Niepełnosprawnym „BEZ BARIER”) • The INTEGRATION (INTEGRACJA), • Polish Association of the Disabled Persons (Polskie Stowarzyszenie Osób Niepełnosprawnych) • Association “Open Doors” (Stowarzyszenie Otwarte Drzwi), • Polish Association of the Deaf (Polski Związek Głuchych) • Polish Association of the Blind (Polski Związek Niewidomych).

General profile of the respondents (questions 1-4) Responses were obtained from 8 respondents in total, where 44% of responses were given by organisations and associations representing disabled persons and 56% of the answers were given by individuals with disabilities. The share of respondents with disabilities was as follows: 40% respectively were blind or partially sighted persons and persons with reduced mobility, while the remaining 20% were persons with hearing impairments (i.e. deaf or partially deaf and hearing-impaired persons). As far as the frequency of using rail transport by disabled persons is concerned, the majority of answers were “seldom/occasionally” (38%). 25% respectively indicated the frequency of train travel once a week or once a month and the highest frequency “daily” was determined by 12% of respondents. The respondents most often indicated the use of long-distance/intercity trains in their journeys – (46%), followed by 31% of journeys by regional trains and 23% of journeys by urban and suburban trains.

Assessment of rail transport accessibility for people with disabilities and suggestions from travellers (questions 5-15) The assessment of issues mentioned in question 5 regarding: availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at the station; availability of up-to-date information on asset/equipment failure; appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers; availability of competent and empathetic staff; availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.); and availability of dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers, were very varied. Responses covered almost the whole spectrum of options (except score 1). The table below presents an average evaluation of particular issues based on the answers received from respondents. Table 9 Ranked importance of issues with rail transport accessibility in Poland

Issue Score Availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at the 3.75 station Appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers 3.63 Availability of competent and empathetic staff 3.75 Availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.) 2.63 Availability of dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers 3.63 Availability of up-to-date information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure) 2.63

The obtained results show that, in the opinion of respondents, the priority is to ensure that the G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 73 | 87

necessary information is available before arriving at the station (i.e. before the start of the journey), and to provide competent and empathetic personnel to provide assistance to people with disabilities. 63% of respondents indicated that the gap between the platform and the train affects their decision when choosing the train as a means of transport (i.e. 63% answered “Yes” and “Sometimes” to the problem mentioned in question 6). For the rest of respondents (37%), the gap does not affect the decision of disabled persons to choose a train as a means of transport. The respondents indicated that their preferred solution for overcoming the gap between the edge of the platform and the carriage (question 7) is the assistance of railway staff and the use of technical equipment or other facilities (e.g. a lift or ramp). These answers were 43% each, while 14% of respondents indicated that they would prefer a dedicated smart phone application. None of the respondents indicated any other ideas that could help to overcome the gap experienced by disabled persons. In the opinion of the majority of the respondents, technical equipment or facilities helping to overcome the gap between the platform and the rolling stock should be installed on the train (question 8). In the case of question 9 concerning the indication of who should operate the technical equipment or facilities in cases when they were installed on the platform, 29% of the respondents indicated the railway staff and 71% specified that it should be used by both the traveller and railway employees (both possibilities are acceptable). The availability of up-to-date information on train capacity, staff availability, assets availability/failure and station accessibility for disabled persons were assessed by the respondents as very useful or essential (question 10). In the scope of question 11 concerning facilities or technology which are necessary to ensure the use of the train for a journey in cases when there are no railway staff on the station, the respondents indicated that they would require: • Ramps, lifts, platform lifts and other technical equipment helping to overcome the gap between the platform edge and the train • Modern information systems (i.e. information boards, interactive kiosks, platform boards) and a Dynamic Visual Passenger Information system • Properly made tactile paving (i.e. significantly different in texture from the floor, enhanced sound system and environment description e.g. TOTUPOINT system) • Smart phone or mobile phone with applications for navigating in space (e.g. on the station) • A white stick for the blind • A device enabling the use of an on-line translator (i.e. a video-translator for deaf persons) • Adaptation of the footbridge on older stations where access to platforms is only by stairs • Electronically-opened doors • More space for wheelchair users

