Stations where one platform starts where the other side ends. Why?

[renegademaster]

Theirs quite a lot of stations like this, Mitcham Eastfields being the one that got me thinking of this question. Often but not exclusively they are either side of a level crossing. Is their an operational reason for doing this or is just always to do with land constrains round the stations?

 

[zwk500]

The main reason given for staggered platforms is to allow passengers to cross the line behind both trains for safety. It also helps allow level crossings to be opened quicker. As ever, local circumstances or company decisions could have other considerations and force the layout anyway.
Many formerly staggered platforms now overlap due to subsequent lengthening.

 

[The exile]

Where there is a level crossing, you ideally want the platform to be beyond it, so that the crossing can be open during the dwell time at the station.

 

[swt_passenger]

Some Tyne Wear Metro platforms are staggered the other way, because on parts of the Metro infrastructure they are not gated crossings. So the Metro driver can start off from the station call able to visually check the road traffic has stopped.

 

[The exile]

Some Tyne Wear Metro platforms are staggered the other way, because on parts of the Metro infrastructure they are not gated crossings. So the Metro driver can start off from the station call able to visually check the road traffic has stopped.

Makes sense in those circumstances

 

[greyman42]

The main reason given for staggered platforms is to allow passengers to cross the line behind both trains for safety. It also helps allow level crossings to be opened quicker.

Is Ribblehead an example of this or is it due to the lay of the land?

 

[John Webb]

Is Ribblehead an example of this or is it due to the lay of the land?

The offset at Ribblehead is due to the original Down platform, opposite the Up platform, being demolished after the station closed in 1970 for the construction of the siding on that side of the line. (For timber traffic). On reopening the existing Down platform was constructed after some delay, so only southbound (Up) trains could call for a while.
(Perhaps a bit surprising they didn't extend the single line on the viaduct through the station so the one platform served trains in both directions?)

 

[The exile]

The offset at Ribblehead is due to the original Down platform, opposite the Up platform, being demolished after the station closed in 1970 for the construction of the siding on that side of the line. (For timber traffic). On reopening the existing Down platform was constructed after some delay, so only southbound (Up) trains could call for a while.
(Perhaps a bit surprising they didn't extend the single line on the viaduct through the station so the one platform served trains in both directions?)

A second platform was probably cheaper and operationally better.

 

[John Webb]

A second platform was probably cheaper and operationally better.

Probably is operationally better, but on the other side of North Yorkshire Malton Station has used only one platform for some years, which is why I wondered about Ribblehead!

 

[Undaunted]

The main reason given for staggered platforms is to allow passengers to cross the line behind both trains for safety. It also helps allow level crossings to be opened quicker. As ever, local circumstances or company decisions could have other considerations and force the layout anyway.
Many formerly staggered platforms now overlap due to subsequent lengthening.

Maybe it's just me, but allowing passengers to cross behind trains sounds positively unsafe, particularly when there are non-stop trains running through the station concerned. As the OP said, land constraints must be a factor at many stations. Thinking of Raynes Park, which is on an embankment and is a junction station with four platforms, the land required to place all four platforms opposite each other would be significant and probably prohibitive.

 

[edwin_m]

Sometimes

Maybe it's just me, but allowing passengers to cross behind trains sounds positively unsafe, particularly when there are non-stop trains running through the station concerned.

These would normally be gated crossings so there is some protection, although there is a risk of people trying to catch the train finding themselves on the wrong side of the gates and tempted take risks. Elsenham, another station staggered across a level crossing, saw this happen when two teenage girls were killed by a passing train.

Report 23/2006: Investigation into station pedestrian crossings

RAIB review of station pedestrian crossings including pedestrian gates at highway level crossings

www.gov.uk

On Saturday 03 December 2005 two girls were struck by a fast moving train on the pedestrian level crossing at Elsenham station in Cambridgeshire. Both girls were killed. Immediately prior to the accident, the two girls had purchased tickets from the booking office on the east side of the line and were in the process of walking to the opposite platform.

The immediate cause of the accident was the two girls stepping into the path of the approaching train, despite the continued display of a red light and the sounding of an audible alarm. It is likely that the accident occurred due to the girls’ focus of attention on a train to Cambridge and their consequent failure to perceive the risk from trains in the opposite direction.

