Why is Kings Cross missing a platform?

[andy33gmail]

Given all the work that went into adding 9 3/4 and 0, it seems odd to leave a gap between 9 and 10



I suspect there’s demand…

Is the answer as simple as geometry? I.e. you can’t pack in more points or get a curve that works without leaving an Bank sized platform gap?

 

[Flying Snail]

They removed it at the last re-jig to give enough space for longer trains in the adjacent platforms.

 

[liam456]

King's Cross station was entirely remodeled in the creatively named "King's Uncrossed" project throughout 2021 which had the effect of lengthening the station throat northbound and easing the sharp curves out of the platforms into the Gasworks tunnels to increase line speeds and platform lengths. Before 2021 there were tracks there.

 

[Robski]

It was removed in 2021 during the Kings Cross remodelling following a drop in the number of GN services going into the suburban platforms at Kings Cross post-Thameslink programme. There were also safety concerns over how wide (then) platforms 10 and 11 were at the north end, as it carried an increased risk of someone falling under a train in crowded conditions/during rush hour. There is now a short fence at the north end of platform 10.

They removed it at the last re-jig to give enough space for longer trains in the adjacent platforms.

iirc all three platforms could accommodate 8 coach trains pre-remodel.

 

[William3000]

Was there an operational reason why the shorter platforms couldn’t have been used for shorter 5 car Hull Trains/Grand Central trains with some more suburban trains moving to the main train sheds?

 

[Magdalia]

Given all the work that went into adding 9 3/4 and 0, it seems odd to leave a gap between 9 and 10

To understand this, it helps to go back to before electrification in 1977.

The suburban trainshed had 3 platforms, 9-11 after the early 1970s renumbering. But platforms 10 and 11 were very short, long enough for 8*57' vehicles. There were double slip crossovers at the platform ends, with 8mph speed restrictions.

"Clearing the throat" was the 1977 pre-electrification remodelling. Platform 11 was removed so that platform 10 could be lengthened to take 8*64' trains. There were still double slip crossovers, though at 15nph not 8mph.

I can't recall exactly when platform 11 was reinstated, probably around the time of the Hitchin-Peterborough and Royston-Cambridge electrifications.

There were also safety concerns over how wide (then) platforms 10 and 11 were at the north end, as it carried an increased risk of someone falling under a train in crowded conditions/during rush hour.

This is right, I know from years of commuting experience! The country end of platforms 10/11 was very narrow.

It was removed in 2021 during the Kings Cross remodelling following a drop in the number of GN services going into the suburban platforms at Kings Cross post-Thameslink programme.

The "Kings uncrossed" 2021 remodelling has removed all of the double slip crossovers and further increased the speed limits. The short distance between the platform ends and Gasworks tunnel meant this couldn't be done without taking out one of platforms 10/11.

Was there an operational reason why the shorter platforms couldn’t have been used for shorter 5 car Hull Trains/Grand Central trains with some more suburban trains moving to the main train sheds?

Yes. 2*5 car trains can go in one platform in the main trainshed, but 2*8 car trains need 2 platforms in the main trainshed.

 

[swt_passenger]

Was there an operational reason why the shorter platforms couldn’t have been used for shorter 5 car Hull Trains/Grand Central trains with some more suburban trains moving to the main train sheds?

It seems a good idea at first, but I think the obvious reason why not is that those services would have to cross to the slow lines somewhere on approach to Kings Cross, and that would put them in the mix with the Thameslink bound services. It may introduce new timetabling conflicts. But if the GN services ever became standardised at 12 car it might be part of the solution.

 

[yorkie]

Was there an operational reason why the shorter platforms couldn’t have been used for shorter 5 car Hull Trains/Grand Central trains with some more suburban trains moving to the main train sheds?

It seems a good idea at first, but I think the obvious reason why not is that those services would have to cross to the slow lines somewhere on approach to Kings Cross, and that would put them in the mix with the Thameslink bound services. It may introduce new timetabling conflicts. But if the GN services ever became standardised at 12 car it might be part of the solution.

