Island Platforms

[Purple Orange]

Are there any regulations that state how wide an island platform must be? I got thinking about how more platform(s) could be built at Manchester Victoria without disrupting the confines of the Arena, the arena car park and the tram lines.

• Could an additional bay platform be built in the vacinity of P1&2? There seems to be under utilised space.
• Could 4 bay platforms be built at the western end of the station?
• And the left-field idea, remodelling P3-P6 to become P3-P7! Impossible I know, but that lead me to wondering how wide a platform needs to be. Piccadilly station platforms feel much narrower than the P4&5 island a Victoria.

 

[6Gman]

Are there any regulations that state how wide an island platform must be? I got thinking about how more platform(s) could be built at Manchester Victoria without disrupting the confines of the Arena, the arena car park and the tram lines.

• Could an additional bay platform be built in the vacinity of P1&2? There seems to be under utilised space.
• Could 4 bay platforms be built at the western end of the station?
• And the left-field idea, remodelling P3-P6 to become P3-P7! Impossible I know, but that lead me to wondering how wide a platform needs to be. Piccadilly station platforms feel much narrower than the P4&5 island a Victoria.

There will be industry standards. But existing platforms will have "grandfather rights" to continue as they are.

 

[HSTEd]

Are there any regulations that state how wide an island platform must be? I got thinking about how more platform(s) could be built at Manchester Victoria without disrupting the confines of the Arena, the arena car park and the tram lines.

• Could an additional bay platform be built in the vacinity of P1&2? There seems to be under utilised space.
• Could 4 bay platforms be built at the western end of the station?
• And the left-field idea, remodelling P3-P6 to become P3-P7! Impossible I know, but that lead me to wondering how wide a platform needs to be. Piccadilly station platforms feel much narrower than the P4&5 island a Victoria.

I believe this document will be illuminating.

 

[Kingspanner]

It certainly is, the last word in platform regulations.
Plus it includes the splendid word "frangible"

 

[bassmike]

Clapham north

 

[Peter C]

Clapham north

That is a very thin island platform, yes. Although I wonder if, seeing as it's on London Underground's Northern Line and not the national network, it might be subject to different regulations, given that LU is its own system? Just a thought - happy to be proven wrong.

-Peter

 

[Ianno87]

Clapham north

That is a very thin island platform, yes. Although I wonder if, seeing as it's on London Underground's Northern Line and not the national network, it might be subject to different regulations, given that LU is its own system? Just a thought - happy to be proven wrong.

-Peter

Clapham North is teetering on the bounds of being outright dangerous. All similar Northern line islands (e.g. Euston and Angel) have been removed over the years. Serious consideration has been given to fencing one side off and making the station uni-directional (but that's probably not much better)

 

[Speed43125]

Clapham north

Reminds me of the Glasgow Subway

 

[Lucan]

Clapham North is teetering on the bounds of being outright dangerous.

It makes me feel nauseous to stand on it, and I'm not usually one to be susceptible to things like vertigo or giddiness. Goodness knows how people cope who are - perhaps they board somewhere else. There is no way they's be allowed to build like that today.

 

[Purple Orange]

I believe this document will be illuminating.

Brilliant. Proper bedtime reading!

 

[bluegoblin7]

Clapham North is teetering on the bounds of being outright dangerous. All similar Northern line islands (e.g. Euston and Angel) have been removed over the years. Serious consideration has been given to fencing one side off and making the station uni-directional (but that's probably not much better)

Clapham Common also retains its island platform. The reality is that outside of peak hours the stations are not hugely busy, making it hard to justify investment to replace them (requiring the boring of new tunnels).

Those same peak directional flows also make any ‘one way’ scheme a non-starter - and indeed I’ve never heard or seen reference to that suggestion before. Have you a source?

 

[Bald Rick]

To short cut the bedtime reading: minimum 4metres, but there can not be any obstruction in that space. Of course, you then have to work out how to get passengers between that platform and the street. In practice therefore, it needs to be an absolute minimum of 2.5m + width of platform access + 2.5m, with modelling used to prove that the width of the platform access, and the platforms themselves, will enable a safe evacuation under any reasonable level of expected passenger numbers.

 

[Penmorfa]

Clapham North is teetering on the bounds of being outright dangerous. All similar Northern line islands (e.g. Euston and Angel) have been removed over the years. Serious consideration has been given to fencing one side off and making the station uni-directional (but that's probably not much better)

Surely platform doors would solve the problem?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Surely platform doors would solve the problem?

