Why do European stations generally have underpasses?

[ABB125]

Something I've noticed whilst travelling is that all over Europe, stations almost invariably have underpasses to provide access to the platforms* rather than overbridges. In the UK, we mostly seem to have bridges, with underpasses only really used if the geography of the station makes it the obvious solution. Most of the European bridges I've seen (which is not that many!) look like relatively modern additions to the station, and there's almost always an older underpass as well.
Is there a reason for this?

*Assuming of course that access isn't simply "walk across the track"!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My guess is that because the loading gauge is higher than the UK you would need some very high footbridges to do it that way (which also harms accessibility). There do exist stations with footbridges and they do seem very high!

 

[AndrewE]

My guess is that because the loading gauge is higher than the UK you would need some very high footbridges to do it that way (which also harms accessibility). There do exist stations with footbridges and they do seem very high!

high as at Altbach and Rummelsburg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmid_Peoplemover

 

[The exile]

My guess is that because the loading gauge is higher than the UK you would need some very high footbridges to do it that way (which also harms accessibility). There do exist stations with footbridges and they do seem very high!

Suspect the accessibility is a useful side-effect in all but the newest, rather than the reason. At a guess, I’d put one of the reasons at a lot of post war rebuilding combined with another lot of rebuilding to eliminate ground-level platforms. Even before that, large transfer of parcels trolleys has weight implications for bridges but not subways.

 

[Amalie]

My guess is that because the loading gauge is higher than the UK you would need some very high footbridges to do it that way (which also harms accessibility)

I’ve never particularly paid attention to the height of foot bridges but they do seemingly have way more steps to walk compared to underpasses in The Netherlands. I assume that the loading gauge and overhead electrification makes a difference. In terms of accessibility, regardless of an underpass or an overpass there should still be elevators!

Underpasses can be in some scenarios handier as they can also double as a general pedestrian and bicycle tunnel which is nice if you’re just trying to get to the other side. Sometimes they’re also combined with a car tunnel.

But even in the UK, I’d imagine that you’d still need to walk less steps with an underpass than an overpass.

 

[Halish Railway]

My guess is that because the loading gauge is higher than the UK you would need some very high footbridges to do it that way (which also harms accessibility). There do exist stations with footbridges and they do seem very high!

Plus the fact that the platform height is lower in continental Europe as well which further exacerbates the issue.

Would the UK also have been able to fabricate (elaborate) steel overbridges at a lower cost than much of continental Europe? Or is it also the case that private British railways would have been more affluent and thus more inclined to build a visually appealing overbridge?

 

[Beebman]

If it helps, there was a discussion about this a year ago in the forum:

Differences between UK and mainland European railways

The discussion on footbridges starts at post #101 which the link above should go straight to, and continues to the end of the thread.

 

[The exile]

But even in the UK, I’d imagine that you’d still need to walk less steps with an underpass than an overpass.

Far fewer. Human headroom is much lower that electrification headroom!

 

[43096]

There do exist stations with footbridges and they do seem very high!

Such as the “new” bridge at Ulm!

 

[zwk500]

Something I've noticed whilst travelling is that all over Europe, stations almost invariably have underpasses to provide access to the platforms* rather than overbridges. In the UK, we mostly seem to have bridges, with underpasses only really used if the geography of the station makes it the obvious solution. Most of the European bridges I've seen (which is not that many!) look like relatively modern additions to the station, and there's almost always an older underpass as well.
Is there a reason for this?

*Assuming of course that access isn't simply "walk across the track"!

remembering that it's a lot easier to retrofit a footbridge than a subway, I suspect much of it comes down to the fact the European Railways were able to learn from the UK and anticipate the rise in demand they would experience, while UK railways were forced quite quickly to acknowledge that level crossings were not as suitable.

 

[stuu]

remembering that it's a lot easier to retrofit a footbridge than a subway, I suspect much of it comes down to the fact the European Railways were able to learn from the UK and anticipate the rise in demand they would experience, while UK railways were forced quite quickly to acknowledge that level crossings were not as suitable.