If anyone would like to propose this, or discuss it further, feel free to create a thread in the appropriate forum section

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2025 ==

Given all the work that went into adding 9 3/4 and 0, it seems odd to leave a gap between 9 and 10



I suspect there’s demand…

Is the answer as simple as geometry? I.e. you can’t pack in more points or get a curve that works without leaving an Bank sized platform gap?

The thread for the Kings Cross remodelling works can be found here:

Kings Cross ‘uncrossed’ Layout/Remodelling - Information and Updates

I know there was a thread before about this before but since we have had 3 big closures since that thread was closed. It would be interesting to know any extra information. Hoping that it doesn’t go off topic as Kings Cross is my local termini and knowing is really helpful.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[swt_passenger]

They removed it at the last re-jig to give enough space for longer trains in the adjacent platforms.

To add to this, a screenshot from Google satellite view shows exactly why, the P8 extension together with the previously mentioned S&C changes to increase departure speeds meant that the track into P9 now cuts across where the entry to old P10 would have been. There’s no longer enough room for two parallel tracks:

 

[hwl]

Was there an operational reason why the shorter platforms couldn’t have been used for shorter 5 car Hull Trains/Grand Central trains with some more suburban trains moving to the main train sheds?

1. They connect to the slow lines not the fast lines which would eat up a bit of potential capacity further north swapping them from one to the other
2. The entry /exit speeds from those platforms were low eating up capacity in the throat

 

[321362]

Was there an operational reason why the shorter platforms couldn’t have been used for shorter 5 car Hull Trains/Grand Central trains with some more suburban trains moving to the main train sheds?

Grand Central still do occasionally use these platforms

 

[brad465]

On the subject of KGX platforms, why did Platform 0 remain this number? The extensive resignalling and remodelling will have meant not much more work would have been needed to change it. Was it just it had been 0 for so long that everyone was accustomed to it?

 

[mr_jrt]

Loosely related, but I've been meaning to ask for some time...

Had the sell off of the old depot land alongside the throat not been quite so...."exhaustive", could the approach into the old platform 11 not have been extended a bit straighter, permitting the entrance into the old 10 to have remained? It would have made the curvature into the old p11 worse, but at the speeds services are travelling at here, would that have been a problem? Even in that image above, there would appear to be room to straighten out the old p11 enough...

 

[edwin_m]

On the subject of KGX platforms, why did Platform 0 remain this number? The extensive resignalling and remodelling will have meant not much more work would have been needed to change it. Was it just it had been 0 for so long that everyone was accustomed to it?

This renumbering, adding 1 to each platform number, would have had the added benefit of correctly positioning platform 9 3/4 between 9 and 10.

 

[swt_passenger]

On the subject of KGX platforms, why did Platform 0 remain this number? The extensive resignalling and remodelling will have meant not much more work would have been needed to change it. Was it just it had been 0 for so long that everyone was accustomed to it?

This was discussed in the thread about the project at the time.

There are still apparently significant costs involved with the relevant changes to signalling and PIS, and all the knock on changes to engineering drawings. All the ‘as fitted’ engineering drawings for both railway infrastructure and the station building services would have to be amended. As examples, every light fitting or loudspeaker will all be labelled up with respect to the platform number for fault reporting and maintenance.

So at the final totting up of scheme costs it becomes an unnecessary but significant added expense. But clearly some major projects do result in complete renumbering, eg Reading. So it’s not as though it never gets done.

 

[MarkyT]

I can't recall exactly when platform 11 was reinstated, probably around the time of the Hitchin-Peterborough and Royston-Cambridge electrifications.

Early 1980s, possibly. I recall Dad mentioned it approvingly several times before he retired in 1984. He claimed a new manager was convinced it was necessary and succeeded in getting the platform reinstated quickly and affordably. I guess with all the outer suburban terminating in those original two platfroms, even if it had been possible to accomodate them with short turnround times, it would have been unreliable and if they'd lost a platform in the peak, there would be major trouble. I think the third platform was likely essential for the full outer suburban network before Thameslink.

The "Kings uncrossed" 2021 remodelling has removed all of the double slip crossovers and further increased the speed limits. The short distance between the platform ends and Gasworks tunnel meant this couldn't be done without taking out one of platforms 10/11.

Here's my sketch of the changes:

This was discussed in the thread about the project at the time.

