Hello Folks, I Have a very small layout 10ft x 3ft 00 gauge. 1.76 SCALE. and would like to know what size platform would suit me. the length and with please.
Joe Sull
Joe,
The length of a platform depends on the length of the trains you want to accommodate, but with only 10 foot in length, I'd suggest that you probably don't have space for more than 3 coaches plus a loco.
Platform widths MUST be at least 6 foot (24mm) from the edge to the nearest obstruction, be that a canopy support of a building. For an island platform, it must be 12 foot (48mm) wide.
The top surface of the platform must be no more than 12mm above the top of the rail head - most modellers get this wrong and end up with platforms that are too high. This is compounded by the fact that RTR manufacturers make platforms which are too high.
Diagram of measurements here: http://www.mrol.com.au/Articles/General%20...asurements.aspx
The length of a platform depends on the length of the trains you want to accommodate, but with only 10 foot in length, I'd suggest that you probably don't have space for more than 3 coaches plus a loco.
Platform widths MUST be at least 6 foot (24mm) from the edge to the nearest obstruction, be that a canopy support of a building. For an island platform, it must be 12 foot (48mm) wide.
The top surface of the platform must be no more than 12mm above the top of the rail head - most modellers get this wrong and end up with platforms that are too high. This is compounded by the fact that RTR manufacturers make platforms which are too high.
Diagram of measurements here: http://www.mrol.com.au/Articles/General%20...asurements.aspx
All that I would add to that is that the minimum width noted is the current standard and older stations might have one or maybe two 'obstructions' that are less than 6 feet from the platform edge. Leagrave, on the Midland Mainline, for example....
![Image]()
(note the end of the footbridge on the very righthand side. Picture from the National Rail Website).
![Image]()
(Picture by Stacey Harris).
And Luton might just scrape 6 feet...
![Image]()
(Picture from the National Rail Website).
Oh, and don't forget that yellow lines are always straight....
![Image]()
(Picture by Neil Thompson).
(note the end of the footbridge on the very righthand side. Picture from the National Rail Website).
(Picture by Stacey Harris).
And Luton might just scrape 6 feet...
(Picture from the National Rail Website).
Oh, and don't forget that yellow lines are always straight....
(Picture by Neil Thompson).
The 'current' standard has been in place since well before the 1960's, so it isn't a new standard!
If you take the person in grey as being around 6 foot tall and use them as a guide, I think it is possible that the distance from the platform edge to the footbridge may be around six foot.
It's the 'optics' which possibly make it look less.
Personally, I think we should build our models according to the common rule, not the exception, because the exception probably won't look right as it isn't really meant to be done that way.
If you take the person in grey as being around 6 foot tall and use them as a guide, I think it is possible that the distance from the platform edge to the footbridge may be around six foot.
It's the 'optics' which possibly make it look less.
Personally, I think we should build our models according to the common rule, not the exception, because the exception probably won't look right as it isn't really meant to be done that way.
QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 4 Feb 2016, 10:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The 'current' standard has been in place since well before the 1960's, so it isn't a new standard!
If you take the person in grey as being around 6 foot tall and use them as a guide, I think it is possible that the distance from the platform edge to the footbridge may be around six foot.
It's the 'optics' which possibly make it look less.
Personally, I think we should build our models according to the common rule, not the exception, because the exception probably won't look right as it isn't really meant to be done that way.
The current standard is:
(GI/RT7016) Maximum permissible line speed over 100 mph = 3000 mm, all other lines = 2500 mm (distance from a structure to platform edge).
The standard as introduced was an absolute rule for new build or modification and an aspiration for older structures. There were hundreds if not thousands of dispensations which necessitated speed restrictions of through trains and sometimes diversions over other routes. It was not until the elimination of slam door stock that the GI/RT7016 standard became more universally enforceable but there remain some exceptions which require local rule variations.
The example that springs to mind is Loughborough where the main platforms on the London end stretch under a road overbridge:
![Image]()
Loughborough Station before the platforms were modified.
Slam door hauled stock was used on this line right up to the mid nineties and it was not until replacement stock with conductor controlled doors was introduced that trains stopped using the southern ends of the platforms. The station is now modified with platform extensions to the North and barriers erected under the road bridge to deter people from accessing the now abandoned platforms south of the road overbridge.
I am sorry if this is a bit more information than you bargained for Joe but if you are thinking of modelling a specific location, route or era then an evening studying photos (easily searched for online) to, as it were, get the flavour will help you out. The standards as stated by Graham are worth following but there are variations.