All respondents expressed their opinion (question 12) that the use of mobile applications with “push notifications” can be useful in providing accurate information for disabled persons (e.g. current availability of staff, real-time info on train capacity/seating, train carriage with smallest PTI gap etc.). All answers were ranked highest as “Extremely useful” – score 5. Respondents presented the following proposals related to the improvement of railway travel conditions for people with disabilities (question 13): • Ensuring the efficiency of technical devices (ramps, lift etc.) used by disabled persons • Participation in training for railway employees related to proper and comprehensive services for disabled persons as well as ensuring assistance from railway staff during boarding a train and alighting to the platform (according to regulations the train crew are not allowed to lift and carry the disabled person in the wheelchair into the train) as well as moving around the station in the case of a lack of or failure of technical equipment

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 74 | 87

• Ensuring coherence of passenger information systems (i.e. information points, call centres, ticket offices, displays, and voice announcements) • Providing real-time information for travellers (e.g. lift technical condition or accessibility of the train for disabled persons) on mobile devices • Announcements and text marking (i.e. information displays, information boards, pictograms etc.) and displaying announcements in sign language on the platform, on the station and on the train) • Ensuring that staff have sign language skills and use hearing support devices (i.e. inductive hearing loop, on-line translator) • Information in Braille (i.e. labels with platform number next to the stairs to the tunnel, footbridge or other entrances to the platform), and ensuring that markings are wholly legible for the blind on trains (i.e. seat number, toilets) and the implementation of carriage number indication (i.e. carriage number in convex and contrasting digits) • Unification of the door arrangement in rolling stock and its location when the train stops at the platform. This would allow marking the place on the platform for boarding and would make it much easier for blind passengers to locate the door (a solution implemented e.g. in Japan, on London underground) • Proper tactile paving and attention fields on railway facilities, enhanced sound system and environment description (e.g. TOTUPOINT system). This will help disabled people with spatial orientation • Possibility of printing a ticket in a larger format, with a more legible font (e.g. sans serif font); this will enable visually impaired persons to read the place and time of departure by themselves, as well as placing information about the platform number on the ticket • Providing information on the train (i.e. announcements), regarding which side of the trainset the platform exit will be after the train stops at the station

When it comes to best practice for providing services for disabled persons from other modes of transport that could be utilised in railway transport (question 14), respondents proposed the following solutions: • Voice announcement on the train regarding which side of the trainset is the platform (e.g. Warsaw underground) • Display all voice announcements as text versions also • Increasing access to sign language translators on-line in the ticket offices and among the train crew • Recordings with information about the bus number played and heard outside the bus (this kind of announcement could be activated when the bus stops). It is clearly audible (voice announcement is not always clearly audible on the platform) • Marking the edge of the platform and tactile paving with attention fields in strategic places • Proper marking of glass surfaces. All respondents (100%) expressed their willingness to participate in open days to consult, test and give opinions for proposals of new solutions dedicated to the service of disabled people in rail transport (question 15).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 75 | 87

9.3 Appendix 3 – Survey findings in the UK The WP8 questionnaire was sent to UK national organisations that represent the needs of approximately 13.9 million people with a range of mobility issues (Scope report, 2017). These include wheelchair users and those with general mobility issues, deafness and those who are blind or partially sighted. The full list of organisations is presented in Table 10 below. As can be seen, several of these organisations also carry out research and are involved in developing UK policy to support people with disabilities. In several instances, the representatives of these organisations also pointed us towards their own research, case-studies and policies in order to provide a more comprehensive input into the IN2STEMPO WP8 research. Where possible, these findings have been incorporated into the research below in order to provide greater depth and understanding of the challenges experienced by passengers with mobility problems who use the UK rail network. Similarly, during the questionnaire interviews several organisations indicated potential solutions or at least areas where future research should be focussed and again these comments have been incorporated into our findings set out below. Table 10 National Organisations in UK contacted for WP8 Questionnaire

Disability Type Organisation Blind/Partially Sighted Royal Society for the Protection of Blind Children Blind/Partially Sighted Royal National Institute of Blind People Blind/Partially Sighted Fight for Sight Deaf/Hearing Impairment British Deaf Association Deaf/Hearing Impairment Action on Hearing Loss Deaf/Hearing Impairment Royal Association for Deaf People Physical Disability SCOPE Physical Disability New Life Physical Disability Leonard Cheshire Physical Disability Queen Elizabeth Foundation for Disabled People Mental Disability MIND Independent Living SEQUAL Trust

Questionnaire Results: Abbreviations used – Persons of Reduced Mobility = PRM. Q1-4: Due to the nature of the organisations contacted for this questionnaire all types of rail journeys were considered (i.e. urban, suburban, long-distance) and as mentioned above all of the major groups with mobility issues are represented. Q5: Responses indicate that the provision of accurate and up-to-date information being easily available prior to starting a rail journey is key in ensuring that the passenger is confident about undertaking the journey and can plan with other connections (e.g. buses, tram etc.). An averaged response to Q5 is provided below:

Availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at station 0 1 2 3 4 5 Appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers 0 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of competent and empathetic staff 0 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.)

