Topic: Safe Standing ( split from: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield)

[Eeyore]

What did you want me to say about the guy at the back? Correct he isn't in the right place in the picture - have you got the row and seat number from his ticket? Did he just pop back there for a couple of minutes to see what it was like and a picture was taken? Obviously there were no tickets and or stewards in this situation so no one to move people where they 'should' be.

And how do stewards do it now? You're telling me this is some tough task - yet there is no evidence (christ, you won't even answer the question, let alone find any evidence) of people not standing in the correct place currently when persistently standing in seated areas.

If you had eight seats and eight people and asked everyone to go and stand in front of a seat then they would do it correctly though. Ask people to stand and it goes awry exactly what I HAVE BEEN SAYING TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

FFS Craig you posted a picture to show how it would work and it didn't work so go figure.

[Peter McGurk]

Of course its overcrowding, how can virtually doubling the number of people on the kop not be overcrowding?

By definition, overcrowding is more people than the regulations allow.

It's not overcrowding because the density is less than the current regulations allow.

Are you having a laugh Peter YOU are the one who posted it and even went to the trouble of bolding the bit about seats being installed to prevent overcrowding. So are you disagreeing with what you posted earlier now ?

Overcrowding is overcrowding. As defined (see above).

Of the many ways of controlling it and of controlling bunching (overcrowding in parts of a stand), you must control the overall numbers in a section - from turnstiles for the whole stadium or stand to controls on individual staircases and entry points directly into the spectator area. Standing or sitting makes no difference to that.

Controlling hooliganism is another matter. Identification of culprits is what was wanted. Named, stamped, ticketed, monitored - nothing to do with safety. As the police say, safe standing is safe but they'd rather police a sitting stand.

[CraigDS]

If you had eight seats and eight people and asked everyone to go and stand in front of a seat then they would do it correctly though. Ask people to stand and it goes awry exactly what I HAVE BEEN SAYING TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

THEY DO HAVE SEATS TO STAND IN FRONT OF IN SAFE STANDING THOUGH. Seriously, is that so hard for you to understand? They don't suddenly become invisible when they are in the locked position.

FFS Craig you posted a picture to show how it would work and it didn't work so go figure.

Yes, one guy was in the row behind, as said, for all you know that could of been his seat number, or he could of gone up there to see what it looked like from there given this was a demo.

There is nothing in that picture to show it doesn't work, unless you got a big fuck off agenda (or more likely too big an ego to admit when you're wrong).

[macca007]

If you had eight seats and eight people and asked everyone to go and stand in front of a seat then they would do it correctly though. Ask people to stand and it goes awry exactly what I HAVE BEEN SAYING TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

FFS Craig you posted a picture to show how it would work and it didn't work so go figure.

So people need allocations?  which is what does/will happen...

[Alf Garnett]

By definition, overcrowding is more people than the regulations allow.

It's not overcrowding because the density is less than the current regulations allow.

So you are saying current regulations would allow the Kop to virtually double it's capacity?

[macca007]

So you are saying current regulations would allow the Kop to virtually double it's capacity?

I'm sure peter posted the requirements a couple of pages back which showed the kop would be 1.8 per seat to what it is now according to the regs.

[CraigDS]

So people need allocations?  which is what does/will happen...

No in Al's world, what will happen is 15,000 people will stand in the spaces meant for 10 people.

It's really not hard. The upper step stand in front of the seat, the lower row stand behind the seat in front. Everyone has a ticket with a row and seat number, everyone knows where they are meant to be, anyone out of position will be easily noticed as it's not like there is loads of room to squeeze more people in so you'll get overflow into the stairs.

It's simple really.

[Eeyore]

No in Al's world, what will happen is 15,000 people will stand in the spaces meant for 10 people.

It's really not hard. The upper step stand in front of the seat, the lower row stand behind the seat in front. Everyone has a ticket with a row and seat number, everyone knows where they are meant to be, anyone out of position will be easily noticed as it's not like there is loads of room to squeeze more people in so you'll get overflow into the stairs.

It's simple really.

