Why did station platforms have ramps?

[ejstubbs]

Platform end ramps seem to be an invitation to trespass on the tracks.  It would seem to be more sensible to have a vertical platform end, protected by a fence (let's face it, railway companies seemed to be pretty keen on fences one way and another) with gated access to steps for staff access if required.  I can see why ramps might be useful at a low-traffic location where a planked crossing might have been a cheap way to provide access between platforms, but ramps are/were so common that I can't help thinking that there must have been some other, more compelling reason for their use.  So what was that reason?

[gwrrob]

To get luggage over without using a footbridge perhaps.

[edcayton]

To stop people falling off the end when saying goodbye to loved ones.

 

Ed

[BoD]

To get luggage over without using a footbridge perhaps.

Didn't most stations have a barrow crossing at the end of the ramps.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Not a reason as such but the Board of Trade said so.

 

"Platforms should be continuous, and not less than 6 feet wide for stations of small traffic, nor less than 12 feet wide for important stations;

the descents at the ends of the platforms should be by ramps, and not by steps"

(1885 Requirements)

[Boris]

Isn't it for easy access to the lineside for staff that need to be there?

 

Bearing in mind that passengers had brains in 1885....

[Grovenor]

For most of the time, until quite recently it was a Board of Trade then an HMRI requirement for platforms to have ramps. As to why they required them, I don't know, the requirement was not linked to barrow crossings or similar.

Access from platform to track and vice versa is needed, for staff attending to their duties and to allow passengers detrained in emergency to leave the trackside, however ramps are not the best solution as they can be rather dangerous in wet or icy conditions.

Now that the asset owners have to do their own safety cases the ramps are going out of fashion for new works.

Regards

Keith

[Talltim]

Isn't it for easy access to the lineside for staff that need to be there?

 

Bearing in mind that passengers had brains in 1885....

hmmm,  

(55 years earlier, I know)

[newbryford]

For most of the time, until quite recently it was a Board of Trade then an HMRI requirement for platforms to have ramps. As to why they required them, I don't know, the requirement was not linked to barrow crossings or similar.

Access from platform to track and vice versa is needed, for staff attending to their duties and to allow passengers detrained in emergency to leave the trackside, however ramps are not the best solution as they can be rather dangerous in wet or icy conditions.

Now that the asset owners have to do their own safety cases the ramps are going out of fashion for new works.

Regards

Keith

 

The stations on my line had the platforms lengthened a couple of years ago. the ramps were removed and now there's steps down. There is a fence with locked gate to prevent trespass. However, the fence doesn't go to the edge of the platform - presumably for safety/clearance reasons, so it's dead easy just to step around the fence. There's even a gap between the step handrail and the gate to allow easy access.

 

Pointless?

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[phil-b259]

The stations on my line had the platforms lengthened a couple of years ago. the ramps were removed and now there's steps down. There is a fence with locked gate to prevent trespass. However, the fence doesn't go to the edge of the platform - presumably for safety/clearance reasons, so it's dead easy just to step around the fence. There's even a gap between the step handrail and the gate to allow easy access.

 

Pointless?

Whalley gate (2)s.jpg

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

However from a visual perspective the modern setup communicates the 'no passengers beyond here more effectively than just a sign and a ramp down to the ground. (have a look at platform 2 on the other side). As you say the fence cannot go right to the end but there is no reason why a bit of anti-trespass material (i.e. those wooden grids) cannot be fitted to cover the gap and help with emphasizing passengers shouldn't  go round the fence.

 

Having a perceived barrier makes a difference - Its why NR have a programme to retrofit barriers to some open crossings (AOCL) and down on the Bluebell the application of a small bit of fencing on one platform has made a significant difference to unauthorised use of the barrow crossing (signs on their own don't seem to have the same resonance)

[Edwin_m]

Current standards actually prefer a square-ended platform unless there is some overriding reason to have a ramp, and I'm not aware of any extensions in the past decade or so when ramps have been provided.  Building the ramp area up to form a square end is an easy way of lengthening the platform a bit, and also facilitates future extension. 

 

Note the deterrent surface on Mick's photos, intended to deter people dodging round the end of the fence.  Which would be somewhat more effective if a bit closer to the camera! 

[APOLLO]

I've noticed these at a few locations. Liverpool Lime St being one.

 

 

Brit15

['CHARD]

All good crude modern methods of herd control.

 

From the same lawsuit-based economics that brings you the scourge of palisade fencing.

 

Oh the railway is becoming such an unappealing environment, almost like a post-modern production line for transport.

