Not quite, the issue with Bristol TM is that the same platform face has two different numbers, rather than being an ‘a’ and ‘b’ like is more common.Like Huddersfield... numbered 1 to 8, skipping 3 and 7 along the way (which are no longer there)
Not quite, the issue with Bristol TM is that the same platform face has two different numbers, rather than being an ‘a’ and ‘b’ like is more common.Like Huddersfield... numbered 1 to 8, skipping 3 and 7 along the way (which are no longer there)
They're also long enough to be used by 2 full-length trains at the same time.Not quite, the issue with Bristol TM is that the same platform face has two different numbers, rather than being an ‘a’ and ‘b’ like is more common.
As I understand it, the Stockport re- signalling, planned as part of the West Coast Route Modernisation, would have reconfigured the tracks from paired by direction to paired by use. This would have swapped the direction of the tracks through Platforms 2 and 3, and most of the southbound London/Birmingham expresses would then have used Platform 1. Platform 0 (the easternmost) would have pre-sorted eastbound services to Hazel Grove/Buxton/Sheffield, to avoid some of them using Platform 3 then crossing the Fasts at Edgeley Junction.That makes sense, as it was intended to re-signal Stockport at about that time, but this was later abandoned. See comments above about re-numbering often coinciding with re-signalling.
I agree it's pretty redundant at present, although it provides a bit of resilience if trains are closely following on the Up Slow. Even with the intended pairing by use it would to a large extent be duplicating platform 1, although it would be more useful (in that situation and currently) if the Platform 0 track had been extended to provide parallel moves towards Hazel Grove and Cheadle Hulme.As I understand it, the Stockport re- signalling, planned as part of the West Coast Route Modernisation, would have reconfigured the tracks from paired by direction to paired by use. This would have swapped the direction of the tracks through Platforms 2 and 3, and most of the southbound London/Birmingham expresses would then have used Platform 1. Platform 0 (the easternmost) would have pre-sorted eastbound services to Hazel Grove/Buxton/Sheffield, to avoid some of them using Platform 3 then crossing the Fasts at Edgeley Junction.
Abandonment of the re-signalling has left Platform 0 as something of a white elephant, with Up Slow services split between 0 and 1. Only on a couple of occasions in the evening peak are the three Up platforms (0, 1 and 2) all used concurrently.
Why should passengers have to know about the trackwork? It looks and feels like one long platform to anyone standing on it, even more so since the island platforms were built, with platform 7 opposite platforms 1 and 4: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1...k-no-pi0-ya352.17453-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352Thats because 1 and 4 are 2 platforms! (Scissor crossovers in the middle). It would make no sense as A and B.
They dont. But, as a passenger, if you stood between 1 and 4 long enough, you would soon realise nothing stopped there !Why should passengers have to know about the trackwork? It looks and feels like one long platform to anyone standing on it, even more so since the island platforms were built, with platform 7 opposite platforms 1 and 4: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1945165,0.1378286,3a,75y,165.12h,78.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNAxNlraOB7LjhKCteZgxG-zojk9rZlUTz1RLuk!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipNAxNlraOB7LjhKCteZgxG-zojk9rZlUTz1RLuk=w203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya352.17453-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
Also, I've been reminded by the sign you can see in that streetview that 4 is still split into 4 and 4a to help northbound passengers get into the front four.
The random-looking numbering combines with the lack of link from the ticket hall to 7 and 8 (you have to use the stairs/lift on platform 4) to make Cambridge station feels like a thoughtless bodge, not at all fitting for a seat of high education. It needs redoing sensibly - maybe they can find some clever people in that city to help!
Why should passengers have to know about the trackwork? It looks and feels like one long platform to anyone standing on it, even more so since the island platforms were built, with platform 7 opposite platforms 1 and 4: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1945165,0.1378286,3a,75y,165.12h,78.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNAxNlraOB7LjhKCteZgxG-zojk9rZlUTz1RLuk!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipNAxNlraOB7LjhKCteZgxG-zojk9rZlUTz1RLuk=w203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya352.17453-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
Also, I've been reminded by the sign you can see in that streetview that 4 is still split into 4 and 4a to help northbound passengers get into the front four.
