Q regarding terminal stations in the future

[stockport1]

with capacity being limited on most of the network and places like manchester victoria/oxford road having limited through capacity will we see more use of existing and more new terminii appearing over the coming years in smaller towns for local services?

to me there seems to be a trend for this eg. manchester airport/rochdale..and with the northern hub this may accellerate?

possibly trains running from manchester victoria through to stalybridge?

Of course this is not the case for coastal places like liverpool lime street etc.

maybe im wrong in my observations/perception. but will we see more bays appear at provincial stations to allow more through running at the larger stations?

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, where development costs are much lower in nearby towns than in city centres its cheaper to add capacity there.

 

[stockport1]

Yes, where development costs are much lower in nearby towns than in city centres its cheaper to add capacity there.

thx..im not always the best at explaining my thoughts

in my head i always think that our railways are built inside out
If the railway was all built from scratch would there be merit in having larger terminals along the coast and inner cities and towns having large through stations? lots of stuff coast to coast accross the country?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If we were building a railway from scratch wouldn't we have more central through interchange stations rather than a number of termini on opposite sides of places? Especially in London... what London would really need would be a huge central interchange similar to Chatelet Les Halles in Paris, but we missed the opportunity decades ago.

 

[pmgarvey]

I'm not sure how they cope with it in Paris, but think of the chaos when any of the major London stations has trouble. Can you imagine if there was one most important one.

 

[swt_passenger]

The primary purpose of Thameslink and Crossrail is to deal with limited capacity at terminal stations. Removing 12 tph from an exisiting route, such as into Liverpool St, is probably making available the equivalent of about 4 or 5 terminating platforms. If they are long enough they could allow major increases to the long distance services into the same station.

Similar at Paddington with Crossrail, Kings Cross with Thameslink, or even Waterloo with Crossrail 2 if as proposed it takes over the SWML inner suburban traffic.

On a smaller scale, aren't they talking about running trains right through Leeds to terminate somewhere beyond, because a turnback siding in the sticks is much easier to provide than an extra platform in Leeds itself, and of course a through train occupies the platform for much less time than a reversal...

 

[PR1Berske]

The primary purpose of Thameslink and Crossrail is to deal with limited capacity at terminal stations. Removing 12 tph from an exisiting route, such as into Liverpool St, is probably making available the equivalent of about 4 or 5 terminating platforms. If they are long enough they could allow major increases to the long distance services into the same station.

Similar at Paddington with Crossrail, Kings Cross with Thameslink, or even Waterloo with Crossrail 2 if as proposed it takes over the SWML inner suburban traffic.

On a smaller scale, aren't they talking about running trains right through Leeds to terminate somewhere beyond, because a turnback siding in the sticks is much easier to provide than an extra platform in Leeds itself, and of course a through train occupies the platform for much less time than a reversal...

What we need is a "northern crossrail"

 

[steamybrian]

There seems to be a trend of creating closing terminals and thus eliminate dwell times at for turnrounds and create through routes. Over the past 30 years London terminals at Holborn Viaduct and Moorgate (Thameslink terminal platforms) closed to enhance the Thameslink route. The terminal platforms at Blackfriars have been closed and some at London Bridge will be closed soon to create the widened Thameslink line between Blackfriars and London Bridge for more services.
Broad Street was closed to create the link from Dalston to Stratford. Shoreditch was closed to create the East London link to create a through link onto the former Broad Street line.
The Crossrail link under construction will create through services under London and provide spare capacity at Paddington and Liverpool Street for other services.

 

[jopsuk]

Blackfriars will have two terminal platforms, just on the opposite side of the station and thus serving different lines.

Shoreditch? Essentially the terminal was replaces- there's no through running at Highbury & Islington, and there's bay platforms at Dalston too.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm not sure how they cope with it in Paris, but think of the chaos when any of the major London stations has trouble. Can you imagine if their was one most important one.

