New replacement signs using different terminology to the old signs they replaced

[tfw756rider]

I've noticed (in my case with Transport for Wales - TfW, but maybe some other operators have been doing the same thing) new replacement signs using different terminology to the old signs they replaced (or sort-of "would've replaced", in the second example).

First example: the toilet signs - 'Ladies' has been replaced with 'Women' (and 'Gentlemen' has been replaced with 'Men') by Transport for Wales at Carmarthen (for example), even though I've seen West Midlands Railway use newish-looking 'Ladies' and 'Gentlemen' signs at Wolverhampton. I wonder why TfW have taken this different approach? Yes, apparently 'Ladies' and 'Gentlemen' are "old-fashioned", but I grew up (in general, not just in a railway context) with them being the Gents' toilets (in my case) and the Ladies' toilets, not the "Men's" toilets and the "Women's" toilets.

Second example: at Cardiff Central, TfW, as part of replacing the signs there, have replaced 'Welcome to the Home of Cardiff University' with 'Get off here for the University of South Wales'. In this case, the 'advertised' educational institution has changed, and 'Get off' hasn't replaced 'Alight' either (and I understand that not everyone will know what 'alight' means), but still, it surprised me.

What are others' thoughts on this?

 

[PG]

Perhaps the university have lowered their entrance requirements, such that students need a more explicit instruction

 

[styles]

'Get off' instructions unclear, now I'm banned from TfW services.

I think alight sounds better than get off, but it is a word which doesn't make it into most people's everyday parlance so I can see why they might not want to use it.

 

[tfw756rider]

Perhaps the university have lowered their entrance requirements, such that students need a more explicit instruction

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2025 ==

'Get off' instructions unclear, now I'm banned from TfW services.

I think alight sounds better than get off, but it is a word which doesn't make it into most people's everyday parlance so I can see why they might not want to use it.

Yeah.

 

[DelW]

In my long-ago student days, "get off" had an additional meaning, which wouldn't be appropriate on a station platform

 

[X-City-WM]

I wonder if TfW are trying to make the language they use easier for limited English speakers (tourists) - I think more people may learn the word ‘men’ than ‘gents’.

Or, they could be applying a Welsh-first policy of using what a Welsh speaker would say and then translating that into English.

 

[edwin_m]

I have always assumed the "home of" or "alight for" on the station nameboard was some kind of sponsorship, though I don't know this for certain. It's not particularly useful information for passengers - if visiting the university they would have needed to know what station to travel to when they bought their tickets, and I'd like to think people clever enough to go to university would be clever enough to look up the correct station before setting out. So I think it's just raising the profile of whoever is doing he advertising. In this case perhaps USW has outbid Cardiff University.

Another subtlety is that Cardiff Central isn't the nearest station to Cardiff University, so just saying "Welcome to the home of" is correct where "Alight for" would have been wrong.

Despite being a graduate myself, I did actually find it quite difficult to locate USW from its website. It appears to have four sites, the nearest of which to Central is actually closer to Queen Street. One of them is in Newport and two are in the Valleys, so Central is not necessarily the best place to "get off" from either the main line or on the Valleys services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

'Get off' instructions unclear, now I'm banned from TfW services.

I think alight sounds better than get off, but it is a word which doesn't make it into most people's everyday parlance so I can see why they might not want to use it.

"Get off" is too informal for my liking. "Leave the train" is probably a better "crystal mark" version.

 

[Turtle]

I've noticed (in my case with Transport for Wales - TfW, but maybe some other operators have been doing the same thing) new replacement signs using different terminology to the old signs they replaced (or sort-of "would've replaced", in the second example).

First example: the toilet signs - 'Ladies' has been replaced with 'Women' (and 'Gentlemen' has been replaced with 'Men') by Transport for Wales at Carmarthen (for example), even though I've seen West Midlands Railway use newish-looking 'Ladies' and 'Gentlemen' signs at Wolverhampton. I wonder why TfW have taken this different approach? Yes, apparently 'Ladies' and 'Gentlemen' are "old-fashioned", but I grew up (in general, not just in a railway context) with them being the Gents' toilets (in my case) and the Ladies' toilets, not the "Men's" toilets and the "Women's" toilets.

Second example: at Cardiff Central, TfW, as part of replacing the signs there, have replaced 'Welcome to the Home of Cardiff University' with 'Get off here for the University of South Wales'. In this case, the 'advertised' educational institution has changed, and 'Get off' hasn't replaced 'Alight' either (and I understand that not everyone will know what 'alight' means), but still, it surprised me.

What are others' thoughts on this?

I can recall public toilets labelled MEN and WOMEN in London in the late 1950s. Certainly this was very rare though and people commented on it.

 

[pdeaves]

I have always assumed the "home of" or "alight for" on the station nameboard was some kind of sponsorship

I agree. Newport has the same (though some signs have 'get off' and some 'please alight'). I think the wording is just what the sponsors want to appear (perhaps an 'in' student level double entendre joke?)

 

[D6130]

One sign alteration that I would dearly like to see on both main line and Underground stations is the replacement of Way Out by Exit. The former causes confusion for North American visitors....and certain sections of the native community.

 

[AndrewE]

"Get off?" At my junior school in about 1960 if we used the words "get" or "got" in a composition we were told we were being lazy and there was a better /more accurate single word to be used. I still catch myself using it and look for another word to replace it.

"Get off" = alight/disembark (a boat.) "Get on" = board. "Get rich" would probably be become rich.

If sign says "Alight here [for ...]" people will learn what the word means!