That doesn't meet the requirements of the green guide Craig unless you make each seat space bigger. The new Kop has never been a standing area so for me the likliehood is that it would need to meet the new regulations which would mean a much bigger space for each seat space. Add in extra gangways, extra exits plus the requirement for seating at UEFA games and you won't get anywhere near 1.8 times the capacity of the current Kop.

That for me renders the whole exercise pretty redundant.

You look at what we did with the old Kemlyn and what we are doing with the main stand and we are leaving the existing stands well alone because doing so means we don't have to meet current space per seat regs.

Ripping out the kop and starting again to get safe standing will be expensive and with reduced ticket prices will mean it isn't a financially viable option. Add in the fact that you would need to attract more people to get the same kind of income and it simply isn't something that is going to happen.

[CraigDS]

That doesn't meet the requirements of the green guide Craig unless you make each seat space bigger. The new Kop has never been a standing area so for me the likliehood is that it would need to meet the new regulations which would mean a much bigger space for each seat space. Add in extra gangways, extra exits plus the requirement for seating at UEFA games and you won't get anywhere near 1.8 times the capacity of the current Kop.

That for me renders the whole exercise pretty redundant.

I'm working on the presumption the seats will be slightly larger than now.

It may render it redundant, but I've not ran the numbers, have you?

You look at what we did with the old Kemlyn and what we are doing with the main stand and we are leaving the existing stands well alone because doing so means we don't have to meet current space per seat regs.

Ripping out the kop and starting again to get safe standing will be expensive and with reduced ticket prices will mean it isn't a financially viable option. Add in the fact that you would need to attract more people to get the same kind of income and it simply isn't something that is going to happen.

Again, you ran the numbers on this?

[Peter McGurk]

So you are saying current regulations would allow the Kop to virtually double it's capacity?

Current regulations are 47 people standing per 10sqm or about 0.2sqm per person. The kop's current seating density is about 0.4sqm per person or double the space required for standing.

The decrease from 2.0:1 to 1.8:1 is based on experience elsewhere accounting for the loss of spaces arising from an increase in exits to cater for the extra numbers.

On the other hand, a calculation of the required escapes to achieve the required escape times may or may not show that the current escapes are adequate in both conditions.

In short, yes.

[CraigDS]

Current regulations are 47 people standing per 10sqm or about 0.2sqm per person. The kop's current seating density is about 0.4sqm per person or double the space required for standing.

The decrease from 2.0:1 to 1.8:1 is based on experience elsewhere accounting for the loss of spaces arising from an increase in exits to cater for the extra numbers.

In short, yes.

So effectively it becomes 2 people stood (on different steps) in front of 1 seat?

[Peter McGurk]

So effectively it becomes 2 people stood (on different steps) in front of 1 seat?

One folded-up seat. yes.

I think that's what we've been saying and looks pretty much like the pictures.

[CraigDS]

One folded-up seat. yes.

I think that's what we've been saying and looks pretty much like the pictures.

Yep, it's what the FSF photos all show (unless you find one with people just plonked on for a photo) and is how I thought it would work.

It's fairly simple in that case, you can clearly see where you are meant to be from the seat behind or in front, and it's simple to spot people not in line with the rest and see if that's down to extra people or not.

[Eeyore]

So effectively it becomes 2 people stood (on different steps) in front of 1 seat?

The 47 people per 10sqm is from 24 years when people were much smaller it is also the maximum allowed if the entry capacity, exit capacity regs are also met. Also the seat space in the Kop is only allowed now because the new rules regarding the size of the steps and seats were not retrospective.   

[CraigDS]

The 47 people per 10sqm is from 24 years when people were much smaller

Ooo, this is a new one you've added to the mix.

In Germany where they have this rail system the ratio is 2 per 1 seat, of course there would be a drop in seated capacity to not only increase seat sizes (with the new rail seats installed) but increase exits and any other requirements - but I would hazard a guess this would not half the current seated capacity so a 2:1 ratio on the new seats should still be a higher capacity than now.

[Eeyore]

Ooo, this is a new one you've added to the mix.

In Germany where they have this rail system the ratio is 2 per 1 seat, of course there would be a drop in seated capacity to not only increase seat sizes (with the new rail seats installed) but increase exits and any other requirements - but I would hazard a guess this would not half the current seated capacity so a 2:1 ratio on the new seats should still be a higher capacity than now.