There are still apparently significant costs involved with the relevant changes to signalling and PIS, and all the knock on changes to engineering drawings. All the ‘as fitted’ engineering drawings for both railway infrastructure and the station building services would have to be amended. As examples, every light fitting or loudspeaker will all be labelled up with respect to the platform number for fault reporting and maintenance.

So at the final totting up of scheme costs it becomes an unnecessary but significant added expense. But clearly some major projects do result in complete renumbering, eg Reading. So it’s not as though it never gets done.

Though in that case, everything at platform level was new construction, with new signage, record drawings etc.

I agree, at Kings Cross, renumbering didn't add up for other reasons, even though they were already doing major changes to signalling and info systems that could have allowed it.

 

[Magdalia]

Early 1980s, possibly. I recall Dad mentioned it approvingly several times before he retired in 1984.

Here is a picture of an NSE livery class 317 in platform 10 at Kings Cross in 1986.

glc - nse 317368 kings cross 86 JL

Explore johnmightycat1's 103869 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Evidently platform 11 at Kings Cross was not a thing in 1986.

 

[D365]

If anyone would like to propose this, or discuss it further, feel free to create a thread in the appropriate forum section

As it so happens, we already had a speculative discussion earlier this year

 

[MarkyT]

Here is a picture of an NSE livery class 317 in platform 10 at Kings Cross in 1986.

glc - nse 317368 kings cross 86 JL

Explore johnmightycat1's 103869 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Evidently platform 11 at Kings Cross was not a thing in 1986.

Peterborough electric services started the following year. Maybe it was provided in time for those.

 

[62484GlenLyon]

Kings Cross has a long history of odd platform numberings. Prior to the 1976 major remodelling there was not a platform 3 or a platform 9. These were short platforms that in the 1930s were abolished to provide space for widening other platforms. Platforms 1 and 2 were what are still platforms 1 and 2 today. The current platforms 3 and 4 were then platforms 4 and 5. What are now platforms 5, 6, and 7 were then platforms 6, 7, 8 and today's platform 8 was then platform 10. (Information from The Book of the Great Northern Part One. P.J.Coster. Irwell Press 2010).

The picture of 317368 in post 19 dates from 10th June 1986 at the earliest. Network Southeast was launched that day and 317368 was the first NSE liveried 317 on the GN. It was new to traffic at that time. Given the condition of the unit was the picture taken on that day? - I can well imagine that the photographer would have been very tempted to press the shutter to record the scene. The batch 317349 - 317368 was still being introduced to traffic in mid 1986. I was using the GN's 312s and 317s daily at this time; my first moves with 317358 to 317367 were all after my first move with 317368 on 3/7/1986. This unit was the last of the initial order of the second series of 317s for the GN - 317369 - 317372 were added on in a separate order for the Peterborough electric services. For clarity, all these units were renumbered 317649 - 317672 in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

As for platform 11 I have no record of the date it was opened. I have a picture taken at Kings Cross in May 1988 which shows the point work that leads off platform 10 so that narrows the date to after June 1986 and May 1988.

 

[james73]

To add to this, a screenshot from Google satellite view shows exactly why, the P8 extension together with the previously mentioned S&C changes to increase departure speeds meant that the track into P9 now cuts across where the entry to old P10 would have been. There’s no longer enough room for two parallel tracks:
View attachment 192587

It looks like there's a bit of space to the west of P11 (now P10)? Could they not move that track westwards and then realign the ends of the platforms to free up enough space to restore the original P10?

I've only been to Kings Cross three times in my puff so excuse my lack of knowledge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2025 ==

To answer to my own question after looking on Google maps (image ©Google), no it doesn't look like there's enough room for that.

 

[317362]

I'm going for some point in 1989 for P11, I remember it appearing but remember no fanfare at the time (although it was NSE so there would have been bunting)

 

[Jim the Jim]

Does the unnumbered platform really need a yellow line so far back? It hardly helps with the space issue. If they're worried about people falling off, is there a reason they haven't just installed a fence along the platform edge?

 

[MichaelTrains]

Grand Central still do occasionally use these platforms

They do indeed. I caught a KGX to BDI Grand Central service from Platform nine only the other week.

