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

[Ianno87]

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...

Turning back in the 2nd platform at Hunts Cross means blocking the main line. Appears very rare to be used in anger.

 

[Nean]

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

The clarification to your original statement is definitely welcome (I thought you were referring to all terminating points) . Even so, my 2nd point still stands IMO- There's not really much point adding platforms at Ormskirk and Kirkby without a capacity increase in the link tunnel/central.

Turning back in the 2nd platform at Hunts Cross means blocking the main line. Appears very rare to be used in anger.

Indeed (See posts on one of the many Hunts' Cross/CLC electrification threads), however the ability still exists . Also if it was able to slot in between the ~20 minutes between the flighted services it could theoretically be possible (though still exceedingly unlikely).

 

[InOban]

Dunbar perhaps??

Which, as has already been stated in earlier posts, is why plans are well advanced to build a second platform, on the main down line.

 

[InOban]

On a more speculative note, I wondered whether the freight branch to Castleton could be opened to passenger trains as far as the bridge crossing the road between Hope and Castleton, and that could be used instead of the terminating platforms proposed for Dore and Totley in an earlier post.

 

[MG11]

On a more speculative note, I wondered whether the freight branch to Castleton could be opened to passenger trains as far as the bridge crossing the road between Hope and Castleton, and that could be used instead of the terminating platforms proposed for Dore and Totley in an earlier post.

Do you mean the freight line that runs to the factory? That only goes as West as the outskirts of Hope, it would still be a fair walk into Castleton. A good bus link from hope would be best, one that goes right up to the car park at Hope Station. There did used to be a bus from Edale station to Castleton 260 number I think, but that lost its tender.

 

[InOban]

'A fair walk'? It's barely a mile from the rail bridge to the centre of Castleton. I've only visited the area once, but isn't there a segregated foot/cycle path?
You could add another platform where it crosses the road from Edale, and close Hope station.

 

[DanTrain]

'A fair walk'? It's barely a mile from the rail bridge to the centre of Castleton. I've only visited the area once, but isn't there a segregated foot/cycle path?
You could add another platform where it crosses the road from Edale, and close Hope station.

Why? This sounds like a complete make-work project. The walk from Hope to Castleton is still a fair way (a mile is too far to expect tourists with bags ect to walk), building a new line in a national park is unlikely and building a station on this branch is way way more money than it's worth. If you're going to Castleton, you either need to just walk it (it's a fair way though and not easy at night), or you need to get the bus from either Hope or just from Sheffield, I think they're hourly from the interchange.

 

[InOban]

I did say I was speculating. I quite agree that the National Park status is likely to rule it out, indeed it is because of this that there has been no development in the Hope Valley. Otherwise I am sure that there would have been major commuter housing developments.

 

[Poolie]

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

Physically HartlepooL has 3 platforms, but only two accessible and Platform 2 is only used on Sundays for the terminators from Darli.........I'm sorry I can't bring myself to type the full name of the place !!!!

 

[edwin_m]

On a more speculative note, I wondered whether the freight branch to Castleton could be opened to passenger trains as far as the bridge crossing the road between Hope and Castleton, and that could be used instead of the terminating platforms proposed for Dore and Totley in an earlier post.

The most likely outcome for Dore & Totley is one extra platform, reinstating double track to and from the Hope Valley. This is needed to increase capacity for fast trains between Manchester and Sheffield, not really to do with any increase in trains calling there.

An earlier poster was suggesting terminating platforms there (along with platforms on the tracks to/from Chesterfield) but these are a more speculative idea based on introducing a frequent cross-Sheffield stopping service. If this ever happened then there would be neither the capacity nor the demand to extend it beyond Dore onto the Hope Valley proper.

 

[83G/84D]

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?

The plan was to keep Saltings rather than go through the closure procedures. Just1-2 trains to serve on a request stop basis. Unsure if this still the case.
Relocate the Park & Ride to StErth (underway) and following changes to the crossing by St Erth signal box to speed up journey times by a couple of minutes (still to be carried out) .

