One Or Multiple City Centre Stations In Provincial English Cities?

[Austriantrain]

Building a Glasgow Hauptbahnhof would be extra-ordinarily difficult nowadays

There is probably something that I don’t know about Glasgow‘s topology that precludes it, but underground tunnels and underground stations have been built in a great number of cities (most of them not razed to the ground while building) and while it is certainly not easy, it is generally feasible and not ‚extraordinarily difficult‘.

What it is, though, is ‚extraordinarily expensive‘. So it really is a matter of preferences, which translate into cost-benefits-analysis (because benefits are what are defined as such).

The UK seems to be very restrictive in this regard - perfectly legitimate of course.

Interesting for me though, because in most countries around me, preferences really are defined differently.

(Same thing with Curzon Street, mentioned before in this thread: baffles me not because I think I know better, but because such a decision would be politically unthinkable not only in Austria, but also everywhere around it).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd imagine one issue with only having one central station is how you accommodate future changes in traffic - particularly growth. A few main stations have had extra platforms added over the last few decades: Marylebone and Birmingham Moor Street, for example. But that doesn't happen that often, because most big central stations -as an inevitable consequence of their own existence attracting people to live and work next to them - have no free land around them. St Pancras has been totally rebuilt/had new platforms added in a way that is pretty sub-optimal in terms of walking distance. Euston will get the HS2 platforms - at massive expense underground.

If you insist on one central station, then the problem gets worse because that station will inevitably act as a huge draw for businesses etc. and therefore over time see exceptionally dense building all round it - and probably a dense network of metro tracks underneath it - making it almost impossible to find anywhere to build new platforms/tracks when passenger growth happens.

In real life, very often the solution to improving services ends up being to build new through lines (Birmingham Snow Hill) or convert existing lines to metro/tram (Manchester, Newcastle), or even to build brand new lines (Crossrail). Thameslink is a special case where you had a nearby railway that was working well below the capacity it could have with infrastructure improvements - so the improvements were made and some services diverted away from their existing terminals. A long time ago, capacity was created at Kings Cross by diverting some services to Moorgate. Birmingham Curzon Street is an example of this too - no room in the existing stations for all the new trains, so a new station will get built instead - massively more cheaply than it would be to expand the existing main station. I'm sure one of the drivers behind most of those schemes would have been the difficulty adding any capacity to the existing main stations. But most of these solutions are not compatible with any insistence that you want everything to run to the same central station.

I think, even if you had money-no-object plans to build a single station in any of our big cities today, you'd inevitably find that in 20-30 years, you're forced to abandon the idea and start running at least some trains to other stations in that city.

 

[Austriantrain]

I'd imagine one issue with only having one central station is how you accommodate future changes in traffic - particularly growth. A few main stations have had extra platforms added over the last few decades: Marylebone and Birmingham Moor Street, for example. But that doesn't happen that often, because most big central stations -as an inevitable consequence of their own existence attracting people to live and work next to them - have no free land around them. St Pancras has been totally rebuilt/had new platforms added in a way that is pretty sub-optimal in terms of walking distance. Euston will get the HS2 platforms - at massive expense underground.

If you insist on one central station, then the problem gets worse because that station will inevitably act as a huge draw for businesses etc. and therefore over time see exceptionally dense building all round it - and probably a dense network of metro tracks underneath it - making it almost impossible to find anywhere to build new platforms/tracks when passenger growth happens.

In real life, very often the solution to improving services ends up being to build new through lines (Birmingham Snow Hill) or convert existing lines to metro/tram (Manchester, Newcastle), or even to build brand new lines (Crossrail). Thameslink is a special case where you had a nearby railway that was working well below the capacity it could have with infrastructure improvements - so the improvements were made and some services diverted away from their existing terminals. A long time ago, capacity was created at Kings Cross by diverting some services to Moorgate. Birmingham Curzon Street is an example of this too - no room in the existing stations for all the new trains, so a new station will get built instead - massively more cheaply than it would be to expand the existing main station. I'm sure one of the drivers behind most of those schemes would have been the difficulty adding any capacity to the existing main stations. But most of these solutions are not compatible with any insistence that you want everything to run to the same central station.

