Unannounced platform change

[Unixman]

Dear SWR if you are going to change departure platform then (1) announce it and ( 2) give everyone the chance to get to the new platform, including, and this bit is important, disabled passengers like myself. Thus just happened to me at Virginia Water and I missed the connection.

 

[Highlander1]

Dear SWR if you are going to change departure platform then (1) announce it and ( 2) give everyone the chance to get to the new platform, including, and this bit is important, disabled passengers like myself. Thus just happened to me at Virginia Water and I missed the connection.

Not to belittle an unfortunate incident, I would suggest you send your complaint to SWR rather than a public forum that I doubt SWR will be reading.

 

[Unixman]

Not to belittle an unfortunate incident, I would suggest you send your complaint to SWR rather than a public forum that I doubt SWR will be reading.

You are right. Just that I was in pain and fed up.

 

[Starmill]

Please make sure you claim compensation if the delay to your overall journey was by a qualifying length of time.

https://delayrepay.southwesternrailway.com/en/login

They may well automatically reject the claim at the first instance as the journey appears not to have been delayed, so you may need to send a few follow-ups. I'd expect them to just pay out potentially after a few emails.

Alternatively you can raise a complaint directly at the first line: https://help.southwesternrailway.com/hc/en-gb/requests/new?ticket_form_id=12657328593436

If you have any problems using the forms you can try telephone (0345 6000 650) or ask at a station for a paper copy.

I haven't come across late-notice platform alterations at Virginia Water myself but I have seen them mentioned on here in the past.

 

[AlterEgo]

Dear SWR if you are going to change departure platform then (1) announce it and ( 2) give everyone the chance to get to the new platform, including, and this bit is important, disabled passengers like myself. Thus just happened to me at Virginia Water and I missed the connection.

Which train were you hoping to catch?

 

[Highlander1]

You are right. Just that I was in pain and fed up.

Completely understandable. Hopefully you get an acceptable resolution from SWR

 

[Unixman]

Which train were you hoping to catch?

09:54 to Kew Bridge. Both RTT and the train manager on the train from Reading said 3. Unannounced change to 1

 

[Tom]

It looks like a lot of the Weybridge services are terminating at Virginia Water and running to Ascot empty. The station CIS seems to be being updated though.

 

[swr444]

It looks like a lot of the Weybridge services are terminating at Virginia Water and running to Ascot empty. The station CIS seems to be being updated though.

Yeah, it seems to be because of a signalling problem into the bay platform at Weybridge.

 

[Tom]

If I were a cynic I’d suggest it may be because of the diverts via the Windsors and not wanting to throw those points for fear of shafting the mainline service…

 

[Bread & cheese]

For the future, it's worth noting that when changing from a train from Reading, onto a train for Kew Bridge, it's better to change at Feltham rather than Virginia Water. At Feltham you stay on the same platform.

 

[swr444]

For the future, it's worth noting that when changing from a train from Reading, onto a train for Kew Bridge, it's better to change at Feltham rather than Virginia Water. At Feltham you stay on the same platform.

or Egham & Staines

 

[Dr Hoo]

For the future, it's worth noting that when changing from a train from Reading, onto a train for Kew Bridge, it's better to change at Feltham rather than Virginia Water. At Feltham you stay on the same platform.

Publicly-owned South Western also need to re-brief their Train Managers. Why on earth are passengers being advised to schlep over a footbridge when they could have an easy same-platform connection at a subsequent station?
(I realise that passengers towards Weybridge would still need to change at Virginia water, in normal circumstances.)

 

[Bread & cheese]

or Egham & Staines

Indeed, but extensive travels have taught me that it's often better to go as far as possible on the first train! If you get off at Feltham and find that there is a problem with the onward service, it might be a lot easier to make alternative arrangements, than if you got off at Egham.

 

[riceuten]

I've long since given up complaining to TOCs about issues like this. They will justify it, even if it is completely unreasonable from a passenger perspective. Long gone are the days where a TOC will do anything other than (equivocally) "apologise for the inconvience caused"

 

[w11_supremecy]

Publicly-owned South Western also need to re-brief their Train Managers. Why on earth are passengers being advised to schlep over a footbridge when they could have an easy same-platform connection at a subsequent station?
(I realise that passengers towards Weybridge would still need to change at Virginia water, in normal circumstances.)

