I have always been in favour of the use clear, simple route codes on
trains, corresponding to codes that also ought to appear on timetables
and PIS.

The purpose of these codes is not to inform people where the trains
go, but to enable people to identify a train when they already know
about where the trains go.  (Particularly at places like London Bridge
with five routes to Dartford, or busy stations in the suburbs where
delayed trains could be going to three different London termini,
minutes apart.)

South Eastern has continued using codes (although modern displays on
trains often don't work) on trains, although not on PIS etc.

Instead of extending their use to PIS etc, they seem to be paving the
way to not using them by randomising them, unless there is some
consistent system that I just can't fathom.

Although the current near-random codes can help identify a specific
train from the timetable, we have now lost the ability to identify all
trains doing the same thing having learned a specific code.

Also, some general distinctions that were still useful at busy times
even when one didn't know any specific codes, such as "odd number
means Cannon Street and even number means Charing Cross" have been
done away with.

Does anyone know why the consistent patterns are being thrown away?
This seems to be making the continued use of codes fairly pointless,
which is maybe the idea.

(Or is there some pattern that I can't work out?)

I've always thought it was rather odd that the UK is, as far as I know, the 
only country in the world that does not give its trains numbers and print 
them in the timetable/display them on the trains.

The advantages of such numbering is considerable.


Is there anywhere else where train numbers are not used and publicised?

On Jul 4, 7:32 am, MIG  wrote:

> they seem to be paving the
> way to not using them by randomising them, unless there is some
> consistent system that I just can't fathom.


Can you amplify a bit - are you saying they are making random
*changes* to them ?

If they are not changing them, then surely they are simply the
inherited SR / BR SR headcodes + new ones added over time, the orginal
system was piecemeal as lines were electrified. There never has been
to my knowledge an easy way to remember all of them because of the
network is complex.

Can you work a logical easy to remember number series, bearing in mind
youi have to refelct stopping patterns  as well as routes over which
the trains run ?


--
Nick

On 4 Jul, 16:57, D7666  wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:32 am, MIG  wrote:
>
> > they seem to be paving the
> > way to not using them by randomising them, unless there is some
> > consistent system that I just can't fathom.
>
> Can you amplify a bit - are you saying they are making random
> *changes* to them ?
>
> If they are not changing them, then surely they are simply the
> inherited SR / BR SR headcodes  new ones added over time, the orginal
> system was piecemeal as lines were electrified. There never has been
> to my knowledge an easy way to remember all of them because of the
> network is complex.
>
> Can you work a logical easy to remember number series, bearing in mind
> youi have to refelct stopping patterns  as well as routes over which
> the trains run ?


Perhaps random was too strong, but in a way it's worse.  There are
large chunks of consistency, lulling one into a false sense of
security when the inconsistent ones are thrown in.  I don't mean new
codes, I mean using existing codes inconsistently.

Unfortunately, I haven't got the timetable to hand, but from
memory ...

For example, the extra sunday services to Ramsgate via Chatham are 50
in one direction (as you'd expect) but 30 in the opposite direction
(which would normally mean to/from Dover).

The local services are worse.  I mentioned the even/odd distinction
between Charing Cross and Cannon Street, but now odd numbered codes
are being used for services to Charing cross (eg 25 for Charing Cross
to Hayes via Lewisham instead of 24 and Gillingham to Charing Cross
via Woolwich and Lewisham getting code 63 instead of 62).

Also, there are distance-related inconsistencies on the Dartford
lines.  In general anything beginning 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 (ie Dartford
lines) ending 0/1 meant Dartford, 2/3 meant Rochester or beyond, 4/5
meant Gravesend or Strood, and 6/7 meant stopping short or looping
before Dartford.

Now we get code 40 going on to Gravesend or 72 terminating at
Dartford.

It was just possible that they had decided to switch away from
reflecting end points to reflecting stopping patterns instead, but in
fact this is definitely not the case.  There are 62s and 63s which are
identical, and other 63s which go to a different terminus.

