Suggestion for new platform numbering system at major interchange stations

[py_megapixel]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/platform-numbering-schemes-at-stations.225657/

For large complex interchanges, if I was designing the numbering from scratch, I'd do a prefix letter system and number by "island". For example at Crewe:

Platform 1 would be A1, platform 5 would be A2, then the bay platforms on the same island as those would be A3-A5, with the whole thing being "island A"
Platform 6 would be B1, platform 11 would be B2, then the bay platforms on the same island would be B3-B6, with the whole thng being "island B"
Platform 12 would be C1

 

[BeijingDave]

For large complex interchanges, if I was designing the numbering from scratch, I'd do a prefix letter system and number by "island". For example at Crewe:

Platform 1 would be A1, platform 5 would be A2, then the bay platforms on the same island as those would be A3-A5, with the whole thing being "island A"
Platform 6 would be B1, platform 11 would be B2, then the bay platforms on the same island would be B3-B6, with the whole thng being "island B"
Platform 12 would be C1

But unfortunately this won't really work in the case of long platforms that can accommodate one long train or two short trains.

For example, Chester's Platform 3, with its 3a and 3b sections.

Your system would call it A3a and A3b presumably? (or even A3 and A4?).

 

[py_megapixel]

But unfortunately this won't really work in the case of long platforms that can accommodate one long train or two short trains.

For example, Chester's Platform 3, with its 3a and 3b sections.

Your system would call it A3a and A3b presumably? (or even A3 and A4?).

That's a fair point. "A3a" would be a bit of an odd platform to announce.

 

[mmh]

For large complex interchanges, if I was designing the numbering from scratch, I'd do a prefix letter system and number by "island". For example at Crewe:

Platform 1 would be A1, platform 5 would be A2, then the bay platforms on the same island as those would be A3-A5, with the whole thing being "island A"
Platform 6 would be B1, platform 11 would be B2, then the bay platforms on the same island would be B3-B6, with the whole thng being "island B"
Platform 12 would be C1

That's monumentally confusing, and an example of why such decisions should actually include some research into what people expect and how they behave.

We expect numbers or letters in sequence, left to right. Anything else is confusing.

 

[py_megapixel]

That's monumentally confusing, and an example of why such decisions should actually include some research into what people expect and how they behave.

I think it's less confusing, because if I arrive at the station and see my train is heading from B3, in the first instance I only have to find the B island. Only once I am on the B island do I have to worry about where my specific platform is. By reducing the amount of information I have to think about at any one time, the process of finding the correct platform is made simpler.

The same logic is applied on the road network - as you get closer to a destination - say Withington, Manchester - the signs might first say "The NORTH WEST", then "Manchester", then "Manchester (south)", then finally "Withington". If you list every suburb of a place on every sign, you would end up with signs which are cluttered and difficult to read, and you'd have to know exactly which bit of Manchester you were going to from the outset.

We expect numbers or letters in sequence, left to right. Anything else is confusing.

At a lot of more complex stations, the platforms themselves are not actually laid out in lines from left to right.

Look at Leeds, for example. There are platforms all over the place, such that if you read from left to right as you enter from the concourse, the numbering actually goes "16 - 15 - 12 - 11 - 9 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 2 -1 - 0".
There's loads of missing numbers there because they are smaller bay platforms that share the same "island" as the bigger ones, so to me it makes sense for them to share some of the number as well.

 

[YorksLad12]

Look at Leeds, for example. There are platforms all over the place, such that if you read from left to right as you enter from the concourse, the numbering actually goes "16 - 15 - 12 - 11 - 9 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 2 -1 - 0".
There's loads of missing numbers there because they are smaller bay platforms that share the same "island" as the bigger ones, so to me it makes sense for them to share some of the number as well.

I think you mean 16 - 15/12 - 11/9 - 8/6 - 5/4 - 3/2 - 1/0 sharing islands, with 17, 14, 13, 10 and 7 as bays?

But the platforms aren't all over the place as you have it; they're sequential from north to south, west to east. From the main concourse the low numbers are in sequence on your right, higher numbers to the left. From the southern entrance counts down from 17. You couldn't do any better without moving the main entrance to the goods bay next to P0/1.

