Stations in need of additional platforms

[AM9]

On two track lines, passing through suburban areas with frequent 2 platform suburban stations on the main route, would an additional platform each way allow faster services to over-take the suburban services, thereby releasing additional capacity on the whole route?

The railway's approach of adding station platforms directly onto significant routes has always perplexed me, it's like adding a bus-stop on the side of the motorway.

Not just on two track lines. Take the MML from St Pancras, - the fast lines are fed with both EMR inter city trains and the fast Thameslink trains. The EMR trains are non-stop to at least Luton Airport whereas the fast Thameslink services call at St Albans, Harpenden and sometimees West Hampstead Thameslink. This means that clearance must be left behind the down TL trains to prevent the down EMR non-stoppers from catching them up. The new station being constructed at Brent Cross has platforms plaaced on loops allowing trains that will stop there to be passed. If traffic on the line increases there may be a need to do this at another station, the biggest path gain would come from loops at St Albans, but that would involve a land take and considerable changes to the alignment. A simpler option would be to provide a face on the west side of at West Hampstead Thameslink current down fast (P4) and making that up freight bi-di. That would allow fast down TL trains stopping to use the up freight line there providing a path for the EMR services to pass on the existing down fast.

 

[Kite159]

Not just on two track lines. Tale the MML from St Pancras, - the fast lines are fed with both EMR inter city trains and the fast Thameslink trains. Th EMR trains are non-stop to at least Luton Airport whereas the fast Thameslink services call at St Albans, Harpenden and sometimees West Hampstead Thameslink. This means that clearance must be left behind the down TL trains to prevent the down EMR non-stoppers from catching them up. The new station being constructed at Brent Cross has platforms plaaced on loops allowing trains that will stop there to be passed. If traffic on the line increases there may be a need to do this at another station, the biggest path gain would come from loops at St Albans, but that would involve a land take and considerable changes to the alignment. A simpler option would be to provide a face on the west side of the current down fast (P4) and making that up freight bi-di. That would allow fast TL trains to stop there providing a path for the EMR services to pass on the existing down fast.

Isn't Brent Cross just a standard 4 platform station with two island platforms with No loops?

The fast EMR & Bedford services will be using the fast lines with the stoppers using the slow lines, with that island on the fasts only being used during engineering works & Sunday mornings when a 2 track timetable is in use.

 

[zwk500]

You say that, but it would have had to operate with 4 for a period if the works had proceeded.

And it would have been hell while it did.

One of the problems with the project was that it involved ten years of disruption to achieve relatively little in terms of enhanced services given the bottlenecks elsewhere. (I appreciate that there were operational advantages.)

It unpicked one of the major conflict areas, giving a much better case to unpicking other bottlenecks. The grade separation of the Slow to fast conflicts in particular was a massive step forward.

 

[Mike 1050]

Birmingham Snow hill could do with platform 4 reinstating now the tram is not using it

 

[NoRoute]

Yes and no, it would comprimise the overtaken train by having to have a sizeable dwell when overtaken. You would be adding 3-4 minutes into it, arguably more if you have to have approach control on the loop and the red at the end of the platform.

But at least it can then be overtaken, not only for planned stops but in the event of problems requiring it to stop midway along the route, there must be some benefit to robustness and resilience in being able to get past a stopped train.

Also presumably this delay is a result of stopping distances and the signalling system, as the railways adopt more advanced signalling techniques like moving blocks, a stationary train moving off to follow behind a non-stopping service, would it incur the same delay?

I can see how 4 platforms might not be justified, but two platforms on loops either side of the route going straight through the middle would seem more robust and future proof. It also keeps fast non-stopping trains away with the platform edge improving passenger safety.

 

[Route115?]

On LUL

Rayners Lane could do with a third track & two island platforms with Piccadilly line reversers using the middle track.

An additional platform around West Hampstead would help on the Jubilee line.

Actually a number of locations where trains reverse, Newbury Park comes to mind.

 

[The Planner]

But at least it can then be overtaken, not only for planned stops but in the event of problems requiring it to stop midway along the route, there must be some benefit to robustness and resilience in being able to get past a stopped train.

Also presumably this delay is a result of stopping distances and the signalling system, as the railways adopt more advanced signalling techniques like moving blocks, a stationary train moving off to follow behind a non-stopping service, would it incur the same delay?

I can see how 4 platforms might not be justified, but two platforms on loops either side of the route going straight through the middle would seem more robust and future proof. It also keeps fast non-stopping trains away with the platform edge improving passenger safety.