"MIG"  wrote
>
<Perhaps random was too strong, but in a way it's worse.  There are
>large chunks of consistency, lulling one into a false sense of
>security when the inconsistent ones are thrown in.  I don't mean new
>codes, I mean using existing codes inconsistently.
>
Since time immemorial stoppers down the Main (Orpington or Sevenoaks) have
been
12 Orpington
14 Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham
16 Sevenoaks.
Now we have 12s and 16s indiscriminately running to Orpington or Sevenoaks,
and can be direcxt or via Lewisham, while the 14s in the Down SX timetable
seem to be
0048 Orpington via Lewisham
0540 Sevenoaks via Lewisham
0756 Sevenoaks direct

However, Bill Hayles will rest assured that all the Bromley North poppers
still seem to be 01.

Peter

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:3IidnQod2ecXwfPVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "MIG"  wrote
>>
> <Perhaps random was too strong, but in a way it's worse.  There are
>>large chunks of consistency, lulling one into a false sense of
>>security when the inconsistent ones are thrown in.  I don't mean new
>>codes, I mean using existing codes inconsistently.
>>
> Since time immemorial stoppers down the Main (Orpington or Sevenoaks) have
> been
> 12 Orpington
> 14 Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> 16 Sevenoaks.
> Now we have 12s and 16s indiscriminately running to Orpington or 
> Sevenoaks,
> and can be direcxt or via Lewisham, while the 14s in the Down SX timetable
> seem to be
> 0048 Orpington via Lewisham
> 0540 Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> 0756 Sevenoaks direct
>
> However, Bill Hayles will rest assured that all the Bromley North poppers
> still seem to be 01.
>
> Peter
>

Route Codes will not be used on all services after the December 2008 
timetable change

Mark

Peter Masson wrote:

> Since time immemorial stoppers down the Main (Orpington or Sevenoaks) have
> been
> 12 Orpington
> 14 Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> 16 Sevenoaks.

Not quite since time immemorial (although that appears in Ian Allan 
"British Rail Headcodes" of around 1970) - I am sure that back in the 
1950s Charing Cross to Sevenoaks via Lewisham used to be 18 (or 
V-upside-down-with-two-dote). The series was (in each case even from 
Charing Cross, odd from Cannon Street):

12/13 Orpington via Parks Bridge
14/15 Orpington via Lewisham
16/17 Sevenoaks via Parks Bridge
18/19 Sevenoaks via Lewisham

Peter Beale

"Peter Beale"  wrote in message
news:6d7ge1F19ll5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Masson wrote:
>
> > Since time immemorial stoppers down the Main (Orpington or Sevenoaks)
have
> > been
> > 12 Orpington
> > 14 Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> > 16 Sevenoaks.
>
> Not quite since time immemorial (although that appears in Ian Allan
> "British Rail Headcodes" of around 1970) - I am sure that back in the
> 1950s Charing Cross to Sevenoaks via Lewisham used to be 18 (or
> V-upside-down-with-two-dote). The series was (in each case even from
> Charing Cross, odd from Cannon Street):
>
> 12/13 Orpington via Parks Bridge
> 14/15 Orpington via Lewisham
> 16/17 Sevenoaks via Parks Bridge
> 18/19 Sevenoaks via Lewisham
>
I can't go back to the 1950s, though in 1966 (see SR SE Division timetable)
14/15 applied to trains to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham, while 18/19
applied to trains to Margate via Orpington, Dover Priory and Minster. There
had to be something of a shake-up between 1959 and 1962 to provide codes for
the Kent Coast electrification. I note, too, in 1966 17 was Cannon Street,
Holborn or Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via London Bridge, St Johns and
Orpington.

Of course, the London to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham codes were not
a great deal of use - it's only in recent years that Orpington or Sevenoaks
trains have run via Lewisham.

Peter

On Jul 4, 9:27 pm, "REDSKINS"  wrote:
> "Peter Masson"  wrote in message
>
> news:3IidnQod2ecXwfPVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MIG"  wrote
>
> > <Perhaps random was too strong, but in a way it's worse.  There are
> >>large chunks of consistency, lulling one into a false sense of
> >>security when the inconsistent ones are thrown in.  I don't mean new
> >>codes, I mean using existing codes inconsistently.
>
> > Since time immemorial stoppers down the Main (Orpington or Sevenoaks) have
> > been
> > 12 Orpington
> > 14 Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> > 16 Sevenoaks.
> > Now we have 12s and 16s indiscriminately running to Orpington or
> > Sevenoaks,
> > and can be direcxt or via Lewisham, while the 14s in the Down SX timetable
> > seem to be
> > 0048 Orpington via Lewisham
> > 0540 Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> > 0756 Sevenoaks direct
>
> > However, Bill Hayles will rest assured that all the Bromley North poppers
> > still seem to be 01.
>
> > Peter
>
> Route Codes will not be used on all services after the December 2008
> timetable change

As I suspected.  Take something useful, make it useless and then get
rid of it on the grounds that it's useless.

