Removal of Platform Edges

[Andy Kirkham]

In these photos of Bromyard, I notice that a length of the platform edge has been removed.Clearly this is done in recognition that the full length of the platform is no longer required, but I wonder what economy is actually achived by physically degrading the platform edge, especially as the surface of the platform appeared to be still maintained in immaculate condition. And why do it to one platform but not the other?

 

I've also seen this done at stations on the Gloucester-Hereford line.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Probably done to avoid the cost of repairs - hence only done on one platform and not both.

[LBRJ]

It looks like it has all been done with quite some care and attention, whatever the reason was..

I wonder if the paving was thought to be " Of better use elsewhere"

[uax6]

Theres probably a host of reasons for removing the copers, but its probably down to the fact why maintain them when the platform isn't in use, removing them reduces 'gauge conflict' if something moves...

 

Andy G

[TheSignalEngineer]

20 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

It looks like it has all been done with quite some care and attention,

If the copings are taken off it is necessary to take of the oversail courses of bricks as well otherwise those bricks may become loose and fall onto the track

[LBRJ]

Like I said, It is being done with quite some care and attention.

It is not just been demolished and lets see what happens, which was just occasionally the case back in the day.....

[Michael Hodgson]

It saves on the cost of whitewashing the platform edge?

 

The second photo gives interesting modelling detail - they haven't removed the coping stones all the way to end.  They've kept the ones by the water crane.  The platform surfaces are not of a uniform material - they have used large paving slabs in front of the buildings, small brick-sized ones by the water crane and gravel or tarmac on the other platform

[Nearholmer]

Exact match coping stones can be hard to find, so they may have been robbed for work elsewhere, or, as said above, removed to avoid the cost of repair/maintenance.

 

They are heavy and awkward animals to shift about, and it takes a lot of care/skill to get them set exactly, so avoiding fiddling with them can be an attractive option.

 

We may even be looking at a half-completed job, where they’ve been removed temporarily, to attend to the brickwork.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Nearholmer

[tynewydd]

If we compare to the 1963 picture from roughly the same position on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromyard_railway_station#/media/File:Bromyard_railway_station_1921287_0d209dac.jpg.

We can see that this was not a temporary repair - but rather a decision to remove the edge that persisted. 

I also notice in passing that the wartime white painting of the platform edge is retained on the entire remaining up platform in 1959 but only seems to be present on a very small portion of the down, just near the platform building shelter even then - maybe where the awning protected it. 
 

[Tim V]

I thought it was following frost damage. The platforms got shortened as it was cheaper than repairing the whole length.

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

It saves on the cost of whitewashing the platform edge?

 

The second photo gives interesting modelling detail - they haven't removed the coping stones all the way to end.  They've kept the ones by the water crane.  The platform surfaces are not of a uniform material - they have used large paving slabs in front of the buildings, small brick-sized ones by the water crane and gravel or tarmac on the other platform

Mixtures like that were quite usual.  At many stations the original paviors used behind the large edge slabs were replaced n by paving slabs over the years although in some cases the paviors survived until closure.  and equally - as seen in the second picture, even in earlier slabbing - which was expensive - was never extended over the whole length of some platform.

 

The slabs on the platform slope by the water crane, and those opposite, look to be the stone type which seem to have been the  earlier standard on the GWR - definitely in use in the 1920s and they can also be seen in some pre 1914 photos.  They were very large and longer and wider than the thicker cast concrete edging slabs which came later (probably from the 1930s onwards?).   The stone ones were prone to damage and cracking and I doubt very much if any replacements were available by the 1950s (if not earlier).

[pheaton]

AIUI they were normally removed (from closed stations) to reduce the likelihood of the unmaintained platform fouling the loading gauge, which is what they found at Cheltenham Racecourse platform 2, the foundations were sinking which had rotated the coping stones close to fouling the loading gauge (which is why the platform had to be rebuilt)

 

 

[jointline]

This rather bad picture I took in 1962 shows the vegetation already established,  and would probably almost foul the passenger stock.   But I think (although don't know for sure) that the railcar never went (was allowed?) further along, it just reversed.  Somebody will know better than me!

[Helmdon]

The SVR did it at Eardington in preservation. Left a small section to allow passengers on/off if necessary and then cut back the rest. In that case it was to stop the loading gauge being fouled as described above, which was a pressing concern given the need to really attack Eardington Bank without pausing (ideally).

[Arun Sharma]

It has also been done to the ex-WCML platforms at Carnforth