Subway sign: "for" instead of "to" - is this grammatically correct and comprehensible?

Grammatical and common, at least in UK railway announcements.. e.g.: this train is for London kings Cross only. Passengers for intermediate stations should change here and wait for the next service, which is your oh nine thirty. This train is for London Kings Cross only.

"The train is now departing to Ben Thanh" "The train is now departing for Ben Thanh" Both of these make sense and are in common usage, so I don't see a problem with the sign.

I always think of this usage of "for" as coming from "This train is bound for (destination)"

It’s fine. It suggests this the way to get to Ben Thanh, rather than this is simply going to Ben Thanh. On the London Underground you often see “for” to show this is the station nearest to a landmark or significant place, or to show you which exit to use. But it’s fine as a general destination marker too.

To add to the other comments, 'for' could imply a few things; The place is a common destination, but there might be multiple trains (with different termini) that stop there. It is interchangeable with 'to'. The place represents a larger area (where there might be multiple stops). The station name is not the same as the destination name.

If I had to distinguish 'for' and 'to' in this situation, I'd say that 'to' implies that whatever is listed is the trains' final destination, while 'for' implies that the trains stop (but do not necessarily terminate) there.

The platform is intended “for” the purpose of putting people on the train to their destination.

Think of it as a contraction of "this is the platform *for* trains to *Ben Thanh."*

It works. I generally hear "to" but "for" is perfectly understandable. Prepositions often do strange things when they are translated.

Yes, this is normal, grammatical and idiomatic English.

Generally, yeah. They are talking about the, I'm guessing, train to Ben Thanh, so yes in this case it'd be correct. You might also say this if you were picking someone up ("For Ben Thanh" might be written on a note), but as this is talking about the mode of transportation, not the direction it's going, "For" is fine.

I'm not saying this is correct, just throwing an idea out there (I'm not a native speaker) but is it possible that "Ben Thanth" is an adjective modifying the service itself rather than a place? Like , "this is for Ben Thanth service", like how sometimes proper nouns are not used as nouns? ( Like Bengal tiger ). I could be overthinking it.

I would like to thank everyone for all your helpful replies! They really help clearing up some confusion on my part. Some context for this post: there's an ongoing debate about the correctness/appropriateness of this sign (specifically the use of 'for' instead of 'to') and whether it is potentially misleading or not. Ben Thanh is the terminal for this particular line, and this sign sits on the platforms of all of its non-terminal stations.

Yep. It’s the platform *for* the train to the location. But a train *for* a location also makes sense. You go *to* a location, a train is *to* or *for* a location. If it’s a set route.

In my opinion, “for” implied thats the direction it’s heading. As in thats where it’s going, but there are several stops along the way at which one could get off. If it only said “to” one might think it’s an express with no stops in between? In practice, it makes sense either way and I’d still take the train regardless of “for” or “to.”

I have seen this usage in Japan as well and, as an AE speaker, have always found it odd and thought it must be a Briticism. To me, “to” is the more natural preposition here. The train goes “to” a place, not “for” a place. The counterpart is “from,” so it’s odd to me to see “from” paired with “for” and not “to.” I have also thought, though, that it might be short for “bound for,” that is, a train is bound for a certain place. Still, I have wondered why “for” is used in this context in Japan, and it’s interesting to see that it’s used in Vietnam as well. In the US, you’d see “to,” not “for.”

it's weird but it's comprehensible. Someone might say "i'm off for <place>" and it would sound normal. "for" and "from" are opposites, they can be used in opposite ways when it comes to destination specification. "to" would definitely be more typical though

I don't know who Ben is, but he must be rich to get his own train. /s

Definitely comprehensible, but not normal verbaige for what I'm accustomed to in transit systems. I'm in the US if that matters.

IMO it's fine. I usually use "for" when talking about a wider area, so * For Brooklyn * To DeKalb Avenue Something like that