Even if you get a higher capacity reduced ticket prices would mean the Club would need to sell more tickets just to break even and would lose out massively on European nights. A new safe standing area would also more than likely be deemed as a new construction and not an existing one so you would have to meet the new regs which would mean less seats. In the history of the Club the highest average attendance was 48k and dropped as low as the mid 30's in the 1980's so why would FSG gamble on getting crowds of around 70k.

You also haven't addressed the problem of sightlines currently if you stand in the kop then the person infront of you is twice as far away and two steps below you. If you squeezed 2 into 1 then that person would be half the distance away and would be only one step below you.

[Peter McGurk]

The 47 people per 10sqm is from 24 years when people were much smaller it is also the maximum allowed if the entry capacity, exit capacity regs are also met. Also the seat space in the Kop is only allowed now because the new rules regarding the size of the steps and seats were not retrospective.

Simply wrong. 47 people per 10sqm is the current standard. Today. And yes the escape times would need to comply as well. That has been said.

And yes, the space standard for seating has increased, not because people have got taller so much but because they've got fatter. Yet the width of the kop steps would also comply with current space standards for standing.

And the Kop seating standards complied when they were built and so comply now. If you renewed every seat in the kop, they'd still comply. Those are the rules.

[CraigDS]

Even if you get a higher capacity reduced ticket prices would mean the Club would need to sell more tickets just to break even and would lose out massively on European nights.

Agreed, it would certainly need to be something to put into the numbers to see if the increased capacity/income (whatever that is) from 20+ home PL/Domestic Cup games covers the potential loss from the European games.

A new safe standing area would also more than likely be deemed as a new construction and not an existing one so you would have to meet the new regs which would mean less seats.

Based on?

In the history of the Club the highest average attendance was 48k and dropped as low as the mid 30's in the 1980's so why would FSG gamble on getting crowds of around 70k.

Agreed, it would need to be looked into what demand is at the various ticket price levels that could be charged for standing seats.

You also haven't addressed the problem of sightlines currently if you stand in the kop then the person infront of you is twice as far away and two steps below you. If you squeezed 2 into 1 then that person would be half the distance away and would be only one step below you.

As said earlier, it may cause issues if you are particularly small, or there is a particularly tall person there, but obviously this is part of the reason why standing tickets would be cheaper than seated ones, as the view could potentially be restricted at times - no different to standing at any football, rugby, concert, etc.

If you're small and don't want to take the risk then spend a few more quid on a seated ticket.

[Eeyore]

Simply wrong. 47 people per 10sqm is the current standard. Today. And yes the escape times would need to comply as well. that has been said.

And yes, the space standard for seating has increased, not because people have got taller so much but because they've got fatter. Yet the width of the kop steps would also comply with current space standards for standing.

And the Kop seating standards complied when they were built and so comply now. If you renewed every seat in the kop, they'd still comply. Those are the rules.

You wouldn't be renewing the seats in the Kop though Peter you would be changing from a seated area to a standing area so I can't see how you could say it was an existing construction. It's a bit misleading to say that the width of the seats would comply as well mate as we both know that the width of the seats is something that hasn't changed in the regs. The distance between rows has though.

[Peter McGurk]

You wouldn't be renewing the seats in the Kop though Peter you would be changing from a seated area to a standing area so I can't see how you could say it was an existing construction. It's a bit misleading to say that the width of the seats would comply as well mate as we both know that the width of the seats is something that hasn't changed in the regs. The distance between rows has though.

When you sit in your seat on the kop on a European night or Category B or C PL game, it is not a standing area. There is no change.

I didn't mention seat width.

Even if you get a higher capacity reduced ticket prices would mean the Club would need to sell more tickets just to break even and would lose out massively on European nights. A new safe standing area would also more than likely be deemed as a new construction and not an existing one so you would have to meet the new regs which would mean less seats. In the history of the Club the highest average attendance was 48k and dropped as low as the mid 30's in the 1980's so why would FSG gamble on getting crowds of around 70k.

You also haven't addressed the problem of sightlines currently if you stand in the kop then the person infront of you is twice as far away and two steps below you. If you squeezed 2 into 1 then that person would be half the distance away and would be only one step below you.