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 76 | 87

0 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of dedicated area and services for PRM passengers 0 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of real-time information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure) 0 1 2 3 4 5

Several organisations were very keen to highlight the problems PRM passengers encountered due to station assets failing. In particular, the failure of lifts was specifically indicated as a significant problem that resulted in PRM passengers having to either re-board a train and get off at another station or being stuck on a platform waiting for staff to lift or carry them up-stairs. Neither of these situations are acceptable and so the idea of having real-time data on the availability and failure of lifts was especially welcomed. Similarly, the use of industry and route technology phone apps was also strongly requested with information that is specific to PRM passengers available on a route by route basis. For example, the availability of station staff, provision of hearing loops, braille maps and in this case information on the platform train interface gap. This information will enable PRM travellers to access the rail network with much more confidence and will provide the required up to date information. Finally, all the respondents indicated that having staff who were suitably trained and, empathetic to their needs was of the highest importance. This is perhaps an understandable response but during the interviews it became clear that many PRM’s had experienced inept and in some instances unkindness from station staff who clearly did not understand the problems faced by PRM passengers. In summary, it was clear from the questionnaire that PRM’s felt that there is still a considerable improvement required to give them confidence in using the UK rail network and ensuring that it is truly accessible to all. Q6: Responses to this varied with those in wheel chairs and visual impairment indicating that the PTI gap was a significant problem and, in some cases, stopped them from using the train as a means of transport. Those with hearing impairments indicated that given enough time to board the train then the PTI gap itself was not a major impediment. However, during busy periods and in the case of unplanned platform changes when large crowd movements occur then the PTI gap becomes an issue due to an inherent lack of balance that can sometimes be attributed to hearing problems. This was also identified as a problem when there was no audio-visual train information available. For all PRM groups the provision of better PTI gap information and the allocation of boarding zones on platforms would help to ensure this issue can be minimised. Q7-9: Again, responses to these questions indicated clearly that PRM passengers need significantly more information, assistance and independent solutions than are currently available in the UK. All mobility groups indicated that it is the desire of PRM passengers to use the rail network independently and it is to this end that rail infrastructure managers and train operators should aim in providing technological solutions. In general, PRM passengers were largely agnostic to the location of solutions suggesting that a combination of platform and/or train solutions would be acceptable. It is worth noting that those in wheel- chairs preferred a platform-based solution as this provides more time to plan and gives the PRM greater confidence and assurance that they will be able to board the train. It was acknowledged by several organisations that the desire for fully independent travel is challenging and in the short-term the availability of suitably experienced and qualified station staff was invaluable and necessary. It was also apparent that organisations representing young people were much more confident in using apps and websites and those representing the elderly favoured either station staff or alternatively more standard solutions including portable ramps. It was clear from the responses that no single solution is possible, and the rail industry needs to take a holistic approach to accessibility and develop a range of solutions that caters for all demographics and age ranges. Q10: All respondents felt that the provision of real-time information would be really useful and give PRM passengers much greater confidence in accessing the UK rail network. The availability of lifts and escalators was highlighted as being critical information. Likewise, information on predicted down-time or expected fix-times would also be invaluable. Several respondents suggested making use of apps such as G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 77 | 87

Twitter to give information on problems that may specifically affect PRM. Several organisations suggested that a rail industry real-time PRM information service would also be very useful. Q11/12: Responses indicate that PRM travellers need accurate and timely information as well as a means of contacting a ‘help’ centre in order to talk to someone if needed. The information also needs to be in a format that is accessible; for example, using station braille maps, British Sign Language (BSL) or using hearing loops etc. One of the main concerns identified is, that at these stations, PRM travellers often feel vulnerable and this is exacerbated by information being unavailable in a format that can be understood. Several respondents suggested adopting a consistent approach to information for PRM’s and that there should be minimum requirements at each station. This would encourage use of the railway network and give certainty to PRM travellers that a minimum level of information or help is available at every UK station. Information on train stopping location on the platform and also seating availability was also identified as being very useful. Better platform signage indicating where PRM’s should wait was also highlighted as something that needs improvement. Several suggestions included using dynamic lighting or an indoor GPS wayfinding solution to help in identifying early the right location for boarding the train.

