Stations justifying an additional platform if space permitted

[cle]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Leicester; it has to have one of the most utilised platforms in the country, with every train stopping with only four available.

Not much terminates though. A good through station of 1-2 islands is super efficient. Chelmsford handles far more.

But there is call for more Birmingham service, Coventry service - and occasionally, the St Pancras EMU too. All of these would occupy platforms. Luckily there is a scheme exploring the fifth platform, I'm not sure where it landed in terms of which side - Birmingham side / west seemed most likely.

The longstanding two in my neck of the woods - Redhill (even though it's just had Platform 0/1 installed not too long ago) and Reigate

Definitely yes to both of these. Would be extremely helpful to the network as a whole. Reigate I would say moreso, now, due to the Gatwick expansion - and it being better for interchanging (plus addl platforms / all North Downs services going there)

 

[CptCharlee]

Bath Spa
Cheltenham Spa
Liskeard (Plymouth facing bay)

 

[lachlan]

Bath Spa
Cheltenham Spa
Liskeard (Plymouth facing bay)

Is Bath a bottleneck? There is talk of Bristol-Oxford trains via Bath plus Corsham and Wooton Bassett reopenings have been proposed in the past which would presumably require creation of additional services through Bath - is there room for these services?

 

[The exile]

Is Bath a bottleneck? There is talk of Bristol-Oxford trains via Bath plus Corsham and Wooton Bassett reopenings have been proposed in the past which would presumably require creation of additional services through Bath - is there room for these services?

Rarely (a bottleneck) Gets a bit interesting at 07.00 if there’s a bit of late running as they have to accommodate the two Bath starters. There was at one point a proposal / suggestion for a South Wales - Bath stopping service, which would have made things interesting, though.

 

[Minstral25]

The longstanding two in my neck of the woods - Redhill (even though it's just had Platform 0/1 installed not too long ago) and Reigate

Agree on both

Network Rail designed Platform 3 at Reigate to turn Thameslink 12 car Trains. Shame that seems to have disappeared and DfT refuse to talk about it now.

Redhill needs a turnback platform for Tonbridge trains on the East side, to stop them crossing the main southern throat meaning capacity can be increased. Replacing the northern bridge so P1 can be a through road again would be massively beneficial to everyone after the disaster of the Platform 0 design for passengers.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

In Kent and Sussex now I would argue the only one that needs more platforms now based on the current level of service is Tonbridge due to the large volume of freight and seasonal traffic that runs through there. Either that or a way to send freight straight into West Yard from Sevenoaks, (Never going to happen in reality)

In the future I would say Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Reigate and one of more of Sutton, Belmont, Banstead and Epsom Downs will need more platforms, tracks, to be double tracked or a turnback siding.

But based off the current service levels none of these stations need more platforms to fit in the current service levels.

 

[JonathanH]

Network Rail designed Platform 3 at Reigate to turn Thameslink 12 car Trains. Shame that seems to have disappeared and DfT refuse to talk about it now.

It was only ever going to happen as part facilitating the Croydon project. With that in the very long grass, perhaps dead forever, I don't think we will see the Reigate project ever happen now either.

While I appreciate some desire to have trains from Reigate to London Bridge from commuters which may relieve pressure on parking at Merstham and Redhill, and the problems of the 4-car issue on Saturday mornings, it is going to difficult to make a case for actually doing work.

Redhill needs a turnback platform for Tonbridge trains on the East side, to stop them crossing the main southern throat meaning capacity can be increased.

Yes, I agree, but can't see that happening either, particularly if no provision is made in the proposed Redhill station regeneration work and the new gateline / drop off facility is built.

Replacing the northern bridge so P1 can be a through road again would be massively beneficial to everyone after the disaster of the Platform 0 design for passengers.

The platform 0 rebuild is only really a disaster when trains change platforms with short notice. A bit more vigilance by platform staff and passengers would help considerably.