Resilience doesn't make a business case. We are a long long way from moving block, ETCS level 2 will mitigate it a bit but still will add a good chunk of time in to the first train.

Look at it from a line with say a 3 minute headway. Currently your stopper comes into the station unimpeded (if the timetable allows that), dwells for a minute and moves off, so say xx.00 arrival, xx.01 departure. You can follow that train at xx.04 (ignoring things like where the next station is, mandatory timing points etc). Unless your new platform loop is very long with fast turnouts then you are going to be slowing down into the loop with a red aspect at the end of it, so likely adding in a minute for approach control and professional driving. Your first train now arrives at xx.01. The fast can pass at xx.04. As the fast train should be at line speed you can normally assume you can depart 2 minutes after as the first train is still pulling away, so you cannot go until xx.06. If you did decide to plan at the headway, you are going at xx.07.

 

[robert thomas]

Cardiff Central. Unfortunately the only easy option is reinstating the west facing bay between platforms 3 & 4 and this would only give limited relief to the down platforms which are often blocked by terminating trains from the east.

 

[S&CLER]

How about Maryport, which is rather similar to Malton? Another through platform might ease pathing on the Cumbrian Coast line.

When I last had to change at Carmarthen, I wondered if an improved layout could be achieved by reinstating and extending the down siding bay as a platform, allowing all trains to be handled on the side of the station with the amenities (on platform 1), and platform 2 to be taken out of use. Making connections would be easier.

A reinstated fourth through platform at Blackburn might be helpful.

Preston is an obvious case where the current parcels platform could be brought back into use as a down Fylde island, allowing the present platforms 1 and 2 to be used as up E and W Lancs.

 

[busestrains]

They really ought to reopen Platform 2 at Portsmouth Harbour station. This station sometimes gets very busy and there has been occasions where the train has to wait outside for an available platform. I am not even sure why the track at this platform was removed. It could very easily be reopened by simply reinstating the track.

 

[JohnRegular]

Westbury could do with the fourth platform face being brought back into use - quite often seem get held outside the station because there are no platforms available. It sees 2 services an hour towards Bath and Bristol, one train every two hours to Swindon via Melksham, also Weymouth via Yeovil, 1tph to Portsmouth, a few additional SWR services that reverse in the station, a two-hourly London- West of England service and a few other local short workings to Frome, Warminster or Salisbury, plus a fair few terminating trains, trains shunting in and out of the sidings and train crew swaps. Unsurprisingly when there’s disruption, it becomes a bottleneck.

I understand there are aspirations to extend the Swindon trains to Salisbury or even Southampton, and increase the frequency to hourly. I believe that reopening 'platform 0' at Westbury is required for this to go ahead (as well as reinstating double track between Melksham station and Thingley jn).
It's been said on here that the freight line on that side of the station might need to be slewed further away from the platform, which would necessitate some earthworks and/or a new retaining wall- but there is already a decent gap so I wouldn't think it would need to move much.

 

[JonathanH]

They really ought to reopen Platform 2 at Portsmouth Harbour station. This station sometimes gets very busy and there has been occasions where the train has to wait outside for an available platform. I am not even sure why the track at this platform was removed. It could very easily be reopened by simply reinstating the track.

There is a suggestion here that the structure can't carry the weight of a train in platform 2 - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...issing-in-sequence.140104/page-2#post-2842958

 

[William3000]

Surely if only "reasonably practical" is of interest, then most or all of those have been done, or there isn't a genuine need.

I guess by that I mean - it would be difficult to give viaduct stations like London Blackfriars or Chelmsford, or those in narrow cuttings, additional platforms, whereas those with sidings or not built up would be easier.

York could do with another North facing bay, next to p8. Additional through platforms are harder to build.
Crewe could do with a north facing bay next to p1.
Bournemouth could do with another platform in the space left by the middle roads.

Bournemouth could have something similar to Cambridge with the very long platforms and scissors in the middle

I have always wondered whether Letchworth Garden City could do with an additional platform on the northern side for terminating trains and could also be used for passing slow trains - the lift is now in the potential track bed but probably feasible. Also I wonder whether Royston could benefit with a third platform next to the loop to the west of the station - an extension to platform 2.

They really ought to reopen Platform 2 at Portsmouth Harbour station. This station sometimes gets very busy and there has been occasions where the train has to wait outside for an available platform. I am not even sure why the track at this platform was removed. It could very easily be reopened by simply reinstating the track.