Q13: (responses directly taken from questionnaires) • Educating all rail users about shared space. Too often passengers will put suitcases in wheelchair spaces – signage can be poor so passengers not always aware. • Staff must have effective disability awareness training and spend some time shadowing wheelchair users travelling on the trains to understand the challenges. It must be made clear that PRM are travelling for work, business, hospital appointments and have just as much right to be travelling as everyone else. It’s not acceptable for rail staff to blame late running trains on ‘we had to help a disabled passenger’. • Perceptions and understanding needs to change in the rail industry. Employing diversity and inclusion managers who have a disability is a major step forward in helping rail industry providers to understand the problems from a PRM perspective. • Disabled passengers need to be consulted in the design of stations and trains to ensure that they work for the people who use them. Most important, is accessible infrastructure that works, staff availability and training. Reliable and accurate real-time information in an appropriate format about the journey particularly if changes occur whilst the PRM is on the train e.g. delays, station changes etc. • The optional use of lanyards or similar to identify PRM passengers so they can receive the help required. This suggestion had a mixed response with some suggesting this means the rail infrastructure is not truly accessible to all whilst others suggested this was a pragmatic approach that enabled immediate improvements for PRM’s. • Much better signage, wayfinding and help options that are specific to PRM passengers. • Automatic notification function (via app or platform button) that enables PRM to notify station staff they are on site and/or need assistance. Q14: (responses directly taken from questionnaires) • Transport for London (TfL) have a travel mentor team who can assess an individual’s mobility equipment (wheelchair, mobility scooter, powered wheelchair, rollator) and confirm if it’s suitable to be taken on London buses and the underground. After assessment they provide the user with a mobility aid recognition card which they can show to the bus driver. This allays a lot of anxiety for the individual and gives confidence that they can access the required transport. • TfL also provide a scheme where they will come out to the individual and accompany them on a couple of journeys to show them how to access a bus using the ramp and help build their confidence. • If train companies offered travel training for individuals/ groups this could be used by many – e.g. schoolchildren, young adults with learning disabilities, people recovering from a stroke, people with mental health issues, those living with dementia and their families. • London North Eastern (LNE) train operator employed a visually impaired person who is responsible

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 78 | 87

for improving accessibility for PRM. This has helped because of their understanding of the issues. If the rail industry as a whole adopted this approach it would significantly help improve accessibility across the UK rail network. Q15: All respondents were very positive about engaging with both Network Rail (infrastructure manager) and train operators in an open day or ongoing sessions to enable understanding and education from all parties. Several organisations also requested to be a statutory consultee in the future design of rail infrastructure and buildings.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 79 | 87

9.4 Appendix 4 – Survey findings in Finland The WP8 questionnaire was translated to Finnish and one additional answer option was given to Question 9 (external service provider/personal assistant). The Questionnaire was delivered as an online survey by using Webropol2 tool. The link to the Questionnaire was sent to key persons of national organisations that represent the needs of people with a wide range of mobility issues. These include wheelchair users and those with general mobility issues caused by neurological diseases, deafness, hard of hearing and those who are blind or partially sighted. The full list of organisations is presented in table 11. Table 11 List of organisations in Finland

Disability Type Organisation Blind/Partially Sighted The Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired Deaf/Hearing Impairment Kuuloliitto ry The Finnish Association of People with Physical Physical disabilities/ functional impairments Disabilities General mobility issues Lyhytkasvuiset ry General mobility issues The Finnish Rheumatism Association MS and rare progressive neurological diseases Finnish Neuro Society

General profile of the respondents (questions 1-4) Of the respondents (n=30), 28 were individual persons with a disability and 7 were representatives of an organisation or association representing passengers with reduced mobility. Some of the respondents may have answered Q 1 as a person with a disability and as a representative of the organization, because we have 35 replies for Q1. The type of disability of respondents was mostly reduced mobility 93% (28), and the rest (7%) included visual, hearing and other disabilities. 60% (18) of respondents used the railway less frequently than monthly. 23% (7) used monthly and 17% (5) weekly. No-one travelled daily. The rail journeys were 87% (26) long-distance, 30% (9) urban/suburban and 7% (2) regional journeys.

