I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK. One answer revolved
around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station.
Another possibility related to the fact that not all stations have
their tracks and platforms at ground level. A third strand of the
debate revovled around what, in the current organisational and
ownership situation in the UK does and does not count as "mainline".

WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?

Robin

On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the topic
> of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer revolved around
> the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station. Another
> possibility related to the fact that not all stations have their tracks
> and platforms at ground level.  A third strand of the debate revovled
> around what, in the current organisational and ownership situation in
> the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>
> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>

I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.

If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
below sea-level.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.

Or some of the other tunnelled NR stations, such as Merseyrail.
(eg Liverpool James St or Birkenhead Hamilton Square, at either end of the
Mersey tunnel).

> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
> below sea-level.

Shippea Hill seems to be about sea level +/- 1m.

Theo

On 10 Aug 2022 11:39:21 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.
>
> Or some of the other tunnelled NR stations, such as Merseyrail.
> (eg Liverpool James St or Birkenhead Hamilton Square, at either end of the
> Mersey tunnel).
>
>> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
>> below sea-level.
>
> Shippea Hill seems to be about sea level +/- 1m.

However the railway is somewhat elevated above the surrounding land,
being near ground level when built.

In message <td005v$1qa02$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:07 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK. One answer revolved
>around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station.
>Another possibility related to the fact that not all stations have
>their tracks and platforms at ground level. A third strand of the
>debate revovled around what, in the current organisational and
>ownership situation in the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>
>WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?

I'll stick in a bid for Shippea Hill, because it's in the Fens and at
about sea level. In former times it would have been considered to be on
the main line from London to Norwich.

Overseas, you might struggle to beat Schiphol, where the runways are a
little below seas level (iirc) and the station which is definitely
modern main line is significantly below that.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-08-10 11:55:09 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt said:

> On 10 Aug 2022 11:39:21 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.
>>
>> Or some of the other tunnelled NR stations, such as Merseyrail.
>> (eg Liverpool James St or Birkenhead Hamilton Square, at either end of the
>> Mersey tunnel).
>>
>>> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
>>> below sea-level.
>>
>> Shippea Hill seems to be about sea level +/- 1m.
>
> However the railway is somewhat elevated above the surrounding land,
> being near ground level when built.

Right, Shippea Hill is the tempting answer based on the "surrounding
ground level" definition. That however raises the vexed question of
stations like Blackfriars, Portsmouth Harbour or Ryde Pier Head that
are built over water.

Robin

On 2022-08-10 11:37:34 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <td005v$1qa02$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:07 on Wed, 10 Aug
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>> topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK. One answer revolved
>> around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station.
>> Another possibility related to the fact that not all stations have
>> their tracks and platforms at ground level. A third strand of the
>> debate revovled around what, in the current organisational and
>> ownership situation in the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>>
>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>
> I'll stick in a bid for Shippea Hill, because it's in the Fens and at
> about sea level. In former times it would have been considered to be on
> the main line from London to Norwich.

That might be a contender if you take the "natural surrounding ground
level", except it then leaves open the question of how to evaluate that
for railway stations built over water, like Ryde Pier Head, Portsmouth
Harbour etc.

> Overseas, you might struggle to beat Schiphol, where the runways are a
> little below seas level (iirc) and the station which is definitely
> modern main line is significantly below that.

Schipol is "only" 2 m below sea level. Other parts of the Netherlands,
eg Flevoland, are lower, I expect the natural ground level at somewhere
like Almere is lower than Schipol.

That is pretty mild compared with some other places. For example the
level of the Caspain Sea is about 28 m below the sea level of the
oceans, and there are plenty of railway lines around its coastal
regions. There are of course other even lower lying areas, like the
Dead Sea, there aren't many railways in those places.

Once you start with the "but the railway itself is lower", then you
have to allow for stations in deep cuttings or tunnels, which brings in
the other set of contenders.