Erm, no...

Everyone would be sat down on European nights paying European prices - no loss of revenue there. Even allowing for an adjustment in numbers arising from more escapes is not a ‘massive’ number nor does it stop the club taking an overall view on revenue rather than a match by match basis, which of course it does.

A new construction under the Building Regulations for example would only be ‘new’ where the compliance of the existing is materially affected. The number of seats might actually fall and thus would be ‘more compliant’ than it was before.

As has been said, extra escapes might be required for standing matches and no doubt would be provided. In other words, the standing is new as it affects principally means of escape but the seating is not (and is actually improved).

The club would consider going to 70k for two reasons. The increase is marginal revenue and the increase in ‘market share’ both for the long term health of attendances and getting more people potentially going to fewer games. Sometimes the financial benefits are not strictly short-term and bottom line.

If you stand closer to someone, it’s easier to look over their shoulder. Basic Geometry that’s well established in the Green Book.

[Eeyore]

Wouldn't a change from a seated area to a seated/standing area be classed as a material change of use though Peter. An analogy would be that even if for instance you create less flats in a building it is still classed as a material change of use and has to meet the new regs. Existing construction's gain exemption from new regs because they have previously been used in the format before the Kop hasn't.

For me if the regs are changed to allow rail seats then for me it is highly likely that new regs will be drawn up specifically for rail seats. If that happens then I find it inconceivable that those regs will not require rail seats to meet the current requirements. 

[Peter McGurk]

Wouldn't a change from a seated area to a seated/standing area be classed as a material change of use though Peter. An analogy would be that even if for instance you create less flats in a building it is still classed as a material change of use and has to meet the new regs. Existing construction's gain exemption from new regs because they have previously been used in the format before the Kop hasn't.

For me if the regs are changed to allow rail seats then for me it is highly likely that new regs will be drawn up specifically for rail seats. If that happens then I find it inconceivable that those regs will not require rail seats to meet the current requirements.

A material change of use is a planning matter not building control. However Building Regulations have different requirements for different uses.

The important distinction is whether a change affects compliance for whichever use the BR are applied.

Thus a seating area today is a seating area tomorrow even though on Tuesday it may be used for standing. But on Tuesday, it has to comply within a different part of the regs.

There are no 'combined seating and standing' areas in the Green Book but there are tried and tested requirements for both. I can't see anyone re-inventing the wheel on either.

[Eeyore]

A material change of use is a planning matter not building control. However Building Regulations have different requirements for different uses.

The important distinction is whether a change affects compliance for whichever use the BR are applied.

Thus a seating area today is a seating area tomorrow even though on Tuesday it may be used for standing. But on Tuesday, it has to comply within a different part of the regs.

I stand to be corrected but there are no regulations for a 'combined seating and standing' area for stadiums. It simply hasn't been envisaged in the UK. There may be in the future but more likely the perfectly good regulations which exist for each will apply to each. The very good reason for this is the regs are built up from empirical research - from what has worked and what has not worked on the past.

This appears to differ Peter.

http://www.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk/Services/buildingconsultancy/Pages/BuildingRegsWhatisamaterialchangeofuse.aspx

Building Regs: What is a material change of use
 

A material change of use is where there is a change in the purposes for which or in the circumstances in which a building is used, so that after the change the building or part of the building-

    is used as a dwelling, where previously it was not;
    contains a flat, where previously it did not, or a building containing flats is altered so that there are more or less flats than existed previously;
    is used as a hotel or boarding house, where previously it was not;
    is used as an institution, where previously it was not;
    is used as a public building where previously it was not;
    is not an 'exempt building' where previously it was.
    When a material change of use takes place, the building, or affected part, needs to be upgraded to satisfy certain important parts of the Building Regulations. Fire safety, ventilation provision and energy conservation applies to all the cases above. Structure, weather resistance, fire spread and sound insulation apply in specific cases.