Assessment of rail transport accessibility for people with disabilities and suggestions from travellers (question 5) Responses indicate that the availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.) (mean 3.7), competent and empathetic staff (mean 3.5), dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers (mean 3.5) and up-to-date information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure) (mean 3.5) are key in ensuring that the passenger is confident about undertaking the journey. An averaged response to Q5 is provided in table 12: Table 12 Ranked importance of rail transport accessibility in Finland

Issue Score Availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at the 3.3 station Appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers 3.2 Availability of competent and empathetic staff 3.5 Availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.) 3.7 Availability of dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers 3.5 Availability of up-to-date information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure) 3.5

2 Webpropol is an online survey and analysis tool (webropol.com) G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 80 | 87

The gap between the edge of the platform and the carriage (questions 6-9) For most of the respondents, the gap between the platform and the train makes it difficult to travel by train (i.e. 97%, 28, answered “Yes” and “Sometimes”). For the rest of the respondents (3% (1)) the gap does not affect their choice when choosing a train as a mode of transport. To overcome the gap between the edge of the platform and the carriage, respondents preferred the use of technical equipment 53% (15) or other facilities (e.g. a lift or ramp) and the assistance of a railway staff (39%, 11). The technical equipment/facilities were preferred to be installed on the train (66%, 20) or on the platform (27%, 8), and 7 % (2) preferred both choices. Technical equipment/facilities were preferred to be installed on the platform, 55% (14) of the respondents wished them to be usable by both traveller and staff, 28% (8) by traveller independently without assistance, 14% (4) by staff and 3% (1) by external service provider/personal assistant3. The availability of real-time information (questions 10 and 12) The availability of up-to-date information on train capacity, staff availability, assets availability/failure and station accessibility for disabled persons were 100% assessed by the respondents as “extremely useful” and “very useful” (Q 10). In order to provide relevant and timely information for PRM passengers, the use of a ‘mobile app’ with ‘push notifications providing accurate information (e.g. current availability of staff, real-time info on train capacity/seating, train carriage with smallest PTI gap etc.), was assessed by respondents as extremely useful (50%, 14), very useful (43%, 12) or at least somewhat useful (7%, 2). Stations without staff (question 11) Several necessary facilities and technologies were described by respondents as a requirement for stations without staff to ensure the use of a train for a journey: • The assistance of the staff / other person is important, difficult or sometimes impossible to replace with technical equipment • Functional aids, automatic opening of the door when approaching a wheelchair (door eye), electric automatically opening doors both from the platform to the train and when leaving. Automatic ramp for closing the train-to-platform opening either on board or from platform to train. Accessible access from platform to station • Getting off the train on a level dock or at least some extra ramp that can be used by the disabled person himself / herself • An electronically movable ramp / ramp on the train that has a sufficiently long movement and can also be adjusted up and down. Easier with berths at different heights / distances. Nevertheless, it is a priority that all platforms are raised, of the same height and at the same / short distance from the train. Stations Accessible, well-marked routes • Elevator and rollator to use to move to another point when changing trains • A ramp coming from the train to the pier. Ramps between train and platform • A decent lift on the train • At least sticks or rollator • Ramp or elevator to the train, which is easily accessible for disabled people. It needs to be working • Aids must fit in the train • Means of communication with staff if there is something abnormal • Finnish speaking audio advice • Clear display showing train departure, Departure time, etc. Necessary information. Exceptional situations (train delays, change of platform, etc.) should also be communicated in a timely manner as textual information • Personal assistant, taxi

3 In Finnish survey one additional answer options were giving to Question 9 (external service provider/personal assistant). G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 81 | 87

• Unobstructed access to the berths and to the train. Real-time train delay and elevator breakdown information. Could you register as a "disabled" customer at the time of ticket purchase and indicate the phone number / email for which "emergency" information would be provided for delays, lifts not working. Occasionally, non-assistants also have problems moving in and out of the station