I heard once it was something to do with the weight of the structure not being able to accommodate that many trains

 

[Ken H]

Resilience doesn't make a business case. We are a long long way from moving block, ETCS level 2 will mitigate it a bit but still will add a good chunk of time in to the first train.

Look at it from a line with say a 3 minute headway. Currently your stopper comes into the station unimpeded (if the timetable allows that), dwells for a minute and moves off, so say xx.00 arrival, xx.01 departure. You can follow that train at xx.04 (ignoring things like where the next station is, mandatory timing points etc). Unless your new platform loop is very long with fast turnouts then you are going to be slowing down into the loop with a red aspect at the end of it, so likely adding in a minute for approach control and professional driving. Your first train now arrives at xx.01. The fast can pass at xx.04. As the fast train should be at line speed you can normally assume you can depart 2 minutes after as the first train is still pulling away, so you cannot go until xx.06. If you did decide to plan at the headway, you are going at xx.07.

But if you make the loop longer and have decent points. If there is a section ahead of the platform before the tracks merge the stopper would do the points and enter the platform at speed and would have a caution aspect at the platform end. The stopper could start as the fast goes through and its next signal would also be a caution for the points onto the main. If they are (say) 50 mph. Then up to desired speed. In extremis you could squeeze 2 train in the loop.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is the planned improvement work at Dore & Totley on the Sheffield->Manchester (Hope Valley) line well underway?

Involved replacing the previous single bi-directional track set up with a much needed reinstatement of the Manchester - bound platform 2 to help relieve the bottleneck there.

 

[zwk500]

Is the planned improvement work at Dore & Totley on the Sheffield->Manchester (Hope Valley) line well underway?

Involved replacing the previous single bi-directional track set up with a much needed reinstatement of the Manchester - bound platform 2 to help relieve the bottleneck there.

There's a separate thread on the hope Valley improvement.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is the planned improvement work at Dore & Totley on the Sheffield->Manchester (Hope Valley) line well underway?

There's a separate thread on the hope Valley improvement.

Be surprised if there wasn't. Have you got a link?

 

[YorksLad12]

Leeds needs a longer P17, its short length dictating 2 carriage trains between 3 large cities is a ridiculous situation.

It's getting one, and an extension to P13. Just as soon as someone finds the money, works up a plan and tells the people living in the Candle building

It could also do with through platforms 18 and 19 (Leeds is allegedly at 101% platform capacity but I don't know which timetable that is based on, just what I heard at work) but there's no way to extend southwards, and northwards isn't where the problems are. Plus having to extend to eight roads at Leeds West End and anuthing that might be needed between Leeds and Neville Hill post-TRU. Which is why there was a call for the T-station.

At this stage I'd settle for extensions to P13 and P17, and Northern having the trains to utilise them.

 

[newguy]

Glasgow Central could do we a few more platforms to deal with additional services

 

[The Planner]

But if you make the loop longer and have decent points. If there is a section ahead of the platform before the tracks merge the stopper would do the points and enter the platform at speed and would have a caution aspect at the platform end. The stopper could start as the fast goes through and its next signal would also be a caution for the points onto the main. If they are (say) 50 mph. Then up to desired speed. In extremis you could squeeze 2 train in the loop.

If, if, if, though. You are now talking dynamic loops, a big increase in signalling just to overtake a train. You are close to the realms of 3 or 4 tracking. The entry points still need to be quick enough to remove approach control, or at least have flashing aspects. The stopper couldn't start as the next train is passing through as you still need a margin at the loop end and the driver still has to assume he is seeing a red at the end when departing, thus not accelerating fully. You might save 90 seconds tops and you couldn't plan two trains in the loop.

 

[urbophile]

Was going to suggest the possible additional platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly (on the viaduct section heading off towards Manchester Oxford Road), but your last condition (above) probably rules that out.

Surely it has already been decided that this is reasonable and practical. 'Urgently needed' might be more appropriate. What is holding it up is money, as usual.

Another improvement to capacity could and should happen at Liverpool Central (Northern line). This too is eminently reasonable but less obviously practical, and probably a good deal more expensive.

 

[swt_passenger]

If, if, if, though. You are now talking dynamic loops, a big increase in signalling just to overtake a train. You are close to the realms of 3 or 4 tracking. The entry points still need to be quick enough to remove approach control, or at least have flashing aspects. The stopper couldn't start as the next train is passing through as you still need a margin at the loop end and the driver still has to assume he is seeing a red at the end when departing, thus not accelerating fully. You might save 90 seconds tops and you couldn't plan two trains in the loop.

