One Or Multiple City Centre Stations In Provincial English Cities?

[tbtc]

Are you in favour of everything serving one station for English cities (outside of London) or having different services using different stations?

One of the complaints about HS2 is that the station won't be at New Street (it'll be right next to Moor Street, but a short walk from New Street, which people complaining about HS2 like to suggest will add a huge time penalty for people doing a journey like London - Walsall (compared to using the "classic" WCML service and changing at New Street)

One of the complaints about Beeching is that places like Nottingham now longer have a "choice" of stations (since Victoria was closed with everything "rationalised" on the current station instead)

Many of the complaints about Manchester railways involve the problems of having two main city centre stations (nobody wants their local trains to go to Victoria since there are more connections available at Piccadilly - which becomes a vicious circle - more trains go to Piccadilly because that's where everyone else's trains serve... we spent lots of money on a regular tram from Pic to Vic to try to get round this and then lots more money on the Ordsall Chord to allow direct Pic-Vic trains but people still want a tunnel between the two - yet at the same time people suggest re-opening Manchester Central too!). So some people want to simplify service patterns, some people want to spread services thinner (e.g. the suggestion that Liverpool - Sheffield services should run via Victoria and Denton, which would mean half of Sheffield's fast services running from Pic and half from Vic). Do we rationalise the pattern of routes or try to give every line at least an hourly Piccadilly service?

There are regular suggestions on here that we re-open Sheffield Victoria as part of re-opening Woodhead - which would mean Sheffield - Manchester passengers had a "choice" of stations in Sheffield (and a general acceptance that it'd be too complicated to build a chord permitting Victoria - Midland journeys - maybe Woodhead passengers wanting Midland would change at a new Nunnery Square station onto a nearby tram?)

We also see regular suggestions on here for Bradford Crossrail, rather than having two separate stations in the city (as well as suggestions that we do something to provide a regular link between the two stations in Yeovil/ Wakefield etc)

See also spending money on linking the two lines at Windsor (one of those "looks good on a map, but a lot harder in real life" issues!)

One of the justifications for a Plymouth - Tavistock - Okehampton service extending to London Waterloo like in the good old days (!) is to serve Exeter Central, since St Davids is too far out of town

There was a suggestion a while ago about building a cable car to link the two stations in central Worcester, given the distance involved (and passengers wanting to do journeys like Hereford - Cheltenham)

I've seen similarly complicated "solutions" suggested to bridge the gap between Castle and Northgate in Newark

So, in short, where there's only one station in a city, we should open a second one to increase "choice" (and that nasty Dr Beeching shouldn't have closed the second station in the first place - boo, hiss!)...

...but when there are multiple stations then we should rationalise them into one because the walk across town is too daunting for people wanting to do a journey like Burnley - Stockport (through Manchester)

Whilst I appreciate that we are lumbered with the legacy of nineteenth century routes and subsequent closures in the British Rail era (and that each city is a special snowflake, so you can't impose the same "solutions" on everywhere because there are local markets etc etc) - plus bigger places may be able to sustain two different stations that allow the railway to serve very different parts of the city centre - what's your preference?

Should we be opening additional stations like Manchester Central/ Sheffield Victoria/ Nottingham Victoria/ Birmingham Curzon Street? Or should we be rationalising things to focus everything on one city centre station? Or spending money on linking existing stations so that every train serves one station (e.g. Bradford Crossrail)?

(I've said "England" to avoid arguments about Glasgow, which would be a ridiculously complicated place to try to link the two city centre stations - given the need for any Queen Street - Central line to get under the Subway, Queen Street low level, Central Low Level, the Clyde the Subway again...)

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It seems obvious to me that, everything else being equal, in any less than massive conurbation one major central station is preferable to two or more major stations. If a major station is not central, e.g. Exeter St. Davids, there is a case for a second station.

Those railway enthusiasts who lament the closing of any railway infrastructure may complain about a "lack of choice" but do normal railway passengers complain? How many people in Leeds complain about the rationalisation of termini in the past sixty years? Why might any normal passenger not want to have one station where changing trains is simple? Why would any such passenger prefer to traipse from one station to another unnecessarily?

None of this however means that is either financially or logistically feasible to continue rationalising stations today. In Bicester and Canterbury, to take obvious examples, there is no workable alternative to having two stations.

I hope someone who lives in Wigan will express an opinion about the merits or otherwise of combining the two stations there.