[Peter McGurk]

This appears to differ Peter.

http://www.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk/Services/buildingconsultancy/Pages/BuildingRegsWhatisamaterialchangeofuse.aspx

Building Regs: What is a material change of use
 

A material change of use is where there is a change in the purposes for which or in the circumstances in which a building is used, so that after the change the building or part of the building-

    is used as a dwelling, where previously it was not;
    contains a flat, where previously it did not, or a building containing flats is altered so that there are more or less flats than existed previously;
    is used as a hotel or boarding house, where previously it was not;
    is used as an institution, where previously it was not;
    is used as a public building where previously it was not;
    is not an 'exempt building' where previously it was.
    When a material change of use takes place, the building, or affected part, needs to be upgraded to satisfy certain important parts of the Building Regulations. Fire safety, ventilation provision and energy conservation applies to all the cases above. Structure, weather resistance, fire spread and sound insulation apply in specific cases.

No, it doesn't differ. A change of use is as stated and the regs apply to the change of use but where a seating area is altered, it's not a change of use. But if the alteration diminishes the compliance with Regs, that must be addressed

Where a seating area is changed to a standing area that is not a change of use either but still, must comply with a different part of the building regs.

Currently the seating area complies with regs and will continue to do so. There are plenty of projects about registered before 2010 for example and working to that version of the Building Regulations even though the regs were changed in 2013.

Adding standing will not change that seating compliance but when standing is in operation, the seating regulations no longer apply to the use of that part of the stadium at that time (and vice versa).

It's the reason the club can build a humongous stand on the back of the Main Stand and it does not have to change the existing seating area to the new regs.

[Eeyore]

No, it doesn't differ. A change of use is as stated and the regs apply to the change of use.

Where a seating area is altered, it's not a change of use. But if the alteration diminishes the compliance with Regs, that must be addressed

Where a seating area is changed to a standing area that is not a change of use either but still, must comply with a different part of the building regs.

Currently the seating area complies with regs and will continue to do so. There are plenty of projects about registered before 2010 for example and working to that version of the Building Regulations even though the regs were changed in 2013.

Adding standing will not change that seating compliance but when standing is in operation, the seating regulations no longer apply to the use of that part of the stadium at that time (and vice versa).

It's the reason the club can build a humongous stand on the back of the Main Stand and it does not have to change the existing seating area to the new regs.

But if there is to be rail seating then new regs will need to be drafted, for a start the barriers built into rail seating would not comply with regs regarding crush barriers. So if new regs are brought in for rail seats then lets be straight here they are almost certainly going to require Clubs to meet the current regs and not previous ones.

[Peter McGurk]

But if there is to be rail seating then new regs will need to be drafted, for a start the barriers built into rail seating would not comply with regs regarding crush barriers. So if new regs are brought in for rail seats then lets be straight here they are almost certainly going to require Clubs to meet the current regs and not previous ones.

Sorry. Wrong again. The existing regulation covers rail seating very adequately.

The loadings on barriers are fixed by existing regulations as is the spacings between them. The loadings are related to spacing and angle of views. The spacing of barriers are maxima for a given loading and angle of view. It almost goes without saying that a barrier every two rows of standing is well within those maxima. As is the spacing of the kop steps and the angle of rake.

You could put rail seating in tomorrow and comply with current regulations.

The only thing stopping it is the Secretary of State's use of discretionary powers to prohibit it in the top two divisions of football. Just football. No other sport. No other divisions of any other sport. Straight as a die.

[Eeyore]

Sorry. Wrong again. The existing regulation covers rail seating very adequately.

The loadings on barriers are fixed by existing regulations as is the spacings between them. The loadings are related to spacing and angle of views. The spacing of barriers are maxima for a given loading and angle of view. It almost goes without saying that a barrier every two rows of standing is well within those maxima. As is the spacing of the kop steps and the angle of rake.

You could put rail seating in tomorrow and comply with current regulations.

The only thing stopping it is the Secretary of State's use of discretionary powers to prohibit it in the top two divisions of football. Just football. No other sport. No other divisions of any other sport. Straight as a die.

The minimum test loading for barriers in a standing area is 2.4 kN/m something which the barriers built into rail seats wouldn't be able to withstand.

[Peter McGurk]

The minimum test loading for barriers in a standing area is 2.4 kN/m something which the barriers built into rail seats wouldn't be able to withstand.

You know this because?

