Stations with just one platform...that could really do with two

[Upton]

I was thinking about the number of terminus stations which have been reduced from two or more platforms to now just one. For instance Newquay, Windermere and Heysham have all been reduced to just one platform from two in the past. Plus, there are plenty of through stations which have just a platform, where two might be needed now with increased numbers of passengers using the station.

My vote would be for Windermere which would benefit from an extra platform, so excursion trains would be able to come here as a destination. This of course would be dependant on doubling the track along some or all of this branch to cope with increased traffic.

 

[bramling]

I was thinking about the number of terminus stations which have been reduced from two or more platforms to now just one. For instance Newquay, Windermere and Heysham have all been reduced to just one platform from two in the past. Plus, there are plenty of through stations which have just a platform, where two might be needed now with increased numbers of passengers using the station.

My vote would be for Windermere which would benefit from an extra platform, so excursion trains would be able to come here as a destination. This of course would be dependant on doubling the track along some or all of this branch to cope with increased traffic.

Not a terminus, but Malton could benefit from a second platform. Despite, for now at least, the service being only hourly, the services in each direction have a habit of turning up at the same time due to late running.

 

[sheff1]

Malton, as already mentioned, and Dunbar.

 

[itsjustmyjob]

Dore and Totley must be near the top. Especially as it would double the line between Sheffield and Manchester!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Disregarding termini, single platform stations sort of fall into two types: those on single lines where a second platform is only any use if the frequency of service is increased; and the oddities of Maryport and Malton with a single platform on double track routes. Dunbar is a bit different as the single platform is on a loop- Frome also is similar.

My vote goes to either Lockwood or Honley as they'd allow 2tph.

 

[AlanFry1]

Chafford Hundred Lakeside should be one of the biggest shouts here

 

[DarloRich]

Fenny Stratford - then i could take better pictures.

 

[Ianno87]

A second platform at Newquay is fairly pointless as you still have the long single line from Goonbarrow Jn loop to contend with.

Putting a loop midway to permit an hourly service might be more worthwhile though.

Same with Windermere, I'd rather see a loop to permit a half hourly branch shuttle service rather than the odd charter.

And forget Heysham.

 

[Ianno87]

I'll also add in extending double track through Belmont and Banstead. Urbanish stations that might do better with infrastructure that supports 4tph.

 

[LowLevel]

Syston. Dore. Bulwell, Hucknall and Newstead (as part of a whole to allow the comprehensive morning peak up service to operate without necessitating a 90 minute gap on the down).

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Montpellier, Redland, Sea Mills and Shirehampton on the Severn Beach Line. I don't think it'll be long until the timetable goes hourly clockface.

Denby Dale is crying out to be a two platformed station which would then join the two loops at Penistone and Shepley to form one loop.

 

[Chrism20]

Isn’t there a proposal to put a second platform in at Dunbar?

Or am I dreaming again?

 

[Kite159]

Isn’t there a proposal to put a second platform in at Dunbar?

Or am I dreaming again?

Your not dreaming, I believe there is a proposal to put a 2nd platform (and 2nd loop) in at Dunbar to avoid the need for Edinburgh bound services to have to cross over the Up line.

 

[Dhassell]

Pilning?

 

[Lrd]

Pilning?

Pilning already has two platforms. Just no access to one of them

 

[cactustwirly]

Syston. Dore. Bulwell, Hucknall and Newstead (as part of a whole to allow the comprehensive morning peak up service to operate without necessitating a 90 minute gap on the down).

Not so sure that an extra platform at Syston would improve anything, as the services cross between Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway. I don't think there's space anyway.

 

[Rob F]

St Ives. I have often thought that terminating a few XC Voyagers there, at least in the summer, might be a good idea. Often more people get on at St Erth than are already on the train from Penzance and a second platform would allow it to stable whilst maintaining the branch line frequency. Just a pipe dream I suppose, but the market is quite big already and some people are put off by having to change trains. I expect the signalling implications would be expensive enough to blow the idea out of the water.

Rob

 

[ooo]

Montpellier, Redland, Sea Mills and Shirehampton on the Severn Beach Line. I don't think it'll be long until the timetable goes hourly clockface.

That would be a reduction in service (currently 3 trains per 2 hours) Monday to Saturday. Did you mean half hourly? It is however hourly on Sundays

 

[Ianno87]

St Ives. I have often thought that terminating a few XC Voyagers there, at least in the summer, might be a good idea. Often more people get on at St Erth than are already on the train from Penzance and a second platform would allow it to stable whilst maintaining the branch line frequency. Just a pipe dream I suppose, but the market is quite big already and some people are put off by having to change trains. I expect the signalling implications would be expensive enough to blow the idea out of the water.

Rob

There is certainly no demand put off in summer months! The single line is literally maxed out, with double manned trains to reverse at both ends quickly in summer. No capacity for long distance as well.

To be honest, not sure what you could do to the branch that would have a credible case, due to the seasonality of it.

 

[DasLunatic]

I'm going to possibly get my suggestion laughed out of the room but I think Braintree and St Albans Abbey could really do with another platform.
In both of these cases, the journey time along the branch is just over fifteen minutes, which when added to dwell times at the termini, brings the amount of time on the branch to around 40 minutes. A second platform at these stations would allow for a half-hourly service on the line, which should also hopefully increase passenger numbers on the lines.

in the Braintree scenario, the second train could be run as a Witham shuttle, possibly to connect to the service from Clacton

 

[bramling]

There is certainly no demand put off in summer months! The single line is literally maxed out, with double manned trains to reverse at both ends quickly in summer. No capacity for long distance as well.

To be honest, not sure what you could do to the branch that would have a credible case, due to the seasonality of it.

