Trains stopping so far from exit points, why????

[saismee]

Measuring this in lifetimes is an excellent idea.

When something can be done slower-but-safer, people count the lives saved by the "safer" half but not the lives lost to the "slower" half.

For example:

• 2.5 seconds is a nanolife, a trillionth of UK life expectancy.
• That means that if there's 250 people on a train, and making them walk further costs then 100 seconds, the total cost is 10 microlives
• If you have 100 trains per day, that's 1 millilife per day
• That's costing a life every 3 years or so

Maybe some people could do with the exercise, so maybe it's increasing life expectancy

 

[whoosh]

LNER don't like having multiple stopping positions so generally the 5 cars use the same stopping positions as the longer trains. Hence at Grantham you see Hull Trains 802s with 2 stopping positions for 5 and 10 cars but the LNER sets use the same ones. Customer unfriendly but negates the risk of a stop short I guess which if it causes a cancellation is even less friendly.

Yes, as above, it is mitigation for a stop short door release incident - Driver releases doors on Azumas, and LNER have a multitude of different train lengths compared to other operators.

Why are thameslink trains unable to use the same stop markers as other services?

As below...

At stations with signals at the platform ends, there are signal sighting issues because the driver sits in the middle of a class 700 but to one side in a class 379 or class 387.

And also...
A central driving position (so signal sighting will be different), and
tiny side windows in the cab door meaning they can't be used to view stop car markers - 700 stop car markers are lined up against the edge of the windscreen.

I'm pretty certain that when they were introduced the Azumas had different stopping points, depending on whether they were 9/10-car or 5 car. I can't comment on the operational side of things but it was much more passenger friendly. As mentioned above there is now the situation where the 5-car trains stop at the far end of the platform, where there is no cover from the elements which means people end up running. Of course we now have 5-car Azumas stopping in different positions to 5-car Lumo trains for added passenger confusion....

The 700 stopping boards is also interesting. There were separate boards for 8-car and 12-cars when first introduced, which again was much more passenger friendly and helped to spread loads throughout the train rather than concentrate it in the rear couple of cars if an 8-car turns up. A couple of years ago the 8-car stopping board was removed and all 700s now stop at the 12-car board. Again, as mentioned above, 8-car 387s (and 365s before them) stop at a much more passenger friendly stopping position, which is different from the 12-car position.

It's not a platform camera or monitor thing at Stevenage because there aren't any, so I really don't know why it is.

387/379 boards at SVG cannot be moved due to wheelchair ramps being obstructed by platform buildings/furniture if they go right down to the ends like the 700s.

At St Neots there are separate RLU (Reuced Length Unit - 8 cars), and FLU (Full Length Unit - 12 cars) stop car markers for this reason. 8 and 12 car 387/379 in the Up direction stop at the end (but RLU stops midway for the wheelchair ramp!).

It's not just signal sighting, method of dispatch, platform curvature and possible large gaps between train and platform, platforn lighting - but also risk of slips trips and falls from passengers running for trains if the stopping position is far from the entrance to the platform.
Drivers would like all the stopping positions to be at the end, and passengers nearest the entrance.
But it isn't very simple. One reason for differering stopping positions on different types of train is that, as an example, 387/379s have bodyside cameras that face backwards on the driver's side (left) of the train, and forwards on the right hand side. 700s/717s face forwards on the left hand side, and backwards on the right hand side. This would work for moving the RLU to an ALL board on the Up Slow at Stevenage as the one board for any length 700 mitigates stop short door release incidents, but means people running for the train can be easily seen. 387s cameras face the other way, and rarely run as 12 cars stopping there, so the stopping position for 8 cars remains in the traditional 8 car spot, with a clear view with cameras of passengers arriving onto the platform and not having to move along it.

It's a minefield! Keeps the safety section busy with risk assessments though i dare say!

 

[35B]

Yes, as above, it is mitigation for a stop short door release incident - Driver releases doors on Azumas, and LNER have a multitude of different train lengths compared to other operators.

At Grantham, a “mitigation” for one risk that increases the risks associated with rushing for a connection and maximises the number of people trying to walk down the narrow bit of the platform and obstructing the view of those doing despatch.

It would be very interesting indeed to see the quantification in the risk assessment.

 

[LowLevel]

At Grantham, a “mitigation” for one risk that increases the risks associated with rushing for a connection and maximises the number of people trying to walk down the narrow bit of the platform and obstructing the view of those doing despatch.

It would be very interesting indeed to see the quantification in the risk assessment.

