The LNER Encyclopedia

This is a question relating to a hypothetical arrangement, as it might have been if created around 1896-1900 and still in use up to say 1939, so a proper knowledge of regulations in that period will be required. Observations / opinions based only on "this is the way things were done" post-1940 knowledge are not therefore necessarily applicable.
Would a platform width of say 13 feet (14 feet at most) between up and down running lines have been accepted as a consequence of enlarging a station in the 1896-1900 years? Would this have still been tolerated up to 1939?
Would such an arrangement require a speed restriction on those running lines?
Does it alter the answers if one of those running lines has a platform face on its opposite side too, i.e. it passes singly between two platforms?

G'Day Gents

Not actually what you want, but the thinnest island platform that I know of was Holme, on the up main at only 15 ft,( or less) the other half of the platform was for the shuttle to 'Ramsey St Mary'. I have a pic, I'll see if I can find it.

manna

PS Found it.

Hello Graeme,
Excuse me please if I have your name incorrect.
I have a copy of Molesworth's Handbook of Engineering Formulae and Data (first published in 1862).
Mine is a 1951 edition but I doubt that will change the information.
I base that statement on the fact that early railway structures established rules that as time progressed became almost impossible if not economically feasible to change.

Quoting from a table of Standard Railway Dimensions we have for English railways:
Buildings and Structures:
At 1 foot above rail level, minimum horizontal distance from CENTRE of track (example platforms) - NO DATA
Horizontal distance centre of track to platform coping - 4' 9".
Platform height above rail minimum 2' 9" maximum 3' 0"
Maximum slope to ends of all platforms - 1 in 8
Minimum horizontal distance of any building from edge of passenger platform - 8' 0"
Minimum horizontal distance of any building from edge of ISLAND passenger platform - NO DATA
Minimum horizontal distance of any building from edge of ANY platform of lamps, columns, pillars etc. - 6' 0"

If you then wish to have no building on the platform, double the measurement for an island may be considered sensible.

Another table showing dimensions of the English railways loading gauge indicates a distance of 7' 8" from edge of platform to any structure on the platform. (Not much difference to the 8' 0" shown above). The table also qualifies with "outside stations" in brackets but it may be worth something in your quest.

Another thought is to visit a typical station (preferably one that is known to be unaltered in 100 years) and take a typical measurement.
Failing that the NRM may have some historical structural data or plans similar to one I have seen on the rebuilding of Cardiff station before 1924, for which their are at least 15 detailed plans.

regards
Kimball

Many thanks Kimball and Manna,

Thanks to a local acquaintance, I've now also had sight of a copy of the 1902 Board of Trade requirements for Opening of Railways. These show generally similar figures to some of those kindly listed above, although the minimum width of platform clear of any structure is 6 feet. The matter is complicated by the requirement for all platforms to have a shelter.
What is also noticeable throughout the document is that both the words "should be" and the alternative words "to be" seem to appear, in a typeface not matching the rest of the text, and that in this particular copy the words "should be" have been struck out.
This makes me wonder whether most of these standards were only recommendations of the BoT shortly before 1902, and then became formal requirements, with adaptable documents having been printed in anticipation. Another possibility is that one document was supposed to serve several purposes, say for lines built wholly after 1902, for lines already part built, and maybe for the less tightly regulated light railways too.

Graeme,
part of the answer is dependent upon the railway itself. Memory suggests that 8 foot was the minimum between buildings
and the platform face.

However, in some places of course a station would have needed to be installed that was not designed into the original
layout of the area. Some restrictions would have been due to the amount of land available for the expansion, and it might
have been more economical to build an Island platform rather than two on the outside of the track.

Strangely, there were a number of stations that had a platform on either side of one track, Finsbury Park was well known for this,
many enthusiasts were able to move from one suburban train to another across the platform knowing exactly where particularly
say ex first class compartments would arrive, to get extra footroom.

