Trivia: Stations with too many/not enough platforms

[The Planner]

Can an argument be made for Wolverhampton?

Discounting the rarely used (Bay) platform 6, Wolverhampton sees 3.8 trains per platform per hour. Birmingham New Street sees 3.4 per hour.

Trains are periodically held at distance signals whilst platforms become available.

Although I would be the first to admit that I have no idea where they would fit another platform; the new platform 4 built on the old sidings, which pushed the station right to the edge of the bridge that the station sits on.

Wolves is fine, the only problem is the slightly restrictive signalling which will get sorted eventually (seeing as August bank holiday went down the pan) which will sort most of the issues (which are caused by late running anyway) New St could see a lot more per hour if it wasn't used as a dumping ground, it is a through station not a terminus.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Piccadilly I would say needs more through platforms and maybe a bay platform for trains arriving from the West.

It should be getting new through platforms in a few years. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/northern-hub/projects/manchester-oxford-road-piccadilly/

 

[najaB]

I have never been that far north but at Inverness there are 7 platforms which may seem excessive but I am not sure as I have never seen how many are used.

They're pretty much all used. 1 and 2 are used for the Sleeper and Highland Chieftain, they aren't used much more during the day but those services are a bit on the long side for the rest of the platforms. 3 and 4 are used for services to Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow and 5, 6 and 7 are used for Highland services - there's something in those platforms pretty much all of the day since the long single-line section to Muir of Ord means that there are long downtimes at Inverness between inbound and outbound workings.

 

[SeanG]

Stations with extra platforms are always useful if things go wrong, or for future expansion.

Wigan NW P1 is rarely used but could be handy for a Euston Service to overtake a Manchester/Scotland service.

Wigan Wallgate's western bay is hardly used for passenger services, but could be in the future if Kirkby services are curtailled at Wigan.

I always wonder if Morecambe needs 2 platforms? The boat train doesn't pass a terminator there.

Middlesbrough could do with more platforms, especially as the Tees Valley Metro progresses.

I imagine Manchester Victoria to get congested in the future too.

 

[D6975]

Has anyone mentioned Hull yet?
A plethora of platforms of which only a few are used.

With New St it's not so much extra platforms, but extra tracks on the approaches that's really needed. The N St - Wolves bottleneck in particular. Enabling trains to vacate platforms promptly would ease the situation greatly. Not going to happen of course, land space simply not available to widen to 4 tracks.

The problem at St P isn't so much the lack of platforms as their usage. It's the fact that it's a terminus with trains having significant layover times occupying platforms that causes congestion. Reducing turnover times isn't possible though as long as you stick to the much beloved clockface timetable. Also at peak hours, when it would be desirable to double up some meridian services, you can't because two services are already sharing a platform, so the platforms aren't long enough.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think one of the issues with Inverness is that not all routes are accessible from all platforms. If it was decided to rationalise, a fair bit of remodelling would have to take place, at which point you would have to ask whether it was worth the expense and disruption.
Morecambe is fine with 2, it is handy to have both in case of disruption and also for charters. It's not that long ago that the old station closed, which probably did have more than needed by the time it was re-sited.

Huddersfield should be able to cope with 6, but due to the layout and signalling things often go pear-shaped!

 

[The Planner]

With New St it's not so much extra platforms, but extra tracks on the approaches that's really needed. The N St - Wolves bottleneck in particular. Enabling trains to vacate platforms promptly would ease the situation greatly. Not going to happen of course, land space simply not available to widen to 4 tracks.

That would probably be counter productive in the case of New St as it would restrict you in terms of platform usage. It needs the exit speeds increasing which can only be done to a certain extent as the S&C restricts you. Once New St is resignalled in 17 and connects up with the Wolves resignalling it brings the headways down a bit.

 

[David Goddard]

Birmingham New Street does of course have the two parcels bays to the South of Platform 12. If these were converted to operational platforms they could be used for (say) Leicester/Stansted services to the east and Herefords to the West, freeing up through platforms which are occupied by terminating trains.

 

[12CSVT]

Liverpool Central could do with a third platform to handle the Ormskirk and Kirkby terminators (although constructing it may be prohibitively expensive).

Dore and Totley station doesn't have enough for sure it should have at least 2.

With its current layout, Dore & Totley should have 3 platforms (current platform plus two on the MML)

 

[The Planner]

Birmingham New Street does of course have the two parcels bays to the South of Platform 12. If these were converted to operational platforms they could be used for (say) Leicester/Stansted services to the east and Herefords to the West, freeing up through platforms which are occupied by terminating trains.

Was looked at as part of the resignalling work, to bring the east end up to standard would require new buffers with over runs which wouldnt leave you with the length required. West end is gone permanently and wont come back.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

No Abbey Street was well down the line towards Water Orton, on the Birmingham side of the junctions to the avoiding line over the Rocker bridge, and the Ashby branch.

See below for various photos.

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/nuneatonabbeystreet.htm

What, not where.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I always wonder if Morecambe needs 2 platforms? The boat train doesn't pass a terminator there.

Morecambe has to have two, as there is no way (beyond Bare Lane) for a Heysham service to use the northernmost platform , and the run-round loop would still be required anyway for the Heysham flask services. Check your Quail!

