ACCESSIBLE RAIL STATION PLATFORM INDEPENDENT GAP FILLER FOR OF PERSONS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY Dr Emmanuel Matsika Mr. Lingong Li Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK Email: [email protected]

Abstract The enactment of the UK DDA 1995/2005 (now Equality Act 2010) and enforcement of the 2008 EC TSI for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) (now TSI PRM 2014) have led to an increasing number of PRMs travelling by rail. Despite this, safety concerns exist as managers and operators adapt to new requirements for accessibility. For example, accidents which occur at the platform-train interface (PTI) can result in severe injuries. This paper reviews different gap fillers and provides a new design concept to resolve this challenge. The research applies science and technology to work toward promoting equal access of PRMs to transportation systems. It presents a boarding mechanism that helps PRMs to board and alight independently through automatically actuating platform-based ramp. It applies 3 degrees of freedom (DoF) for translation motion, and 2DoF for angular motion. A combination of these 5DoF ensure successful gap filling. The actuations are controlled by infrared and inductive sensors. The system is capable of moving 2m along the platform. It covers a maximum horizontal gap of 500mm and has a maximum inclination of 10.2°. The concept aims to reduce dwell time, despite the presence of PRMs. This allows zero interference for the door usage from all passenger groups. In addition, it facilitates effective crowd flow management during boarding and alighting. An evaluation based on cost, performance, safety and crowd flow shows the effectiveness of the mechanism. It is recommended that it should be installed at all platforms to help PRMs board independently. Corresponding safety standards and regulations need to be developed to ensure safety and security of the mechanism. The system can be installed both at retrofitted and new-build platforms. It therefore has potential to promote job creation through design, manufacture, installation, operations and maintenance, thereby contributing to the socio-economic situation of a country. Keywords: PRMs; PTI Gap Filler; Accessibility; TSI PRM; DoF; Socio-economic

INTRODUCTION

Background serves over 1.6 billion passengers annually worldwide. It is regarded as one of the most important modes of transport due to the stability, safety, large capacity and relatively low cost. Its green credentials render it attractive with climate change being on top of the global agenda. One of its concerns is safety in stations, particularly the platform train interface (PTI). Usually, there is a gap at the PTI which presents a hazard for passengers. Although the number of accidents which occur at the PTI is low, 20% of weighted injuries and 36% of passenger fatality risks occur at the PTI (RSSB, 2019). The UK rail industry experiences approximately 1,500 PTI incidents annually, with 38 resulting in fatalities per decade. One group of passengers most at risk are persons with reduced mobility (PRMs). By EU definition, PRMs include not only persons with disabilities, but also the elderly, pregnant women, passengers carrying luggage, etc. A recent survey found that using this definition, about 50% of rail passengers are PRMs (Lemmerer et al, 2018).

The enactment of the UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995/2005 (now incorporated in the Equality Act 2010), and enforcement of the 2008 European Commission (EC) Technical Standards on Interoperability for Persons with Reduced Mobility (TSI PRM) (now updated to TSI PRM 2014) have led to an increasing number of PRMs travelling by rail. Despite this, safety concerns exist as infrastructure managers and train operators adapt to new accessibility requirements. Currently, most PRMs, especially persons with disabilities cannot board and alight without assistance. They find travelling by rail challenging due to PTI concerns (Matsika et al, 2013).

The PTI gap is affected by many factors (Atkins Rail. 2004). Step height is determined by the train floor height and platform height. Floor height is determined by the suspension displacement and wheel diameter. radius and speed at platform also have an influence on the gap stepping distance. Lastly, track which helps the to pass the curves has an effect of leaning the train towards a convex platform, reducing stepping distance, or away from a concave platform, increasing stepping distances.

This paper reviews different PTI gap fillers and provides a new design concept to resolve this challenge. The research applies science and technology to work towards promoting equal access of PRMs to transportation systems. The design concept helps PRMs to board and alight independently through automatically actuating platform-based ramp. This work constitutes Phase II of the research, with Phase I (research background) having been carried out by Guo (2018).