 

[Purple Train]

Where there is a level crossing, you ideally want the platform to be beyond it, so that the crossing can be open during the dwell time at the station.

That's interesting - it makes sense, but it leads me to wonder if there's been a change in protocol around level crossing operation. One station I've used a bit has a level crossing close to one end - 50 yards or so from the platform ramp. I'm sure that trains in the direction of the level crossing used to stop at the platform before the barriers were lowered (and they've always been remotely controlled), possibly given the crossing is the only step-free route between platforms. Now they close before the train arrives at the station. Of course I may be misremembering - but has there been a change to avoid the train arriving on a red signal?

Maybe it's just me, but allowing passengers to cross behind trains sounds positively unsafe

At open crossings, yes, and there have been numerous accidents in such situations. But most of these stations seem to have full-barrier crossings, and pretty much all would have at least half-barriers - while the latter is open to misuse, any and all misuse is unsafe anyway! (Edited in the light of @edwin_m's post above to clarify - I'm thinking here of passengers crossing behind the train they have alighted from, rather than the situation such as that at Elsenham.)

Thinking of Raynes Park, which is on an embankment and is a junction station with four platforms, the land required to place all four platforms opposite each other would be significant and probably prohibitive.

I'd always assumed Raynes Park was staggered simply to accommodate the shape of the flyover junction (the chord on the up side has to be longer than that on the down side, particularly given the gradient), but I've only ever passed through, so very much open to correction!

 

[Western Sunset]

Many/most of the staggered platforms are the result of local geographic conditions. For example, Dilton Marsh has highly staggered platforms as:
1. It is set on an embankment
2. A road underbridge bisects the site
3. The location slopes sharply from one side to the other
So topography is an important consideration.

Historically, some pre-grouping railway companies were more in favour of staggered platforms than others, which also accounts for variations seen.

 

[zwk500]

Maybe it's just me, but allowing passengers to cross behind trains sounds positively unsafe, particularly when there are non-stop trains running through the station concerned. As the OP said, land constraints must be a factor at many stations. Thinking of Raynes Park, which is on an embankment and is a junction station with four platforms, the land required to place all four platforms opposite each other would be significant and probably prohibitive.

A non-stop train would not be a concern when trains have just stopped to let passengers off, especially at a crossing loop on a single line. Most staggered platforms that weren't provided with a footbridge or subway would be on lighter traffic lines, hence the avoiding of expense. This is also the Victorian idea of safety, which differs quite far from the modern day ideas.

 

[Undaunted]

I'd always assumed Raynes Park was staggered simply to accommodate the shape of the flyover junction (the chord on the up side has to be longer than that on the down side, particularly given the gradient), but I've only ever passed through, so very much open to correction!

There must be somebody on this forum who would know whether Raynes Park station was opened to serve the main line towards New Malden/Wimbledon and the branch to/from Motspur Park simultaneously or whether the branch came later. And if the latter, was the original station at Raynes Park staggered?

 

[DanNCL]

Some Tyne Wear Metro platforms are staggered the other way, because on parts of the Metro infrastructure they are not gated crossings. So the Metro driver can start off from the station call able to visually check the road traffic has stopped.

Three locations have this, Fawdon, Kingston Park and Howdon. In the case of Howdon one of the original platforms was demolished and replaced by a new platform on the other side of the crossing up on conversion to Metro in order to create the staggered layout.
The setup works well. The crossings are treadle activated as the train reaches the end of the platform and stops. The signal protecting the crossing usually clears just as the last few passengers board.

This wasn’t continued for the airport extension with both Callerton Parkway and Bank Foot having both platforms on the same side of the level crossing.

Hebburn and Bede also have staggered platforms, and again these are staggered the same way round as those staggered across level crossings, although these two are staggered across road bridges instead.

 

[fairysdad]

There must be somebody on this forum who would know whether Raynes Park station was opened to serve the main line towards New Malden/Wimbledon and the branch to/from Motspur Park simultaneously or whether the branch came later. And if the latter, was the original station at Raynes Park staggered?

According to Mitchell & Smith's Waterloo to Woking and Wimbledon to Epsom books:

The branch to Epsom was opened in 1859 but a station here was not provided until 30th October 1871. A burrowing junction for the up branch line was provided in 1884.

and

Quadrupling had taken place when the Kingston branch opened in 1869 . . . A level junction was in use until 1884 when a dive-under was provided for the up branch line. Until that time, the two local lines were south of the main lines.

