Station platforms not ending in a ramp

[swcovas]

Thinking of Pantyffynon station on the HOWL where the southern end of the platform ends in steps and not a ramp. It strikes me as unusual and for as long as I'm aware this has always been the case at Pantyffynon .......or am I being stupid and there are there hundreds of other examples on the network. Just curious but as I say it may be a stupid question!

 

[tom1649]

A lot of new stations don't seem to have platform end ramps.

 

[swt_passenger]

A lot of new stations don't seem to have platform end ramps.

Rail group standards were revised some years ago, around 2005 IIRC. But anything in the pipeline at that time still got a ramp in accordance with the previous rules, but there have since been many platforms, both newly built or existing ones lengthened that have squared off ends.

Look at Reading now for instance, the only ramps left are the west end bays, P1-3, and I see the P3 ramp is being demolished anyway. London Overground has many squared off platform ends as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A lot of new stations don't seem to have platform end ramps.

The four railway stations on the Styal Line of Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley that had brand-new platforms of modern construction recently installed would fall into that category.

Did the very short truncated new single platform recently installed at the reopened station of Conon Bridge follow that same mode of construction ?

 

[185]

Does make me wonder:

If a speeding derailed train hits a ramp, it goes up, flips over and comes to stop.

If a speeding derailed train hits a flat end platform, much of the platform explodes & takes off.

IMO, some things the railway designed in the 1870s should really not be messed with, no matter how well paid these modern 'safety consultants' are.

 

[swt_passenger]

Speeding derailed trains were possibly ten a penny in the 1850s, when the requirement for ramps was first thought of, but there have been many changes to the infrastructure since.

One of the main reasons for the removal of the requirement for ramps is as a public tresspass deterrent. The current standards are basically that they are 'not to be provided' unless they are essential for other reasons, such as a staff access route, but even that is no longer considered good practice, and you'll now see a gate in the railings and steps down, if staff access is needed.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Did the very short truncated new single platform recently installed at the reopened station of Conon Bridge follow that same mode of construction ?

It did. Ramps would have doubled the length.

Under construction: http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=43600

Finished: http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=43600

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Much of the platform lengthening work that has been carried out on the Snow Hilll lines has been to raise the ramp up to full height and fence/gate the end off. Very cost effective if you only need to gain a few metres.

 

[swt_passenger]

When lengthening projects are underway, for instance in SWT's inner suburban area, I heard they found that most existing ramps had about a 1 in 10 gradient. When you are trying to find room on the overall site for about 40m of platform, the fact is nearly half your intended length gain could often be found simply by filling in the ramps.

As Old Hill Bank points out, if the requirement is only for a few metres (which could easily happen if changing from 20m to 23m stock, or maybe vice versa but with an extra carriage) it's probably a bit of a no-brainer...

 

[VP185]

All new platforms have to have emergency exists, like at Reading Station. Maybe another reason why platform ramps are no longer required?

 

[pemma]

The four railway stations on the Styal Line of Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley that had brand-new platforms of modern construction recently installed would fall into that category.

I used East Didsbury station the other week and thought the platform didn't feel very solid and it also seemed a bit narrow considering some trains don't call there and obviously you shouldn't stand too close to the platform edge when there might be passing trains.

Smithy Bridge, that I recently used also had a narrow platform. When I saw a non-stopping 158 approaching I moved on to the ramp (which gives access to the platform from the road) and could really feel the force of the passing train from there.

 

[HowardGWR]

I thought the ramps were there so porters (remember them?) could wheel trucks with parcels and luggage across stations using the boards between the lines. This derail point is new to me. One learns something every day.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In recent years the 'flatpack' styple platforms at both Deighton and Slaithwaite have had their ramps removed and replaced with gated steps for emergency use only. As both these stations are planned to have platforms extended under the 'Northern Hub' proposals, I do wonder if it was strictly neccessary (or indeed cost-effective) to make these changes at this point. Indeed when I saw that the work was taking place at Deighton, I mistakenly thought that the extension work had started early!

 

[swcovas]

I thought the ramps were there so porters (remember them?) could wheel trucks with parcels and luggage across stations using the boards between the lines. This derail point is new to me. One learns something every day.

Me too! Never given it any thought and never knew it was because of the derailment issue. The porter thing makes sense but not in the case of single platform rural stations.

Coming back to my original post it seems that the only examples are of new(ish) stations. any old examples like that at Pantyffynon which has had steps for as long as I can remember.

 

[yorksrob]

I dislike the idea. Suppose passengers have to be detrained off platform in an emergency. How are they going to get onto the platform if it is the nearest access point ? Yes some have steps, but these arent suitable for everyone.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I dislike the idea. Suppose passengers have to be detrained off platform in an emergency. How are they going to get onto the platform if it is the nearest access point ? Yes some have steps, but these arent suitable for everyone.

Though for those whom the steps aren't suitable, neither will walking 200metres (or whatever) along the ballast, nor being de-trained in the first place- so some other solution will be needed in that situation anyway.

 

[Class172]

Much of the platform lengthening work that has been carried out on the Snow Hilll lines has been to raise the ramp up to full height and fence/gate the end off. Very cost effective if you only need to gain a few metres.