They seem to cope very well; the longest delay I have ever had on the RER when the service was disrupted was about 10 minutes; ditto on the Metro. This sort of delay is generally the sort of "passenger ill on train" thing; they ( carefully! ) remove the passenger from the train, attend to him / her on the platform ( with a few staff providing a privacy barrier ) and get the service moving again asap.

One thing to bear in mind is that on the RER in the peaks a signalling fault is highly unlikely because they go into an "over-ride" mode which means the trains are being effectively driven on sight although there is still a degree of protection. This is how they can get such a high frequency on some lines, albeit with a slower transit. The best line to observe this is RER Line A; it is very common to have a train in the platform and if you are at the back of the platform and look into the tunnel you can see the front of the next train waiting there just 20 - 30 feet behind. It is a bit unnerving at first, but you soon get used to it.

The trains themselves don't seem to fail as much either; in 18 years of visiting Paris I have never had an RER or Metro train fail on me, or be delayed by a preceeding failure. I am not sure if this means the trains are simply more reliable full stop or if they have some sort of over-ride that means they won't sit down for a minor fault like ours do.

Either way, the point is if we had the money to start from scratch and create such a station then we could presumably also ensure it was reliable!

 

[Bungle73]

Broad Street closed because no one was using it anymore

 

[tbtc]

On a smaller scale, aren't they talking about running trains right through Leeds to terminate somewhere beyond, because a turnback siding in the sticks is much easier to provide than an extra platform in Leeds itself, and of course a through train occupies the platform for much less time than a reversal...

Yes, at somewhere like Crossgates, I can't remember for sure.

A similar example in Birmingham is the extension of the ATW services to Birmingham International, where there is more space to terminate.

The problem with this kind of plan is that you may need more stock, but it will make for a more reliable service.

 

[stanley T]

I'm not sure how they cope with it in Paris, but think of the chaos when any of the major London stations has trouble. Can you imagine if their was one most important one.

Chatelet- Les Halles is an interchange of RER and metro routes, no different to what Farringdon will be when Crossrail meets Thameslink. Paris has five major terminal stations (St Lazare, Nord, Est, Montparnasse, Lyon, Austerlitz) as well as the through RER stations like Orsay and Invalides.

Of course Berlin has just built a new central terminus, but Berlin is less than 4 million people.

 

[exile]

the Berlin suburban rail network is basically a cross with few trains actually terminating at Central stations. Same with the RER. London's network basically radiates from the Circle line, with only the Thameslink line currently offering services through the centre. When (if?) crossrail gets going things should improve - hopefully!

 

[PaulLothian]

On a smaller scale, aren't they talking about running trains right through Leeds to terminate somewhere beyond, because a turnback siding in the sticks is much easier to provide than an extra platform in Leeds itself, and of course a through train occupies the platform for much less time than a reversal...

Same principle planned for the Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification, with two turnback sidings planned at Abbeyhill, to east of Waverley - see foot of this page http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/11746.aspx

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe I'm wrong in my observations/perception. but will we see more bays appear at provincial stations to allow more through running at the larger stations?

Bradford Interchange is a terminal station because of the local area geographical conditions, with quite a steep slope down to the terminal station, but it does have the advantage of having co-ordinated rail, coach and bus services in one transport hub.

The matter of bay platforms at both Stalybridge and Rochdale stations has been discussed on various threads over the last few months. Whilst west-facing bay reinstatement at Stalybridge would not pose too many problems, the question of west-facing bay platforms at Rochdale is a different matter with track alignment/signalling and space at the western end are two infrastructural problems to be considered.

 

[Eagle]

Of course there are other reasons for through running.

Most Scotrail services to Aberdeen have been extended to Inverurie; surely this can't be a capacity issue.

 

[tbtc]

Of course there are other reasons for through running.

Most Scotrail services to Aberdeen have been extended to Inverurie; surely this can't be a capacity issue.

The Airport helps, of course, plus Inverurie/Dyce are a railhead for people coming from Peterhead/ Fraserburgh etc who don't want to go into the centre of Aberdeen to get a train.