Robin

On 10/08/2022 13:55, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-08-10 11:37:34 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <td005v$1qa02$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:07 on Wed, 10 Aug
>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>> topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer
>>> revolved around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>> station. Another possibility related to the fact that not all
>>> stations have their tracks and platforms at ground level.  A third
>>> strand of the debate revovled around what, in the current
>>> organisational and ownership situation in the UK does and does not
>>> count as "mainline".
>>>
>>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>
>> I'll stick in a bid for Shippea Hill, because it's in the Fens and at
>> about sea level. In former times it would have been considered to be
>> on the main line from London to Norwich.
>
> That might be a contender if you take the "natural surrounding ground
> level", except it then leaves open the question of how to evaluate that
> for railway stations built over water, like Ryde Pier Head, Portsmouth
> Harbour etc.

Dundee is in a cutting and may be below sea level.

>> Overseas, you might struggle to beat Schiphol, where the runways are a
>> little below seas level (iirc) and the station which is definitely
>> modern main line is significantly below that.
>
> Schipol is "only" 2 m below sea level. Other parts of the Netherlands,
> eg Flevoland, are lower, I expect the natural ground level at somewhere
> like Almere is lower than Schipol.
>
> That is pretty mild compared with some other places.  For example the
> level of the Caspain Sea is about 28 m below the sea level of the
> oceans, and there are plenty of railway lines around its coastal
> regions.  There are of course other even lower lying areas, like the
> Dead Sea, there aren't many railways in those places.

Beit She'an railway station is 120 metres below ocean level.

> Once you start with the "but the railway itself is lower", then you have
> to allow for stations in deep cuttings or tunnels, which brings in the
> other set of contenders.

In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-08-10 11:37:34 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <td005v$1qa02$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:07 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>>topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK. One answer
>>>revolved around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>>station. Another possibility related to the fact that not all
>>>stations have their tracks and platforms at ground level. A third
>>>strand of the debate revovled around what, in the current
>>>organisational and ownership situation in the UK does and does not
>>>
>>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>>uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?

>> I'll stick in a bid for Shippea Hill, because it's in the Fens and
>>at about sea level. In former times it would have been considered to
>>be on the main line from London to Norwich.
>
>That might be a contender if you take the "natural surrounding ground
>level",

I'm taking "above sea level", until someone comes back with confirmation
of a different interpretation. And of the platform.

> except it then leaves open the question of how to evaluate that for
>railway stations built over water, like Ryde Pier Head, Portsmouth
>Harbour etc.

You can easily measure the distance between those platforms and the mean
seas level there.

>> Overseas, you might struggle to beat Schiphol, where the runways are
>>a little below seas level (iirc) and the station which is definitely
>>modern main line is significantly below that.
>
>Schipol is "only" 2 m below sea level. Other parts of the Netherlands,
>eg Flevoland, are lower, I expect the natural ground level at somewhere
>like Almere is lower than Schipol.

But do the *also* have stations with platforms significantly beneath
ground level?

>That is pretty mild compared with some other places. For example the
>level of the Caspain Sea is about 28 m below the sea level of the
>oceans, and there are plenty of railway lines around its coastal
>regions. There are of course other even lower lying areas, like the
>Dead Sea, there aren't many railways in those places.
>
>Once you start with the "but the railway itself is lower", then you
>have to allow for stations in deep cuttings or tunnels,

You would, yes. Although if there's a cutting where the track/platforms
are noticeably below sea level, you might expect issues with flooding,
and water tables. More likely such stations would be on embankments.

>which brings in the other set of contenders.

What other set?
--
Roland Perry

In message <td0190$1qfii$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:28:48 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer
>>revolved around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>station. Another possibility related to the fact that not all
>>stations have their tracks and platforms at ground level.  A third
>>strand of the debate revovled around what, in the current
>>organisational and ownership situation in the UK does and does not
>>count as "mainline".
>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>
>I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a
>contender.

Did you have one in mind? For platforms (not entrances) Canary Wharf is
probably the one to look at first.

>If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
>below sea-level.