Suggestions to improve rail travel for PRM passengers (question 13) Respondents presented plenty of proposals related to the improvement of railway travel conditions for people with disabilities: • Trains could also stop at small stations • Stations offer free parking for disabled people with no time limit. Extensive information on accessibility of stations and their services (including map drawings of stations) • Increasing the availability of assistants at stations. And voice guidance • Access to all wagons. Information about the station lift being broken outside the station and guiding the detour • Proper lift and on-board option to attach a manual wheelchair to the train structures or to have a seating position to assist • Repeating announcements, especially announcements of emergencies. Alerts are also in text form on the screen. These too should be repeated a few times • Order Assistive Tools Provide advance information to staff on the need for assistance. Subscribed help does not always work • Functionality of a pre-arranged escort service that the agreed grant will work • Seating areas on trains. Not prams in the same space • Information in real time, accessibility of wheelchair locations (no competition with prams), elimination of platform level differences • More wheelchair spaces on the train. Accessible toilets for stations. Better availability of staff • For example, in Tampere, at platforms 3, 4, and 5, there is a large drop / threshold between the train and the platform. This threshold does not allow me to independently climb up to the platform, although normally I am fully self-propelled on an electric wheelchair. Could the ramp from inside the train have an edge that bends down to the pier and can be turned if necessary? The edge could be rotated electronically on the button or the assistant / conductor could lift it if necessary. This would be more convenient than a 1.5 meter large ramp designed for larger level differences. For small level differences, there could also be an alternative smaller ramp that would be stored at a wheelchair space, for example - easily accessible to everyone. There should definitely be more space for prams. And the disabled passenger should be able to choose, whether in the middle of a stroller or in a more relaxed stroller. (Some disabled passengers also have children, so there is a choice.) For larger level differences, there should be a decent, uniform ramp on each train. In local and commuter trains, wheelchair wheels sometimes get stuck because the ramp is a couple of centimetres lower than the train and the platform. In winter, ice and snow accumulates on the platform, making it difficult to leave the train. Perhaps a good solution would be heated quays, or canopies to prevent snow from accumulating.

Examples of best practice from other transport or public sector organisations (question 14) When it comes to best practice from other modes of transport with providing services for disabled persons, respondents propose the following solutions: • Heated automatic slope and also winter auxiliary equipment, molten dock area and station area • Electric ramp from train or bridge from platform. Manual option for emergency conditions • All trains low-floored

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 82 | 87

• All platform surface and train entrances on the same level. • Enough space for assistive devices. • Stairs removed between compartments. WC use with assistive device almost impossible. • All prams removed from wheelchair area.

Open days to educate and learn from PRM passengers (question 15) Almost all respondents valued and appreciated engaging possible Open days: • Yes, I would attend. • I would attend if it was organized in the immediate area. It would be a valuable and useful event. • Yes, if the opportunity was reasonably close, no more than 100km • Absolutely. I would appreciate it and participate. • Dialogue is always important for development. My own involvement depends largely on the topic being discussed. • I would greatly appreciate sharing information with disabled customers, vision, hearing and sensory disabilities. Open discussion and participation. Yes. • Communication and dialogue are important between the service provider and the customer. Joint discussion provides valuable information and improves the quality of service. • Yes, and that would be important. • Yes, I would, and I value the development of the fleet with the users. I gave up traveling on the train myself, because the trains cannot safely travel with the assistant even during winter conditions - and there is no staff on board every train at all. • Yes! Especially conductors involved! They are often quite out of the way to help out in the yard, and often give the message that it is not their responsibility to help. Disability Council Working Groups on Accessibility would certainly include speakers / accessibility mappers and disability organizations (such as the Threshold and the Disability Association). It should also affect the performance of Securitas and the need for people with disabilities to know their travel schedule with a 48 hour notice. Such a requirement of anticipation is not equivalent to that of other citizens. Someone with a disability lawyer could highlight the obligations of the UN Convention on Disability: equality, accessibility, accessibility, personal mobility, etc. Important and research subject! • I would participate both as a service user and as a professional. Very good practice. • Involvement must take place in planning and purchasing decisions Rescue exercises needed. • I would only consider it important if the changes were really done and the money in your pocket. Often, mere ideation stays with that idea. • No.

