Ages ago, there was some chat about why plat 4c is 4c and not 5c,
because at BNS the odd-numbered platforms are all on the north side of
their associated tracks, as 4c is. I don't recall a conclusion to the
discussion, but I have a theory that justifies this being 4c and not 5c.

Wolv <-x--A--x-------------------- 4b ---------------- 4a --------> Cov
        \     \ **************************************************
         \     --------------------4c ****************************  
          B-------------------------------- 5b ------- 5a --------

It's just that the turnout for 4c comes off the road that was previously
the platform 4 road. (* above is the platform). Thus, a train routed
through A from Wolv is (as before) going to end up at platform 4, while
one routed through B ends up at plat 5. That'll be it, won't it?    

Anyway, whether the above is right or not, 4c's a *very* long walk if
one's previous train has arrived at 12b and stairs are a problem.

"Chris Tolley"  wrote

> Ages ago, there was some chat about why plat 4c is 4c and not 5c,
> because at BNS the odd-numbered platforms are all on the north side of
> their associated tracks, as 4c is. I don't recall a conclusion to the
> discussion, but I have a theory that justifies this being 4c and not 5c.
>
> Wolv <-x--A--x-------------------- 4b ---------------- 4a --------> Cov
>        \     \ **************************************************
>         \     --------------------4c ****************************
>          B-------------------------------- 5b ------- 5a --------


Your diagram shows 5a and 5b.  However, I have a feeling that the a and b 
suffixes (for 5 only) were abolished when 4c was created, leaving 5 as the 
only non-subdivided platform at BNS. Is that correct?  Is it now too short 
to take two trains?

John Salmon wrote:


> Your diagram shows 5a and 5b.  However, I have a feeling that the a and b
> suffixes (for 5 only) were abolished when 4c was created, leaving 5 as the
> only non-subdivided platform at BNS. Is that correct?  Is it now too short
> to take two trains?


They were indeed, on all the signs etc, but trains still continue to
this day to depart from 5a or 5b. The mid-platform signals are still as
they ever were, but the platform has been shortened by the creation of
4c. There was a paper 5a and 5b stuck over the brand new signs on the
concourse exits for a while, but they have since fallen off or been
taken off and have never been replaced again. Thus, the folly
continues!

Phil H

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:04:17 +0000 (UTC), John Salmon wrote:

> "Chris Tolley"  wrote
>> Wolv <-x--A--x-------------------- 4b ---------------- 4a --------> Cov
>>         \     \ **************************************************
>>          \     --------------------4c ****************************
>>           B-------------------------------- 5b ------- 5a --------
> 
> Your diagram shows 5a and 5b.  However, I have a feeling that the a and b 
> suffixes (for 5 only) were abolished when 4c was created, leaving 5 as the 
> only non-subdivided platform at BNS. Is that correct?  Is it now too short 
> to take two trains?


No, it's long enough, if, as usual, the one at 5b is the Wlsl to Wolv
via BNS stopper. 
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857155.html
(37 411 at Bath Spa, 4 Sep 1998)