Stations with platforms that have been renumbered

[thedbdiboy]

Watford Junction presumably had all it's platforms renumbered when the 'new line' (DC) platforms were added (1-4) in around 1917. It has subsequently lost Platform 5 (the original Rickmansworth bay) and Platform 10 (the St Albans bay); the 'old' Platform 11 is now platform 10; the 'old' platform 12 has no track but the 'new' St Albans platform built in 1973 is now platform 11...

 

[APT618S]

York has been renumbered with the loss of various bay platforms. What is now 10/11 was 15/16.

 

[Midland Man]

Shipley will have been renumbered because there was no platform where platform 1 is until 1992 (or no platform where platform 2 is until 1979), while the platform opposite the current P5 was taken out of use at some point.

Platform 1 was taken out of use when the line was singled, on 30th March 1980

 

[Tetchytyke]

Shipley will have been renumbered because there was no platform where platform 1 is until 1992 (or no platform where platform 2 is until 1979), while the platform opposite the current P5 was taken out of use at some point.

I seem to recall that due to clearances the old platform 1 and 2 couldn't be used at the same time. This may be apocryphal.

Old Platform 1 was eventually closed.

Old Platform 5 was added to allow Skipton-Leeds trains to call.

The new Platform was numbered 1, meaning Platform 2 and Platform 5 swapped numbers. I can see it probably made sense, but so would have making the new Platform platform 6.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

No mention of Edinburgh Waverley yet, significant re-numbering when extra platforms were added and although some platforms retained their numbers others were changed - e.g. 20 and 21 became 8 and 9, and platform 1 became platform 2, platform 10 became 7.

Helensburgh Central 1,2 and 3 were previously 2,3 and 4 , the original platform 1 was taken out of use many years ago - probably 1980's?

 

[davetheguard]

Bristol TM was renumbered (reversing the order) many years ago when resignalled. The current 15 and 13 used to be 1 and 2.

Ah! I didn't know that. That partially explains why I find the platform numbers there hard to remember.

I always expect at GWR-built stations that the platform numbers work from the lowest being on the down side, with the highest numbered being on the up.

 

[John Webb]

St Albans City station was renumbered in the 1970s when the new station buildings on the Up Slow side were constructed and the original building on the Down Fast side was demolished, that being the Platform 1. The Up Slow was then renumbered as Platform 1 and the Down Fast became Platform 4. It struck me at the time this was a bit pointless!

 

[swt_passenger]

No mention of Edinburgh Waverley yet, significant re-numbering when extra platforms were added and although some platforms retained their numbers others were changed - e.g. 20 and 21 became 8 and 9, and platform 1 became platform 2, platform 10 became 7.

Helensburgh Central 1,2 and 3 were previously 2,3 and 4 , the original platform 1 was taken out of use many years ago - probably 1980's?

Adding extra platforms like that is generally a good reason for renumbering, hence Waverley is not really the sort of station the OP was asking about. That’s perhaps why it had not been mentioned. Your Helensburgh example is relevant, because it’s one where the change didn’t achieve much.

 

[30907]

I seem to recall that due to clearances the old platform 1 and 2 couldn't be used at the same time. This may be apocryphal.

There was certainly a restriction, but I can't remember detail

Old Platform 1 was eventually closed.

Old Platform 5 was added to allow Skipton-Leeds trains to call.

Pedantically, DMUs could call, but it was a time-consuming faff with a reversal at Bradford Jn. And down trains had to propel into 1 from Bingley Jn.
It also now meant that LH trains could call.

 

[dcsprior]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, but the usual reason for "platform 0" is that renumbering the platforms in a more logical/sensible way requires altering the signalling system and the indicators that the system includes, which is a significantly disruptive and expensive process.

Is there any reason that the number shown on the signalling system has to match the customer-facing number?
Could we not have a "track number" and a "platform number" which in many cases are identical, but don't have to be?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

No mention of Edinburgh Waverley yet, significant re-numbering when extra platforms were added and although some platforms retained their numbers others were changed - e.g. 20 and 21 became 8 and 9, and platform 1 became platform 2, platform 10 became 7.

