Cambridge North platform 3 stopping location

[MikeWM]

For the last few weeks, the terminating GA trains on platform 3 at Cambridge North have been stopping at the far (north) end of the station, rather than near the bridge as before.

Obviously this isn't a difference for 10-car trains, but for 5-cars, it is quite an additional hike - and not covered, which isn't ideal when raining.

Why the change? The only reason I can think of is to have extra platform space to terminate/turn something else from/to the south if things go wrong, but I'm not at all sure that justifies the change. Is there some better reason? And is the change permanent?

 

[Jim Jehosofat]

For the last few weeks, the terminating GA trains on platform 3 at Cambridge North have been stopping at the far (north) end of the station, rather than near the bridge as before.

Obviously this isn't a difference for 10-car trains, but for 5-cars, it is quite an additional hike - and not covered, which isn't ideal when raining.

Why the change? The only reason I can think of is to have extra platform space to terminate/turn something else from/to the south if things go wrong, but I'm not at all sure that justifies the change. Is there some better reason? And is the change permanent?

POST DELETED, misread original post.

 

[MikeWM]

Tonight is a great example of why this is a negative move for passengers - heavy rain, and having to walk 3+ carriage lengths in the open to reach even the front of the train (and - being a 720 - you don't exactly want to walk through the train, so almost everyone then congregates in the first carriage, rather than spreading out through the train as before).

Seems entirely unnecessary to me, though I'm open to suggestions as to why they've made this change.

 

[ac6000cw]

Could the trains have arrived as 10 cars then been split in the platform?

 

[Shwam3]

Could the trains have arrived as 10 cars then been split in the platform?

No, the stopping position for all trains was moved to the far country end of platform 3 a few weeks ago as a 'trial'.

 

[arb]

I have a very vague recollection (so possibly completely wrong!) that the stopping location was like it is today, at the far end of the platform, when the station first opened.

One of the local user groups (FLUA?) got involved, and somebody from a TOC admitted that it was done for the convenience of the TOCs, for the odd occasion that something else had to terminate there unexpectedly, with no thought of the passenger experience in the 99.9% of cases when everything was running normally. They then successfully campaigned to get the stopping position moved to a more sensible part of the platform, where it's been ever since.

If I've remembered all of that correctly (and that's a big "if"!) then it's a shame that this has all been forgotten, and it's gone back to the original way of working.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

--- I wrote the following paragraph a couple of minutes after the previous post, as an extra thought, but the forum has merged it into the previous post. ---

That said, wasn't it the Great Northern stoppers that were originally extended to terminate in platform 3 at Cambridge North when the station first opened, rather than Greater Anglia, and they swapped around some years ago? Quite possibly I'm wrong on that as well! But if not, maybe all of the knowledge and history of how the stopping location was moved for passengers' benefit is now confined to a bin somewhere in Great Northern HQ, and Greater Anglia know nothing of it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

--- Another post written later and merged into the original ---

Not FLUA, it was RailFuture. The following is from their September 2017 newsletter (https://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-like/east/rail-east/RailEast-Issue-175-September-2017.pdf), discussing the opening of Cambridge North:

But some things were not technical. They were just rules and practices that worked against the (paying, let’s not forget) customers. Why did every train stop at the far end of the bay platform (no. 3), as far away from the stairs, lifts and canopies as was practically possible?

With four-car trains, in particular, it was a big inconvenience to passengers, having to walk further. They had to arrive at the station earlier to catch their train. What if it is raining, or they have luggage, are elderly, unable to walk far or are wheelchair users?

Railfuture spoke to several drivers to understand the issue.

We spoke face to-face with Jamie Burles, Greater Anglia's Managing Director, at the station and we also contacted GA’s Stakeholder Representative. We have been informed that our pressure helped persuade Network Rail to allow train drivers to stop the trains at a more passenger-friendly position along the platform. Trains in the bay platform (departing for Liverpool Street or King's Cross) are now parked beside the stairs and lifts, alongside the whole of the short canopy, as the photo below (taken by Nick Dibben) shows.

