Why does Malton have one platform?

[Gathursty]

Malton, inbetween York and Scarborough, has one platform, unlike other stations along this line.

When were the other platforms removed and why?
Could Malton get back an extra platform in the future?

 

[Halish Railway]

Not sure when it was removed but I would assume that it was part of a cost cutting exercise so that the shed wouldn't need costly maintenance - Also there was no need for a second platform.

As for it being reinstated, I think the one platform could just about handle the 4tph total passing through it.

 

[w1bbl3]

The other platforms where a bay serving the Whitby via Pickering Branch and an island between the up and down main lines. The island was only accessible via a movable platform over the down line.
The bay and island closed together in '66 when services on the Pickering Branch where withdrawn, with the former bay now being consumed by Asda.

The other stations on the route where constructed originally as either islands or twin platforms, Malton was different as opposite the former island platform was a freight yard and engine sheds which where one of the busiest on the network until 1930's.

Reopening of the island is I suppose technically possible as lines haven't been slewed to prevent reconstruction but a new footbridge would be needed to meet current standards and possibly a lift.

 

[IanXC]

I have a feeling there has never been a footbridge at Malton, and that historically access to the island platform was by way of a 'swing bridge' for want of a better term. Perhaps when it was decided this was uneconomic to repair/replace it was also considered that one platform would be ample for the service level anticipated?

 

[Welshman]

I have a feeling there has never been a footbridge at Malton, and that historically access to the island platform was by way of a 'swing bridge' for want of a better term. Perhaps when it was decided this was uneconomic to repair/replace it was also considered that one platform would be ample for the service level anticipated?

Yes. I remember that wooden platform that was pulled across the Scarborough line to allow passengers to access the York line.
In effect, the station has only had one through platform because obviously while a Scarborough-bound train was in the platform there was no access to the York platform, and with a York train in the platform, nothing could be admitted into the Scarborough platform. So I suppose upon rationalisation they thought that nothing was being lost by closing the island platform.

 

[PHILIPE]

Maryport is similar.

 

[30907]

Maryport is similar.

Did it ever have a second through platform?

 

[DarloRich]

Did the second platform at Malton not go in the 80's or was that the roof?

 

[yorkguy]

The island platform at Malton went many years before the overall roof was removed. In fact there is one local theory that the removal of this platform destabilised the roof’s supporting wall which contributed to its removal. The current platform canopy was taken from over the old Whitby bay, and refitted in its current position after the removal of the overall roof. You can still see the edge of the Whitby platform from Asda car park.

 

[PHILIPE]

Did it ever have a second through platform?

I can't dig out any information regarding the history but Wiki doesn't make mention of one

 

[John Webb]

There was an island platform between the two main running lines - but the present platform also served the down (Scarborough-bound) line as well, so this line had a platform edge on both sides of it. The rationalisation to one platform took place in 1989, I understand.
None of my sources mention the moving timber link between the two platforms, neither is it visible in any photos of Malton station that I've seen, so I assume unlike the one at Brockenhurst on the Waterloo-Bournemouth line, it wasn't interlocked with the signals.

 

[yorkguy]

Trolley link at Malton

 

[yorkguy]

Island platform and Whitby bay at Malton

 

[MarkyT]

An idea for a 'Penryn style' additional platform at Malton, avoiding expensive new access bridge arrangements:
http://www.townend.me/files/malton.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

An idea for a 'Penryn style' additional platform at Malton, avoiding expensive new access bridge arrangements:
http://www.townend.me/files/malton.pdf

I'm not sure there's much reason to do that. The reason for this layout at Penryn and Dovey Junction was to create a crossing loop on a single line, but at Malton trains are already able to cross on the double track either end. This layout makes only a marginal improvement to capacity (the Scarborough-bound trains blocks York-bound trains only while signalled into and passing through the shared platform, not during the dwell time as well) and a significant improvement would involve another platform.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm not sure there's much reason to do that. The reason for this layout at Penryn and Dovey Junction was to create a crossing loop on a single line, but at Malton trains are already able to cross on the double track either end. This layout makes only a marginal improvement to capacity (the Scarborough-bound trains blocks York-bound trains only while signalled into and passing through the shared platform, not during the dwell time as well) and a significant improvement would involve another platform.

I agree it's all very marginal. I checked the WTT via RTT and a typical hourly down train from Liverpool currently departs 8 minutes before the up from Scarborough arrives. If the down was a few minutes late (more likely than the up) it could be allowed to run on into its own platform and clear the up platform more quickly without picking up more delay itself waiting for the up train to clear the current single platform right time. However, the turnround at Scarborough is a fairly generous 21 minutes, so it wouldn't matter much if the down lost up to 10 minutes or so, so it could await clearance of a right time up outside the station with little consequence on subsequent right time departure from Scarborough. Note the down dwell is shown as 0 in the WTT , while the up is shown as 1 minute.