BTW the loading for crush barriers at 1.2m apart is 2.0 kN/m (for say 8 people per metre) (Green Book). And would be somewhat less for rail seating barriers on the kop, which would be about 600mm apart (for say 4 people per metre)

[Eeyore]

You know this because?

BTW the loading for crush barriers at 1.2m barrier to barrier is 2.0 kN/m (say 8 people per metre). Rail seating barriers on the kop would be about 600mm apart (say 4 people per metre)

Yes I know that Peter but during testing they have to withstand an extra 20% load hence the 2.4 kN/m. The other thing is that the people behind rail seating want the minimum height of barriers lowering and they also want the maximum rake of the stand increasing because standing destroys the c value. Both of which would require new regs .

[Peter McGurk]

Yes I know that Peter but during testing they have to withstand an extra 20% load hence the 2.4 kN/m. The other thing is that the people behind rail seating want the minimum height of barriers lowering and they also want the maximum rake of the stand increasing because standing destroys the c value. Both of which would require new regs .

So it's not 2.0 and it's not 2.4 kN/m either and you don't know what loading rail seating barriers would withstand in any event.

There would be nothing to stop lowering (or even complete omission) of barriers in the seating condition. They are not required by regulation.

And the maximum angle of 25 degrees for standing has been set to achieve good c-values without inducing too high a load on the barriers (the kop is 24 degrees).

No new regs there. No existing regs broken.

I'm afraid your search for a technical reason to not have safe standing is doomed to failure. They are already in albeit of course not for football... http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/news/firstrailseatsinstalledintheuk

Note the statements at the end of the video that the rail seating can indeed withstand 2.0 kN/m which is, "well in excess of the regulations"

[Eeyore]

So it's not 2.0 and it's not 2.4 kN/m either and you don't know what loading rail seating barriers would withstand in any event.

There would be nothing to stop lowering (or even complete omission) of barriers in the seating condition. They are not required by regulation.

And the maximum angle of 25 degrees for standing has been set to achieve good c-values without inducing too high a load on the barriers (the kop is 24 degrees).

No new regs there. No existing regs broken.

I'm afraid your search for a technical reason to not have safe standing is doomed to failure.

Rail seating barriers simply don't need to withstand the forces that terrace crash barriers withstand so there is no reason for them to be built to do so, Also the thicker and stronger the barrier the more space they take up.

As for not needing barriers come off it Peter without the barrier it isn't a rail seat is it. 

What would happen with a 24 degree rake and a 110cm barrier infront of you Peter restricted views, So when you are seated for a UEFA game you either need a smaller barrier or a bigger rake. That is why the FSF want to reduce the size of the barriers and to increase the rake.

Standing in a stand that has a 25 degree rake reduces the C value on it's own cram another person into the space between you and the person infront and it gets even worse.

Just seen your edit

Here is the 33 seats installed for demo purposes.



Each row has a different barrier height  80, 95 and 110 cm, imagine sitting behind the last row which is 110cm it would be like watching the game through bifocals.

[Peter McGurk]

Rail seating barriers simply don't need to withstand the forces that terrace crash barriers withstand so there is no reason for them to be built to do so, Also the thicker and stronger the barrier the more space they take up.

As for not needing barriers come off it Peter without the barrier it isn't a rail seat is it. 

What would happen with a 24 degree rake and a 110cm barrier infront of you Peter restricted views, So when you are seated for a UEFA game you either need a smaller barrier or a bigger rake. That is why the FSF want to reduce the size of the barriers and to increase the rake.

Standing in a stand that has a 25 degree rake reduces the C value on it's own cram another person into the space between you and the person infront and it gets even worse.

Just seen your edit

Here is the 33 seats installed for demo purposes.



Each row has a different barrier height  80, 95 and 110 cm, imagine sitting behind the last row which is 110cm it would be like watching the game through bifocals.

You got this so far round your neck it's coming out your backside. The 25 degree rake and 300 step width gives good c-values for standing and is already two people per one row of seating. It doesn't reduce what's already good. Those criteria have been there since Adam was a lad. Well before anyone thought of rail seating.

Germany has steeper raked standing from scratch because they can because the barriers are closer together and there is less load on them. An application of those principles, which exist in UK regulation already, could see either the barrier removed for seating games (because they are not actually required) or set at 800mm (because they are set within 530mm of the front of the seat, which is already permitted by the Green Book).

