Why aren't the platforms at UK railway stations renumbered?

[swt_passenger]

It also means if platforms are closed that they don't renumber platforms which would confuse passengers.

So Platforms 4 and 7 at Stratford were closed by BR at some point in the past but the remaining open platforms remained as numbgered and weren't changed. So for example today's passengers know that Platform 8 at Stratford is for Down local stopping services to Shenfield. Platform 6 for Central Line services towards Leytonstone rather than renumbering which may cause confusion in itself.

Note that Platform 4 was re-opened for DLR at Stratford in 1987 but has now been closed again and two new platforms opened listed as 4A and 4B for capacity reasons. Platform 7 has never re-opened.

I’ve read somewhere that Stratford P4 & P7 were never used in normal service, they were designed for a Fenchurch St shuttle service that wasn’t ever started. Did they ever have track laid?

 

[DelW]

The trouble with 1a and 1b is there are some locations that split longer platforms up into separate zones and label them as A and B.

… or come to Sheffield where some platforms have “A” and “B” ends to denote the stopping position of short trains, but there’s also 2C which is a Bay platform round the corner from 2A/2B (yet the other three Bay platforms have their own unique numbers - 3/4/8)

Between the 1970s (ish) and the recent rebuilding, Reading had three separate platforms numbered 4, 4a and 4b. The former was a full length platform on the down main, while the latter two were bays on two third-rail tracks that were completely separate from the other lines through the station. Fortunately the rebuild was sufficiently major to justify changing to a more logical numbering system.

 

[30907]

Between the 1970s (ish) and the recent rebuilding, Reading had three separate platforms numbered 4, 4a and 4b. The former was a full length platform on the down main, while the latter two were bays on two third-rail tracks that were completely separate from the other lines through the station.

Operationally they were completely separate, but from a passenger viewpoint they were at the end of 4.

 

[DelW]

Operationally they were completely separate, but from a passenger viewpoint they were at the end of 4.

Re-reading it, my phrasing wasn't as clear as it should have been. I'd intended "that were completely separate" to refer back to the 3rd rail tracks, not the bay platforms. As you say, those platforms were adjacent to one end of p4.

 

[The exile]

There would appear to be at least some aversion to platforms being numbered out of sequence. No doubt there are a few exceptions to that, as there always is.

Try Germany - at Koblenz Hbf you will find platform 104 between platforms 4 & 5! (Yes - there is a logic, but not at first glance!)

 

[brad465]

I think many of us wondered at the time why Kings Cross couldn’t have been “fixed“ during the remodelling last year.

Given the significant amount of track and signalling changes going on anyway, (for the reopening of the third tunnel), but even then someone said it wasn’t cost effective to do it. But at least they changed P11 to P10 to avoid a gap in the numbers on that side.

Likewise I don't know why they didn't do Gravesend as 1-3; platform 0 was born out of a major remodelling there that saw the through lines with no platform removed and the bay platform that is P0 installed. Maybe in this case they didn't want a P3 associated with one of the through platforms, and flipping the numbering around to make the bay platform P3 and the down platform P1 would have been confusing compared to before.

When London Bridge was overhauled that definitely saw renumbering, but then that was a major job, which saw the reinstatement of a P7.

 

[Rescars]

Reading all this makes me realise that Harry Potter's Platform 9 3/4 may not be quite as magical as it first seemed after all.

 

[Brissle Girl]

It's hit the national press:

Heritage railway takes on Avanti with first class west coast service

Locomotive Intercity promises cheaper tickets and comfier seats on its Friday service between London and Manchester

www.theguardian.com

Hopefully a self-explanatory title, but sitting on Shrewsbury railway station yesterday, I started wondering why the platforms were numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

I mean, clearly at some point there were 8 platforms (though not sure if the prison platform would've been numbered!), but there's now 5 and it seems unlikely that platforms 1&2 will come in to usage in the near future. You can imagine that in the shorter term, the cost & time to put up new signage might mean you'd keep the original platform numbers. But at this point, you'd think that the amount of people that'd read "platform 1" and assume it was the old platform 1 would be minimal.

There's also stations like Cardiff Central or Haymarket that have a platform 0 - you'd think on the face of it that they could be renumbered so that (for example) Haymarket had platforms 1-5, with 3&4 being in the middle island.

Anyway, I just wondered if there was a reason that they hadn't been renumbered?

Cardiff Central has the issue that the numbers in the subway are listed, which would make any renumbering tricky.

 

[XAM2175]

I've just remembered also that Copenhagen H has normal platforms 1 to 12, and then an extension of 4-5 that's number 26.

Try Germany - at Koblenz Hbf you will find platform 104 between platforms 4 & 5! (Yes - there is a logic, but not at first glance!)

I can't recall exactly where it was in Germany, but the DMU fuelling roads were signed as tracks 604, 605, etc etc in the same style as passenger platforms - although they obviously weren't accessible to the public.

