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

[algytaylor]

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?

 

[Carntyne]

It costs a fortune to update signalling systems, back office systems, paperwork, station signage etc for little to no benefit!

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s usually explained that it’s the cost of altering the signalling system that is the main factor that prevents quick and easy changes. Changing the physical signs is easy, it’s all the stuff passengers don’t see that is the problem.

 

[algytaylor]

Thanks both - that makes perfect sense.

Related question, then. Could a platform "-1" conceivably exist?

 

[Snow1964]

Thanks both - that makes perfect sense.

Related question, then. Could a platform "-1" conceivably exist?

No, as would cause too much confusion with people not realising dash is part of the number, then mixing 1 and -1

Much more likely to use a suffix eg 1a or renumber the station if was full length platform. Or might use an existing spare number providing didn’t make it difficult to locate platforms

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Much more likely to use a suffix eg 1a

Yes, far better. This appalling nonsense (IMO) of having platform '0' at certain places (yes, I am referring to KX) is dire. Yes, there are many down stream systems to take in to account, but surely platform 1 could have become 1A and the new one, 1B. Rant for today over!

 

[Andyh82]

Yes, far better. This appalling nonsense (IMO) of having platform '0' at certain places (yes, I am referring to KX) is dire. Yes, there are many down stream systems to take in to account, but surely platform 1 could have become 1A and the new one, 1B. Rant for today over!

Suffix letters are most commonly used for segments of a longer platform

I know they don’t do this at Kings Cross, but customers may think 1B was a shorter train at the front of platform 1

Leeds of course has 0a and 0b

 

[AF91]

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.

 

[AM9]

Suffix letters are most commonly used for segments of a longer platform

I know they don’t do this at Kings Cross, but customers may think 1B was a shorter train at the front of platform 1

Leeds of course has 0a and 0b

Less likely in the SE as most trains fill their platforms and it would be wasteful to trap a shorter train at a terminal platform when space is so precious.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, far better. This appalling nonsense (IMO) of having platform '0' at certain places (yes, I am referring to KX) is dire. Yes, there are many down stream systems to take in to account, but surely platform 1 could have become 1A and the new one, 1B. Rant for today over!

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.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Merseyrail's platform at Liverpool Lime St hasn't got a number and is not integrated with the main station's platform numbering (or its signalling).
RTT refers to it as platform L (Low Level).
Merseyrail departures are at least now shown on the main line PIS display, in a separate box.

 

[railfan99]

Yes, far better. This appalling nonsense (IMO) of having platform '0' at certain places (yes, I am referring to KX) is dire. Yes, there are many down stream systems to take in to account, but surely platform 1 could have become 1A and the new one, 1B. Rant for today over!

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'.

 

[AM9]

Merseyrail's platform at Liverpool Lime St hasn't got a number and is not integrated with the main station's platform numbering (or its signalling).
RTT refers to it as platform L (Low Level).
Merseyrail departures are at least now shown on the main line PIS display, in a separate box.

Just as St Pancras has the Thameslink low level platforms designated A & B, - they are also fully bidirectional.

 

[railfan99]

Just as St Pancras has the Thameslink low level platforms designated A & B, - they are also fully bidirectional.

But 'A' and 'B' indicate positions along a platform - not a separate platform.

Surely the standard ought be to use numerals for platforms, not letters.

 

[swt_passenger]

But 'A' and 'B' indicate positions along a platform - not a separate platform.

Surely the standard ought be to use numerals for platforms, not letters.

Letters have been used for many years to indicate physically separate locations, eg Waterloo East has had A-D as long as I can remember to intentionally separate it from the main station. I’m sure that’s the logic that was applied at St Pancras.

 

[tbtc]

Far too late more, of course, but I’m hindsight it might have been a lot better if signallers used A/B/C etc to designate platforms and 1/2/3 were used for passengers, so that things could be reorganised logically in the eyes of passengers without mucking up any diagrams

Then again, this is the railway, a lot of seemingly odd things either make sense to those of us who are used to it but perplex occasional users “why does that train coach DMU have carriages A and C?” … “because this type of train runs in two or three coaches, and to be consistent, B is only used for a middle carriage, so when there’s only two they are A and C”) or so regularly get put in the “too hard to solve” pile that nobody even bothers to try to improve things; I’ve got used to grinning and bearing it because I’ve been told too many times that the cost/effort outweighs the benefits

Suffix letters are most commonly used for segments of a longer platform

I know they don’t do this at Kings Cross, but customers may think 1B was a shorter train at the front of platform 1

… 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)

Leeds of course has 0a and 0b

I think that, during the rebuilding around twenty years ago, it also had X and Y (before everything was properly renumbered)

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'.

