There was another weird one at Whimple. When they singled the WoE line, for some reason, they pulled up the up line, yet that retained all the station buildings, meaning that all passengers had to cross the footbridge. It has since been sorted out, but looked really odd.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
False platforms
- Thread starter GuyBarry
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Also, the other false platform at Lewes (on the other side of the down London platform) is used to access the carpark. There's also a stub of track at the country end which is used as a siding.
Parham Wood
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 331
Westbury has an unused platform face (old platlform 1). It was taken out of action when the station was resignalled. There is not a full track width spare as I recall as the down goods line was slewed. I believe there are plans/ideas to reinstate this platform. Since the unused face is on an island platform, the other side of which is used, passengers are free to wander along the platform at this face so argueably it is a platform without a track used by passengers.
Callum
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 31
Aberdeen's former platforms 8 and 9 no longer have tracks directly serving them, although there is a track running through them, right in the middle, used by HST accessing the washing plant.
DJ_K666
Member
What about the old platforms at Kensington Olympia? They just built the new ones and left the old in place.
David10
Member
The northbound platform is the original, only the southbound was closed with a new platform built over the former platform loop.
causton
Established Member
I did find that really weird! Was there something wrong with the original one to leave it fully intact and build a whole new one, and lose a track in the process, rather than re-cover it or re-use some parts of it and lay the top bit again?
David10
Member
Think it was one of those false economy drives by BR in the 1990s where they thought they could save a few quid by eliminating a small section of track by extending the platform out to the southbound through line. Or maybe it was so they could get a bit more when Olympia's former bay platforms land was sold for redevelopment. With the WLL to be extended to allow 8 car services will no doubt cost a small fortune to extend the southbound platform.
Yes, I'll give you that one (and my apologies to the member who suggested it). I was just getting a little annoyed that several people had apparently misunderstood the question and were simply giving examples of disused platforms. I think what I meant is clear now.
Rich_D3167
Member
Cleethorpes has one, the former Platform 4. For years, it had nothing but ballast in the trackbed, but now it has lighting for servicing the TPE Class 185's.
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,006
To stop partially sighted people from falling off the edge?
Seriously - the wash from a high speed train on the opposite platform is strong enough that even at that distance you don't want people standing near the edge.Ploughman
Established Member
What a load of twaddle.
Nearly all the platforms mentioned in this thread are not FALSE platforms.
They are DISUSED In that they did once act as a platform.
If they were false they would never have performed their intended function.
Nearly all the platforms mentioned in this thread are not FALSE platforms.
They are DISUSED In that they did once act as a platform.
If they were false they would never have performed their intended function.
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
In that case Chippenham wouldn't count either! In fact would any station actually count then? Platforms aren't usually built for show...
In that case, I suppose the old second platform at New Romney and Littlestone on Sea might have counted - as it was clearly the right design, location and lenth to have been a platform bit I think it may have always been grassed over and used for loading sheep.
I expect the second platform at Chessington South would fall into the same category (although both of these actually had/have tracks.
I expect the second platform at Chessington South would fall into the same category (although both of these actually had/have tracks.
fairysdad
Member
They're not really disused though, as they are being used, they just don't have trains passing/stopping alongside them. Admittedly, 'false' isn't really the right word to use either, but there is a difference between being 'disused' and what these platforms are.
Well, I had to give the thread some sort of title! I didn't want to give the impression that I was talking about "disused platforms" in the normal sense - i.e. ones that are no longer in use by passengers.
If anyone else knows of a better term I'm quite happy to change the title. (But I quite like "false platform" myself.)
Anyway, I've just looked up "false" in the dictionary and the first definition is "not genuine". These aren't genuine platforms used for boarding trains, even if they were once. I think the term's OK.
If anyone else knows of a better term I'm quite happy to change the title. (But I quite like "false platform" myself.)
Anyway, I've just looked up "false" in the dictionary and the first definition is "not genuine". These aren't genuine platforms used for boarding trains, even if they were once. I think the term's OK.
Last edited:
There is no way that a train on the opposite platform is strong enough. Logic tells you that in that case loads of people on the platform with the train who are standing behind the yellow line would get sucked in because you can be sure they are going to be closer than those on the opposite platform.