Given the difficult in renumbering platforms, it seems a real shame to have gone to that effort at Waverley yet ended up with the confusing layout that's there today.

 

[High Dyke]

Grantham used to be 1 - 5, but renumbered when P1 (Up Bay) was removed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Huddersfield will qualify for this thread in the future, as the current plans for the remodelling will see every platform that remains having the number changed. 1 & 2 will swap numbers, 4 will become 3, the current 5 & 6 will close. The current 8 will become 4, and new platforms 5 & 6 will be added where the current stabling sidings are.

As far as I can determine the current numbers have never changed previously, but the current Sheffield bay (P2) is not quite in the same location as it was originally. It was originally where the old mk1 coach used by a community group is, the new one was created in 1989 when platform 1 was widened by being built out to meet what had been a through track.

 

[YorksLad12]

Huddersfield will qualify for this thread in the future, as the current plans for the remodelling will see every platform that remains having the number changed. 1 & 2 will swap numbers, 4 will become 3, the current 5 & 6 will close. The current 8 will become 4, and new platforms 5 & 6 will be added where the current stabling sidings are.

As far as I can determine the current numbers have never changed previously, but the current Sheffield bay (P2) is not quite in the same location as it was originally. It was originally where the old mk1 coach used by a community group is, the new one was created in 1989 when platform 1 was widened by being built out to meet what had been a through track.

Swapping 1 and 2 around seems odd. It's as if someone thought "we're renumbering the rest, let's do these two as well", it doesn't really matter if they stay the same. I'm guessing what was left of original P3 will have gone when P1 was built out?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Swapping 1 and 2 around seems odd. It's as if someone thought "we're renumbering the rest, let's do these two as well", it doesn't really matter if they stay the same. I'm guessing what was left of original P3 will have gone when P1 was built out?

I know what you mean- to me it makes more sense for the "mainline" platform to be P1 as it is now, but presumably those making the decisions feel that putting them in strict geographical order is more important.
I have only vague childhood memories of the old P3, and seeing the odd parcels coach or Gronk parked up in there. I can't even trust my memory of exactly where it was in relation to the buildings at that end, but it was indeed removed during the 1989 remodelling.

 

[John Webb]

Is there any reason that the number shown on the signalling system has to match the customer-facing number?
Could we not have a "track number" and a "platform number" which in many cases are identical, but don't have to be?......

If there has to be a platform alteration for any reason, particularly a 'last minute' one, might there not be the risk of some confusion if the signaller's platform numbers didn't match the station's signed platform numbers?

 

[dcsprior]

If there has to be a platform alteration for any reason, particularly a 'last minute' one, might there not be the risk of some confusion if the signaller's platform numbers didn't match the station's signed platform numbers?

It'd surely be trivial to have whatever system makes the announcements do a lookio to get the customer-facing platform number.

 

[RPM]

Aylesbury had its platforms renumbered following the NSE Total Route Rationalisation in the late 80s/early 90s. The bay platform (no. 1) was removed, then platform 2 became platform 3, platform 3 became platform 2 and platform 4 became platform 1. It still occasionally confuses pax that platform 1 is the one furthest from the entrance.

 

[John Webb]

It'd surely be trivial to have whatever system makes the announcements do a lookio to get the customer-facing platform number.

But on both centralised VDU-operated systems and in mechanically-operated boxes the diagram the signaller sees exhibits the platform numbers as presented to the signaller - and as previously mentioned there is significant expense in reorganising signalling systems to incorporate platform number changes. It seems to me that there is too much risk of confusion particularly to the travelling public if two numbering systems are present.
There is also more seriously the safety side of things if due to an incident of some sort a line block is required at short notice on a particular platform; two numbering systems might well result in the wrong platform being blocked?

 

[Steve Harris]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2022 ==

It'd surely be trivial to have whatever system makes the announcements do a lookio to get the customer-facing platform number.

I think the KISS principles comes into play here. Which is, Keep it Simple (Stupid). In other words... don't overcomplicate things !

I'm a engineer by trade and that is 1 principle that was drummed into me years ago!