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 83 | 87

9.5 Appendix 5 – Survey findings in Portugal The questionnaires were distributed to the main Portuguese organisations and associations representing persons with several types of disabilities. Responses were received from the following organisations: • Portuguese Association for handicapped/disabled – (APD – Associação Portuguesa de Deficientes); • Cultural and Social Support Association of Olhão – (ACASO - Associação Cultural e de Apoio Social de Olhão); • National Association of Bone Dysplasia – (ANDO - Associação Nacional de Displasias Ósseas); • Deaf Association of the Algarve – (ASA - Associação de Surdos do Algarve); • Center for Independent Living Association – (Associação Centro de Vida Independente); • Association for the Intervention and Rehabilitation of Disabled and Disadvantaged Persons – (EXISTIR – Associação para a Intervenção e Reabilitação de Pessoas Deficientes e Desfavorecidas); • Portuguese Sports Federation for People with Disabilities – (FPDD - Federação Portuguesa de Desporto para Pessoas com Deficiência); • Portuguese Association of Osteogenesis Imperfecta – (APOI - Associação Portuguesa de Osteogénese Imperfeita).

General profile of the respondents (questions 1-4) Responses were obtained from twenty one (21) respondents in total, where 19 % of them covered organisations and associations representing disabled persons and 81 % of the answers were given by individuals with disabilities. The share of respondents with disabilities was as follows: 16 % were blind, 12 % were persons with hearing impairment, 48 % persons with reduced mobility, while the remaining 24% have other disabilities (mental deficiency, multideficiency, etc.). As far as the frequency of using rail transport by disabled persons is concerned, the majority of answers (55 %) were “seldom/occasionally”. 20% indicated the frequency of train travel once a week, 15 % once a month and “daily” was determined by 10% of respondents. The respondents most often indicated the use of long-distance/intercity trains in their journeys – 52 %, while the remaining 48 %, journeys by urban and suburban trains. No one mentioned journeys by regional trains. Assessment of rail transport accessibility for people with disabilities and suggestions from travellers (questions 5-15) The assessment of the issues mentioned in question 5 regarding: 1) availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at the station, 2) appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers, 3) availability of competent and empathetic staff, 4) availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.), 5) availability of dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers, and 6) availability of up-to-date information on asset/equipment failure, were very varied. In all the questions the responses covered the whole spectrum of options. The table below presents an average evaluation of particular issues based on the answers received from respondents. Table 13 Average evaluation of particular issues

Issue Score 1) Availability of information specific to PRM passengers prior to arriving at the station 2.55 2) Appropriate signage at the station to help PRM passengers 2.63 3) Availability of competent and empathetic staff 2.95 4) Availability of technological solutions (e.g. lifts, ramps, etc.) 3.58 5) Availability of dedicated areas and services for PRM passengers 2.50 6) Availability of up-to-date information on asset failures (e.g. lift failure) 2.40

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 84 | 87

The positive answer (“Yes”) to the problem mentioned in question 6 regarding overcoming the gap between the platform edge and the train in the context of existing barriers to accessibility and discouragement to rail travel, was indicated in 60% of cases, while 35% mentioned “Sometimes”. Only for 5% of respondents the gap does not affect the decision of disabled persons to choose a train as a means of transport. As the preferable solution to overcome the gap between the edge of the platform and the carriage (question 7), 69% of respondents indicated the use of technical equipment or other facilities (e.g. a lift or ramp). 15% indicated the assistance of railway staff and 8 % of respondents indicated a dedicated smart phone application. 8 % of the respondents indicated some ideas that could help to overcome the gap by the disabled persons: Improve the audio information, being clear and concise; Parking places; Accessible sanitary facilities; More accessible tactile information; Respect the standards of architecture and universal design; Greater profusion of static signage; All stations be equipped with 1 wheelchair for possible support; Correction of problems of incompatibility between trains and infrastructure; Standardisation of infrastructure to allow universal use of solutions on boarding to trains. In the opinion of the majority of the respondents (67%) technical equipment or facilities helping to overcome the gap between the platform and the rolling stock should be installed on the train (question 8). In case of question 9 concerning the indication of who should operate the technical equipment or facilities in case when they were installed on the platform, 20% of the respondents indicated the railway staff and 55% specified that it can be used both by the traveller on their own and by railway employees (both possibilities are acceptable). 25% prefer to be themselves, independently, with no help. The availability of up-to-date information on train capacity, staff availability, assets availability/failure and station accessibility for disabled persons were assessed by the respondents as very useful or essential (question 10). In the scope of question 11 concerning facilities or technology which are necessary to ensure using the train for the journey in cases when there are no railway staff on the station, the respondents indicated: • Equipment: o The equipment may be in the train, and if it has the right equipment, it will be ideal to ensure independent access for people with reduced mobility. This equipment includes ramps, lifts, platform lifts, easy-to-use fixed or removable structures/ramps, even the low cost-effective ones, and other technical equipment helping to overcome the gap between the platform edge and the train; o The respondents prefer when access means that it can be operated independently and without any assistance; o Whenever possible a standardized / predictable location to access the train; o Pay particular attention to the useful width on platforms between trains and obstacles such as stairs or pillars to allow the free use of ramps or other access methods. • Other answers and suggestions on this area (equipment) include: o Electrically activated ramps on the train via a button outside the train; o Well marked ramps and / or lifts to the platform as well as railway personnel to inform and prevent accidents. • Information: o Interactive information systems (information boards, interactive kiosks, platform boards), Dynamic Visual= oral Passenger Information system; o Real time and adequate information about how to pinpoint the exact location to access the train; o It is important to inform which trains are accessible and, if entry is not simple, if there are easy-to-use ramps; everything will be simpler if the train entry allows independent access; o Suggestion of a “Support Center” for communicating to any passenger and assist him/her in case of anomalies or lack of further information. There should be a way to signal the presence of persons in need of boarding assistance when on the platform to alert G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 85 | 87