I think, even if you had money-no-object plans to build a single station in any of our big cities today, you'd inevitably find that in 20-30 years, you're forced to abandon the idea and start running at least some trains to other stations in that city.

One advantage of an integrated Takt: you plan your timetables decades ahead, so you can actually plan your new station for how many trains you will run in 2050 (very extreme, I admit, but the Swiss do it). Of course, it’s not a solution for all eternity, but it helps.

However, nobody would ever plan a central station for a city like London: not because it is not feasible, provided you are prepared to spend vast amounts of money. But it would be useless: trains from London are - Covid aside - full as it is, they have no capacity for more passengers coming from better connections. That is why it was never a question that in France, an interconnection line around Paris was built for TGV and everything else would have been a non-starter: Separate trains for „around Paris“ passengers would have been needed anyway, because trains from Paris are full as it is. So obviously building a much cheaper line around Paris is vastly preferable than tunneling under the city.

London and Paris, however, are rare cases in Europe. I have many problems with the the Spanish HS program, but building a third underground line from Chamartin to Atocha (for AVE) is not one of them.

 

[Purple Orange]

If the question is: can London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool & Newcastle operate with one city centre station? The answer is no.

If the question is can London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool & Newcastle operate with one Intercity station and a number of other city centre stations for local/regional commuting, I’d say yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the question is can London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool & Newcastle operate with one Intercity station and a number of other city centre stations for local/regional commuting, I’d say yes.

Agreed. And indeed, Liverpool and Newcastle already do, and Manchester did until quite recently (in the 90s Victoria was just an S-Bahnhof full of 2-car Sprinters and Pacers operating secondary and tertiary stopping services and not a lot else).

Liverpool does seem to be theorising about building a separate HS2 station, but to me this is more than a little silly and just "M62 envy", really.

 

[Purple Orange]

Agreed. And indeed, Liverpool and Newcastle already do, and Manchester did until quite recently (in the 90s Victoria was just an S-Bahnhof full of 2-car Sprinters and Pacers operating secondary and tertiary stopping services and not a lot else).

Liverpool does seem to be theorising about building a separate HS2 station, but to me this is more than a little silly and just "M62 envy", really.

If Liverpool did do that, their intercity station would then be the new HS2 station, with Line Street the home of stoppers & regional semi fast services.

I think Victoria will return to the days of being a regional commuter station, but with Liverpool-Hull services being the longest distance train. If Liverpool doesn’t get NPR, I suspect that will be the main Liverpool trans pennine service.

 

[Austriantrain]

If Liverpool did do that, their intercity station would then be the new HS2 station, with Line Street the home of stoppers & regional semi fast services.

With the major drawback - which should generally preclude such a solution - that if regional services do not also serve the HS station, connectivity would suffer, which I can’t see as being a good thing.

Most importantly, Lime Street via Merseyrail has excellent connections to the Birkenhead side of the Mersey. If a new HS2 station means that a single-change connection to the Wirral line is no longer possible, what sound like a win for the City of Liverpool is actually a real loss for the conurbation. If HS2 trains take a couple of minutes longer to reach Lime Street than a would-be new HS2 station, it is not in effect a real Problem (maybe except if you really, absolutely need 400m trains to rech Liverpool for capacity reason, then there might be no other choice than a new station).

 

[Bletchleyite]

With the major drawback - which should generally preclude such a solution - that if regional services do not also serve the HS station, connectivity would suffer, which I can’t see as being a good thing.

Most importantly, Lime Street via Merseyrail has excellent connections to the Birkenhead side of the Mersey. If a new HS2 station means that a single-change connection to the Wirral line is no longer possible, what sound like a win for the City of Liverpool is actually a real loss for the conurbation. If HS2 trains take a couple of minutes longer to reach Lime Street than a would-be new HS2 station, it is not in effect a real Problem (maybe except if you really, absolutely need 400m trains to rech Liverpool for capacity reason, then there might be no other choice than a new station).

