most confusing platform numbering?

[Liam_Hendry]

I think 1 platform with more than one number should be suffixed. For example Aberdeen:

Platform 7S---------------------------------------------------------- Platform 7N
=================================================
=================================================
Platform 6S---------------------------------------------------------- Platform 6N
Platform 5
===========================
===========================
Platform 4
Platform 3
===========================
===========================
Platform 2
===========================
==========
Platform 1

(Noticed Platform 6 and 7 have a North and South end, instead of 1,2,3,4 on two different platforms.

 

[Eagle]

3 and 4 are used quite a lot for passenger services. The North Berwick/Dunbar services use them, and quite a few terminating XC services too. Once the Waverley line reopens that'll be in the eastern bays as well.

It's 5 and 6 (the erstwhile Motorail platforms) that are not used - in fact I think the track might possibly have been lifted; last few times I've been there they were surrounded by boards.

 

[Darren R]

Not exactly of the same order (and not exactly contemporary either!) but when platform 12 at Manchester Victoria was connected with (I think) platform 8 at Manchester Exchange that must have been confusing to those not in the know. There can't be many instances of arriving at one station, having a wander down the platform, only to find oneself on a different station!

 

[eps200]

NRE has the following permanent comment on Live Departures for Liverpool Lime St:


If you select Lime St, the Low Level departures are not listed.
The single Wirral line platform doesn't have a number at all, it is just "Low Level", unlike, say, Glasgow Central whose low level platform numbers are integrated with those upstairs.

That could be made quite a bit more sane if low level became platform 0.

I think 1 platform with more than one number should be suffixed. For example Aberdeen:

This is the case in Chester I assumed that was standard practice?

 

[90019]

3 and 4 are used quite a lot for passenger services. The North Berwick/Dunbar services use them, and quite a few terminating XC services too. Once the Waverley line reopens that'll be in the eastern bays as well.

It's 5 and 6 (the erstwhile Motorail platforms) that are not used - in fact I think the track might possibly have been lifted; last few times I've been there they were surrounded by boards.

The track is still there, but they're not numbered and only really see use for stabling a 90 and a 67.

I can't remember if the Motorail ramps have actually been removed now, or if they're still there, as I've not been into the station for a while.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Because the point of a platform 0 is that it means all the other platforms don't need to be renumbered. I prefer it to the approach they took at Bridgend and Bedford and number the new platform 1A (which sounds like it should be part of platform 1).

Platform 1A at Bridgend was labelled Platform 4 for the resumption of services over the V of G line but was changed before services commenced and the brand new signs were painted over.

 

[Eagle]

It's standard practice except where the platform is divided by a crossover (making it impossible for a long train to occupy both halves. Examples include 3/4 at Bournemouth, 1/2 at Gloucester, 1/2 and 3/4 at Fort Bill, 1/20 and 2/19 and 7/11 at Waverley. Not sure about the situation at Bristol TM.

Speaking of letter subdivisions I notice that all the through platforms at Reading one sport 'a' and 'b' sections. According to the station plan in the wall of Coventry it also has letters, but I've never seen these used or referred to, and can't even think of a situation where you'd need two trains in one platform to justify it.

 

[12CSVT]

Porstmouth & Southsea is numbered 2,1,3,4

 

[maniacmartin]

Before the work in August 2007, Lincoln's platforms were numbered 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the only entrance from the ticket hall coming out onto platform 5.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Speaking of letter subdivisions I notice that all the through platforms at Reading one sport 'a' and 'b' sections. According to the station plan in the wall of Coventry it also has letters, but I've never seen these used or referred to, and can't even think of a situation where you'd need two trains in one platform to justify it.

Leeds has some platforms with subdivisions a, b, c and d- Guess it makes sense when many of the trains are only 32m long!

 

[jopsuk]

It's standard practice except where the platform is divided by a crossover (making it impossible for a long train to occupy both halves. Examples include 3/4 at Bournemouth, 1/2 at Gloucester, 1/2 and 3/4 at Fort Bill, 1/20 and 2/19 and 7/11 at Waverley. Not sure about the situation at Bristol TM.

Not forgetting Cambridge 1/4 (and both have an "a" section at the outer end)

 

[DarloRich]

Waverley always seems strange to me!

 

[edwin_m]

Bristol has two numbers for each of its longer platform faces, which are long enough to take two full-length trains. Uniquely (I think) the platform number on the route indicator tells the driver whether to pull up in the nearer part or carry on to the further part - the two are divided by an illuminated screen with a black cross on a white background.

All the odd numbers are at the east end and the evens at the west, presumably to help the drivers remember which is which, and this means that there is no platform 14 because the island forming 13 and 15 is only long enough for one HST set.

Fortunately from the passenger point of view this is fairly clear, helped by big platform numbers inlaid into the subway walls, but it is possible to join the wrong train when one calls that is a bit too long and overhangs into the other half of the platform. This happened to me with a CrossCountry HST (before the Voyagers) on platform 6 which was long enough for one end of it to be underneath the platform 5 screen that was showing a different service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That could be made quite a bit more sane if low level became platform 0.
This is the case in Chester I assumed that was standard practice?

Chester used to be 1-14, with each half of the long through platforms numbered (I think) 4/5, 9/10, 13/14.
They must have changed when the PSB went in c1985, the long ones becoming 3/4/7 and using a and b for West and East ends.

Shrewsbury, of course, is missing platforms 1 and 2 (the old south-west bays), and they use North and South to split up the long island platforms.