Best regards ................... Greyvoices (alias John)
If you take the person in grey as being around 6 foot tall and use them as a guide, I think it is possible that the distance from the platform edge to the footbridge may be around six foot.
It's the 'optics' which possibly make it look less.
Personally, I think we should build our models according to the common rule, not the exception, because the exception probably won't look right as it isn't really meant to be done that way.
The current standard is:
(GI/RT7016) Maximum permissible line speed over 100 mph = 3000 mm, all other lines = 2500 mm (distance from a structure to platform edge).
The standard as introduced was an absolute rule for new build or modification and an aspiration for older structures. There were hundreds if not thousands of dispensations which necessitated speed restrictions of through trains and sometimes diversions over other routes. It was not until the elimination of slam door stock that the GI/RT7016 standard became more universally enforceable but there remain some exceptions which require local rule variations.
The example that springs to mind is Loughborough where the main platforms on the London end stretch under a road overbridge:
Loughborough Station before the platforms were modified.
Slam door hauled stock was used on this line right up to the mid nineties and it was not until replacement stock with conductor controlled doors was introduced that trains stopped using the southern ends of the platforms. The station is now modified with platform extensions to the North and barriers erected under the road bridge to deter people from accessing the now abandoned platforms south of the road overbridge.
I am sorry if this is a bit more information than you bargained for Joe but if you are thinking of modelling a specific location, route or era then an evening studying photos (easily searched for online) to, as it were, get the flavour will help you out. The standards as stated by Graham are worth following but there are variations.
Best regards ................... Greyvoices (alias John)
I know the purists do not like it but Hornby platforms may work for you, they are straight when slipped together quite narrow so will fit with a small layout, you can dress them up with Metcalfe platform tops and brickwork or just use as a pattern they also make the double sided approach with a loop more viable as the look will be OK
Some of the German platforms are really narrow so overall not so bad the Hornby
Here the platform left is dressed up, right is standard Hornby
![Image]()
Some of the German platforms are really narrow so overall not so bad the Hornby
Here the platform left is dressed up, right is standard Hornby
QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 4 Feb 2016, 10:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>....
If you take the person in grey as being around 6 foot tall and use them as a guide, I think it is possible that the distance from the platform edge to the footbridge may be around six foot.
It's the 'optics' which possibly make it look less.....
With due respect, Leagrave was my local station for 25 years and there is no way that it is 6 feet.
If you take the person in grey as being around 6 foot tall and use them as a guide, I think it is possible that the distance from the platform edge to the footbridge may be around six foot.
It's the 'optics' which possibly make it look less.....
With due respect, Leagrave was my local station for 25 years and there is no way that it is 6 feet.
The critical dimension is height, forget measurements, pick a typical loco coach or wagon, set the platform height dead in line with the centre of the buffers and you won't go far wrong. See pic, Williton on the WSR with a GW Prairie.
Platform length actually has nothing to do with the length of trains using the station. My Local station at Chedworth had 180 foot or 3 coach platforms and trains of Seven or more coaches stopped there, passengers just had to be in the right coach. Likewise the Pines Express used to depart and arrive at Bournemouth West with 12 coaches while the platforms held only eight.
Many Branch Termini had platforms long enough for five or six coaches and were served by two coach trains or even a single autocoach the correlation between train length and platform length is simply is not there. Platform length was a symbol of aspiration, sometimes they were extended later, often they were simply too long. Long platforms often span roads (York) or rivers (Pickering) or are crossed by roads, though I have never seen a river going over one.
However few platforms are straight, fewer still straight and level, most taper gently at the ends, most are earth piled behind a stone, brick or concrete retaining wall with earth infill and paving slabs, or even just gravel or ashes as a surface, some are concrete especially post 1950 and Southern, some are wood, some mix and match, very few have a uniform appearance having signs of repair or extension, or partial abandonment.
Apart from Island platforms with two faces surrounded by tracks most platforms are at street level where the tracks are anywhere near street level, the hornby platform accessed up half a dozen steps from the roadway seldom happens, straight and level from the road through the ticket office to the train is full size normal, up six steps is hornby starter set and Thomas the Tank normal. Slightly curved platforms always look best to me, 5 rf 6 foot radius.
What does need to match or exceed train length are run round loopps, hidden sidings / Traversers etc.
I think there is a lot of muddying of waters with exceptions and theories going on here that isn't helping the OP.
The generally accepted measurement for modelling platform heights is a maximum 3 foot (12mm) above top of rail head.
As far as aligning the centre of buffers with a platform, please do not do this. There are too many variations to make this a reliable approach.
All steam locomotives allowed to run on the main line (i.e. ex BR) in the UK must be restored and maintained to the specifications laid down in the old BR MT/276 manual.