It depends I suppose on where it goes. If they put it say on the old Central site (which would be available with surprisingly little compulsory purchase) then it would still be connected to Merseyrail, indeed rather better so than Lime St (as it would also be on the Northern Line). Because of its location on a sort-of peninsula, Liverpool is only really of use for connections to its immediate hinterland (which is one reason it doesn't need as much of an HS2 service as Manchester, a key connectional node in the national network), most of which is served by Merseyrail itself.

 

[Austriantrain]

It depends I suppose on where it goes. If they put it say on the old Central site (which would be available with surprisingly little compulsory purchase) then it would still be connected to Merseyrail, indeed rather better so than Lime St (as it would also be on the Northern Line). Because of its location on a sort-of peninsula, Liverpool is only really of use for connections to its immediate hinterland (which is one reason it doesn't need as much of an HS2 service as Manchester, a key connectional node in the national network), most of which is served by Merseyrail itself.

Absolutely. I was thinking more along the lines of a new station situated somewhere like South Parkway.

 

[duncanp]

Tbh 1 Cryonista idea would be tunnelling under the city and having a "underground" style platforms under New street for Local cross-birmingham services, and put the further local west midlands services into Snow hill/Moor Street which in return would free up Inter-city services (In theory) serving new street, that would be the only viable option but obviously the bottleneck issue on the wcml between international and new street and tunnelling under the city would need to be sorted out!

And I've done the walk between New st and Moor st many a time with heavy luggage, and it's far easier to walk it now than it used to be (pre-Grand central) and i think once the Tram link gets sorted down to Curzon street from outside Grand Central as it is now, will make things alot easier for people whom find it not easy to walk it!

A particular gripe of mine is the lack of a decent link between Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, especially as the tram tracks at the stop St Chads are right next to the platforms at Snow Hill.

There no reason why a decent same level interchange between trams and trains can't be provided at Snow Hill.

Revenue protection can't be the issue, as there is no barrier interchange between the trams and trains at Jewellery Quarter and The Hawthorns.

Then someone travelling from Stratford to Macclesfield could use the tram between Snow Hill and New Street, just like you can use the tram between Piccadilly and Victoria in Manchester.

This needs to be sorted before the Commonwealth Games next year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A particular gripe of mine is the lack of a decent link between Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill

There are two - Moor St and the tram itself.

 

[Purple Orange]

With the major drawback - which should generally preclude such a solution - that if regional services do not also serve the HS station, connectivity would suffer, which I can’t see as being a good thing.

Most importantly, Lime Street via Merseyrail has excellent connections to the Birkenhead side of the Mersey. If a new HS2 station means that a single-change connection to the Wirral line is no longer possible, what sound like a win for the City of Liverpool is actually a real loss for the conurbation. If HS2 trains take a couple of minutes longer to reach Lime Street than a would-be new HS2 station, it is not in effect a real Problem (maybe except if you really, absolutely need 400m trains to rech Liverpool for capacity reason, then there might be no other choice than a new station).

To be fair, it is highly unlikely there will be a new station in Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, it is highly unlikely there will be a new station in Liverpool.

I'd agree it seems to be a pie-in-the-sky project. The present service of 1tph isn't really adequate, but 2tph of 200m trains is likely to be adequate for the foreseeable, not because Liverpool is inferior to Manchester or any other "M62 envy" type reason, but because as I mentioned above Liverpool is on a sort-of-peninsula, as a result of which it is not and never will be a useful interchange for anywhere other than its immediate hinterland (i.e. basically the places on the Merseyrail map, and probably not even the places further east on it which might choose to go via Warrington/Wigan/Preston/Crewe instead).

If a third train was needed, looking at the HS2 timetable plan for phase 2, the Macclesfield is only a 200m train, so it strikes me you could add a portion to that and run it classic-line from Stafford as a third train per hour, possibly a "budget but still HS2" option with lower fares than the quicker ones that join HS2 at Crewe (a bit like the way the "via Birmingham" Euston-Scotland service does pretty well at offering lower fares than the fast one while still being a "proper" Avanti service). It is unlikely Liverpool would ever require more capacity than that given its geography.