Aims and Objectives In this research, the previous designs are reviewed in order to develop a new mechanical mechanism to resolve the PTI gap problem to help PRMs to board and alight safely and easily. A recommendation is made for application of sensors and a computer software to enable the operation of the mechanism to compensate the gaps automatically. Below are the research objectives:

• Review the design concept from the previous researcher (Guo, 2018). • Select the best solution for further development. • Design the mechanism and produce CAD drawings. • Make recommendations for automation of the mechanism. • Explain how this solution contributes to the socio-economic situation of the wider society.

Methodology Firstly, the researchers visited Newcastle Rail Station to collect some information necessary for the new design. This helped with identifying and recording of different types of trains that the station serves. Measured were train door dimensions, PTI horizontal (l) and vertical (h) distances, and train dwell time (t). Noted also was the crowd flow and station capacity. This information augmented secondary data.

Secondly, existing gap-filler designs were reviewed. Their advantages and disadvantages were analysed. A comparison of different designs was done to select the one most suitable for further development. The evaluation criterion was based on the following factors; cost, safety, performance and other indicators. Thirdly, the detail dimension and structure of the parts and assembly of the mechanism was completed using SolidWorks software. The design data came from field primary data and (literature) secondary data. The result was a 3D CAD model. An animation was developed to demonstrate the functionality of the design concept. Fourthly, recommendations were made for automation of the mechanism. The operational principles were demonstrated.

Fifthly, the design concept was evaluated using factors cost, performance, safety and crowd flow and station capacity by applying Likert scale evaluation criterion. Finally, the contribution of the proposed solution to the socio-economic situation of the wider society was discussed

REVIEW OF EXISTING GAP FILLER AND BOARDING SOLUTIONS In most cases, there is a vertical (step) and horizontal (gap) at the PTI. This can be inevitable, especially on curved platforms, and those served by trains with a wide range of floor/step heights. The gap is required to permit for horizontal movement of the train as it passes through the station. In Europe, over 30,000 rail stations have a gap problem (EC FAIR Stations, 2020). Only a small proportion have the legislative step free access (i.e. <75mm horizontal and <50mm vertical). UK is among the countries with the biggest problem. Where necessary, boarding aids are used to improve the PTI safety.

To improve the PTI safety, various solutions have been developed. The overall aim of each solution is to compensate for the height and/or horizontal distance differential between the rail vehicle and station platform. Solutions to close the gap between the vehicle and the platform are categorized as ‘platform’ or ‘vehicle’ based. In some cases, the optimum resolution is also a mix of strategies like platform-raising and an extendible footstep. A further differentiation is use of ‘fixed’ or ‘active’ systems. Fixed gap fillers do not move once installed. Active solutions can move, either purely mechanically or automated. Examples include deployable footsteps or platform edge solutions that may actively extend once a train arrives. The following sections review platform-based solutions (incorporating platform edge devices and track alterations), and train mounted solutions.

Summary of Rail Passenger Boarding Solutions In Phase I of this research, Guo (2018) discussed various gap filler designs and innovations that have been developed to resolve safety concerns at the PTI. Most of the solutions aim to cover the horizontal gap, when really, the vertical gap poses injury potential too. Gap-filler designs can either be platform-based or vehicle based as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Table 1 and Table 2 provide specific examples, respectively.

Figure 1: Platform-based solutions

Figure 2: Vehicle-based solutions

Table 1: Platform Based Rail Gap Filler and Boarding Designs (Guo, 2018)

Type of Design Designs Illustration

Fixed Delkor Rail

Type of Design Designs Illustration

Pipex px gap filler

Safety gap filler for railway platforms

CDM Flexibord

Platform edge STRAIL edge device

Corrugated platform edge

Raised platform Type of Design Designs Illustration

Railway filler

CACOLAC

Bigorre Ingenierie device

Active Gap Gap-Bridging Fillers Device for Train Platforms

Type of Design Designs Illustration Platform edge extender

Platform edge warning ramp

Step apparatus for platform

Device for reducing gaps

Removable platform edge

Type of Design Designs Illustration Retractable station platform extension

Manual ramp

Gauntlet Gauntlet (multiple) (multiple) track track

The Platform- Lift system based Lift

Table 2: Vehicle Based Rail Gap Filler and Boarding Designs (Guo, 2018)

