Low Platforms

[markem41]

I've been travelling on my local line recently (Ex CLC Manchester to Liverpool) and there's usually an announcement on approaching the Flixton stop to watch out for the low platform and they're right - as you step off the train you fall to the platform! It's quite a drop and attempting to do it in a single step down is OK for gymnasts but not for me.

Anyway, the other stations on this line don't suffer from this problem so is anyone aware of a reason why Flixton is like this? Did the CLC build low platforms or have other nearby stations (Trafford Park, Urmston, Irlam etc) been modified at some stage?

 

[northwichcat]

Northwich is like that as well, being worse when it's 150s. Greenbank is at normal height. The Northwich area does have subsidence problems so I linked that with the low platforms at the station. The subsidence problem, togetehr with the poor build of Pacers has also led to a 20mph speed limit on the Leftwich viaduct.

 

[markem41]

I'm not aware of subsidence being an issue at Flixton - although I think it's only the Liverpool bound platform that has this issue so possibly it is to do with the surrounding topography . I'm also at the mercy of 142s, 150s and if I'm really lucky a luxurious 156 so it's a jump down off all of them.

 

[Ivo]

Low platforms can be a problem, but I've always found high platforms more awkward. An example can be found on the Piccadilly Line. The stretch between Acton Town and Uxbridge was built by the District, and thus was designed for sub-surface stock. However, obviously the line is now operated by the Piccadilly (as has been the case for many decades now), which has deep-level and therefore smaller stock. As a result, the train floor is actually lower than the platform, which can be quite awkward when getting off for a person who is not aware of this. You would have thought that TfL, LRT or even the Underground Group of Companies would have corrected this...

 

[markem41]

Low platforms can be a problem, but I've always found high platforms more awkward. An example can be found on the Piccadilly Line. The stretch between Acton Town and Uxbridge was built by the District, and thus was designed for sub-surface stock. However, obviously the line is now operated by the Piccadilly (as has been the case for many decades now), which has deep-level and therefore smaller stock. As a result, the train floor is actually lower than the platform, which can be quite awkward when getting off for a person who is not aware of this. You would have thought that TfL, LRT or even the Underground Group of Companies would have corrected this...

Sounds strange! So you have step up to leave the carriage? The headroom must be OK or there would be a lot of sore heads!

 

[thefab444]

Similar situation on the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, the platforms are level for a Class 313/508, but there is a significant step up when alighting from a 72TS.

 

[royaloak]

I've always found high platforms more awkward. An example can be found on the Piccadilly Line. The stretch between Acton Town and Uxbridge, the train floor is actually lower than the platform, which can be quite awkward when getting off for a person who is not aware of this. You would have thought that TfL, LRT or even the Underground Group of Companies would have corrected this...

How do you propose they correct it then, and how much do you think it would cost?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sounds strange! So you have step up to leave the carriage? The headroom must be OK or there would be a lot of sore heads!

Yes you step up to get off the train, because of the shape of the tube stock the doors curve around into the roof so headroom isnt really an issue if you are careful.
see here-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fray_bentos/3947547628/
and here-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dh73/2062355208/

 

[Capybara]

It's something you get all over the underground, particularly the bits that aren't, errm, under ground. The eastern extreme of the Central line is mostly former standard railway infrastructure, for example as are the northern bits of the Northern. And a number of the stations towards the top end of the Jubilee were built as Metropolitan line stations.

 

[WatcherZero]

Up North I believe the lower platforms were where they had significant freight such as newspapers or Milk urns delivered regularly. The goods trains level was usually lower than passengers however (for extra loading) and to avoid lifting the heavy objects up off the goods car they made the platform lower so they could roll them off the train.

 

[markem41]

Up North I believe the lower platforms were where they had significant freight such as newspapers or Milk urns delivered regularly. The goods trains level was usually lower than passengers however (for extra loading) and to avoid lifting the heavy objects up off the goods car they made the platform lower so they could roll them off the train.

Interesting, although at Flixton, many moons ago, there was the usual goods siding (now a car park) but it was on the Manchester bound side of the station so the low platform should be on that side. I suppose it's possible both platforms were originally low and only one has been raised since.

 

[A60K]

How do you propose they correct it then, and how much do you think it would cost?

LU do have a general policy of matching platform heights more closely to the trains serving them where they've got high platforms used by tube (as opposed to surface) stock.

Generally these platforms are where one of the deep-level tube lines has been extended to run over former Metropolitan/District Railway branches, or where old mainline branches were taken over by LT in their New Works programme of the 1930s. The easiest way to change is usually by raising the trackbed during scheduled renewals, providing there's no obstruction above the line preventing this, and that minimises the cost.

It's very much a long-term aim though - most of the mismatches have been around for 50 years or more, and it will be a while yet before they've all gone!


And even when these are done, you'll still have the issue of compromise height platforms at platforms served by both tube and surface stock - Ealing Common, Acton Town, Rayners Lane to Uxbridge. Acton Town you might be able to eliminate by dedicating platforms to lines, losing flexibility in the process, but the others are insoluable with the current service pattern.

 

[Ivo]

I personally have never understood the point in the Piccadilly continuing to Uxbridge... I believe that it would be better to dedicate it to Heathrow and return the Alperton route to the District - but can the 'S'-stock cover this increase in service?

 

[asylumxl]

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned the Kent southbound platform at Elephant and Castle. A truely huge drop.