Not necessarily, not in the days before widespread availability of big cranes etc. Digging a subway needs a few blokes with shovels, and no doubt some practices which wouldn't be allowed these days

 

[zwk500]

Not necessarily, not in the days before widespread availability of big cranes etc. Digging a subway needs a few blokes with shovels, and no doubt some practices which wouldn't be allowed these days

Even in the days before big cranes, digging a subway involves ripping up tracks, platforms and more besides, whereas a footbridge could be built pretty much straight on top of a reasonably flat surface.

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

One aspect might also be that in many city centres, the railways were originally at ground level, but later put on a viaduct in order to remove level crossings. So it made sense to have passengers enter the station, walk into the underpass and then go upstairs to the track level. Footbridge wouldn't have made sense here

 

[Bletchleyite]

One aspect might also be that in many city centres, the railways were originally at ground level, but later put on a viaduct in order to remove level crossings. So it made sense to have passengers enter the station, walk into the underpass and then go upstairs to the track level. Footbridge wouldn't have made sense here

Thanks. I have observed that in mainland Europe the railway through towns is almost invariably on some sort of embankment and did wonder why - in the UK it's far more commonly at ground level or in a cutting (the latter allowing for easy bridging over by roads). That would as you say partly dictate the difference.

UK stations that are elevated above the town do generally have underpasses rather than bridges, e.g. Rochdale, Watford Junction and Hemel Hempstead. I can't think of one where you enter below track level and have to go up to and then above it to cross to the other platforms, aside from the edge case of Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 I suppose.

Edit: Manchester Oxford Road is an example of a station on an embankment which has a footbridge. It does also have an underpass but only accessed via the lifts.

 

[NCT]

Embankment/viaducts vs cuttings must explain much of the apparent difference.

Off the top of my head I can think of many GB mainline through stations which are below street level - Preston, Crewe - New Street - Nottingham, Leicester. Hamburg Hbf is the same. Cologne, Dusseldorf, Prague, Brno, Vienna, Brussels, Mechelen are on viaducts (again a completely random sample).

Where the station is at street level on level ground, I guess there is a contrast where the GB tendency is for footbridges and continental tendency would still be for underpasses?

 

[zwk500]

UK stations that are elevated above the town do generally have underpasses rather than bridges, e.g. Rochdale, Watford Junction and Hemel Hempstead. I can't think of one where you enter below track level and have to go up to and then above it to cross to the other platforms, aside from the edge case of Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 I suppose.

Arguably formerly at London Bridge, but think there was always a subway option to the SouthEastern side.

 

[AndrewE]

Embankment/viaducts vs cuttings must explain much of the apparent difference.

Off the top of my head I can think of many GB mainline through stations which are below street level - Preston, Crewe - New Street - Nottingham, Leicester. Hamburg Hbf is the same. Cologne, Dusseldorf, Prague, Brno, Vienna, Brussels, Mechelen are on viaducts (again a completely random sample).

Where the station is at street level on level ground, I guess there is a contrast where the GB tendency is for footbridges and continental tendency would still be for underpasses?

I suspect that Crewe was originally all at ground level (road and railway) but the road had to be raised up to put it on an overbridge as rail and road traffic grew? I would guess that the one-time mail/parcels subway came much later, 1930s maybe? Presumably the northern subway with connections into the Crewe Arms Hotel came with the development of the hotel ?

 

[Trainbike46]

My guess is that because the loading gauge is higher than the UK you would need some very high footbridges to do it that way (which also harms accessibility). There do exist stations with footbridges and they do seem very high!

Based on documentation of option from a rebuild station from the Netherlands that went from an overbridge to an underpass, and the option with an overpass were rejected based on exactly the reason you state - you need around twice as many steps to go over the tracks instead of under, and that's assuming the railway is level with the surroundings, when they are often higher to begin with.

Though the option chosen does depend on the local situation, and stations with overbridges do exist, for example Utrecht Centraal, Rotterdam Centraal, 's-Hertogenbosch, Boxtel, etc.

