Discussion:
CTRL platform numbering
(too old to reply)
Alan (in Brussels)
2003-09-29 17:13:22 UTC
Permalink
According to the track diagram for the complete CTRL in the current issue of
Modern Railways, pp. 38/39, after rebuilding St-Pancras station will have 13
high-level platforms numbered 1-13, and two low-level ones (for Thameslink)
nunbered 1 and 2, replacing those of the present Thameslink station (not
shown) which are designated "A" and "B". It seems to me that it would be
more passenger-friendly (as complying with the best current practice) to
number all these platforms in a continous series, starting from the left
when looking towards the 'country', so that 1 & 2 are the low-level
Thameslink platforms and 15 is the future CTRL domestic platform nearest
Kings Cross.

The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford (Bow) is not
indicated, but it also occurs to me to suggest that a major renumbering
should be envisaged there, notably to eliminate the various incoherencies:
- no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
- the JLE platforms (13, 14 and 15, IIRC) are adjacent to platform 1 (on the
NLR to N. Greenwich)
- platform 2 is nearest the main entrance.

Have I missed anything?

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)
John
2003-09-29 20:04:08 UTC
Permalink
I think it is intended that the subsurface station will be called St
Pancras Midland Road and not be part of St Pancras International. Could
be wrong.

John
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
According to the track diagram for the complete CTRL in the current issue of
Modern Railways, pp. 38/39, after rebuilding St-Pancras station will have 13
high-level platforms numbered 1-13, and two low-level ones (for Thameslink)
nunbered 1 and 2, replacing those of the present Thameslink station (not
shown) which are designated "A" and "B". It seems to me that it would be
more passenger-friendly (as complying with the best current practice) to
number all these platforms in a continous series, starting from the left
when looking towards the 'country', so that 1 & 2 are the low-level
Thameslink platforms and 15 is the future CTRL domestic platform nearest
Kings Cross.
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford (Bow) is not
indicated, but it also occurs to me to suggest that a major renumbering
- no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
- the JLE platforms (13, 14 and 15, IIRC) are adjacent to platform 1 (on the
NLR to N. Greenwich)
- platform 2 is nearest the main entrance.
Have I missed anything?
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
--
John Alexander, <><
P.L.Guillemin
2003-09-30 17:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
I think it is intended that the subsurface station will be called St
Pancras Midland Road and not be part of St Pancras International. Could
be wrong.
Or maybe "St-Pancras Thameslink", in line with King's Cross
Thameslink, City Thameslink and West Hampstead Thameslink.

AFAIK, Stratford CTRL station will be named "Stratford International",
although the hypothetical Kent Domestics will call there too.

Does anyone have more details on the connection between Stratford
International and Stratford Greater Anglia stations?


Best regards.

Phil
Geoff Rimmer
2003-10-02 06:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.L.Guillemin
AFAIK, Stratford CTRL station will be named "Stratford
International", although the hypothetical Kent Domestics will call
there too.
Are Waterloo and Waterloo International classed as two different
stations, even though the the platform numbers are continuous between
them?

And what about Ashford? Is there both an Ashford and an Ashford
International station. or is the whole place just called Ashford
International?
--
Geoff Rimmer <> ***@sillyfish.com <> www.sillyfish.com
www.sillyfish.com - Make savings on your BT and Telewest phone calls.
David Biddulph
2003-10-02 07:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Rimmer
Post by P.L.Guillemin
AFAIK, Stratford CTRL station will be named "Stratford
International", although the hypothetical Kent Domestics will call
there too.
Are Waterloo and Waterloo International classed as two different
stations, even though the the platform numbers are continuous between
them?
Yes
Post by Geoff Rimmer
And what about Ashford? Is there both an Ashford and an Ashford
International station. or is the whole place just called Ashford
International?
The whole thing called Ashford International. It helps to distinguish it
from Ashford (Middlesex), which is in Surrey. :-)
--
David Biddulph
Peter Masson
2003-10-02 07:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Rimmer
Are Waterloo and Waterloo International classed as two different
stations, even though the the platform numbers are continuous between
them?
And what about Ashford? Is there both an Ashford and an Ashford
International station. or is the whole place just called Ashford
International?
London Waterloo and Waterloo International are separate stations in that
Network Rail is the station operator of Waterloo and Eurostar (UK) is the
station operator of Waterloo International. They also have separate three
letter codes - Eurostar arrivals and departures do not show up on the main
Waterloo page of Live Departure Boards, but can be accessed using the code
WIT.

Similarly, Ashford International is two separate stations (but the name of
the domestic station is Ashford International, partly to distinguish it from
Ashford (Middlesex) - isn't there another thread doubting the existence of
Middlesex?). Again, separate station operators, Connex South Eastern and
Eurostar (UK) and separate three letter codes. Again, the platform sequence
is continuous - 1,2,5,6 Connex and 3,4 Eurostar (whose island is in the
middle of the formation).

Peter
B.Rumary
2003-10-04 01:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Rimmer
Are Waterloo and Waterloo International classed as two different
stations, even though the the platform numbers are continuous between
them?
Waterloo International has a security barrier around it, with x-ray
scanners for baggage, which of course the main station does not.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
KenS
2003-09-30 15:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford (Bow) is not
indicated, but it also occurs to me to suggest that a major renumbering
- no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
< Snip>
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
This annoys me. Some stations, New St or Leeds for instance, use "a"
and "b" etc as subdivisions of the main numerical platform. Others,
like Stratford, use the "a" suffix to refer to a totally different
platform. Another is Platform 11a at Glasgow Central. OK, these two
are rarely used, but they are occasionally - I've used both of them a
couple of times.

Surely there is a national standard for this?

KenS
Cast_Iron
2003-09-30 17:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by KenS
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford
(Bow) is not indicated, but it also occurs to me to
suggest that a major renumbering should be envisaged
there, notably to eliminate the various incoherencies: -
no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
< Snip>
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
This annoys me. Some stations, New St or Leeds for
instance, use "a"
and "b" etc as subdivisions of the main numerical platform.
Others,
like Stratford, use the "a" suffix to refer to a totally
different platform. Another is Platform 11a at Glasgow
Central. OK, these two
are rarely used, but they are occasionally - I've used both
of them a couple of times.
Surely there is a national standard for this?
KenS
What on earth for? That would be totally boring.
Alan (in Brussels)
2003-10-01 10:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by KenS
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford
(Bow) is not indicated, but it also occurs to me to
suggest that a major renumbering should be envisaged
there, notably to eliminate the various incoherencies: -
no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
< Snip>
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
This annoys me. Some stations, New St or Leeds for
instance, use "a"
and "b" etc as subdivisions of the main numerical platform.
Others,
like Stratford, use the "a" suffix to refer to a totally
different platform. Another is Platform 11a at Glasgow
Central. OK, these two
are rarely used, but they are occasionally - I've used both
of them a couple of times.
Surely there is a national standard for this?
KenS
What on earth for? That would be totally boring.
Because (as I suggested in my original message) one important purpose of
platform numbering is to enable passengers unfamiliar with the station
layout to reach their train as easily and quickly as possible. The best
existing practice includes:

- consecutive numbering starting with the platform nearest the station's
main entrance (except at termini, where the numbering runs from left to
right, seen from the relevant town centre);
- numbering does not distinguish between through and terminal (bay)
platforms
- where the platform is routinely used to accommodate more than one train at
a time, the various parts are designated by the suffix "a", "b" etc.

In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to mislead or confuse
passengers, such as re-use of the same platform number(s) in different
groups of tracks served by common facilities (ticket or left-luggage
offices) is particularly undesirable.

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)
David Hansen
2003-10-01 10:42:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:08:43 +0200 someone who may be "Alan \(in
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Because (as I suggested in my original message) one important purpose of
platform numbering is to enable passengers unfamiliar with the station
layout to reach their train as easily and quickly as possible.
I think that the idea of a standard for platform numbering is
overkill. Most stations have a handful of platforms. Those big
enough to have more than a handful of platforms tend to have maps of
where the platforms are, unless they are laid out in a simple
fashion.
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
- consecutive numbering starting with the platform nearest the station's
main entrance
What happens when there is a main entrance, with a through platform
straight ahead and a bay (or two) on either side? By numbering the
bays first and then numbering the through platform further through
platforms away from the main entrance are likely to have consecutive
numbers, which I think is far more logical.
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
(except at termini, where the numbering runs from left to
right, seen from the relevant town centre);
Why left to right? That does not allow for history for a start.
Neither does it allow for future expansion, if the only space for
future expansion is on the left it makes sense to number from the
right to avoid the hassle of re-numbering.
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
- numbering does not distinguish between through and terminal (bay)
platforms
Advantages and disadvantages. I can think of few stations that have
such numbering anyway.
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
- where the platform is routinely used to accommodate more than one train at
a time, the various parts are designated by the suffix "a", "b" etc.
That assumes that trains are of standardised lengths. At Birmingham
New Street a train announced as standing at say platform 5a could
also be taking up most of platform 5b as well (number taken at
random, not a precise example). At Edinburgh Waverley platforms 1
and 19 are on the same face and this makes far more sense than these
being platforms 1a and 1b.
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to mislead or confuse
passengers, such as re-use of the same platform number(s) in different
groups of tracks served by common facilities (ticket or left-luggage
offices) is particularly undesirable.
Re-use of numbers is indeed particularly undesirable. However, I
cannot think of a UK example for many decades. Large stations are
all numbered in a common series, or use letters for an adjacent
station.