If you are on about changing from a Up Reading service onto an Up Weybridge service then you are 100% correct, it is obviously much better and more convenient to be advised to alight at either Egham, Staines or Feltham (assuming everything is running as normal).

If it's the other way round (changing from an Up Weybridge onto an Up Reading), you do have to cross over the footbridge/use the lift as the Weybridge is usually held for 9 minutes to let the faster Reading go in front.

 

[181]

It looks like a lot of the Weybridge services are terminating at Virginia Water and running to Ascot empty. The station CIS seems to be being updated though.

Yeah, it seems to be because of a signalling problem into the bay platform at Weybridge.

If I were a cynic I’d suggest it may be because of the diverts via the Windsors and not wanting to throw those points for fear of shafting the mainline service…

On Realtime Trains, all the trains stopping at Chertsey seem to have vanished for the rest of the day (except for a post-midnight one to Woking), as if they were never planned to exist in the first place. The replacement ones starting at Virginia Water in future (including, as of 16.15, the 16.24) are shown as still departing from platform 3, but most of the past ones have been changed to 1. One hopes that the information at the station is corrected in time for passengers to cross the bridge.

The SWR website says 'Due to emergency engineering works between Virginia Water and Weybridge all lines are blocked', with disruption expected for the rest of the day, and replacement buses 'not currently running to a planned timetable'. One wonders whether any of the diverted main line trains (say one per hour) could make extra stops at VW/Chertsey/Addlestone, but I expect there are reasons why not.

 

[Tom]

My observation is that the trains were all VSTP altered overnight at around 2230 last night in TRUST (this is also quite a convenient time for performance measurements...). At the same time trains were still using the bay at Weybridge.

In terms of train performance yesterday, I can't see much in the way that might have provided the foresight that they're going to need to do engineering works on a small stretch of track between the junction and Weybridge bay...

Maybe it is actually emergency engineering works (it's the weekend so I can't be bothered to look any more detail up) but my gut is telling me it's just a risk mitigation that they appear to not want to admit to. Of course it won't matter tomorrow as the Weybridge bay isn't used on Sundays.

 

[ClivePage]

I've long since given up complaining to TOCs about issues like this. They will justify it, even if it is completely unreasonable from a passenger perspective. Long gone are the days where a TOC will do anything other than (equivocally) "apologise for the inconvience caused"

I have found exactly the same. I have had to complain many times over the years to FCC and then Thameslink when trains have made sudden and unannounced platform changes at for example Luton or Luton Airport Parkway or West Hampstead. I being reasonably fit can usually just about run up all the steps to the footbridge and then down the next staircase and on to the train, but see that many less able passengers fail to make the connection. The train driver either doesn't notice the sudden rush on the stairs or perhaps doesn't care. The response from the TOC is always to apologise but, clearly, not do to anything at all about it, probably not even to pass the complaint on to the responsible person. It is clearly not the fault of the TOC but of Railtrack or Network Rail (or is it now the track division of GBR?) who operate the signals. But it is very hard to find out how to complain to them - any suggestions gratefully received.

 

[saismee]

It is clearly not the fault of the TOC but of Railtrack or Network Rail (or is it now the track division of GBR?) who operate the signals.

While NR may be responsible for causing the platform alteration, it is up to the TOC to ensure that it is announced with enough time for passengers to make it to the new platform within the minimum connection time. I can't see a complaint going much further than maybe delay repay.

 

[ClivePage]

I've seen cases when the train switches from slow to fast track or vice-versa just a hundred metres or so before it reaches the platform.

It may be that the signals for the alteration were set a bit earlier, but it might have been only a matter of seconds earlier. In which case the displays on the platform, which seem only to be refreshed from NR data once every minute or so have little chance of reflecting such a change. Some of these stations don't have anyone on duty making public address announcements or if they do they are as much in the dark as the passengers.