I once saw this worked out somewhere, for a theoretical loop length allowing a 125 mph train to come up behind and then pass a 100 mph stopper, and to prevent all likely sources of delay to both trains it needed to be about 10 or 12 miles long. As you say that’s more like 3 or 4 tracking.

 

[Ken H]

If, if, if, though. You are now talking dynamic loops, a big increase in signalling just to overtake a train. You are close to the realms of 3 or 4 tracking. The entry points still need to be quick enough to remove approach control, or at least have flashing aspects. The stopper couldn't start as the next train is passing through as you still need a margin at the loop end and the driver still has to assume he is seeing a red at the end when departing, thus not accelerating fully. You might save 90 seconds tops and you couldn't plan two trains in the loop.

I was thinking of Stetchford on Brum NS - Cov line. let a stopper go, and let the Avanti overtake it at Stetchford. Has to be better than holding the stopper at New St for a late Avanti.
90% of tne time the Avanti will go first. but when its late...
some trackwork needed at Stetchford....

 

[The Planner]

I was thinking of Stetchford on Brum NS - Cov line. let a stopper go, and let the Avanti overtake it at Stetchford. Has to be better than holding the stopper at New St for a late Avanti.
90% of tne time the Avanti will go first. but when its late...
some trackwork needed at Stetchford....

International is 4 miles away. You wont get a crossover in between the down Grand diverge and the down line crossover. You could well be in the realms of a new bridge over the River Cole. Its also what Control are employed for and you still delay the stopper regardless.

 

[Falcon1200]

Glasgow Central could do we a few more platforms to deal with additional services

What additional services please? Central did get two more platforms for the Glasgow Airport services which in the event never happened, and probably never will, the current layout coped well with the pre-Covid service, so more so now, and there is no room for more platforms anyway!

 

[newguy]

What additional services please? Central did get two more platforms for the Glasgow Airport services which in the event never happened, and probably never will, the current layout coped well with the pre-Covid service, so more so now, and there is no room for more platforms anyway!

Hi Falcon1200

Covid has certainly reduced the need for this. pre covid there has been regular discussions here about central nearing capacity. so depending on how quickly these services come back would obviously affect when this is needed.

Some suggestions have included converting the Cathcart circle lines to light rail to free up space at central. As this is my local line I really would not like this idea at all.

there was another thread on this forum that suggested addition space could be provided by building over the bridge. Sorry I can’t find that link

 

[Killingworth]

There's a separate thread on the hope Valley improvement.

Try; https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hope-valley-capacity-scheme-updates.168285/

Is the planned improvement work at Dore & Totley on the Sheffield->Manchester (Hope Valley) line well underway?

Involved replacing the previous single bi-directional track set up with a much needed reinstatement of the Manchester - bound platform 2 to help relieve the bottleneck there.

Construction of the second platform is due to begin in January. Work on the track is under way now.

Those who hoped for reinstatement of Platforms 3 and 4 will have to contain their disappointment.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Try; https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hope-valley-capacity-scheme-updates.168285/

Thanks! Hidden in plain sight. Some good recent photos!

 

[kwrail]

I saw a similar post about stations with too many platforms: Skegness the prime example, but which stations could benefit from additional platforms or are in need of them that could reasonably be reopened to improve existing services/reliability or accommodate additional services. This should be where to do so would be reasonably practicable: for example reopening a bay platform like at Southampton or King’s Lynn, or building new ones as has recently been done at Stevenage, and could be done - e.g. to the east of the station at Leicester on goods sidings etc.

Some stations may have too many bays but not enough through platforms.

The bay platform at Southampton Central (platform 5) is planned to reopen if and when passenger services along the Waterside Line to Hythe are restarted. The intention is to run a half-hourly shuttle service to Hythe from the bay platform. Hopefully around 2025.

 

[zwk500]

The bay platform at Southampton Central (platform 5) is planned to reopen if and when passenger services along the Waterside Line to Hythe are restarted. The intention is to run a half-hourly shuttle service to Hythe from the bay platform. Hopefully around 2025.

BIB - I admire the optimism! BTW the shuttle wouldn't be tied to the bay platform, it will need to use other platforms at times. But yes, an additional platform at So'ton Central would be required to run a half-hourly service down the Fawley branch.