European low platform heights

[shinkansen1966]

Elsewhere in Europe, many railway stations have lower platform heights than in the UK.

I know the EU has issued some standards on platform heights. From personal experience, UK style platform are seen in Germany and the Netherlands.

I was wondering why platform heights are lower in many other European countries. Is it historical ? To allow wider loading gauges ? Was it to save money ?

 

[30907]

The UK is very much the exception as far as national systems are concerned. On the European mainland, high level platforms generally belong with rapid transit systems (and that includes some German S-bahns) where otherwise boarding would be impossibly slow.

UK platforms also started out low or non existent. I've no idea why that changed.

It is true that low platforms allow a wider loading gauge below floor level, but I doubt that was the reason - it was many years before vehicles took full advantage of the loading gauge.

 

[duesselmartin]

Even Germany had many different heights with standarisation being a recent thing.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

My suspicion is that higher platforms here came about due to early first class carriages being formed of traditional horse carriage bodies being mounted back to back on a chassis. Entrance to the compartments was only possible via side doors thereby needing reasonable height platforms to avoid an impossibly high step between vehicle and platform. Whereas early continental carriages tended to have end doors leading to a narrow veranda allowing steps down to ground level to be cut into the bodywork thereby avoiding the need for building high platforms. So something of a historical relic. Given the needs of Persons of Reduced Mobility it's arguable that having higher platforms is something we got right in this country.

 

[jopsuk]

Belgium in particular has a mix of high floor trains and low platforms. The ramps to board wheelchairs are quite something

 

[30907]

My suspicion is that higher platforms here came about due to early first class carriages being formed of traditional horse carriage bodies being mounted back to back on a chassis. Entrance to the compartments was only possible via side doors thereby needing reasonable height platforms to avoid an impossibly high step between vehicle and platform. Whereas early continental carriages tended to have end doors leading to a narrow veranda allowing steps down to ground level to be cut into the bodywork thereby avoiding the need for building high platforms. So something of a historical relic. Given the needs of Persons of Reduced Mobility it's arguable that having higher platforms is something we got right in this country.

Yes, I had rather wondered that. Only UK style side door stock lasted in Italy till the 70s, and in Germany etc till postwar, so I'm not sure.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes, I had rather wondered that. Only UK style side door stock lasted in Italy till the 70s, and in Germany etc till postwar, so I'm not sure.

If you're expressing doubt about my hypothesis then I'm with you! It's an issue that I have been curious about for many years and have never come across any plausible explanation. I do know that the first time I experienced the lower platforms in Europe I was distinctly unimpressed.

 

[newmilton]

Not just continental Europe but North America too. Bizarrely, Central Station in Montreal has high level platforms while all others on the network have low level ones, leading to specially adapted doors with flap that fold down over the steps, and in the case of the suburban stock, two different sets of doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're expressing doubt about my hypothesis then I'm with you! It's an issue that I have been curious about for many years and have never come across any plausible explanation. I do know that the first time I experienced the lower platforms in Europe I was distinctly unimpressed.

There is an upside to their approach - new stations are rather cheaper and easier to build, and evacuations in emergency easier and safer. With modern low-floor stock like the Stadler FLIRT, it seems that they most probably get the last laugh after all.

 

[duesselmartin]

Germany is attempting do standardise to 760mm for conventional train, 960mm for S-Bahn trains but with S-Bahn Rhein/Ruhr partially going 760mm. So again, one cannot agree to a one size fits all solution.

 

[northwichcat]

Even Germany had many different heights with standarisation being a recent thing.

Sometimes in Germany there is no platform at all!

 

[daikilo]

This is one of the things that could be affected by Brexit as UK platforms are generally 915mm from datum whereas the EU TSI from May 2002 would require HS2 platforms to be at 760mm.

 

[Phil.]

You're assuming that the great white railway elephant is going to be built.

 

[Flying_Turtle]

This is one of the things that could be affected by Brexit as UK platforms are generally 915mm from datum whereas the EU TSI from May 2002 would require HS2 platforms to be at 760mm.

For the sake of interoperability HS2, being on the European High Speed network will probably comply with tjose norms... unless the UK really wishes to isolate itself

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the sake of interoperability HS2, being on the European High Speed network will probably comply with tjose norms... unless the UK really wishes to isolate itself

I suspect a couple of platforms at Euston and the station at Curzon St will because those will use the captive trains. All the rest will for the foreseeable future have to work with something that will look very much like a faster Class 800, which means UK height platforms or a big step which wouldn't be popular and would be a very retrograde, er, step, on accessibility.

The UK rail network is already isolated, in any case, by our border check and security theatre requirements. That isn't likely to change, though the security thing might if it rolls out across European high speed networks as it looks like it might.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Elsewhere in Europe, many railway stations have lower platform heights than in the UK.

I know the EU has issued some standards on platform heights. From personal experience, UK style platform are seen in Germany and the Netherlands.

I was wondering why platform heights are lower in many other European countries. Is it historical ? To allow wider loading gauges ? Was it to save money ?

Here's the EU "TSI": http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002D0735

Resulting from an earlier directive, this allows each EU country to seperately ratify and decide on their own local impliementation. The above standardises various technical aspects of the railway.

Here in Finland platform heights and general construction is standardised for new builds and reconstructions. There do exist platforms in various types from raised gravel areas, wooden sleepers to modern constructions.

The main reason is probably as you say, historical. Earlier without any common reference point other than maybe track and loading gauge if you were lucky. Trains were just built and nor did we care if someone had to climb from the ground into the carriage. As countries and rail systems become more interlinked it made sense to standardise on various features - this very obviously is true with the high-speed systems.