 

[DanielB]

Utrecht Centraal and Rotterdam Centraal actually have both (and the overpass in Rotterdam is newer than the underpass)

Amersfoort Centraal is one of the obvious ones with overpass, as the overpass is at street level on the southern side and the platforms are at the bottom of the hill (as is the northern entrance, which has pretty high stairs).
As an example how high: you can enter the station at -3, then there is a bike parking at -2 and -1 and at 0 is the overpass.

 

[Trainman40083]

For many years I changed trains in Giessen (Hessen, Germany). For all but the last two visits, it was a subway. Then a new footbridge was built.

 

[zwk500]

Based on documentation of option from a rebuild station from the Netherlands that went from an overbridge to an underpass, and the option with an overpass were rejected based on exactly the reason you state - you need around twice as many steps to go over the tracks instead of under, and that's assuming the railway is level with the surroundings, when they are often higher to begin with.

Though the option chosen does depend on the local situation, and stations with overbridges do exist, for example Utrecht Centraal, Rotterdam Centraal, 's-Hertogenbosch, Boxtel, etc.

Utrecht Centraal and Rotterdam Centraal actually have both (and the overpass in Rotterdam is newer than the underpass)

Amersfoort Centraal is one of the obvious ones with overpass, as the overpass is at street level on the southern side and the platforms are at the bottom of the hill (as is the northern entrance, which has pretty high stairs).
As an example how high: you can enter the station at -3, then there is a bike parking at -2 and -1 and at 0 is the overpass.

Maastricht Centraal also has an overpass to the Island platform. I don't know if there's a particular reason a subway wasn't constructed (defensiveness?) because it's far enough from the river that flooding shouldn't really be an issue (and the bike shed has since been built underground), and the local geology wouldn't be a major problem. Did Maastricht open without the island?

 

[philg999]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the majority of UK station platforms are still the original structures from the 1800s, and the attitude has always been to minimise the cost and disruption of changes. Originally there were just barrow-crossings at the end of the platforms, then it was cheapest to add small iron bridges. Excavations are generally much more awkward and also require ground surveys etc. Also overhead wiring wasn’t much of a thing in Britain until the 70s… and still is relatively rare… plus the loading gauge is small…. meaning you don’t need such high bridges anyway.

 

[dutchflyer]

Repeat what I just wrote above about fences: I assume (but you in the better know may correct me in this) that it was mostly started in the busiest part of old BR system: southern region, which has extensive 3d rail. So no overhead and hence lower bridges needed. And I assume bridges-even more the slim british old style- are a possible safety hazard above overhead electric wires with 25 kV.
Yesterday travelled on local trains from Heidelberg, change Worms onward. Both had large overbridges-with in Heidelberg annoyingly not even any screens or signs to next trains and what platform.
Daniel already pointed out to having both at fairly recently completely rebuilt and made larger stations in Nederland; Utrecht-I studied there some 50 years ago so quite well know how it looked like then-that old single tunnel is still there- is now a giant overpass with also shops etc.
My local station now is rails underground and access both sides to tracks from street level halls. But as so often has been said: NS in Nederland is much more like a giant metrosystem(´underground´).

 

[DelW]

Thanks. I have observed that in mainland Europe the railway through towns is almost invariably on some sort of embankment and did wonder why - in the UK it's far more commonly at ground level or in a cutting (the latter allowing for easy bridging over by roads). That would as you say partly dictate the difference.

UK stations that are elevated above the town do generally have underpasses rather than bridges, e.g. Rochdale, Watford Junction and Hemel Hempstead. I can't think of one where you enter below track level and have to go up to and then above it to cross to the other platforms, aside from the edge case of Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 I suppose.

Edit: Manchester Oxford Road is an example of a station on an embankment which has a footbridge. It does also have an underpass but only accessed via the lifts.

Waterloo East is on a viaduct, but access to its platforms from the main line station is only via a footbridge above the tracks (as well as above Waterloo Road). Admittedly it's an unusual situation, and I think there are low-level options though I've never used them.