It's a bit daft but there you go. Fixation on one particular risk I suspect to the exclusion of all others. Hull Trains have an even mix of 5 and 10 car sets and deem it to be perfectly acceptable which makes it look even sillier.

LNER have 5, 7 (more like 9 really with 7 passenger coaches, and a 91 and DVT), 9 and 10 car trains which is far less by combination than somewhere like Southern or South Eastern.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

And also...
A central driving position (so signal sighting will be different), and
tiny side windows in the cab door meaning they can't be used to view stop car markers - 700 stop car markers are lined up against the edge of the windscreen.
[...]
387/379s have bodyside cameras that face backwards on the driver's side (left) of the train, and forwards on the right hand side. 700s/717s face forwards on the left hand side, and backwards on the right hand side.

Is this another example of the costs of not having sufficient standardisation of stock? I would have thought both camera orientation and cab windows could be made consistent on effectively new trains!

 

[Starmill]

It's a bit daft but there you go. Fixation on one particular risk I suspect to the exclusion of all others. Hull Trains have an even mix of 5 and 10 car sets and deem it to be perfectly acceptable which makes it look even sillier.

LNER have 5, 7 (more like 9 really with 7 passenger coaches, and a 91 and DVT), 9 and 10 car trains which is far less by combination than somewhere like Southern or South Eastern.

Indeed. Even if you didn't really care about the customer friendliness aspect, the obvious safety implications are well explained above, and it's also a performance issue given that if someone is hurrying along a platform towards the train, and will easily reach the side of the train before it's started to move, the risk of them getting stuck in the door or tripping and falling down the gap is very real. Accordingly a lot of the platform staff or train managers will not be able to give an on time departure.

Is this another example of the costs of not having sufficient standardisation of stock? I would have thought both camera orientation and cab windows could be made consistent on effectively new trains!

The cab layouts and seat positions in an Electrostar and a Desiro City don't exactly have anything much in common, as well as obviously having different equipment and spec.

 

[dk1]

Yes as said, having the same point mitigates any stop short & release issues. Safety of the line tends to override customer experience nowadays.

 

[Peter0124]

Surely if you aren't sure of your trains length, you stop at the far end anyway as a failsafe.

 

[D1537]

Yes as said, having the same point mitigates any stop short & release issues. Safety of the line tends to override customer experience nowadays.

Though in the LNER case, given that Azumas literally tell the driver how many coaches he/she has at every station, stopping a 9/10 at a 5-coach stop board would be an impressive feat.

 

[dk1]

Though in the LNER case, given that Azumas literally tell the driver how many coaches he/she has at every station, stopping a 9/10 at a 5-coach stop board would be an impressive feat.

It’s so easy to faze out and not look or listen, believe me. I did it all the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2026 ==

Surely if you aren't sure of your trains length, you stop at the far end anyway as a failsafe.

It’s so so easy to zone out. That’s when it all goes wrong. Best to stick to a common stopping point. Far fewer drivers restricted or on a plan then.

 

[Class 170101]

It’s so easy to faze out and not look or listen, believe me. I did it all the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2026 ==


It’s so so easy to zone out. That’s when it all goes wrong. Best to stick to a common stopping point. Far fewer drivers restricted or on a plan then.

But plenty of wet and unhappy customers when the train stops well away from the exit and plenty of platform safety risks for passengers, especially in parts of the country right now including Norwich and Lowestoft concerning the white stuff.

 

[Ridgeblog]

Surely trains will always stop at some stations quite far from the exits, and it's annoying, but all stations are designed differently, hence why their exits are not positioned uniformly. I can't think of really any lines around the world where they all have uniform design? Plus trains are often to supplied to be too short for the lines they intend to serve, so it's more likely to happen than not.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Surely if you aren't sure of your trains length, you stop at the far end anyway as a failsafe.

Though in the LNER case, given that Azumas literally tell the driver how many coaches he/she has at every station, stopping a 9/10 at a 5-coach stop board would be an impressive feat.

Yes whilst both of you are correct, human nature can occur. If said driver has been driving shorter formations prior to the train that is now a longer formation and during the current journey their attention / situational awareness is impacted either by tiredness, issues or incidents going on that they have to deal with etc, and then they're approaching the next station and the brain zones into the formation length its done the most that day(being the shorter one in this case) then they'll be stopping short as a result unless they've implmented a PPS that they follow rigorusly. In LNERs case, this isnt a problem because all formation Azumas stop at the same stop car.

