Interesting discussion. I have just been reading the article about the resignalling of Nottingham Station in Modern Railways and a few of things have leapt out at me as I looked at the before and after proposed track layouts.
1. For the life of me I cannot understand WHY they are removing one of the through lines between the current platforms 3 & 4. I know that the other one is being lost to the new bay platform and shorten platform 4. But surely the removal of a potential bi-directional through line, clear of any platform will lead to a reduction of capacity at Nottingham Station.
2. On the proposed plan it seems that what is now platform 6, (to be platform 7) will only be accessible from the eastern end of the station. Is this a printers error, of is it yet again another reduction of capacity? IF it is the later, once more it seems as if "improvement equals reduction in service or capacity."
3. At Mansfield Junction, just after the junction it seems that once again they are planning a reduction in capacity. For a short stretch it seems as if the current 4 track route is to be reduced to a three track route for a short distance. This is on the Up Fast & Up Slow lines. Once again I don't understand the desire to reduce capacity. They did something similar at Hallgate Junction at York. Just recently corrected at great cost.
For some reason the people who redesign these track layouts seem to want to reduce capacity, especially if it is being followed by electrification. When will those who make these decisions realise that these reduction in capacity are a retrograde step, which can only be corrected at great cost.
The reason for all this work is supposedly to improve capacity due the the continuing increase in passengers, yet designers seem to be blinkered.
And as an aside, perhaps while all this 'improvement' is going on, they can sort at that chronic stupidity of that bay platform at Derby, at which passengers cannot get off the train under the canopy, because for some reason the gap on that side is a little wider that it should be, the contractors should have been made to correct this at THEIR cost.
It will be interesting to see what other supposed 'increases to capacity' will actually be a reduction, when carefully looked at.