Study on Platform Gap Fillers for Indian Railways

Parag Bhati1 Saurabh Kulkarni2 Shubham Bisane3 Anil Bamnote4

1,2,3
Bachelor of Engineering Student
4
Professor
1,2,3,4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, YCCE, Nagpur

Abstract- Indian Railways is India’s national railway system.

India has the fourth largest railway networks in the world by
size. In India, at some platforms it is observed that there is
ample space between the train coaches and the platform. A
platform gap is the space between train and the edge of station
platform, often created by geometric constraints, historic
legacies or use of partially compatible equipment. While
climbing into the train coaches some people may accidentally
fall down into the gap between the train coaches and the
platform. This problem can be solved by using platform gap
fillers. Platform gap fillers are movable platform or extensions
on train or platform which close the gap between the platform
or the train coaches door. It also makes it convenient for entry Figure 1. Gap between Train and platform
and exit from the train. So the platform must be designed with
the intention of safety and convenience of passengers. B. Literature Review

Keywords: PTI- Platform Train Interface
A. Introduction
This research paper consists of problem which happens due to
gap between train and platform while boarding. In India, most
of the station buildings were built in the late19th century.
Some of them are now designated as heritage structures and
need to be preserved. The cases of accidents like falling of
passengers during entraining/detraining due to the horizontal
as well as vertical gaps between platform and coach floor of
the trains are reported. Due to space constrains as per Indian
Railway Schedule of Dimensions (IRSOD) followed for
Indian Railways coach design, and due to coach behavior in
dynamic conditions, the horizontal gap between platform and
coach floor can't be disturbed, but redesigning of complete
entraining/detraining arrangement compatible with platform
may be exercised.
To be more specific, the passengers are facing the difficulties
due to wide horizontal and vertical gaps between the train and
platform. It is noted that platform gap varies from platform to
platform. This gap increases in a curved platform, making
access difficult even for able- bodied passengers. This results
in poor customer service, as well as poor accessibility for
people with special needs. Ideally there should be no gap
between platforms and trains, but practically this is not
possible, as platforms are designed to safety standards which
demand a clearance between train and platform.
Study made by Dr Dhamodharan Raman, reviewed that
passengers, in particular passengers with reduced mobility
(including the disabled and aged people), experience
difficulties in accessing railway platforms primarily due to the
lack of suitable technologies or to the intrinsic design limits of
platforms and rolling stock.
PTI forms a significant proportion of the risk faced by
passengers. A greater understanding of the casual factors
involved in PTI accidents can provide the industry with the
knowledge to prevent some of these accidents and to mitigate
the consequences when they do occur.
Passenger factors associated with an increase in risk of an
accident included: mobility, being elderly, having disabilities
(visual impairment), being accompanied by small children or
incidents occurring to small children, behavior of other
passengers such as pushing or jostling, carry luggage and
other articles, alcohol, degraded platform conditions such as
crowding, wet platforms or uneven platforms, and stepping
distances.