I think there are two things that the TOC could usefully do:

1. forbid National Rail from making such last-minute track changes. My guess is that persuading the TOCs and NR to accept such a prohibition will be quite a challenge.
2. Tell their own drivers that if they are forced to make a track change very close to the station they must expect that passengers may be waiting on the "wrong" platform and must wait at least another minute or two for them all to arrive.

 

[rmHawk765]

(2) Tell their own drivers that if they are forced to make a track change very close to the station they must expect that passengers may be waiting on the "wrong" platform and must wait at least another minute or two for them all to arrive.

On LU some stations have an arrangement where the driver should wait for passengers making a cross-platform interchange. IMO it's not unreasonable to have an extended stand to allow staff to direct everyone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2026 ==

(1) forbid National Rail from making such last-minute track changes. My guess is that persuading the TOCs and NR to accept such a prohibition will be quite a challenge.

There's usually a reason behind them, I doubt this would really make any sense.

 

[saismee]

I've seen cases when the train switches from slow to fast track or vice-versa just a hundred metres or so before it reaches the platform. It may be that the signals for the alteration were set a bit earlier but it might have been only a matter of seconds earlier. In which case the displays on the platform, which seem only to be refreshed from NR data once every minute or so have little chance of reflecting such a change. Some of these stations don't have anyone on duty making public address announcements or if they do they are as much in the dark as the passengers. I think there are two things that the TOC could usefully do: (1) forbid National Rail from making such last-minute track changes. My guess is that persuading the TOCs and NR to accept such a prohibition will be quite a challenge. (2) Tell their own drivers that if they are forced to make a track change very close to the station they must expect that passengers may be waiting on the "wrong" platform and must wait at least another minute or two for them all to arrive.

It all goes smoothly at my TOC and drivers don't often have to wait for people to dash over unless there's some serious disruption. Control will discuss with ground staff about the situation, and everyone is made aware.

A lot of people still miss their train when they have noise-cancelling headphones on, but that's their fault unfortunately. I have gone up/down a platform to let people know when it was short-notice (about 5 minutes) in the past. There must have been at least a dozen oblivious headphone-wearers.

 

[Starmill]

If you are on about changing from a Up Reading service onto an Up Weybridge service then you are 100% correct, it is obviously much better and more convenient to be advised to alight at either Egham, Staines or Feltham (assuming everything is running as normal).

If it's the other way round (changing from an Up Weybridge onto an Up Reading), you do have to cross over the footbridge/use the lift as the Weybridge is usually held for 9 minutes to let the faster Reading go in front.

The post you're replying to mentions a destination of Kew Bridge, so it must be a case of the former rather than the latter. As noted by Tom and others, it's apparent that, today, nearly all trains which would usually originate at Weybridge are not running between Virginia Water and Weybridge, either due to an emergency possession or more likely a track defect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2026 ==

It all goes smoothly at my TOC and drivers don't often have to wait for people to dash over unless there's some serious disruption. Control will discuss with ground staff about the situation, and everyone is made aware.

A lot of people still miss their train when they have noise-cancelling headphones on, but that's their fault unfortunately. I have gone up/down a platform to let people know when it was short-notice (about 5 minutes) in the past. There must have been at least a dozen oblivious headphone-wearers.

I'd take care with that assumption, though generally I'm confident it does hold for instance of minor disruption, I think it's very easy for a short delay to lead to conflict and confusion because of the poor information, especially compared to GTR.

Planned portion detachment at Colchester for example is generally advertised completely misleading manner on the train, and there are generally not manual announcements onboard made by anyone when this happens. On one memorable occasion I watched a member of platform staff actually shouting right at a lady hurrying into the front five coaches that it was already past departure time of the service to Clacton-on-Sea. She reasonably retorted that if it had been announced onboard the train she could have been ready to walk forward at Colchester. Of course moving through the aisles of a cl 720 is near impossible for someone with a small suitcase or medium sized backpack, or anything bigger, so she probably wouldn't have been able to do that anyway even if it had been manually announced.

Southern's trains were perfectly capable of showing on their internal screens and announcements as far back as 2002 which part of the train was for which destination, and probably earlier, so a train coming into service two decades later not having that functionality from their first introduction is astoundingly bad.

