Why has the UK historically had higher platforms than on the continent?

[randyrippley]

Could well have been the same as the US, they didn't build platforms at the majority of rural stations because it was simply too expensive to build and maintain a long structure outside urban areas when a couple of sets of wooden steps that could be placed alongside one carriage would suffice..........

You're forgetting: the USA has TERMITES!
Wooden platforms would have a very short life and would be dangerous

 

[edwin_m]

But there are two track gauges. 5ft 3 in on the Island of Ireland and 4ft 8½ in England, Scotland and Wales. Why the difference when all were united in 1801?

In some countries like France the state effectively built the railways and licenced the companies to operate them, and I expect this would explain why all the main routes were the same gauge.

In the UK and Ireland I don't believe there was intially any compulsion on companies to adopt a particular gauge, otherwise Brunel would never have been able to adopt something different. Companies not closely associated with the GWR mostly went for standard because they were surved by a Stephenson or one of their pupils, or because they would connect to other standard gauge railways, or perhaps just because that was the gauge they could most easily buy locomotives and rolling stock for.

But the chaos that ensued when transhipping at "break of gauge" stations led to Parliament determining in 1846 that all new main lines in Britain should be standard gauge except extensions to the GWR broad gauge, and even that company was fully standard by 1892.

The same Act determined the use of 5'3" for Ireland, approximately the average of the three different gauges that had been laid by then but not the same as any of them! The same gauge appeared in parts of Australia, probalby because they employed Irish engineers.

You're forgetting: the USA has TERMITES!
Wooden platforms would have a very short life and would be dangerous

They seem to manage quite well with wooden sleepers, in fact they were much slower to adopt concrete ones than Europe. Not to mention some huge timber trestle bridges. So they must have found a solution to this problem.

[with the assistance of various Wikipedia pages to confirm details and dates]

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The same Act determined the use of 5'3" for Ireland, approximately the average of the three different gauges that had been laid by then but not the same as any of them! The same gauge appeared in parts of Australia, probably because they employed Irish engineers.

Almost exclusively in the state of Victoria though you are spot on about the Irish connection. Even today the need to cope with different gauges remains an issue and it's almost guaranteed that the situation will persist indefinitely.

Though interestingly high platforms were the norm almost from the beginning.

 

[Gostav]

I find the old standard platform is lower than the modern.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, platform heights have gradually increased rather than being the same height since the start of railways. You can sometimes see multiple "strata" in the platform wall where it has been raised several times.

 

[AM9]

Were our higher platform heights also partly due to our narrow loading gauge, meaning that there wouldn’t have been as much room to fit steps down to a lower level on carriages? Ie just easier to build carriages with level floors and have higher platforms instead?

Not really. The platforms are (generally) the major* controlling dimension in our loading gauge. There are a number of plate girder underbridges that intrude on the spece below the footboard, but numerically, the numbe rof platforms far exceeds that. Were it not for the platforms, the lower width would have allowed full width at track level making double deck trains viable.

* since there was any significant standardisation in platform heights

 

[edwin_m]

I'm trying to decide whether the high platforms are a consequence of our narrow loading gauge below platform level but I'm coming to the conclusion that they may in fact be the cause.

Passenger trains were originally similar on all railways, derived from stagecoaches. But because platforms started to be built up in the UK it wasn't possible for coaches to become wider right down to track level as they did in other countries. Hence, at and below platform level, British trains are still pretty much constrained to the width of a stagecoach.

As mentioned above this didn't happen on the Continent until recent times. I wonder if this is because the maximum dimensions were agreed internationally early in the 20th century, but at that time were many/most passenger coaches still much narrower? If so a high platform clear of the UIC gauge would have had a wide and dangerous gap to many of the trains of the time.

This doesn't of course explain why European trains can be wider in the body or higher.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I wonder if perhaps the European approach to early passenger stock construction was a little more egalitarian than ours, so rather than using the bodies of gentlemens' carriages as a basis they instead went for open saloons with just a single door at each end of the vehicle which led onto an open veranda at the top of steps cut into each side. Even later vehicles, almost to the present day, reflect this pattern though the open verandas are now part of the vehicle body. This also avoided the need for anything more than rudimentary platforms.