 

[sh24]

From a passenger point of view Kings Uncrossed really seems to have worked. Mostly gone is the old stop start stop start approach.

 

[norbitonflyer]

To understand this, it helps to go back to before electrification in 1977.

The suburban trainshed had 3 platforms, 9-11 after the early 1970s renumbering. But platforms 10 and 11 were very short, long enough for 8*57' vehicles. There were double slip crossovers at the platform ends, with 8mph speed restrictions.

Until electrification, and even after "clearing the throat", there were 14 platforms. Platforms 11-14, (formerly 13-16) which included the "Hotel Curve" platform 14(16) were only closed in 1976 when the Moorgate - Drayton park shuttle was extended to Welwyn and Hertford, replacing the inner suburban services from Kings Cross, and from Moorgate via the Widened Lines

 

[Magdalia]

Until electrification, and even after "clearing the throat", there were 14 platforms.

That's not correct. When clearing the throat was completed in April 1977 the number of platforms was reduced to 10.

Platforms 11-14, (formerly 13-16) which included the "Hotel Curve" platform 14(16) were only closed in 1976 when the Moorgate - Drayton park shuttle was extended to Welwyn and Hertford, replacing the inner suburban services from Kings Cross, and from Moorgate via the Widened Lines

Clearing the throat didn't begin until after the electric inner suburban service started in November 1976. Most of the work was done in January-April 1977. There were 3 stages when blocks of platforms were taken out of use: platforms 7-10 first, then platforms 4-6, and last platforms 1-3. Platforms 4-6 were done in one weekend at the beginning of March 1977.

During that period the connections to/from the Widened Lines were still in use, because of the limited number of platforms available. Some outer suburban services were formed of non-corridor stock and running empty to/from Moorgate to reverse.

There is a good article in Railway Magazine May 1977 with before and after maps, and a picture showing work during the period when platforms 7-10 were closed.

 

[norbitonflyer]

That's not correct. When clearing the throat was completed in April 1977 the number of platforms was reduced to 10.

My mistake. But the Hotel Curve platform and the three adjacent ones were included in the c 1970 renumbering

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2025 ==

To understand this, it helps to go back to before electrification in 1977.

The suburban trainshed had 3 platforms, 9-11 after the early 1970s renumbering.

I was amplifying this statem,ent - outside the suburban trainshed there were three further platforms 12-14 (14-16 before renumbering) the highest numbered one being the Hotel Curve one. Platforms 11-14 were closed after electrification and not included in clearing the throat (which i admit I'd forgotten came later)

 

[edwin_m]

I was amplifying this statem,ent - outside the suburban trainshed there were three further platforms 12-14 (14-16 before renumbering) the highest numbered one being the Hotel Curve one. Platforms 11-14 were closed after electrification and not included in clearing the throat (which i admit I'd forgotten came later)

So I think the sequence of events was:

• Electrification to Moorgate only, introduction of electric inner-suburbans removing them from KX thus reducing platform requirements
• Clearing the Throat, eliminating three platforms and Hotel curve (and presumably also the York Road platform and curve)
• Electrification of revised KX layout and introduction of electric outer-suburbans

 

[swt_passenger]

That's not correct. When clearing the throat was completed in April 1977 the number of platforms was reduced to 10.


Clearing the throat didn't begin until after the electric inner suburban service started in November 1976. Most of the work was done in January-April 1977. There were 3 stages when blocks of platforms were taken out of use: platforms 7-10 first, then platforms 4-6, and last platforms 1-3. Platforms 4-6 were done in one weekend at the beginning of March 1977.

During that period the connections to/from the Widened Lines were still in use, because of the limited number of platforms available. Some outer suburban services were formed of non-corridor stock and running empty to/from Moorgate to reverse.

There is a good article in Railway Magazine May 1977 with before and after maps, and a picture showing work during the period when platforms 7-10 were closed.

The track diagrams you refer to were usefully uploaded in the thread on the 2021 remodelling, they might help people visualise the overall changes.

Kings Cross ‘uncrossed’ Layout/Remodelling - Information and Updates

How will this partial blockade work?

www.railforums.co.uk