Having 13, say, as 12B doesn't make sense given that 12 is long enough for A, B, C & D sub-lettering so you'd have to make it 12E, which would be at the opposite end to 12D and thus more confusing.

 

[Deafdoggie]

For large complex interchanges, if I was designing the numbering from scratch, I'd do a prefix letter system and number by "island". For example at Crewe:

Platform 1 would be A1, platform 5 would be A2, then the bay platforms on the same island as those would be A3-A5, with the whole thing being "island A"
Platform 6 would be B1, platform 11 would be B2, then the bay platforms on the same island would be B3-B6, with the whole thng being "island B"
Platform 12 would be C1

To be honest, I'm finding it hard to think of a worse system than this.
The reason we have the phonetic alphabet is because so many letters sound like other letters. Station announcements aren't the clearest at the best of times, adding confusion over letters only makes it worse. Mishear the letter and there could be several platforms with the same number.
As mentioned by another poster sections of the same platform divided into A,B,etc at the moment only create further issues. Unless they become platform A1.1 instead of 1a.

I think it's less confusing, because if I arrive at the station and see my train is heading from B3, in the first instance I only have to find the B island. Only once I am on the B island do I have to worry about where my specific platform is. By reducing the amount of information I have to think about at any one time, the process of finding the correct platform is made simpler.

The same logic is applied on the road network - as you get closer to a destination - say Withington, Manchester - the signs might first say "The NORTH WEST", then "Manchester", then "Manchester (south)", then finally "Withington". If you list every suburb of a place on every sign, you would end up with signs which are cluttered and difficult to read, and you'd have to know exactly which bit of Manchester you were going to from the outset.

For this example to work, you'd just tell passengers the island letter on arrival and only the platform on arrival at the island. This would upset those arriving at the last minute as they search for their platform twice! Giving all the information at the start is either information overload, or easier to give in just a shorter form, such as a number.

For consistency, would two platform stations be renumbered A1 and B1 (or A1 and A2) or would there be inconsistencies between stations if they remained simply 1 & 2?

I don't see an advantage of this system.

 

[zwk500]

I think it's less confusing, because if I arrive at the station and see my train is heading from B3, in the first instance I only have to find the B island. Only once I am on the B island do I have to worry about where my specific platform is. By reducing the amount of information I have to think about at any one time, the process of finding the correct platform is made simpler.

I don't get why 'Platform Group B' on a sign is less confusing than 'Platforms 4-8'. The current system of consecutive numbers is fine, it just needs consistency of application so that suffix letters are only used for one purpose, and the numbering makes logical sense from entrance points. That and make sure the signs are clear!

 

[Bletchleyite]

But unfortunately this won't really work in the case of long platforms that can accommodate one long train or two short trains.

For example, Chester's Platform 3, with its 3a and 3b sections.

Your system would call it A3a and A3b presumably? (or even A3 and A4?).

I think that'd be too confusing. Interestingly it is near enough what the Czechs do (number islands and then tracks within them) and I think it is confusing!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2021 ==

I think you mean 16 - 15/12 - 11/9 - 8/6 - 5/4 - 3/2 - 1/0 sharing islands, with 17, 14, 13, 10 and 7 as bays?

But the platforms aren't all over the place as you have it; they're sequential from north to south, west to east. From the main concourse the low numbers are in sequence on your right, higher numbers to the left. From the southern entrance counts down from 17. You couldn't do any better without moving the main entrance to the goods bay next to P0/1.

Having 13, say, as 12B doesn't make sense given that 12 is long enough for A, B, C & D sub-lettering so you'd have to make it 12E, which would be at the opposite end to 12D and thus more confusing.

It's only really Edinburgh I find massively confusing, and that's because of the oddity of it being numbered in a circle. If they changed it to going in one direction then it would be OK.

 

[gg1]

At a lot of more complex stations, the platforms themselves are not actually laid out in lines from left to right.

The obvious solution to that is to renumber the platforms so they are sequential, at the same time eliminating oddities like missing platform numbers and Platform Zeros.

Far easier said than done of course, but no more difficult to implement than your proposed system and a lot less confusing for passenger.