 

[Spartacus]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not as a result of Britain's legislation about fencing off the railway. If you have to go through the process of fencing the public off from the railway, it would make more sense to provide more elaborate facilities for bringing them onto the trains at stations, even if it wasn't specifically required by law. Plus, the further distance in height you put between them and the tracks, the less likely they are to leave or approach the station via them, which they're not allowed to do, or to simply lark about on them. Remember also that much of the design for stations (and other public spaces) used to be about getting things ordered, and so getting passengers into the right mindset of thinking and moving in an ordered way, something that seems to have been something of a Victorian design obsession, that good design could make people automatically think the way the designer wished.

 

[B&I]

I viewed a wheelchair getting on to a busy Zurich S-Bahn train the other week - because of that level boarding it piece of cake to what you have to do here with ramps etc. And this was in the middle of the rush hour with a DOO train and no staff intervention required.

Hopefully the new Merseyrail trains will set the standard for Britain in the future

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully the new Merseyrail trains will set the standard for Britain in the future

As I said it's a real pity PRM TSI did not mandate, for new rolling stock and for new/refurbished stations, boarding from a standard UK platform height by a wheelchair user without assistance. It would have been transformational for the network - and would have been excellent justification for all those new EMU orders replacing recent stock.

 

[ac6000cw]

I wonder if perhaps the European approach to early passenger stock construction was a little more egalitarian than ours, so rather than using the bodies of gentlemens' carriages as a basis they instead went for open saloons with just a single door at each end of the vehicle which led onto an open veranda at the top of steps cut into each side. Even later vehicles, almost to the present day, reflect this pattern though the open verandas are now part of the vehicle body. This also avoided the need for anything more than rudimentary platforms.

That would be my take on it as well.

As an aside, were there any *historic* tram systems in the UK that used raised boarding platforms, or were they all street level boarding? (I know some/all of the modern systems have raised platforms)

 

[30907]

I wonder if perhaps the European approach to early passenger stock construction was a little more egalitarian than ours, so rather than using the bodies of gentlemens' carriages as a basis they instead went for open saloons with just a single door at each end of the vehicle which led onto an open veranda at the top of steps cut into each side. Even later vehicles, almost to the present day, reflect this pattern though the open verandas are now part of the vehicle body. This also avoided the need for anything more than rudimentary platforms.

Coaches with verandas and end doors were certainly widely used in the USA from an early date, but when did they become common in mainland Europe? I recall seeing gangwayed coaches with side doors on main line trains in France in the late 60s, and Centoporti stock in Italy a couple of years later - and the famous or notorious German Donnerbüchsen had only recently been rebodied.

 

[ac6000cw]

According to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_coach - open coaches originated in America (in the first half of the 19th century), but the idea spread into Europe quite quickly, particularly for rural trains.

This photo (from Wikipedia) shows an old (probably late 19th/early 20th century) Prussian compartment coach - note that the vehicle is wider in the lower running board/step area than in the body area. So providing steps up to individual compartments wasn't an issue.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Looks like this is quite a difficult subject to research. The referenced Wikipedia articles indicate that in Prussia/Germany compartment vehicles not dissimilar to those used here were quite common though not so much elsewhere in Europe. However it does appear that we hung on to compartment coaches longer than almost anywhere else and some were even built as BR Mk1 types. I can just remember them being used on GN services to/from Moorgate via the Widened Lines in 1976/7: preserved examples exist on the K&WVR (and probably elsewhere too).

In terms of traditional style open vehicles with end verandas, open or covered/closed, post civil war Croatia certainly used them for a while. Some were wooden bodied (and seated!) 4-wheelers used on Zagreb-Zabok-Velika Ves stoppers while others were former SJ bogied vehicles used on local services around Knin. They made for some of my more unusual trips around Europe.

 

[Adlington]

This photo (from Wikipedia) shows an old (probably late 19th/early 20th century) Prussian compartment coach

For the record: built in 1902.

