Jump to content
 

Barrow crossing standard widths?


Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if there was a standard width for barrow crossings across main lines for any of the grouping or pre-grouping companies? There appears a huge range from ramshackle affairs 2-3' wide to over 6'; with construction from parallel to perpendicular boards, and very neat to very rough.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any kind of standard for width or style of construction, but I studied a few pics for an LNER application, and decided on a '2-sleeper bay' style with longitudinal transoms and bolts, on top of which were 5 transverse planks each of 10" wooden sleeper strip. I should perhaps stress this application was not for barrows, but more of a 'walk-across the tracks' kind of thing, and the transverse planking is easier if going across pointwork, especially crossing areas.

 

post-133-0-19555100-1506249199.png

 

5 longitudinal 8'6" or 9' sleepers over 3 sleeper bays is probably a more 'classical' arrangement (a bit of space between each of the 5 gives 53" or so, and will clear checks).
Edited by Miss Prism
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely they were based on sizes of the wood used, based on sawing up sleeper sized wood. As stated they varied all over the place, and must have been left to local gangs to complete in the early days, only getting to more standard sizes in BR days. There must have been some sort of general standards to follow for safety reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Running line sleepers were 9ft-6in long, so if they were the source of timber for barrow/foot crossings, that would suggest a length (width?) of either 4ft-9in or 9ft-6in, although 4ft-9in sounds too tight to me for a barrow crossing (fine for a foot crossing between platform faces though, even 3ft-2in would have been OK).

 

I would suggest that once safety standards started to seriously raise their head, it was decided that this sort of crossing was unsafe, full stop, and they were removed, although it is surprisingly difficult to remember exactly when that happened - late 1960s?, early 1970s?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supplementary to what has already been posted, there was a visible distinction between the footway crossings and barrow crossings. The footways were much narrower, and could have quite large gaps when running across points; as an example there was a good 2 feet unboarded on one of the KX slip points where the footway to the signalbox intercepted one of the crossings and a nearby rail for another road (page 92 in that perennial treasure trove 'The Big four in Colour 1935 - 50'). Barrow crossings at the foot of platform ramps typically looked to be made of complete sleepers laid parallel or as near as possible to the rails, and the gaps in the boarding were minimal for obvious reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Running line sleepers were 9ft-6in long, so if they were the source of timber for barrow/foot crossings, that would suggest a length (width?) of either 4ft-9in or 9ft-6in, although 4ft-9in sounds too tight to me for a barrow crossing (fine for a foot crossing between platform faces though, even 3ft-2in would have been OK).

 

I would suggest that once safety standards started to seriously raise their head, it was decided that this sort of crossing was unsafe, full stop, and they were removed, although it is surprisingly difficult to remember exactly when that happened - late 1960s?, early 1970s?

 

 

During my period of working on the railway in the 70s, foot crossings began to have indicator lights attached to them worked by treadles by an approaching train; if the light was out, it was not safe to cross.  After the introduction of HSTs, in fact before that during the testing of the prototype HST and APT(E), we were forbidden to relieve trains on the down main at Swindon by crossing the up main; you had to use the subway and the parcels platform to access them, so you only crossed the down relief.

 

Foot crossings were used to access signal boxes but also as part of official walking routes from depots to stations or relieving points by traincrew.  We were issued with hi viz waistcoats for this purpose and any other duties that had us on or about running lines, but rarely wore them on walking routes.  I can't say when that started, except it was before I started in February of 1970.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Running line sleepers were 9ft-6in long, so if they were the source of timber for barrow/foot crossings, that would suggest a length (width?) of either 4ft-9in or 9ft-6in, although 4ft-9in sounds too tight to me for a barrow crossing (fine for a foot crossing between platform faces though, even 3ft-2in would have been OK).

 

I would suggest that once safety standards started to seriously raise their head, it was decided that this sort of crossing was unsafe, full stop, and they were removed, although it is surprisingly difficult to remember exactly when that happened - late 1960s?, early 1970s?

In Great Britain standard sleepers were nominally 9' 0" long in pre-grouping days, shortened to 8' 6" subsequently. Hence the various calculations would result in slightly shorter sizes, if applicable.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Running line sleepers were 9ft-6in long, so if they were the source of timber for barrow/foot crossings, that would suggest a length (width?) of either 4ft-9in or 9ft-6in, although 4ft-9in sounds too tight to me for a barrow crossing (fine for a foot crossing between platform faces though, even 3ft-2in would have been OK).

 

I would suggest that once safety standards started to seriously raise their head, it was decided that this sort of crossing was unsafe, full stop, and they were removed, although it is surprisingly difficult to remember exactly when that happened - late 1960s?, early 1970s?

 

I would think possibly a little later but it varied from place to place and soem remained for many years later but with indicators of some sort.  Removal really got underway at wayside stations when Mail traffic ceased and the crossings were no longer needed for anything else as railway parcels had generally already gone over to road delivery from concentration depots.  The final death knell of course was increased line speeds particularly when lines were classified as 'high speed' (i.e. higher line speed than 99mph).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I would think possibly a little later but it varied from place to place and soem remained for many years later but with indicators of some sort.  Removal really got underway at wayside stations when Mail traffic ceased and the crossings were no longer needed for anything else as railway parcels had generally already gone over to road delivery from concentration depots.  The final death knell of course was increased line speeds particularly when lines were classified as 'high speed' (i.e. higher line speed than 99mph).

 

'Final death knell' being a highly appropriate wording for anyone foolish enough to ignore the fact...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

We still had one at Honiton, right outside the box, until both were abolished in 2012. Width was 6' or thereabouts and, in its final incarnation the top was made of square plywood sheets with a non-slip bituminous surface. Some were cut quite intricately as the crossing passed over the end of the siding point.

 

The platform ends didn't line up after the lengthening for the 159s in 1993 so there was a fairly substantial bit of it alongside the line on the up side.  

 

Station staff had to request permission to use it and usage was recorded in the same way as for farm crossings.  

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...