Exactly, the extensions at Droitwich Spa and Kidderminster are of these constructions; although at Droitwich they are slightly different at each end (don't know why). On platform 1 it is of a 'floating' concrete construction, whilst on P2, it is of a more substantial earth/soil build.

 

[pemma]

I dislike the idea. Suppose passengers have to be detrained off platform in an emergency. How are they going to get onto the platform if it is the nearest access point ? Yes some have steps, but these arent suitable for everyone.

Maybe the guard is expected to carry the ramp off the train with him in such circumstances. :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

Though for those whom the steps aren't suitable, neither will walking 200metres (or whatever) along the ballast, nor being de-trained in the first place- so some other solution will be needed in that situation anyway.

I dare say it isn't, however, such events are possible and a square platform edge is just an additional (and IMO unnecessary) obstacle.

 

[edwin_m]

I dare say it isn't, however, such events are possible and a square platform edge is just an additional (and IMO unnecessary) obstacle.

It's a question of balancing one risk against another. The extra risk on detrainment is that someone will trip and fall on the steps, and as detrainments are very rare this is a very occasiona and not very severe risk. By contrast there will be hundreds of trespass incidents for each detrainment, and every one of them has a possibility of being fatal to the trespasser as well as affecting drivers and other staff involved and disrupting the service. Hence I suggest it is the right thing to do, to minimse the trespass risk even if it makes detrainment slightly more difficult.

Having square ends to platforms also reduces costs and makes it much easier to extend them if that is ever required. As there is no need to remove the old ramp there is less work needed on site so less safety risk to the workforce and less disruption to train services. What's not to like?

 

[yorksrob]

It's a question of balancing one risk against another. The extra risk on detrainment is that someone will trip and fall on the steps, and as detrainments are very rare this is a very occasiona and not very severe risk. By contrast there will be hundreds of trespass incidents for each detrainment, and every one of them has a possibility of being fatal to the trespasser as well as affecting drivers and other staff involved and disrupting the service. Hence I suggest it is the right thing to do, to minimse the trespass risk even if it makes detrainment slightly more difficult.

Having square ends to platforms also reduces costs and makes it much easier to extend them if that is ever required. As there is no need to remove the old ramp there is less work needed on site so less safety risk to the workforce and less disruption to train services. What's not to like?

I tend to think that if people are inclined to trespass, they will, regardless of the lack of a ramp, whereas although de-trainments are rare, an easier escape from the lineside could be a considerable improvement for vulnerable people in that situation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately, the railway is responsible for trespassers, so we do indeed take into account the overall risk. This includes the risks involved to those on the trains stationary whilst we track down the blighters.

Also in the event of a detrainment near, but not at a platform, presumably those detraining will have managed to negotiate a 1metre drop off a train (possibly by ladder), and a walk of some distance along the cess and / or ballast, so a few steps up a platform won't be an issue.

 

[Class 92]

The UP platform at Winsford has no ramp but it has steps with a locked gate. Do all station which don't have ramps have steps?

 

[D6975]

There are quite a few places that have fences across the ends of the platform, with wooden cattle grid type affairs near the platform egde to deter people from going around them.

 

[tsr]

Deleted - misread another post

 

[455driver]

Maybe the guard is expected to carry the ramp off the train with him in such circumstances. :roll:

Please dont give 'them' ideas!

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Does make me wonder:

If a speeding derailed train hits a ramp, it goes up, flips over and comes to stop.

If a speeding derailed train hits a flat end platform, much of the platform explodes & takes off.

IMO, some things the railway designed in the 1870s should really not be messed with, no matter how well paid these modern 'safety consultants' are.

Not always. In the derailment at Potters Bar in 2002, in which seven people died, the rear carriage slip up the ramp and only came to a rest after being wedged under the platform canopy.
I think a square-ended platform would quite possibly have resulted in greater loss of life.

 

[swt_passenger]

This derail point is new to me. One learns something every day.

I didn't want to imply it was the main reason. However it is something of an accepted fact, based on early accident reports I think.

However if you go back to the early Board of Trade requirements (the one that describes how to build a railway in about 15 pages!), they simply state as fact that platform ends are to have ramps. There is no explanation or justification given for the statement.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Requirements1902.pdf

"...the descents at the end of the platforms to be by ramps, and not by steps."

Interestingly the oldest guidance for inspectors, from 1858, (this time running to only two pages!) includes very similar wording:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Inspectors001.pdf

"...the descent at the ends should be by means of ramps, and not by steps."

It is quite clear though that despite the obvious results of the Potters Bar accident, the appropriate authorities have removed the rule from current regs/standards.

 

[Harlesden]

I believe ramps were originally an immense help in the days when railway staff were frequently required to push various types of cage/cart across the tracks from one platform to another. This is why what looks like a foot crossing fairly close to the end of a platform may still be visible even though crossing the tracks on foot is long forbidden at that location. Referring to the days when stations had many staff but all were kept well busy putting parcels etc. onto trains and taking them off trains.
Many of today's quieter or even unmanned station were very busy in the 1950's and early 1960's

 

[edwin_m]

In the past it was quite common for the train to be longer than the platform and also for trains to have no through gangways. So passengers would jump down onto the ballast and walk up the platform ramp.