 

[35B]

Yes whilst both of you are correct, human nature can occur. If said driver has been driving shorter formations prior to the train that is now a longer formation and during the current journey their attention / situational awareness is impacted either by tiredness, issues or incidents going on that they have to deal with etc, and then they're approaching the next station and the brain zones into the formation length its done the most that day(being the shorter one in this case) then they'll be stopping short as a result unless they've implmented a PPS that they follow rigorusly. In LNERs case, this isnt a problem because all formation Azumas stop at the same stop car.

These are the same drivers who insist on their special because of the level of route knowledge they acquire? And whose skills are so special that they cannot be replaced or automated?

If that route knowledge is so good, and they are so skilled, then being able to maintain knowledge of what they are driving, and obey simple signs at stations, is a basic requirement that they ought to be able to meet.

Passenger railway jobs exist, by definition, to provide a service to travellers. This move represents an inversion of that basic relationship, and inconveniences passengers for the benefit of the railway.

 

[dk1]

These are the same drivers who insist on their special because of the level of route knowledge they acquire? And whose skills are so special that they cannot be replaced or automated?

If that route knowledge is so good, and they are so skilled, then being able to maintain knowledge of what they are driving, and obey simple signs at stations, is a basic requirement that they ought to be able to meet.

Passenger railway jobs exist, by definition, to provide a service to travellers. This move represents an inversion of that basic relationship, and inconveniences passengers for the benefit of the railway.

You are coming across as rather bitter about the grade for some reason by your wording.

 

[35B]

You are coming across as rather bitter about the grade for some reason by your wording.

I struggle with the inconsistency of treatment, and regard the adjustment of stopping points for operational convenience as deeply flawed.

If the argument for it is that drivers can’t be relied upon to stop the right length train in the right location, then something is very badly wrong with how trains are driven.

I draw two possible conclusions. The first is that this is a panic “health and safety gone mad” implementation that is disproportionate to risk. The second is that there is a genuine problem with drivers’ ability to do their job safely.

I hope it’s the former, as that can be relatively easily fixed. If it’s the latter, then we have a major problem in the industry and drivers (and their representatives) really need to look very hard at themselves as to whether they are genuinely as expert as they claim to be.

 

[dk1]

I struggle with the inconsistency of treatment, and regard the adjustment of stopping points for operational convenience as deeply flawed.

If the argument for it is that drivers can’t be relied upon to stop the right length train in the right location, then something is very badly wrong with how trains are driven.

I draw two possible conclusions. The first is that this is a panic “health and safety gone mad” implementation that is disproportionate to risk. The second is that there is a genuine problem with drivers’ ability to do their job safely.

I hope it’s the former, as that can be relatively easily fixed. If it’s the latter, then we have a major problem in the industry and drivers (and their representatives) really need to look very hard at themselves as to whether they are genuinely as expert as they claim to be.

Our railways have always opted for ‘operational convenience’ over passenger expectation. That is nothing new but if it’s possible to remove a risk that may cause a safety of the line incident then that will certainly be pursued in these H&S days even if that causes a small customer inconvenience.

 

[87015]

Our railways have always opted for ‘operational convenience’ over passenger expectation. That is nothing new but if it’s possible to remove a risk that may cause a safety of the line incident then that will certainly be pursued in these H&S days even if that causes a small customer inconvenience.

For LNER. If it was as you say it would be forced on everyone. Other TOCs have more passenger-focused viewpoints and drivers capable of stopping different formations at different places, seemingly beyond the drivers and management at LNER.

 

[dk1]

For LNER. If it was as you say it would be forced on everyone. Other TOCs have more passenger-focused viewpoints and drivers capable of stopping different formations at different places, seemingly beyond the drivers and management at LNER.

LNER are certainly not alone in using this practice.

 

[DelW]

I draw two possible conclusions. The first is that this is a panic “health and safety gone mad” implementation that is disproportionate to risk. The second is that there is a genuine problem with drivers’ ability to do their job safely.

Our railways have always opted for ‘operational convenience’ over passenger expectation. That is nothing new but if it’s possible to remove a risk that may cause a safety of the line incident then that will certainly be pursued in these H&S days even if that causes a small customer inconvenience.

All human beings make occasional mistakes, despite their skills and training. In all industries, systems have been devised to reduce the frequency or mitigate the effects of these, and modifying stopping points is one such for the railway.

But my objection to some of these is that there is a balance between benefits and costs (not necessarily financial), and one of the 'costs' is passengers' inconvenience. My perception is that such inconvenience isn't considered at all, it simply doesn't form any input to the decision making, and results in passengers being unnecessarily delayed (by missed connections), or soaked by the rain when trains stop outwith canopies. Minor problems maybe, but frustrating if you encounter them every day.