The random-looking numbering combines with the lack of link from the ticket hall to 7 and 8 (you have to use the stairs/lift on platform 4) to make Cambridge station feels like a thoughtless bodge, not at all fitting for a seat of high education. It needs redoing sensibly - maybe they can find some clever people in that city to help!
It's a bloody shame what they did to that station comparing it to what we have today to before:
The listing is for the station frontage, not the architecture in general. As long as appropriate materials were used in a sympathetic way, it should be allowed. The station's setting has already been harmed by the "future slum" built around it.They dont. But, as a passenger, if you stood between 1 and 4 long enough, you would soon realise nothing stopped there !
As for needing clever people. You don't need them, you just need plenty of ££££££ to do it properly (but at the same time, destroy the stations architecture, as this is what has had a constraint on were the footbridge was built). Hence why it feels like a bodge.
Not for me. It's a user-contributed view from just on the platform, almost level with the entry arches.And btw, the google link is of the old Post Office unloading bays !!
I doubt if they will be a 9 and 10. Not unless they rip up the new stabling sidings which are in place but not fully connected yet.The listing is for the station frontage, not the architecture in general. As long as appropriate materials were used in a sympathetic way, it should be allowed. The station's setting has already been harmed by the "future slum" built around it.
Not for me. It's a user-contributed view from just on the platform, almost level with the entry arches.
Anyway, even if someone wants to insist on numbering Cambridge's long platform as two numbers, the bays should be renumbered 1 to 4 to avoid the current bonkers west-to-east 6/3, 5/2, 4a/4/1, 7, 8 (and in the future 9 and 10)!
I think Redruth also has a Platform 3 that is the bus stop outside the station.It's always been known as Platform 5 even before the X19. I'm not sure of the reason why.
I seem to remember track being ripped up to build 7 and 8 so nothing is impossible.I doubt if they will be a 9 and 10. Not unless they rip up the new stabling sidings which are in place but not fully connected yet.
I found https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cambridge-island-platform-by-end-of-2011.30225/ but it doesn't seem to cover why the bridge is up on platform 5/4 instead of off the ticket hall.And I cant see you shoe horning any footbridge in within the confines behind the frontage (and i shall not say anymore than that as it has already been discussed in a thread on this very forum).
Apart from the line through platform 7 is the old Reception line number 1.I seem to remember track being ripped up to build 7.
No-one else is talking of "in a couple of years". I just said to renumber so it makes sense in the long term. Where do you think 9 and 10 will be built eventually then?So if you think NR will be digging up there investment in a couple of years you are deffently a clever man. Perhaps you should put yourself forward for the job ??
On the coalfield sidings !!!!No-one else is talking of "in a couple of years". I just said to renumber so it makes sense in the long term. Where do you think 9 and 10 will be built eventually then?
I guess you are unaware of the reasons Cambridge has a double length platform with central scissors crossovers?
It goes back to the original construction of the railway when the City Fathers insisted that the station design was such that none of their most valuable students would ever be exposed to danger by crossing the railway tracks. Hence the entrance allowing access to one long platform for North and South bound through trains and a number of bays, all of which could be accessed without crossing a track (footbridges were not normally provided all those years ago). So it was the "seat of high education" that caused this issue in the first place!
Circa 1980's generally anything going to London was from platform 1,2 or 3. And trains going north used 4,5 or 6. Which made perfect sense at the time.
I'm not specifically suggesting it needs changing, or indeed whether that is likely or feasible, but I do find the layout at Edinburgh Waverley very confusing
The usual problem is that the platform numbers are hard-wired into the local signalling system, eg the theatre box indicators on signal posts, and all the obvious controls in the signal centre.