 

[A0wen]

It seems obvious to me that, everything else being equal, in any less than massive conurbation one major central station is preferable to two or more major stations. If a major station is not central, e.g. Exeter St. Davids, there is a case for a second station.

Those railway enthusiasts who lament the closing of any railway infrastructure may complain about a "lack of choice" but do normal railway passengers complain? How many people in Leeds complain about the rationalisation of termini in the past sixty years? Why might any normal passenger not want to have one station where changing trains is simple? Why would any such passenger prefer to traipse from one station to another unnecessarily?

None of this however means that is either financially or logistically feasible to continue rationalising stations today. In Bicester and Canterbury, to take obvious examples, there is no workable alternative to having two stations.

I hope someone who lives in Wigan will express an opinion about the merits or otherwise of combining the two stations there.

Define "central" - and why you think that's important?

The answer to the question surely is it depends on each place. For Manchester even if you started from scratch, on station probably wouldn't be viable. Different for somewhere like Nottingham or Leicester.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's a 4th option: Treat each city on a case by case basis based on the railways it has and the railways it needs. For example if you were building the railway network now, in Bradford you wouldn't design what Bradford has ended up with on purpose... but neither would you route Halifax to Leeds services via Shipley- which is what you'd end up with if you built Bradford Crossrail.

 

[stuu]

There's a 4th option: Treat each city on a case by case basis based on the railways it has and the railways it needs. For example if you were building the railway network now, in Bradford you wouldn't design what Bradford has ended up with on purpose... but neither would you route Halifax to Leeds services via Shipley- which is what you'd end up with if you built Bradford Crossrail.

The right answer IMHO.

Re Bradford, if the stations were linked then Skipton to Leeds via Bradford would make sense, as would Ilkley-Halifax. There's lots of local journeys which would become much more practical by rail if there was such a link

 

[Gathursty]

It seems obvious to me that, everything else being equal, in any less than massive conurbation one major central station is preferable to two or more major stations. If a major station is not central, e.g. Exeter St. Davids, there is a case for a second station.

Those railway enthusiasts who lament the closing of any railway infrastructure may complain about a "lack of choice" but do normal railway passengers complain? How many people in Leeds complain about the rationalisation of termini in the past sixty years? Why might any normal passenger not want to have one station where changing trains is simple? Why would any such passenger prefer to traipse from one station to another unnecessarily?

None of this however means that is either financially or logistically feasible to continue rationalising stations today. In Bicester and Canterbury, to take obvious examples, there is no workable alternative to having two stations.

I hope someone who lives in Wigan will express an opinion about the merits or otherwise of combining the two stations there.

Resident Wiganer here. I wouldn't mind both stations being combined but think it might be too much work for little gain as you just cross the road like at St Budueax in Plymouth however that's not to say if Wigan Council desired a huge change to the layout of the town centre, then it could be worthwhile combining Western and Wallgate. The question then being what do we call Wigan Combined?

 

[greyman42]

Resident Wiganer here. I wouldn't mind both stations being combined but think it might be too much work for little gain as you just cross the road like at St Budueax in Plymouth however that's not to say if Wigan Council desired a huge change to the layout of the town centre, then it could be worthwhile combining Western and Wallgate. The question then being what do we call Wigan Combined?

Wigan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Resident Wiganer here. I wouldn't mind both stations being combined but think it might be too much work for little gain as you just cross the road like at St Budueax in Plymouth however that's not to say if Wigan Council desired a huge change to the layout of the town centre, then it could be worthwhile combining Western and Wallgate. The question then being what do we call Wigan Combined?

The trouble is that if you did combine them due to the layout of the railway it would have to be quite a lot further from the town centre than the present two stations are. The walk between them is probably shorter than the walk between the concourse and platform 13 at Manchester Pic so really isn't a barrier.

On the wider point, "it depends". What I would say is that if there is more than one station they do need to be well-connected - if nearby that means quality walking routes (e.g. in the case of Birmingham that scabby road tunnel full of beggars needs tidying up and providing with 24/7 security), or if further away you need a public transport connection between the two (e.g. Metrolink in Manchester's case or the Merseyrail Loop in Liverpool's case), ideally integrated in the fare of rail tickets where you might need to move between them.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

There's a 4th option: Treat each city on a case by case basis.

Think the poll choices need to be amended to reflect this.