 

[Deerfold]

Because the point of a platform 0 is that it means all the other platforms don't need to be renumbered. I prefer it to the approach they took at Bridgend and Bedford and number the new platform 1A (which sounds like it should be part of platform 1).

Certainly makes more sense than what they did at Leeds mid-renumbering. I'd look for platform 0 next to platform 1 - but where would you look for platform W?

 

[swt_passenger]

Getting back to Stratford, my attempt at numbering the platforms logically, while keeping changes to NR platforms to a minimum, would be as follows.

1,2 DLR via Pudding Mill (currently 4a/b)
3,4 Central Line westbound (platforms both sides)
5, Up Electric
6, Central Line eastbound
7, Down Electric
8,9,10 Main lines
11,12 Lea Valley
13,14 Overground

Then make the low level DLR and Jubilee platforms either 15-19, or A,B,C,D,E. The latter idea being to highlight the fact that they are on a different level to all the others.

 

[306024]

That seems to be a perfectly sensible suggestion, copyright it quickly! I'd prefer using 15-19 for the 'low level', but see what you mean. First few weeks would be fun but worth it in the long run. Wonder what it would cost?

 

[fairysdad]

Why is it so difficult to change platform numbers? I know it's been said on here that it's to do with signalling, but even so, would it not be a case of just changing the numbers? If a train is routed on a certain line into platform 5Q, but for some reason 5Q is between 8 and 10, why is it so difficult to renumber 5Q to 9? Surely it's just a case of relabelling (either manually or progmatically)?

 

[NathanPrior]

Being a Londoner I can't get my head around the 1a's 1b's etc up north, too confusing to deal with

 

[Eagle]

Being a Londoner I can't get my head around the 1a's 1b's etc up north, too confusing to deal with

They have them at King's Cross you know...

(Also I should point out that not all the country that is not London is the north. Would you say Southampton Central—which has lettered divisions—is northern? :P)

 

[edwin_m]

Often the platform number appears on the route indicator of the signal approaching the platform. So if the numbers are changed the wiring also needs to change (and undergo thorough checking/testing) and all drivers with route knowledge need to be advised. Even with this there is the risk that some driver will miss the notice or simply forget. This could be a safety issue if for example a short platform takes a number that was formerly a long one and the driver can't stop short of the buffers.

There would also be a lot of plans, drawings etc to change, all of which also need to undergo thorough checking as they are classed as safety-critical.

All in all it's thought best to add any new platforms without changing the existing numbering, though it is often put into a more logical order at the next re-signalling when all the above things would have to happen anyway.

There is also the issue that station staff and passengers will be familiar with the existing numbering and on balance there is probably less confusion caused if the platforms are in a strange arrangement (provided it is well signed) than if their numbers should suddenly change.

There may be other reasons too. I believe the tiles showing the platform numbers in the subway at Cardiff Central are considered part of the historic fabric of the station and can't be changed. So rather than have these showing the wrong platforms the numbering will stay the same after the re-signalling, platform zero and all!

 

[NathanPrior]

They have them at King's Cross you know...

(Also I should point out that not all the country that is not London is the north. Would you say Southampton Central—which has lettered divisions—is northern? :P)

Southampton is just forbidden territory

 

[noddingdonkey]

Certainly makes more sense than what they did at Leeds mid-renumbering. I'd look for platform 0 next to platform 1 - but where would you look for platform W?

Even more confusing as platform W was introduced at about the same time as the Leeds First project which involved a temporary platform on the Whitehall curve known as Leeds (Whitehall). I saw confused passengers on several occasions thinking that W on the screens meant they had to get a bus out to Whitehall.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Unrelated to an extent, but at Hastings I have seen passengers informed that their train to Brighton or London Victoria departs from platform 2. They cross the footbridge only to realise they were facing platform 2 from the start! Hardly surprising given platform 1 is so little used and tucked away to the right.

 

[NSE]

I personally think that the platform numbers at Tottenham Hale should be switched as platform 1 is London Bound and 2 is Cambridge bound, however, I tend to find most people get off the train Southbound to head on to the tube, and the reverse in the evening. I find it similar in use to say, Finsbury Park, in that both are used more to save passengers having to go all the way to central to pick up a train.

 

[trivran]

Cambridge is always nice and confusing. Why they can't have 4A/B instead of 4/7 I have no idea.

 

[142056]

Could anything be done at Manchester Piccadilly to help stop the hideous 'front train only' situation - which to the majority of people is perfectly understandable. However, on a Newcastle train I did hear people get on looking for the Birmingham train and then say 'yeah, it'll go to Birmingham first then to Newcastle'.
Perhaps they deserved to get carted to the other side of the country...

 

[table38]

Could anything be done at Manchester Piccadilly to help stop the hideous 'front train only' situation - which to the majority of people is perfectly understandable. .

There was someone directing people to the "First Train" once. I took this to mean the first train to leave, rather than the first one I encountered as I walked down the platform

 

[Eagle]

There was someone directing people to the "First Train" once. I took this to mean the first train to leave, rather than the first one I encountered as I walked down the platform

The bay platforms at Edinburgh Waverley (which also use double-banking in bays) refer on the platform-side signs to "first departure" and "second departure". Which the uninitiated have to think about for a bit.

 

[edwin_m]

There was someone directing people to the "First Train" once. I took this to mean the first train to leave, rather than the first one I encountered as I walked down the platform

And now it would be the one that says "First" in big letters on the side.

Sometimes there is a moveable sign saying something like "Front train beyond this point", but if it is not positioned correctly it is probably worse than no sign at all.