This is a very stringent set of procedures involving rigorous tests and inspections at frequent intervals by approved engineers.
One of the mandatory requirements at every six month inspection is that the buffer centre heights be measured.
The allowed range of heights is a maximum of three feet six inches and a minimum of three feet three and a half inches.i.e. a two and a half inch range.
The design height as already determined is three feet five and a half inches. MT/276 only states that the locomotive should be in working order when the measurement is taken, which I believe means at its fully operational weight including water and coal.
If the buffer heights are outside this range, the locomotive springs have to be adjusted and the correct axle weights set accordingly. During this procedure the locomotive would be set to run with both ends at a similar height.
The example photo is taken somewhat above the centre line so isn't really a proper indication. I'd suggest that this loco isn't maintained to main line standards and is probably a bit low.
Stick with 3 foot height above rail head and you won't go far wrong.
On platform lengths, typical lengths in many parts of the country for cross-country platforms was 6 coaches.
The generally accepted measurement for modelling platform heights is a maximum 3 foot (12mm) above top of rail head.
As far as aligning the centre of buffers with a platform, please do not do this. There are too many variations to make this a reliable approach.
All steam locomotives allowed to run on the main line (i.e. ex BR) in the UK must be restored and maintained to the specifications laid down in the old BR MT/276 manual.
This is a very stringent set of procedures involving rigorous tests and inspections at frequent intervals by approved engineers.
One of the mandatory requirements at every six month inspection is that the buffer centre heights be measured.
The allowed range of heights is a maximum of three feet six inches and a minimum of three feet three and a half inches.i.e. a two and a half inch range.
The design height as already determined is three feet five and a half inches. MT/276 only states that the locomotive should be in working order when the measurement is taken, which I believe means at its fully operational weight including water and coal.
If the buffer heights are outside this range, the locomotive springs have to be adjusted and the correct axle weights set accordingly. During this procedure the locomotive would be set to run with both ends at a similar height.
The example photo is taken somewhat above the centre line so isn't really a proper indication. I'd suggest that this loco isn't maintained to main line standards and is probably a bit low.
Stick with 3 foot height above rail head and you won't go far wrong.
On platform lengths, typical lengths in many parts of the country for cross-country platforms was 6 coaches.
]The Picture was taken with the camera on the platform, the far platform can be seen beyond the loco and the centreline of buffers are in line with the platform. I use 0.5" above rail height nominal for platforms, which looks right with Hornby Dublo and Bachmann stock but too low with Triang Hornby some of which is still sold a Hornby ( See pics on a now dismantled layout in 2007)
![Image]()
![Image]()
The whole point is Graham you have to pick a buffer height and stick to it. Mine is a Hornby Dublo open wagon. You cannot have differing buffer heights, if you want the layout to look realistic it is a basic dimension, 13.75 mm + 0.25 -0.75 like back to back.
I have lowered several Hornby MK1 coaches by 1 mm or so as they evolved from who used a 1mm higher buffer height than H/D to accommodate their awful tension lock couplers. Likewise some Hornby locos, Halls etc.
Buffer heights need to be standard, too many modellers standardise the running plate heights, Hornby did on their Castle and Mainline the 2251 and both appear dwarfed as a result
The Buffer centre is a good pragmatic way to do platform height, just as my Yes/ No gauge is a quick way to check back to back, If it fits the yes end and not the no then the hack to back is right, turn it sideways and it checks the platform height is right. I don't have a clue what the figure is but it is exactly the same height as the centre line of Hornby Dublo wagons! Because when I went to the WSR I took some pics.
Buckfastleigh platform is lower and several Highland ones are so low that the guard has to put a box for passengers to stand on when they get on and off. I have yet tom find a platform higher than the buffer centre line, except on models where above the bottom of the carriage doors is not that unusual.
The whole point is Graham you have to pick a buffer height and stick to it. Mine is a Hornby Dublo open wagon. You cannot have differing buffer heights, if you want the layout to look realistic it is a basic dimension, 13.75 mm + 0.25 -0.75 like back to back.
I have lowered several Hornby MK1 coaches by 1 mm or so as they evolved from who used a 1mm higher buffer height than H/D to accommodate their awful tension lock couplers. Likewise some Hornby locos, Halls etc.
Buffer heights need to be standard, too many modellers standardise the running plate heights, Hornby did on their Castle and Mainline the 2251 and both appear dwarfed as a result
The Buffer centre is a good pragmatic way to do platform height, just as my Yes/ No gauge is a quick way to check back to back, If it fits the yes end and not the no then the hack to back is right, turn it sideways and it checks the platform height is right. I don't have a clue what the figure is but it is exactly the same height as the centre line of Hornby Dublo wagons! Because when I went to the WSR I took some pics.