I think that standardised platform numbering fails to take account
of local circumstances and is another example of the desire to
standardise everything for standardised passengers to use
standardised stations. All very communist. I view it in much the way
as I view large churches. British cathedrals are interesting because
they were mostly built in several styles over a long period of time.
Cathedrals elsewhere tend to have been built in one style over a
shorter period of time.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
K***@lboro.ac.uk
2003-10-01 12:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:08:43 +0200 someone who may be "Alan \(in
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Because (as I suggested in my original message) one important purpose of
platform numbering is to enable passengers unfamiliar with the station
layout to reach their train as easily and quickly as possible.
I think that the idea of a standard for platform numbering is
overkill. Most stations have a handful of platforms. Those big
enough to have more than a handful of platforms tend to have maps of
where the platforms are, unless they are laid out in a simple
fashion.
You don't know the place, you're short of time, because of
the stupid numbering it's not obvious where platform 3b is, and
you expect me to waste time looking for a possibly non-existent map ?.

C'mon, get real.

[delete train-spotter twaddle]
--
Cheers, Keith. elm/lynx staffi
David Hansen
2003-10-01 14:12:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:24:26 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
Post by K***@lboro.ac.uk
You don't know the place, you're short of time, because of
the stupid numbering it's not obvious where platform 3b is,
Platform 3b will usually be somewhere near platforms 2 and 4. The
same problem arises whether it is called platform 3b or platform 6.

I have yet to find a complicated UK station where there are not
clear signs indicating where all platforms are. I can read these
rapidly when short of time, I doubt if I have a special gift in such
matters. This is not new, BR in the blue era had such signs and I
see them in pictures of Victorian times. The worst station that I
can think of is Edinburgh Waverley, but this may well be because I
no longer notice the signs.
Post by K***@lboro.ac.uk
you expect me to waste time looking for a possibly non-existent map ?.
Please let us know a UK railway station with a complicated layout
that does not have such a map. They existed before privatisation and
have been improved since along with the general improvement in the
provision of information.
Post by K***@lboro.ac.uk
[delete train-spotter twaddle]
You mean the bits that explained some of the problems of having a
standardised numbering system.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Stevie D
2003-10-01 16:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
I think that the idea of a standard for platform numbering is
overkill. Most stations have a handful of platforms. Those big enough
to have more than a handful of platforms tend to have maps of where
the platforms are, unless they are laid out in a simple fashion.
And then you get somewhere like Waverley, which had me completely
baffled. Lots of platforms apparently don't exist at all, the rest are
numbered in some random and cockeyed fashion all over the place.
Perhaps a "standard" is overkill, but some sort of consistency would
be useful. *Most* stations are fine, but those with unusual layouts or
a potentially confusing combination of through and terminal platforms
should use a clearer system than some of them do now.
Post by David Hansen
That assumes that trains are of standardised lengths. At Birmingham
New Street a train announced as standing at say platform 5a could
also be taking up most of platform 5b as well (number taken at
random, not a precise example).
Then announce it as "Platform 5" indicating the whole platform, rather
than "Platform 5a" indicating just part of the platform.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Peter Masson
2003-10-01 16:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stevie D
And then you get somewhere like Waverley, which had me completely
baffled. Lots of platforms apparently don't exist at all, the rest are
numbered in some random and cockeyed fashion all over the place.
Perhaps a "standard" is overkill, but some sort of consistency would
be useful. *Most* stations are fine, but those with unusual layouts or
a potentially confusing combination of through and terminal platforms
should use a clearer system than some of them do now.
When some platforms are abolished (as has happened especially at the east
end of Waverley), or new platforms are added (as with 4a and 4b at Reading)
is it better to renumber the whole station (and confuse passengers who
thought they knew their way around), or keep the existing numbers, with
gaps, or a and b suffixes, which occasional passengers might find illogical?

Peter
Stevie D
2003-10-01 21:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
When some platforms are abolished (as has happened especially at the
east end of Waverley), or new platforms are added (as with 4a and 4b
at Reading) is it better to renumber the whole station (and confuse
passengers who thought they knew their way around), or keep the
existing numbers, with gaps, or a and b suffixes, which occasional
passengers might find illogical?
That depends very much on the layout of the station. If the altered
layout is not too confusing with missing numbers a/o suffixes or
numbers out of order then leave it as it is. If it *is* confusing, it
should be renumbered completely.

Generally, trains leave from the same platforms for most services, so
regular passengers need not be that confused by it; they should just
go to the normal platform and the train will probably turn up (!) but
irregular passengers will find it much easier to work out where they
are going.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
4973
2003-10-01 16:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stevie D
Post by David Hansen
I think that the idea of a standard for platform numbering is
overkill. Most stations have a handful of platforms. Those big enough
to have more than a handful of platforms tend to have maps of where
the platforms are, unless they are laid out in a simple fashion.
And then you get somewhere like Waverley, which had me completely
baffled. Lots of platforms apparently don't exist at all, the rest are
numbered in some random and cockeyed fashion all over the place.
Perhaps a "standard" is overkill, but some sort of consistency would
be useful. *Most* stations are fine, but those with unusual layouts or
a potentially confusing combination of through and terminal platforms
should use a clearer system than some of them do now.
Not to mention those like Cardiff where there is a platform 0 (yes, numeric
zero).
Clive Page
2003-10-02 22:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4973
Not to mention those like Cardiff where there is a platform 0 (yes, numeric
zero).
I passed through Stockport recently, and it looked as if a new (or newly
refurbished) platform was almost ready for use on the opposite side of
the tracks from platform 1, which surely will also have to be platform
0.
--
Clive Page
Neil Williams
2003-10-04 12:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
I passed through Stockport recently, and it looked as if a new (or newly
refurbished) platform was almost ready for use on the opposite side of
the tracks from platform 1, which surely will also have to be platform
0.
It's ready for use - but won't actually be used until 2005 (I think)
when the area is to be resignalled...

As this resignalling is likely to result in a major alteration to the
existing platform usage patterns, I suspect a renumbering will result,
with it becoming 1 and the others moving up accordingly.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
***@pacersplace.org.uk is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.
Charlie Hulme
2003-10-04 17:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
I passed through Stockport recently, and it looked as if a new (or newly
refurbished) platform was almost ready for use on the opposite side of
the tracks from platform 1, which surely will also have to be platform
Looking at the signs which have been put up and then temporarily
covered, I think Stockport will undergo a platform renumbering, viz.

1 = new platform
2 = existing 1
3 = existing 2
4 = existing 3
5 = existing 3A bay
6 - existing 4

Very sensible, too. AS mentioned in another thread, it is
best if the A/B distinction is kept for the two ends of the
same platform.

I think this was not done at Cardiff Central because the platform
numbers are worked into the tiles of the subeay, and it is all
a listed building.

Charlie
John Rowland
2003-10-05 00:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4973
Post by Stevie D
And then you get somewhere like Waverley,
which had me completely baffled.
Lots of platforms apparently don't exist at all
Why is that a problem? If the platform doesn't exist, you will never be told
that your train is on it, and so will never look for it, and will never even
realise it doesn't exist (unless you are an enthusiast).
Post by 4973
Not to mention those like Cardiff where there is
a platform 0 (yes, numeric zero).
Why is that a problem? If you're told your train is on platform 0, you
follow the signs to platform 0.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
David Hansen
2003-10-06 11:43:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 01:33:13 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland"
Post by John Rowland
Post by 4973
Not to mention those like Cardiff where there is
a platform 0 (yes, numeric zero).
Why is that a problem? If you're told your train is on platform 0, you
follow the signs to platform 0.
The number zero is a relatively recent invention. From memory
western "civilisation" got back the concept after "the arabs" had
preserved mathematics and then exported it back to Europe.