That has a very slim chance of passing the "mainline" test.
--
Roland Perry

In message <td087f$1rc7e$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:27:27 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-08-10 11:55:09 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt said:
>
>> On 10 Aug 2022 11:39:21 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.
>>> Or some of the other tunnelled NR stations, such as Merseyrail.
>>> (eg Liverpool James St or Birkenhead Hamilton Square, at either end of the
>>> Mersey tunnel).
>>>
>>>> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or
>>>>slightly
>>>> below sea-level.
>>> Shippea Hill seems to be about sea level +/- 1m.
>> However the railway is somewhat elevated above the surrounding land,
>> being near ground level when built.
>
>Right, Shippea Hill is the tempting answer based on the "surrounding
>ground level" definition. That however raises the vexed question of
>stations like Blackfriars, Portsmouth Harbour or Ryde Pier Head that
>are built over water.

Of the stations mentioned, Portsmouth Harbour has the best chance of
qualifying as "Mainline", but there should be no difficulty measuring
the height of the platforms [or if we prefer, the track] above sea
level.

Note also the question is "lowest", not "deepest".
--
Roland Perry

On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the topic
> of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer revolved around
> the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station. Another
> possibility related to the fact that not all stations have their tracks
> and platforms at ground level.  A third strand of the debate revovled
> around what, in the current organisational and ownership situation in
> the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>
> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>
> Robin
>

I think that the deepest station in the world is either in Kyiv or in
Pyongyang.

On 10/08/2022 12:55, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2022 11:39:21 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.
>>
>> Or some of the other tunnelled NR stations, such as Merseyrail.
>> (eg Liverpool James St or Birkenhead Hamilton Square, at either end of the
>> Mersey tunnel).
>>
>>> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
>>> below sea-level.
>>
>> Shippea Hill seems to be about sea level +/- 1m.
>
> However the railway is somewhat elevated above the surrounding land,
> being near ground level when built.
>

The railway has not gone up its the land that has shrunk, so if built at
sea level it is still at sea level (global warming excluded)

On 10/08/2022 14:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <td0190$1qfii$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:28:48 on Wed, 10 Aug
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>> topic  of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer
>>> revolved around  the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>> station. Another  possibility related to the fact that not all
>>> stations have their tracks  and platforms at ground level.  A third
>>> strand of the debate revovled  around what, in the current
>>> organisational and ownership situation in  the UK does and does not
>>> count as "mainline".
>>>  WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>
>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a
>> contender.
>
> Did you have one in mind? For platforms (not entrances) Canary Wharf is
> probably the one to look at first.

Not particularly, not looked at a gradient profile but it has to pass
under most of the other lines.

>
>> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
>> below sea-level.
>
> That has a very slim chance of passing the "mainline" test.

It is a full size electrified railway and not a local metro system (sic).

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the topic
> of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer revolved around
> the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station. Another
> possibility related to the fact that not all stations have their tracks
> and platforms at ground level.  A third strand of the debate revovled
> around what, in the current organisational and ownership situation in
> the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>
> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>
> Robin
>

May not be quite the lowest surface station, but Abergele & Pensarn is
almost adjacent to the high tide water level on the nearby beach.

On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10 Aug
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-08-10 11:37:34 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <td005v$1qa02$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:07 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>>> topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK. One answer revolved
>>>> around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station.
>>>> Another possibility related to the fact that not all stations have
>>>> their tracks and platforms at ground level. A third strand of the
>>>> debate revovled around what, in the current organisational and
>>>> ownership situation in the UK does and does not
>>>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>
>>> I'll stick in a bid for Shippea Hill, because it's in the Fens and at
>>> about sea level. In former times it would have been considered to be on
>>> the main line from London to Norwich.
>>
>> That might be a contender if you take the "natural surrounding ground level",
>
> I'm taking "above sea level", until someone comes back with
> confirmation of a different interpretation. And of the platform.

If the definition you are working with is an altitude of platform or
track relative to sea level, then Shippea Hill is not the lowest in the
UK.

>> except it then leaves open the question of how to evaluate that for
>> railway stations built over water, like Ryde Pier Head, Portsmouth
>> Harbour etc.
>
> You can easily measure the distance between those platforms and the
> mean seas level there.

Right, that's the "track height" definition rather than the "ground
height" definition.