Expecting money to be spent on the railway in Surrey is now a distant hope, certainly for the next 30 years. Who knows where things might be by then?

 

[Minstral25]

It was only ever going to happen as part facilitating the Croydon project. With that in the very long grass, perhaps dead forever, I don't think we will see the Reigate project ever happen now either.

While I appreciate some desire to have trains from Reigate to London Bridge from commuters which may relieve pressure on parking at Merstham and Redhill, and the problems of the 4-car issue on Saturday mornings, it is going to difficult to make a case for actually doing work.

Actually P3 Reigate was only brought into the Croydon project later - it already had a positive BCR in its own right based around the 2018 timetable proposals by GTR and NR.

It would help with Timetabling and remove the 4 car issue. Probably teh better solution now is to extend one of the platforms at Reigate to take 12 car trains.

Yes, I agree, but can't see that happening either, particularly if no provision is made in the proposed Redhill station regeneration work and the new gateline / drop off facility is built.

The platform 0 rebuild is only really a disaster when trains change platforms with short notice. A bit more vigilance by platform staff and passengers would help considerably.

Expecting money to be spent on the railway in Surrey is now a distant hope, certainly for the next 30 years. Who knows where things might be by then?

A P4 from Tonbridge is unlikely to happen but this is a speculative thread that can include such suggestions.

Platform 0 is a problem as GTR and GWR are unable to consistently allocate platforms for trains on what is supposed to be a clockface timetable and it means that connections do not always work depending on the platform arrival - sometimes on clockface timetable tarin arrives for cross-platform, next train is at far end of P0 to P2. Forcing parking of Tonbridge units at far end of P1 also means a very long walk off trains arriving from London on P3 too. Travellers like consistency at platforms too, and with the poor supply of PIS at Redhill which not everyone knows to check at the Gateline before entering the underpass this just makes it more awkward.
The way P0 was built created lots of little problems that could have been unnecessary with better thought for passengers.

 

[30907]

Liskeard (Plymouth facing bay)

Currently 1 tpd terminates there - what service pattern do you propose to justify this?

 

[Cricketer8for9]

As for Moorgate and other busy two platform termini the irony is that additional platforms don’t always provide additional capacity. Stratford (Jubilee) in an example. The biggest throughput is with two platforms (plus stepping up). Having a third decreases capacity and thus the third one is only used at the quietist time of the week.

It’s also better for passengers as all trains leave from the same island.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Altnabreac to avoid the current standoff with the neighbour.

 

[leytongabriel]

Tottenham Hale
The single northbound platform can get very congested.

 

[Strathclyder]

I think a third platform on the loop at Hyndland could be useful? Ideally I'd reconfigure the track layout at the same time to have the current platform 2 for trains to Dalmuir via Yoker, current platform 1 for trains towards Anniesland (and beyond), and the new platform for all trains to Glasgow.

You'd honestly be better off quadrupuling and grade-separating Hyndland-Finnieston throughout and giving both Hyndland & Partick two more platforms for each branch in each direction (Singer/Milngavie & Yoker westbound and Glasgow Central & Queen St Low Levels eastbound). Such a project would be horrifically expensive even in the best of ecomonic times (on par with a hypothetical north-south cross-Glasgow tunnel), incredibly disruptive, is never gonna happen and is purely in the realm of fantasy.

Therefore perfect for this part of the forum lol

 

[hux385]

You'd honestly be better off quadrupuling and grade-separating Hyndland-Finnieston throughout and giving both Hyndland & Partick two more platforms for each branch in each direction (Singer/Milngavie & Yoker westbound and Glasgow Central & Queen St Low Levels eastbound). Such a project would be horrifically expensive even in the best of ecomonic times (on par with a hypothetical north-south cross-Glasgow tunnel), incredibly disruptive, is never gonna happen and is purely in the realm of fantasy.

Therefore perfect for this part of the forum lol

Oh I agree we'd be better off grade seperating the whole lot! Perhaps I wasn't being ambitious enough...