Any changes at the St Ives end would also, rightly or wrongly, probably end up considered against the loss of a very well-used car park.

Probably the only enhancement St Ives could expect to see is 6-car trains at some point. Not sure what amount of infrastructure work would be required to support that.

To be fair, the current setup works reasonably well. The weak link if any is the quality of the car park at Lelant Saltings, and the fact they have to have crowd control measures at both Lelant Saltings and St Ives even in September! Hopefully the St Erth scheme will improve things. Is there any prospect of Lelant Saltings being closed as no longer required?

 

[driver_m]

Pretty much all of the Merseyrail terminating points. Especially Chester. (yes I know it has 7! But only the one DC)

 

[tbtc]

Dore and Totley must be near the top. Especially as it would double the line between Sheffield and Manchester!

I may be a biased local, but Dore would be top of my list.

It's a single track section on a main line between Sheffield and Manchester, which would be enough of a bottleneck were it not for the fact that it's also the location for the single platform station - which means no scope to stop more services there because they need to get off the single track chord as soon as possible.

Some suggestions here are in the "nice to have" category - e.g. no operational urgency but it'd allow steam excursions at scenic branch lines. Dore is a bottleneck on the only route between two of the biggest cities in England and should be a much bigger priority.

Ideally I'd have six platforms at Dore (two on the Sheffield - Manchester line, two on the Sheffield - Chesterfield line and a two platform terminus in between them to allow local services (from Barnsley/ Doncaster etc) to run through Sheffield Midland and free up platform space (where there's not enough space for layovers). Complete crayonista wibble, I know - so I'd settle for a second platform in the meantime!

Isn’t there a proposal to put a second platform in at Dunbar?

Or am I dreaming again?

Your not dreaming, I believe there is a proposal to put a 2nd platform (and 2nd loop) in at Dunbar to avoid the need for Edinburgh bound services to have to cross over the Up line.

I hope Dunbar gets done too - before we start worrying about finding the funds to build stations at tiny places on the ECML between Edinburgh and Newcastle like Reston.

Currently a northbound LDHS service has to cross the southbound line twice on the flat, which can cause delays to the busy services - it deserves a second platform.

 

[Mugby]

Syston. Dore. Bulwell, Hucknall and Newstead (as part of a whole to allow the comprehensive morning peak up service to operate without necessitating a 90 minute gap on the down).

I agree about Hucknall and Bulwell. I've always wanted to know if NR had any choice about giving up one platform or if they were told they had to?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Denby Dale is crying out to be a two platformed station which would then join the two loops at Penistone and Shepley to form one loop.

Along with redoubling several miles of track either side, that is!
In any case, the problem on the Penistone line isn't between DBD and PNS, it's between Huddersfield and Stocksmoor, as that section is occupied for around 50 minutes each hour by the same unit into Huddersfield and back out- it's almost like a long siding, as other than the teatime extra and a few late arrivals which go into P4b, there's no interaction with the rest of Huddersfield station.
That's why I suggested a loop at Lockwood or Honley (Berry Brow might be better, but unfortunately the platform was built in such a way to prevent doubling) as they'd break up the longest single line section. They also have the disused platforms in situ, though Honley in particular is in a bit of a state!
The Penistone loop isn't even used to cross trains most hours unless one of them is heavily delayed. The relatively short single section from Clayton West junction to Penistone is no hindrance to a 30min interval service.

On the other hand, given the cost of providing a fully accessible way of transferring between platforms and reaching a new one, perhaps when adding loops to currently single lines we should be putting them between rather than at stations (Longest sentence ever, oops!). Then again, that means the loops need to be longer as linespeeds are obviously higher between stations!

 

[Ianno87]

Pretty much all of the Merseyrail terminating points. Especially Chester. (yes I know it has 7! But only the one DC)

I agree with Chester, for a bit of resilience.

Southport, West Kirby and New Brighton all have multiple platforms already.

Not sure I see the point at Ormskirk or Kirkby; they've worked well for years. Through running (on a double track railway) is likely a better long term solution.

Hunts Cross, I'd go for a turnback platform at Liverpool South Parkway if you ever wanted to up the service frequency.

 

[AM9]

I'm going to possibly get my suggestion laughed out of the room but I think Braintree and St Albans Abbey could really do with another platform.
In both of these cases, the journey time along the branch is just over fifteen minutes, which when added to dwell times at the termini, brings the amount of time on the branch to around 40 minutes. A second platform at these stations would allow for a half-hourly service on the line, which should also hopefully increase passenger numbers on the lines. ...

If an increased Abbey Flyer service was needed, it would be Bricket Wood that got the additional platform (or a 'Penrhyn' style split single one). That would allow two trains to operate passing there.

 

[JohnR]

Then of course there are the stations which have a second platform, just no track to them......

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Hartlepool

 

[Ianno87]

I'm going to possibly get my suggestion laughed out of the room but I think Braintree and St Albans Abbey could really do with another platform.
In both of these cases, the journey time along the branch is just over fifteen minutes, which when added to dwell times at the termini, brings the amount of time on the branch to around 40 minutes. A second platform at these stations would allow for a half-hourly service on the line, which should also hopefully increase passenger numbers on the lines.

in the Braintree scenario, the second train could be run as a Witham shuttle, possibly to connect to the service from Clacton

Adding a platform to the *end* station does not help.

Say its 16 minutes each way. 4 minute turnround at the end.

Train A arrives St Albans Abbey xx00
Train B departs St Albans Abbey xx01
Train B arrives Watford xx17
Train B departs Watford xx21
Train B arrived St Albans Abbey xx37
Train A departs St Albans Abbey xx38
....
Train A arrived back at St Albans abbey xy14
Etc.

That's not a half hourly service, it's a train every 37 minutes (more with a longer branch)