Single line sections that would benefit from becoming multitrack?

[yorksrob]

They're the bane of the modern railway network. Some like the SW main line to Exeter Central are very long and would be expensive to redouble. Others like the single track sections on the Hastings main line are required for operational reasons (in this case narrow tunnels).

But there are some that just seem totally pointless and can't ever have saved much money. Which of these nuisances could be done away with ?

My top pick goes to Moreton to Dorchester South. What's the point !

Especially as Bournemouth - Weymouth is an important little main line that would justify a half hourly service.

 

[Class15]

Ware is surely the most obvious example?

 

[Gloster]

They're the bane of the modern railway network. Some like the SW main line to Exeter Central are very long and would be expensive to redouble. Others like the single track sections on the Hastings main line are required for operational reasons (in this case narrow tunnels).

But there are some that just seem totally pointless and can't ever have saved much money. Which of these nuisances could be done away with ?

My top pick goes to Moreton to Dorchester South. What's the point !

Especially as Bournemouth - Weymouth is an important little main line that would justify a half hourly service.

It was said at the time that BR knew that singling Moreton-Dorchester was not worthwhile, but by using imaginative ways to show the ‘savings‘ of doing so, they were able to get the whole electrification project past the Treasury.

 

[yorksrob]

Ware is surely the most obvious example?

I wasn't aware of that one !

Being on a branch line I guess it depends on how many trains it gets !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2025 ==

It was said at the time that BR knew that singling Moreton-Dorchester was not worthwhile, but by using imaginative ways to show the ‘savings‘ of doing so, they were able to get the whole electrification project past the Treasury.

That's an interesting bit of politiking if true ! I've seen it said that getting rid of Grove Junction in Tunbridge Wells was done for similar reasons (albeit much more damaging as it resulted in a closure).

Thinking of Moreton - Dorchester, I wonder if there would have been a possibility of leaving the other track mothballed "in situ" to be reconnected when a less loony government got in.

 

[Iskra]

Trowse swing bridge must be a capacity constraint.

 

[yorksrob]

Trowse swing bridge must be a capacity constraint.

I expect it is - however I imagine it would be particularly difficult to do away with !

 

[waverley47]

Assuming we're not counting some ridiculous and short sighted turning of double lead junctions into single leads under the latter days of BR (Haughley Jn, Midcalder Jn, Dore station) then the list is actually quite short.

Ware station is single for infrastructure reasons, namely not enough space for two full length platforms on the current site.

Trowse is single again for infrastructure reasons, namely the new bridge in 1987 was built wide enough only for single track, although the pointlessness of that can definitely be argued.

If you're looking for sections that are completely pointless, then it has to be the four meters of single track just outside York on the Scarborough lines, which ostensibly saves on point maintenance costs, but is really just a net negative in almost every other metric.

The single track section from Portobello Jn to Newcraighall is just awful for service recovery, albeit that's a long running issue and the layout has been in its current form since at least the mid eighties, when the prospect of reopening the Borders line would have seemed outlandish.

The Weston-Super-Mare loop and Frome loops are both BR era mistakes, that given time and money should really be restored to double track.

At Exeter, the single tracking from Pinhoe to Honiton was short sighted in the sense they failed to predict demand for commuter services into Exeter, but the M5 bridge only being built wide enough for a single line was just stupidity of the highest order.

There are many BR singling projects that seem short sighted in retrospect, but pointlessness is harder to find.

 

[yorksrob]

Assuming we're not counting some ridiculous and short sighted turning of double lead junctions into single leads under the latter days of BR (Haughley Jn, Midcalder Jn, Dore station) then the list is actually quite short.

Ware station is single for infrastructure reasons, namely not enough space for two full length platforms on the current site.

Trowse is single again for infrastructure reasons, namely the new bridge in 1987 was built wide enough only for single track, although the pointlessness of that can definitely be argued.

If you're looking for sections that are completely pointless, then it has to be the four meters of single track just outside York on the Scarborough lines, which ostensibly saves on point maintenance costs, but is really just a net negative in almost every other metric.