 

[43096]

I think that'd be too confusing. Interestingly it is near enough what the Czechs do (number islands and then tracks within them) and I think it is confusing!

Slovakia is the same, unsurprisingly. I was very confused the first time I arrived at Bratislava hl.s. The way I think of it is the “platform” is the thing you’re standing on and the “track” that is shown is the platform face, and the numbering is totally separate (so you might get platform 2, track 4 for instance).

 

[Clansman]

It's only really Edinburgh I find massively confusing, and that's because of the oddity of it being numbered in a circle. If they changed it to going in one direction then it would be OK.

If you find Waverley confusing, wait until you see the monstrosity that is Stirling!

 

[YorksLad12]

It's only really Edinburgh I find massively confusing, and that's because of the oddity of it being numbered in a circle. If they changed it to going in one direction then it would be OK.

Technically, it is. Clockwise

The obvious solution to that is to renumber the platforms so they are sequential, at the same time eliminating oddities like missing platform numbers and Platform Zeros.

Far easier said than done of course, but no more difficult to implement than your proposed system and a lot less confusing for passenger.

Yes; I think I remember someone telling me that signalling and other electronic systems would all need changing to reflect any wholesale renumbering, such that it's easier to have a P0 or missing number. Doesn't explain why Kings Cross wasn't renumbered, given the amount of work carried out recently.

 

[zwk500]

Yes; I think I remember someone telling me that signalling and other electronic systems would all need changing to reflect any wholesale renumbering, such that it's easier to have a P0 or missing number. Doesn't explain why Kings Cross wasn't renumbered, given the amount of work carried out recently.

The main reason given for King's Cross retaining 0 was staff familiarity with the layout. I think there may also have been an element of slightly simplifying the signalling work required during the possession, as starting from 1 would have meant one of the numbers would be doubled up for a time, given part of the station stayed open. Certainly possible to have done, but easier to leave it as it was.

 

[Bigman]

Birmingham New Street confuses me. Isn't it Platform 4C that is actually a separate bay platform from 4A/B?

 

[zwk500]

Birmingham New Street confuses me. Isn't it Platform 4C that is actually a separate bay platform from 4A/B?

Yes. Not ideal with letters already used for subdivisions of long platforms.
MK Central has a similar situation with 2A, which should really be 1A as the platform order is now 1, 2A, 2, 3, although at least MKC doesn't use lettered subdivisions.

 

[Falcon1200]

If you find Waverley confusing, wait until you see the monstrosity that is Stirling!

? Apart from the absence of a Platform 1, Stirling seems perfectly logical to me !

Surely, no matter what system is used to denote platforms, the crucial thing is clear and plentiful signage, and any attempt to renumber platforms will cause huge expense, and confusion to everyone, passengers and staff alike, who are used to the existing system. The only station I use where platforms have been renumbered is Oxford, and IMHO that was completely unnecessary.

 

[wobman]

I know one thing that would help is better signage at stations, plus maybe colour coded platforms with marked areas for passengers to stand that enables more efficient passengers getting on and off trains.

Most non commuter passengers waste lots of time standing at the wrong places on the platforms, this causes excessive delays that is avoidable if there's better signage and information for them.

 

[JamesT]

? Apart from the absence of a Platform 1, Stirling seems perfectly logical to me !

Surely, no matter what system is used to denote platforms, the crucial thing is clear and plentiful signage, and any attempt to renumber platforms will cause huge expense, and confusion to everyone, passengers and staff alike, who are used to the existing system. The only station I use where platforms have been renumbered is Oxford, and IMHO that was completely unnecessary.

If you weren't going to renumber, what would you have put for the new bay platform when the existing platforms were numbered as the already confusing 3,1,2? Renumbering made that much more logical and means that when the new platform beyond 4 is introduced it can be the entirely logical platform 5.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Not ideal with letters already used for subdivisions of long platforms.
MK Central has a similar situation with 2A, which should really be 1A as the platform order is now 1, 2A, 2, 3, although at least MKC doesn't use lettered subdivisions.

I think it's 2A because it faces 2. Generally the concept goes that if you have a bay it is numbered from the platform it faces, which is probably what makes most sense to lay passengers trying to find it, i.e. "go to platform 2 then look there".