 

[greaterangrier]

Stopping positions seem to have changed in many places on the GA network recently - maybe there is a network-wide review.

Two stations local to me have had stopping position changes:

• Thorpe-le-Soken: all trains now stop at the far end of a 10 car platform (S car mark), whilst the connecting Walton shuttle sits at the back half (5R mark). Therefore on Sundays, all passengers must walk the full distance up the platform on a 1 minute connection time. They must also walk through the rain like at Cambridge North because of this. I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind this change and especially at Cambridge North where the effect is much worse.
• Wivenhoe: 5 car train moved further forwards. This makes sense and is definitely for signal sighting. This is a good change.

Somebody from a TOC admitted that it was done for the convenience of the TOCs, for the odd occasion that something else had to terminate there unexpectedly

I appreciate this won't apply to Cambridge North, as it isn't a through platform, but a couple of weeks after the change, the 0.01% case occurred at Thorpe-le-Soken when a train damaged its pantograph and terminated there unexpectedly. When a rescue train was sent, it blocked the pointwork at the country end of the station. Had the same stopping position change been made in this direction also, the points would have been free, and passengers could have made their connections utilising the rescue train. Of course, the change happened in the other direction anyway so had 0 effect.

 

[MikeWM]

Not FLUA, it was RailFuture. The following is from their September 2017 newsletter (https://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-like/east/rail-east/RailEast-Issue-175-September-2017.pdf), discussing the opening of Cambridge North:

Thanks for that. Seems really incongruous now to see a 365 sitting at Cambridge North, even though my brain knows it happened for a while!

It does seem a shame to have effectively gone backwards like this. Much of what uses CMB now wouldn't fit in the rest of platform 3 anyway if a 5-car 720 was blocking the down end, so it does seem they're prioritising something that is extremely unlikely to ever be of use [1] over daily passenger convenience.

[1] assuming that the issue is indeed flexibility to put something else in the platform in an emergency - there doesn't appear to be any other explanation though.

 

[Class 170101]

• Wivenhoe: 5 car train moved further forwards. This makes sense and is definitely for signal sighting. This is a good change.

Except passengers wait towards the middle of the platform under the shelters, this will be towards the back of a 5 car. Extremely stupid and will increase delays.

 

[Bikeman78]

That said, wasn't it the Great Northern stoppers that were originally extended to terminate in platform 3 at Cambridge North when the station first opened, rather than Greater Anglia, and they swapped around some years ago? Quite possibly I'm wrong on that as well! But if not, maybe all of the knowledge and history of how the stopping location was moved for passengers' benefit is now confined to a bin somewhere in Great Northern HQ, and Greater Anglia know nothing of it?

I think it was one of each to start with. My first run to Cambridge North was October 2018 on a pair of class 317s.

 

[Shwam3]

The stopping positions at all three stations mentioned on this thread (Cambridge North, Wivenhoe, & Thorpe Le Soken) have all been moved purely in an effort to reduce the number of stop-short incidents.

 

[bspahh]

How much would it cost to extend the canopy further along the platform?

 

[Class 170101]

The stopping positions at all three stations mentioned on this thread (Cambridge North, Wivenhoe, & Thorpe Le Soken) have all been moved purely in an effort to reduce the number of stop-short incidents.

And drivers want to be regarded as professionals

 

[jon0844]

And drivers want to be regarded as professionals

Yes, but the railway has a duty to reduce as much risk as possible. If there's a way to do that by having trains stopping in a different position, it must be a consideration surely?

Drivers can make mistakes and such mistakes can be dangerous. If you can find another way to ensure 100% compliance, let them know.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes, but the railway has a duty to reduce as much risk as possible. If there's a way to do that by having trains stopping in a different position, it must be a consideration surely?

Drivers can make mistakes and such mistakes can be dangerous. If you can find another way to ensure 100% compliance, let them know.