I suspect that in folk memory zero is not a real number.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Graeme Wall
2003-10-06 18:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 01:33:13 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland"
Post by John Rowland
Post by 4973
Not to mention those like Cardiff where there is
a platform 0 (yes, numeric zero).
Why is that a problem? If you're told your train is on platform 0, you
follow the signs to platform 0.
The number zero is a relatively recent invention. From memory
western "civilisation" got back the concept after "the arabs" had
preserved mathematics and then exported it back to Europe.
IIRC the Arabs got the concept of zero from India (who may in turn have got
it from China) around the 6th or 7th Century. It was unknown in the west
until long after the end of the Roman Empire. (desperately trying to
remember my A-level module on the history of mathematics)
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
David Hansen
2003-10-01 17:09:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:29:41 +0100 someone who may be Stevie D
Post by Stevie D
And then you get somewhere like Waverley, which had me completely
baffled. Lots of platforms apparently don't exist at all, the rest are
numbered in some random and cockeyed fashion all over the place.
The system is very logical. It starts at platform 1 and then goes
clockwise until it gets to 19. That covers the main island. 20 and
21 are on a separate island. The only quirk of this system is that
platforms 1 and 19 are adjacent to each other. There are maps, at
least some signs (I haven't looked at the signs for so long that
there might be thousands of them now for all I know) and plenty of
staff to ask. A number of the low numbered platforms have been
filled in or shortened to sidings, but that does not alter the
system or make it more difficult to use.

What one does when platforms are removed or added is a matter of
debate. Changing the numbers (and then possibly changing them again
a few years later) causes confusion to passengers and staff, but joy
to those producing signs and maps. It will also mean expensive
changes to the signalling system, which will indicate platform
numbers to drivers at such stations.

If anyone has a better system to number a large island platform,
long enough to hold two trains, with a large number of bays at each
end of the island, then I would be interested to hear it. The
current system keeps platforms 1 to 10 and platforms 11 to 19 side
by side. It would be possible to number the two long faces (1/19 and
10/11) as an a and b. However, what would be done with the bays
(there are not equal numbers of bays at each end)?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Stevie D
2003-10-01 21:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
If anyone has a better system to number a large island platform,
long enough to hold two trains, with a large number of bays at each
end of the island, then I would be interested to hear it. The
current system keeps platforms 1 to 10 and platforms 11 to 19 side
by side. It would be possible to number the two long faces (1/19 and
10/11) as an a and b. However, what would be done with the bays
(there are not equal numbers of bays at each end)?
--------- 1 ------------------------ 2 ---------

--------- 3 ------
--------- 4 ------

--------- 5 ------
--------- 6 ------
------ 9 ---------
--------- 7 ---
--------- 8 --- --- 10 ---------

-------- 11 ----------------------- 12 ---------
-------- 13 ----------------------- 14 ---------

-------- 15 ----------------------- 16 ---------

Which is far more consistent than the current setup, not least because
it doesn't arbitrarily miss out 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

Alternatively have '11/12' as 9, '13/14' as 10, '15/16' as 11, '10' as
12 and '9' as 13.

Most of the problems I have in working out where the various platforms
are are caused by (i) The consecutive numbering traversing a huge gap
with no platforms, rather than leaving this between 1 and
$high_number, (ii) 20 and 21 being next to 11 and a long way away from
all the other high numbers.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
David Hansen
2003-10-02 06:36:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:39:29 +0100 someone who may be Stevie D
Post by Stevie D
Which is far more consistent than the current setup,
Leaping from one end of the station to the other doesn't strike me
as being consistent. This would be especially so if one platform is
added or removed, when it would become very messy.
Post by Stevie D
not least because
it doesn't arbitrarily miss out 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.
Join in other discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of
re-numbering when the number of platforms changes.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Stevie D
2003-10-02 10:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
Leaping from one end of the station to the other doesn't strike me
as being consistent. This would be especially so if one platform is
added or removed, when it would become very messy.
Who is leaping anywhere? It starts at the north end, follows the
west-facing bay platforms north-to-south, then the east-facing bay
platforms at the south end, then the southernmost through platforms.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
David Hansen
2003-10-02 12:00:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:51:49 +0100 someone who may be Stevie D
Post by Stevie D
Who is leaping anywhere?
Sorry, I misread.

However, it does jump from 1 to 3 and so on. I don't see that this
has advantages over the present system that would make the change
worthwhile.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-02 06:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
If anyone has a better system to number a large island platform,
long enough to hold two trains, with a large number of bays at each
end of the island,
Well, Cambridge is like this:

##### 3 ###### ###### 6 #####
# #
##### 2 ###### ###### 5 #####
##### 1 #################################### 4 #####

which seems to work well (we also have two-train-long platforms). How
was Rugby numbered when it had lots of trains?
Post by David Hansen
The
current system keeps platforms 1 to 10 and platforms 11 to 19 side
by side.
Why is that ideal in any way?

IIRC there's a wide gap between the bays at the east end. So put the
break there; something like:

##### 3 #################################### 2 #####
##### 4 ###### ###### 1 #####
# #
##### 5 ###### #
##### 6 ###### #
# #
##### 7 ###### #
##### 8 ###### #
# #
##### 9 ###### ######16 #####
#####10 ###### ######15 #####
# #
#####11 ###### ######14 #####
#####12 ####################################13 #####

or whatever the layout actually is. You could even make the island
outwith be 21 and 22 just to make it clear how isolated it is.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
David Hansen
2003-10-02 13:35:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:42:14 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Similar to Edinburgh Waverley, except that instead of going
clockwise it goes in the same direction from two starting points.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Peter Masson
2003-10-02 13:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
IIRC there's a wide gap between the bays at the east end. So put the
##### 3 #################################### 2 #####
##### 4 ###### ###### 1 #####
# #
##### 5 ###### #
##### 6 ###### #
# #
##### 7 ###### #
##### 8 ###### #
# #
##### 9 ###### ######16 #####
#####10 ###### ######15 #####
# #
#####11 ###### ######14 #####
#####12 ####################################13 #####
or whatever the layout actually is. You could even make the island
outwith be 21 and 22 just to make it clear how isolated it is.
There's talk of a major rebuild of Waverley, which might include provision
of more through platforms. If this is likely to happen in the forseeable
future, it would probably be better to wait till then before renumbering,
rather than confuse regular passengers twice, who know where the platforms
are, and don't mind that 20 is nowhere near 19 or that 1 and 19 are actually
the same platform.

Peter
David Hansen
2003-10-02 14:40:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:42:04 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Post by Peter Masson
There's talk of a major rebuild of Waverley, which might include provision
of more through platforms.
The SRA have cold feet. The station is not in SE England. Thus the
current fashion is for a minor rebuild.
Post by Peter Masson
If this is likely to happen in the forseeable
future, it would probably be better to wait till then before renumbering,
rather than confuse regular passengers twice, who know where the platforms
are, and don't mind that 20 is nowhere near 19 or that 1 and 19 are actually
the same platform.
However, I agree with this viewpoint.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Ronnie Clark
2003-10-01 19:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
- where the platform is routinely used to accommodate more than one train at
a time, the various parts are designated by the suffix "a", "b" etc.
That assumes that trains are of standardised lengths. At Birmingham
New Street a train announced as standing at say platform 5a could
also be taking up most of platform 5b as well (number taken at
random, not a precise example). At Edinburgh Waverley platforms 1
and 19 are on the same face and this makes far more sense than these
being platforms 1a and 1b.
I'm having difficulty squaring up what you've just said here. You argue that
calling it platforms 5a and 5b is not much good as it is possible for the
train on platform 5a to be taking up space in 5b too (in which case, it just
seems logical for the departure board to say "platform 5"), but then you say
it makes far more sense that platforms 1 and 19 at Edinburgh Waverley makes
sense - but surely this is still susceptable to the problem you mentioned,
ie the train in platform 1 also then taking up space in platform 19. In
which case you can tell the passengers that the 13:13 train for
Chittingfeld-on-Sea is in platforms 1 (and forget about it also being in 19,
in which case it's the same as the situation as 5a and 5b) or you can tell
them it's in 1 AND 19! That WOULD confuse the shit out of me!

