Remodelling your local station or mainline terminus

[Purple Orange]

We’re at an interesting point in history in the development of our railway infrastructure, chiefly as a result of HS2, Cross Rail, Northern Powerhouse Rail and a need to decarbonise our transport networks. As a result, the next 30 years will probably see a lot of change to many railway stations and city centre rail infrastructure to a level not seen since the 19th century. So with that in mind, what change would you make and why?

I would do the following:

Newcastle Central

Action:

• Create 7 through platforms by knocking through from P9 and P10 to P1 (and the abandoned bay next to it).
• Re-open two east facing bays (adjacent to the new through platforms) for local stopping services to terminate from the north.

Reason Why:

• Newcastle will be seeing longer long-distance trains. The days of 3-car TPE services are gone and 4-car Voyagers should become a relic of the past once HS2 and NPR are up and running. As a result, the current bay platforms P9-12 will not be fit for purpose, given their role has been for accommodating 3 & 4 car TPE and XC services. Today they are not fit for purpose with 5-car IETs.

Outcome:

• This will leave 11 platforms in total: four bays P1 & P2 (currently P11 & P12) and P3 & P4, plus seven through platforms numbered P5 to P11. Platform 10 & 11 (currently P5-8) would be labelled as 10a, 10b, 11a and 11b.
• The new through platforms P5 and P6 can handle through services to & from Edinburgh.
• P7 (current P2) can operate both through services to Scotland and terminating services.
• P8 & P9 (current P3 & P4) dedicated to terminating services.
• P10 & P11 (P5-P8) dedicated to through services from Sunderland & Middlesbrough towards Carlisle, as they do today.
• P1 & P2 (currently 11 & 12) could be less frequently used, but I am loathe to filling them in.
• P3 & P4 (reinstated east-facing bays) to operate as terminus for services from Morpeth & Ashington.

Manchester Piccadilly

Action:

• Build 6 bay platform HS2 & NPR station on the surface.
• Build the Golbourne Spur
• Build tram-train capability for Metrolink to take Glossop, Hadfield and Rose Hill services.

Reason Why:

• This is more predictable given the level of proposed investment in Manchester, but the purpose would be to concentrate fast services in to Piccadilly and actively only allow commuter services on to Castlefield.

Outcome:

• P9 to P14 be dedicated purely to Northern services.
• P3 to P8 to be dedicated to fast services terminating from Sheffield, Nottingham, Cardiff and legacy long distance WCML services from London & Birmingham.
• P1 & P2 dedicated to Sheffield & Huddersfield/Leeds stoppers.
• HS2 & NPR platforms to take fast services to/from London, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow & Edinburgh

So, what would you do and why?

 

[SynthD]

Where would your Manchester High Speed station be?

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of Leeds, I'd probably extend platform 17 and provide some direct access to it from the footbridge.

 

[Aictos]

For Bedford I would move the station closer to the main road at the front of the station and extend the bay platform to connect with the north end siding.

The north end siding to be extended to 12 cars and accessible from Platforms 1 to 4 (Platform 1A is Platform 1, Platform 1 will be Platform 2, Platform 2 will be Platform 3, Platform 3 will be Platform 4 and Platform 4 will be Platform 5).

And the CS to be accessed from Platforms 1 to 4 that should help with platform capacity.

 

[willgreen]

From memory the preferred solution at Newcastle involves platform extensions of the four west end bays, which, whilst cheaper than knocking through, involves severance of the Forth Banks branch.

 

[Purple Orange]

Where would your Manchester High Speed station be?

Same place it is currently planned - adjacent to P1 on the north-eastern side of the station.

From memory the preferred solution at Newcastle involves platform extensions of the four west end bays, which, whilst cheaper than knocking through, involves severance of the Forth Banks branch.

Interesting. I wasn’t aware that was the plan. Are there any details online?

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting. I wasn’t aware that was the plan. Are there any details online?

[Newcastle remodelling]
It’s in the text of this report, on page 26, (although there’s no schematic), it was discussed in a thread about a year ago:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Church-Fenton-to-Newcastle-Strategic-Advice-2020.pdf

”Lengthening of all four bay platforms is recommended to facilitate growth for the 2030s and beyond, as train lengthening would be required even if planned HS2 and NPR services do not happen. Operational workarounds, such as stabling terminating trains on the Forth Banks branch, running trains empty to Heaton Depot or round via High Level Bridge create avoidable complexity and should be avoided in the longer-term. Synergies will be explored to align shorter- term plans in the Newcastle area with the 2030s requirement, though it is not expected that existing Central Gateway plans would be adversely impacted.
Lengthening of the four bay platforms would require severance of the Forth Banks branch, which is currently used as stabling for operational railway vehicles.”