Waterloo to Woking does reproduce a map from 1877 that: "...shows the level junction and the station buildings but, curiously, no platforms." There are also, unfortunately, no images in either of these books of what the station looked like before the flyunder was built; there looks to be a station building on the branch Down on the 1877 map, but without the platforms indicated it's hard to tell!

 

[Snow1964]

.Thinking of Raynes Park, which is on an embankment and is a junction station with four platforms, the land required to place all four platforms opposite each other would be significant and probably prohibitive.

There must be somebody on this forum who would know whether Raynes Park station was opened to serve the main line towards New Malden/Wimbledon and the branch to/from Motspur Park simultaneously or whether the branch came later. And if the latter, was the original station at Raynes Park staggered?

When the branch towards Epsom was opened (in 1859) there was no station at Raynes Park. For many years it was 4 tracks in 2 pairs with just the southernmost pair serving the double line junction. This pair of tracks continued to just west of New Malden where they dived down and went through double track underpass towards Kingston. I think this dates from 1869 when the line via Norbiton was opened to link to Kingston branch from Twickenham.

The dive under (1884) and rearrangement of the 4 tracks (to paired by direction), was later (1880s) that led to the staggered platforms at Raynes Park.

The London bound platforms were due to be moved as part of the 1910-1916 six tracking, some of the work including the bridge abutments at dive under were all done. Most of the extra tracks that were added from Wimbledon were also done, but WW1 postponed the work at Raynes Park station area. The Southern Railway subsequently rebuilt the street level station entrance in 1935 after widening had been abandoned. This 1930s rebuild is clearly visible today as the canopies on the London bound platform are supported by H shaped steels, whereas older southbound platform canopy uses fluted round poles.

 

[Undaunted]

Thank you to @fairysdad and @Snow1964 for those responses. Putting them together, it seems that the original Raynes Park station served only the branch between 1871 and 1884 and must have been closed when the diveunder arrangements were introduced along with the staggered platforms.

 

[The exile]

That's interesting - it makes sense, but it leads me to wonder if there's been a change in protocol around level crossing operation. One station I've used a bit has a level crossing close to one end - 50 yards or so from the platform ramp. I'm sure that trains in the direction of the level crossing used to stop at the platform before the barriers were lowered (and they've always been remotely controlled), possibly given the crossing is the only step-free route between platforms. Now they close before the train arrives at the station. Of course I may be misremembering - but has there been a change to avoid the train arriving on a red signal?

Wouldn’t surprise me. Automation (no idea if this is relevant in “your” case) also plays a part - particularly if there are both stopping and non- stopping trains. Having a platform between strike-point and crossing will lead to some long road closures.

 

[zwk500]

Wouldn’t surprise me. Automation (no idea if this is relevant in “your” case) also plays a part - particularly if there are both stopping and non- stopping trains. Having a platform between strike-point and crossing will lead to some long road closures.

There are usually stopping and non-stopping controls built in in that case - either separate strike in points or different timings.

 

[swt_passenger]

Three locations have this, Fawdon, Kingston Park and Howdon. In the case of Howdon one of the original platforms was demolished and replaced by a new platform on the other side of the crossing up on conversion to Metro in order to create the staggered layout.
The setup works well. The crossings are treadle activated as the train reaches the end of the platform and stops. The signal protecting the crossing usually clears just as the last few passengers board.

This wasn’t continued for the airport extension with both Callerton Parkway and Bank Foot having both platforms on the same side of the level crossing.

I wonder if at Bank Foot it is because it was first built with only the single platform on what ended up the Newcastle bound side? IIRC it was only single track beyond the station at that time, although resiting the platform shouldn’t have been that expensive.

I don’t think there’s an obvious reason Callerton couldn’t have been staggered, unless they preferred the platform to be alongside the car park?

 

[Peter0124]

Where there is a level crossing, you ideally want the platform to be beyond it, so that the crossing can be open during the dwell time at the station.

Motherwell is an exception to this when a Glasgow bound 11 car Pendolino stops, as the first carriage is beyond the signal for setting the route through the level crossing about 400 metres away

 

[MikeWM]

Whittlesea is a rather odd one with an 'extreme stagger', the end of the platform on one side being about 4 chains away from the start of the platform on the other. There's a level crossing but it is hard to see in this case that it is related to the setup. Was it always like this?