>>> Overseas, you might struggle to beat Schiphol, where the runways are a
>>> little below seas level (iirc) and the station which is definitely
>>> modern main line is significantly below that.
>>
>> Schipol is "only" 2 m below sea level. Other parts of the Netherlands,
>> eg Flevoland, are lower, I expect the natural ground level at somewhere
>> like Almere is lower than Schipol.
>
> But do the *also* have stations with platforms significantly beneath
> ground level?

Not sure, I've never been there.

>> That is pretty mild compared with some other places. For example the
>> level of the Caspain Sea is about 28 m below the sea level of the
>> oceans, and there are plenty of railway lines around its coastal
>> regions. There are of course other even lower lying areas, like the
>> Dead Sea, there aren't many railways in those places.
>>
>> Once you start with the "but the railway itself is lower", then you
>> have to allow for stations in deep cuttings or tunnels,
>
> You would, yes. Although if there's a cutting where the track/platforms
> are noticeably below sea level, you might expect issues with flooding,
> and water tables. More likely such stations would be on embankments.

Unless there is good reason for wanting to build a station down there,
and engineer the station accordingly. The Thames, as a tidal river, is
at sea level, yet there are many railway lines that cross beneath it.

>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>
> What other set?

Stations that are significantly underground, in places of not-very-high
elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and Rotherhithe.

Robin

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the topic
>> of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer revolved around
>> the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station. Another
>> possibility related to the fact that not all stations have their tracks
>> and platforms at ground level.  A third strand of the debate revovled
>> around what, in the current organisational and ownership situation in
>> the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>>
>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> May not be quite the lowest surface station, but Abergele & Pensarn is
> almost adjacent to the high tide water level on the nearby beach.

Wemyss Bay is probably a bit higher than that, and also Ardrossan Harbour,
though that is definitely at the same level as the dockside. I think
Largs is a bit higher.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 2022-08-10 14:09:36 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

> On 10/08/2022 14:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <td0190$1qfii$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:28:48 on Wed, 10 Aug
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>>> topic  of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer revolved
>>>> around  the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station.
>>>> Another  possibility related to the fact that not all stations have
>>>> their tracks  and platforms at ground level.  A third strand of the
>>>> debate revovled  around what, in the current organisational and
>>>> ownership situation in  the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>>>>  WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>>
>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a
>>> contender.
>>
>> Did you have one in mind? For platforms (not entrances) Canary Wharf is
>> probably the one to look at first.
>
> Not particularly, not looked at a gradient profile but it has to pass
> under most of the other lines.

Right. For example at Liverpool St, the station itself is at below
street level, but then you have the subsurface lines, the Central line
and also the Post Office railway tunnels. The station is long enough
that at the other end it needs to dodge the Northern line and Northern
City line at Moorgate. That may well push it a long way down.

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <td0190$1qfii$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:28:48 on Wed, 10 Aug
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>> topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer
>>> revolved around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>> station. Another possibility related to the fact that not all
>>> stations have their tracks and platforms at ground level.  A third
>>> strand of the debate revovled around what, in the current
>>> organisational and ownership situation in the UK does and does not
>>> count as "mainline".
>>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>
>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a
>> contender.
>
> Did you have one in mind? For platforms (not entrances) Canary Wharf is
> probably the one to look at first.

Well, Crossrail says Liverpool Street is the deepest, at 34m below ground
level (ie, 20m below sea level). Canary Wharf EL platforms are 18m below
local water level (which is, I suppose a little above sea level). So
Liverpool Street is slightly deeper.

In message <td0du6$1rt62$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:04:55 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, ianb <i.bidwell@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>On 10/08/2022 12:55, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2022 11:39:21 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a contender.
>>>
>>> Or some of the other tunnelled NR stations, such as Merseyrail.
>>> (eg Liverpool James St or Birkenhead Hamilton Square, at either end of the
>>> Mersey tunnel).
>>>
>>>> If not then possibly Ryde on the Isle of Wight as is near or slightly
>>>> below sea-level.
>>>
>>> Shippea Hill seems to be about sea level +/- 1m.

>> However the railway is somewhat elevated above the surrounding land,
>> being near ground level when built.