Yeez that'd make it extremely claustrophobic at the narrowest point

 

[Horizon22]

Norwood Junction P2*/3 isn't much fun.

*P2 isn't actually used

 

[hwl]

Surely platform doors would solve the problem?

It and clapham common really are very narrow
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clapham_Common_Tube_Station_Platforms_-_Oct_2007.jpg

 

[hwl]

Norwood Junction P2*/3 isn't much fun.

*P2 isn't actually used

Not much actually stops at P3 now and not long till it should get sorted.

 

[Horizon22]

Not much actually stops at P3 now and not long till it should get sorted.

Indeed, although I have caught the rare P3 trains. Long overdue a rennovation so am glad its happening soon.

 

[ABB125]

To short cut the bedtime reading: minimum 4metres, but there can not be any obstruction in that space. Of course, you then have to work out how to get passengers between that platform and the street. In practice therefore, it needs to be an absolute minimum of 2.5m + width of platform access + 2.5m, with modelling used to prove that the width of the platform access, and the platforms themselves, will enable a safe evacuation under any reasonable level of expected passenger numbers.

Does that mean that you could have a 4m wide island, if the stairs/lift were right at one end of the platform (and the platform doesn't become a "usable platform" until you've exited from the staircase). If this makes what I'm saying any clearer, a 4m wide staircase end on to the 4m wide platform. Sort of like Bromsgrove station, but with narrower platforms (the ones at BMV appear to be 7m wide using Google Maps).

 

[Ianno87]

Surely platform doors would solve the problem?

Still needs platforms to be a certain width (the door structures themselves, take up width), plus the platforms (off memory) have a bit of awkward curvature on them, which isn't ideal for edge doors.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does that mean that you could have a 4m wide island, if the stairs/lift were right at one end of the platform (and the platform doesn't become a "usable platform" until you've exited from the staircase). If this makes what I'm saying any clearer, a 4m wide staircase end on to the 4m wide platform. Sort of like Bromsgrove station, but with narrower platforms (the ones at BMV appear to be 7m wide using Google Maps).

In theory, yes, if the pedestrian modelling showed that the crowding on such a platform could be kept to acceptable levels, and there was nothing else on the platform, eg shelter, any cabinets, etc.

 

[ABB125]

In theory, yes, if the pedestrian modelling showed that the crowding on such a platform could be kept to acceptable levels, and there was nothing else on the platform, eg shelter, any cabinets, etc.

Thanks - so possible somewhere like the Scottish Highlands, but not much else!

 

[swt_passenger]

Reading platform 1 and 2 is about 4m wide, with end access, but the rebuilt platform 5 and 6 is more like 6m wide, I expect the main difference being that the latter is presumably designed to handle arrival flows off a 10 car as opposed to 5 car train?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks - so possible somewhere like the Scottish Highlands, but not much else!

You’ll want a shelter in the Scottish Highlands more than anywhere!

 

[ABB125]

You’ll want a shelter in the Scottish Highlands more than anywhere!

Although presumably you could put up a large canopy supported in the middle? Would that require the platform to be widened (say by 10cm if the canopy supports are 10cm in diameter)?

 

[Bald Rick]

Although presumably you could put up a large canopy supported in the middle? Would that require the platform to be widened (say by 10cm if the canopy supports are 10cm in diameter)?

You need 2.5m clear of any obstruction, even a lamp post. So a canopy makes the island 5metres plus the width of the support.

 

[ABB125]

You need 2.5m clear of any obstruction, even a lamp post. So a canopy makes the island 5metres plus the width of the support.

Ok, thanks. That seems a bit silly for things like lampposts (although much more understandable fro things like benches), but if those are the rules then those are the rules.

 

[Penmorfa]

It and clapham common really are very narrow
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clapham_Common_Tube_Station_Platforms_-_Oct_2007.jpg

OK, Blackpool North solution: Don't let the buggers on the platform until the train is there!

 

[hwl]

OK, Blackpool North solution: Don't let the buggers on the platform until the train is there!

At 31tph each way?!!!

It was normal to have to wait 3-4 trains before being able to board before the current situation.

 

[Penmorfa]

At 31tph each way?!!!

It was normal to have to wait 3-4 trains before being able to board before the current situation.

it was said in jest