BeijingDave
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 403
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?'
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?'