Sequence of Platform Numbering

[johnb]

Clapham P1 I recall reading somewhere that there are structural conditions below the track level that mean that there are weight restrictions in that area. I understand it will cost an awful lot of ££££s to reinstate P1

[Mike_Walker]

16 minutes ago, johnb said:

Clapham P1 I recall reading somewhere that there are structural conditions below the track level that mean that there are weight restrictions in that area. I understand it will cost an awful lot of ££££s to reinstate P1

That's one aspect but there is also a large amount of signalling equipment located along the trackbed of the former p1 which would be complex and expensive to move. It was therefore easier and cheaper to reconfigure the former p2 as described above.

[John M Upton]

I have seen on a track diagram, the former Platform 1 at Clapham Junction referred to as the Banana Bay?

 

Was that because of its shape or were bananas actually loaded there once?

[Wickham Green too]

13 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Was that because of its shape or were bananas actually loaded there once?

.... from the local banana growers ??!?

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

.... from the local banana growers ??!?

There was a banana-ripening warehouse at Battersea Wharf, only a tuppeny-halfpenny local trip away. 

[DY444]

On 01/09/2020 at 23:54, John M Upton said:

Haywards Heath is the wrong way around, 1 and 2 are Down, 3 and 4 are Up (although to be fair all four are now bi-directional).

 

Has P2 changed then?  It used to be the case that P1, P3 and P4 were fully bi-directional but T342 at the up end of P2 was a fixed red so an up train could run into P2 but had to reverse and couldn't depart in the up direction.

[Zomboid]

I remember reading/ hearing somewhere that Waterloo used to be numbered such that each island platform structure had a single number. So there was a track on either side of "platform 7". No idea of the truth of it, always felt a bit unlikely, but not completely beyond the realms of possibility.

 

Isn't the up main at Ipswich platform 1, and the Felixstowe/ Lowestoft bay 1a?

[Edwin_m]

34 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I remember reading/ hearing somewhere that Waterloo used to be numbered such that each island platform structure had a single number. So there was a track on either side of "platform 7". No idea of the truth of it, always felt a bit unlikely, but not completely beyond the realms of possibility.

 

Isn't the up main at Ipswich platform 1, and the Felixstowe/ Lowestoft bay 1a?

I think one number per island was common in the 19th century - Manchester Victoria was like that until rebuilding in about 1903.

 

Sheffield has 2a and 2b as either end of the long platform 2, 2c is a bay alongside one end of it.  Birmingham New Street platform 4 is similar.  

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

I think one number per island was common in the 19th century - Manchester Victoria was like that until rebuilding in about 1903.

 

Sheffield has 2a and 2b as either end of the long platform 2, 2c is a bay alongside one end of it.  Birmingham New Street platform 4 is similar.  

All Birmingham New Steet's through platforms have designated "A" (East) & "B" (West) ends and most are signalled separately so two trains can arrive & depart from the same platform.

Platform 4C was carved out of the West end of Platform 4 and connects directly with the track into 4B

 

In the days of the "old" Snow Hill there were only 4 long through platforms but each end was numbered separately.

Starting on the down side they were 1 (south end) & 2 (north end) then 3 & 4 (two bays facing north), 5 (south end) & 6 (north end), down and up through tracks, then 7 (south end) & 8 (north end), 9 & 10 (two more north bays), finally 11 (south) & 12 (north)

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrbsh1167.htm

[Wickham Green too]

5 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

I think one number per island was common in the 19th century .........

There's a certain logic to that : as the physical 'platform' is a single structure ........ what are normally numbered are strictly the edges of the platform. ( But don't get me going about being told not to fall between the 'train and the platform edge' - I can't see how anyone could fall between the train and any other part of it ! )

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Has P2 changed then?  It used to be the case that P1, P3 and P4 were fully bi-directional but T342 at the up end of P2 was a fixed red so an up train could run into P2 but had to reverse and couldn't depart in the up direction.

 

Nope

 

The fixed red is still there so trains may only head north from platforms 1, 3 & 4

 

At the south end though all platforms are signalled for running on to Brighton.

 

A while ago there was a document knocking around which said that following the rebuild of the Croydon / Norwood / Selhurst triangle, it would be beneficial to rearrange the signalling plus provide additional crossovers at Haywards Heath such that trains from the north could turn back in the centre platforms. This would prevent the current situation where a northbound train from platform 1 obstructs the Down main while it crosses over at Copyhold Junction.

 

 

[phil-b259]

On 02/09/2020 at 00:08, adb968008 said:

 

Whats more, during the rebuilding, they relaid the sidings beyond old Plat 1/ new plat 2. and put a set of points directing towards the old plat 1.. but then built extra wide stairs next to the new plat 1, that prevents the sidings ever becoming thru to the old plat 1... so even if plat 0 emerged..it would be a terminating platform, of similar size to new plat 1...with a set of points to nowhere at the opposite end, blocked by stairs.