Type of Design Designs Illustration

Foot Steps Pendolino footstep

Type of Design Designs Illustration

Stadler deployable footstep

Interchangeable step

Brightline train door ramp

Glidelok ramp

Automated Ramps

Train-to-platform gap mitigator

Type of Design Designs Illustration

Manual Ramps Ramp

Vehicle-based Lift lift

Platform-based systems Platform-based designs vary from significant platform adjustment to simply a device on the platform. They are divided into fixed or movable devices. Fixed designs are mostly flexible, used to partially or fully fill the gap. Most can be used both for straight and curved platforms. Their advantages are:

• Minimal vehicle service delay during installation. • Less installation and maintenance costs. • No significant platform alterations are required

The disadvantages of fixed solutions are:

• More detailed need to match user needs. • Difficulties in addressing the vertical gap. • Abrasion because of device-vehicle contact.

Active or moveable systems utilise sensors to detect the location of vehicle doorway in reference to the platform and adjust their device to the predefined position. Like fixed designs, moveable systems are not suitable for vertical gaps. Their main advantage is application of sensors to improve the accuracy of the device operation, and reliability. Disadvantages include delays in vehicle service because the detecting parts principally actuate once the vehicle stops; costly installation and maintenance; and requires significant platform alterations.

Vehicle-based system These systems can be fixed, or moveable (operated manually or semi-automated). Some of them are suitable for compensating both horizontal and vertical gaps. Most of the vehicle- based designs are intended for horizontal (flat) applications, while a few deploy step type gap fillers.

Fixed designs have the following advantages:

• Minimal vehicle service delay during installation. • Less installation and maintenance costs. • No significant platform alterations are required.

Their disadvantages are:

• Limitations in dimensions to suit the vehicle space • Difficulties in meeting the dual aim of filling the horizontal and vertical gaps. • Prone to wear and tear because of physical contact with the train.

Moveable designs utilise sensors to detect moment and location to deploy the gap filler. The advantages of these designs are their suitability for horizontal/vertical gaps. Disadvantages include delays in vehicle service, and costly installation and maintenance.

EVALUATION OF RAIL PASSENGER BOARDING SOLUTIONS Considering so many options to pick from, this section provides a guide to selection of the gap filling solution that meets some pre-determined criteria. An essential expert subjective investigation was performed within this scientific project. The expert group consisted of 10 mobility researchers and transport operators. Subjective evaluation is outlined as an emotional judgment supported non-quantifiable data. For the evaluation criterion, four factors were considered namely cost, applicability, operation, and implementation. This is further sub-divided as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Factors used for the evaluation criterion

Factors for Evaluation

Cost The following cost components were considered:

• Equipment: actual initial cost of the device and associated components. • Operational: associated with the exploitation of the system. Using electric and control systems increases costs compared with fixed and mechanical installations. • Construction: From a development perspective, the solution with the slightest alteration to the current setup would be cheaper. • Maintenance: Preventive or planned checks and repairs at regular intervals are cheaper than breakdowns and unplanned works.

Operations Factor for evaluation include operational simplicity, safety and delays:

• Ease of operation: a simple, and easy system saves time and reduces train dwell time. • Safety: this is the primary purpose of gap fillers and boarding systems at the PTI. The solution should adequately compensate for the horizontal and vertical gaps sufficiently enough to avoid PRMs falling or being injured when boarding or alighting. • Delay in actuation: The actual deployment of the system requires time, particularly for moveable system. There are devices which do not require a deployment time, such as fixed platform-based designs.

Applicability Applicability is a factor which alludes to:

• Access for PRMs: The gap filler should be positioned primarily to provide easy and safe boarding and alighting of PRMs. Ideally, it should provide a step-free level boarding. • Horizontal and vertical gap filling: The goal of installing a gap filler or boarding system is to fully compensate for the gaps. However, this is not always easy or possible as has been demonstrated by the many different designs in Section 0.

Implementation The time needed to install the solution is important. This will determine how long the platform may be out of service while construction is taking place. It may also indirectly infer installation labour cost.

Weighting and rankings Design solutions were evaluated using the factors discussed earlier. The criteria applied a Likert scale of 1 (low performance or less desirable) to 5 (high performance or most desirable), using evaluation of 10 experts. Applicability, deemed to be most important for PRMs, accounted for 40% while cost, operations and implementation each accounted for 20% of the score.

