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

[YorkshireBear]

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!

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.

Being originally from Sheffield this was the one that struck me. I also like your 6 platform idea, i had similar thoughts when HS2 was to be at Meadowhall with a fast Dore-Sheffield-Meadowhall EMU service on a four tracked section with new stations. All very much pie in the sky though.

 

[ashworth]

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?

I would imagine that NR didn’t have too much choice as they had to make room for the Nottingham tram. Unfortunately, when the line was reopened, initially as far as Newstead, the section between Bulwell and Newstead was done on the cheap and has always caused problems with running a half hourly service if there’s a train running even just a few minutes late. There’s only just time for trains to get through the section and so alternate trains miss calls at either Bulwell or Newstead to improve reliability. The line from just north of Hucknall station to Newstead should never have been singled as the tracks were still there but were taken up as the line was prepared for reopening.

Hucknall and Bulwell Stations probably had to be reduced to one platform to make room for the tram but Newstead could have remained as 2 platforms. An interesting thought is that if the line had not been singled north of Hucknall, Linby station could also be also have been reopened. Hucknall station car park is now full to capacity well before 9am every morning and Linby could have had a large car park in what has always been locally known as the Station field which is adjacent to the old station site.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

If the reinstatement of the fourth track ever happens Syston will need a new platform. In fact it will need two new platforms, as the existing platform is in the way of the fourth track. In the meantime I don't think there is any point trying to add one to the three-track layout.

 

[Upton]

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

I always thought it strange that there is just one platform for terminating Merseyrail trains. Why not put in a bay platform at the northern end of the island platform between platforms 4 and 7 just as there is at the southern end? This would free up platform 7 for through eastbound trains which are limited to just one platform with the present layout. It would also give more turnaround times for Merseyrail trains.

 

[timj]

Hartlepool

agreed - large town for 1 platform station

 

[mcmad]

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.

Only plans for a second platform, indeed I'd imagine the new platform would mean a Down loop was undeliverable.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Darlington is also proposed to get a new platform for south bound (up) trains to avoid crossing the down main. The need is increasing now TPE are running non-stoppers which still lose time running through the station they aren't due to stop at!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I always thought it strange that there is just one platform for terminating Merseyrail trains. Why not put in a bay platform at the northern end of the island platform between platforms 4 and 7 just as there is at the southern end? This would free up platform 7 for through eastbound trains which are limited to just one platform with the present layout. It would also give more turnaround times for Merseyrail trains.

Would there be room for a 120m (or whatever the new stock needs) platform there?

 

[colchesterken]

Hi Me again.......Colchester Town
There was a lot of local pressure to do it as part of the upgrade to the line a few yrs. ago
"They" said it was not justified. With thousands of new homes coming to the area another short sighted gesture
We never learn..Crossrail suggested in the 70s.. Thameslink 2000.. Foulness airport.

 

[xotGD]

Castleford.

Having 2 platforms would reduce the knock-on effects when one train is late, facilitate a through service to York and reduce the number of people getting on a train going the wrong way. And the platform is already there.

 

[Ianno87]

Hi Me again.......Colchester Town
There was a lot of local pressure to do it as part of the upgrade to the line a few yrs. ago
"They" said it was not justified. With thousands of new homes coming to the area another short sighted gesture
We never learn..Crossrail suggested in the 70s.. Thameslink 2000.. Foulness airport.

What extra services would take advantage of the extra platform?

 

[Islandexpress]

Baildon. Along with a loop or re-doubling

 

[fat_boy_pete]

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

There is an existing scheme design for the Braintree Branch of putting in a loop and second platform at Cressing. This is to allow for a half hourly peak service, letting the current hourly Peak hours Witham starters/terminators to run through to Braintree instead. Alas the cost of resignalling the Branch away from the current 'one train in steam' model makes it 'challenging' in the current financial climate.

See http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/14384259._Cressing_Loop__rail_scheme_could_be_built_within_a_decade/ with picture of someone currently in the news featured prominently!

 

[InOban]

Only plans for a second platform, indeed I'd imagine the new platform would mean a Down loop was undeliverable.

The second platform will be on the down main.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

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!!

A loop between Honley and Stockmoor would be good, plus it'd mean that part of the second platform at Brockholes could be reinstated (getting access to it is another hurdle - as the station house is in private ownership and part of the platform is the garden). The idea that I had was the section of line between Penistone and Shepley would complement yours so that the Penistone Line would be doubled between Honley and Penistone, thus retaining Lockwood (which makes a great terminus if there's a problem at Springwood and the fact that its only three minutes from Huddersfield) as a single platform and allowing a possible 30 minute frequency (hourly stopper and an hourly express) on the line.