The single track section from Portobello Jn to Newcraighall is just awful for service recovery, albeit that's a long running issue and the layout has been in its current form since at least the mid eighties, when the prospect of reopening the Borders line would have seemed outlandish.

The Weston-Super-Mare loop and Frome loops are both BR era mistakes, that given time and money should really be restored to double track.

At Exeter, the single tracking from Pinhoe to Honiton was short sighted in the sense they failed to predict demand for commuter services into Exeter, but the M5 bridge only being built wide enough for a single line was just stupidity of the highest order.

There are many BR singling projects that seem short sighted in retrospect, but pointlessness is harder to find.

That's an interesting point about "pointlessness" I'm guessing Moreton - Dorchester must increase the number of heavily used points that need maintenance ! But it was probably the shortest section that BR could get away with to get electrification through.

North of York station is a good call - particularly if the line ever gets its proposed half hourly service !

 

[Zomboid]

The single platform at Malton is effectively an ill advised singling, does anything use the other track at all?

Leamington to Coventry is not a great one either, especially the A46 bridge.

 

[DaventryRabbit]

The single platform at Malton is effectively an ill advised singling, does anything use the other track at all?

Leamington to Coventry is not a great one either, especially the A46 bridge.

Normally no use of the platform avoider as everyhing is booked to call, but it does see occasional use by railtours etc and even rarer by service trains, as happened fairly recently when a failed unit blocked the platform...

 

[Topological]

The Weston-Super-Mare loop and Frome loops are both BR era mistakes, that given time and money should really be restored to double track.

There are many BR singling projects that seem short sighted in retrospect, but pointlessness is harder to find.

Just to have enough double track to allow trains waiting to go onto the loop and clear the main line would be good at Weston-Super-Mare. I do not know if a similar situation applies at Frome.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Isn't there a short single section between London Rd Jct and Carlisle Citadel?

Never used to be there, I don't thin.

I have no idea if it is 'pointless', nor if it causes many delays?

 

[Gloster]

Isn't there a short single section between London Rd Jct and Carlisle Citadel?

Never used to be there, I don't thin.

I have no idea if it is 'pointless', nor if it causes many delays?

That is there and the reduction from double-track dates from the resignalling at 00.15 on 3 June 1973. It was probably a quite reasonable economy at the time as the passenger services were not particularly frequent and most goods trains used the Goods Avoiding Lines, which were somewhat dramatically put out of use on 1 May 1984.

 

[The Planner]

Leamington to Coventry is not a great one either, especially the A46 bridge.

Note that it was never all double anyway.

 

[cjw714]

Assuming we're not counting some ridiculous and short sighted turning of double lead junctions into single leads under the latter days of BR (Haughley Jn, Midcalder Jn, Dore station) then the list is actually quite short.

Ware station is single for infrastructure reasons, namely not enough space for two full length platforms on the current site.

Trowse is single again for infrastructure reasons, namely the new bridge in 1987 was built wide enough only for single track, although the pointlessness of that can definitely be argued.

If you're looking for sections that are completely pointless, then it has to be the four meters of single track just outside York on the Scarborough lines, which ostensibly saves on point maintenance costs, but is really just a net negative in almost every other metric.

The single track section from Portobello Jn to Newcraighall is just awful for service recovery, albeit that's a long running issue and the layout has been in its current form since at least the mid eighties, when the prospect of reopening the Borders line would have seemed outlandish.

The Weston-Super-Mare loop and Frome loops are both BR era mistakes, that given time and money should really be restored to double track.

At Exeter, the single tracking from Pinhoe to Honiton was short sighted in the sense they failed to predict demand for commuter services into Exeter, but the M5 bridge only being built wide enough for a single line was just stupidity of the highest order.

There are many BR singling projects that seem short sighted in retrospect, but pointlessness is harder to find.

Almost more frustrating are the missed opportunities to re-double some of these lines. Most of Pinhoe to Honiton should have been done when Cranbrook was built. Likewise Worcestershire Parkway was built with passive provision for a second track and platform on the Cotswold line when it would have been much easier to get it added at the same time as the station.