Ronnie
--
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk

As the wise man says:
"Remember - there is no more important safety rule than to wear these:
safety glasses"
David Hansen
2003-10-01 21:09:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:40:22 +0100 someone who may be "Ronnie Clark"
Post by Ronnie Clark
I'm having difficulty squaring up what you've just said here. You argue that
calling it platforms 5a and 5b is not much good as it is possible for the
train on platform 5a to be taking up space in 5b too (in which case, it just
seems logical for the departure board to say "platform 5"),
I agree, but that is not what I have seen the departure boards
showing (though this might have changed as my observation was some
time ago).
Post by Ronnie Clark
but then you say
it makes far more sense that platforms 1 and 19 at Edinburgh Waverley makes
sense - but surely this is still susceptable to the problem you mentioned,
ie the train in platform 1 also then taking up space in platform 19.
It would have to be a very long train. Platforms 1 and 19 can take a
HST each, with a crossover so that the one on platform 1 can get out
before the one on platform 19. Platforms 10 and 11 can also take
trains of the same length and have the far more sensible arrangement
of a scissors crossover between them, so that arrivals and
departures are fully flexible. Platforms at Birmingham New Street
are far shorter (and do not have the crossovers).
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Dik T. Winter
2003-10-02 00:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
Post by Ronnie Clark
but then you say
it makes far more sense that platforms 1 and 19 at Edinburgh Waverley makes
sense - but surely this is still susceptable to the problem you mentioned,
ie the train in platform 1 also then taking up space in platform 19.
It would have to be a very long train. Platforms 1 and 19 can take a
HST each, with a crossover so that the one on platform 1 can get out
before the one on platform 19.
Try a Eurostar... But I have been at Waverley this summer and I did not
understand the arrangement at all.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
David Hansen
2003-10-02 06:22:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:46:49 GMT someone who may be "Dik T. Winter"
Post by Dik T. Winter
Try a Eurostar...
Unfortunately they do not run to Waverley, although there are/were
signs for them on some platforms.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-02 06:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
Post by Ronnie Clark
I'm having difficulty squaring up what you've just said here. You argue that
calling it platforms 5a and 5b is not much good as it is possible for the
train on platform 5a to be taking up space in 5b too (in which case, it just
seems logical for the departure board to say "platform 5"),
I agree, but that is not what I have seen the departure boards
showing
That's exactly what happens at King's Cross. If I see "9a", I know the
train will be the far (north end) unit on the platform. If I see "9b" it
will be the near (south end) unit, either departing after the 9a one or
sitting on its own. If I see "9" then it will be an 8-car train
occupying the whole platform.

Now if they'd only do the same on platforms 1 to 8, things would be even
better. At present, if a WAGN is using those platforms and is splitting,
we get the "Front 4 cars only" stuff. But with the new displays you end
up seeing:

PETERBOROUGH 8 ONLY
Calling at Stevenage, Hitchin, Ar

part of the time.
Post by David Hansen
It would have to be a very long train. Platforms 1 and 19 can take a
HST each,
Fine. So make them 1 and 2.

The present layout at Waverley is a menace. I arrived there by taxi the
other night with about 10 minutes to find the sleeper. No staff in
sight. Every time I've used it before, it's both arrived and departed
from the island outwith the walls, which memory says have the high
numbers, so when I see a screen saying 19 that's the obvious direction
to head in.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
David Hansen
2003-10-02 13:46:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:36:44 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Fine. So make them 1 and 2.
This seems no different to the placing of platforms 1 and 4 on the
same face at (the much simpler) Cambridge.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
The present layout at Waverley is a menace. I arrived there by taxi the
other night with about 10 minutes to find the sleeper. No staff in
sight.
I might go home by train this evening. If I do and if I remember I
will check to see what sort of signs there are.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
David Hansen
2003-10-03 08:36:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:36:44 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
The present layout at Waverley is a menace. I arrived there by taxi the
other night with about 10 minutes to find the sleeper. No staff in
sight. Every time I've used it before, it's both arrived and departed
from the island outwith the walls, which memory says have the high
numbers, so when I see a screen saying 19 that's the obvious direction
to head in.
I had a look last night. At the taxi drop off point one needs to
turn around to get to the footbridge to reach these platforms. When
one has done this there is a big sign hanging from the roof showing
where all the platforms are (this is one of a series of such signs
around the station). The signs at the bottom of the bridge indicate
that it is for platforms 20 and 21, as do the signs at the top. The
lifts are also signed in the same way.

I don't see that there is much more that could be done.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
4973
2003-10-03 08:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:36:44 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
The present layout at Waverley is a menace. I arrived there by taxi the
other night with about 10 minutes to find the sleeper. No staff in
sight. Every time I've used it before, it's both arrived and departed
from the island outwith the walls, which memory says have the high
numbers, so when I see a screen saying 19 that's the obvious direction
to head in.
I had a look last night. At the taxi drop off point one needs to
turn around to get to the footbridge to reach these platforms. When
one has done this there is a big sign hanging from the roof showing
where all the platforms are (this is one of a series of such signs
around the station). The signs at the bottom of the bridge indicate
that it is for platforms 20 and 21, as do the signs at the top. The
lifts are also signed in the same way.
I don't see that there is much more that could be done.
There is, though I don't see how - get people to look above their eye level.
Cast_Iron
2003-10-03 09:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:36:44 +0100 someone who may be "Clive
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
The present layout at Waverley is a menace. I arrived
there by taxi the other night with about 10 minutes to
find the sleeper. No staff in sight. Every time I've used
it before, it's both arrived and departed from the island
outwith the walls, which memory says have the high
numbers, so when I see a screen saying 19 that's the
obvious direction to head in.
I had a look last night. At the taxi drop off point one
needs to
turn around to get to the footbridge to reach these
platforms. When
one has done this there is a big sign hanging from the roof
showing where all the platforms are (this is one of a
series of such signs around the station). The signs at the
bottom of the bridge indicate that it is for platforms 20
and 21, as do the signs at the top. The lifts are also
signed in the same way.
I don't see that there is much more that could be done.
Do you mean apart from persuading people to open their eyes, look for
information and to think?
David Hansen
2003-10-05 12:19:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:09:49 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen
<***@spidacom.co.uk> wrote this:-

[Edinburgh Waverley - see Clive' drawing in another thread for track
plan]
Post by David Hansen
It would have to be a very long train. Platforms 1 and 19 can take a
HST each, with a crossover so that the one on platform 1 can get out
before the one on platform 19. Platforms 10 and 11 can also take
trains of the same length and have the far more sensible arrangement
of a scissors crossover between them, so that arrivals and
departures are fully flexible.
A good example on Friday, when I decided to take the train to work.

My train, an 8 coach Voyager, ran through platform 11, straight
through the scissors crossover between 11 and 10, then came to a
standstill at platform 10. There was space for one more coach on the
train at each end of the platform. I was off the train rapidly and,
as I got off, I saw a standard Class 91 powered train entering the
loop behind platform 10 from Calton Hill Tunnels. This train passed
behind the one I had been on and entered platform 11, via the
scissors crossover, 30-45 seconds after rear of the Voyagers had
passed through the crossover. Class 91 trains are a locomotive and
ten coaches.

As well as impressive working I did think that there must be a short
overlap at the Calton Hill end of platform 10. When the front cab of
the Voyager was bought to a standstill it can't have been much more
than two coach lengths from the cab of the Class 91 going the other
way. The 91 was on the point of heading into the loop at this
moment.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-07 06:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
As well as impressive working I did think that there must be a short
overlap at the Calton Hill end of platform 10. When the front cab of
the Voyager was bought to a standstill it can't have been much more
than two coach lengths from the cab of the Class 91 going the other
way. The 91 was on the point of heading into the loop at this
moment.
Sounds more like a swinging overlap at the east end of 10. Remember that
a train can get from there to either of the Calton Hill tunnels, and the
points would have been set to send an overrunning Voyager towards the
northern tunnel. The two pairs of points at the east end of 10 are very
probably numbered as a single crossover to make that trapping automatic.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
David Hansen
2003-10-08 19:46:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 07:12:54 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Sounds more like a swinging overlap at the east end of 10. Remember that
a train can get from there to either of the Calton Hill tunnels
Spot on. This is what I did not recall.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Stevie D
2003-10-01 21:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronnie Clark
I'm having difficulty squaring up what you've just said here. You
argue that calling it platforms 5a and 5b is not much good as it is
possible for the train on platform 5a to be taking up space in 5b too
(in which case, it just seems logical for the departure board to say
"platform 5"), but then you say it makes far more sense that platforms
1 and 19 at Edinburgh Waverley makes sense - but surely this is still
susceptable to the problem you mentioned,
I think those platforms at Edinburgh are long enough to hold two
full-size Intercity trains, so this would never be a problem in the
same way that it could at, say, New Street or Piccadilly.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Dik T. Winter
2003-10-02 00:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronnie Clark
I'm having difficulty squaring up what you've just said here. You argue that
calling it platforms 5a and 5b is not much good as it is possible for the
train on platform 5a to be taking up space in 5b too (in which case, it just
seems logical for the departure board to say "platform 5"),
In Amsterdam Central station such occurs quite a lot. (But we number by
track, not by platform ;-).) There is one bay track (1), all the remainder
is split in an 'a' section and a 'b' section. Long trains are announced
with the section where the front is, but also many times combined. So there
are tracks 1, 2a/b, 4a/b, 5a/b, 7a/b, 8a/b, etc (from front entrance to rear).
A train can be announced on the boards as being on 2a, but also as being on
2a/b, depending on length. (A long time ago platform numbers were used.
This was changed to track numbers to simplify the translation of what the
traffic regulator sees to what the passenger sees. In Amsterdam you do
not need a platform 9 3/4, you just use track 3.)
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Henning Makholm
2003-10-02 18:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dik T. Winter
In Amsterdam Central station such occurs quite a lot. (But we number by
track, not by platform ;-).)
The British number by tracks too; they just call tracks "platforms" in
this particular context. (AFAIU, it's implicitly "platform face").
--
Henning Makholm "Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!"
Alan J. Flavell
2003-10-02 19:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henning Makholm
The British number by tracks too; they just call tracks "platforms" in
this particular context.
Which inevitably prompts the question of what happens numbering-wise
if there's a platform on both sides of a particular track.
Post by Henning Makholm
(AFAIU, it's implicitly "platform face").
Indeed. If there are tracks on both sides of a particular "platform"
then each side of the platform will have a different number.