 

[Ianno87]

Resident Wiganer here. I wouldn't mind both stations being combined but think it might be too much work for little gain as you just cross the road like at St Budueax in Plymouth however that's not to say if Wigan Council desired a huge change to the layout of the town centre, then it could be worthwhile combining Western and Wallgate. The question then being what do we call Wigan Combined?

The only real fault with the current Wigan set up is that no road pedestrian crossings coincide with the natural "desire line" from one station entrance to the other.

The best solution would be to figure out some alternative access for taxis/cars for drop off / the station car park, and then turn the whole front of the station into "shared space", albeit for buses only.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only real fault with the current Wigan set up is that no road pedestrian crossings coincide with the natural "desire line" from one station entrance to the other.

The best solution would be to figure out some alternative access for taxis/cars for drop off / the station car park, and then turn the whole front of the station into "shared space", albeit for buses only.

I've walked between the two on numerous occasions and never found it to be a massive problem. Perhaps for less standing around the signalised crossing at the front of Wallgate might be better replaced with a zebra, or set up so pressing the button immediately changes the lights?

 

[HSTEd]

Where rationalisation is achievable, I believe it should be the watchword.

A single central "nexus" station allows maximum connectivity between longer distance and local services, and permits maximum metroisation - which as you all know is the thing I want most for the future railway.

I would also be willing to expend substantial amounts of money to achieve this - hence my oft repeated and ridiculed proposal to abort the currently projected redevelopment of the University of Manchester's North campus, and build a new superstation there instead.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The right answer IMHO.

Re Bradford, if the stations were linked then Skipton to Leeds via Bradford would make sense, as would Ilkley-Halifax. There's lots of local journeys which would become much more practical by rail if there was such a link

The main journeys in West Yorkshire, despite it being a multi-centric region to an extent, are primarily from other places to Leeds. That's largely why the railways we still have are where they are. If you were building a new line from Skipton to Leeds you'd run down the Aire Valley rather than through Bradford, which funnily enough is the route we have.

Bradford Crossrail isn't even a solution looking for a problem, it's a distraction from proposals that might actually have some merit beyond making maps look neat.

 

[Journeyman]

Rationalising stations was something Beeching got right. Many towns and cities ended up with multiple stations because of intense Victorian competition and empire-building. It caused no end of problems and expense, and BR should have started dealing with it far sooner. The Big 4 ignored the problem for too long as well.

 

[zwk500]

The Big 4 ignored the problem for too long as well.

The Southern Railway was pretty involved in Kent, turning many of the SECR/LCDR competing lines into rationalised layouts, usually permitting return loops to London.

 

[Journeyman]

The Southern Railway was pretty involved in Kent, turning many of the SECR/LCDR competing lines into rationalised layouts, usually permitting return loops to London.

They did well, yes, but even there the problem could have been addressed sooner when the two railways merged.

 

[zwk500]

They did well, yes, but even there the problem could have been addressed sooner when the two railways merged.

The merger was pretty light, AIUI. And the reason they started co-operating was because both were rather short of cash - a common issue with rationalisations that require new infrastructure.

 

[BayPaul]

I'd suggest a 4th /5th option. I think for many cities a single 'interchange' Station where every service from every direction calls would be ideal. However, this is likely to be away from the city centre. Therefore, having one or more additional city centre stations on individual lines, where trains call in addition to the main interchange is a good compromise (effectively Exeter) , provides choice and serves a wider area of the city, but means all changes are as efficient as possible.

Define "central" - and why you think that's important?

The answer to the question surely is it depends on each place. For Manchester even if you started from scratch, on station probably wouldn't be viable. Different for somewhere like Nottingham or Leicester.

If you started from scratch, I think a single Manchester Piccadilly station would be possible. Assuming the existing lines were in the same places (unlikely if you started from scratch, but worst case scenario) then if the line through Oxford Road had been properly designed from the start as a 4 track grade separated link, and if Piccadilly either had more (ie 6+) through platforms or additional west facing bays then I see no reason why it couldn't cope with all trains from CLC, Chat Moss and Bolton, with trains from Rochdale probably coming in from the east. Not possible now of course, but starting with a clean sheet I don't see why you would need two separate stations, though I think Oxford Road like through stations as extra calling points to spread capacity around the city would be required.

 

[yorksrob]

There are pro's and con's to both approaches.

For example, Leeds is great for interchanging, however when it's closed for any reason, you're stuck.

Probably the best of both worlds is where you have two terminals, but an interchange point between them.