 

[Purple Orange]

[Newcastle remodelling]
It’s in the text of this report, on page 26, (although there’s no schematic), it was discussed in a thread about a year ago:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Church-Fenton-to-Newcastle-Strategic-Advice-2020.pdf

”Lengthening of all four bay platforms is recommended to facilitate growth for the 2030s and beyond, as train lengthening would be required even if planned HS2 and NPR services do not happen. Operational workarounds, such as stabling terminating trains on the Forth Banks branch, running trains empty to Heaton Depot or round via High Level Bridge create avoidable complexity and should be avoided in the longer-term. Synergies will be explored to align shorter- term plans in the Newcastle area with the 2030s requirement, though it is not expected that existing Central Gateway plans would be adversely impacted.
Lengthening of the four bay platforms would require severance of the Forth Banks branch, which is currently used as stabling for operational railway vehicles.”

Thanks for that.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for that.

I had a quick think about where the extensions would have to come to, I think it must be about the Forth Banks road bridge. But they’d presumably have to reinstate the whole width of the former Carlisle viaduct and lose the car parking, as well as having a throat much further south, which would also have to widen the King Edward Bridge approach viaduct? Don’t think they’ll be the widest platforms at their extremities…

 

[Purple Orange]

I had a quick think about where the extensions would have to come to, I think it must be about the Forth Banks road bridge. But they’d presumably have to reinstate the whole width of the former Carlisle viaduct and lose the car parking, as well as having a throat much further south, which would also have to widen the King Edward Bridge approach viaduct? Don’t think they’ll be the widest platforms at their extremities…

Yeah, from google earth, it looks too tight. Without knocking through from platform 9 to 1, a better option might be to build a platform on the south side next to P7 & 8.

 

[YorksLad12]

In terms of Leeds, I'd probably extend platform 17 and provide some direct access to it from the footbridge.

That's a bit cheap for a Speculative Ideas thread

Close P17 and forget about it except as an escape route (via the door into the Southern Entrance).
Build three new platforms north of the new P0 (something similar might be in a 20-year plan anyway).
Widen the throat to eight roads, A to H.
Shuffle everything north so that the Harrogate and Leeds North West services use platforms -3 to 3 (the old Wellington Station, more or less); PP4, 5 & 6 dedicated for London services; TPE services use P12 northbound, P15 southbound; Castleford/Barnsley services use 16, with the single line approach doubled.
Revisit the plan to merge platforms 13 & 14, if there's space at either end for steps and lifts (shared with P15).
Double the width of the western footbridge.
Build the viaduct east of the station.
Reopen Burger King.

That should do for starters...

 

[Glenn1969]

Bradford

Find a way to move Interchange so trains don't have to waste time reversing in and out

 

[Neptune]

Bradford

Find a way to move Interchange so trains don't have to waste time reversing in and out

The only way to do that is to move the station out of the city.

 

[Purple Orange]

The only way to do that is to move the station out of the city.

Which has been suggested as part of NPR I believe.

 

[Neptune]

Which has been suggested as part of NPR I believe.

Yes and people aren’t happy that NPR is going to call at the southern outskirts of the city rather than in it.

Bradford’s railway has and always will be a victim of the Victorian’s not making Bradford a through route when they had the chance.

 

[Glenn1969]

But not confirmed or believed by anybody. Thought the smart money was still on there not being much new build that isn't on the Transpennine Route via Huddersfield but everything has gone pretty quiet

 

[Purple Orange]

I don’t think there will be a new route via Bradford, but if there is such a route included in the Integrated Rail Plan, I guess that means that along with completion of the eastern HS2 branch, it will be many decades off. The only thing that document will tell us is what the long term strategy is.

 

[HST43257]

York

6 and 7 knocked through to 8 and the gap next to it
2 bays made next to 1
Lines reinstated between 3 and 5 for extra flexibility
Line added between 9 and 10 with a few crossovers, as 10 would become new terminator platform, along with 11
2 platforms next to 11, 1 for TPE northbound stuff and 1 for Harrogate line stuff, which would come into York between ROC and Cinder path
6 tracks from Church Fenton to York and 4 from York to Water End (2 added on each side of York for high speed)

 

[NoMorePacers]

My current local station (Hull) seems adequate for its current service pattern and could probably fit some more in - although I suppose if there's a need for extra platforms then some of the sidings could be brought back into use.