 

[Purple Orange]

I'd agree it seems to be a pie-in-the-sky project. The present service of 1tph isn't really adequate, but 2tph of 200m trains is likely to be adequate for the foreseeable, not because Liverpool is inferior to Manchester or any other "M62 envy" type reason, but because as I mentioned above Liverpool is on a sort-of-peninsula, as a result of which it is not and never will be a useful interchange for anywhere other than its immediate hinterland (i.e. basically the places on the Merseyrail map, and probably not even the places further east on it which might choose to go via Warrington/Wigan/Preston/Crewe instead).

If a third train was needed, looking at the HS2 timetable plan for phase 2, the Macclesfield is only a 200m train, so it strikes me you could add a portion to that and run it classic-line from Stafford as a third train per hour, possibly a "budget but still HS2" option with lower fares than the quicker ones that join HS2 at Crewe (a bit like the way the "via Birmingham" Euston-Scotland service does pretty well at offering lower fares than the fast one while still being a "proper" Avanti service). It is unlikely Liverpool would ever require more capacity than that given its geography.

If I was a resident on Merseyside, I’d rather investment went in to expanding merseyrail rather than a new mainline station or extended Lime Street. It doesn’t need NPR as much as Manchester needs it due to it’s location, but if it was a bigger metropolis of a Manchester & Birmingham scale then I would see the argument for a new north-south alignment rather than an east facing Lime Street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I was a resident on Merseyside, I’d rather investment went in to expanding merseyrail rather than a new mainline station or extended Lime Street. It doesn’t need NPR as much as Manchester needs it due to it’s location, but if it was a bigger metropolis of a Manchester & Birmingham scale then I would see the argument for a new north-south alignment rather than an east facing Lime Street.

It does need NPR for an improved east-west service, but NPR will be max 200m trains so can fit into Lime St. If there isn't enough platform capacity then the idea of freeing some up by diverting some City Line services onto Merseyrail and rebuilding Central to 2 islands* would be a better project.

A new north-south alignment for long distance trains would only be useful in Liverpool if it wasn't on a sticky-out bit (it's not a peninsula per-se, I don't know what the term for it is!) - the actual WCML takes the closest pretty-much-straight north-south route that is possible to Liverpool without the huge (and entirely unnecessary) cost of additional tunnels or bridges over wide estuaries.

* If you could find 8tph to stick into Central from the south east direction, it would actually reduce line capacity needed at Central, because at present reversals take up capacity. However, the "people capacity" is woefully inadequate, so adding any destinations without adding platform capacity would be highly dangerous and create something far worse than even Picc P13/14 in terms of people movements. Though if you wanted to keep it simple, one island twice the width of the current one would probably also work, but operationally there'd be more of a benefit of two islands, one for northbound services and one for southbound. Two side platforms, each the size of the present island, would also work if easier, a bit like St Pancras low level - it might actually be possible to get that in with relatively little "digging out" other than of the parallel header tunnel.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A new north-south alignment for long distance trains would only be useful in Liverpool if it wasn't on a sticky-out bit (it's not a peninsula per-se, I don't know what the term for it is!) - the actual WCML takes the closest pretty-much-straight north-south route that is possible to Liverpool without the huge (and entirely unnecessary) cost of additional tunnels or bridges over wide estuaries.

An alternative would be an East-West long-distance station, and extend the tracks under the Mersey so the actual terminus is on the Wirral. That way you provide very easy access to InterCity/HS trains from a wider area of the Liverpool region, and reduce pressure on the current Wirral line into Liverpool. And done right, it could also reduce the cost of the stations, slightly offsetting the cost of the new tunnel under the Mersey that would be required - since the (presumably, underground) station in Liverpool would be a through one and so not need as many platforms, while a carefully sited station in the Wirral might not need to be underground at all (say if it was at Birkenhead North).

To get back on topic for this thread, that of course is completely moving into the realm of, multiple stations for a city.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An alternative would be an East-West long-distance station, and extend the tracks under the Mersey so the actual terminus is on the Wirral. That way you provide very easy access to InterCity/HS trains from a wider area of the Liverpool region, and reduce pressure on the current Wirral line into Liverpool. And done right, it could also reduce the cost of the stations, slightly offsetting the cost of the new tunnel under the Mersey that would be required - since the (presumably, underground) station in Liverpool would be a through one and so not need as many platforms, while a carefully sited station in the Wirral might not need to be underground at all (say if it was at Birkenhead North).