 

[LE Greys]

I think a lot of Great Western platforms are a bit lower than other lines'. Bath Spa has a noticeable gap from a MkIII because of the curve, but there is a bit of a drop as well. Even stations on straight track such as Reading have a couple of extra inches to step down. It might have something to do with former broad gauge lines and the extra clearance these produced (hence 9ft 7 wide Super Saloons).

However, the lowest platforms of all in this country are at St Pancras. To make sure there would be enough clearance for a Duplex TGV, they built them at a compromise between French and British height, about 14 inches or so. A bit disconcerting, until you get used to it.

 

[Billr]

I think it was Aberdovey on the Cambrian (it was a couple of years back, so open to correction) The platform must have been a good 18 inches (about 40-45 cm's to the younger generation) lower than the train. They actually had a couple of small portable podiums with two or three steps on the platform for passengers to use!

 

[CarterUSM]

I apologise for my ignorance but thought low platforms were just old and that was it. The lowest i've come across is Breich, It must be close on 18-20 inches below the train. Should get the ladders out, that's if anybody was boarding right enough. Once in a blue moon material that is.

 

[33056]

Similar situation on the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, the platforms are level for a Class 313/508, but there is a significant step up when alighting from a 72TS.

There is a hell of a step up into a 313 on some of the platforms on that line.

If you don't like low platforms, don't go and live abroad ; the platform that the train is standing in is qute high compared to some hock:

 

[ert47]

Should see the gap at Clapham Junction on the Southern platforms (cant remember which one - 13?), the platform is at least 2 feet away from the train, so you have to leap to get off the train (i dont even know if its possible for wheelchair users to even make it off the train).

Another station a couple of stops away - Selhurst has a mahusive drop as well - I'll take some pics next time im in that area (could be a month though =/)

 

[sheff'd victoria]

I remember in the 1980's that Cleethorpes had low platforms as there were wooden steps on the platforms to get onto a class 101 or 114 to Sheffield Midland via Gainsborough

 

[Trog]

Up North I believe the lower platforms were where they had significant freight such as newspapers or Milk urns delivered regularly. The goods trains level was usually lower than passengers however (for extra loading) and to avoid lifting the heavy objects up off the goods car they made the platform lower so they could roll them off the train.

One of the bays at Northampton had an over height platform to allow easy loading of BRUTEs etc into vans. So I doubt low platforms were for freight use.

Indeed the standard platform height and wagon wheel diameter are both 3' so by the time you have put the wagon floor over the wheels, a standard wagon will always be higher than a normal platform.

 

[Drsatan]

Ewell West station on the Raynes Park-Epsom line used to have notoriously low platforms. The gap between the platform and the train (almost always a 455) used to be about a foot, which would have made boarding and alighting very difficult for those with mobility impairments. To the best of my knowledge now, either the platform or the trackbed has been raised at Ewell West, consequently reducing the gap to an acceptable size.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

^^^^^

Yes, the platforms were raised last year; the trackbed had previously been lowered slightly but could not be lowered enough to make a noticable difference.

 

[90019]

To the best of my knowledge now, either the platform or the trackbed has been raised at Ewell West, consequently reducing the gap to an acceptable size.

I think raising the trackbed would probably make the problem worse

 

[Ploughman]

Platform clearances on the straight should be:-
Vertical 915 mm with + 0 / -25mm tolerance.
Horizontal 730mm This is measured to running edge of rail.
Unless a specific design has been introduced to permit special stock workings.
eg Leeds - Doncaster had redesign work for Eurostar operation.

The vertical stepping distance from platform to step board should be within the dimensions of 250mm vertical, 275mm lateral and 350mm diagonal.

 

[the sniper]

Valley station near Holyhead has the lowest platform that I've ever personally seen on a straight, flat piece of track. They provide a step to help people get on the train, you can see it on the opposite platform in this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Valley_Railway_Station_2009.jpg

 

[philjo]

There are some low platforms on the Cambrian Coast - I think that Tywyn is one example. (unless they have been changed recently- as it is a few years since I use the platforms there)

 

[Jimini]

Should see the gap at Clapham Junction on the Southern platforms (cant remember which one - 13?), the platform is at least 2 feet away from the train, so you have to leap to get off the train (i dont even know if its possible for wheelchair users to even make it off the train).

Another station a couple of stops away - Selhurst has a mahusive drop as well - I'll take some pics next time im in that area (could be a month though =/)

Platform 15 is probably the worst, about 1/3 of the way along the train.

I've been on weekend diversions along the fast lines between CLJ and Selhurst a few times, the "step" down is, as you say, quite immense, most notably at Norbury and Selhurst. Never quite understood the arrangements at these two stations for stopping; I was led to believe that stopping / non-stopping was due to OPO requirements, but Southern do stop at both, and the gap is quite immense!

 

[quarella]

Aberdovey had a hump installed last year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8391451.stm
Last time I went up the Heart of Wales Builth Road had 2 sets of wooden steps.

 

[Wyvern]

Belper has quite a step down from the train on the up platform. It's on a shallow reverse curve and I think the superelevation has been increased.

 

[googolplex]

Millbrook station on the Bedford-Bletchley line used to have quite a step down from the train, and had some wooden steps (I think each set had 2 or 3 steps on it). They rebuilt both platforms a few years to an acceptable height.
I was travelling with some friends and we had to lift the kids off the train using the Southern platforms at Clapham Junction as they wouldn't have made the gap on their own.
I also found the bottom end of the southbound platform at Dundee to have a decent sized step up, the other day I ended up lifting my case onto the train and then almost climbing up to get on. I guess it's because the track has started to climb there, but the platform level doesn't increase much (if at all).