 

[dk1]

All human beings make occasional mistakes, despite their skills and training. In all industries, systems have been devised to reduce the frequency or mitigate the effects of these, and modifying stopping points is one such for the railway.

But my objection to some of these is that there is a balance between benefits and costs (not necessarily financial), and one of the 'costs' is passengers' inconvenience. My perception is that such inconvenience isn't considered at all, it simply doesn't form any input to the decision making, and results in passengers being unnecessarily delayed (by missed connections), or soaked by the rain when trains stop outwith canopies. Minor problems maybe, but frustrating if you encounter them every day.

Oh I would have to disagree with that it isn’t considered. Of course it will be brought into question when any alteration is made to the stopping points and will be balanced between the operating and customer focused side of the decision but safety/risk will always trump that argument. That’s just how it has gradually gone over the last few decades in this country.

 

[35B]

Oh I would have to disagree with that it isn’t considered. Of course it will be brought into question when any alteration is made to the stopping points and will be balanced between the operating and customer focused side of the decision but safety/risk will always trump that argument. That’s just how it has gradually gone over the last few decades in this country.

That may well be, but there are instances (Grantham p2 being one) where this is not just anti-customer, but also perverse in H&S terms because it maximises crowd interference with the door closing process

 

[dk1]

That may well be, but there are instances (Grantham p2 being one) where this is not just anti-customer, but also perverse in H&S terms because it maximises crowd interference with the door closing process

But that would be looked at as possibly just causing a slight delay with the dispatch process whereas stop short and release would be a far more serious issue.

 

[Starmill]

But that would be looked at as possibly just causing a slight delay with the dispatch process whereas stop short and release would be a far more serious issue.

It depends on the balance of risks, a short delay is most certainly not the worst possible outcome, it's someone becoming trapped in the door and it the train moves with them caught.

 

[dk1]

It depends on the balance of risks, a short delay is most certainly not the worst possible outcome, it's someone becoming trapped in the door and it the train moves with them caught.

But the train wouldn’t move as the procedure would be stopped if the dispatch corridor was blocked.

 

[OscarH]

LNER are certainly not alone in using this practice.

I'm sure they're not the only ones, but I'm struggling to think of other examples off the top of my head - I think at the very least it's a minority.

Why LNER drivers are more at risk than other TOCs with just as many formations (or other TOCs operating essentially the same trains on the same line as mentioned above), I'm afraid I don't follow. It might reduce one particular risk, but was that risk really bad enough to warrant degrading the passenger experience on what's meant to be a premium IC TOC? If reducing risk is the only goal, simply don't run any trains, or run your trains without passengers

 

[dk1]

I'm sure they're not the only ones, but I'm struggling to think of other examples off the top of my head - I think at the very least it's a minority.

Why LNER drivers are more at risk than other TOCs with just as many formations (or other TOCs operating essentially the same trains on the same line as mentioned above), I'm afraid I don't follow. It might reduce one particular risk, but was that risk really bad enough to warrant degrading the passenger experience on what's meant to be a premium IC TOC? If reducing risk is the only goal, simply don't run any trains, or run your trains without passengers

There are several comments regarding other operators/locations earlier in this thread. On my patch it was brought in in the last couple of years at Chelmsford and also in the bay platform at Cambridge North. The latter causing much criticism on social media.

 

[OscarH]

There are several comments regarding other operators/locations earlier in this thread. On my patch it was brought in in the last couple of years at Chelmsford and also in the bay platform at Cambridge North. The latter causing much criticism on social media.

Like I said, I didn't at all doubt there were more (though I do appreciate the example), but I still think its a minority by a fair distance

 

[norbitonflyer]

I'm sure they're not the only ones, but I'm struggling to think of other examples off the top of my head - I think at the very least it's a minority.

Why LNER drivers are more at risk than other TOCs with just as many formations (or other TOCs operating essentially the same trains on the same line as mentioned above), I'm afraid I don't follow.

SWR is another one, with 8 car trains stopping at Kingston and Wimvbldon (among other places) a long way from the stairs. But curiously it seems that 5-car trains can stop in the right place, as I noticed yesterday at Kingston when I was on a solo 458/5.

This is odd, because the driver of a 2x455 has to stop at the 10-car stop but could not possibly in a ten-car train (at least, not in the past four years when the 456s were withdrawn), whereas the driver of a 458/5 (and presumably a 701/5, when/if they enter service) is allowed to stop short.

 

[H F Stephens]

That may well be, but there are instances (Grantham p2 being one) where this is not just anti-customer, but also perverse in H&S terms because it maximises crowd interference with the door closing process

And at Durham Platform Two.