Surely these days with computerisation it can tell whether the train is in the platform or not?

 

[Hadders]

Yes, but the railway has a duty to reduce as much risk as possible. If there's a way to do that by having trains stopping in a different position, it must be a consideration surely?

Drivers can make mistakes and such mistakes can be dangerous. If you can find another way to ensure 100% compliance, let them know.

On the other hand, we’ll see more passengers arriving late running for trains that now stop at the far end of the platform, causing a different set of hazards.

 

[arb]

What's the difference between Cambridge and Cambridge North?

A quick glance at RealTimeTrains suggest that approximately half of the Liverpool Street to Cambridge North trains use platform 4 at Cambridge, where there would also be safety issues if stopping short were a problem there. In fact, a stop-short at Cambridge platform 4 looks to my untrained eye as if it would have much worse consequences than at Cambridge North platform 3. For example, at Cambridge the train would actually block points/other lines, which it wouldn't at Cambridge North, because the points at Cambridge North are a long way before the platforms. Or the hordes of people who blindly step out of an unplatformed door would land on another running line at Cambridge, meaning that they would first break their legs and then might be hit by another train, as opposed to just breaking their legs at Cambridge North.

But there is no suggestion that the stopping position on platform 4 at Cambridge needs moving to the far end of the platform 4 to mitigate these greater risks, so the logical conclusion is that there is no problem with stopping short at Cambridge.

So why is there a problem at Cambridge North? Does something happen in the 5 minutes between Cambridge and Cambridge North that makes drivers mis-remember the length of their train? Are the stop boards at Cambridge North using a non-standard, really bad, choice of font, that makes a number "5" look too much like a letter "S"?

 

[dk1]

Except passengers wait towards the middle of the platform under the shelters, this will be towards the back of a 5 car. Extremely stupid and will increase delays.

On platform 2 platform staff do shout at passengers for Norwich trains to walk back but unfortunately many seem oblivious or wear headphones. I’ve left several behind as don’t have time to wait for them to dither & dawdle back to my train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2024 ==

And drivers want to be regarded as professionals

We are only human. Even clerical officers can knock over their coffee or drop a pen onto the floor

 

[Nodding Cat Ch]

I've noticed this, you're almost in Milton if you get the front car.

 

[MikeWM]

What's the difference between Cambridge and Cambridge North?

...is a rather good question.

If the answer to the original question actually is 'we're going to inconvenience hundreds of pasengers daily, just in case a driver makes a silly mistake one day' then that's really rather ridiculous. Though I suppose it does seem to effectively sum up the attitude of the modern railway rather well

 

[boiledbeans2]

The stopping positions at all three stations mentioned on this thread (Cambridge North, Wivenhoe, & Thorpe Le Soken) have all been moved purely in an effort to reduce the number of stop-short incidents.

How about Stratford platform 10 (down)? I think it was moved all the way to the very end of the country-end when all the 321s were gone.

If a 5-car Class 720 is the next train, there usually is someone making a manual announcement to get people moving to the country-end, because the entrances/exits are at the London-end and right in the middle of the platform.

 

[MikeWM]

Well, this is still happening.

I've just seen at least 3 different people run down the last few stairs and along platform 3 at full speed to try to catch the 1842. I fail to see how that (entirely predictable outcome of this change) is acceptable when weighed against the rather bizarre reason that 'the driver might forget how long the train is', surely it is better to have the train stop near to the platform entrance?

 

[dk1]

Well, this is still happening.

I've just seen at least 3 different people run down the last few stairs and along platform 3 at full speed to try to catch the 1842. I fail to see how that (entirely predictable outcome of this change) is acceptable when weighed against the rather bizarre reason that 'the driver might forget how long the train is', surely it is better to have the train stop near to the platform entrance?

Operational incidents will always take priority over convenience nowadays. Even though it might not be popular.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2024 ==

It’s very rare that my depot would use platform 3 but would be an even further walk to our 755s.

 

[MikeWM]

Operational incidents will always take priority over convenience nowadays. Even though it might not be popular.