 

[brad465]

Templecombe station. The long double track to Yeovil starts right outside the station to the west, leaving the station single track. Would it have really hurt to have the station be double track, which allows a train to wait in a platform for a passing train and is useful in disruption (so passengers can get out if needed)? Even more short-sighted was extending the southbound platform over the trackbed of a former down line to make a future restoration more expensive.

 

[The Planner]

Almost more frustrating are the missed opportunities to re-double some of these lines. Most of Pinhoe to Honiton should have been done when Cranbrook was built. Likewise Worcestershire Parkway was built with passive provision for a second track and platform on the Cotswold line when it would have been much easier to get it added at the same time as the station.

Money gets in the way. If its a choice of getting the station built or making it initially unaffordable by building them as two platforms, what do you do? Yes, its more expensive to come back later, but if it means it opens then you just build the one.

 

[Gloster]

Templecombe station. The long double track to Yeovil starts right outside the station to the west, leaving the station single track. Would it have really hurt to have the station be double track, which allows a train to wait in a platform for a passing train and is useful in disruption (so passengers can get out if needed)? Even more short-sighted was extending the southbound platform over the trackbed of a former down line to make a future restoration more expensive.

Templecombe is complicated. When the line was singled in 1967 the station was closed and starting the double-track section to Sherborne beyond the platform eliminated possible problems with platform edges. The station reopened in 1983 using the Up platform, but access was via a footbridge (secondhand from Buxted) or a crossing under the supervision of the signalman. When the box closed in 2012 there was the problem of supervision of the crossing, so extending the Down platform outwards eliminated the access problem.

There was also always a bit of concern about the bridge to the east of the platform: replacing the span with anything that wasn’t on the same alignment would have been expensive. Without realignment the single to double points would be part way down the platform.

Lastly, do not forget just how dark the days were for BR when the original singling was done. Everything had to be done as cheaply as possible or up went the closure notices.

 

[dk1]

Trowse swing bridge must be a capacity constraint.

It’s not as bad as many think.

 

[brad465]

Templecombe is complicated. When the line was singled in 1967 the station was closed and starting the double-track section to Sherborne beyond the platform eliminated possible problems with platform edges. The station reopened in 1983 using the Up platform, but access was via a footbridge (secondhand from Buxted) or a crossing under the supervision of the signalman. When the box closed in 2012 there was the problem of supervision of the crossing, so extending the Down platform outwards eliminated the access problem.

There was also always a bit of concern about the bridge to the east of the platform: replacing the span with anything that wasn’t on the same alignment would have been expensive. Without realignment the single to double points would be part way down the platform.

Lastly, do not forget just how dark the days were for BR when the original singling was done. Everything had to be done as cheaply as possible or up went the closure notices.

I was aware the station closed then reopened, but wondered why the short bit wasn't restored when the station reopened, or when the signal box closed. While there are instances of doing the very minimum being the only option, the whole of the WEML west of Salisbury is a case study of what happens if every last part of the line has this approach adopted. Even Templecombe-Yeovil was singled but very quickly redoubled because they took the minimalist attitude too far even back then.

Another two examples that come to mind are Worcester Foregate Street and Crediton-Colebrooke, both examples of parallel single lines that can't currently be used as a double track. I've heard GWR want to rectify the latter example, but presumably are constrained by funding approval.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2025 ==

Just to have enough double track to allow trains waiting to go onto the loop and clear the main line would be good at Weston-Super-Mare. I do not know if a similar situation applies at Frome.

The east side of Frome has three parallel lines just beyond the junction; while a single line turnoff (Clink Road Jct) exists, trains of a certain length can be held in one of the loops, whether for the station or the quarry branch, without blocking the mainline. This does not exist of the west (Blatchbridge Jct) side though.

 

[Magdalia]

None of them are pointless, All were done to keep costs down, either project costs or ongoing maintenance costs.

When finance is constrained, there is always an opportunity cost in doing something that isn't needed, because that money can't be spent somewhere else.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The single platform at Malton is effectively an ill advised singling, does anything use the other track at all?

