What should the numbering layout of Edinburgh Waverley station be?

[35B]

Where a layman would expect to find 19 is not however "the other end of 2". What you could do is make those 1/2 and 3/4 though I suppose.

To the extent that a layman cares (back to the point about signage...), I agree. But the way people seem to cope with the 7/11 pairing suggests that the numbering scheme isn't itself a problem - it's the wayfinding that really matters.

But going back to square one, and having a system that doesn't unnecessarily confuse people, the key point is to make sure that platforms 12-18 remain continuously numbered (as inconsistencies there really will confuse). And that's why I suggested keeping the same schema but start the numbering from the east facing bays so that you'd end up with them being numbered 17/18 and 19/20.

 

[Helvellyn]

When they renumbered they could have gone even numbers on the West, odd numbers on the East, and work North to South. So based on current layout:

1. Current 1
2. Current 20
3. Current 2
4. Current 19
5. Don't use
6. Current 18
7. Don't use
8. Current 17
9. Current 3
10. Current 16
11. Current 4
12. Current 15
13. Don't use
14. Current 14
15. Current 5
16. Current 13
17. Current 6
18. Current 12
19. Current 7
20. Current 11
21. Don't use
22. Current 10
23. Current 9e
24. Current 9w
25. Current 8e
26. Current 8w

 

[YorksLad12]

There's inconsistency all over the place.

Newcastle has the north/east bay is 1 then the through platforms are 2, 3, and 4. Until you get to the 'new' through platforms which are numbered 5/7 and 6/8 because those platform have crossovers halfway down them. Then the south/west bays are 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Bridlington has three platforms, which are numbered 4, 5, and 6.

Preston has platform 3C and 4C, both of which are bay platforms and not part of the through platforms 3 and 4. Same with platform 4C at Birmingham New Street.

As I've already said, I really don't think it matters what numbering system you use as long as you signpost it clearly. Edinburgh's issue is that the wayfinding signage is terrible.

Bridlington's are consistent though, in that there used to be platforms 1-3 before 4. It's just that they haven't been renumbered.

I do agree with you on wayfinding - one of my many bugbears about the introduction of RA2 is that it seems to be a like-for-like swap in places, rather than a rethink of how stations are used, and where people want to go (or should be persuaded to go).

Perhaps, but look at Sheffield.

Sheffield achieves inconsistency even within the same station. The southern bay is numbered 2C even though it isn't part of platform 2, but the northern bays 3 and 4 are numbered separately.

2C is at least to the side of 2. I think P3 and P4 are split into A and B.

Leeds, despite being two stations, manages to work north-south, east-west. The only issue being that some platforms are split A/B/C/D, the determinant length being a two-car Pacer! But you still see people heading for the escalator (when it works) to reach platforms 0-7 - wayfinding again.

Am I right in thinking that Edinburgh can't simply be renumbered anyway, as signalling etc. will need changing, not just platform numbers? So any change would be some time off?

 

[JamesT]

When they renumbered they could have gone even numbers on the West, odd numbers on the East, and work North to South. So based on current layout:

1. Current 1
2. Current 20
3. Current 2
4. Current 19
5. Don't use
6. Current 18
7. Don't use
8. Current 17
9. Current 3
10. Current 16
11. Current 4
12. Current 15
13. Don't use
14. Current 14
15. Current 5
16. Current 13
17. Current 6
18. Current 12
19. Current 7
20. Current 11
21. Don't use
22. Current 10
23. Current 9e
24. Current 9w
25. Current 8e
26. Current 8w

No, that's horrible. The expectation of most passengers is that platform numbering is sequential, e.g. if I can see platform 5, platforms 4 and 6 are likely to be either side. The current layout pretty much achieves that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, that's horrible. The expectation of most passengers is that platform numbering is sequential, e.g. if I can see platform 5, platforms 4 and 6 are likely to be either side. The current layout pretty much achieves that.

Only on the Old Town side. And 8/9 are the wrong side of 10. It's a mess.

 

[JamesT]

Only on the Old Town side. And 8/9 are the wrong side of 10. It's a mess.

8/9 do mess it up a bit, but you have 1 -> 7 and 10 -> 20 acting as expected.

But mainly I think the suggestion is worse, as you can't go 9 is in the general vicinity of 10, it's all the way over on the other side of the station.

 

[Amaranthe]

Only on the Old Town side. And 8/9 are the wrong side of 10. It's a mess.

8/9 do mess it up a bit, but you have 1 -> 7 and 10 -> 20 acting as expected.

But mainly I think the suggestion is worse, as you can't go 9 is in the general vicinity of 10, it's all the way over on the other side of the station.

This caught me out one time when I only allowed myself 10 minutes to get from "The Booking Office" to platform 8 for an Avanti departure which was just pulling out when I finally found the platform. Consumption of product sold in said Booking Office may have played a part though

 

[JamesT]

If I were to do any tidying, it would be to remove the e/w stuff and restore consistent clockface numbering, so 9e->8, 8e->9, 8w->10, 9w->11, and 10-20 bump up 2.