Birmingham Moor Street (and Smethwick) play this role, as does Clapham Junction.

The proximity of Midland and Arkwright Street could have performed a similar function in Nottingham.

 

[daodao]

Outside central/inner London, there are no longer a vast number of major towns/cities in Britain and Ireland that still have multiple city/town centre stations, following the rationalisations of the 1960s/70s. My list of such places is as follows (apologies if I have omitted any key places):

In England:
Bicester (North/Town)
Birmingham (New Street and Moor Street/Snow Hill)
Blackpool (North/South)
Bradford (Exchange/Forster Square)
Bromley (North/South)
Burnley (Barracks/Central & Manchester Road
Canterbury (East/West)
Colchester (North/Town)
Croydon (East/West)
Dorking (North & Deepdene/West)
Enfield (Chase/Town)
Exeter (Central/St.David's)
Farnborough (Main/North)
Hertford (East/North)
Lichfield (City/Trent Valley)
Maidstone (East & Barracks/West)
Manchester (Piccadilly/Oxford Road & Victoria)
Newark (Castle/North Gate)
New Mills (Central/Newtown)
Rugeley (Town/Trent Valley)
St Albans (Abbey/City)
Southend (Central/Victoria)
Wakefield (Kirkgate/Westgate)
Warrington (Bank Quay/Central)
Wigan (NW/Wallgate)
Windsor (Central/Riverside)
Worcester (Foregate Street/Shrub Hill)

Outside England:
Cardiff (Central/Queen Street)
Coatbridge (Central/Sunnyside)
Douglas (IOMR/MER)
Dublin (Heuston/Connolly)
Edinburgh (Waverley/Haymarket)
Falkirk (High/Grahamston)
Glasgow (Central/Queen Street)
Helensburgh (Central/Upper)
Paisley (Gilmour Street/Canal)
Wrexham (Central/General)

I have excluded Light Rail/Metro/Underground/Merseyrail stations from the above lists.

In my view it is ill-advised to open/re-open additional city centre stations, such as Birmingham Curzon Street, as this hampers connectivity. However, for those places listed above that do have 2 (or more) non-connected stations, how realistic/worthwhile is it to undertake further rationalisation?

 

[yorksrob]

In my view it is ill-advised to open/re-open additional city centre stations, such as Birmingham Curzon Street, as this hampers connectivity. However, for those places listed above that do have 2 (or more) non-connected stations, how realistic/worthwhile is it to undertake further rationalisation?

In a lot of cases, the alternative stations are on different lines. Theoretically you could re-locate them to a single station where the lines cross, but this is usually further/less convenient for the town centre.

 

[L401CJF]

For me personally, I preferred it when the trains from Liverpool went (mostly) to Piccadilly instead of Victoria. I don't know Manchester too well and only ever go there to travel onwards from Piccadilly. I believe you can use the Metrolink to get between the 2 but it's not something I can be bothered with. Easier for me to use the TfW service from Chester now. I just hate Victoria Station for some reason!

 

[Ianno87]

In my view it is ill-advised to open/re-open additional city centre stations, such as Birmingham Curzon Street, as this hampers connectivity.

Curzon Street is literally right next to Moor Street.

 

[daodao]

Curzon Street is literally right next to Moor Street.

However, it is some distance from the main Birmingham station (New Street) to Moor Street, which I found most inconvenient a few years ago when travelling with luggage from Stratford to Macclesfield.

 

[Ianno87]

However, it is some distance from the main Birmingham station (New Street) to Moor Street, which I found most inconvenient a few years ago when travelling with luggage from Stratford to Macclesfield.

What would be a better solution for HS2 in Birmingham? Given that New Street can't sensibly be expanded.

(Sorry Mods: I know this has been argued to death on this forum)

 

[OverSpeed]

What would be a better solution for HS2 in Birmingham? Given that New Street can't sensibly be expanded.

(Sorry Mods: I know this has been argued to death on this forum)

Tbh 1 Cryonista idea would be tunnelling under the city and having a "underground" style platforms under New street for Local cross-birmingham services, and put the further local west midlands services into Snow hill/Moor Street which in return would free up Inter-city services (In theory) serving new street, that would be the only viable option but obviously the bottleneck issue on the wcml between international and new street and tunnelling under the city would need to be sorted out!