I was at Chippenham at half term and walked straight on to the out of use platform because it was the logical platform for trains to Bath. It looked 100% like the real thing until the realisation of there being no tracks! It seems it may be unique. The other factor is that you can't see there are no tracks until you go onto the platform as you approach the platform at right angles through the doors. The sign could be clearer - "All Trains" might be better for the first line rather than "Platforms 1 & 2".
It does raise the question of why they took out that platform and not the one on the north side - track alignment to enable a higher through speed?
As for the yellow lines, on the basis they've been painted since the track was removed then I reckon it was a contractor who got a job to paint yellow lines on the platforms at the station and did precisely that!
Precisely. If you go in through the side gate rather than the ticket hall, there's no indication that this is anything other than a regular platform. I didn't twig until after I'd spent about a minute looking for the train indicator. There really ought to be some sort of sign there.
Maybe that's why there's no decent term for the thing! Perhaps we should call it a "Chippenham platform".
It's not even obvious that there are no tracks when you're on the platform, unless you're specifically looking for them - and I don't normally check to see if there's a track every time I walk into a station! I suppose it'll be a bit more obvious when the line's electrified...
I agree. And the sign shouldn't say "This platform not in use", because it clearly is in use! How about "No trains depart from this platform"?
Good question.
The platform was closed to trains in 1976 - I think anything painted on it before then would have worn away by now! I don't think they even had yellow lines at platform edges then - the Inter-City 125 (High Speed Train) didn't start running until later in the year, and I'm fairly certain they were introduced after that, as a safety measure.
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,006
It is less to do with being physically sucked than an inattentive person being caught by surprise and then stumbling or falling off the nearby edge of the platform. One has to remember that not everyone is physically able and has good vision and hearing!
The aim of the line is to create enough space that someone who does stumble can recover without going off the edge. The shockwave whilst very unpleasant close up is not strong enough to bodily suck an adult in, but if they are not expecting it, then combines with the noise and visual stimulus of the passing train it is more than enough to disorient and lead to a stumble or a fall.
David10
Member
By having an island platform less staff needed at Chippenham for train despatch duties.
And no need to duplicate facilities, although a bit of slewing and some widening at the next refurb might be helpful.
There still must be costs attached to keeping an extra platform open, though: maintenance, cleaning, safety measures (like the yellow lines) and so on. I can understand why such an arrangement might be used as a temporary measure, but after 36 years you'd have thought they might have found some way of getting rid of it. I can't believe that Chippenham is the only station in the country where a track was closed that once ran alongside the station building. Or is it?
Another point: if they're really concerned about safety, why not put a barrier along the platform edge? Not only would this be far more effective than painting a yellow line, it would also be a clear visual indication that you can't board trains there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What facilities? The only facility shared between the two parts of the island platform is the waiting room. All the other facilities are on the "false"/"disused"/"trackless"/"spare" platform (take your pick)
Last edited:
Ivo
Established Member
The thing with Chippenham is that there is definitely potential to bring the extra platform back into use. The only problem though is that it would only really work as a terminus in that sense, and unless it means a shuttle to Calne and nothing else there would be little if any benefit in terminating there instead of Swindon. Having said that, I guess a shuttle to Warminster - stopping at both Melksham and Dilton Marsh, allowing other services (e.g. Wessex Main Line and Go-what's-it) to pass them by. But again, why not extend to Swindon...?
Badger
Member
Most of these have been platforms at some point in the past. For good examples of these I would suggest Birmingham Moor Street to Dorridge, most of which have at least one disused platform, some were clearly four platforms in the past. I wonder if they'd ever bring them back into use? It just seems a shame to have them sitting there...
Tyseley is a good example, the retained closed platforms are kept in very good condition: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/tyseley.php
Small heath: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/small_heath.php
Solihull: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/solihull.php
Tyseley is a good example, the retained closed platforms are kept in very good condition: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/tyseley.php
Small heath: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/small_heath.php
Solihull: http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/Stations/solihull.php
What facilities? The only facility shared between the two parts of the island platform is the waiting room. All the other facilities are on the "false"/"disused"/"trackless"/"spare" platform (take your pick)
I was thinking waiting room, toilets, etc.
- Status