 

[izvor]

Edenbridge is on a high embankment - at least on the "town" side - accessed by a long ramp then a flight of steps. Then a footbridge to get to the down platform. Hard work for a poor old man!

(Ok you can get there by walking under the road bridge and then right round to the other side but it requires just as much exertion)

 

[The exile]

Yesterday travelled on local trains from Heidelberg, change Worms onward. Both had large overbridges-with in Heidelberg annoyingly not even any screens or signs to next trains and what platform.

Heidelberg being an interesting case as it is a (post-war?) new build (on a new site) so a twentieth century conscious decision re bridge vs subway. Mind you, bridges are quite a feature in the area, both Mainz and Darmstadt also boasting them.

 

[Bemined]

Arnhem is an interesting case in the Netherlands, having both an overpass and underpass but both are actually at street level. It's one of the few stations in the Netherlands that is not build on flat terrain so one side of the station is in a cutting and the other side on an embankment.

 

[DanielB]

Arnhem is an interesting case in the Netherlands, having both an overpass and underpass but both are actually at street level.

It's even a bit more odd due to the various street levels in the area: not only level +2 (overpass) and level 0 (underpass) are at street level, but the exit to the local bus station (at level -1) is at street level as well.
That's due to the street in front of the station being at the foot of a hill, so also sloping upwards slightly.

Additional to what I already mentioned above Amersfoort Centraal has also such an oddity: the bicyle garage in the basement of the station building can be entered from the front of the station (going down 1 floor), but also from the rear of the station building where the entrance is at track level (and you have to go up two floors)

 

[norbitonflyer]

Waterloo East is on a viaduct, but access to its platforms from the main line station is only via a footbridge above the tracks (as well as above Waterloo Road). Admittedly it's an unusual situation, and I think there are low-level options though I've never used them.

There is access to the footbridge from Waterloo Road, but no subway.


Raynes Park is on an embankment but has a footbridge as well as a subway. This is because the subway is outside the barrier lines (separate ones for the up and down islands), so the bridge allows passengers changing between the main and Epsom lines to do so without having to pass through the barrier lines.

 

[kevjs]

Embankment/viaducts vs cuttings must explain much of the apparent difference.

Off the top of my head I can think of many GB mainline through stations which are below street level - Preston,

Which has two underpasses right next to one another (one with ramps to the platform and the other with lifts), although the city centre end is either ramp down to 3/4 from street level or via two over bridges from the Fishergate centre side.
Also approached from the south on bridges over the River Ribble

(Arguably it's both below ground level (city side) and at/above ground level (Christian Road) - presumably built by leveling off a section of the hill side - so a cutting on one side? Fishergate descends quiet a bit after it crosses the station.

Nottingham

Is Nottingham actually a below ground station as opposed to the entire station concourse being on a bridge over the station?

Most of the station is at ground level, but Station Street does rise up at the Carrington Street end meaning you enter the station at street level to go down steps to access platforms serving tracks at street level. Carrington Street also rises up passing the station front - much more noticeable coming in from the Meadows. The southern relief road (Queens Road/Drive?) also noticeably climbs up to cross over Carrington Street. I always wonder if this was the original lie of the land, or if the station building was built above the tracks with Carrington Street & Station Street ramped up to meet it?

Carrington Street is very much on a bridge nowadays and this appears to be well above ground level - The level of which immediately west of the station (i.e. at track level) suggests it was built above ground level.


(Photos shows Nottingham station taken from Wilford Street - surface carpark to the right is at track level, Carrington Street clearly a bridge (behind a gantry) and the bottom of the station building notably higher than the land in the foreground.

The buildings on the adjacent canal bridge are also built below ground level - the Carrington Street ground level being the first floor - so perhaps it was the canal that raised Carrington Street originally?

Rather handy by the other end of the station the canal is in a cutting and the railway passes over the canal on low bridges (there's at most 2.2m of headroom)


(Picture shows the canal bridge from the canal side, ground level clearly below street level)

The London Road end is on a bridge which noticeably rises over the tracks.