Presented in Table 3 are the overall results of the evaluation.

Table 3: Evaluation Results (Guo, 2018)

Below is a summary of the outcomes of the evaluation.

Ranking based on cost 1. Manual ramps 2. Delkor Rail

Ranking based on applicability 1. Manual ramps/Lifts 2. Glidelok ramp

Ranking based on operations 1. STRAIL edge 2. Safety gap filler/Stadler deployable footstep

Ranking based on implementation 1. Stadler deployable footstep 2. Pendolino footstep/Manual ramps

Overall ranking

1. Manual ramps (Devadoss, et al, 2012) • Appropriate for both straight and curved platforms. • Accessibility of PRMs. • Horizontal and vertical gap filling. • Minimal costs of installation, operations and maintenance.

2. Glidelok ramp (Fullerton, 2005) • No vehicle alteration required. • Appropriate for both straight and curved platforms. • Accessibility of PRMS. • Horizontal and vertical gap filling.

3. Stadler deployable footstep (Stadler, 2015) • Appropriate for both straight and curved platforms. • Accessibility of PRMs. • Horizontal and vertical gap filling.

NEW PROPOSED SOLUTION The review of the gap filler solutions and boarding systems revealed that they have advantages and disadvantages. In order to provide guidance on the most suitable solution for future development, an evaluation criterion was applied. For accessibility and safety, results show that the manual ramp has more advantages of meeting the needs of PRMs than the other designs. Although they have many advantages, the greatest disadvantage is the need for staff to operate the ramp, which requires additional labour time. Moreover, manual operation is time consuming and laborious, which is very inconvenient. It also causes delays in the train departure, thus increasing the dwell time. Therefore, based on the manual ramp solution, a new concept design has been proposed. This automatic ramp solution solves the problem of extra manpower hours. However, it increases cost and complexity. Automated ramps use equipment such as motors and sensors, which will undoubtedly increase the cost of installation and maintenance. In addition, without staff, safety precautions need to be considered. Nevertheless, the additional cost could be compensated by a reduction in train dwell time, improved crowd flow, and safety.

Modeling of the boarding system To complete the 3D model of whole system, some data and design requirements were collected. The design parameters of trains and platform were obtained through field measurements and design requirements from European standard and TSI PRM. During the period of investigation, the researchers found that there are different types of platforms at Newcastle railway station, which resulted in different vertical gap and horizontal gap at the PTI. The research investigated three types of platforms: Class 221 Super voyager operated by Cross Country, operated by Northern, and operated by Transpennine Express. The width of train body of Class 221, Class 156 and Class 185 were 2.730m, 2.730m and 2.673m respectively. The Platform offset was nearly 900mm, resulting in horizontal gaps of 252mm, 252mm and 282mm, respectively. The floor height of Class 221, Class 156 and Class 185 were 1.215m, 1.140m and 1.247m, respectively. At Newcastle station, the platform is nearly 1000mm, creating differential vertical gaps of 215mm, 140mm and 247mm, respectively.

The design requirements for automatic ramp provided by European standard and EU TSI PRM 2014 (EC, 2014) are summarized below.

• Level access is provided when the gap between the door and platform does not exceed 75mm measured horizontally and 50mm measured vertically. • Assessment of the ramp angle should be measured between the ramp usable surface and a horizontal plane. 10.2o is the maximum permitted slope allowed for wheelchairs to board independently. • The ramp shall have a minimum effective clear width of 760mm. • The minimum height of raised edges is 50mm. • The upstands at ends of the ramp shall be bevelled and shall be a maximum height of 20mm. • The ramps shall withstand of 300kg which means no permanent deformation is allowed under the load case. • The ramp surface shall be slip resistant. • The length on the platform that is required to allow the wheelchair to manipulate on and off the ramp (1500mm)