Wasn't Berry Brow built on one part of the trackbed?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A loop between Honley and Stockmoor would be good, plus it'd mean that part of the second platform at Brockholes could be reinstated (getting access to it is another hurdle - as the station house is in private ownership and part of the platform is the garden). The idea that I had was the section of line between Penistone and Shepley would complement yours so that the Penistone Line would be doubled between Honley and Penistone, thus retaining Lockwood (which makes a great terminus if there's a problem at Springwood and the fact that its only three minutes from Huddersfield) as a single platform and allowing a possible 30 minute frequency (hourly stopper and an hourly express) on the line.

Wasn't Berry Brow built on one part of the trackbed?

Brockholes is probably too close to the existing Stocksmoor to Clayton West Junction loop, with only about 2-2.5miles or so between them- this would leave still a long single line section up to Huddersfield. The former up platform and station building being in private ownership is another reason to avoid it rather than a reason to do it.
If you're placing a loop to allow a half-hourly service, it needs to be in the right place to allow the services to be timed efficiently. For the Penistone line this would ideally be in the Berry Brow area but yes, the placing of the 1993 platform makes this awkward.

On the other hand, redoubling the whole thing would be useful- if unlikely to ever be funded in reality!

 

[DarloRich]

Hartlepool

Technically Hartlepooh has 3 platforms. 3 to many in my book.

 

[pemma]

Navigation Road. While the frequency of heavy rail services isn't untypical for a single platform station and the station platform is long, the single track section can cause a bottleneck if trains don't run to time, especially with the number of long freight trains going through.

Although, for the volume of passengers using the single platform I'd nominate Liverpool Lime Street Lower Level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Navigation Road. While the frequency of heavy rail services isn't untypical for a single platform station and the station platform is long, the single track section can cause a bottleneck if trains don't run to time, especially with the number of long freight trains going through.

I'd say the trams have more of an issue with it than the trains.

Although, for the volume of passengers using the single platform I'd nominate Liverpool Lime Street Lower Level.

Not really needed (the Loop is designed for 2 minute headways which would allow a frequency increase before it was an issue).

 

[pemma]

I'd say the trams have more of an issue with it than the trains.

A tram can clear the single track section quickly. A loco with 20 wagons behind it can't, especially as there's a 15mph limit on part of the single track heavy rail section.

 

[Coolzac]

As already mentioned, Hartlepool must be a great shout? It already has a second platform there, just needs retracking and signalling given an upgrade. It has regular services that are tightly timetabled plus regular freight too!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A tram can clear the single track section quickly. A loco with 20 wagons behind it can't, especially as there's a 15mph limit on part of the single track heavy rail section.

That specifically doesn't require a second platform, though, just a freight-only overtaking line. Not that there's room for one, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be as it is!

 

[pemma]

That specifically doesn't require a second platform, though, just a freight-only overtaking line. Not that there's room for one, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be as it is!

It would complicate the signalling to have the freight always on the same line whichever direction it's going in and whichever direction the passenger train stopped at Navigation Rd is going in. Having Northenden bound trains on one line and Altrincham bound trains on another makes things much simpler.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Norton Bridge could have done with an extra platform, raising the total to one. Bit late now tho.

 

[MG11]

Dunbar perhaps??

 

[DanTrain]

Being originally from Sheffield this was the one that struck me. I also like your 6 platform idea, i had similar thoughts when HS2 was to be at Meadowhall with a fast Dore-Sheffield-Meadowhall EMU service on a four tracked section with new stations. All very much pie in the sky though.

I'd add a tram platform or two, and a platform on Dore South curve to allow Notts to Man trains to avoid Sheffield but still stop. I think that makes 7 or 8. We can dream

 

[Nean]

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

Southport has 3 electrified, Hunt's Cross has 2 electrified, New Brighton has 2+sidings, West Kirby has 2+sidings...

Ones with only one platform are Kirby, Ormskirk, Chester, Ellesmere Port, of which at the moment 2 do perfectly well with 4TPH...

 

[swt_passenger]

As already mentioned, Hartlepool must be a great shout? It already has a second platform there, just needs retracking and signalling given an upgrade. It has regular services that are tightly timetabled plus regular freight too!

I thought Alliance/GC were going to reinstate it? Or was that just a highly theoretical 'keep us in the news' type of project?

 

[driver_m]

Southport has 3 electrified, Hunt's Cross has 2 electrified, New Brighton has 2+sidings, West Kirby has 2+sidings...

Ones with only one platform are Kirby, Ormskirk, Chester, Ellesmere Port, of which at the moment 2 do perfectly well with 4TPH...

I meant the ones with one platform, as the OP asked in the first place.

 

[Andyh82]

Dunbar must presumably be a massive capacity constraint, an unusual set up of a single platform on a loop, and to make matters worse it's on the ECML. Edinburgh bound trains crossing the London bound track twice and conflicts with trains that both need to call at once if one is late.

I agree with Dore & Totley, Castleford, Honley

Would a 6th platform at Shipley provide any capacity benefits?