Figure 2. Horizontal and Vertical Gap between Train and High

Level Platform
 C. Statistical Review of Indian Railways
By far, the highest number of accidents are because of
derailments & accidents at level crossings. Nine (9) out of Ten
(10) railway accidents during 2009-10 and 2014-15 have been
due to derailments and accidents at level crossings. The other
type of accidents includes collisions, etc. But their number is
relatively much lower.
For gap injuries the percent of injuries peaks for the very
young, under 10 years old, then increased with age until the
30-40 year group. After this age group the percent of injuries
remained flat for older age groups. For non-gap injuries, the
highest percent of injuries occurred for ages between 50 and
60 years old. The data indicated that unlike non-gap injuries,
gap injuries did not increase with age. Gap injuries associated
with the very young may be attributed to distraction, shorter
strides and general unfamiliarity with train boarding and
detraining. Gap injuries associated with 30 to 40 years old
may be a result of higher number of passengers in this age
category.
Sixty-six percent of gap injuries occurred while passengers
were boarding. Seventy percent of gap injuries for female
passengers occurred while boarding compared to 56 percent
for male passengers. The largest differences between boarding
and detraining passengers occurred for those under 10 years.
The study indicated that young children are particularly
vulnerable to gap injuries while detraining.
Figure 3. Indian Railway Accident Percentage
D. Possible Solutions
1. Moving platform –Amtrak, United States
A concept has been developed by Amtrak to reduce the
horizontal gap between the passenger train and the platform on
tracks that see both passenger and freight traffic. A section of
the platform moves horizontally towards the passenger train
door section to allow passengers to board. New York City
Transit (subway) has a few operating movable platforms also.
Some have been removed or secured in place with concrete
due to the large increase in dwell time and potential injury
possibilities. Figure 4 shows a picture of this new concept
developed by Amtrak.
Figure 4. Moving Platform Concept by AMTRAK (RVAAC
Committee)
2. Platform Fixed Gap Boards
On existing platforms used by legacy rolling stock, a
horizontal gap may exist when new rolling stock is introduced.
In this case, fixed boards that are attached to the platform are
added for the sections where the door positions are. This can
only be achieved if a train consist always has the same vehicle
configuration with predetermined or predictable door
locations. There is the potential that the boards are applied to
the whole length of the platform, however this will create
other challenges for freight train operation. In Figure 14, the
fixed platform boards are used on the commuter train system
in Ottawa that operates on exclusive track that is no longer
used for freight operations. The boards were initially designed
to move up and down, but currently they are always down.
Figure 5. Fixed Platform Board on the OC Transpo Commuter
System in Ottawa, Canada
 3. Onboard Automatic and Manual Gap Fillers
Newer commuter and light rail trains running on older tracks
or those sharing tracks with freight trains can provide car
based automatic or manually operated gap fillers. These are
small ramps that slide in and out from under the doors when
the doors are closed. The automatic board slides out when the
train comes to a complete stop before the door opens and
retracts when the doors are closed prior to departing. The
manually operated boards will deploy when a customer pushes
a button on the inside or outside of the train while stopped at a
platform. These technologies often require exemption
provisions; however they are often very simple devices with
manual operation by a member of the train crew.
It is important to note that on most systems the doors must be
shut for the gap fillers to operate. Thus this can increase dwell
time if the doors must cycle shut to deploy the ramp if the
button is pushed after the doors have been initially opened.
However, the automatic operated ramps have not shown to
increase dwell time. In both cases the ramps can be present at
all doors or designated locations throughout the train. This
solution can be applied to various types of rail transit with
varying gap distances.
Figure 6. Automatic Gap Filler Shown on a German LRT
4. Sliding Ramps
A sliding ramp can mitigate both horizontal and vertical gaps
and works particularly well for passengers using mobility
devices where the car floor is higher than the platform. The
length of the platform typically exceeds the width of tactile
platform edge strips and thus does not interfere with a
mobility device’s wheels of the tactile strip/ The ramp is
located above the accessible car door and slopes back into the
car. Its deployment may have an impact on dwell times. These
ramps are mainly used on trams, light rail, commuters, and
some intercity trains where the vertical gap does not exceed 3
inches. Figure 7 shows a side view of a sliding ramp.
Figure 7. Sliding Ramp
E. Conclusion
Thus , from all the above it is observed that the percentage of
accident happen is higher while boarding the train , so to
reduce the accident we have to introduce a dynamic solution
to the problem. There are some possible solutions given in this
paper but these solutions are not suitable for every Indian
scenario since the platforms are designed long ago. These
solutions can be used on newly designed platform. There is a
future scope for platform gap filler which can work in every
platform and can sustain hard conditions. It will reduce the
accidents of falling into the gap drastically.
References
1) “Platform Edge Detection and Protection Effects on
Platform-Train Interface Safety”, for submission to the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
2015 Annual Meeting by Dylan Anderson and Katharine
Hunter-Zaworski.
2) “Guidance on Interface between Station Platforms, Track
and Trains” for GI/RT7016 Issue Two: March 2014 Rail
Industry Guidance Note.
3) “Innovation Challenge for INDIAN RAILWAYS”, Journal
of Information, Knowledge and Research in Mechanical
Engineering, ISSN 0975 – 668X| NOV 16 TO OCT 17 ,
VOLUME –04, ISSUE – 02.
4) “Evaluating Platform Gap Fillers to Reduce Risk at the
Platform/Train Interface”, copyright by Rail Safety and
Standards Board Limited, Written by: Colin Davenport,
Senior Gauging Engineer, Balfour Beatty Rail, Published:
April 2016.
5) “Boarding and Alighting Matrix on Behaviour and
Interaction at the Platform Train Interface”, Conference
Paper • November 2016, written by Taku Fujiyama and
Sebastián Seriani.
6) “Customer Behavior Relative to Gap Between Platform and
Train”, New Jersey Institute of Technology University
HeightsNewark, NJ 07102-982 written by Janice R. Daniel
and Naomi G. Rotter.