The data used for the concept design in this project is taken from the train Class 221, shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Design parameters for assisted boarding mechanism Dimension Measurement Height of platform 1000mm Platform offset 900mm Vertical gap between train and platform Nearly 250 mm Horizontal gap between train and Nearly 300 mm platform Width of train door 1000mm Height of train door 2000mm Minimum width of ramp 760mm Maximum raised angle 10.2 Maximum allowed vertical and 50mm and 75mm horizontal gap Note: Some of the dimensions are approximate because this project is a concept only

3D modeling of train Modelling of the train is based on the dimensions of Class 221 Super Voyager. The 3D modelling does not match the actual design but shows the main features of the train. The train model consists of the locomotive and the carriage. Modelling of the carriage comprises four parts: the main body; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), wheel shaft and wheel. The dimensions of various components are Error! Reference source not found.summarised in Error! Reference source not found., while Figure 4 shows the 3D modelling of the locomotive and main body. According to the actual dimension the train, the lengths of the locomotive and main body are 23.85m and 22.82m, respectively. The width and height are 2.73m and 3.6m, respectively, while the height of the floor is 1.215m. The width and height of the train door which are the most important parameters for design are 1000mm and 2000mm respectively.

3D modeling of the gap filler mechanism The gap filler mechanism needs to realize X, Y, and Z three direction movement and fill the horizontal gap of 300mm and vertical gap of 250mm. In this project, an automatic ramp is used to solve the problem. The working steps of mechanism are that, when the train stops at the platform, the mechanism will slide along the track to locate the door. Then the ramp will be raised to the maximum angle and extend forward, closing the gap. Lastly, the ramp will attach to the train. In order to show the mechanism more intuitively, all the parts are presented in Figure 6. The boarding system comprises six parts: ramp, the base of mechanism, the top of mechanism, track, hinge and slide block. Figure 5 shows the ramp of the mechanism which will be extended to fill the horizontal gap. The length of the ramp is 840mm which depends on the dimension of the wheelchair (<700mm) and the dimension of train door of Class 221 (1000mm). The width of the ramp is 1000 mm and the extendable length is 500mm which can fill the different horizontal gap successfully. There are grooves arranged on the surface of ramp which prevent PRMs from slipping off. In the end of the ramp, a 20o bevel is manufactured to help wheelchairs board smoothly.

Table 5: Parameters of 3D model of train Dimension Measurement Length of locomotive 23.87m Length of coach 22.82m Width of train 2.73m Distance between two wheels 1.435m Width of train door 1000mm Height of train door 2000mm Length of the wheel shaft 2300mm Diameter of wheel 800mm

HVAC

Main body Door

Wheelset

Figure 4: Assembly of carriage

Figure 5: Assembly of assisted boarding mechanism

The assembly of the assisted boarding mechanism is presented in Figure 6.

Train

Gap filler mechanism

Platform Rail

Figure 6: Assembly of whole system

AUTOMATION OF THE GAP FILLER MECHANISM In this section, the concept of control system is proposed. However, the full control system is not the subject of this paper. In order to achieve fully automatic operation, the sensors are inevitably used in this boarding system. There are three tasks that the different sensors are required for. The first task is to detect the approaching of the train, and second task is to locate the position of door. Thirdly, the mechanism should attach to the train successfully and safely. For the task of detecting the approach of train and locating the position of train door, the physical parameter distance needs to be detected. For the task of deploying the ramp, the sensors need to detect the metal part of the train. Two scenarios are considered namely, flat or level train floor, and an entrance with steps.

Sensor to detect the approaching of train To detect the approaching of the train, infrared distance sensors and ultrasonic sensors are applied. The infrared distance sensor comprises five parts: infrared emitting circuit, infrared receiving circuit, amplifying circuit, single-chip microcomputer and decoding display circuit. An infrared beam emitted by transmitting unit is reflected after it reaches the train. The signal is received and processed by receiving circuit and amplifying circuit. Thereafter, the distance is calculated by a single-chip microcomputer and the result is decoded and displayed by decoding display circuit.

Sensor to locate the position of train door To locate the position of the door, laser distance sensor is used in this mechanism. This type of infrared sensor works also based on principle of time-of-flight. When the train stops, the sensors scan along the train body. By calculating the time that receiver receives the signal, the position of the train door can be detected. The infrared will take longer time in the position of door because the door is open, and the infrared will hit the next plane. The mechanism will stop when a long time is calculated.