 

[Jimini]

"Get off?" At my junior school in about 1960 if we used the words "get" or "got" in a composition we were told we were being lazy and there was a better /more accurate single word to be used. I still catch myself using it and look for another word to replace it.

"Get off" = alight/disembark (a boat.) "Get on" = board. "Get rich" would probably be become rich.

If sign says "Alight here [for ...]" people will learn what the word means!

In the 1990s (upper school for me), to "get off" with a girl, meant a cheeky french kiss!

 

[styles]

"Get off?" At my junior school in about 1960 if we used the words "get" or "got" in a composition we were told we were being lazy and there was a better /more accurate single word to be used. I still catch myself using it and look for another word to replace it.

"Get off" = alight/disembark (a boat.) "Get on" = board. "Get rich" would probably be become rich.

If sign says "Alight here [for ...]" people will learn what the word means!

We've been using the word alight for a long time though and it's not really caught on with a lot of passengers.

I think if you try to push a word for decades and it doesn't catch on, you should reconsider the wording.

I only really hear alight used in reference to burning stuff, and even then the scouts normally just say something is on fire or burn something, not set something alight.

Language evolves. It's probably time to give up on alight in this context.

Public services should primarily be accessible, and language is a significant part of that. There is a reason NHS Digital pages talk about pooing and poo, not defecating and stools: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/constipation/

 

[geoffk]

One sign alteration that I would dearly like to see on both main line and Underground stations is the replacement of Way Out by Exit.

Yet some public bodies, mostly or all Councils, have a policy of ceasing the use of Latin words!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Those sponsored signs, such as "the home of [some company you've never heard of] or even just "Welcome to" obscure the important words - the actual name of the station.

There is a case for it when the station closest to a prominent establishment is not the one it shares its name with.
So:
"Greenwich - for Maritime Museum use next station (Maze Hill)"
"Norbiton - alight here for Kingston Hospital"
"Southfields - alight here for Wimbledon tennis"
"Fulham Broadway - alight here for Chelsea football stadium - for Fulham's stadium continue to Putney Bridge"

(It would be useful at Southwark Tube station, as I have known several people to have made the long trek from there to the cathedral, which is next to London Bridge station)

 

[edwin_m]

If sign says "Alight here [for ...]" people will learn what the word means!

Some people will probably think it means set fire to the sign.

Yet some public bodies, mostly or all Councils, have a policy of ceasing the use of Latin words!

I think that's aimed more at the sort of random Latin that lawyers (and Boris Johnson) sprinkle into their speech. "Exit" is well established in English, like thousands of other words that are the same as the Latin but we don't think of them as such. Importantly it's the standard usage with "Emergency" and it would make sense on safety grounds to use the same word for an exit that is used normally but is also an option in an emergency.

 

[AndrewE]

Some people will probably think it means set fire to the sign.

I don't think so... but what alternative wording would we see for "Do not alight here" - e.g. on a disused platform?

 

[ollyexe2808]

We've been using the word alight for a long time though and it's not really caught on with a lot of passengers.

I think if you try to push a word for decades and it doesn't catch on, you should reconsider the wording.

I only really hear alight used in reference to burning stuff, and even then the scouts normally just say something is on fire or burn something, not set something alight.

Language evolves. It's probably time to give up on alight in this context.

Public services should primarily be accessible, and language is a significant part of that. There is a reason NHS Digital pages talk about pooing and poo, not defecating and stools: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/constipation/

Agree with this. I am 35, I grew up with much of this evolving language, I say 'Train Station' rather than Railway Station, I 'get off' a train, not alight and often I believe that language is not there to be preserved in aspic but rather be a common tool for communicating and should evolve to match the change in environment. Just as we do not speak like the Victorians or even someone from the 1930s.

I think Way Out is understandable enough as well, as is Men's, Women's toilet etc.

Incidentally, I work in healthcare and often find simplifying language very useful when explaining things to patients. You can always gauge their understanding and make things more detailed if necessary. But just like the fact that many metro systems around the world developed and adapted to use colours and patterns in an era with low levels of literacy, I feel public services should strive for simplicity and evolve with changing language as well

 

[styles]

I don't think so... but what alternative wording would we see for "Do not alight here" - e.g. on a disused platform?

Probably best all round to not open doors at disused platforms.

 

[AndrewE]

Probably best all round to not open doors at disused platforms.

yes, it occurred to me that with Central Door Locking nowadays the sign is almost redundant.

 

[Jim the Jim]

I can see why they avoid "alight", but I think "disembark" would work better on signage than "get off".

 

[geoffk]

I think that's aimed more at the sort of random Latin that lawyers (and Boris Johnson) sprinkle into their speech. "Exit" is well established in English, like thousands of other words that are the same as the Latin but we don't think of them as such. Importantly it's the standard usage with "Emergency" and it would make sense on safety grounds to use the same word for an exit that is used normally but is also an option in an emergency.

We can discuss this ad nauseam.

 

[AndrewE]

We can discuss this ad nauseam.

that makes it a perfect thread topic then!

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think so... but what alternative wording would we see for "Do not alight here" - e.g. on a disused platform?

"Platform not in use" or "Do not use this platform" would work I think.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2025 ==

that makes it a perfect thread topic then!

Duly obliged on a new thread,

We'd probably just end up back with the status quo ante.

 

[TheSel]

Probably best all round to not open doors at disused platforms.

However, at platforms which are in use ...

Er .....



(Image above shows 'Do not alight here' signs by the open doors of a class 507 calling at Green Lane. For clarity, this was the end car of a 6 car working from Chester which protruded into the narrow section at one end of the platform).