Nevertheless, we persist in calling them "platform numbers".
David Biddulph
2003-10-02 20:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan J. Flavell
Post by Henning Makholm
The British number by tracks too; they just call tracks "platforms" in
this particular context.
Which inevitably prompts the question of what happens numbering-wise
if there's a platform on both sides of a particular track.
Such as Guildford, platforms 6 & 7?
--
David Biddulph
Peter Masson
2003-10-03 07:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Biddulph
Post by Alan J. Flavell
Which inevitably prompts the question of what happens numbering-wise
if there's a platform on both sides of a particular track.
Such as Guildford, platforms 6 & 7?
Or Canary Wharf DLR - three tracks, each with a platform both sides, so
platfom numbers are 1 - 6.

Peter
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-03 11:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan J. Flavell
Which inevitably prompts the question of what happens numbering-wise
if there's a platform on both sides of a particular track.
It varies.

At some stations (e.g. Finsbury Park, Morden, Cockfosters) each side has
its own number.

At other stations (e.g. Reading, Greenford, Uxbridge) both sides have
the same number.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Spyke
2003-10-03 00:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henning Makholm
Post by Dik T. Winter
In Amsterdam Central station such occurs quite a lot. (But we number by
track, not by platform ;-).)
The British number by tracks too; they just call tracks "platforms" in
this particular context. (AFAIU, it's implicitly "platform face").
Not strictly true, numbering by track in Europe also includes through
lines without an associated platform. Thus, somewhere like Reading would
have a separate number for the through line between platforms 4 and 5.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.
David Hansen
2003-10-05 12:19:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 01:11:19 +0100 someone who may be Spyke
Post by Spyke
Not strictly true, numbering by track in Europe also includes through
lines without an associated platform. Thus, somewhere like Reading would
have a separate number for the through line between platforms 4 and 5.
Unless things have recently changed dramatically Newport in South
Wales has the tracks through the station numbered and these numbers
are shown to drivers. Those numbers do not relate to the platforms,
which are numbered differently.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Paul Harley
2003-10-05 18:55:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:19:17 +0100, David Hansen
Post by David Hansen
Unless things have recently changed dramatically Newport in South
Wales has the tracks through the station numbered and these numbers
are shown to drivers. Those numbers do not relate to the platforms,
which are numbered differently.
Actually, the numbers shown in the theatre indicators are the old
platform numbers, which disappeared over 10 years ago when the
platforms at Newport were renumbered into today's logical sequence.

An interesting example of platform numbers being changed to be more
logical for passengers, yet route numbers remaining unchanged to
prevent confusion for drivers (and to save the cost of changing the
route indicators).

Paul Harley
David Hansen
2003-10-06 11:45:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:55:19 +0100 someone who may be Paul Harley
<***@tesco.net> wrote this:-

[Newport]
Post by Paul Harley
Actually, the numbers shown in the theatre indicators are the old
platform numbers,
What about the tracks that do not have platforms?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Long Distance Clara
2003-10-08 19:54:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:23:05 +0000 (UTC), in uk.railway "Cast_Iron"
Post by David Hansen
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:55:19 +0100 someone who may be Paul
[Newport]
Post by Paul Harley
Actually, the numbers shown in the theatre indicators are
the old platform numbers,
What about the tracks that do not have platforms?
Perhaps they have letters?
The tracks at Newport are all numbered. From the nothern side
1,2,5,3,4,6.

This is actually less illogical than it seems.

The lines over the river, and through the tunnels (ie both ends of the
station) are also numbered, 1,2,3,4.

The Up and Down Relief lines are 3 and 4 throughout. The Up and Down
Main lines are 1 and 2 throughout. (Or maybe that should read 'can be
considered as').

Therefore most up trains actually use the down main (line 2, platform
...erm...?).

Lines 5 and 6 can be thought of as loops off the through running
lines, and it all makes sense. Ish.


Long Distance Clara
--
Views do not reflect... etc...

If you lived in Pigeon Street,
Here are the people you could meet...
Dik T. Winter
2003-10-03 02:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henning Makholm
Post by Dik T. Winter
In Amsterdam Central station such occurs quite a lot. (But we number by
track, not by platform ;-).)
The British number by tracks too; they just call tracks "platforms" in
this particular context. (AFAIU, it's implicitly "platform face").
I do not think this is true. It was also the custom in the Netherlands,
but currently through tracks that do not go near a platform are also
numbered. So in Amsterdam tracks 3, 6, 9 etc. do exist, but there is no
platform from which you could board a train on those tracks. The only
tracks where you can board trains are 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, etc.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Geoff Rimmer
2003-10-02 06:20:14 UTC
Permalink
At Birmingham New Street a train announced as standing at say
platform 5a could also be taking up most of platform 5b as well
(number taken at random, not a precise example).
A Birmingham New Street example would be platforms 2a and 2b which
often have a (long) train to London taking up both platforms.

In this case, the platform for this train is referred to as simply
"2", although I've got a vague recollection that in the 1980s they
used to refer to it as "2ab". Does anyone else remember this, or did
I dream it? :)
--
Geoff Rimmer <> ***@sillyfish.com <> www.sillyfish.com
www.sillyfish.com - Make savings on your BT and Telewest phone calls.
Geoff Rimmer
2003-10-02 06:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
That assumes that trains are of standardised lengths. At Birmingham
New Street a train announced as standing at say platform 5a could
also be taking up most of platform 5b as well
These are the kinds of situation I have seen at New Street:

1. A long train taking up all of 2a and 2b. This is shown as leaving
from platform 2.

2. One short train in 3a (shown as "3a"), one short train in 3b (shown
as "3b").

3. One medium length train taking up all of 7a and part of 7b (shown
as "7a"), one short train at the end of 7b (shown as "7b", and
sometimes referred to as "at the extreme end of platform 7b", but
I'm not sure if the automatic announcements say this).

4. One train at the end of 1a, one train in both 1a and 1b, and a
third train in 1b (try standing on platform 1a between 0800 and
0830 on a weekday if you don't believe me!). All are shown on the
screens as leaving from "1a", presumably because they all shuffle
along towards 1a like a conveyor belt.
--
Geoff Rimmer <> ***@sillyfish.com <> www.sillyfish.com
www.sillyfish.com - Make savings on your BT and Telewest phone calls.
Cast_Iron
2003-10-01 11:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by KenS
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford
(Bow) is not indicated, but it also occurs to me to
suggest that a major renumbering should be envisaged
there, notably to eliminate the various incoherencies: -
no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
< Snip>
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
This annoys me. Some stations, New St or Leeds for
instance, use "a"
and "b" etc as subdivisions of the main numerical
platform.
Others,
like Stratford, use the "a" suffix to refer to a totally
different platform. Another is Platform 11a at Glasgow
Central. OK, these two
are rarely used, but they are occasionally - I've used
both
of them a couple of times.
Surely there is a national standard for this?
KenS
What on earth for? That would be totally boring.
Because (as I suggested in my original message) one
important purpose of platform numbering is to enable
passengers unfamiliar with the station layout to reach
their train as easily and quickly as possible. The best
- consecutive numbering starting with the platform nearest
the station's main entrance (except at termini, where the
numbering runs from left to right, seen from the relevant
town centre); - numbering does not distinguish between
through and terminal (bay) platforms
- where the platform is routinely used to accommodate more
than one train at a time, the various parts are designated
by the suffix "a", "b" etc.
In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to
mislead or confuse passengers, such as re-use of the same
platform number(s) in different groups of tracks served by
common facilities (ticket or left-luggage offices) is
particularly undesirable.
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
Noting your location helps me to understand why you think it necessary. If
you don't actually work there you appear to have been infected by the
bureacratic mentality that want everything in nice tidy boxes or
compartments. As I said, boring and unnecessary to anyone who can either
read or ask questions.
K***@lboro.ac.uk
2003-10-01 12:15:34 UTC
Permalink
In article <ble9cf$891$***@reader08.wxs.nl>,
Alan \(in Brussels\) <***@pi.be> wrote:
[...]
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Because (as I suggested in my original message) one important purpose of
platform numbering is to enable passengers unfamiliar with the station
layout to reach their train as easily and quickly as possible. The best
[...]
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to mislead or confuse
passengers, such as re-use of the same platform number(s) in different
groups of tracks served by common facilities (ticket or left-luggage
offices) is particularly undesirable.
Absolutely yes (to all your points).
--
Cheers, Keith. elm/lynx staffi
Geoff Rimmer
2003-10-02 06:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
- consecutive numbering starting with the platform nearest the
station's main entrance (except at termini, where the numbering runs
from left to right, seen from the relevant town centre);
This doesn't work for Birmingham New Street where the main entrance is
between platforms 7 and 8 (8 to 12 are to your left, 7 to 1 are to
your right).
--
Geoff Rimmer <> ***@sillyfish.com <> www.sillyfish.com
www.sillyfish.com - Make savings on your BT and Telewest phone calls.
John Rowland
2003-10-03 00:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to mislead
or confuse passengers, such as re-use of the same platform
number(s) in different groups of tracks served by common
facilities (ticket or left-luggage offices) is particularly undesirable.
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras are both served
by one of the same Tube station. IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Ronnie Clark
2003-10-03 03:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rowland
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras are both served
by one of the same Tube station. IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
Would that then make King's Cross St. Pancras be the railway complex with
the highest number of platforms in the country?