In summary, the rake is good, the step depth is good, the standing view is good, the entry control is there, it's the right density, the barriers can take the load and can be at a height set by the Green Book and which is good for views when seating. All good.

The video is useful. Watch it. http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/news/firstrailseatsinstalledintheuk

[Eeyore]

You got this so far round your neck it's coming out your backside. The 25 degree rake and 300 step width gives good c-values for standing and is already two people per one row of seating. It doesn't reduce what's already good. Those criteria have been there since Adam was a lad. Well before anyone thought of rail seating.

Germany has steeper raked standing from scratch because they can because the barriers are closer together and there is less load on them. An application of those principles, which exist in UK regulation already, could see either the barrier removed for seating games (because they are not actually required) or set at 800mm (because they are set within 530mm of the front of the seat, which is already permitted by the Green Book).

In summary, the rake is good, the step depth is good, the standing view is good, the entry control is there, it's the right density, the barriers can take the load and can be at a height set by the Green Book and which is good for views when seating. All good.

The video is useful. Watch it.

The problem is that you want to take the best bits from standing and the best bits from seating which simply doesn't work. You cant say that 25 degrees and 300mm is okay for standing because on a terrace people can move sideways to look over someone's shoulder with safe standing you cannot.

Same with the nonsense about 800mm barriers they are only for seated areas.

The FSF have made it clear that they want upto a 34 degree and 80cm barriers both of which would need new regs if you wanted safe standing.

[Peter McGurk]

The problem is that you want to take the best bits from standing and the best bits from seating which simply doesn't work. You cant say that 25 degrees and 300mm is okay for standing because on a terrace people can move sideways to look over someone's shoulder with safe standing you cannot.

Same with the nonsense about 800mm barriers they are only for seated areas.

The FSF have made it clear that they want upto a 34 degree and 80cm barriers both of which would need new regs if you wanted safe standing.

People do not stand like statues. They can move their heads.

The rules take on the vagaries of human behaviour by working out a formula based almost entirely on what has worked in the past. There’s no problem with 25 degrees and 300mm tread depth standing on a terrace or in front of a rail seat.

We wouldn’t be looking for 34 degrees on the kop because the kop isn’t 34 degrees. It is 24 degrees. One degree lower than the maximum for standing. A maximum derived from keeping the load on barriers below that which would cause injury with barriers 3m apart - a column of 10 people in total.

Standing in a rail system is a 'column' of two people. Actually just one person behind one other. Effectively to stop one person pushing one other over. At 800 or 1100mm high, 2.0kN/m or less, 2 people and 600 centres, the barriers are significantly safer than current regulations.

As I said, barriers can either be lowered or removed entirely for seating. For seating, they are not necessary - all within current regulations.

[Big Red Richie]

Fascinating thread this.  Very informative for us laymen.

It's a bit like watching tennis though.  To you - back to you - to you - back to you - to you -       

[Eeyore]

People do not stand like statues. They can move their heads.

The rules take on the vagaries of human behaviour by working out a formula based almost entirely on what has worked in the past. There’s no problem with 25 degrees and 300mm tread depth standing on a terrace or in front of a rail seat.

We wouldn’t be looking for 34 degrees on the kop because the kop isn’t 34 degrees. It is 24 degrees. One degree lower than the maximum for standing. A maximum derived from keeping the load on barriers below that which would cause injury with barriers 3m apart - a column of 10 people in total.

Standing in a rail system is a 'column' of two people. Actually just one person behind one other. Effectively to stop one person pushing one other over. At 800 or 1100mm high, 2.0kN/m or less, 2 people and 600 centres, the barriers are significantly safer than current regulations.

As I said, barriers can either be lowered or removed entirely for seating. For seating, they are not necessary - all within current regulations.

Given that barriers are under less load during safe standing than they were under standing on traditional terraces then ideally as the FSF have said the regs on the height of barriers and the rake of the stand would be changed. As you have said Peter there are far less people pushing on each barrier so they don't need to be as high. The Green Guide clearly establishes that standing in 25 degree stand significantly worsens the view compared to remaining seated. Add in the fact that people will be closer together and ideally an increase in the permitted rake would be beneficial and would improve views.