>The railway has not gone up its the land that has shrunk, so if built
>at sea level it is still at sea level (global warming excluded)

Well spotted! The river level at this location is approximately half a
metre above sea level. And the water surface is about two metres below
the top of the embankment. The road and fields on the other hand...

https://goo.gl/maps/3mZ8ux4z9kUnXZRf9

You can just see the railway [not the Norwich line] OHL on the horizon
the other side of the river.
--
Roland Perry

In message <td0e70$1rsre$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:09:36 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 10/08/2022 14:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <td0190$1qfii$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:28:48 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>>>topic  of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer
>>>>revolved around  the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>>>station. Another  possibility related to the fact that not all
>>>>stations have their tracks  and platforms at ground level.  A third
>>>>strand of the debate revovled  around what, in the current
>>>>organisational and ownership situation in  the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>>>>  WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>>>uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>>
>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>>mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a
>>>contender.
>> Did you have one in mind? For platforms (not entrances) Canary Wharf
>>is probably the one to look at first.
>
>Not particularly, not looked at a gradient profile but it has to pass
>under most of the other lines.

"Liverpool Street Elizabeth line station is the deepest of the new
central London stations (34 metres below ground at platform level)"

If they really mean that, and the surface is 14m above sea level, gives
20m below. Canary wharf is unreliably reported to be 30m below the water
level in the surrounding dock. The citation says 30m below street level,
but from having been there the streets are on several levels :(

[refs Wonkypedia and Crossrail].
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <td0e70$1rsre$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:09:36 on Wed, 10 Aug
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 10/08/2022 14:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <td0190$1qfii$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:28:48 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>>>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>>>> topic  of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer
>>>>> revolved around  the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>>>> station. Another  possibility related to the fact that not all
>>>>> stations have their tracks  and platforms at ground level.  A third
>>>>> strand of the debate revovled  around what, in the current
>>>>> organisational and ownership situation in  the UK does and does not
>>>>> count as "mainline".
>>>>>  WIthout further prompting, therefore, I
>>>>> put the question to the
>>>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask the obvious question, does the Elizabeth Line qualify as
>>>> mainline? If so one of the stations in central London would be a
>>>> contender.
>>> Did you have one in mind? For platforms (not entrances) Canary Wharf
>>> is probably the one to look at first.
>>
>> Not particularly, not looked at a gradient profile but it has to pass
>> under most of the other lines.
>
> "Liverpool Street Elizabeth line station is the deepest of the new
> central London stations (34 metres below ground at platform level)"
>
> If they really mean that, and the surface is 14m above sea level, gives
> 20m below.

Yes, as I've already posted.

> Canary wharf is unreliably reported to be 30m below the water
> level in the surrounding dock.

No, it's 18m below the local water level:
<https://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/stations/canary-wharf/>

I wonder how much the Thames drops from there to the point where it joins
the sea? I know the river is tidal, but there must be some drop in the
fast-flowing river from the Isle of Dogs to the Estuary.

In message <td0foh$1s2u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:01 on Wed, 10 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-08-10 11:37:34 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <td005v$1qa02$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:07 on Wed, 10
>>>>Aug 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the
>>>>>topic of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK. One answer
>>>>>revolved around the elevation of the ground level surrounding the
>>>>>station. Another possibility related to the fact that not all
>>>>>stations have their tracks and platforms at ground level. A
>>>>>third strand of the debate revovled around what, in the current
>>>>>organisational and ownership situation in the UK does and does not
>>>>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>>>>uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>
>>>> I'll stick in a bid for Shippea Hill, because it's in the Fens and
>>>>at about sea level. In former times it would have been considered
>>>>to be on the main line from London to Norwich.
>>> That might be a contender if you take the "natural surrounding
>>>ground level",
>> I'm taking "above sea level", until someone comes back with
>>confirmation of a different interpretation. And of the platform.
>
>If the definition you are working with is an altitude of platform or
>track relative to sea level, then Shippea Hill is not the lowest in the
>UK.