 

[zwk500]

Likewise I don't know why they didn't do Gravesend as 1-3; platform 0 was born out of a major remodelling there that saw the through lines with no platform removed and the bay platform that is P0 installed. Maybe in this case they didn't want a P3 associated with one of the through platforms, and flipping the numbering around to make the bay platform P3 and the down platform P1 would have been confusing compared to before.

The answer probably lies in the planning system. To change platform numbers requires juggling around with end dates and start dates in the infrastructure data, and should the project slip behind there is a risk of the system sending trains downstream into wrong platforms. Platform 0 avoids any potential confusion and minimises interventions

When London Bridge was overhauled that definitely saw renumbering, but then that was a major job, which saw the reinstatement of a P7

This required complete overhaul of the data in the planning systems as well, regardless of platform numbers.

 

[Alan Glaum]

Oxford was renumbered back in 2016, so it does happen

 

[6Gman]

This has been done in some locations, e.g. Northampton has it's platforms labelled 3,2,1,4,5 West to East, 4/5 being a pair of north-facing bays off the end of platform 1 (although I have no idea if they existed when the platform numbers for the through tracks were allocated). I have no idea about Haymarket, maybe it's just policy to keep numbers in sequence where possible? Staff preference or even signage might have come into it, as well as customer feedback regarding other stations in Scotland with less than intuitive numbering.

If you are doing a major resignalling then a significant portion of the cost of changing all the systems and documentation is already accounted for, and exactly which label you give each platform can be somewhat flexible.

Which, presumably, is why Crewe was renumbered in the 1980s revamp?

(Though it seems to have had several systems over the years)

 

[zwk500]

Which, presumably, is why Crewe was renumbered in the 1980s revamp?

(Though it seems to have had several systems over the years)

Possibly, an intervention to that scale would pretty much be starting from a blank piece of paper anyway. But that's a bit before my time!

 

[swt_passenger]

Oxford was renumbered back in 2016, so it does happen

That coincided with the area resignalling and to prepare the layout for the future down loop which will be through platform 5. I think it’s generally accepted that it‘s more likely to be done in conjunction with resignalling, it’s just that sometimes the scope of resignalling must be too simple…

 

[The exile]

I've just remembered also that Copenhagen H has normal platforms 1 to 12, and then an extension of 4-5 that's number 26.


I can't recall exactly where it was in Germany, but the DMU fuelling roads were signed as tracks 604, 605, etc etc in the same style as passenger platforms - although they obviously weren't accessible to the public.

The German (and elsewhere) system being to number the tracks, not the platforms (It’s Gleis 1, not Bahnsteig 1). The Koblenz example has bay tracks/platforms 104 and 105 between tracks/platforms 4 and 5.

 

[Falcon1200]

as well as customer feedback regarding other stations in Scotland with less than intuitive numbering.

Including of course the station just down the line from Haymarket, Waverley, where the numbering still sometimes confuses me!

 

[32475]

I suppose platform 0 is always going to be next to platform 1 in an ordered number sequence but then I wouldn’t be surprised if there are examples out there of platforms not in number sequence (yes I seem to recall having got confused at Waverley too)

 

[SargeNpton]

This has been done in some locations, e.g. Northampton has it's platforms labelled 3,2,1,4,5 West to East, 4/5 being a pair of north-facing bays off the end of platform 1 (although I have no idea if they existed when the platform numbers for the through tracks were allocated).

Platforms 4 and 5 at Northampton were originally unnumbered and, up untils the demise of the sevice in the 1980s, used as parcels bays.

 

[pdeaves]

I'm a foreigner and didn't know there were 'platform 0(s)' in the UK.

Sub-optimal, strange, confusing and as someone who's travelled in many nations, I cannot recall any other rail network/nation doing this.

'Platform 0' may indicate to many people that the train isn't operating. '0' = 'zero'.

Platform 0 stations shown here http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/stations/trivia.shtm#platform0

 

[tbtc]

Including of course the station just down the line from Haymarket, Waverley, where the numbering still sometimes confuses me!

(yes I seem to recall having got confused at Waverley too)

I think Waverley’s platform numbers work really well, it’s as logical as it could be, platform numbers increasing on a clockwise basis - starting with “1” in the north east like a clock - you just need to picture the station from above and it all makes sense

Or, at least, I can’t think of any better way of numbering the 20 platforms that going round in a circle, given the enormous booking hall in the middle of the station site

 

[Bletchleyite]

The German (and elsewhere) system being to number the tracks, not the platforms (It’s Gleis 1, not Bahnsteig 1). The Koblenz example has bay tracks/platforms 104 and 105 between tracks/platforms 4 and 5.

There are all sorts of weird ones in Germanic countries that as you say number the tracks. The bay on platform 1 at (I think) Lausanne, for instance, is 40, not 0 or 1a as we might expect here.

 

[BingMan]

'Platform 0' may indicate to many people that the train isn't operating. '0' = 'zero'.

