Stations with platforms that have been renumbered

[BeijingDave]

There has been a lot of discussion on here about stations that should be renumbered, and the general consensus is it is not really worth the massive cost and disruption to long-standing systems that function well enough but may confuse the occasional passenger.

But what about the opposite situation? That is, stations that have been renumbered when the 'benefits' were probably very small?

The obvious example to me is Warrington Bank Quay: "The present platform 4 was numbered 5 for many years, because there was to be a north-facing bay platform in the west island which was numbered 4, but this saw no passenger use after electrification in 1972."

I remember very well the main platforms being 1, 2, 3 and 5 and don't think it confused anyone, except for the occasional person who may have wondered 'Where is platform 4 and why do no passenger trains use it?'

 

[zwk500]

Most renumberings will have been when major resignalling was going on. Lewes, Preston and Crewe come into that category.

 

[Western 52]

Cardiff Queen Street was renumbered when 2 extra platforms were added. Quite logical, but for some reason the order was reversed, 1,2,3 became 4,3,2.

 

[Mat17]

Lincoln - 3 to 7 became 1 to 5.

 

[scrapy]

Liverpool Lime St high level had all its platforms renumbered after the remodel and resignalling about 5 years ago. Since then the low level platform 1 has been changed to platform A.

 

[D6975]

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

 

[317 forever]

I find it weird when stations have introduced a platform 0.

Either number it platform 1 and add 1 to the other platform numbers, or give it the lowest vacant platform number.

 

[jfollows]

I find it weird when stations have introduced a platform 0.

Either number it platform 1 and add 1 to the other platform numbers, or give it the lowest vacant platform number.

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.

 

[zwk500]

I find it weird when stations have introduced a platform 0.

Either number it platform 1 and add 1 to the other platform numbers, or give it the lowest vacant platform number.

There's a whole thread on Platform 0, and why it's been chosen.

 

[BurtonM]

Stalybridge was renumbered and reversed when the station was refurbished as they'd added platforms on both sides of the existing ones and didn't really have a choice without making it utterly confusing or having a platform 0.

 

[Efini92]

There has been a lot of discussion on here about stations that should be renumbered, and the general consensus is it is not really worth the massive cost and disruption to long-standing systems that function well enough but may confuse the occasional passenger.

But what about the opposite situation? That is, stations that have been renumbered when the 'benefits' were probably very small?

The obvious example to me is Warrington Bank Quay: "The present platform 4 was numbered 5 for many years, because there was to be a north-facing bay platform in the west island which was numbered 4, but this saw no passenger use after electrification in 1972."

I remember very well the main platforms being 1, 2, 3 and 5 and don't think it confused anyone, except for the occasional person who may have wondered 'Where is platform 4 and why do no passenger trains use it?'

It was quite easy to renumber Bank quay as you don’t get number indications for the platforms.

 

[181]

(Mentioned on another thread, but relevant here). Woking was renumbered twice within what seemed like a fairly small number of years. The first renumbering (mid/late 1980s?) reduced all the platform numbers by 1, so 1 became the up slow rather than the long-vanished bay. The second (1990-somethng?) resulted from the construction of the new bay platform between the up and down fast lines at the London end of the station -- that became 3, so while the up platforms didn't change, the down ones reverted to their original numbers.

 

[barbette165]

Birmingham Moor Street was renumbered when the bay platforms reopened. Platform 1 was for departures to Snow Hill and Platform 2 for Tyseley. These were swapped so that the numbering was sequential (1 and 2 the through platforms, 3 & 4 the bays with tracks and 5 still untracked.
Interestingly the Midlands Rail Hub proposals https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1910/midlands-connect-mrh-report-accessibilitychecked.pdf have platform 5 being re-tracked and two new platforms to the east of platform 1, referred to as Platforms A and B.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Newton Abbot used to have platforms 1-9. P1-8 were the two long island platforms split into eight sections by making use of the scissors crossovers midway. They had IIRC been renumbered to just P1-4 long before resignalling which then reduced it to P1-3.
P9 was the former Mortonhampsted bay by which it is still known to this day.

 

[308165]

Leeds was substantially renumbered around 2000 as part of remodelling. This included the renumbering of platform W as platform 1 as well as the addition of what are now 2,3,16 and 17.

Shipley was, I think, renumbered in the mid nineties as part of resignalling.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

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.

I think it also helps the emergency services by adding a number to their existing plans rather than altering everything. The emergency services also have an input into street naming so as to avoid similar named streets in the same locale.

Stratford in London has been renumbered as it grew.

 

[YorksLad12]

Leeds was substantially renumbered around 2000 as part of remodelling. This included the renumbering of platform W as platform 1 as well as the addition of what are now 2,3,16 and 17.

Shipley was, I think, renumbered in the mid nineties as part of resignalling.

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.

 

[74A]

Bristol Parkway was renumbered when the third platform was added. If they hadn't then you would have had platforms 3 1 2 in that order.

 

[swt_passenger]

Newcastle Central was renumbered after 6 platforms were considered redundant following the Metro completion. I guess it would have worked ok with platforms numbered from 7 upwards, but most people would have thought it rather odd.

 

[Falcon1200]

Oxford's through platforms had been 1 and 2, probably since the station opened in 1850. Now they are 3 and 4 with the Up side bays being 1 and 2.