Aside: I can see a headline in the 1829 Daily Mail: EU Beuraucrats force Jolly British Entrepreneur R.Stevenson Esq to use a gauge of 1435mm instead of 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in. </joke>

Standardisation at an European level (EEC, Europe, EU, inc. Morocco, Russia etc etc) makes an awful lot of sense for manufacturers, purchasing cost, availability of parts, interoperability etc. The above directive and TSI were likely outcomes of this is ensure that standards were ahered to. I guess most of these were already implemented by EU (+ others) anyway in most cases.

t.

Ian

 

[duesselmartin]

Sometimes in Germany there is no platform at all!

Can you give a current example of that?

 

[jopsuk]

I suspect a couple of platforms at Euston and the station at Curzon St will because those will use the captive trains. All the rest will for the foreseeable future have to work with something that will look very much like a faster Class 800, which means UK height platforms or a big step which wouldn't be popular and would be a very retrograde, er, step, on accessibility.

Could go with a more long-term arrangement based on what was done to the Stratford International international platforms for the Olympic Games to make them suitable for the Class 395s to call there. Build the HS TSI spec platform, then a semi-permanent but removable "UK Spec" extension.

 

[Senex]

Can you give a current example of that?

Is jcollins thinking of Germany, or is he thinking of countries of the old Austrian Empire where there certainly were until recently examples of no platforms or absolutely minimal ones in some places?

 

[northwichcat]

Is jcollins thinking of Germany, or is he thinking of countries of the old Austrian Empire where there certainly were until recently examples of no platforms or absolutely minimal ones in some places?

There was one station on the line between Munich and Salzburg where the regional train stopped on the middle line but the middle line had no platform. I can't remember the name of it or be certain that it's not changed in the past couple of years but it was definetly in Germany.

 

[DaiGog]

The Czech Republic has many examples of stations with either no platforms at all, or one platform on one side of the running lines. If a train pulls up at a line with no platform, passengers embark from ballast level, although many such stations have tarmacked areas between the tracks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Czech Republic has many examples of stations with either no platforms at all, or one platform on one side of the running lines. If a train pulls up at a line with no platform, passengers embark from ballast level, although many such stations have tarmacked areas between the tracks.

There was one station on the line between Munich and Salzburg where the regional train stopped on the middle line but the middle line had no platform. I can't remember the name of it or be certain that it's not changed in the past couple of years but it was definetly in Germany.

Normally there is a very low platform in the form of a bit of tarmac between the rails, though the other line is crossed on the level.

This Hausbahnsteig/Nebenbahnsteig arrangement isn't rare in Germanic countries, though it is becoming less common as such stations when rebuilt have tended to be rebuilt with either proper island platforms or side platforms. The only place I recall seeing it in the UK is the Furness/Cumbrian Coast, e.g. Ulverston, and that uses a full-size platform for the middle bit.

 

[duesselmartin]

Normally there is a very low platform in the form of a bit of tarmac between the rails, though the other line is crossed on the level.

This Hausbahnsteig/Nebenbahnsteig arrangement isn't rare in Germanic countries, though it is becoming less common as such stations when rebuilt have tended to be rebuilt with either proper island platforms or side platforms. The only place I recall seeing it in the UK is the Furness/Cumbrian Coast, e.g. Ulverston, and that uses a full-size platform for the middle bit.

I believe Rüdesheim still has that arrangement, however access is only via the station building with the door to the platform only opening minutes before train arrival. But these platforms are dissapearing fast.

 

[pne]

The Czech Republic has many examples of stations with either no platforms at all, or one platform on one side of the running lines. If a train pulls up at a line with no platform, passengers embark from ballast level, although many such stations have tarmacked areas between the tracks.

Ditto in Slovakia.

And not even just out in the countryside, either -- Košice (only the second-biggest city in the country) has a couple such platforms, the ones furthest from the station building. I was a bit surprised when my train pulled into one of them and we had to walk across a couple of tracks before ending up at a "proper" platform, from where it was then the usual "down the stairs through a tunnel and up into the station building" thing.

 

[30907]

Ditto in Slovakia.

And Slovenia - and I suspect all points East. Forty years ago it was standard at smaller stations across German speaking Europe (but not France IIRC)...

 

[DaiGog]

Just remembered there are one or two stations on the Munich - Mühldorf line which have these very low platforms in use. One is Dorfen.

 

[Groningen]

In my eyes the lowest platforms are in Switzerland. But than it has trains from 5 countries alone already in Basel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my eyes the lowest platforms are in Switzerland. But than it has trains from 5 countries alone already in Basel.

CH has decided to stick with low platforms, and instead buys only low-floor trains now which don't have a step up. They have raised them slightly though, as some of them were previously at or below railhead height.

 

[themiller]

On my travels through Switzerland last year, I noticed that more stations are being refurbished with higher platforms e.g. Arth Goldau.
Attached photo of Ausserberg shows the platforms just higher than rail height whilst the second one is at Arth Goldau during station refurbishment.
I believe that the platforms are being raised to 550mm above rail head level (P55). The other TSI platform height is P75 (750mm above rail head level).

PS sorry for the second photo being rotated 90degrees.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On my travels through Switzerland last year, I noticed that more stations are being refurbished with higher platforms e.g. Arth Goldau.
Attached photo of Ausserberg shows the platforms just higher than rail height whilst the second one is at Arth Goldau during station refurbishment.
I believe that the platforms are being raised to 550mm above rail head level (P55). The other TSI platform height is P75 (750mm above rail head level).

PS sorry for the second photo being rotated 90degrees.

Yes, these platforms allow totally level access onto low-floor FLIRTs. We are, it would seem, a bit behind here!