Why was the second platform at Malton removed (back in the 1960s?) Penny-pinching cost savings soon after Beeching cuts?

 

[PGAT]

None of them are pointless, All were done to keep costs down, either project costs or ongoing maintenance costs.

When finance is constrained, there is always an opportunity cost in doing something that isn't needed, because that money can't be spent somewhere else.

It would be pointless if the section was so short that the amount saved is outweighed by the additional ongoing costs of maintaining the new junction and signalling

 

[Gloster]

I was aware the station closed then reopened, but wondered why the short bit wasn't restored when the station reopened, or when the signal box closed. While there are instances of doing the very minimum being the only option, the whole of the WEML west of Salisbury is a case study of what happens if every last part of the line has this approach adopted. Even Templecombe-Yeovil was singled but very quickly redoubled because they took the minimalist attitude too far even back then.

Another two examples that come to mind are Worcester Foregate Street and Crediton-Colebrooke, both examples of parallel single lines that can't currently be used as a double track. I've heard GWR want to rectify the latter example, but presumably are constrained by funding approval.

At Templecombe I understand that by the time the station reopened the bridge had become a hindrance to altering the track layout. It was a minimum cost reopening (this was the peak of the Thatcher anti-BR era) and they wanted to use the signal box as a ticket office and waiting room (I am d**n glad I didn’t get that vacancy). Things that might have been preferable just couldn’t be afforded.

When Crediton-Coleford Junction was singled there was only a sparse passenger service on either line and the Okehampton one was on the way out. There were not that many goods services either. If you reduced to two single lines, you can close the box and save on staffing and maintenance without any significant loss of capacity.

 

[Falcon1200]

Ware is surely the most obvious example?

Has Ware not always been single track, meaning none of its owners/operators felt the issue worth addressing?

An unusual case is the Largs branch in Scotland; From a crossover between Saltcoats and Ardrossan South Beach there are two lines as far as Hunterston, however only one is electrified and therefore usable by passenger trains, and the Up platforms at South Beach and West Kilbride have been removed. Meaning that without substantial investment only an hourly service can ever operate, unless there is a gap in one direction to allow additional trains in the other.

 

[Gloster]

Has Ware not always been single track, meaning none of its owners/operators felt the issue worth addressing?

An unusual case is the Largs branch in Scotland; From a crossover between Saltcoats and Ardrossan South Beach there are two lines as far as Hunterston, however only one is electrified and therefore usable by passenger trains, and the Up platforms at South Beach and West Kilbride have been removed. Meaning that without substantial investment only an hourly service can ever operate, unless there is a gap in one direction to allow additional trains in the other.

Ware appears always have had a short section of single-line across a level-crossing. Why is not clear from maps.

The situation north of Ardrossan was connected with trains to and from Hunterston ore terminal. I can’t remember the in and outs of it, but I think it was felt that having dedicated lines for each was a better way of maintains punctuality.

 

[Belfastmarty]

That is there and the reduction from double-track dates from the resignalling at 00.15 on 3 June 1973.

That's a remarkably accurate date with time also for the resignalling !!

 

[Gloster]

That's a remarkably accurate date with time also for the resignalling !!

There was an article on the Carlisle resignalling in the most recent edition of the Signalling Record Society’s journal.

 

[Zomboid]

The situation north of Ardrossan was connected with trains to and from Hunterston ore terminal. I can’t remember the in and outs of it, but I think it was felt that having dedicated lines for each was a better way of maintains punctuality.

Isn't the non electrified line only usable in one direction? I'm sure I saw something that suggested that trains towards the port used the electrified track.

 

[yorksrob]

Normally no use of the platform avoider as everyhing is booked to call, but it does see occasional use by railtours etc and even rarer by service trains, as happened fairly recently when a failed unit blocked the platform...

I've got an EMT non-stopping service along there previously, so I guess it does get services "regularly".

But as the OP, I'm going to have to put my foot down and say this isn't a single track section (although I welcome the discussion ) Malton needs another platform !