[Nick Holliday]

Let's not forget that, up until fairly recently, most carriages had slam doors, and an open door would probably hit any fencing at the end of the platform, causing damage to the train, or to anyone trapped by the fence. Also,with such doors, there were plenty of instances of people trying to board the train running alongside the moving train, and ending the platform in a ramp gave the miscreant a get out clause, rather than suddenly facing a three foot,or more,drop onto the formation

[Nick Holliday]

Further to my post, there have been steps at the end of the Epsom Downs platform at Sutton for over one hundred years. Photos taken in 1882 show them clearly, and despite various reconstructions over the years, they are still there!

[TheSignalEngineer]

Isn't it for easy access to the lineside for staff that need to be there?

 

Bearing in mind that passengers had brains in 1885....

hmmm,  

(55 years earlier, I know)

Boris was talking passengers, not politicians

[EddieB]

Belts and braces from Berwick (Sussex), where the track is electrified 750V dc third rail.  Since the platform ramps extend down to the level crossing, a barrier fence has been installed, a kind of cattle grid to prevent trespass around the fence and black "egg cartons" to prevent short-cuts to and from the level crossing itself.  Part of these measures would appear to prevent vandalism of the crossing detector apparatus.

 

At the other end of platform 2 there are no anti-trespass measure - simply a notice with a number for the Samaritans.

 

[david.hill64]

Excellent question, and if the requirement was laid down by the Board of Trade in 1885 I doubt if we will get a definitive answer. In the days before gauging was understood, and given that having raised platforms always presents the possibility of a train striking the platform edge when you are trying to keep stepping distances to a minimum, a ramp at the end of the station provides a less hostile entrance to any out of gauge load which will tend to be lifted up rather than struck hard. Just a thought. 

[Reorte]

Excellent question, and if the requirement was laid down by the Board of Trade in 1885 I doubt if we will get a definitive answer. In the days before gauging was understood, and given that having raised platforms always presents the possibility of a train striking the platform edge when you are trying to keep stepping distances to a minimum, a ramp at the end of the station provides a less hostile entrance to any out of gauge load which will tend to be lifted up rather than struck hard. Just a thought.

Striking a hard end might be better than being lifted up and potentially carrying along the platform into the path of anyone on it. With the much slower speeds of 1885 people would have more chance of getting out of the way than they would now but it still isn't exactly something I'd like to experience.

 

If there was an obvious practical need for it for railway operation of the day then I don't think that there would be any need to lay down rules for ramps, they'd get built anyway where useful.

[Reorte]

All good crude modern methods of herd control.

 

From the same lawsuit-based economics that brings you the scourge of palisade fencing.

 

Oh the railway is becoming such an unappealing environment, almost like a post-modern production line for transport.

Presumably we live in a much better world for all of it though. Remember that "appeal" means nothing whatsoever, only practical, economical, and safety considerations matter at all. After all it's not there to look appealing or otherwise.

[phil gollin]

I've always thought it was to do with allowing barrows (2- or 4-wheeled to move from platform to platform, after all "in the old days" the railways were "common carriers" and had to transport what they were given.  If someone sent a bulky load (e.g. a heavy trunk) how was the staff to move it other than a barrow ?

 

Certainly in the early 1960's my local third-rail station (with no goods yard) used to transport heavy packages across from one platform to the other via the barrow crossing.

[PhilJ W]

Let's not forget that, up until fairly recently, most carriages had slam doors, and an open door would probably hit any fencing at the end of the platform, causing damage to the train, or to anyone trapped by the fence. Also,with such doors, there were plenty of instances of people trying to board the train running alongside the moving train, and ending the platform in a ramp gave the miscreant a get out clause, rather than suddenly facing a three foot,or more,drop onto the formation

That reminded me of the story from an old railwayman about an incident at Barking with a Southend bound train in steam days. As the train was leaving the station a man tried to board the train, he had managed to open a door but then lost his footing. Instead of letting go and running down the ramp he clung to the door until he and the door came in contact with a bridge pier with fatal results.

[Bon Accord]

Presumably we live in a much better world for all of it though. Remember that "appeal" means nothing whatsoever, only practical, economical, and safety considerations matter at all. After all it's not there to look appealing or otherwise.

 

That's how we're all supposed to think, yes. However the premise of "treat people like idiots and eventually they will act like idiots" has never been more true.

[Boco_D1]

I've noticed these at a few locations. Liverpool Lime St being one.

 

 

Brit1

These are a good detereant and often used on level crossings but some will still try, when I worked Kintbury Crossing I saw a young lady risk a broken ankle (and worse) as she walked around the station fence and over the egg boxes whilst wearing high hills, to reach the up platform, if it wasn't so dangerous her stumble across would have been amusing. All she had to do was check her watch, I had the barriers down for a freight, her train wasn't for another 10 minutes, the risks people take to catch a train.

[The Stationmaster]

hmmm,  

(55 years earlier, I know)

And not at a station of course