If I was "sorting it out" I'd look to follow the European concept of platforms only having numbers and subdivisions being the letters A to F. Though that does lead to funny numbering in some cases, e.g. if I recall the bay off 1 at Lausanne is 40, try finding that!

Of course Avanti West Coast stations now have both platforms and subdivisions as numbers...

 

[YorksLad12]

The main reason given for King's Cross retaining 0 was staff familiarity with the layout. I think there may also have been an element of slightly simplifying the signalling work required during the possession, as starting from 1 would have meant one of the numbers would be doubled up for a time, given part of the station stayed open. Certainly possible to have done, but easier to leave it as it was.

That might have been P6, but the old one would have closed when the new one opened as they were doing the station in stages, so they might have gotten away with it. But I take your point about the layout; it's a bit confusing around P4 and P5 as a passenger if you don't follow the signs correctly, staff must be in similar positions unless they work there every day.

 

[Falcon1200]

If you weren't going to renumber, what would you have put for the new bay platform when the existing platforms were numbered as the already confusing 3,1,2? Renumbering made that much more logical and means that when the new platform beyond 4 is introduced it can be the entirely logical platform 5.

Leave 1 and 2 as they were, the north end bays 3 and 4. I agree, it does cause an issue when, or rather if (because I doubt I will still be around to see it) the new platform beyond 4 gets built, but that could be 0 ? I don't subscribe to the view that unless platforms are numbered in strict sequence passengers will find it impossible to locate them.

 

[JamesT]

Leave 1 and 2 as they were, the north end bays 3 and 4. I agree, it does cause an issue when, or rather if (because I doubt I will still be around to see it) the new platform beyond 4 gets built, but that could be 0 ? I don't subscribe to the view that unless platforms are numbered in strict sequence passengers will find it impossible to locate them.

Not impossible, but it seems unnecessarily complex when you can have a simple sequence. Especially when there are future plans to add a Western entrance and eventually a redevelopment with a new entrance and an over bridge. Platforms in the order 4,3,1,2,0 seems weird when you can have 1,2,3,4,5.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not impossible, but it seems unnecessarily complex when you can have a simple sequence. Especially when there are future plans to add a Western entrance and eventually a redevelopment with a new entrance and an over bridge. Platforms in the order 4,3,1,2,0 seems weird when you can have 1,2,3,4,5.

Perhaps the answer here is to have different designations for "passenger facing" use and for internal use, then you can renumber as necessary when things change without major signalling changes.

 

[BayPaul]

A less confusing version of the OP's idea would be to number islands in major stations in multiples of 10, so island 20 might contain through platforms 21 and 22, as well as bay platforms 23,24 and 25 for example. That would make for clearer signage, easier to remember numbers, and no confusion with platforms divided into A and B sections. I don't think there is a massive issue with the current system that would make it worthwhile doing though.

 

[steamybrian]

What would happen at stations where platforms are already designated by letters (not numbered) such as Waterloo East and New Cross..??

 

[Ken H]

Why not number platforms with Greek letters. Everybody should know their Greek alphabet by now

 

[JamesT]

Why not number platforms with Greek letters. Everybody should know their Greek alphabet by now

Then after 3 years switch over to Egyptian hieroglyphs?

 

[Falcon1200]

Not impossible, but it seems unnecessarily complex when you can have a simple sequence. Especially when there are future plans to add a Western entrance and eventually a redevelopment with a new entrance and an over bridge. Platforms in the order 4,3,1,2,0 seems weird when you can have 1,2,3,4,5.

You make valid points, but I just can't get over 1 and 2 being renumbered to 3 and 4 after using the station since 1971 - And of course those platforms were 1 and 2 for decades before that !

 

[HSTEd]

A less confusing version of the OP's idea would be to number islands in major stations in multiples of 10, so island 20 might contain through platforms 21 and 22, as well as bay platforms 23,24 and 25 for example. That would make for clearer signage, easier to remember numbers, and no confusion with platforms divided into A and B sections. I don't think there is a massive issue with the current system that would make it worthwhile doing though.

I like this for new stations.

Dispense with letters entirely ultimately, just a number.