 

[edwin_m]

However it does appear that we hung on to compartment coaches longer than almost anywhere else and some were even built as BR Mk1 types.

Not wanting to derail the thread but on a point of information the last compartment stock built for the UK was the first class section of the 442s in the late 1980s.

 

[urbophile]

However it does appear that we hung on to compartment coaches longer than almost anywhere else.

Is that true? Many long-distance trains in mainland Europe are of compartment stock. And that's not counting couchette compartments on overnight trains. I've no recent experience of rail travel in any other country besides France, Italy and Poland, but certainly that is the case in the latter two.

 

[87015]

Is that true? Many long-distance trains in mainland Europe are of compartment stock. And that's not counting couchette compartments on overnight trains. I've no recent experience of rail travel in any other country besides France, Italy and Poland, but certainly that is the case in the latter two.

Compartment as in non-corridor rather than side-corridor compartments, presumably.

 

[matacaster]

I find the old standard platform is lower than the modern.

Actually, I think you will find that platforms have been raised at places all over the network. The reason is not that platform heights have changed, but track has been repeatedly reballasted and the ballast is much deeper to improve drainage and provide more support to the track. Concrete sleepers and heavier rail also result in greater height above the track bed than wooden sleepers and bullhead rail. This means that the height of the platform above rail level has reduced. So they raise the height of the platform!

 

[30907]

In terms of traditional style open vehicles with end verandas, open or covered/closed, post civil war Croatia certainly used them for a while. Some were wooden bodied (and seated!) 4-wheelers used on Zagreb-Zabok-Velika Ves stoppers while others were former SJ bogied vehicles used on local services around Knin. They made for some of my more unusual trips around Europe.

Open balconied 4-wheelers were common in Austria until the 70s, on Vienna outer suburban trains as well as branch lines (and as railcar trailers painted to match). I wonder if they were generally more common in former Austria-Hungary than in Germany, or was it that DB/DR modernised more quickly?

 

[Taunton]

Raising the height of platforms is not straightforward because if more than a fraction you start raising them above door sills and other key parts of the platform buildings, which is generally not readily possible. If you look at Slough Down Main platform, for example, the station building which is notably close to the edge and thus gives issues is a Brunel original, a listed building, and thus cannot be touched. Looking up and down the line it is apparent the tracks have not been depressed through the station, and thus the platform height must be as original.

Sloping the platform from front to back is also not practical as this can be slippery and rainwater will then accumulate at the rear and enter the buildings through the doorways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Raising the height of platforms is not straightforward because if more than a fraction you start raising them above door sills and other key parts of the platform buildings, which is generally not readily possible.

Sometimes they don't get this right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-commuters-climb-WINDOW-access-platform.html

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Sloping the platform from front to back is also not practical as this can be slippery and rainwater will then accumulate at the rear and enter the buildings through the doorways.

It does however provide mitigation against the risk of wheeled items, such as railway trolleys or unattended children's buggies, rolling off the platform onto the tracks. A modernised platform should probably include upgraded drainage and the surface should be non-slip so such a slope can actually be a good idea.

 

[edwin_m]

It does however provide mitigation against the risk of wheeled items, such as railway trolleys or unattended children's buggies, rolling off the platform onto the tracks. A modernised platform should probably include upgraded drainage and the surface should be non-slip so such a slope can actually be a good idea.

Indeed, a slope away from the platform edge is required in modern standards although there are no doubt many existing stations that slope the other way. There have been a couple of RAIB reports relating to pushchairs/wheelchairs rolling too close to the edge. I imagine the historic practice would have been to slope the other way so the platform drained onto the track, and reversing this would raise the platform quite a bit at the edge.

 

[Chris M]

Indeed, a slope away from the platform edge is required in modern standards although there are no doubt many existing stations that slope the other way. There have been a couple of RAIB reports relating to pushchairs/wheelchairs rolling too close to the edge. I imagine the historic practice would have been to slope the other way so the platform drained onto the track, and reversing this would raise the platform quite a bit at the edge.

At Slough there are warnings painted on the platform that there is a slope towards the track and that brakes should be applied (I think it was just the Windsor branch platform but I'm not sure of that).