 

[edwin_m]

Three locations have this, Fawdon, Kingston Park and Howdon. In the case of Howdon one of the original platforms was demolished and replaced by a new platform on the other side of the crossing up on conversion to Metro in order to create the staggered layout.
The setup works well. The crossings are treadle activated as the train reaches the end of the platform and stops. The signal protecting the crossing usually clears just as the last few passengers board.

This wasn’t continued for the airport extension with both Callerton Parkway and Bank Foot having both platforms on the same side of the level crossing.

I wonder if at Bank Foot it is because it was first built with only the single platform on what ended up the Newcastle bound side? IIRC it was only single track beyond the station at that time, although resiting the platform shouldn’t have been that expensive.

I don’t think there’s an obvious reason Callerton couldn’t have been staggered, unless they preferred the platform to be alongside the car park?

The Inspector commented after the 1983 Metro-bus collision at Fawdon: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_BruntonLane1983.pdf

57. The most serious defect from the safety point of view to be revealed by the investigation carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory was the almost total disregard by pedestrians of the twin red flashing lights and the audible warning that a train was approaching the level crossing. There is no doubt [hat this wide scale disobedience is largely due to the excessively long 'crossing closed' time. coupled with the fact that people are leaving the station and wishing to traverse the crossing while the train.is still standing in the station and road traffic is halted. From my comments in paragraph 55 above, I am satisfied that the arrangements have been improved as far as is reasonably practicable to eliminate the excessive 'crossing closed' times with platforms on the immediate approaches to AOCL. I am by no means satisfied, however, that the introduction of further AOCL adjacent to stations, whether on the Metro, British Railways or any other railway, should not, wherever possible, be sited immediately before the platform and not immediately after it, thus eliminating any reason for excessive crossing times. If this is unacceptable, I consider that the only safe alternative is to arrange that the driver of a train, having completed station duties, operates a plunger to initiate the steady amber and twin red flashing lights and, after a delay that ensures that the road traffic signals have been showing for the correct time, the protecting signal will clear or the white light flash. The latter, in my opinion, will not stop regular crossing users from learning that they can traverse the crossing while the train is stationary in the platform and thus 1 consider this arrangement to be less acceptable than the crossing on the approach to the platform, where there need be no excessive delay whatsoever.

I've a feeling the arrangement with the platform on the approach to the crossing then fell out of favour, and possibly there was then no real reason to go for this arrangement at the later stations. At both Bank Foot and Callerton, a new Newcastle-bound platform on the approach to the crossing would have involved buying out adjacent property.

 

[Western Lord]

Although staggered platforms either side of a level crossing are usually located so that an arriving train clears the crossing there are exceptions. Roydon, on the West Anglia line has staggered platforms either side of the level crossing but they are before the crossing, not after it.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

When the branch towards Epsom was opened (in 1859) there was no station at Raynes Park. For many years it was 4 tracks in 2 pairs with just the southernmost pair serving the double line junction. This pair of tracks continued to just west of New Malden where they dived down and went through double track underpass towards Kingston. I think this dates from 1869 when the line via Norbiton was opened to link to Kingston branch from Twickenham.

The dive under (1884) and rearrangement of the 4 tracks (to paired by direction), was later (1880s) that led to the staggered platforms at Raynes Park.

The London bound platforms were due to be moved as part of the 1910-1916 six tracking, some of the work including the bridge abutments at dive under were all done. Most of the extra tracks that were added from Wimbledon were also done, but WW1 postponed the work at Raynes Park station area. The Southern Railway subsequently rebuilt the street level station entrance in 1935 after widening had been abandoned. This 1930s rebuild is clearly visible today as the canopies on the London bound platform are supported by H shaped steels, whereas older southbound platform canopy uses fluted round poles.

I also notice a lot of the bridges between Clapham and Earlsfield have a very generous width too

 

[QueensCurve]

There is a stagger of this type at Ravenglass. No level Xing, but there used to be a barrow Xing. In this case the Xing is in front of the stationary train.

 

[thenorthern]

Tutbury and Hatton is like that, I think I read somewhere it was because when the station reopened in 1989 there was limited space.

 

[Rescars]

Sydenham is staggered. Anyone know why? Alignment with the junction from Crystal Palace perhaps?