Ronnie
--
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk

As the wise man says:
"Remember - there is no more important safety rule than to wear these:
safety glasses"
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-03 11:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Post by John Rowland
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras are both
served
Post by John Rowland
by one of the same Tube station. IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
Would that then make King's Cross St. Pancras be the railway complex with
the highest number of platforms in the country?
KX: 11 (to be 12)
SP: 6 (to be 10, IIRC)
KXSP: 8
KXTL: 2

Total 27, to be 32.

Waterloo complex:
Main: 19
Euro: 5
East: 4
LU: 8

Total 36.

I can't think of anywhere else that comes close.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-04 11:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Ronnie Clark
Would that then make King's Cross St. Pancras be the railway complex with
the highest number of platforms in the country?
KX: 11 (to be 12)
SP: 6 (to be 10, IIRC)
KXSP: 8
KXTL: 2
That should have read:

KX: 11 (to be 12)
SP: 4 (to be 13)
KXSP: 8
KXTL (to be SPTL): 2

Making 35, just one short of Waterloo.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Martin Ludgate
2003-10-05 08:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
KX: 11 (to be 12)
SP: 6 (to be 10, IIRC)
KXSP: 8
KXTL: 2
Total 27, to be 32.
(which Clive corrected to 35 in his subsequent posting)
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Main: 19
Euro: 5
East: 4
LU: 8
Total 36.
Should one also include the two platforms at Southwark (on the
Jubilee Line), as they are connected to the Waterloo / Waterloo
East complex by escalator / travelator links? (and if so, is this the
only place where you can catch a train from one part to another
part of the same station complex?)
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
I can't think of anywhere else that comes close.
Neither can I, these days. But in the past, would you have counted
Liverpool Street and Broad Street as part of one complex? If so,
their total must have been not far short of that at one time.
--
Martin Ludgate
Clive Page
2003-10-05 15:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Ludgate
Should one also include the two platforms at Southwark (on the
Jubilee Line), as they are connected to the Waterloo / Waterloo
East complex by escalator / travelator links? (and if so, is this the
only place where you can catch a train from one part to another
part of the same station complex?)
You can do that between Chatelet and Les Halles, on (I think) Metro line
number 4. The other lines only have one stop, called, Chatelet - Les
Halles.

But maybe it's the only place in the UK.
--
Clive Page
David Biddulph
2003-10-05 20:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
Post by Martin Ludgate
Should one also include the two platforms at Southwark (on the
Jubilee Line), as they are connected to the Waterloo / Waterloo
East complex by escalator / travelator links? (and if so, is this the
only place where you can catch a train from one part to another
part of the same station complex?)
You can do that between Chatelet and Les Halles, on (I think) Metro line
number 4. The other lines only have one stop, called, Chatelet - Les
Halles.
But maybe it's the only place in the UK.
Unless you regard Embankment and Charing Cross LT as being both related to
Charing Cross?
--
David Biddulph
Pete Fenelon
2003-10-05 20:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Ludgate
Should one also include the two platforms at Southwark (on the
Jubilee Line), as they are connected to the Waterloo / Waterloo
East complex by escalator / travelator links? (and if so, is this the
only place where you can catch a train from one part to another
part of the same station complex?)
No, you can do it at Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris, I know, I've made
that mistake once!

pete
--
***@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Nicolas Jasson
2003-10-06 19:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Fenelon
Post by Martin Ludgate
Should one also include the two platforms at Southwark (on the
Jubilee Line), as they are connected to the Waterloo / Waterloo
East complex by escalator / travelator links? (and if so, is this the
only place where you can catch a train from one part to another
part of the same station complex?)
No, you can do it at Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris, I know, I've made
that mistake once!
pete
Although a little far fetched, I can accept this as a native Parisian.
The truth is that there is a clear distinction in station names :
"Châtelet-Les Halles" refers exclusively to the RER platforrms, served
by wide-gauge trains. The name is deliberately the association of the
corresponding metro (narrow-gauge) stations : "Les Halles" on line 4,
and "Châtelet" on lines 1, 4, 7, 11 and 14. It is true that you can walk
from the RER platforms to "Les Halles" and take a line 4 train to
"Châtelet" and from there take the corridor back to the RER plaforms. We
Parisians have a clear mental distinction between the metro and the RER
lines and it's never confusing in real life.

From December, a similarly large complex of interconnected stations
will emerge with the completion of the extension of metro line 14 into
"Saint-Lazare". Through the network of existing and new corridors, in
fact two RER stations ("Auber" and "Haussmann - Saint-Lazare", 6
platforms) and four metro stations ("Saint-Lazare" on lines 3,12,13 and
14, "Saint-Augustin" on line 9, "Havre-Caumartin" on lines 3 and 9,
"Opéra" on lines 3,7 and 8) will be physically linked and it will be
possible to enter the metro say in "Saint-Lazare" and by just walking
corridor after corridor exit South of Place de l'Opéra, a distance of
over 1 kilometer on the ground.

=nico=
***@noos.fr
Pete Fenelon
2003-10-07 10:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicolas Jasson
Post by Pete Fenelon
No, you can do it at Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris, I know, I've made
that mistake once!
pete
Although a little far fetched, I can accept this as a native Parisian.
"Ch?telet-Les Halles" refers exclusively to the RER platforrms, served
by wide-gauge trains. The name is deliberately the association of the
corresponding metro (narrow-gauge) stations
The problem was really the combination of the mostly-subterranean shopping
centre and the three stations. To a naive (ish) visitor the whole
complex is 'one station' (and is presented as such by most English-language
tourist guidebooks!) It was on one of my first visits to Paris - since
then I've actually got to understand my way round on RER and Metro!
Post by Nicolas Jasson
From December, a similarly large complex of interconnected stations
will emerge with the completion of the extension of metro line 14 into
"Saint-Lazare". Through the network of existing and new corridors, in
fact two RER stations ("Auber" and "Haussmann - Saint-Lazare", 6
platforms) and four metro stations ("Saint-Lazare" on lines 3,12,13 and
14, "Saint-Augustin" on line 9, "Havre-Caumartin" on lines 3 and 9,
"Op?ra" on lines 3,7 and 8) will be physically linked and it will be
possible to enter the metro say in "Saint-Lazare" and by just walking
corridor after corridor exit South of Place de l'Op?ra, a distance of
over 1 kilometer on the ground.
Oh my - I thought it was a long way from Montparnasse-Bienvenue to the
main-line station ;)

At some point Gare d'Est/Chateau Landon will no doubt run into Gare du
Nord/Magenta/La Chapelle - that will make Waterloo or Kings Cross/St
Pancras look pretty tame! (Or if they already have extended tentacles
towarsd each other - ouch!)

pete
--
***@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-07 07:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Ludgate
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Total 36.
Should one also include the two platforms at Southwark (on the
Jubilee Line),
Hmm. Arguable, very arguable.
Post by Martin Ludgate
Neither can I, these days. But in the past, would you have counted
Liverpool Street and Broad Street as part of one complex?
From memory, no, though I suppose they're no more separated than KX and
SP are.
Post by Martin Ludgate
If so,
their total must have been not far short of that at one time.
LS: 18
BS: 4
LU: 4

Total 26. Relatively pathetic.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Peter Masson
2003-10-07 12:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Martin Ludgate
Neither can I, these days. But in the past, would you have counted
Liverpool Street and Broad Street as part of one complex?
From memory, no, though I suppose they're no more separated than KX and
SP are.
Post by Martin Ludgate
If so,
their total must have been not far short of that at one time.
LS: 18
BS: 4
LU: 4
Total 26. Relatively pathetic.
Broad Street, at its peak (from 1913) had 9 platforms. LU had 5 - 2 Central
Line, and 3 (two and a bay) Circle/Met. So not up to Waterloo, or future
KX/St P standards, but getting close: LS 18, BS 9, LU 5. Total 32.