This will allow for slight increase in frequency of services. Some changes to the bay platform st St Erth planned as well.

 

[Ianno87]

The plan was to keep Saltings rather than go through the closure procedures. Just1-2 trains to serve on a request stop basis. Unsure if this still the case.
Relocate the Park & Ride to StErth (underway) and following changes to the crossing by St Erth signal box to speed up journey times by a couple of minutes (still to be carried out) .

This will allow for slight increase in frequency of services. Some changes to the bay platform st St Erth planned as well.

The peak branch service is already every 30 minutes, made possible by the non-symmetric skip stop timetable.

Suggest the changes just build in a bit more slack in the timetable, rather than trying to run (say) every 28 minutes, which would just be...odd!

 

[30907]

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

Of course, but it would require a massive amount of work on a cramped site, and as the present service is half hourly it will be a long time before it becomes necessary. IIRC the original curve was so tight full negth stock could not pass on it.

 

[DanTrain]

The most likely outcome for Dore & Totley is one extra platform, reinstating double track to and from the Hope Valley. This is needed to increase capacity for fast trains between Manchester and Sheffield, not really to do with any increase in trains calling there.

An earlier poster was suggesting terminating platforms there (along with platforms on the tracks to/from Chesterfield) but these are a more speculative idea based on introducing a frequent cross-Sheffield stopping service. If this ever happened then there would be neither the capacity nor the demand to extend it beyond Dore onto the Hope Valley proper.

Indeed, we like to dream on these forums! There would likely not be capacity to run lots of Sheffield - Dore services either without 4-tracking or risking creating a massive bottleneck for XC and EMT services in particular. The second platform still seems to be a-coming, although I think the election may have slowed down the bureaucracy a bit. Not sure if Hope Valley passing loops are coming too or not.

 

[matacaster]

How about Ravensthorpe?

Platforms on line to Leeds. No platforms at all on line to Wakefield, despite it being on a junction!!!

Having said that, I think it unlikely that anyone with asense of self-preservation would use the existing Leeds platforms during the hours of darkness, so additional Wakefield ones unlikely!

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

I'd say Ormskirk and Kirkby technically have two - they just are one long one divided instead of opposite sides. I know what you mean though.

 

[physics34]

Cowden, Eridge, Buxted, Uckfield

 

[YorkshireBear]

How about Ravensthorpe?

Platforms on line to Leeds. No platforms at all on line to Wakefield, despite it being on a junction!!!

Having said that, I think it unlikely that anyone with asense of self-preservation would use the existing Leeds platforms during the hours of darkness, so additional Wakefield ones unlikely!

I believe there are tentative aspirations to transfer the platforms to the wakefield line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I believe there are tentative aspirations to transfer the platforms to the wakefield line.

Very tentative, as nobody seems to know what's happening with the supposed route upgrade/electrification/Northern Powerhouse Rail situation. The section from Ravensthorpe to Heaton Lodge junction is pretty crucial to those things, so the future of a lightly-used (by local standards) station in an awkward position won't be high up the priority list...

I've also heard talk of RVN becoming peak only, which given the low usage and the rather archaic footbridge which will need replacing, rather puts a big question mark over the future of the station at all.

 

[scrapy]

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...

Southport could easily function with 3 or 4 platforms although all the platforms see regular use as they are effectively used as sidings throughout the day by both Merseyrail and Northern for excess stock between the peaks.

 

[themiller]

Maryport, Cumbria could do with a second platform to cope with late running 37s and to reduce paintwork in the area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Southport could easily function with 3 or 4 platforms although all the platforms see regular use as they are effectively used as sidings throughout the day by both Merseyrail and Northern for excess stock between the peaks.

It could probably function with 2 to be honest. All the other Merseyrail termini handle 4tph on one platform, while the other would be adequate for Northern's 2tph. Would require timetable tweaking, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maryport, Cumbria could do with a second platform to cope with late running 37s and to reduce paintwork in the area.