personnel to the need of assistance; o Install a system that alerts the station and train personnel to the presence of passengers with service needs on the platform; o Dynamic written information repeating everything that is transmitted orally by speakers and also the opposite as well (oral information equal to written information); o Training of professionals on helping people with reduced mobility, instruct that it is not limited to wheelchair use. Training to support, before the train arrives, and with assertive and timely information to passengers, about which carriage is easy to access; o Helping personnel should have basic sign language training to communicate with deaf passengers on frequently asked questions such as requesting a ticket, for example. • Mobile phone apps: o Development of new user friendly mobile phone apps; All respondents expressed their opinion (question 12) that the use of mobile applications with “push notifications” can be useful in providing accurate information for disabled persons (e.g. current availability of staff, real-time info on train capacity/seating, train carriage with smallest PTI gap etc.). 50% of the answers were ranked as “Extremely useful”, 25% “very useful”, 15% as “useful” and 10% as with “limited utility”. Ninety five percent (95%) of respondents presented the following proposals/suggestions related to the improvement of railway travel conditions for people with disabilities (question 13): • Ensure accessibility on train stations, be it physical or informational; • Ensure that all trains are accessible with portable ramps; • Treat and think of any PRM passenger - not just of mobility issues - as an ordinary/normal passenger; • Eliminate the need to book tickets 24 hours in advance in order to have help in stations; • Provide particular signage on the platform so that the boarding by PRM into the train's accessible in / out areas and PRM-designated seats is unequivocal; • Both stations and trains should have audio information about the station’s spaces and other important data along the way, for example, the distance between the platforms and the trains. • All trains should have at least two adapted carriages. • Provide a greater number of PRM-designated seats inside the trains (Nowadays, at least in the “Alpha service”, only 2 wheelchair users are allowed to travel by train, which is absurd. If a sports team wants to travel Oporto-Lisbon by train, they will have to do so on several trains as only 2 people can travel by wheelchair by train); • Provide seat belts on PRM-designated seats; • Provide the existence of grab bars next to the PRM seats; • Provide the existence of call bells in the PRM-designated seats; • Provide easier and friendly procedures for people with disabilities and those who have the “multipurpose certificate” (not being required to go to the ticket office, for example. This Portuguese certificate provides access to the various legal supports for persons with disabilities and to prove incapacity for work; • Within trains, PRM-designated seats should be more suitable and there should be a place where you could have an electric chair next to the seats. When it comes to best practice from other modes of transport with providing services for disabled persons, which could be used in railway transport (question 14), fifty (50%) of respondents propose the following solutions: • Trains to have an extendable platform for PMR when they stop, activated by passengers themselves; • Provide dynamic information that tells you how much time is left for the train to arrive, warn of delays and malfunctions;

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 86 | 87

Almost all of the respondents (75%) expressed their willingness to participate in open days to consult, test and give opinions for proposals of new solutions dedicated to the service of disabled people in rail transport (question 15).

G A 7 7 7 5 1 5 P a g e 87 | 87