 

[To the trains]

I had this happen to me once at Didcot Parkway, I was changing for Oxford and the train originally was announced as leaving from platform 3, and the screen said so too. It was only when I noticed with my keen eye the same train was appearing simultaneously on the platform 4 board but the announcements still said platform 3. In the end I had to dash through the subway as I watched the train come in on platform 4. I know my friends and family who are not so knowledgeable about trains wouldn’t have stood a chance and not realised that train at platform 4 was theirs.

Sheffield has, I find, an especially high number of drop-of-a-hat platform changes and the best bit is I can usually predict the platform changes ages before they're announced. In my view if a platform change is announced at short notice (with 'short notice' being defined for each possible platform pair) it should be grounds for delay repay or at least advances should be valid on the next train.

Planned portion detachment at Colchester for example is generally advertised completely misleading manner on the train, and there are generally not manual announcements onboard made by anyone when this happens. On one memorable occasion I watched a member of platform staff actually shouting right at a lady hurrying into the front five coaches that it was already past departure time of the service to Clacton-on-Sea.

Sheffield always badly announces the service to Norwich, they just say the front coaches go to Norwich and the rear coaches terminate at Nottingham, when of course the train reverses and the "front coaches" are the rear coaches when the train arrives.

 

[furlong]

The computer systems are not joined up properly. I regularly see this where a train has reached a position on its approach to the station where it is impossible for it to reach its original platform - even visibly waiting at a red signal just outside the station where you can clearly deduce what the new platform must be - but the information screens don't give any indication of a change until after it is signalled onto the new platform, and so it depends on station staff not being too busy to notice this and make their own ad hoc announcement telling people where to move.

There is no question that it is technically possible to improve the computer systems to give people more notice automatically in some cases.

 

[saismee]

Planned portion detachment at Colchester for example is generally advertised completely misleading manner on the train, and there are generally not manual announcements onboard made by anyone when this happens. On one memorable occasion I watched a member of platform staff actually shouting right at a lady hurrying into the front five coaches that it was already past departure time of the service to Clacton-on-Sea. She reasonably retorted that if it had been announced onboard the train she could have been ready to walk forward at Colchester. Of course moving through the aisles of a cl 720 is near impossible for someone with a small suitcase or medium sized backpack, or anything bigger, so she probably wouldn't have been able to do that anyway even if it had been manually announced.

I've heard some unfortunate things about that service. If GA still had more dividing services there might be more justification to resolve it, but AIUI it's just the one daily service to HWC/CLT. It may well be that the staff at my station are generally better at announcing things.

 

[bb21]

My observation is that the trains were all VSTP altered overnight at around 2230 last night in TRUST (this is also quite a convenient time for performance measurements...). At the same time trains were still using the bay at Weybridge.

In terms of train performance yesterday, I can't see much in the way that might have provided the foresight that they're going to need to do engineering works on a small stretch of track between the junction and Weybridge bay...

Maybe it is actually emergency engineering works (it's the weekend so I can't be bothered to look any more detail up) but my gut is telling me it's just a risk mitigation that they appear to not want to admit to. Of course it won't matter tomorrow as the Weybridge bay isn't used on Sundays.

It was mitigation to ensure diverted mainline services did not get impacted by another failure of 2140 points, which had already failed several times in hot weather recently. It was agreed to keep the points in normal to avoid swinging them repeatedly risking another failure. That meant no movement from Weybridge towards Addlestone.

The timing of the VSTP in Trust bears no impact on performance metrics. It was past the threshold in any case, but for the record it is the time the revised plan was agreed that mattered, not the time schedules were keyed into Trust.

 

[Watershed]

It was mitigation to ensure diverted mainline services did not get impacted by another failure of 2140 points, which had already failed several times in hot weather recently. It was agreed to keep the points in normal to avoid swinging them repeatedly risking another failure. That meant no movement from Weybridge towards Addlestone.

The timing of the VSTP in Trust bears no impact on performance metrics. It was past the threshold in any case, but for the record it is the time the revised plan was agreed that mattered, not the time schedules were keyed into Trust.

It would be rather better for accountability and building/restoring trust in the railway if SWR/Network Rail admitted that this was the decision that was taken, rather than giving the appearance of hiding the changes.

 

[bb21]

Who's hiding what now?