 

[cornishjohn]

Is it York? I have seen it. But I would remove it. A and B are standard.

Aberdeen has 6N, 6S, 7N, 7S.

Where a layman would expect to find 19 is not however "the other end of 2".

Maybe, but vaguely near platform 18 is reasonable, shirley? Needn't be adjacent access however, as a big enough station has to split up the platform entries/gatelines at somewhere eventually.

If I were to do any tidying, it would be to remove the e/w stuff and restore consistent clockface numbering, so 9e->8, 8e->9, 8w->10, 9w->11, and 10-20 bump up 2.

Is basically the right answer. Splitting southern pair of platforms 8 and 9 so they use the same strategy as the northern pair. Or use letters like Waterloo East.

 

[BayPaul]

I like the circular numbering, but they have started in a silly place! If the current platform 8 was 1 then all of the platforms would be adjacent to their logical partners:

• 1-3: South side, accessed via the footbridge (current 8-10)
• 4-12: West side, accessed from the main concourse (current 11-19)
• 13-18: east side, accessed around the back of the ticket office (current 2-7)
• 19-20: North side, accessed via footbridge (current 20&1)

This means that pretty much all signage can direct to a logical group of platforms. It does leave one platform face with two non-consecutive numbers (4 & 18), but otherwise it's a fairly simple system

Obviously it would be possible to adjust this so that certain platforms had A and B ends, or were numbered differently at each end, but probably not essential.

 

[Bill57p9]

If I were to do any tidying, it would be to remove the e/w stuff and restore consistent clockface numbering, so 9e->8, 8e->9, 8w->10, 9w->11, and 10-20 bump up 2.

8 and 9 are quite different to 1/20, 2/19 and 7/11: The only trains that can fill the latter three are the sleepers. As others have said, 1 and 20 (etc.) will almost always be used individually whereas 8 and 9 are used both as single platforms for longer trains and as split east/west for shorter multiple units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

8 and 9 are quite different to 1/20, 2/19 and 7/11: The only trains that can fill the latter three are the sleepers. As others have said, 1 and 20 (etc.) will almost always be used individually whereas 8 and 9 are used both as single platforms for longer trains and as split east/west for shorter multiple units.

I don't think operating technicalities override the principle of simplicity of each platform face having one number only.

 

[Highlander1]

Aberdeen platforms 6N/S and 7N/S if you want a Scottish example....

And Dundee 1N/S

 

[Purple Train]

I don't think operating technicalities override the principle of simplicity of each platform face having one number only.

I'm not sure I agree with you; I haven't heard people complaining about the layout at Cambridge, for instance?

I think the platform layout at Waverley is perfectly logical, although it's many years since I was there so I probably need to go and investigate the signage before passing judgement, given signage does in my experience tend to be the root of all confusion. But poor signage doesn't mean the platforms need to be renumbered!

 

[Cdd89]

I don't think operating technicalities override the principle of simplicity of each platform face having one number only.

To be honest I'm not sure it's simpler. Saying platform 12 and then people find there's A and B, or some other subdesignation, would cause some people stress and confusion.

Conversely, 12/13 and just using 12 for a full-length train would not confuse anyone. Anyone susceptible to confusion would just board the train in the "12" section and no harm would be done.

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't see the problem here, looking at the map

One side is 1-7, 8/9 are both sides and 10-17,19/20 the other side

 

[35B]

I don't think operating technicalities override the principle of simplicity of each platform face having one number only.

Because those “operating technicalities” are about how people use those platforms

 

[zwk500]

I don't think operating technicalities override the principle of simplicity of each platform face having one number only.

What is a sensible numbering policy for the platform depends significantly on how those platforms are operated though. The platforms with the scissors crossovers are an edge-case where the use of them as individual platforms may make it more intelligible to passengers to number them separately.

See Cambridge platforms 1 and 4, or York platforms 3 and 4.

It's also equally possible that if the dominant pattern uses the different ends of the same face in the same direction, or if there is no real pattern at all, then it may be better to number them as 1 through platform with sub-divisions, as several platforms with midlength crossovers are (e.g. Leeds).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because those “operating technicalities” are about how people use those platforms

Only if you are aware of the implications of different train lengths, which lay passengers are not.

Other countries manage to standardise this stuff.

 

[35B]

Only if you are aware of the implications of different train lengths, which lay passengers are not.

Other countries manage to standardise this stuff.

Nothing to do with awareness, but simply knowing where to go. The implications of p19 as opposed to p2 for a London train reads very differently to p19a/b when booked in coach B.

Examples given based on experience of full length ECML services.

 

[Kingston Dan]

I think the old numbering system made more sense with the only platforms outside the trainshed numbered the highest 20/21.

 

[Indigo Soup]

What is a sensible numbering policy for the platform depends significantly on how those platforms are operated though. The platforms with the scissors crossovers are an edge-case where the use of them as individual platforms may make it more intelligible to passengers to number them separately.