Why on Earth are they bothering with them at all at the moment?

"MIG"  wrote
>
>Why on Earth are they bothering with them at all at the moment?

Much as I regret their passing, SR (or now, Southeastern) route codes have
probably outlived their usefulness, now that stations have reasonably
reliable departure indicators which convey much more information than a
route code ever could. I can't remember the Charing Cross departure
indicator before the Solari, though fingerboards were used at the head of
each platform. London Bridge had weird and wonderful indicators on platforms
1-3, which must have dated from the early years of the 20th century - ISTR
that they did not recognise Tattenham Corner, but showed the trains as for
Tadworth. Chislehurst, for example, made do with chalked information at the
ticket barrier, though it achieved fingerboards on the platforms in 1967,
but they only lasted a few years. I can't remember when it got tannoy
announcements, but it wasn't before the mid-1960s, For that matter, it made
do with gas lighting into the 1960s, even though it had hosted electric
trains since 1926. Did it have electricity for the luggage lifts, or were
they manually operated?

Peter

On Jul 4, 10:11 pm, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
> "Peter Beale"  wrote in message
>
> news:6d7ge1F19ll5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Peter Masson wrote:
>
> > > Since time immemorial stoppers down the Main (Orpington or Sevenoaks)
> have
> > > been
> > > 12 Orpington
> > > 14 Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham
> > > 16 Sevenoaks.
>
> > Not quite since time immemorial (although that appears in Ian Allan
> > "British Rail Headcodes" of around 1970) - I am sure that back in the
> > 1950s Charing Cross to Sevenoaks via Lewisham used to be 18 (or
> > V-upside-down-with-two-dote). The series was (in each case even from
> > Charing Cross, odd from Cannon Street):
>
> > 12/13 Orpington via Parks Bridge
> > 14/15 Orpington via Lewisham
> > 16/17 Sevenoaks via Parks Bridge
> > 18/19 Sevenoaks via Lewisham
>
> I can't go back to the 1950s, though in 1966 (see SR SE Division timetable)
> 14/15 applied to trains to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham, while 18/19
> applied to trains to Margate via Orpington, Dover Priory and Minster. There
> had to be something of a shake-up between 1959 and 1962 to provide codes for
> the Kent Coast electrification. I note, too, in 1966 17 was Cannon Street> Holborn or Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via London Bridge, St Johns and
> Orpington.
>
> Of course, the London to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham codes were not
> a great deal of use - it's only in recent years that Orpington or Sevenoaks
> trains have run via Lewisham.

Apart from odd early and late ones, the regular services have come and
gone.  A couple of years ago there were only the odd ones that did
Lewisham, but now nearly all of them off peak.

There was a period longer ago when all the Sunday services went via
Lewisham, but the others didn't.  For part of that time, Mondays to
Fridays, there were two an hour from Cannon Street to Orpington via
Lewisham, one via Grove Park and one via Beckenham Junction.

I just randomly looked at winter 1993/4 and found Sunday Orpington
services going through Lewisham (code 14).

On Jul 4, 10:28 pm, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
> "MIG"  wrote
>
>
>
> >Why on Earth are they bothering with them at all at the moment?
>
> Much as I regret their passing, SR (or now, Southeastern) route codes have
> probably outlived their usefulness, now that stations have reasonably
> reliable departure indicators which convey much more information than a
> route code ever could.

The point is that it's not information that most punters need, because
they know where the trains go before turning up at a station.  But
they do need to identify the right train, for which a tiny scrolling
display that can't be read in sunlight is no competition with a big,
clear number.

I've mentioned before the indicators in the passageway at London
Bridge that just say "Dartford  [expected] 3 mins" for the second and
third trains.  This is 100% useless, and a route code would be a great
help.

