Platform height query

[sn]

As regards the platform height of a steam era layout (1950's) should the running boards on the carriages be slightly below, level or slightly above the adjacent platform surface?

 

Hoping someone can help?

[Guest stuartp]

As with so many things, it depends. 'Standard' height for a platform is 3 feet above rail level (i.e. 12mm in 4mm scale) but individual platforms vary, often along their own length. There are still plenty of lower ones about.

 

The relevant standard for your 1950s period is the "Blue Book", or, to give it its Sunday title, "Requirements of the Minister of Transport for Passenger Lines and Recommendations for Goods Lines" (I think I've remembered that right.) It states that the stepping distance between train and platform should be 'as small as practicable' but doesn't prescribe a distance.

 

In terms of appearance, platform level with or slightly below the footboards looks right.

[Coombe Barton]

There's the story that at Shackerstone the platform surface was raised - but a little too much so that the door would not open for the Royal train in 1902.

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/candj_simmons/KingEdward.htm

[sn]

Thanks to all who replied.

[Poor Old Bruce]

The current standard of 3ft above rail level is for new build. Many stations may still retain their older lower level platforms although it is quite a few years since Wilnecote (just south of Tamworth) platforms were railed. Cheddleton station on the Churnet Valley Railway still has low platforms and uses portable steps to assist passengers on and off the trains.

 

Richard

[allan downes]

Hi SN.

 

I've only just come across this thred so maybe I can help.

 

Generaly the top of the plarform surface strikes a latteral line dead center across the buffers.

 

However, this did vary where the line sometimes came exactly below the buffers.

 

So what I do is to set a loco up on a length of track then measure the hieght from GROUND to buffer centers, though I do believe that it was something like 4' 6"

 

Allan.

[CUTLER2579]

In an article regarding  Borchester  the late Frank Dyer stated that the platforms at Grantham Station were only 28 inches  (700mm) above rail height and this was very low.

I for one would not have dared tell him he was wrong, even if he was and I knew he was and I knew him quite well. 

 

Regards,Derek.           

[t-b-g]

Platform Drawings for the GCR are freely available on the internet and they show a height of 3' above rail level for platforms and 4' for "wharfs" which probably indicates good facilities.

 

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/13_PLATFORM_WHARF_WALLS.jpg

 

Of course this may vary from area to area and over different periods but it is a good clue!

 

Hope it helps,

 

Tony

[TheQ]

of course some platforms had two heights, with an area raised to assist in  the loading of milk churns...

The Q

[Edwin_m]

As with so many things, it depends. 'Standard' height for a platform is 3 feet above rail level (i.e. 12mm in 4mm scale) but individual platforms vary, often along their own length. There are still plenty of lower ones about.

In the era in question 3 feet would definitely be a maximum.  Some modern platforms (Royal Mail terminals, Heathrow Express, London Underground sub-surface lines, parts of London Overground and future Crossrail) are raised to give level boarding to the entrance steps of the train, but this is incompatible with operating most types of freight train past the platform. 

[Siberian Snooper]

The GW standard was 3ft for passenger platforms and 3ft 6ins for goods and cattle docks, above rail level.

 

On the odd foray to the Beer Engine at Newton St Cyres ex SR, the platform is very low, but as it is an existing structure it has not been modified, at least up to my last visit which was a few years ago now.

 

Cheers SS

[IWCR]

Yes  3  feet  above  rail  head  height  is  the  standard  for  passenger  platforms.

This  wasnt  always  so  and  many  older  staiions  had  platforms  much  lower,  some  still  retain  these.

Not  unusual  to  find  stations  were  platforms  had  been  extended  with  the  new  section  at  the  new  current  height  whilst  the  older  part  remained  at  the  original  as  built  height.  with  a  sloping  section  between  the  two.

Carriage  footboards  are  generally  slightly  higher  than  the  platform.

 

Pete

[Poor Old Bruce]

Hi SN.

 

I've only just come across this thred so maybe I can help.

 

Generaly the top of the plarform surface strikes a latteral line dead center across the buffers.

 

However, this did vary where the line sometimes came exactly below the buffers.

 

So what I do is to set a loco up on a length of track then measure the hieght from GROUND to buffer centers, though I do believe that it was something like 4' 6"

 

Allan.