Popular isn't so much the point here [1], it is mitigation of risk gone badly wrong. Surely there's a much greater chance of people tripping and injuring themselves rushing for a train that is stopped in a stupid place, that it didnt do previously, than there is in a driver forgetting how long their train is in the 4 minutes it takes them to get to Cambridge? Unless we're supposed to think drivers are useless and don't know what they're doing - this hardly reflects well on how we're supposed to feel about driver competence.

[1] though having said that the passengers are the reason the train is running, maybe we should be taken into consideration too.

 

[dk1]

Popular isn't so much the point here [1], it is mitigation of risk gone badly wrong. Surely there's a much greater chance of people tripping and injuring themselves rushing for a train that is stopped in a stupid place, that it didnt do previously, than there is in a driver forgetting how long their train is in the 4 minutes it takes them to get to Cambridge? Unless we're supposed to think drivers are useless and don't know what they're doing - this hardly reflects well on how we're supposed to feel about driver competence.

[1] though having said that the passengers are the reason the train is running, maybe we should be taken into consideration too.

As I said, risk adversity to operational incidents will always trump passenger convenience these days. Been going that way for years.

 

[MikeWM]

As I said, risk adversity to operational incidents will always trump passenger convenience these days. Been going that way for years.

Well, yes, and I can't imagine the drivers either are especially pleased at having their competency questioned, or indeed having to wander back and forth on an unsheltered platform in the rain, wind, etc. to get to/from their train. Though as I said a few posts back, this does seem to sum up the modern railway rather well, and that's not a good thing.

I would rather like to see the people who *did* make this decision stand on the platform (preferably in the rain!) and talk to some commuters/leisure passengers and try to explain to them why they've done so. I'd imagine they'd get laughed at by most for being so ridiculous, and a minority would choose never to get a GA train again as apparently their drivers can't be trusted to even remember what length of train they're driving.

I know if my company started bundling in some disk recovery software with every one of our software products and we explained we were doing so 'just in case the developers have written some stupid code that accidentally formats your hard drive while using our software', then we'd go bust within the month, because (a) no-one would buy our software anymore and (b) many/most of the developers would leave in disgust.

 

[dk1]

Well, yes, and I can't imagine the drivers either are especially pleased at having their competency questioned, or indeed having to wander back and forth on an unsheltered platform in the rain, wind, etc. to get to/from their train. Though as I said a few posts back, this does seem to sum up the modern railway rather well, and that's not a good thing.

I would rather like to see the people who *did* make this decision stand on the platform (preferably in the rain!) and talk to some commuters/leisure passengers and try to explain to them why they've done so. I'd imagine they'd get laughed at by most for being so ridiculous, and a minority would choose never to get a GA train again as apparently their drivers can't be trusted to even remember what length of train they're driving.

I know if my company started bundling in some disk recovery software with every one of our software products and we explained we were doing so 'just in case the developers have written some stupid code that accidentally formats your hard drive while using our software', then we'd go bust within the month, because (a) no-one would buy our software anymore and (b) many/most of the developers would leave in disgust.

Whilst I respect your opinion (to an extent) it means little/nothing in the real railway world of health & safety.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2024 ==

The ‘disk recovery’ comparison did make me chuckle.

 

[paulmch]

A quick glance at RealTimeTrains suggest that approximately half of the Liverpool Street to Cambridge North trains use platform 4 at Cambridge, where there would also be safety issues if stopping short were a problem there. In fact, a stop-short at Cambridge platform 4 looks to my untrained eye as if it would have much worse consequences than at Cambridge North platform 3. For example, at Cambridge the train would actually block points/other lines, which it wouldn't at Cambridge North, because the points at Cambridge North are a long way before the platforms. Or the hordes of people who blindly step out of an unplatformed door would land on another running line at Cambridge, meaning that they would first break their legs and then might be hit by another train, as opposed to just breaking their legs at Cambridge North.