Sensor to deploy the ramp To extend the telescopic plate to the train, the inductive proximity sensors are used in this system. These are used for non-contact detection of metal and usually composed of coil, oscillator, demodulator, trigger and output driver. This type of sensor can detect metal objects reliably, so it can measure the distance between the telescopic plate and train accurately. As the telescopic plate extends forward, the proximity sensors start to work. When the sensors detect the metal on the train, the speed of telescopic plate will slow down. When the telescopic plate touches the train, the motion will stop.

THE EVALUATION OF THE BOARDING MECHANISM The gap filler boarding mechanism is evaluated using five factors: cost, performance, safety, crowd flow and station capacity (Figure 7). Comparative evaluation results are shown in Table 6. In the evaluation, a manual ramp gets the highest score 16 in the indicator of cost. The new gap filler mechanism gets the highest score 26 in the indicator of performance. Brightline train door ramp gets the highest score 27 in the indicator of safety. The new mechanism and Brightline train door ramp get the highest score 18 in the indicator of crowd flow and station capacity. The new concept design based on the manual ramp obtained the highest score of 78%. In this perspective, the mechanism designed before can be installed with reasonability. The new mechanism can be installed in all platforms after a successful test at a platform. It is necessary to develop new regulations and standard to ensure safety of passengers and smooth operation of the mechanism. A design, manufacture and installation criterion can be made by relevant departments to simplify the implementation of the mechanism.

construction

maintenance cost

operation

mechanism

function

performance Time of operation

Elements of Versatility

evaluation Safety during boarding safety

Safety of other aspects

Crowd flows and station capacity

Figure 7: The elements need to be evaluation of assisted boarding mechanism

Table 6: Comparison between different gap fillers

Cost (20%) Performance (30%)

e

n

Total Total

unction

ersatility

Time of

F

operation

Operation v

Apparatus

Constructio

Maintenanc

% % % %

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 5 5 5

2 1 1 1 3 Platform-based gap filler Assisted boarding 1 3 4 2 10 5 3 5 26 mechanism by designer Delkor rail gap filler 5 5 3 4 17 2 3 2 14 Pipex px gap filler 4 5 3 3 15 2 2 2 12 Bigorre Ingenierie 2 3 4 3 12 3 4 3 20 Device Movable platform 2 3 4 2 10 3 3 3 18 edge Vehicle-based gap filler Pendolino footstep 2 4 4 1 11 4 3 4 24 Stadler deployable 2 4 4 1 11 4 3 4 24 footstep Brightline train door 2 4 4 1 11 4 3 3 20 ramp Glidelok ramp 2 4 4 2 12 4 4 3 22 Manual ramp 5 1 5 5 16 4 2 4 20

Safety (30%) Crowd flow and Total station capacity (100%)

(20%)

l

cts

g

flow

Total Tota

Other

Crowd Crowd

Station

aspe

Boardin

capacity

% % %

5 0% 0%

1 15 30 1 10% 2 Platform-based gap filler Assisted boarding 5 3 24 5 4 18 78 mechanism by designer Delkor rail gap filler 2 2 12 2 2 8 51 Pipex px gap filler 2 2 12 2 2 8 47 Bigorre Ingenierie 4 3 21 4 3 14 67 Device Movable platform edge 4 3 21 4 3 14 63 Vehicle-based gap filler Pendolino footstep 4 4 24 4 4 16 75 Stadler deployable 4 4 24 4 4 16 75 footstep Brightline train door 5 4 27 5 4 18 76 ramp Glidelok ramp 4 4 24 4 4 16 74 Manual ramp 4 4 24 3 3 12 72

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS Although socio-economic evaluation was not part of the scope of this research, this section endeavours to identify the potential opportunities for job creation. This paper has presented a concept design of an accessible gap filler for PRMs, who make up 50% of the rail passengers, which is potentially a large market. In addition, it is a universal design which can be used by the general public, who face similar safety risks at the PTI. It applies the concept of design- for-all for accessible products (Matsika and Peng, 2016). Therefore, successful commercialisation of the device can create jobs at all the stages of the life cycle of the gap filler. This includes, but not limited to the following stages: design, manufacture, installation, operations, repair/maintenance, and marketing. In fact, there are many more jobs created in support industries such as tier 2 suppliers and transportation companies.