Peter
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-07 17:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Total 26. Relatively pathetic.
Broad Street, at its peak (from 1913) had 9 platforms.
Before my time. But thinking about it, it doesn't surprise me.
Post by Peter Masson
LU had 5 - 2 Central
Line, and 3 (two and a bay) Circle/Met.
Oops, silly me.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Nev Arthur
2003-10-03 06:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rowland
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to
mislead
Post by John Rowland
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
or confuse passengers, such as re-use of the same platform
number(s) in different groups of tracks served by common
facilities (ticket or left-luggage offices) is particularly
undesirable.
Post by John Rowland
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras are both served
by one of the same Tube station. IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
I actually have had people come up to me asking for the train to
Sheffield, when I worked at Kings Cross, so that is probably a fair
point, albeit just applying to a tiny minority of people who got
confused between stations.
John Rowland
2003-10-03 10:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nev Arthur
Post by John Rowland
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras
are both served by one of the same Tube station. IMO there
should be no duplicated platform numbers in the entire complex.
I actually have had people come up to me asking for the train to
Sheffield, when I worked at Kings Cross, so that is probably a fair
point, albeit just applying to a tiny minority of people who got
confused between stations.
I agree that the number of people who would benefit from it would be small,
but the number of people who would be harmed by it would be zero.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Stephen Lynas
2003-10-03 11:26:56 UTC
Permalink
"Nev Arthur" <***@SpamtraPyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<blj6hj$2k1$***@sparta.btinternet.com>...

[snip relevant stuff]

welcome back nev. Long time no read!

Stephen
Nev Arthur
2003-10-03 11:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Lynas
[snip relevant stuff]
welcome back nev. Long time no read!
Stephen
Thanks mate,
Didn't think anyone would notice or care.
Nev
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-03 11:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rowland
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
In my opinion anything in the numbering that is liable to mislead
or confuse passengers, such as re-use of the same platform
number(s) in different groups of tracks served by common
facilities (ticket or left-luggage offices) is particularly undesirable.
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras are both served
by one of the same Tube station.
But that's not "common facilities". There are five stations, closely
grouped (KX, SP, KXSP-tube, KXSP-Circle, KXTL). They don't share any
facilities that I can think of, except perhaps a linking subway.
Post by John Rowland
IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
I wonder if that would be *more* confusing.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
David Hansen
2003-10-03 15:03:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:32:40 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
But that's not "common facilities". There are five stations, closely
grouped (KX, SP, KXSP-tube, KXSP-Circle, KXTL). They don't share any
facilities that I can think of, except perhaps a linking subway.
Can one get to the Circle Line platforms without passing (around)
the tube booking office?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Peter Lawrence
2003-10-03 16:46:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:03:02 +0100, David Hansen
Post by David Hansen
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:32:40 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
But that's not "common facilities". There are five stations, closely
grouped (KX, SP, KXSP-tube, KXSP-Circle, KXTL). They don't share any
facilities that I can think of, except perhaps a linking subway.
KXTL ticket office also serves KXSP tube platforms.
Post by David Hansen
Can one get to the Circle Line platforms without passing (around)
the tube booking office?
Yes, from the South side of Euston Road.
--
Peter Lawrence
Alan (in Brussels)
2003-10-04 08:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:03:02 +0100, David Hansen
Post by David Hansen
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:32:40 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
But that's not "common facilities". There are five stations, closely
grouped (KX, SP, KXSP-tube, KXSP-Circle, KXTL). They don't share any
facilities that I can think of, except perhaps a linking subway.
KXTL ticket office also serves KXSP tube platforms.
Post by David Hansen
Can one get to the Circle Line platforms without passing (around)
the tube booking office?
Yes, from the South side of Euston Road.
While we are on the subject, can anybody tell me it the work now under way
at the western end of the KXSP Circle Line station is intended to provide
convenient (ie barrier-free) access to/from the Northern Line (via Bank)
platforms beneath it and/or the renovated St-Pancras mainline station, thus
eliminating the present bottleneck in access to/from the KXSP Circle Line
platforms?

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-07 07:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
While we are on the subject, can anybody tell me it the work now under way
at the western end of the KXSP Circle Line station is intended to provide
convenient (ie barrier-free) access to/from the Northern Line (via Bank)
platforms beneath it and/or the renovated St-Pancras mainline station, thus
eliminating the present bottleneck in access to/from the KXSP Circle Line
platforms?
Not that I can see.

Looking at the diagrams scattered around King's Cross concourse, there
will be two points of access to the Circle:
* mid-platform stairways to the new Western Booking Hall under St.P.;
* stairs up at the east end leading to the existing tube booking hall
at the top of the Victoria Line escalators.
There will be three points of access to the Northern:
* the existing escalators;
* the existing passage and steps to the Piccadilly Line concourse;
* new mid-point steps to a passageway to the new Northern Ticket Hall.
Plus some new lifts.

So the interchange route from Circle to Northern will be largely
unchanged, except that it will be entirely within the barrier area.

Your "beneath it" comment is wrong. The eastbound Circle platform is
under the St.P. approach road. The Victoria Line tunnels are under the
station concourse (the platforms are further east) and the Northern Line
tunnels are north of that, under the St.P. platforms themselves.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Alan (in Brussels)
2003-10-08 07:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
While we are on the subject, can anybody tell me it the work now under way
at the western end of the KXSP Circle Line station is intended to provide
convenient (ie barrier-free) access to/from the Northern Line (via Bank)
platforms beneath it and/or the renovated St-Pancras mainline station, thus
eliminating the present bottleneck in access to/from the KXSP Circle Line
platforms?
Not that I can see.
Looking at the diagrams scattered around King's Cross concourse, there
* mid-platform stairways to the new Western Booking Hall under St.P.;
* stairs up at the east end leading to the existing tube booking hall
at the top of the Victoria Line escalators.
* the existing escalators;
* the existing passage and steps to the Piccadilly Line concourse;
* new mid-point steps to a passageway to the new Northern Ticket Hall.
Plus some new lifts.
So the interchange route from Circle to Northern will be largely
unchanged, except that it will be entirely within the barrier area.
Your "beneath it" comment is wrong. The eastbound Circle platform is
under the St.P. approach road. The Victoria Line tunnels are under the
station concourse (the platforms are further east) and the Northern Line
tunnels are north of that, under the St.P. platforms themselves.
Thanks for that. As a supplementary, can I enquire why the Northern
Line platforms are *not* (vertically) beneath those now used by the
Circle Line at KXSP? I assumed that when the Northern Line was
built the obvious route would have been beneath the streets (here
Pentonville Road and Euston Road) like much of the rest of the line,
to avoid the need to negotiate wayleaves with a host of individual
property owners. Did the Met/District Railway (which was already
running beneath Euston Rd., although its plaforms were beside the
present Thameslink station) object, despite the obvious advantages?

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-04 11:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Lawrence
KXTL ticket office also serves KXSP tube platforms.
Huh?

Oh, of course, you're thinking about the connecting tunnel as being
behind the barriers. That's true, but I don't know that it really
counts. Will the KXTL ticket office even sell you an Underground ticket?
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Peter Lawrence
2003-10-04 16:50:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 12:45:30 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Peter Lawrence
KXTL ticket office also serves KXSP tube platforms.
Huh?
Oh, of course, you're thinking about the connecting tunnel as being
behind the barriers. That's true, but I don't know that it really
counts. Will the KXTL ticket office even sell you an Underground ticket?
KXTL is now signed as an Underground station so I assume it will. I
have never tried it.
--
Peter Lawrence
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-04 11:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
But that's not "common facilities". There are five stations, closely
grouped (KX, SP, KXSP-tube, KXSP-Circle, KXTL). They don't share any
facilities that I can think of, except perhaps a linking subway.
Can one get to the Circle Line platforms without passing (around)
the tube booking office?
Yes: stairs on the south side of Euston Road, and stairs on the street
outside King's Cross.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
John Rowland
2003-10-03 23:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by John Rowland
Yet you have missed the fact that Kings Cross and St Pancras
are both served by one of the same Tube station.
But that's not "common facilities". There are five stations,
closely grouped (KX, SP, KXSP-tube, KXSP-Circle, KXTL).
They don't share any facilities that I can think of, except
perhaps a linking subway.
They could, though, perhaps a coffeeshop between the two which included
departure monitors.
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by John Rowland
IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
I wonder if that would be *more* confusing.
Please describe the circumstance in which someone trying to perform a
journey could be confused by unique platform numbers in the KX-StP complex.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-04 11:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rowland
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by John Rowland
IMO there should be no duplicated platform
numbers in the entire complex.
I wonder if that would be *more* confusing.
Please describe the circumstance in which someone trying to perform a
journey could be confused by unique platform numbers in the KX-StP complex.
Depends on the numbering.