Which is exactly what platform 0 is at Stockport a platform where no trains stop

 

[swt_passenger]

I think Waverley’s platform numbers work really well, it’s as logical as it could be, platform numbers increasing on a clockwise basis - starting with “1” in the north east like a clock - you just need to picture the station from above and it all makes sense

Or, at least, I can’t think of any better way of numbering the 20 platforms that going round in a circle, given the enormous booking hall in the middle of the station site

I think nobody has ever come up with a better way in any of the many previous threads about Waverley. It was mentioned most recently in the useless station maps thread a fortnight ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Waverley’s platform numbers work really well, it’s as logical as it could be, platform numbers increasing on a clockwise basis - starting with “1” in the north east like a clock - you just need to picture the station from above and it all makes sense

Or, at least, I can’t think of any better way of numbering the 20 platforms that going round in a circle, given the enormous booking hall in the middle of the station site

Given the layout:

Network Rail plan of Waverley showing platform numbers

it would seem obvious to me that:

1(a/b) = 1 and 20
2(a/b) = 2 and 19
3 = 17
4 = 16
5 = 15
6 = 14
7 = 4
8 = 5
9 = 6
10 = 13
11 = 12
12(a/b) = 11 and 7
13 = 10
14(a/b) = 9(e/w)
15(a/b) = 8(e/w)

It's not perfect but it's a heck of a lot more intuitive than the clockwise numbering which is systemic but highly confusing. I as an expert user have trouble visualising the clockwise layout when actually in the station - making a map look pretty isn't the goal.

 

[PeterC]

Platform 0 instances aren't the most confusing; the worst is at Stratford where 10 and 10A are on different islands and every day people end up on 10A only to realise, frequently too late, that their train is going from 10...

I have been caught out at Stratford by assuming that 10 and 10A were on the same island. Luckily I didn't miss the train.

I still think of the low level platforms as 1 and 2.

 

[CAF397]

I've never had a problem with Edinburghs clock face pattern, but what I have always wondered is how easy it for a non-local/tourist to work out which way East and West is, in order to proceed to the right end of the platform!

 

[Ken H]

If you are doing a major resignalling then a significant portion of the cost of changing all the systems and documentation is already accounted for, and exactly which label you give each platform can be somewhat flexible.

Haven't the tekkies discovered soft coding. The fact the platform numbers are hard coded isn't good coding practice.

 

[tbtc]

it would seem obvious to me that:

Obvious to you, sure, but it creates its own problems, looks like you’re mainly just changing it from a clockwise numbering to an anti-clockwise numbering system, but numbering the east facing bays in roughly where the southern access ramp is, which some will find confusing

making a map look pretty isn't the goal.

I don’t think it’s about looking pretty, feels like a strawman, it’s more about finding a logical way of dealing with a ring of platforms around a central booking hall at one of the few stations that has a large number of bay platforms at both ends and also through platforms with faces capable of handling two full length intercity services at the same time (or four “local” trains, which is why using 1A/1B to denote a platform face capable of having four trains in it seems a bit too restrictive)

Given the huge costs involved, I’d only want to tinker with platform numbers if b it was demonstrably better (getting rid of confusing quirks like platforms numbered out of sequence/ Platform 0), and I don’t think it’s “obvious” that your ideas are any better that the status quo, sorry

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obvious to you, sure, but it creates its own problems, looks like you’re mainly just changing it from a clockwise numbering to an anti-clockwise numbering system, but numbering the east facing bays in roughly where the southern access ramp is, which some will find confusing

No, it's a linear numbering scheme, so if you stand in any given part of the station the numbers you are near to will be the same ones, not totally different ones.

Whether you do the middle bit as low one side and high the other or alternating is a bit moot. The layout lends itself more to low one side, high the other, as the access to the ones on the booking office side are not directly opposite the access to the main bays.

"Platform 20? Oh, that's the other end of platform 1" is the most stupid scheme I have ever seen in the UK* in my life.

* 40 as the bay cut into 1 at Lausanne beats it.

 

[BrianW]

I've never had a problem with Edinburghs clock face pattern, but what I have always wondered is how easy it for a non-local/tourist to work out which way East and West is, in order to proceed to the right end of the platform!

Is part of the issue that the numbering is not internally consistent? It's a while since I was last at Waverley so please forgive If I have something wrong. The Network Rail diagram shows on the north (Princes Street) side, platforms 1 and 20 as one continuous platform face , and 2 and 19 similarly; whereas on the south side (Market Street) are Platforms 8e and 8w as one continuous platform face and 9e and 9w similarly. Does this reflect train utilisation for instance- e.g that a train may occupy Platforms 8e and 8w as if it were a single Platform 8?
A relatively cursory look at Real Time trains this morning seems to make no mention of 8e or 8W, only 8 whether the train be 9 coaches for Kings Cross or 3 coaches for Tweedbank.

I don't have 'the answer'. Wishing well to all those who have tried.