Buckfastleigh platform is lower and several Highland ones are so low that the guard has to put a box for passengers to stand on when they get on and off. I have yet tom find a platform higher than the buffer centre line, except on models where above the bottom of the carriage doors is not that unusual.
David,
I guess the thing I don't understand is why some people muddle along and don't make any effort to find out what proper measurements are.
How can anyone hope to do decent modelling without measuring things ?
Maybe some people are happy with 'it looks right' and others want to make sure it actually is right. Why not do it right in the first place ?
I guess the thing I don't understand is why some people muddle along and don't make any effort to find out what proper measurements are.
How can anyone hope to do decent modelling without measuring things ?
Maybe some people are happy with 'it looks right' and others want to make sure it actually is right. Why not do it right in the first place ?
Not everyone can do this due to space, However when you study stations you will find every variation in size and shape possible, they were being built from 1825 onwards and there were hundreds of disused stations demoted to other uses, you can find platforms of all levels some with two levels at different ends.
Indeed even today there is only one disabled friendly (for wheelchairs) station platform in the whole south west - at Freshford but bad news if you need to use the Up platform at Bridgewater must be nearly 2 feet out!
Of course if you want a platform then the Metcalfe kit comes out close, however when you add underlay you change things by 3 mm indeed our platforms are wide and generous compared to Faller German ones.
Others are not confident with kit or scratch building and expect that the mass manufacturers will be close to correct dimensionally.
So Graham how about using your extensive knowledge to help people who are looking to us to provide answers.
Indeed even today there is only one disabled friendly (for wheelchairs) station platform in the whole south west - at Freshford but bad news if you need to use the Up platform at Bridgewater must be nearly 2 feet out!
Of course if you want a platform then the Metcalfe kit comes out close, however when you add underlay you change things by 3 mm indeed our platforms are wide and generous compared to Faller German ones.
Others are not confident with kit or scratch building and expect that the mass manufacturers will be close to correct dimensionally.
So Graham how about using your extensive knowledge to help people who are looking to us to provide answers.
I believe he did:QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 6 Feb 2016, 01:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The generally accepted measurement for modelling platform heights is a maximum 3 foot (12mm) above top of rail head.
Graham I went out to measure platform heights on preserved railways after a fruitless trawl of a pile of books looking for photos showing platform height vis a vis stock when we were working on a GW branch line terminus. The Prairie at Williton was the best pic so I used that. The platforms are in line with the centre of the buffers with the camera placed on the platform and we know the buffer height should be 3'3" to 3'6" which is 13 to 14 mm in 00.
The normally accepted height for platforms in 00 was 1/2" (12.52 mm) according to my stack of 1950s magazines now rounded down to 12 mm, not the accepted maximum height but the datum.
The normally accepted height for platforms in 00 was 1/2" (12.52 mm) according to my stack of 1950s magazines now rounded down to 12 mm, not the accepted maximum height but the datum.
One of the things that people may want be aware of, is that kit manufacturers (and I assume makers of ready made platforms) sometimes seem to assume that you will be using thick-sleepered track such as Peco, or the train set brands. If you use SMP or the older C&L track (which has thin sleepers) it is possible to find the height of the platform a millimetre or so higher above the tops of the rails than you expected. Hmm... Wonder how I know that.
![Image]()
For earlier periods, I understand that platforms are less likely to be of standard height. On the other hand, I would expect them to be more likely to be low rather than high.
For earlier periods, I understand that platforms are less likely to be of standard height. On the other hand, I would expect them to be more likely to be low rather than high.
David,
QUOTE (DavidBroad @ 7 Feb 2016, 04:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Graham I went out to measure platform heights on preserved railways after a fruitless trawl of a pile of books looking for photos showing platform height vis a vis stock when we were working on a GW branch line terminus. The Prairie at Williton was the best pic so I used that. The platforms are in line with the centre of the buffers with the camera placed on the platform and we know the buffer height should be 3'3" to 3'6" which is 13 to 14 mm in 00.
The normally accepted height for platforms in 00 was 1/2" (12.52 mm) according to my stack of 1950s magazines now rounded down to 12 mm, not the accepted maximum height but the datum.
You need to go to the official documentation on the subject.
Railtrack Line Specification "Track Design Handbook" RT/CE/S/04 Issue 1. March 1996 Section A.8.1. "Standard Structure Gauge" shows 915mm vertically and 730mm horizontal to the running edge of the nearest rail.
