Clapham Junction platform 1

[Waddon]

There is posters up at Clapham Junction about the renumbering of the London Overground platforms due to the new one having been built. The new platform will be two, the old platform 2 will be 1... however the interesting bit is that the posters also say 'Platform 1 will become platform 0'

As anyone who knows Clapham Junction will know, Platform 1 is out of use with no track alongside it, and, as far as I understand, was not going to be reinstated as part of the Overground works due to it's structure needing too much repair work. However why would the poster mention it being renumbered? Does this mean they are going to reinstate it after all?

Anyone shed any light on this?

 

[jopsuk]

As I understood it, the structure alongside that platform cannot take the weight of trains- it would need replaced, not fixed. Does seem odd to bother renumbering it publicly.

 

[cle]

Maybe further down the line (arf) they'll look at it - really they never learn and should always do things in one go, while on site, closures secured etc... but they prefer to amortise and delay, increasing long run costs.

Imagine also trying to build the Brixton station once CJ trains are running, if somebody coughed up for it!

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe further down the line (arf) they'll look at it - really they never learn and should always do things in one go, while on site, closures secured etc... but they prefer to amortise and delay, increasing long run costs.

Even if it is common knowledge that there are massive structural problems with the existing P1, and they don't actually need it yet?

 

[ukrob]

If it is decided it is needed in ten years and made structurally sound, should they change platform numbers and all associated signalling again?

Nothing wrong with forward planning such as this.

 

[swt_passenger]

Agreed. The signalling system would still need a name for the unused platform, even if they didn't actually install any overhead signs, or other route finding signs around the station.

However if I'd been drawing up SWT's poster, I doubt I'd have even mentioned P0. It just isn't relevant to anyone who'll be looking for a train in the medium term future...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Surely if they were planning on ever using it again they would leave it as platform 1 and call the other one 2a and 2b?

 

[John55]

I have been told when preparing emergency plans, for example evacuation in the event of a fire etc etc, it can make life much easier to have designations which are otherwise rather odd. So "platform 0" rather than "the disused platform north of platform 1"

The other thing is the new platforms 1 & 2 at Clapham Junction are physically separate (i.e. not a continuous platform) and it is much easier to look for 1 or 2 rather than 2a or 2b.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Physically separate? Ah... then the renumbering is clearly in order to avoid having to renumber every platform from platform 3 upwards with all the confusion that would cause.

 

[swt_passenger]

The other thing is the new platforms 1 & 2 at Clapham Junction are physically separate (i.e. not a continuous platform) and it is much easier to look for 1 or 2 rather than 2a or 2b.

Indeed this design, a stepped out platform to provide a bay, has been in the plans for nearly two years now.

There have nevertheless been a number of references to a mid platform crossover - the so called 'Cambridge solution', but AFAICT this was discounted at a very early stage.