 

[D6975]

Ipswich could do with another platform. It's OK off peak, but at peak hours when 12 car emus occupy the back platform they have to resort to shunting dmus in and out between turns. This inevitably has knock on effects when something is running late.
Last time I was there I saw a Norwich fast go round the back and a L St fast depart from the down platform due to 1 late running service.

 

[racyrich]

On the Great Eastern Railway lets nominate Chelmsford for too few. Three up morning peak trains have to start from the down platform which is a good timetabling puzzle, but doesn't help when there are minor delays in either direction. Not that there is much you can do about it though.

Presumably once Beaulieu Park opens, with a centre line, that's where the starters will start from.

Fenchurch St's 4 platforms will be interesting when c2c eventually implements its 24tph peak timetable.

 

[ctrh136]

I know this is being sorted with the TL Programme, but London Bridge is an obvious station that could do with more platforms. I'm pretty sure that even before the programme started it was normal to have to wait for a platform to become available.

 

[jopsuk]

On the Great Eastern Railway lets nominate Chelmsford for too few. Three up morning peak trains have to start from the down platform which is a good timetabling puzzle, but doesn't help when there are minor delays in either direction. Not that there is much you can do about it though.

And in the too many category not so Great Yarmouth, a shadow of its former self.

never mind platforms, the Great Eastern could do with being six-track to Shenfield (maybe even Chelmsford!) with two for Metro/Crossrail, two for Suburban and two for Express, four track to Ipswich.

 

[Manchester77]

Deansgate station could do with having additional platforms to allow more trains to stop without holding up the non-stopping services. Because of its location and interchange with Metrolink it could be a lot busier however due to the volume of traffic it's not ideal to stop more services there.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Having all four through platforms available allows them to use various permutations of two track railway during engineering work, and still call at Nuneaton. They cannot do this on most of the four track section north of there, because they only have the two platforms outside the slows.

Although it would not be cost effective to add them if they didn't exist already, it would be pretty daft to remove them.

I have heard someone else suggest this in the past. An insane idea, there is more justification for removing platforms on the fast lines at Wolverton, Cheddington, Tring, Bletchley. Berkhamsted, Apsley, Kings Langley etc etc etc, but even that would be daft

 

[rdeez]

Slightly off topic but doesn't seem worth starting a new one for - I've seen entirely new signals between Stafford and Wolverhampton on my last couple of journeys (covered and not in use), I know Stafford resignalling is well underway which explains the ones on the Stafford side, but what about the ones at Wolverhampton? One new one I noticed was on what I think is Platform 1a, and is sited a short distance behind the current signal.

 

[The Planner]

Wolverhampton resignalling was meant to happen over August bank holiday but got canned as it was too far behind. Will be comissioned early next year apparently before Stafford is.

 

[Tracked]

Marsden for the too many side of things - I was there last weekend and Platform 2 only gets used for about 3 trains a day, according to the sign.

Doncaster could do with more through platforms

 

[Leslie Fletcher]

I have never been sure where to ask this question but this thread seems kind of appropriate: why do continental stations have so many more platforms and other infrastructure? For example, I recently caught a train at Bari Centrale in southern Italy which has 9 through platforms and 6 terminal platforms to cope with ~14 departures per hour, a similar traffic density to Wolverhampton.

 

[David Goddard]

I feel that Twickenham could benefit from making platform 2 into a through line in order to create 2/3 as an up island and 4/5 as a down island, enabling better separation of the Kingston trains (in 2 and 5) from the Windsor/Reading services (using 3/4), but also enabling interchange between the two.
An upgrade of the section Eastwards could then enable four tracks to run as far as a rebuilt St Margarets (with platforms on the outer slow lines only) before reverting to two tracks onwards to Richmond.

 

[Trainfan344]

Lowestoft has 3 platforms to deal with 2 trains an hour...

 

[oddiesjack]

Denton has 2 platforms for 1 train a week!

 

[eps200]

Rock ferry has 2 and 2 in a bay that isn't really needed but is used for stabling.

Liverpool central could do with more desperately to keep the terminators out of the way, not sure if Brunswick could squeeze in a north facing bay and just run the terminators one more stop.

 

[theorangeone]

Queen's Park (London), obviously! Now that you mention it, Wembley Central as well.

Also, every single Shenfield Metro station except Liverpool Street, Stratford, Shenfield and perhaps Romford. Lots of trains pass through without stopping, but you don't need platforms for them, surely?

 

[D6975]

Queen's Park (London), obviously! Now that you mention it, Wembley Central as well.

Also, every single Shenfield Metro station except Liverpool Street, Stratford, Shenfield and perhaps Romford. Lots of trains pass through without stopping, but you don't need platforms for them, surely?

As has already been pointed out for other locations such as Nuneaton, retaining platforms on through fast lines comes in very handy when you have engineering work. Running stoppers on the fast lines is surely preferable to having to resort to bustitution, which is what would have to happen.

 

[thenorthern]

Whenever I have used the cross City Line I think a few of the stations on the line should have more passing points particularly between Kings Norton and New Street as I think 6 local trains, 2 semi-fast and one intercity service using a double tracked line with 4 intermediate stations is far too congested.

 

[The Planner]

It generally works though, just have to accept that you are going to catch up a Cross City on the way in. It is too constrained to do much with ergo muchos £££ to do anything with.