The 37s could do with binning to cope with late running 37s, to be honest. They are interesting, but they are utterly unsuitable for the job.

 

[Dai Corner]

Stations on the Ebbw Vale branch, where redoubling started but has apparently been abandoned.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Uckfield would mean they could stable a train there and late running trains wouldn’t have to be kept being turned around at Crowborough because there is already a train in the single line section

 

[alistairlees]

Very tentative, as nobody seems to know what's happening with the supposed route upgrade/electrification/Northern Powerhouse Rail situation. The section from Ravensthorpe to Heaton Lodge junction is pretty crucial to those things, so the future of a lightly-used (by local standards) station in an awkward position won't be high up the priority list...

I've also heard talk of RVN becoming peak only, which given the low usage and the rather archaic footbridge which will need replacing, rather puts a big question mark over the future of the station at all.

Ravensthorpe should just be shut. It just takes up capacity in a really bad place, all for the sake of 50 people a day (2015/16 ORR figures are ~37,000 entries / exits a year, so that's 100 a day or 50 return journeys). Dewsbury (over 1.5 million entries / exits) and Mirfield (over 0.5 million entries / exits) are both about 1.5 miles away (in different directions).

Far more people could be better benefitted by focusing on where the railway can make the most positive difference, rather than trying to keep open stations that were opened over a hundred years ago but have a very limited purpose today and have never been successful.

 

[tsr]

Uckfield would mean they could stable a train there and late running trains wouldn’t have to be kept being turned around at Crowborough because there is already a train in the single line section

Southern have explored the option of berthing trains on the single line at Uckfield (and indeed have looked at berthing overnight at Crowborough in the event of stock getting stranded due to incidents further north). The problem with Uckfield in particular is that it’s a bloomin’ long taxi journey from any crew depot, but more to the point, the units would also not be in a secure enough environment overnight. The risk of vandalism at Uckfield is apparently deemed pretty high, which I can well understand given some of the “clientele” who can be seen on the platforms from mid-morning through to the small hours. If you were to berth trains, you’d also have to look at station security too.

As for Crowborough, terminating trains there is to avoid delayed northbound workings impacting on the timetable through Oxted / East Croydon, not really to do with the single line. They would be the very trains which would next occupy the single line anyway. Indeed, in many cases in the peaks, it actually ends up being better to send trains all the way through, otherwise there may be a unit sitting in the platform needing to head back the other way before the next train can make it through from Ashurst Jn (and besides that, passengers tend to now refuse to leave terminating trains, which causes even more problems).

The real reason you’d want to re-double the track and stations is to avoid the inevitable regulating issues which lead to a lot of the late running and suchlike, especially around Cowden. Cowden is such an enormous constraint that it seriously holds back even hourly service on the line, and if only one part were to be sensibly doubled, that would be it. The trackbed is still there and even some of the old platform (albeit needing a bit more than a revamp...).

 

[DJ_K666]

some of the “clientele” who can be seen on the platforms from mid-morning through to the small hours

Heh I don't like Southern but the staff aren't quite that bad. Management maybe...

Seriously however a double ended siding up the line a bit might be useful in that it would allow a failed train to be berthed clear of the line. Of course the news that the BML2 project has been successful in its development bid would allow a siding at the south end of the original Uckfield station to fulfil this role, surely a secure compound could easily be created there. It would also mean the present crude platform could finally disappear.

 

[Dr_Paul]

... the oddities of Maryport and Malton with a single platform on double track routes.

Does this involve bringing a double-track line down to a single line for a station? That doesn't make much sense to me. Can anyone explain the rationale?

 

[hexagon789]

Does this involve bringing a double-track line down to a single line for a station? That doesn't make much sense to me. Can anyone explain the rationale?

Neither lines go single, Maryport is on a loop off the mainline; Malton has a platform only on the down.