And I've done the walk between New st and Moor st many a time with heavy luggage, and it's far easier to walk it now than it used to be (pre-Grand central) and i think once the Tram link gets sorted down to Curzon street from outside Grand Central as it is now, will make things alot easier for people whom find it not easy to walk it!

 

[DorkingMain]

Outside central/inner London, there are no longer a vast number of major towns/cities in Britain and Ireland that still have multiple city/town centre stations, following the rationalisations of the 1960s/70s. My list of such places is as follows (apologies if I have omitted any key places):

In England:
Bicester (North/Town)
Birmingham (New Street and Moor Street/Snow Hill)
Blackpool (North/South)
Bradford (Exchange/Forster Square)
Bromley (North/South)
Burnley (Barracks/Central & Manchester Road
Canterbury (East/West)
Colchester (North/Town)
Croydon (East/West)
Dorking (North & Deepdene/West)
Enfield (Chase/Town)
Exeter (Central/St.David's)
Farnborough (Main/North)
Hertford (East/North)
Lichfield (City/Trent Valley)
Maidstone (East & Barracks/West)
Manchester (Piccadilly/Oxford Road & Victoria)
Newark (Castle/North Gate)
New Mills (Central/Newtown)
Rugeley (Town/Trent Valley)
St Albans (Abbey/City)
Southend (Central/Victoria)
Wakefield (Kirkgate/Westgate)
Warrington (Bank Quay/Central)
Wigan (NW/Wallgate)
Windsor (Central/Riverside)
Worcester (Foregate Street/Shrub Hill)

Outside England:
Cardiff (Central/Queen Street)
Coatbridge (Central/Sunnyside)
Douglas (IOMR/MER)
Dublin (Heuston/Connolly)
Edinburgh (Waverley/Haymarket)
Falkirk (High/Grahamston)
Glasgow (Central/Queen Street)
Helensburgh (Central/Upper)
Paisley (Gilmour Street/Canal)
Wrexham (Central/General)

I have excluded Light Rail/Metro/Underground/Merseyrail stations from the above lists.

In my view it is ill-advised to open/re-open additional city centre stations, such as Birmingham Curzon Street, as this hampers connectivity. However, for those places listed above that do have 2 (or more) non-connected stations, how realistic/worthwhile is it to undertake further rationalisation?

A few suggestions for addition:

- Yeovil Junction / Pen Mill
- Pontefract Monkill + Tanshelf / Baghill
- Burscough Junction / Burscough Bridge
- Reddish North / Reddish South

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, it is some distance from the main Birmingham station (New Street) to Moor Street, which I found most inconvenient a few years ago when travelling with luggage from Stratford to Macclesfield.

Though there is talk of moving XC services to Moor St post HS2 (for that very reason) which would basically leave New St as just a regional station.

 

[Glenn1969]

Exeter St Davids, Central and St Thomas
St Budeaux Ferry Rd and Victoria Rd

Wish they had managed to build a through station in Bradford instead of the existing two dead ends. Backing and out of Interchange adds several minutes to Calder Valley line services. Which is why I'm in favour of NPR serving Bradford

 

[DynamicSpirit]

However, it is some distance from the main Birmingham station (New Street) to Moor Street, which I found most inconvenient a few years ago when travelling with luggage from Stratford to Macclesfield.

The as-the-crow-flies distance is not much longer than the lengths of the platforms at New Street. I think the problem is more the lack of a clear, direct-line, traffic-free, walking route. I imagine building one would easily be the cheapest solution. Even a de-luxe fancy elevated covered route with escalators for most of its length would probably work out cheaper than any solution that involved re-routing trains

In a lot of cases, the alternative stations are on different lines. Theoretically you could re-locate them to a single station where the lines cross, but this is usually further/less convenient for the town centre.

Another issue is it depends on how useful an interchange would be, and on how frequent the trains are (more frequent making interchange more attractive).

As an example, you could theoretically build a station in Canterbury where the two lines cross, enabling interchange. But the trouble is, what interchanges would you enable? Apart from Faversham-Ashford, almost the only significant journeys that the interchange would allow can already be made much more easily on direct trains that avoid Canterbury altogether. If you kept the two existing stations open, it would also theoretically allow people from either station to go anywhere by changing at the interchange - but the train frequencies at Canterbury aren't really sufficient to make that an attractive proposition.

On the other hand, if you did the same thing at Farnborough or Warrington, you'd make quite a big difference to connectivity, enabling quite a lot of journeys between medium-sized towns that are currently difficult to make by rail.