Zero Milepost question

[Andy W]

As an aside, the reason zero is used for platforms is that renumbering platforms messes with every railway computer system that uses platform numbers in their geography. Some, like voyagerplan (the train planning system), would need a fairly hefty rewrite for somewhere like KX just to cope with a renumber.

In the case of KX, it was far easier to add platform Zero and the new connection into the existing geography. It still feels odd to me but that is the way of the world these days.

[9001 St Paddy]

As an aside, the reason zero is used for platforms is that renumbering platforms messes with every railway computer system that uses platform numbers in their geography. Some, like voyagerplan (the train planning system), would need a fairly hefty rewrite for somewhere like KX just to cope with a renumber.

In the case of KX, it was far easier to add platform Zero and the new connection into the existing geography. It still feels odd to me but that is the way of the world these days.

Same as when the EuroStar sets started running to and from North Pole depot and Kings Cross over the North London line in the late 90s when i was a Camden Road box the ECS was run as class 9s instead of class 5s to distinguish them from ordinary ECS.

I believe they run as class 9s with passenger's as well instead of class 1s like other express passenger trains are.

A class 9 (1-4 bell)in B.R. days up to the mid-1980s was a un-fitted Goods train with a brake van in the rear.

FINSBUERY PARK [5] formerly Micky a onetime 'tele lad' at Welwyn Garden City box.

[kudu]

As an aside, the reason zero is used for platforms is that renumbering platforms messes with every railway computer system that uses platform numbers in their geography. Some, like voyagerplan (the train planning system), would need a fairly hefty rewrite for somewhere like KX just to cope with a renumber.

In the case of KX, it was far easier to add platform Zero and the new connection into the existing geography. It still feels odd to me but that is the way of the world these days.

Just as well 2 platforms weren't added, or we would have had the first negative-numbered platform.

[9001 St Paddy]

Funny i've always judged any distance in mileage by the GNR/LNER main line since about 1970?.

If for example i hear that the distance being quoted between such & such a place is about 10 miles i will equate that to the same distance between Kings Cross & New Barnet, another example would be if the distance being quoted is about 60 miles i would equate that to about the same distance between Kings Cross & Huntingdon and of course the easy one is 100 miles which i will equate with the distance between Kings Cross & Stoke summit.

So knowing the mileage of the old main line still comes in handy in everyday use for me.


FINSBURY PARK [5] formerly Micky (loads of posts as Hatfield No3 as well) and a onetime 'tele lad' at Welwyn Garden City box.

[1H was 2E]

Referring back to my previous posts about the possible legal requirement for mileposts to enable mileage-based (i.e., almost all in the old days) charges to be checked by customers I have found a reference to this in Back Track magazine for June 2014 (btw never buy these mags new but contribute to steam railways by patronising their secondhand bookshops...).
therein there's a letter worth quoting in full,"Re (earlier corres.) Section 95 of the quoted Act only permits the railway company to demand tolls if the mileposts were in place. Given the number of mileposts which had gone missing, I wondered some years ago if the railway still had the power to charge for travel. However, I discovered that the clause in the Consolidation Acts had been repealed by a s
Statute Law Revision Act in the late 1950s." Very few railway charges are still mileage based, though; the only possibility is International freight traffic, where the division of receipts between railways may still be based on, amongst other factors, the proportion of journey, by distance, in each administration.

Regarding the question of mileposts not representing the current distance due to realignment I have found one small reference to this in a book about the C&HP by John Marshall. This refers to the Harpur Hill deviation, which was a direct line with heavy earthworks avoiding contour loops. The Author states "Although it reduced (by?) a length of 1 mile 45-60 chains the LNWR board decided to charge the same tolls as before"

Although this may seem a bit boring it may help to explain more interesting things Travelling on a First GW Swansea train diverted via Barry last Sunday, I noticed that a number of new mileposts had been installed - sometimes a few feet away from the originals, but presumably this is because they are used for track maintenance identification purposes. And they were MILE posts - not that system based on Napoleon's shoe size, either.

[PinzaC55]

As an aside, the reason zero is used for platforms is that renumbering platforms messes with every railway computer system that uses platform numbers in their geography. Some, like voyagerplan (the train planning system), would need a fairly hefty rewrite for somewhere like KX just to cope with a renumber.

In the case of KX, it was far easier to add platform Zero and the new connection into the existing geography. It still feels odd to me but that is the way of the world these days.

Just as well 2 platforms weren't added, or we would have had the first negative-numbered platform.

They could have lettered the platforms ?

[Mickey]

As an aside, the reason zero is used for platforms is that renumbering platforms messes with every railway computer system that uses platform numbers in their geography. Some, like voyagerplan (the train planning system), would need a fairly hefty rewrite for somewhere like KX just to cope with a renumber.

In the case of KX, it was far easier to add platform Zero and the new connection into the existing geography. It still feels odd to me but that is the way of the world these days.

Just as well 2 platforms weren't added, or we would have had the first negative-numbered platform.

They could have lettered the platforms ?

They re-numbered all the platforms at 'the cross' in May 1972 without to much noticeable problems except for wiping away the historical departure platform no.10 which became one of the suburban platforms from then on.

Lettered platforms Pinza??. Sounds a bit Southern Region'ish?.

Mickey

[StevieG]

Just as well 2 platforms weren't added, or we would have had the first negative-numbered platform.

They could have lettered the platforms ?

They re-numbered all the platforms at 'the cross' in May 1972 without to much noticeable problems except for wiping away the historical departure platform no.10 which became one of the suburban platforms from then on.

Lettered platforms Pinza??. Sounds a bit Southern Region'ish?.

Mickey

[ The underground platforms ('low level'/ Thameslink) at St. Pancras Int'l are "A" and "B".]

(We seem to be getting a bit far away from zero mileposts now ! )

[Mickey]

[ The underground platforms ('low level'/ Thameslink) at St. Pancras Int'l are "A" and "B".]

(We seem to be getting a bit far away from zero mileposts now ! )

Yeah i reckon we've squeezed enough mileage out of this topic anyway.

Mickey