I can't remember the Charing Cross departure
> indicator before the Solari, though fingerboards were used at the head of
> each platform. London Bridge had weird and wonderful indicators on platforms
> 1-3, which must have dated from the early years of the 20th century - ISTR
> that they did not recognise Tattenham Corner, but showed the trains as for
> Tadworth. Chislehurst, for example, made do with chalked information at the
> ticket barrier, though it achieved fingerboards on the platforms in 1967,
> but they only lasted a few years. I can't remember when it got tannoy
> announcements, but it wasn't before the mid-1960s, For that matter, it made
> do with gas lighting into the 1960s, even though it had hosted electric
> trains since 1926. Did it have electricity for the luggage lifts, or were
> they manually operated?

I certainly can't answer that one, but I can remember wooden
fingerboards being used at Blackheath well into the 1990s.

Peter Masson wrote:

> I can't go back to the 1950s, though in 1966 (see SR SE Division timetable)
> 14/15 applied to trains to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham, while 18/19
> applied to trains to Margate via Orpington, Dover Priory and Minster. There
> had to be something of a shake-up between 1959 and 1962 to provide codes for
> the Kent Coast electrification. I note, too, in 1966 17 was Cannon Street,
> Holborn or Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via London Bridge, St Johns and
> Orpington.

I'm sure you're right - the changes began when the use of roller blinds 
made possible 11, 22, 33 etc. - there was only one of each stencil 
plate, so you couldn't have these. The first headcodes using these were 
22 and 33 on the Hastings diesels.
> 
> Of course, the London to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham codes were not
> a great deal of use - it's only in recent years that Orpington or Sevenoaks
> trains have run via Lewisham.
> 
I seem to recall that they had them fairly frequently in the peaks back 
then. But I don't think there was ever Bromley North via Lewisham.

Peter Beale

Peter Masson wrote:

>  London Bridge had weird and wonderful indicators on platforms
> 1-3, which must have dated from the early years of the 20th century - ISTR
> that they did not recognise Tattenham Corner, but showed the trains as for
> Tadworth. 

I remember them well - white writing on black enamel. As you say, 
TADWORTH & CATERHAM; also NORTH KENT VIA DARTFORD LOOP etc., MID KENT 
LINE, MAIN LINE (which was Sevenoaks/Orpington).

Peter Beale

On Jul 4, 7:32 am, MIG  wrote:
> I have always been in favour of the use clear, simple route codes on
> trains, corresponding to codes that also ought to appear on timetables
> and PIS.
>
> The purpose of these codes is not to inform people where the trains
> go, but to enable people to identify a train when they already know
> about where the trains go.  (Particularly at places like London Bridge
> with five routes to Dartford, or busy stations in the suburbs where
> delayed trains could be going to three different London termini,
> minutes apart.)
>
> South Eastern has continued using codes (although modern displays on
> trains often don't work) on trains, although not on PIS etc.

I'm no expert on headcodes, but you (in particular)will be pleased to
know that the 465/2s which i mentioned as being fitted with cctv and
new interior displays have also got new (and now working)external
orange LED displays. No sign of the same thing on 465/9s though.

"Peter Beale"  wrote in message
news:6d7lf7F19qsnU1@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Masson wrote:
>
> > Of course, the London to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham codes were
not
> > a great deal of use - it's only in recent years that Orpington or
Sevenoaks
> > trains have run via Lewisham.
> >
> I seem to recall that they had them fairly frequently in the peaks back
> then. But I don't think there was ever Bromley North via Lewisham.
>
I can't vouch for the 1950s, though my memory suggests that trains from
Chislehurst never went via Lewisham. A 1960 timetable gives one example -
8.26 am Cannon Street to Sevenoaks has a column note 'Calls Lewisham 8.38
am.' 1966 and 1970 timetables give no instances. Dartford Loop trains ran
via Lewisham off-peak, though in general in the peaks it was only the
Dartford Loop to Blackfriars/Holborn trains that went round the spur between
Hither Green and Lewisham. The Nunhead - Lewisham - Hither Green route was
put in in 1929 (using in part the former LCDR Greenwich Park branch) so that
freight via the Widened Lines could reach Hither Green without blocking up
London Bridge. At first this route, including the spur, was not electrified,
but the juice rail was added in 1935 and a peak service started from the
Bexleyheath and Loop Lines to Blackfriars (later Holborn).

