That’s how the original Crossrail service to Newcraighall ran but this was changed to minimise delays.Was the original intention not to run the borders as an extension of
originally the Bathgates (until A2B) and then Fife but the likelyhood of spreading disrutption in Fife onto the single line (and the south end bay platforms) largely put paid to that.
Only if the development it was intended to serve hadn't been cancelled by introduction of the Green Belt.I'd argue the bay platforms at Edgware LUL would be more useful had the conversion to through platforms been completed
That (at least in part) comes down to one of the two East facing bays (5) being very short. At the last May timetable change, that short bay saw very little use as the Wakefield service became diagrammed as a 3-car 144 meaning it had to use 4a or 6. The Leeds via Bradford has a long (>30min) turnaround at Huddersfield and blocks one of those.Huddersfield has the opposite problem with its bidirectional through platform 4 being used as a pair of bays for most of the day.
The medium-term plan should render it obsolete, as only 2 services per hour will terminate at Huddersfield from the East.Platform 5 at Huddersfield is far too short. I did wonder if it could be extended under the Transpennine Route Upgrade?
How about Ormskirk! It was a through platform that is now two bays, so is the opposite way round.
But it was much worse until a few years ago.The 4 bay platforms at Cambridge rather limits capacity at the station.
But it was much worse until a few years ago.
Well, you could argue that even making it as far as Brockley Hill for a P&R would have been very worthwhile - it would have relieved the road pressures around Edgware station massively, and rather handily, would have got the line safely out through the built-up area should things ever change, policy-wise. It would also have probably saved the line between Edgware and Mill Hill East, which would be very useful.Only if the development it was intended to serve hadn't been cancelled by introduction of the Green Belt.
Totally ridiculous layout.Redhill! The recent project to provide the additional (through) platform 0 resulted in platform 1 becoming a south-facing bay, when it should have remained a through platform. The cost of re-signalling to permit this has resulted in a sub-optimal layout.
Chester - 5 bays but only 3 through platforms so they have had to split them all into a & B to make it work.
Often lots of hanging around at lights outside the station at both ends waiting for a platform.
How about Sheffield?
Link Platform 2C with Platforms 4A/4B and renumber to Platforms 5A/5B.
Extend Platforms 3A/3B to be a though platform and renumber to Platforms 4A/4B
Ideally though the whole station would be remodelled with the following changes:
Platform 1A/1B to stay as it is
Though Line to be served by a new platform numbered as Platform 2A/2B
Platforms 2A/2B become 3A/3B
Platforms 3A/3B become a though platform and numbered as 4A/4B
Platform 2C joins with Platforms 4A/4B and renumber to Platforms 5A/5B
Platforms 5A/5B become a though platform and numbered as 6A/6B
Platforms 6A/6B become a though platform and numbered as 7A/7B with the shunt signal removed and replaced with a full aspect signal
Platform 7 to stay as it is and renumbered to Platform 8
Platforms 8A/8B become 9A/9B
That should provide enough capacity for the next 30 odd years!
...
2. Sheffield has 5 through platforms for 4 through trains per hour plus the two terminating Londons. Does it need more through platforms?
Network Rail have published somewhat speculative plans for adding a second island, that would ideally happen in concert with an eastside entrance. It's going to become a more acute issue, as double-unit West Anglia services when the fleet is replaced won't fit in 2&3. With the current future timetable proposals/stock changes, all that will be able to use 2/3 will be the slow Thameslink (class 700/0) and any Liverpool Street services formed of a single 720/5. Currently the 1Hxx services to Liverpool Street use the bay, but I'd have though there would be a desire to have longer trains on the fast services, as the 2Hxx (which start at Cambridge North) will probably mainly be single units due to calling at shorter platforms.The 4 bay platforms at Cambridge rather limits capacity at the station.
It has 6. Isn't that enough?
I used Edinburgh Waverley on a five days a week basis for the best part of 30 years and saw the mid platform crossovers used regularly such as trains via Carstairs leaving old platform 10 crossing to pass whatever was in Platform11 or North Berwick services coming into Platform 1. from Haymarket bypassing old platform 19 to give 2regularly seen examplesI lived in Edinburgh for several years in the 1970s and never once saw the mid-platform crossovers used. Don't know if they are now. Apart from the handful of through Aberdeen-London services everything else terminated, but main line services all seemed to use just the two main platforms, generally stopping at the midpoint fouling the crossovers anyway. There were always too many east end bays and not enough west end ones.
A station which could use at least some through platforms is Inverness, all bays, pointing two different directions and linked by a through avoiding line. Some trains have always been run past the station on the avoiding line and then backed into the opposite side of the station, Limerick Junction style, for a range of reasons - transfer of passengers/mail, next working, enabling the loco to be easily released, etc.
Knew there was something wrongI agree it’s impractical and unnecessary, but it is eight through trains an hour. Have you forgotten to double it for the trains in the opposite direction?