L&Y Platforms - were they lower?

[Andy873]

I was wondering if L&Y platforms were lower than normal, or was there no such thing as a standard height?

On my old line (sorry!) one photo shows at one station a pair of small platform steps to help with getting onto a carriage, and in a different topic I was talking about releasing wagon brakes at another station... it was suggested that if the platform was lower, you would be able to release the brakes from the platform rather than on the other side i.e. in the way of the other main running line.

I would have thought you'd want the platforms to be a comfortable height for passengers to get on / off carriages?
Were other companies platforms low?
Was there a standard platform height?
Was it due to carriage design i.e. different from company to company?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[John Webb]

It seems to have been that until relatively recently there was no such thing as a standard platform height.

Very early railways, built mainly for freight, adopted the stage-coach practice of passengers climbing in via steps on the coach from ground level. I understand it was the Liverpool and Manchester railway that first had a proper platform. As coaches evolved platform heights were arranged to suit the coaches run by that railway, hence the lack of standardisation. (Comments based on Simmons and Biddle's 1997 "The Oxford Companion to British Railway History")

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It seems to have been that until relatively recently there was no such thing as a standard platform height.

Indeed. A supplementary question:- After many decades of railway use, did the height of the running lines through a particulaf station (in relation to the adjacent platform(s)) tend to increase ever so slightly after each and every re-ballasting of the track?

 

[John Webb]

Indeed. A supplementary question:- After many decades of railway use, did the height of the running lines through a particulaf station (in relation to the adjacent platform(s)) tend to increase ever so slightly after each and every re-ballasting of the track?

I've no idea!

 

[Andy873]

Indeed. A supplementary question:- After many decades of railway use, did the height of the running lines through a particulaf station (in relation to the adjacent platform(s)) tend to increase ever so slightly after each and every re-ballasting of the track?

No idea either.

I'm guessing that to get a lower platform to a standard height, it would be much easier to dig out the track bed a little and replace the track than adjusting the physical platforms?

 

[30907]

I'm guessing that to get a lower platform to a standard height, it would be much easier to dig out the track bed a little and replace the track than adjusting the physical platforms?

I suspect that improved ballasting is a factor, at least when substantial ipgrades happened.

Lowering the track would be an expensive way of resolving the issue - there are stations around (I can't recall where, but I bet someone here can!) where the historic station building still exists with a very low platform alongside it but the modern platform is a couple of feet higher. And I can visualise SR stations where there is (or was) a significant difference in level between a pre-grouping platform and its extension made of standard Exmouth Jn concrete slabs.

 

[Gloster]

Early platforms were lower and any standards that there were tended to be set by a particular company for its own constructions. I have seen plenty of photos where a platform has been extended and there is a distinct ramp at the point where the old and new meet. There are also places where slabs, obviously much newer than the underlying structure, have been placed on the top of the platform to increase its height.

I would think that the track did tend to gradually rise up over the years as, as far as I know, there was nothing like the modern methods of track renewal (lifting the track and then clearing the old ballast before starting again). Ballast, cinders, bits of sleeper, etc. would just get compacted into the formation. N.b. I am not a PW engineer, let alone a PW historian.

 

[D6130]

The original 1859 Glasgow, Dumbarton & Helensburgh Railway station building at Cardross - used until 1986 as a signalbox as well as a booking office and waiting room - is below the modern platform level and you have steps down to access it.

 

[John Luxton]

I was wondering if L&Y platforms were lower than normal, or was there no such thing as a standard height?

On my old line (sorry!) one photo shows at one station a pair of small platform steps to help with getting onto a carriage, and in a different topic I was talking about releasing wagon brakes at another station... it was suggested that if the platform was lower, you would be able to release the brakes from the platform rather than on the other side i.e. in the way of the other main running line.

I would have thought you'd want the platforms to be a comfortable height for passengers to get on / off carriages?
Were other companies platforms low?
Was there a standard platform height?
Was it due to carriage design i.e. different from company to company?

Thanks,
Andy.

Interesting you should mention the L&Y. On the Liverpool to Southport line to this day several stations retain lower level extremities to their platforms, though they are long out of use, presumably not used since electric services started. Was it a case that all the platforms were at that lower level and only parts raised later?

 

[30907]

Interesting you should mention the L&Y. On the Liverpool to Southport line to this day several stations retain lower level extremities to their platforms, though they are long out of use, presumably not used since electric services started. Was it a case that all the platforms were at that lower level and only parts raised later?

Almost certainly - that's the scenario I was thinking of in #6 but couldn't think of an example.

 

[billio]

The Bury platform at Accrington (ELR) had a significant section of unusually low platform. Without a great deal of research, photos of some other ELR stations seems to indicate a low section of platform as well as a section of more standard height.

 

[randyrippley]

Many of the L&Y platforms used by railmotors seem to have been at ground level
See this photo of Bott Lane station from

Disused Stations: Bott Lane Halt

photo description reads

The up ‘platform’ at Bott Lane Halt, looking south, circa early 1950s. Carefully placed railway sleepers provide a firm surface for passengers, and exterior steps are provided on the train carriages enabling passengers to scramble aboard or descend to the platform. The basic facilities consist of an enclosed timber waiting shed, a couple of electric lamps and an LMS ‘Hawkseye’ nameboard. Tickets were purchased on the train. Nelson Grammar School (later renamed Walton High School) is on the horizon and a small estate of post-war prefab homes is seen to the left.
Photo by Michael Feather

this earlier thread may be relevant - it seems the railmotors ran over the electric lines, so needing special platforms

Lancashire and Yorkshire Hughes Rail-Motors running backwards?

Hello All Being more than 69 feet wide, in most locations there was unlikely to be a big enough turntable available for these Rail-motors to be turned around. I was wondering if they were capable of being run backwards, other than for low speed shunting? I guess an alternative was to only run...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Springs Branch]

. . . . there are stations around (I can't recall where, but I bet someone here can!) where the historic station building still exists with a very low platform alongside it but the modern platform is a couple of feet higher.

A good example of this in L&Y land was Hindley station, back in its 4-track days.

Until the fast lines closed in the mid-1960s, the platform adjacent to the main station building at Hindley, which served the Down Fast, was little used by stopping trains and was much lower than the other normal height platforms.

The image in this link on the Wigan World website shows the low platform. It may still be noticeable today - I haven't been to Hindley for years and don't know the status with modern-day landscaping etc.

The railway through Hindley originally opened in 1848 as a conventional 2-track line, taking a straight course past the station buildings. 40 years later, around 1888-89, the tracks were quadrupled, associated with opening of the L&Y's new lines through Atherton and the Pemberton Loop. Platforms were provided to serve the new Slow lines (the ones still in use today), and substantial waiting rooms, a platform canopy etc. were built on these.

It seems the original 1848 platform, then on the Down Fast, was not updated to 'modern' (for the late-19th Century) standards. One of the comments in the Wigan World post mentions the lack of facilities and use of portable steps for the odd occasion a train did have to stop there.


Another L&Y station with notoriously low platforms is Salford Central. Quite topical - since that station is due to be closed for five months from next January to allow raising of the platforms and modernisation of surfaces to modern standards.

Note the extreme height between the platform and the footboards at the doors of this Sprinter departing from pre-electrification Salford Central.

© Copyright Gerald England and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.