CONCLUSION The gap at the platform train interface (PTI) has always been a safety concern in general, and particularly for persons with reduced mobility (PRMs). Regulations require that the horizontal and vertical gaps should not exceed 15mm and 40mm, respectively. At present, many countries in Europe do not meet these requirements since the stations are old. New builds, however, incorporate step free designs as far as possible.

The review of the gap filler solutions and boarding systems has found that these have advantages and disadvantages. In order to provide guidance on the most suitable solution for future development, an expert evaluation criterion was applied. Results show that the manual ramp has more advantages of meeting the needs of PRMs, for accessibility and safety. Although manual ramps have many advantages, the greatest disadvantage is the need for staff to operate the ramp, which requires additional labour hours. Moreover, manual operation is time consuming and laborious, which is very inconvenient. It also causes dwell time delays of up to 400%. The review has also shown that operationally, a PTI solution should aim at improving accessibility, improving the PRM safety, while also reducing the train dwell time. Therefore, future developments of the new proposed design or derivatives of existing designs should take this into account.

While applying the concept of universal design, the new mechanism that helps PRMs to board and alight independently through automatically actuating platform-based ramp. It applies 3DoF for translation motion, and 2DoF for angular motion. A combination of these 5DoF ensure successful gap filling. The actuations are controlled by infrared sensors and inductive sensors. The system is capable of moving 2m along the platform. It covers a maximum horizontal gap of 500mm and has a maximum inclination of 10.2°. The new concept design reduces dwell time associated with the presence of PRMs. This allows zero interference between the door usage from all passenger groups. In addition, it facilitates the crowd flow management during boarding and alighting. An evaluation based on cost, performance, safety and crowd flow shows the effectiveness of the mechanism. It is recommended that the system should be installed at all platforms to help PRMs board independently. Corresponding, safety standards and regulations need to be developed to ensure safety and security of the mechanism. The system can be installed both at retrofitted and new build platforms. It therefore has potential to promote job creation through design, manufacture, installation, operations and maintenance, thereby contributing to the socio- economic situation of a country.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was conducted as part of the EC FAIR Stations Project (2017 – 2019). Further work is being conducted as part of an award by the Royal Academy of Engineering under “Frontiers of Engineering for Development Seed funding Award” (FoE 2021/9/20), which sponsored conference participation.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Atkins Rail 2004, Significant Steps research, UK Department for Transport.

Devadoss, R., Ahmad, S. and Dhamodharan, D.R., 2012. Station Platform-Train Interface for Rail passengers-A Technology review''. CRC for Rail Innovation.

EC (2014): 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. Official Journal of the European Union 12.12.2014.

EU FAIR Stations (2020): http://www.fairstations.eu/

Fullerton, K 2005, Glidelok ramp, Fresh Innovators 2005, Australia, retrieved 28 August 2010.

Guo N (2018): Independent Boarding System for PRMs in . Master’s Degree Dissertation. 2018. Newcastle University. UK.

Lemmerer H, Shibayama T, Rüger B, Seltenhammer K, Macoun T, Matsika E, Logueira DF, Battista U, Khosravi M, de Santiago Laporte A, Kuzmina D (2018): D2.1 User Needs and Expectations of the General Public and PRMs. EU FAIR Stations Project. NUMBER 777636 — IP/ITD/CCA — IP1, IP3.

Matsika E, Peng Q. (2015): Crash safety of a typical bay table in a railway vehicle. Transport Problems. International Scientific Journal. Volume 10 Special Edition.

Matsika, E., Chirwa, E. C. and Peng, Q. (2013): Influence of Human Related Factors on Railway Vehicle Wheelchair Occupant Crash Safety. Joint Rail Conference – ASME. Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, April 15–18, 2013. Paper No. JRC2013-2406, pp. V001T06A002-; 11 pages. doi:10.1115/JRC2013-2406. ISBN: 978-0-7918-5530-0.

RSSB (2013). [online] Available at: https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety- reporting/2013-report-risk-at-the-platform-train-interface.pdf.

Stadler, private correspondence with project engineer, 11th November 2015,2015.