If platform 28 is reached by a completely different route to platforms
27 and 29, that would be confusing, I think.

If that approach is taken, it should be something like 1-8 for LU, 11-29
for King's Cross, and 30+ for St.Pancras, with the functional groups
split into decades (e.g. 3x for MML, 4x for Eurostar, 5x for CTRL-DS,
and 6x for TL).
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Stimpy
2003-09-30 17:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by KenS
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford (Bow) is not
indicated, but it also occurs to me to suggest that a major
renumbering
Post by KenS
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
should be envisaged there, notably to eliminate the various
- no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
< Snip>
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
Regards,
- Alan (in Brussels)
This annoys me. Some stations, New St or Leeds for instance, use "a"
and "b" etc as subdivisions of the main numerical platform. Others,
like Stratford, use the "a" suffix to refer to a totally different
platform. Another is Platform 11a at Glasgow Central. OK, these two
are rarely used, but they are occasionally - I've used both of them a
couple of times.
Surely there is a national standard for this?
Why? Isn't this just another case of the 'everything has to be in
little logical boxes' mentality that seems to afflict so many
trainspotters?
Geoff Rimmer
2003-10-02 06:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Some stations, New St or Leeds for instance, use "a" and "b" etc as
subdivisions of the main numerical platform. Others, like
Stratford, use the "a" suffix to refer to a totally different
platform.
Surely there is a national standard for this?
Apparently not. Birmingham New Street groups its platforms as follows
(platform numbers in brackets are subdivisions of the same physical
platform):

(1a 1b) (2a 2b) (3a 3b) (4a 4b) (5a 5b) (6a 6b)
(7a 7b) (8a 8b) (9a 9b) (10a 10b) (11a 11b) (12a 12b)

But at Bristol Temple Meads we have:

(1) (2) (3 4) (5 6) (7 8) (9 10) (11 12) (13) (15)

Which of these two styles is more prevalent at stations that divide
their platforms in this way?
--
Geoff Rimmer <> ***@sillyfish.com <> www.sillyfish.com
www.sillyfish.com - Make savings on your BT and Telewest phone calls.
Ronnie Clark
2003-10-03 03:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
The numbering plan for the future platforms at Stratford (Bow) is not
indicated, but it also occurs to me to suggest that a major renumbering
- no platform 7, but parallel platforms 10 and 10a;
- the JLE platforms (13, 14 and 15, IIRC) are adjacent to platform 1 (on the
NLR to N. Greenwich)
You're forgetting, though that people using Stratford station to get to the
Jubilee line will not be going around wondering where platforms 13, 14 and
15 are, instead they'll just be wondering where the Jubilee line is, so it
hardly matters that the Jubilee line doesn't follow a "logical" pattern with
the rest of the station.

In fact, I can't say that I've ever cared what platform number I'm getting a
London Underground train from, and at most stations it's not something you
need to know - you simply need to know which direction you want to go in on
which line.

If anything, the only thing I'd ask for changing about giving directions
towards correct platforms on the London Underground is the insistance on
using "Eastbound" and "Westbound" for the Circle Line where "Clockwise" and
"Anti-Clockwise" could be more useful. It's not happened to myself, but I
know several people get a wrong train because they've been on the part of
the circle always shown as running north-south on the map, and so had to
guess which way eastbound really meant! :)

Ronnie
--
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk

As the wise man says:
"Remember - there is no more important safety rule than to wear these:
safety glasses"
Post by Alan (in Brussels)
- platform 2 is nearest the main entrance.
Clive D. W. Feather
2003-10-04 11:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronnie Clark
In fact, I can't say that I've ever cared what platform number I'm getting a
London Underground train from, and at most stations it's not something you
need to know
Baker Street is an obvious exception, and there are others (e.g. Edgware
Road if you want a District train). But I'll agree that in most cases
Post by Ronnie Clark
- you simply need to know which direction you want to go in on
which line.
The northbound island platform at Finchley Central has only one
indicator sign for both platforms. You need to look at the sign *and*
the numbers to be sure of getting the right train. [Trains from platform
1 can only go to Mill Hill East, but those from platform 2 can go to
either terminus.]

Oh, and of course there's Camden Town and Euston on the Northern Line.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <***@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <***@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
j***@msn.com
2003-10-04 18:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive D. W. Feather
Post by Ronnie Clark
In fact, I can't say that I've ever cared what platform number I'm getting a
London Underground train from, and at most stations it's not something you
need to know
Baker Street is an obvious exception, and there are others (e.g. Edgware
Road if you want a District train). But I'll agree that in most cases
Post by Ronnie Clark
- you simply need to know which direction you want to go in on
which line.
The northbound island platform at Finchley Central has only one
indicator sign for both platforms. You need to look at the sign *and*
the numbers to be sure of getting the right train. [Trains from platform
1 can only go to Mill Hill East, but those from platform 2 can go to
either terminus.]
Oh, and of course there's Camden Town and Euston on the Northern Line.
The same applies to any junction on LU.
Bill Borland
2003-10-04 16:53:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <bliord$995$***@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ronnie Clark <***@blu
gman.freeserve.co.uk> writes
Post by Ronnie Clark
If anything, the only thing I'd ask for changing about giving directions
towards correct platforms on the London Underground is the insistance on
using "Eastbound" and "Westbound" for the Circle Line where "Clockwise" and
"Anti-Clockwise" could be more useful.
Worse still, KXSP is due east of Euston. But to get from KXSP to
Euston, one must use either the "southbound" Piccadilly or the
"northbound" Northern Line. Try explaining *that* to someone who
doesn't know much about LU, especially if he doesn't speak fluent
English!
There used to be little coloured lights at some stations - "Follow the
blue lights for Euston" etc. - do these still exist? I don't remember
seeing them for very many years.
--
Bill Borland
(G3EFS) Blessed are they that expect nothing,
for they shall not be disappointed.
(Epistle of Bill to the NGs, Chap. 1)
David Biddulph
2003-10-04 17:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Borland
gman.freeserve.co.uk> writes
Post by Ronnie Clark
If anything, the only thing I'd ask for changing about giving directions
towards correct platforms on the London Underground is the insistance on
using "Eastbound" and "Westbound" for the Circle Line where "Clockwise" and
"Anti-Clockwise" could be more useful.
Worse still, KXSP is due east of Euston. But to get from KXSP to
Euston, one must use either the "southbound" Piccadilly or the
"northbound" Northern Line.
If you use the southbound Piccadilly from KXSP, it doesn't get you to
Euston. Try the Victoria Line.
--
David Biddulph
Graham Murray
2003-10-04 19:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Borland
Worse still, KXSP is due east of Euston. But to get from KXSP to
Euston, one must use either the "southbound" Piccadilly or the
"northbound" Northern Line. Try explaining *that* to someone who
doesn't know much about LU, especially if he doesn't speak fluent
English!
Would you want to take the underground between KXSP and Euston? Would
it not be as quick, and probably not much further to walk, to just
walk west along Euston Road?
Ronnie Clark
2003-10-04 20:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Graham Murray wrote in message ...
Post by Graham Murray
Post by Bill Borland
Worse still, KXSP is due east of Euston. But to get from KXSP to
Euston, one must use either the "southbound" Piccadilly or the
"northbound" Northern Line. Try explaining *that* to someone who
doesn't know much about LU, especially if he doesn't speak fluent
English!
Would you want to take the underground between KXSP and Euston? Would
it not be as quick, and probably not much further to walk, to just
walk west along Euston Road?
About a 20 minute walk in my experience, though I had my mother in tow, too.
It's also not a pleasant walk to make. I'd much rather use the Picc / Vic!

Ronnie
--
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk

As the wise man says:
"Remember - there is no more important safety rule than to wear these:
safety glasses"
David H Wild
2003-10-04 20:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Murray
Post by Bill Borland
Worse still, KXSP is due east of Euston. But to get from KXSP to
Euston, one must use either the "southbound" Piccadilly or the
"northbound" Northern Line. Try explaining *that* to someone who
doesn't know much about LU, especially if he doesn't speak fluent
English!
Would you want to take the underground between KXSP and Euston? Would
it not be as quick, and probably not much further to walk, to just
walk west along Euston Road?
The rail planner on my phone allows 40 minutes by tube from Euston to KX,
while I can walk it comfortably in 15. If you have heavy luggage, or an
elderly and frail relative, walking isn't possible - but the amount of
walking would be too much then. A taxi is the most likely way.

I have used the tube a couple of times, when it was pouring down.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...