As you have said the reason the limit of 25 degrees rake was established on terraces was because of the number of people pushing on each barrier. With that problem not really applying to safe standing then for me there isn't really a reason not to increase the permitted rake as the FSF have stated.

I think it is inevitable that if safe standing comes in new regs will be introduced specifically for safe standing and for rail seats for me those new regs will almost certainly reflect the latest standards which would mean bigger spacing between rows.

[Peter McGurk]

Given that barriers are under less load during safe standing than they were under standing on traditional terraces then ideally as the FSF have said the regs on the height of barriers and the rake of the stand would be changed. As you have said Peter there are far less people pushing on each barrier so they don't need to be as high. The Green Guide clearly establishes that standing in 25 degree stand significantly worsens the view compared to remaining seated. Add in the fact that people will be closer together and ideally an increase in the permitted rake would be beneficial and would improve views.

As you have said the reason the limit of 25 degrees rake was established on terraces was because of the number of people pushing on each barrier. With that problem not really applying to safe standing then for me there isn't really a reason not to increase the permitted rake as the FSF have stated.

I think it is inevitable that if safe standing comes in new regs will be introduced specifically for safe standing and for rail seats for me those new regs will almost certainly reflect the latest standards which would mean bigger spacing between rows.

I'm glad to see you are conceding much of what I've been saying - bearing in mind of course that it's not for me to say but it's for the regulations or rather the guidelines to say. All I've done is repeat the relevant bits of the documentation.

Similarly, it's not for you to say whether new regulations would be introduced or whether new regulation would require additional spacing between rows. The fact of the matter is, the guidance already says that an existing condition does not need to comply with the same standards as for new.

Also, the Act says the standards to be met apply at the time when the stadium or stand is used in a particular way. When it's standing, it's standing. Sitting when it's sitting. It does not say that it must comply with a combination that never happens. Standing and seating in safe standing are thus dealt with separately. There is already guidance for each and there is thus no need of new (regulation or) guidance to cover 'safe standing'.

Standing behind barriers at 800mm (if necessary) may require changing the guidance to take into account the reduced loadings etc., if that is what is proposed. However it is perfectly possible to completely remove or lower the barriers from 1100 in the standing condition to 800mm in the seating condition. That may not be rail seating as we have seen it but it is still safe standing and it still complies with existing guidance for standing and for sitting separately.

***

By the by and in any event.... any changes to the guidance for whatever reason do not require new regulations. The regulation enabled by Act of Parliament is to have local authorities license safe stadiums. The guidance helps LAs establish what is and what is not safe. There is no need to change the regulation to change the guidance.

[Retro Red]

Am I missing something here?

There's only one step per row of seats in the Kop, not two like in the rail seat demo. If the Kop was converted to rail seats would that reduce the number of rows of seats by half, to give two steps per seat like in the FSF model, or are you saying we can get two rows of standing spectators onto each row/step?

If it's the latter, I'd doubt that 1.8 per current seated space would be realistic. It gets a bit crowded with a handful extra "migrating" into a row when we stand now, never mind virtually doubling capacity.

[Alf Garnett]

If it's the latter, I'd doubt that 1.8 per current seated space would be realistic. It gets a bit crowded with a handful extra "migrating" into a row when we stand now, never mind virtually doubling capacity.

Correct, there is people that actually believe the capacity of the Kop could be virtually doubled.

[Nessy76]

Am I missing something here?

There's only one step per row of seats in the Kop, not two like in the rail seat demo. If the Kop was converted to rail seats would that reduce the number of rows of seats by half, to give two steps per seat like in the FSF model, or are you saying we can get two rows of standing spectators onto each row/step?

If it's the latter, I'd doubt that 1.8 per current seated space would be realistic. It gets a bit crowded with a handful extra "migrating" into a row when we stand now, never mind virtually doubling capacity.

This has been covered already, I think. The rail seats don't protrude nearly as far forwards when locked up as the current seats do, so there would be more room.  So the important distance is from the back of one seat to the back of the next, not the gap between seats. Several posters here can give chapter and verse on all the relevant measurements. They wouldn't have missed something as obvious as that, I don't think!