 

[MarkyT]

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.

It's not just the signalling itself which, particularly at termini, often displays a route indication of the platform number for the driver, but all the downstream management and public information systems that feed off the signalling which would need reconfiguration, all the signage, all the maps, all the safety documentation etc, etc, etc. Adding a new platform identity, as long as it's unique, is much easier. ZERO is such a unique identity, as would be any letter character in a formerly numeric-only sequence. Clearly, when a major reconfiguration of a whole station area takes place, or during complete renewal of the signalling system, where all these systems need significant change anyway, it can make sense to start again with a clean slate.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Kings Cross was renumbered in the 1970s. Prior to that, there had not been a platform 3 or 9 for many years. (3 had originally been a bay let into 2, but later abolished to extend platform 2: 9 had been a siding between platform roads 2 and 10) Platforms 4-8 were renumbered 3 to 7, and platforms 10-17 renumbered 8-15. (11-15 have since been abolished, and platform 0 added, to give the current platforms 0-10)

 

[Purple Train]

Kings Cross was renumbered in the 1970s. Prior to that, there had not been a platform 3 or 9 for many years. (3 had originally been a bay let into 2, but later abolished to extend platform 2: 9 had been a siding between platform roads 2 and 10) Platforms 4-8 were renumbered 3 to 7, and platforms 10-17 renumbered 8-15. (11-15 have since been abolished, and platform 0 added, to give the current platforms 0-10)

And indeed the current platform 10 at Kings Cross was platform 11 before the recent remodelling. I wonder if anyone's added 9 3/4 signs on the abandoned former platform 10?

 

[alholmes]

Hitchin was renumbered in the late-80s / early-90s. Previously platform 1 was the Down Slow, and is where the entrance is located. Now platform 1 is the Up Slow, and platform 2 is the Down Slow. The two platforms swapped numbers as I think there was an intention on that part of the ECML to number the platforms consistently at all stations with platform 1 on the Up Slow side, and then number them upwards from there.

 

[midland1]

If they built another platform alongside a platform 0 would they have to call it platform -1

 

[Mat17]

I assume Penistone has been renumbered a few times. The lower numbers being on the mainline side of the station, I would assume.

 

[Kite159]

Tottenham Hale & Northumberland Park, changed from 1+2 to 2, 3 & 4 when the long siding for Meridian Water was built.

 

[DelW]

Reading was renumbered during the major reconstruction in the early 20-teens. That meant removing bays and adding extra through platforms on the main line, but the opportunity was also taken to sort out the issues dating from when the ex Southern routes were added in the 1970s. That had left separate platforms numbered 4, 4a and 4b, and without renumbering, a separate 4c would have had to be added as well.

 

[MarkyT]

Reading was renumbered during the major reconstruction in the early 20-teens. That meant removing bays and adding extra through platforms on the main line, but the opportunity was also taken to sort out the issues dating from when the ex Southern routes were added in the 1970s. That had left separate platforms numbered 4, 4a and 4b, and without renumbering, a separate 4c would have had to be added as well.

Of course, Reading was a major reconfiguration and expansion going from four to nine through platforms among many other changes and involving the renewal of all signalling systems, so was a great opportunity to go for a clean slate approach to platform numbering. Before the mid-1960s, there was a short GWR parcel bay and headshunt cut in behind the London end of the Down Main platform (#4). A single 8-car passenger side platform, #4A, was constructed in this area, accessed via a widened new bridge over Vastern Road, after which all Southern Region passenger services were diverted from their former separate terminal next door. One platform soon proved inadequate and a back face was added to create #4B. Reconstruction of the Southern terminal platforms was one of the first elements completed of the most recent station redevelopment which lengthened the old #4A/B to 12-car and added a third 12-car terminal platform. Vastern Road bridge needed its rail deck widening again to achieve this. These platforms became #4, #5 and #6 in the new scheme and the former #4 became #7

 

[swt_passenger]

Of course, Reading was a major reconfiguration and expansion going from four to nine through platforms among many other changes and involving the renewal of all signalling systems, so was a great opportunity to go for a clean slate approach to platform numbering. Before the mid-1960s, there was a short GWR parcel bay and headshunt cut in behind the London end of the Down Main platform (#4). A single 8-car passenger side platform, #4A, was constructed in this area, accessed via a widened new bridge over Vastern Road, after which all Southern Region passenger services were diverted from their former separate terminal next door. One platform soon proved inadequate and a back face was added to create #4B. Reconstruction of the Southern terminal platforms was one of the first elements completed of the most recent station redevelopment which lengthened the old #4A/B to 12-car and added a third 12-car terminal platform. Vastern Road bridge needed its rail deck widening again to achieve this. These platforms became #4, #5 and #6 in the new scheme and the former #4 became #7

Reading was renumbered during the major reconstruction in the early 20-teens. That meant removing bays and adding extra through platforms on the main line, but the opportunity was also taken to sort out the issues dating from when the ex Southern routes were added in the 1970s. That had left separate platforms numbered 4, 4a and 4b, and without renumbering, a separate 4c would have had to be added as well.

Reading isn’t really the type of project the OP was asking about, he’s asking for examples where they renumbered even though there was no real advantage to doing so, ie ‘the benefits were very small’.

By any normal reckoning Reading had so many changes it had to be renumbered.