 

[yorkguy]

Out of interest, does anyone know how many other one-platform stations have greater passenger usage than Malton (354,000 16/17 ORR estimate)?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Chafford Hundred, well over a million from memory, is the highest.

 

[girothedog]

Out of interest, does anyone know how many other one-platform stations have greater passenger usage than Malton (354,000 16/17 ORR estimate)?

Heathrow Terminal 4 (Underground) has over 2 million IIRC

 

[yorkguy]

So any similar small rural stations like Malton with one platform carrying this number of passengers? Heathrow Terminal 4 possibly has more than Malton’s hourly service!

 

[MarkyT]

Ware in Hertfordshire has a single platform on an otherwise double track railway with two to three trains per hour in either direction. Usage in 2016–17 was 1.154 million (from Wikipedia).
There's no room for a second track let alone another platform mainly due to a house very close to the railway near the level crossing.


I wonder if NR put an offer in for that house!

 

[yorkguy]

Ware in Hertfordshire has a single platform on an otherwise double track railway with two to three trains per hour in either direction. Usage in 2016–17 was 1.154 million (from Wikipedia).
There's no room for a second track let alone another platform mainly due to a house very close to the railway near the level crossing.

View attachment 43588
I wonder if NR put an offer in for that house!

That certainly looks pretty tight for space!

 

[edwin_m]

It actually looks as if the house has been extended towards the railway at some time.

 

[IanXC]

I wonder when that house was for sale? Seems tempting haha!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Out of interest, does anyone know how many other one-platform stations have greater passenger usage than Malton (354,000 16/17 ORR estimate)?

Castleford maybe?

 

[Harpers Tate]

Hartlepool 2015-16 = 638296
(ignores the all-but-disused bay platform)

 

[scarby]

The situation at Malton certainly is far from ideal.

As mentioned upthread, there's only 8-9 minutes between the Scarborough-bound and York-bound services, which would be fine if everything ran to time, but in particular the Scarborough-bound services are not uncommonly delayed, and any delay of around 5-12 minutes easily creates a bottleneck where one of the services has no option but to stop and wait outside the station.

How this will all work efficiently when Northern starts a service to up the frequency in each direction to just 30 minutes is difficult to see. If I have read this correctly the Northern trains would terminate at Malton - if so, they would block the station to any late-running service while it was waiting to turnaround back to York. Even if it was just a 5-minute turnaround, it would mean a late-running Scarborough service could be stuck for 5-7 minutes outside waiting for it to clear.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Assuming the theoretical scheduling of the Northern services (note - Scarborough <> York; not Scarborough <> Malton) is offset from the existing pattern by 30 minutes in each direction, by my reckoning that still allows a massive amount of leeway for late running. If all runs to time, the station, platform and single track are wholly unoccupied for something close to 20 minutes in every 30 minute period. That's ~20 minutes' worth of spare capacity to allow the movement of delayed trains. How that can manifest out into huge compounded delays and curtailment of services at Malton, I'm struggling to comprehend.

 

[MarkyT]

The situation at Malton certainly is far from ideal.

As mentioned upthread, there's only 8-9 minutes between the Scarborough-bound and York-bound services, which would be fine if everything ran to time, but in particular the Scarborough-bound services are not uncommonly delayed, and any delay of around 5-12 minutes easily creates a bottleneck where one of the services has no option but to stop and wait outside the station.

How this will all work efficiently when Northern starts a service to up the frequency in each direction to just 30 minutes is difficult to see. If I have read this correctly the Northern trains would terminate at Malton - if so, they would block the station to any late-running service while it was waiting to turnaround back to York. Even if it was just a 5-minute turnaround, it would mean a late-running Scarborough service could be stuck for 5-7 minutes outside waiting for it to clear.

To cater for or this I have added an alternative idea to my pdf, Concept B, with the existing platform #1 reconfigured as a bay for the terminators, and the new extension #2 as the bidirectional Scarborough platform. To save new turnouts I've removed the up through line.

http://www.townend.me/files/malton.pdf

 

[MarkyT]

Assuming the theoretical scheduling of the Northern services (note - Scarborough <> York; not Scarborough <> Malton) is offset from the existing pattern by 30 minutes in each direction, by my reckoning that still allows a massive amount of leeway for late running. If all runs to time, the station, platform and single track are wholly unoccupied for something close to 20 minutes in every 30 minute period. That's ~20 minutes' worth of spare capacity to allow the movement of delayed trains. How that can manifest out into huge compounded delays and curtailment of services at Malton, I'm struggling to comprehend.

I think Scarby was assuming the additional trains would be terminating from the York direction, but it did seem an odd idea not running them on to Scarborough as they would only serve Malton, which hardly seems worth it. Scrub option B!