To get back on topic for this thread, that of course is completely moving into the realm of, multiple stations for a city.

Pressure on the Wirral Line? Merseyrail operates well, well under capacity (30tph 6-car is what it was designed for, it actually operates, pre COVID, 14tph mostly 3-car). There isn't any pressure on the Wirral Line, other than that caused by the water above

The Northern Line has a bit of a capacity issue at Liverpool Central, but it's entirely localised and a problem with that station and not any other part of it.

 

[Purple Orange]

Going back to the original question, I agree with the principal of having one mainline termini for all long distance traffic, but depending on the size of the city centre, other stations should exist too for the purpose of enabling people to access those other areas of the city. This could be a metro, or a heavy rail service operating like an S-bahn or Merseyrail operation.

The question therefore is: how big must a city centre be in order to graduate from 1 mainline termini, to having a series of smaller stations to act as a means of penetrating the rest of the city?

 

[Irascible]

Exeter St Davids is a good interchange station - and it'd be fine as destination station for commuting *if there was more local rail commuting* - because most of the problem that people say "run to Central" for could probably be solved by releasing the usual gridlock enough that a bus ( or tram! ) could get up the hill without being constantly stuck. It's not *that* far up there. I wonder if that's part of the situation elsewhere too. Counterbalancing that is that there's loads of room to reconfigure Central to terminate most of the local trains anyway ( until we start reupgrading the WoE line and then there's just no room anywhere ... )

Exeter is partly a result of following local geography - if you were starting over I suppose the LSWR route in would be the one to follow but coming in that way via the route into the county the B&ER took would mean a fairly big tunnel. That would surely also have to play into any ideas of amalgamating stations elsewhere too, are you going to make some tortuous connections between lines & stations which really aren't well aligned for them, just so you can run everything into one place?

 

[cle]

Many of the through routes do - Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle. Leeds station is carrying a lot (hence the usage). The other two I think survive just fine with one station, and are not huge.

Manchester is historically split (as Sheffield was). It has grown a lot more, and has a much larger city centre than anywhere other than Birmingham, and Glasgow maybe.

Places like Haymarket and Oxford Road were never as critical as they are today - but now are crucial for distribution as cities have evolved. And Birmingham frankly was always big enough and had a mass/mess of routes and companies which needed own infrastructure.

Liverpool and Glasgow (x2) are termini so by nature that is consolidated/convergent.

 

[Purple Orange]

I’ll contest that Birmingham city centre is rather small, having enjoyed living in the centre of brum for several years, it is certainly smaller than Manchester and possibly smaller than Liverpool city centre.

 

[NoRoute]

One benefit of having multiple stations, done correctly, is potential redundancy, you can take a station out of service for planned maintenance, upgrades or refurbishment and maintain a reduced rail service. It also provides options for diverting services in the event of operational problems.

A city with a single station has put all its eggs in one basket.

 

[Purple Orange]

One benefit of having multiple stations, done correctly, is potential redundancy, you can take a station out of service for planned maintenance, upgrades or refurbishment and maintain a reduced rail service. It also provides options for diverting services in the event of operational problems.

A city with a single station has put all its eggs in one basket.

Well to an extent. If half of New Street shut down, how would Snow
Hill or Moor Street help?

 

[zwk500]

One benefit of having multiple stations, done correctly, is potential redundancy, you can take a station out of service for planned maintenance, upgrades or refurbishment and maintain a reduced rail service. It also provides options for diverting services in the event of operational problems.

A city with a single station has put all its eggs in one basket.

To build on the previous post, if well-designed and large enough a single station can have parts of it taken out of service whilst maintaining an (admittedly reduced) service in the parts remaining open.

 

[NoRoute]

Well to an extent. If half of New Street shut down, how would Snow
Hill or Moor Street help?

Well if you shut down New Street for some reason, there would still be services to London via Moor Street, and services to the West Midlands and North via Snow Hill.