Don't forget the "mainline" qualification, although Shippea Hill may not
be if the line has to have "Main Line" in the title, rather than being
simply not-a-meto.

>>> except it then leaves open the question of how to evaluate that for
>>>railway stations built over water, like Ryde Pier Head, Portsmouth
>>>Harbour etc.

>> You can easily measure the distance between those platforms and the
>>mean seas level there.
>
>Right, that's the "track height" definition rather than the "ground
>height" definition.

Yes, the question as originally posed has both, but I'm trying to take
what I think the industry itself would reply.

>>>> Overseas, you might struggle to beat Schiphol, where the runways
>>>>are a little below seas level (iirc) and the station which is
>>>>definitely modern main line is significantly below that.
>>> Schipol is "only" 2 m below sea level. Other parts of the
>>>Netherlands, eg Flevoland, are lower, I expect the natural ground
>>>level at somewhere like Almere is lower than Schipol.
>> But do the *also* have stations with platforms significantly beneath
>>ground level?
>
>Not sure, I've never been there.

Maybe there's a streetview available.

>>> That is pretty mild compared with some other places. For example
>>>the level of the Caspain Sea is about 28 m below the sea level of
>>>the oceans, and there are plenty of railway lines around its coastal
>>>regions. There are of course other even lower lying areas, like the
>>>Dead Sea, there aren't many railways in those places.
>>> Once you start with the "but the railway itself is lower", then you
>>>have to allow for stations in deep cuttings or tunnels,

>> You would, yes. Although if there's a cutting where the
>>track/platforms are noticeably below sea level, you might expect
>>issues with flooding, and water tables. More likely such stations
>>would be on embankments.
>
>Unless there is good reason for wanting to build a station down there,
>and engineer the station accordingly. The Thames, as a tidal river, is
>at sea level, yet there are many railway lines that cross beneath it.

How many mainlines though? And what's a "station". One that's a
candidate for the most-below-sea-level tracks is Waterloo. But it has
three ticket offices and numerous other stuff spread around the National
Rail building.

>>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>> What other set?
>
>Stations that are significantly underground, in places of not-very-high
>elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and Rotherhithe.

I don't think we are going to get much further until we decide on things
like "which bit of Wapping Station", and "Is the Overground a mainline".
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-08-10 15:41:44 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <td0foh$1s2u5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:01 on Wed, 10 Aug
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-08-10 13:38:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <td09rj$1rh5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:15 on Wed, 10 Aug
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>> which brings in the other set of contenders.
>>> What other set?
>>
>> Stations that are significantly underground, in places of not-very-high
>> elevation. Two that come to mind are Wapping and Rotherhithe.
>
> I don't think we are going to get much further until we decide on
> things like "which bit of Wapping Station", and "Is the Overground a
> mainline".

Wapping and Rotherhithe each only have two bits: a ground level ticket
hall/gateline and a pair of platforms/lines. That offers the two
possibilities for defining height as the ground level or the track
level, unless you introduce some further odditiy like "highest point on
the roof" or similar.

If a situation were to exist in which Shippea Hill does count and
Wapping and Rotherhithe do not count, I'd be interested in the
objective criteria you might propose that would permit that distinction
to be drawn.

Robin

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/08/2022 11:10, Bob wrote:
>>> I was having a discussion with someone elsewhere that got onto the topic
>>> of the lowest "mainline" station in the UK.  One answer revolved around
>>> the elevation of the ground level surrounding the station. Another
>>> possibility related to the fact that not all stations have their tracks
>>> and platforms at ground level.  A third strand of the debate revovled
>>> around what, in the current organisational and ownership situation in
>>> the UK does and does not count as "mainline".
>>>
>>> WIthout further prompting, therefore, I put the question to the
>>> uk.railway community: what is the lowest mainline station in the UK?
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>
>> May not be quite the lowest surface station, but Abergele & Pensarn is
>> almost adjacent to the high tide water level on the nearby beach.
>
> Wemyss Bay is probably a bit higher than that, and also Ardrossan Harbour,
> though that is definitely at the same level as the dockside. I think
> Largs is a bit higher.
>
> Sam
>

Glasgow Central Low Level?