So when an extra platform is added it is usually much cheaper to just add the new “stuff” using suffix letters, rather than renumber on average half a station.
This is also why there are various platform zeros around the country...
There is a considerable cost involved in changing all the design and maintenance documents associated with the Signalling, Civils and M&E Documentation if you change things like platform numbers. If you don't update these documents at the time of change then you run an increased risk of accidents because what someone is reading from a plan does not relate to what is now changed on the ground.
It would occupy valuable resources needed for resignalling schemes and cause delays to projects for no noticeable gain. That's why it's usually delayed until there is a major resignalling driven change.
I'm not specifically suggesting it needs changing, or indeed whether that is likely or feasible, but I do find the layout at Edinburgh Waverley very confusing
I remember they even got as far as putting up platform 1 signs on what is now platform zero at stockport.I'm sure when the new platform was being built there was a plan to number it platform 1 and then renumber the others from 2 to 6, only they didn't bother.
Glad they didn't do that. It's really nice having all the trains to Manchester go from the same platform pair.As I understand it, the Stockport re- signalling, planned as part of the West Coast Route Modernisation, would have reconfigured the tracks from paired by direction to paired by use.
Though presumably it does allow for easier re-sorting of services (e.g. holding a hazel grove/buxton train so a delayed Sheffield train can go out first)Abandonment of the re-signalling has left Platform 0 as something of a white elephant, with Up Slow services split between 0 and 1. Only on a couple of occasions in the evening peak are the three Up platforms (0, 1 and 2) all used concurrently.
I have seen that happen from time to time, with the Hazel Grove/Buxton train held in Stockport Platform 0. But then the delayed Sheffield train is nearly always routed into Platform 2 not 1, because it gets an Up Fast route from Slade Lane to make up time. When a train from the Up Fast is routed into Platform 1, it is brought almost to a stand at the signal on the viaduct, causing further delay. So the stopper could equally well have been held in Platform 1 to be overtaken. And, if it is the EMT service (normally booked into P0) that is late, it has to wait for the boarding passengers to rush down the stairs, through the subway and up to P2. (The Cleethorpes is now booked into P1, so passengers only have to cross the island if it gets diverted into P2. But this has undermined the principle that all services to Hazel Grove and beyond use P0).Though presumably it does allow for easier re-sorting of services (e.g. holding a hazel grove/buxton train so a delayed Sheffield train can go out first)
8 platforms at one time. The original station front is a fragment on platform 4. A trainshed covered platforms 1 and 2 as at Beverley with a short bay at the Hull end. Such were the flows of people in the summer that two extra platforms and a bay were built in front of the station in 1912. This allowed better passenger flow and created pairs of up and down platforms to deal with the immense traffic coming to the coast via Market Weighton. An excursion station (platforms 7 and 8) was built for long trains and connected to the main station via a footbridge. A new concourse by George Bell united the complex.I don't think anyone mentioned Bridlington yet. These days it has 3 platforms, but they are numbered 4, 5 and 6! I wonder where in the mists of time 1, 2 and 3 went!
(On a side note but slightly off topic, I seem to remember seeing some semaphores last time I was there )
I fully agree with your comments here.There is a considerable cost involved in changing all the design and maintenance documents associated with the Signalling, Civils and M&E Documentation if you change things like platform numbers. If you don't update these documents at the time of change then you run an increased risk of accidents because what someone is reading from a plan does not relate to what is now changed on the ground.
It would occupy valuable resources needed for resignalling schemes and cause delays to projects for no noticeable gain. That's why it's usually delayed until there is a major resignalling driven change.
Annoying and unimaginative. Even platform Y or A is better than 0. Something imaginative like platform 42 or platform 89 (a nice nod to the preservation movement whose mainline-ready locomotives are now numbered in Class 89, as well as the electrification prototype) would have been even better.Due to the cost being into 7 figures before the decimal point, this was discounted and the new platform renumbered as ‘0’.