Peter

"Peter Beale"  wrote in message
news:6d7llpF1am7kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Masson wrote:
>
> >  London Bridge had weird and wonderful indicators on platforms
> > 1-3, which must have dated from the early years of the 20th century -
ISTR
> > that they did not recognise Tattenham Corner, but showed the trains as
for
> > Tadworth.
>
> I remember them well - white writing on black enamel. As you say,
> TADWORTH & CATERHAM; also NORTH KENT VIA DARTFORD LOOP etc., MID KENT
> LINE, MAIN LINE (which was Sevenoaks/Orpington).
>
Nearly as weird and wonderful as the train describers with which signalboxes
at Cannon Street, London Bridge, etc, were equipped in the 1890s, which
included in their indications 'Tidal or Mail' to describe boat trains which
still ran from Charing Cross (although not to a tidal timetable) - I wonder
how long those train describers lasted. Was it on one of those that a train
was misdescribed to Parks Bridge, that was a contributory factor in the St
Johns collision in 1957?

Peter

On Jul 4, 11:17 pm, Rupert Candy  wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:32 am, MIG  wrote:
>
> > I have always been in favour of the use clear, simple route codes on
> > trains, corresponding to codes that also ought to appear on timetables
> > and PIS.
>
> > The purpose of these codes is not to inform people where the trains
> > go, but to enable people to identify a train when they already know
> > about where the trains go.  (Particularly at places like London Bridge
> > with five routes to Dartford, or busy stations in the suburbs where
> > delayed trains could be going to three different London termini,
> > minutes apart.)
>
> > South Eastern has continued using codes (although modern displays on
> > trains often don't work) on trains, although not on PIS etc.
>
> I'm no expert on headcodes, but you (in particular)will be pleased to
> know that the 465/2s which i mentioned as being fitted with cctv and
> new interior displays have also got new (and now working)external
> orange LED displays. No sign of the same thing on 465/9s though.

I think I saw one from a distance today.  It certainly had what
appeared to be legible writing on the front of a 465/2.  They would
probably complete one sub-class at a time to avoid swapping between
tasks with minor differences (if they have any).

If these don't turn into illegible mush in a few months (and stay
readable in sunlight), it will be about sixteen years from
introduction of the trains to being fitted with working displays.

On 4 Jul, 22:38, MIG  wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:28 pm, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
>
> > "MIG"  wrote
>
> > >Why on Earth are they bothering with them at all at the moment?
>
> > Much as I regret their passing, SR (or now, Southeastern) route codes have
> > probably outlived their usefulness, now that stations have reasonably
> > reliable departure indicators which convey much more information than a
> > route code ever could.
>
> The point is that it's not information that most punters need, because
> they know where the trains go before turning up at a station.  But
> they do need to identify the right train,


This morning, it was only the headcode on the train that pulled up in
the platform with "Charing Cross" on the front, when a Charing Cross
train was due, that let me know that it was actually a late-running
non-stop service, and saved me from poking at the door buttons and
taking whatever risks are involved in being in physical contact with a
train that will move as soon as the signal clears.

Not all the punters spotted it, however.

MIG  writes:

> This morning, it was only the headcode on the train that pulled up in
> the platform with "Charing Cross" on the front, when a Charing Cross
> train was due, that let me know that it was actually a late-running
> non-stop service, and saved me from poking at the door buttons and
> taking whatever risks are involved in being in physical contact with a
> train that will move as soon as the signal clears.
>
> Not all the punters spotted it, however.

ISTR that at one time if a train which should be non-stop was brought to
a stand at a platform that the train was not allowed to just restart but
had to be properly dispatched. So should the guard not have opened his
door, warned intending passengers to stand clear and the driver not
restart until the guard 'belled' him away?