For what it's worth, Aberdeen's platform faces 6 and 7 have such a crossover, and certainly 6N and 6S are clearly understood as separate platforms by passengers. 6N is (or was, it's a while since I've used the route) routinely used as a north-facing terminal platform and 6S as a south-facing terminal platform.

The disadvantage of the Edinburgh numbering approach for through platforms, from a passenger perspective, is that when you're at Platform 2, you expect Platform 19 to be on the other side of the station. Not for it to magically change numbers when you get past the pie shop.

Edinburgh does have the minor complication of whether it faces east/west or north/south.

 

[43096]

Other countries manage to standardise this stuff.

Do they? That’s a pretty tall claim.

Try Slovakia or Czechia where some stations are numbered with a platform number (ie the physical thing you stand on) and a track number; whereas other stations just have a platform (face number). And that’s before you get into (in)consistency on how the numbers are allocated.

 

[Highlander1]

For what it's worth, Aberdeen's platform faces 6 and 7 have such a crossover, and certainly 6N and 6S are clearly understood as separate platforms by passengers. 6N is (or was, it's a while since I've used the route) routinely used as a north-facing terminal platform and 6S as a south-facing terminal platform.

The disadvantage of the Edinburgh numbering approach for through platforms, from a passenger perspective, is that when you're at Platform 2, you expect Platform 19 to be on the other side of the station. Not for it to magically change numbers when you get past the pie shop.

Edinburgh does have the minor complication of whether it faces east/west or north/south. entirely accurate about Aberdeen. Trains going north regularly leave from the south platforms and vice versa from the north platforms.

That's not accurate about Aberdeen. Trains regularly travel north from the south platforms and vice versa.

 

[The exile]

I get why they do it - it keeps the signalling simple. But like the clockwise numbering at Waverley it's something that feels like the system, not the passenger, is at the foremost when designing it.

With a “circular”station like Waverley there is always going to be a “logic gap” somewhere - unless you number the separate ends completely separately. The “oddity” with the Waverley I grew up with was starting the numbering where it did - though that meant that the main London platform was “1”. What has made the situation complicated is the addition of extra through platforms that don’t fit on the “clock face”. Incidentally - are there any comparably built stations and how do they do it (I can only think of Dresden Hbf and that no longer uses the Eastern bays for passenger so can just number like a conventional terminus.)

 

[zwk500]

For what it's worth, Aberdeen's platform faces 6 and 7 have such a crossover, and certainly 6N and 6S are clearly understood as separate platforms by passengers.

The really critical part is that whatever you call it, the information needs to be consistent across all planning, signage (fixed and variable) and information systems so that passengers know what to look for.

There's plenty of examples of stations which have platform subdivisions in the planning system that often get sent downstream, but no corresponding signage on the platform for where those divisions are, or indeed stations sighed with subdivisions that don't match what the timetable planners can input.

Part of this is making sure that the permanent wayfinding signage is naturally intelligible quickly as well, which is where Waverley's 'circular' system doesn't necessarily help itself (although is arguably better than a Temple Meads-style 'odds and evens' split, which works at Temple Meads as each island is made up of a group of adjacent numbers (excepting 2 and 14), and which at Temple Meads I'd renumber to just single numbers with A/B/C divisions given the way the station is operated).

 

[Indigo Soup]

That's not accurate about Aberdeen. Trains regularly travel north from the south platforms and vice versa.

It seems to be more commonplace now than it was ten or fifteen years ago - I guess since the Aberdeen Crossrail services came in? It certainly used to be common for the Inverness services to use 6N, only running through to 6S if they continued southwards; I don't remember either end of 7 seeing much use.

There's plenty of examples of stations which have platform subdivisions in the planning system that often get sent downstream, but no corresponding signage on the platform for where those divisions are, or indeed stations sighed with subdivisions that don't match what the timetable planners can input.

Even 'the front train at Platform X' can cause a decent amount of confusion for the uninitiated - the front end according to whom?

 

[Strathclyder]

I've been using Waverley at least once a month since May this year and it's the ruddy signage, poor wayfinding & numerous crowding pinchpoints that catch me out nearly each and every time and give me the most problems and leave me frustrated and stressed, especially when trying to find my train back west to Glasgow with only a few minutes to spare. It's a unhappy mish-mash of at least 3 smaller stations that's had incremental additions/improvements over the decades and the current platform numbering system reflects this: an compromise that's far from perfect, but nothing better really exists, so I doubt any major changes are on the horizon.

Lack of familarity isn't so much of a issue for me now that my usage of the station has increased past once a year and I'm now pretty well-acquainted with the western bay platforms as those are the ones trains from Glasgow Central/Queen St use most often, though I suspect I'd come unstuck again if I had to dash from one end of the station to the other to catch a train at the southern end of the station.

Am I just too thick to properly get to grips with Waverley and any major rail terminal like it? Possibly, but what I really think it is is my subconscious bias for Glasgow Central which I'm so familar with and which is just superior to Waverley as a major railway terminal, especially in the wayfinding aspect.