 

[Bigman]

I would like to see a new central footbridge from the middle of the Shipley triangle over to Otley Road. There should be continuous links added to the existing Platform 1/2 and Platform 3/4 footbridges to make it easier to get from the town to all platforms so you effectively end up with a 3-legged footbridge.

 

[The Ham]

My local station doesn't really need much (could do with platform lengthening, however at 9 x 20m coaches long with automatic selection of doors for longer trains there's more than enough other places which could do with improvements as a much higher priority).

The thing that would be worth doing at Basingstoke would be to build a new station West of Basingstoke on the Salisbury line (with associated electrification), so that the Basingstoke Stoppers and the Heathrow Southern Approach services (when they start) could pass through without the need to build extra platforms to facilitate terminating services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bletchley layout works. Platform 6 needs a lift, and of course there will be the new EWR platforms. Other than that it needs cheering up with e.g. one of the new modular footbridges - it's grim!

What I would love to do is remodel WCML interchanges to two island platforms and change to pair by direction for quality interchange, but I'm well aware it will never happen, not least because it would slow the fasts down, not to mention costing several billion quid for only a minor gain.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Batley:
Four tracks should be in place between the western portal of Morley tunnel; and the Eastern end of Batley viaduct- in order to provide dynamic overtaking. Platforms at Batley rebuilt closer to the Soothill Lane bridge, with a booking hall at Street level using the excess width of that bridge (the road would be narrowed and traffic calming measures introduced to reduce speed). Lifts and stairs down to platforms on the new loop lines.

 

[YorksLad12]

Batley:
Four tracks should be in place between the western portal of Morley tunnel; and the Eastern end of Batley viaduct- in order to provide dynamic overtaking. Platforms at Batley rebuilt closer to the Soothill Lane bridge, with a booking hall at Street level using the excess width of that bridge (the road would be narrowed and traffic calming measures introduced to reduce speed). Lifts and stairs down to platforms on the new loop lines.

I'm surprised "something at Batley" isn't in the TRU plan, given the station was much larger at one point (two stations joined together, really), there's room for two tracks through Dewsbury and there's a whole new two-track railway beging built from Hudderfield to Ravensthorpe. Four tracks all the way to Morley tunnel would provide plenty of overtaking opportunities.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm surprised "something at Batley" isn't in the TRU plan, given the station was much larger at one point (two stations joined together, really), there's room for two tracks through Dewsbury and there's a whole new two-track railway beging built from Hudderfield to Ravensthorpe. Four tracks all the way to Morley tunnel would provide plenty of overtaking opportunities.

There is room for four tracks in total at Dewsbury, but if all were laid then non-stopping trains would be slowed down in both directions as they would have to "dogleg" either side of the station (the alignment over the viaduct being realistically set in stone). Sometimes what looks like a neat solution actually causes more problems than it solves, and four-tracking through Dewsbury appears to fall into that trap.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Not quite a local station, but on the London Underground, I’d did a new southbound tunnel from north of Clapham North to south of Clapham Common. Allowing new southbound platforms to be built at Clapham North and Common to replace the narrow island platforms.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not quite a local station, but on the London Underground, I’d did a new southbound tunnel from north of Clapham North to south of Clapham Common. Allowing new southbound platforms to be built at Clapham North and Common to replace the narrow island platforms.

Alternatively they could use the same solution that was used at a number of Glasgow Subway stations: excavate a new platform on the opposite side of one of the tracks, with a glass barrier being placed on one side of the existing island platforms. You'd still need a lot of money to do it (creating access to the new platform) but you wouldn't need to move the running lines.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Alternatively they could use the same solution that was used at a number of Glasgow Subway stations: excavate a new platform on the opposite side of one of the tracks, with a glass barrier being placed on one side of the existing island platforms. You'd still need a lot of money to do it (creating access to the new platform) but you wouldn't need to move the running lines.

This sounds a far more cost efficient solution!

 

[Ianno87]

This sounds a far more cost efficient solution!

Depends what's on top of where you want to put the new platform!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Depends what's on top of where you want to put the new platform!

It does... but a few metres of width immediately adjacent to the existing station tunnel is almost certainly easier to do than a couple of miles of entirely new tunnel.