Sorry Allan but I don't think you will find many UK passenger platforms where the surface is level with the buffer centres (I note the above comment about the Heathrow stations). Buffer heights are usually given as 3ft 4in to 3ft 6in above rail level and can vary with vehicle load. I suggest that using ground level as a datum is as long as a piece of string as it can vary with ballast depth, sleeper thickness and rail height. Most railway applications are measured relative to rail level although rail level is usually dictated by ground based bench marks. As has been said several times already, current requirements are for a platform height of 3ft (which converts to 914.4mm at 304.8mm to the foot or 12mm at 4mm to the foot) although many older platforms are lower. I set mine at a height below loco buffer beam height to avoid any fouling by locos with excessive overthrow, some real platforms had copings cut back near crossovers for the same purpose.

[allan downes]

Sorry Allan but I don't think you will find many UK passenger platforms where the surface is level with the buffer centres (I note the above comment about the Heathrow stations). Buffer heights are usually given as 3ft 4in to 3ft 6in above rail level and can vary with vehicle load. I suggest that using ground level as a datum is as long as a piece of string as it can vary with ballast depth, sleeper thickness and rail height. Most railway applications are measured relative to rail level although rail level is usually dictated by ground based bench marks. As has been said several times already, current requirements are for a platform height of 3ft (which converts to 914.4mm at 304.8mm to the foot or 12mm at 4mm to the foot) although many older platforms are lower. I set mine at a height below loco buffer beam height to avoid any fouling by locos with excessive overthrow, some real platforms had copings cut back near crossovers for the same purpose.

You're probably right, but I have seen buffer centers in line with tops of platforms, all I've got to do now is to prove it! so 'll go onto the Web and see what I can find.

 

Meanwhile, I found this, but don't ask where now!!

 

The loading gauge adopted as 'standard' by British Railways was based on the more common clearances on the pre nationalisation railways but at the generous end of the scale. As work was done on the line the clearances were increased, where possible, to conform to the national standard. This allowed a maximum width of about nine feet six inches up to a height of about ten feet and a maximum height of about thirteen feet six inches from the top of the rails in the centre. The Loading Gauge also specified the location of couplings and buffers, buffers were set five feet nine inches apart and set three feet six inches above the top of the rail.

[allan downes]

Also found this at www.rssb.co.uk/ - RSSB GAUGING. - enter 'loading guages' into search box as the link - when I tried it -  doesn't take you anywhere the original Site and my carriage standing at the platform - but I did see it, honestly!

 

Top of page far right, carriage standing at platform showing top of platform level with BOTTOM of buffers!!! wierd...

 

Then this waffle-

 

A 'standard platform' has its edge 730mm from the gauge corner of the nearest rail, and is 915mm above rail level. However, a number of newer platforms (Heathrow Express, East London Line) have been constructed at 1100mm above rail level, ostensibly to provide level boarding to captive rolling stock. It should be noted that such level boarding cannot be correlated with reduction in trip / fall risk, but inevitably improves accessibility. Also note that level boarding does not necessarily equate to level access, and that not all current rolling stock has adequate clearance to the 'standard' platform dimensions.

[paulthenewt]

This thread was just what I was looking for as need to design the passenger and goods platforms for my current project.

Where on previous layouts I have used kits, this time I am going to try scratchbuilding some parts. Well it is aimed at being an experiment layout - try out a few things.

We are lucky in UK as things such as platforms are a fairly standard height. Last year I was in Poland visiting my partners family and travelled extensively by train. A lot of places (ie Warsaw, Gdansk) have had high level platforms installed as part of the modernisation programme going on. But some cities (Bialystok) and most minor stations still have platforms at rail level, good fun getting on and off

[Pacific231G]

Platform Drawings for the GCR are freely available on the internet and they show a height of 3' above rail level for platforms and 4' for "wharfs" which probably indicates good facilities.

 

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/13_PLATFORM_WHARF_WALLS.jpg

 

Of course this may vary from area to area and over different periods but it is a good clue!

 

Hope it helps,

 

Tony

Yes "wharfs" do refer to goods platforms, loading docks, loading banks - they had many names.

In 1950 the MofT standard for passenger platform height was 3 foot above rail level and the minumum 2ft 9 ins but older platforms could well be lower. The platform edge on straight track is given as 4ft 9 ins. from track centre (3 inches outside the 9 foot max loading gauge at that height) but that would increase on curves (mind the gap!)

You'll find the 1950 diagram for  new or rebuilt structures that shows this here.

http://joycewhitchurch.zxq.net/clear950.gif

There doesn't seem to be a laid down standard for loading dock height and in any case these would vary with use. They were often set at the same height as the wagon floor of a loaded wagon or a little lower to enable doors to opened. If the GC was using four foot as its standard height for goods wharfs I think the GW norm was 3ft 6ins.  