On Jul 11, 6:03 pm, Graham Murray  wrote:
> MIG  writes:
> > This morning, it was only the headcode on the train that pulled up in
> > the platform with "Charing Cross" on the front, when a Charing Cross
> > train was due, that let me know that it was actually a late-running
> > non-stop service, and saved me from poking at the door buttons and
> > taking whatever risks are involved in being in physical contact with a
> > train that will move as soon as the signal clears.
>
> > Not all the punters spotted it, however.
>
> ISTR that at one time if a train which should be non-stop was brought to
> a stand at a platform that the train was not allowed to just restart but
> had to be properly dispatched. So should the guard not have opened his
> door, warned intending passengers to stand clear and the driver not
> restart until the guard 'belled' him away?

They don't have guards unfortunately (although I observed recently
that they pick up a guard just to cover the section from Strood to
Gillingham).

"Graham Murray"  wrote in message
news:87hcaw8iap.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> MIG  writes:
>
> > This morning, it was only the headcode on the train that pulled up in
> > the platform with "Charing Cross" on the front, when a Charing Cross
> > train was due, that let me know that it was actually a late-running
> > non-stop service, and saved me from poking at the door buttons and
> > taking whatever risks are involved in being in physical contact with a
> > train that will move as soon as the signal clears.
> >
> > Not all the punters spotted it, however.
>
> ISTR that at one time if a train which should be non-stop was brought to
> a stand at a platform that the train was not allowed to just restart but
> had to be properly dispatched. So should the guard not have opened his
> door, warned intending passengers to stand clear and the driver not
> restart until the guard 'belled' him away?

Was necessary with slam door stock (which on Southern emus never achieved
CDL - apart from an odd experiment, and now fitted to the Lymington CIGs).
Most drivers either crawled along the platform hoping that the signal would
clear, or even stopped short of the platform, at least until they couldn't
leave phoning the box any longer.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:
> "Peter Beale"  wrote in message
> news:6d7lf7F19qsnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Peter Masson wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, the London to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Lewisham codes were
>>> not a great deal of use - it's only in recent years that Orpington or
>>> Sevenoaks trains have run via Lewisham.
>>>
>> I seem to recall that they had them fairly frequently in the peaks back
>> then. But I don't think there was ever Bromley North via Lewisham.
>>
> I can't vouch for the 1950s, though my memory suggests that trains from
> Chislehurst never went via Lewisham. A 1960 timetable gives one example -
> 8.26 am Cannon Street to Sevenoaks has a column note 'Calls Lewisham 8.38
> am.' 1966 and 1970 timetables give no instances. 

I've just realized that I have the SR 6/10/47 (facsimile) and BR(S) 
25/9/50 and 18/6-9/9/62 timetables.

In 1947 there was (MF) an 0827 CS-Chelsfield and 1033 CS-Orpington, (SO) 
0825 CS-Chelsfield. In 1950 0825 CS-Chelsfield (MF&S) and 0840 
CS-Orpington (MF). As you say, there were no ups via Lewisham.

In 1962 Lewisham is not even included as a calling-point in Table 65, 
nor is there any column note as you mention in 1960.

My memories were mainly my schooldays, 1949-1957 - but it was a long 
time ago!

Peter Beale

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message
news:T_2dndhfEMNQOOrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message
> news:87hcaw8iap.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> > MIG  writes:
> >
> > > This morning, it was only the headcode on the train that pulled up in
> > > the platform with "Charing Cross" on the front, when a Charing Cross
> > > train was due, that let me know that it was actually a late-running
> > > non-stop service, and saved me from poking at the door buttons and
> > > taking whatever risks are involved in being in physical contact with a
> > > train that will move as soon as the signal clears.
> > >
> > > Not all the punters spotted it, however.
> >
> > ISTR that at one time if a train which should be non-stop was brought to
> > a stand at a platform that the train was not allowed to just restart but
> > had to be properly dispatched. So should the guard not have opened his
> > door, warned intending passengers to stand clear and the driver not
> > restart until the guard 'belled' him away?
>
> Was necessary with slam door stock (which on Southern emus never achieved
> CDL - apart from an odd experiment, and now fitted to the Lymington CIGs).
> Most drivers either crawled along the platform hoping that the signal
would
> clear, or even stopped short of the platform, at least until they couldn't
> leave phoning the box any longer.
>

Another alternative is to leave the signal 12 cars forward of the platform
edge.

The up line at Burgess Hill is one I can remember off the top of my head.

/John