To build on the previous post, if well-designed and large enough a single station can have parts of it taken out of service whilst maintaining an (admittedly reduced) service in the parts remaining open.

But in practice are most stations that well designed, with that degree of segregation? And what about just outside the station, on the station approaches and then track beyond that. Having multiple stations with separate approaches and some diversity of routes provides more redundancy.

I guess the crucial bit is the diversity of routes, having the flexibility to divert services coming into the city to at least two of its major terminals to maintain a minimum service. Maybe it's that flexibility bit which is the issue, there's no longer the interconnections to move services between stations like there was previously, the network looks rather inflexible and brittle.

 

[daodao]

Well if you shut down New Street for some reason, there would still be services to London via Moor Street, and services to the West Midlands and North via Snow Hill.


But in practice are most stations that well designed, with that degree of segregation? And what about just outside the station, on the station approaches and then track beyond that. Having multiple stations with separate approaches and some diversity of routes provides more redundancy.

I guess the crucial bit is the diversity of routes, having the flexibility to divert services coming into the city to at least two of its major terminals to maintain a minimum service. Maybe it's that flexibility bit which is the issue, there's no longer the interconnections to move services between stations like there was previously, the network looks rather inflexible and brittle.

Providing diversionary capability is no longer affordable and overall is not cost-effective.

Similarly, rationalisation of stations in towns/cities that still have multiple stations post Beeching is equally unaffordable and impractical.

For example, in Manchester, it has proved impractical to centralise all long-distance services on Piccadilly because of the problems with the Castlefield corridor and the limited functionality of platforms 13/14. IMO, Victoria should be the main station for long-distance services to Scotland, Cumbria, NE England, Yorkshire (other than South Yorkshire), Liverpool and North Wales.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To build on the previous post, if well-designed and large enough a single station can have parts of it taken out of service whilst maintaining an (admittedly reduced) service in the parts remaining open.

I'm not sure it's really possible to design a single station that can still remain partially open while there's a terrorist running around inside it or a gas leak next door, or any of lots of possible emergencies.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not sure it's really possible to design a single station that can still remain partially open while there's a terrorist running around inside it or a gas leak next door, or any of lots of possible emergencies.

The post I replied to only mentioned planned closure, not emergencies. I agree that even if it were possible to design such a station, it wouldn't be feasible to keep it open while ensuring public safety in such an emergency. But to build for emergencies is to introduce prohibitive cost. With those kind of events, you take the hit, cancel trains/turn early and make alternative arrangements for passengers.

 

[Purple Orange]

Providing diversionary capability is no longer affordable and overall is not cost-effective.

Similarly, rationalisation of stations in towns/cities that still have multiple stations post Beeching is equally unaffordable and impractical.

For example, in Manchester, it has proved impractical to centralise all long-distance services on Piccadilly because of the problems with the Castlefield corridor and the limited functionality of platforms 13/14. IMO, Victoria should be the main station for long-distance services to Scotland, Cumbria, NE England, Yorkshire (other than South Yorkshire), Liverpool and North Wales.

In the medium term certainly Victoria must be used as the long distance destination for TPE services and I agree with having the North Wales trains go there too. It’s even possible to send the South Wales trains there as well, which feels right to me and could free up capacity in to Piccadilly.

Long term it is a different scenario and I see Victoria being a high capacity regional station focussed on stoppers & semi-fast trains. The dye was cast 30 years ago for Victoria and the only difference between it and Oxford Road (and Salford Central if it gets more platforms) is that Victoria will have a bigger concourse, longer platforms and a tram stop incorporated in to it’s building. It really just has 4 useful platforms.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The post I replied to only mentioned planned closure, not emergencies. I agree that even if it were possible to design such a station, it wouldn't be feasible to keep it open while ensuring public safety in such an emergency. But to build for emergencies is to introduce prohibitive cost. With those kind of events, you take the hit, cancel trains/turn early and make alternative arrangements for passengers.

I agree with all that. But I think the point is that that is an argument against trying to have one central station - because one central station becomes a single point of failure that, in the event of an emergency, could totally cripple transport into the city.