A good proportion of those trains arriving on platform 4 do so through platform 1 - even though there is a barrier between the two platforms now, a stop short and door release still gives passengers something to step onto.

And for the trains which access 4 via the through road, a passenger who fell from an unplatformed door would have to be caught in a pretty calamitous chain of events to be struck by another train as it could only have come from a SPAD on platform 1.

At Cambridge North a stop short incident could well lead to falling passengers who then are only a few paces away from 2 tracks with 75mph line speeds and limited visibility. It's definitely an inconvenience for passengers and the risk of injury from late runners is higher, but it's understandable that the person whose signature is on the risk assessments would rather not have to explain themselves in court one day!

 

[Tomnick]

As I said, risk adversity to operational incidents will always trump passenger convenience these days. Been going that way for years.

It does, but it shouldn't.

At Grantham, all LNER services on platform 2 (Down Fast) stop right at the north end, which is the narrowest part of the platform and with one side (unfenced, until recently) of bay platform 3 on the opposite face. A 5 car train has most of its length, and all of Standard Class, on this section of platform. It was downright dangerous when I brought a train into the bay just as an LNER train tipped out on the Down Fast. Alighting passengers had nowhere to go because of the congregation of passengers waiting to board (who had of course already been herded away from the waiting facilities and much wider, more suitable, part of the platform) other than around the back of them, pretty much walking along the white line on the edge of the bay right in front of my train. I'm sure that the risk to the public here far, far exceeded that arising from the risk of a stop-short incident.

As a response to, amongst other complaints, the "close call" reports that I and the station staff submitted, that face of the bay has (unofficially!) been fenced off, so only 2 car trains fit. That now means that pretty much every Skegness service has to use platform 4, which they have to share with the Norwich - Liverpool services (and it all happens around the same part of the hour). This invariably descends into chaos on busy summer Saturdays, which in turn means that we face far more red signals on the approach (sometimes back at D50 signal, which we rarely get stopped at otherwise) as well as the wrong route risk of being signalled into the bay with a train longer than 2 cars*. The operational risk arising here is surely far greater than the original operational risk that this all purports to mitigate!

* - although it can hardly be formally recorded as a wrong route when the Sectional Appendix still shows the operational length prior to the Down Fast face of the bay being fenced off, but either way it does and has cause all sorts of problems if a 3 car train is put in there!

 

[dk1]

It does, but it shouldn't.

At Grantham, all LNER services on platform 2 (Down Fast) stop right at the north end, which is the narrowest part of the platform and with one side (unfenced, until recently) of bay platform 3 on the opposite face. A 5 car train has most of its length, and all of Standard Class, on this section of platform. It was downright dangerous when I brought a train into the bay just as an LNER train tipped out on the Down Fast. Alighting passengers had nowhere to go because of the congregation of passengers waiting to board (who had of course already been herded away from the waiting facilities and much wider, more suitable, part of the platform) other than around the back of them, pretty much walking along the white line on the edge of the bay right in front of my train. I'm sure that the risk to the public here far, far exceeded that arising from the risk of a stop-short incident.

As a response to, amongst other complaints, the "close call" reports that I and the station staff submitted, that face of the bay has (unofficially!) been fenced off, so only 2 car trains fit. That now means that pretty much every Skegness service has to use platform 4, which they have to share with the Norwich - Liverpool services (and it all happens around the same part of the hour). This invariably descends into chaos on busy summer Saturdays, which in turn means that we face far more red signals on the approach (sometimes back at D50 signal, which we rarely get stopped at otherwise) as well as the wrong route risk of being signalled into the bay with a train longer than 2 cars*. The operational risk arising here is surely far greater than the original operational risk that this all purports to mitigate!

* - although it can hardly be formally recorded as a wrong route when the Sectional Appendix still shows the operational length prior to the Down Fast face of the bay being fenced off, but either way it does and has cause all sorts of problems if a 3 car train is put in there!

Oh yes, I’ve seen the Grantham issues first hand on many an occasion.