That info has nothing to do with post 1940's information, but looking at maps and photos.

Paul

Thanks Paul. Since my previous comments I've noticed that the document that was described as 1902 Board of Trade requirements actually contains the year 1892 in its printed heading. I've consequently been wondering if it is an example of the first (or one of the first) revised BoT documents to be approved and printed after the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act which followed the Armagh accident of the same year. I'm tempted to think that all of the alternative "should be / are to be" clauses in this document were only recommendations before 1889, and could potentially be ignored in a model representing something supposedly built (or already approved and under construction) in or before 1889.

Graeme,
that is the problem with so much early railway stuff. Many BOT regulations were brought in after accidents had happened
and not necessarily in the location being changed, and it often took many years before they became law, so adaptations
could and would have been made.

I think the only real answer is to try and check out some of the books that may be in your local model club library
showing different station layouts to get a better understanding. Also of course if you have access to O/S maps of
changes it is somewhat easier to judge.

The GE, and NER had a number of stations I think with a centre road and platforms on both sides, the GNR somewhat
fewer.

Paul

I was browsing a railway signalling text today and, when coming across a double page spread of the 1928 MOT clearance gauge diagram, recalled this thread. As of 1928 the minimum distance between the platform edge and any 'fixed works' was to be 6' 0".

As to the width of platforms including those between running lines, the wording reads 'At important Stations the minimum width of platforms (also for islands) to be 12' 0" '.

Ergo, it would be reasonable to assume that this might be relaxed at 'unimportant' stations, where the number of passengers/staff and/or parcels/barrows/churns was insufficient to run the risk of obstructing the platform.

I appreciate that this might be slightly later than the requisite period, but it does represent a homologation of existing varying requirements.

Here is a link to the as amended in 1902 version for context:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docu ... ts1902.pdf

Here 1928 version:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docu ... ts1928.pdf

And from 1950

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docu ... ts1950.pdf

Note the requirements are for new works.

Regards

Thanks for those additions. A 12 foot minimum overall width for a platform with two faces was the "safe" conclusion I arrived at working from the 1892 version. I've achieved that, and a little more, in the model I'm building. Allowing for the scale distortion in OO, and hoping/assuming that the narrower track gauge makes the platform appear relatively wider, I feel that I'm also still more or less compliant with the 6 foot "clear" requirement if I place a couple of benches, lamp posts and a running-in board along the centre line of the platform of my not-so-important station, whose island platform purports to have been added some time in or after the 1880s. I won't be allowing anybody to assess the dimensions of the model with anything better that the Mk1 eyeball anyway.

ColHut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:41 am Here is a link to the as amended in 1902 version for context:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docu ... ts1902.pdf

Regards

Thanks again. Notice that the link to the "1902" document actually reveals a document dated 1892 on its front page, exactly as per the "1902" example supplied to me some months ago.
It appears to me to possibly be an alteration (mainly by striking out various words and phrases and possibly some added print in the margins) of a previously printed document from 1885, according to the date shown near the end of the document, thorough re-printing not having been done. I wonder if it was done in a hurry after the Armagh crash, or is it really the 1902 item?

A good question, I suspect you are right. I have not found either of the earliest version in their own right. I should probably look harder.

There was a 1914 edition:

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL1972074 ... tions-list

And earlier:

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... r/C2739312

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... r/C2954989


https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.o ... -documents


These are not accessible to me given the tyranny of distance unfortunately.

Regards

There used to be a lot of narrow platforms on the former City & South London line of the underground - a few still survive:
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comment ... _the_only/

... and Glasgow too:
https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01 ... a399f1.jpg

Unless there is cause to rebuild or alter them, there is no obligation to bring them up to modern standards. Both lines date from the 1890s.

John

Thanks. Yes, I was aware of those underground platforms, although unsure of the construction date. They make the 13' 6" minimum that I've achieved on my model appear incredibly generous.