ELI5: What's so special about the Harrington Hump?

[Gloster]

Incidentally, the normal spelling is ELIA5 (Explain Like I Am 5), a play on first name Elias. The name is not very common in British English, but is more common in the USA and, in various variations, in other countries. (All right, I am showing off, but I was curious about its origin.)

 

[dk1]

But why were they not built at train height in the first place?

No idea why it just is & hence why it’s seldom done.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Of course the real question is why aren't all platforms at door height anyway?

For most of the history of railways trains had outward swinging slam doors that obviously have to be clear of the platform.

More complicatedly, it has long been the practice for train bodies to slightly overhang the platform as this actually allowed for a smaller gap in various combinations of ‘end throw’ and ‘centre throw’ on curves (depending on door configuration, track cant and so on). You could write a book about the detail but it wouldn’t be for five-year-olds!

 

[Lemmy99uk]

I think it is quite simply that you get disability access compliance very cheaply

The humps were never intended to be compliant with accessibility legislation. When they were introduced, the Cumbrian Coast was a mixture of 142/153/156 units and which meant you would never know which end the wheelchair access would be. They were actually designed following complaints from local residents along the line who were fed up with the height gap between train and platform and who found the heavy wooden steps useless in many cases. Some of the Guards would be helpful and move steps to assist elderly or less mobile customers but sometime they couldn’t (or wouldn’t). Level access for wheelchairs on some services was an added bonus.

The original design was a much grander one with an aluminium ramp with full handrails. This first iteration had adjustable legs which would have meant they could be tweaked if new rolling stock with a different floor level was introduced.
At the time, Network Rail were suffering thefts of metals of all types and were worried about thieves unbolting parts of the structure and making of with them, although I expect the capital cost was the real problem. They took the design away, refined and de-scoped it, and produced the hump we know today.

I understand that the local council was involved with (or even funded) the development and has 'rights' to a fee for each use. Whether they claim that fee, I don't know.

The humps were funded jointly by Northern Rail, Network Rail and Cumbria County Council (CCC).

CCC receives no royalties for them.

I believe they are referred to as Harrington Humps because that was the first station at which they were installed. I don't think it's a brand name.

Correct.

But why were they not built at train height in the first place?

Legacy. The original companies operating the Cumbrian Coast used low platforms and built footsteps into the carriages. Typically, 150 years later, the railway still hasn’t got around to updating the stations.

 

[pdeaves]

Typically, 150 years later, the railway still hasn’t got around to updating the stations.

Yes, and the physical constraints may make it very difficult (raise the platform and block a building door or make the raised bit too steep? Lower the track and upset the platform foundations or drainage or hit whatever is now underneath?) 'Simple' projects are often more complex than they appear at first.

 

[WatcherZero]

But why were they not built at train height in the first place?

Platform height wasnt standardized until a couple of decades ago, every original railway built their own trains and their own platforms which had their own specification for door heights and platform heights. Even in the 70's and 80's under BR trains were being built to widely different boarding heights.