A note against the horizontal distance says "Platform clearances are subject to the maintenance of HMRI stepping distances and specific requirements shall be calculated from the particular Kinematic Envelope [the physical movement envelope of a train 'bouncing around'] with an allowance made for structural clearance.
The minimum lateral dimension is 730mm and shown for guidance."
The Blue Book shows the same. 915 and 730 are the two dimensions we always worked to post metrication, being the metric conversions of the former imperial measurements.
HMRI issued advance notice of the revised requirements (metrication) in 1977.
The book "Railway Permanent Way" by Hepworth and Lee published 1922 gives height = 3ft-0in and horizontal = 2ft-1in measured from the outer edge of the rail.
The rail head is 2.75in so this makes the horizontal 2ft-3.75in to the running edge.
The book "British Railway Track" by the Permanent Way Institution (my copy 3rd edition pub. 1964) gives height = 3ft-0in and horizontal = 2ft-4.75in measured to the running edge of the nearest rail.
The Blue Book and 'British Railway Track' are the official sources used by permanent way engineers.
All these figures are for straight and level track.
The maximum permitted stepping distance (gap) by HMRI in any situation was 14 inches measured from the top outer edge of a running board to the top edge of the platform. This, of course, is a diagonal measurement not a level one.
Note that modern HSE requirements are different because they incorporate requirements for Continental rolling stock on HS1.
915mm equates to 36.02 inches which in 4mm scale, is 12mm, even accounting for rounding. That 3ft-0in (or metric equivalent) figure seems to crop up a lot!
I suspect 1/2" originated as a measurement of modelling convenience (just imagine measuring the imperial equivalent of 12mm on an imperial ruler!).
Richard notes that manufacturers make platforms over height to accommodate thick sleepers. In addition, I would suggest that a bigger influence is foam underlay or artificial pre-formed ballast under track which lifts several mm.
QUOTE (DavidBroad @ 7 Feb 2016, 04:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Graham I went out to measure platform heights on preserved railways after a fruitless trawl of a pile of books looking for photos showing platform height vis a vis stock when we were working on a GW branch line terminus. The Prairie at Williton was the best pic so I used that. The platforms are in line with the centre of the buffers with the camera placed on the platform and we know the buffer height should be 3'3" to 3'6" which is 13 to 14 mm in 00.
The normally accepted height for platforms in 00 was 1/2" (12.52 mm) according to my stack of 1950s magazines now rounded down to 12 mm, not the accepted maximum height but the datum.
You need to go to the official documentation on the subject.
Railtrack Line Specification "Track Design Handbook" RT/CE/S/04 Issue 1. March 1996 Section A.8.1. "Standard Structure Gauge" shows 915mm vertically and 730mm horizontal to the running edge of the nearest rail.
A note against the horizontal distance says "Platform clearances are subject to the maintenance of HMRI stepping distances and specific requirements shall be calculated from the particular Kinematic Envelope [the physical movement envelope of a train 'bouncing around'] with an allowance made for structural clearance.
The minimum lateral dimension is 730mm and shown for guidance."
The Blue Book shows the same. 915 and 730 are the two dimensions we always worked to post metrication, being the metric conversions of the former imperial measurements.
HMRI issued advance notice of the revised requirements (metrication) in 1977.
The book "Railway Permanent Way" by Hepworth and Lee published 1922 gives height = 3ft-0in and horizontal = 2ft-1in measured from the outer edge of the rail.
The rail head is 2.75in so this makes the horizontal 2ft-3.75in to the running edge.
The book "British Railway Track" by the Permanent Way Institution (my copy 3rd edition pub. 1964) gives height = 3ft-0in and horizontal = 2ft-4.75in measured to the running edge of the nearest rail.
The Blue Book and 'British Railway Track' are the official sources used by permanent way engineers.
All these figures are for straight and level track.
The maximum permitted stepping distance (gap) by HMRI in any situation was 14 inches measured from the top outer edge of a running board to the top edge of the platform. This, of course, is a diagonal measurement not a level one.
Note that modern HSE requirements are different because they incorporate requirements for Continental rolling stock on HS1.
915mm equates to 36.02 inches which in 4mm scale, is 12mm, even accounting for rounding. That 3ft-0in (or metric equivalent) figure seems to crop up a lot!
I suspect 1/2" originated as a measurement of modelling convenience (just imagine measuring the imperial equivalent of 12mm on an imperial ruler!).
Richard notes that manufacturers make platforms over height to accommodate thick sleepers. In addition, I would suggest that a bigger influence is foam underlay or artificial pre-formed ballast under track which lifts several mm.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