[Clive Mortimore]

Here a couple of structure gauge drawings I done. They take information form various sources.

 

Whoops forgot to say they are for 4mm modellers

[Clive Mortimore]

And some more.

[t-b-g]

Yes "wharfs" do refer to goods platforms, loading docks, loading banks - they had many names.

In 1950 the MofT standard for passenger platform height was 3 foot above rail level and the minumum 2ft 9 ins but older platforms could well be lower. The platform edge on straight track is given as 4ft 9 ins. from track centre (3 inches outside the 9 foot max loading gauge at that height) but that would increase on curves (mind the gap!)

You'll find the 1950 diagram for  new or rebuilt structures that shows this here.

http://joycewhitchurch.zxq.net/clear950.gif

There doesn't seem to be a laid down standard for loading dock height and in any case these would vary with use. They were often set at the same height as the wagon floor of a loaded wagon or a little lower to enable doors to opened. If the GC was using four foot as its standard height for goods wharfs I think the GW norm was 3ft 6ins.  

 

Why on earth would a true GCR modeller want to know how high a GWR dock was? Only kidding!

 

I quoted that example as it is a prototype drawing that everybody can get easy access to and many thanks for the additional info.

 

I remember seeing a photo taken at a station by a friend of mine. I can't recall the exact details but it may have been Malton on the ex NER line from York to Scarborough. The shot was taken from one end of the long platform and showed three distinct and different heights, with the quivalent of a short platform ramp to get you from one level to the next. I think the platform has been rebuilt since but the station building still has a small section of low platform as the doors were a bit tricky to move up.

 

I can remember seeing stations with portable sets of steps that were moved to carriage doors to allow people to get on and off a very low platform. It was in the 1970s, possibly on the ex Highland Railway but the memory is playing tricks. 

 

So it really is a case of paying close attention to your chosen prototype, or just being sensble if you are modelling something fictitious.

 

From a purely visual point of view, I was once told by a wise man that if you make them as low as possible on a model, you can disguise the fact that they are possibly compromised by being shorter and narrower than true scale. I have tried it and it works!

 

Tony

[JCL]

Until a few years ago Wainfleet station platform was so low that there was always a portable step available for anyone that needed extra assistance getting on to a train. The platform has been raised now so that it's three brick courses higher. The station building looks like it's been sinking.

 

Great gauges Clive!

[Portchullin Tatty]

I can remember seeing stations with portable sets of steps that were moved to carriage doors to allow people to get on and off a very low platform. It was in the 1970s, possibly on the ex Highland Railway but the memory is playing tricks. 

 

These were de-rigour on the Highland Section in the 1950's; few if any platforms would have been rebuilt to modern (ie 1950's) standards.  You can see some on my layout Portchullin and they are available from Lochgorm Models.

 

The platforms tended to be built to 1'11" above railhead in the pregroup days; might be higher on "posh" railways down south though even then.  1'11" is very low by today's standards.

[t-b-g]

These were de-rigour on the Highland Section in the 1950's; few if any platforms would have been rebuilt to modern (ie 1950's) standards.  You can see some on my layout Portchullin and they are available from Lochgorm Models.

 

The platforms tended to be built to 1'11" above railhead in the pregroup days; might be higher on "posh" railways down south though even then.  1'11" is very low by today's standards.

 

Hello Mark,

 

Now you mention it I recall seeing them at Ally Pally (we were next to you with Valleyfields) and it triggered my memory bells ringing! I went for family holidays to Scotland in the 70s and we usually travelled by train, so perhaps my memory wasn't that bad after all. 

 

Thanks.

 

Tony

[Portchullin Tatty]

! I went for family holidays to Scotland in the 70s and we usually travelled by train, so perhaps my memory wasn't that bad after all. 

 

No your memory will be fine.................

 

I think I still remember them in the early 1990's.  It is only with the out of control health & safety people in control that has resulted in the platforms being raised in the last decade or two. 

[Pacific231G]

Why on earth would a true GCR modeller want to know how high a GWR dock was? Only kidding!

Because one day the GCR modeller will see the light and realise that the GWR was the only British railway worthy of consideration. That was clearly Paddington's view so it must have been true mustn't it ?

From a purely visual point of view, I was once told by a wise man that if you make them as low as possible on a model, you can disguise the fact that they are possibly compromised by being shorter and narrower than true scale. I have tried it and it works!

 

Tony

One of the advantages of modelling French railways where I believe the current standard for ordinary railways is 55cms above rail height and most are rather lower than that though suburban and other lines may be higher.