I think Stockport and Cardiff also have 0s, along with the examples listed here

 

[adamedwards]

See Geoff Marshall's all the platform zero videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTHOyTypNs8 =
Cardiff | Redhill | Rainham | Gravesend | King's Cross

=
Doncaster | Stockport | Haymarket

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think that, during the rebuilding around twenty years ago, it also had X and Y (before everything was properly renumbered)

It had W (for Wellington or West depending who you ask), which pre-dated the rebuild by a few years. That's now platform 1. Don't recall X and Y, but not saying it didn't happen- I just don't remember it.

No doubt if we started using X, we'd get threads on here about someone reading it as "10" in Roman numerals...

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I have to chuckle, as most of the perceived 'problems' that have arisen in more recent times (such as platform renumbering after a station rebuild etc) are driven by the computer age systems that tie everything together. Before the computer age things were so much simpler! No apologies for being an old fxxt

 

[swt_passenger]

See Geoff Marshall's all the platform zero videos:

Cardiff | Redhill | Rainham | Gravesend | King's Cross
Doncaster | Stockport | Haymarket

Did Geoff‘s tour predate Leeds P0? Must have just missed it opening?

 

[zwk500]

Thanks both - that makes perfect sense.

Related question, then. Could a platform "-1" conceivably exist?

I think in theory it could, it would depend on whether every system can display it properly.

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'.

Sub optimal and confusing but judged to be better than spending £1m+ to change every single point of data and document that relates to platform numbers.

But 'A' and 'B' indicate positions along a platform - not a separate platform.

Letters have been used to indicate individual platforms for a very long time, possobly pre-grouping, at New Cross (to avoid confusion with New Cross Gate) and Waterloo East (to avoid confusion eith the terminus).

Surely the standard ought be to use numerals for platforms, not letters.

If there's a logical rule on the railway, chances are its been broken more than once!
Because of the cost of the disruption to operations platform renumbering would cause, you end up with just about every possible anomaly somewhere along the network.

 

[Falcon1200]

Rather than have Platform 0, why not simply use the next available number, eg at Haymarket the bay would be Platform 5 instead of 0? Surely the railway does not think passengers are so stupid that they could only find their way to Platform 5 by referring to the location of Platform 4 first?!!

And platforms do get renumbered, at Oxford the Up and Down through platforms which, for decades if not centuries, had been 1 and 2, were changed to 3 and 4, so that the north end bays could be 1 and 2 - Why not simply make the bays 3 and 4, unless for the reason above?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Rather than have Platform 0, why not simply use the next available number, eg at Haymarket the bay would be Platform 5 instead of 0? Surely the railway does not think passengers are so stupid that they could only find their way to Platform 5 by referring to the location of Platform 4 first?!!

And platforms do get renumbered, at Oxford the Up and Down through platforms which, for decades if not centuries, had been 1 and 2, were changed to 3 and 4, so that the north end bays could be 1 and 2 - Why not simply make the bays 3 and 4, unless for the reason above?

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.

 

[zwk500]

Rather than have Platform 0, why not simply use the next available number, eg at Haymarket the bay would be Platform 5 instead of 0? Surely the railway does not think passengers are so stupid that they could only find their way to Platform 5 by referring to the location of Platform 4 first?!!

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.

And platforms do get renumbered, at Oxford the Up and Down through platforms which, for decades if not centuries, had been 1 and 2, were changed to 3 and 4, so that the north end bays could be 1 and 2 - Why not simply make the bays 3 and 4, unless for the reason above?

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.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, far better. This appalling nonsense (IMO) of having platform '0' at certain places (yes, I am referring to KX) is dire. Yes, there are many down stream systems to take in to account, but surely platform 1 could have become 1A and the new one, 1B. Rant for today over!

I think they'd still have to fiddle with the signalling system to change 1 into 1A?

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...

 

[Esker-pades]

Thanks both - that makes perfect sense.

Related question, then. Could a platform "-1" conceivably exist?

It does in concept work. It won't if/when the concept work becomes reality.

 

[XAM2175]

Just as St Pancras has the Thameslink low level platforms designated A & B, - they are also fully bidirectional.

But 'A' and 'B' indicate positions along a platform - not a separate platform.

Surely the standard ought be to use numerals for platforms, not letters.

It is done to keep them conceptually separate from the high-level domestic and international platforms, which - in my mind at least - is reasonable.

That said, in Germany or Switzerland they'd have been numbered 101 and 102 because letters are used ubiquitously and consistently for platform sectors.

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...

Yes, this is far far worse than Platform 0 can ever be.

 

[Railsigns]

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.

Lille-Flandres station in France has a Voie 0.

Wikipedia gives several more international examples, including one in your own country.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

 

[BrianW]

There's confusion while the change is physically being made, and for some time after- people's memories are long, and revert (auto-pilot)

Whatever notice and notices may be provided it's hard to get right; people don't read; don't listen; don't understand; don't 'obey' ... they're human!

In short, too much trouble and not worth it, so why bother?