 

 

Those points are there as catch points (as was demonstrated at Tonbridge last week mighty handy things to have in case of driver error), not as any sort of future proofing.

 

They face towards the old platform 1 to keep any errant train well clear of the adjacent Windsor lines.

 

Given the condition of the trackbed of the original platform 1, plus the desire to ease overcrowding on the access passageways (the WLL is VERY popular with people transferring from Southern / SWR) the solution chosen is actually a pretty good one.

[adb968008]

On 03/09/2020 at 18:23, phil-b259 said:

 

Those points are there as catch points (as was demonstrated at Tonbridge last week mighty handy things to have in case of driver error), not as any sort of future proofing.

 

They face towards the old platform 1 to keep any errant train well clear of the adjacent Windsor lines.

 

Given the condition of the trackbed of the original platform 1, plus the desire to ease overcrowding on the access passageways (the WLL is VERY popular with people transferring from Southern / SWR) the solution chosen is actually a pretty good one.

which way do the sidings gradient though ?

i know the windsor lines descend steeply, but the sidings look like they ascend ?

 

 

Are trap points just standard points now ?

 

Could a simple point, onto the through line, from The old Plat 2  have achieved the same objective, without any of the additional contractual work, at fraction of the time, cost, plus the benefit of maintaining the through road, and having both parts of plat 2 access the siding, rather than todays 1.

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

which way do the sidings gradient though ?

i know the windsor lines descend steeply, but the sidings look like they ascend ?

 

Are trap points just standard points now ?

 

Could a simple point, onto the through line, from The old Plat 2  have achieved the same objective, without any of the additional contractual work, at fraction of the time, cost, plus the benefit of maintaining the through road, and having both parts of plat 2 access the siding, rather than todays 1.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by ‘standard’ - but a similar installation exists at the London end of Paddock Wood Up Platform and the south end of platform 3 at Redhill to give but two examples.

 

The siding itself is basically somewhere to dump a defective train - it’s not used for routine stabling so the fact it’s not accessible from the new platform 1 doesn’t create major problems.

 

However as has been explained the metal structures which carried the trackbed of the original platform 1 was in a very poor state while the through road between platforms 2 and 3 was effectively redundant. Given London Overground trains via Willesden or the ELL are restricted to 5 coaches by platform lengths elsewhere a rebuild of Platform 2 to create the current setup was the most obvious, not to mention cost effective solution. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by phil-b259

[Clive Mortimore]

I have just been looking at the track plan and signal box diagram for Mablethorpe. There is a bay platform labeled platform one. I haven't found a old track plan as yet showing it connected to the mainline. To access it a train needs to enter the up siding from the station and then reverse into the platform. I am not sure if they would embark or disembark passengers on that platform with all that toing and throwing. So what was platform one at Mablethorpe used for?

 

Unless someones knows for definite, which I would welcome, there is no need to speculate as it was a just a wee bit of reading and looking up I was doing.  I hope I don't go to my grave worrying about platform one at Mablethorpe. A wee bit of it survives as a wall on the edge of the car park opposite the Co-op food store.  

Edited September 3, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[corneliuslundie]

I have seen it suggested (others here may know the answer) that one reason for not renumbering platforms these days is that not only are the numbers embedded into the signalling systems (route indicators etc) but also into the national computer information systems, so a change has big knock-on effects.

Jonathan

[Guest Damo]

On 30/08/2020 at 20:50, Oldddudders said:

True, and exceptions are/were few. Purley comes to mind. 

Basingstoke is another. I don't know if it's always been that way and the down side (also original entrance) has always been 1, or if it came about in the '30s when the GWR 'moved into' the main station complex and the Southern perhaps didn't want them to have the number 1 over on the up side of the station?

[adb968008]

I should add West Croydon to the list, it has platform 1,3 &4.

no platform 2. Its been filled in to widen platform 3.

 

West Croydon has a few historical remains.. a very long disused siding remains, to access the carriage sidings, the retaining walls have remains of the LBSC OHLE gantries, and platform 3 Up end has a very distinct ramp on the platform.. a temporary repair to an incendiary that blew up and burnt out a 2Bil in the platform in WW2, picture of the event is in the Middleton press book about the line.

 

 

Theres been talk of Sutton tramlink to years, and here to me is a good oppourtunity..

if they made terminal platforms on the former carriage sidings, leading to a street level (stepfree access), the current platforms could be demolished and track bed used for a tramway to Sutton / Epsom downs. The land lending itself to a wider bus station, giving a tri-mode, step free interchange.

 

The current Epsom downs, then terminate at the new terminal West Croydon platforms, and the Epsoms could goto London Bridge as the LBSC originally intended, via Carshalton.

 

Sutton gets its trams, Epsom downs could have a loop at Banstead to pass and the line could have an increase in capacity & frequency... though all this was pre-Covid ideas... the future could be single track, hourly service now the commuters have gone.

Edited September 3, 2020 by adb968008