• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Stations still extant - but potential to serve railway needs ruined by rationalisation pre-2000 - worst examples

Status
Not open for further replies.

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
4,092
Your starter for 10 - How about Sheffield?

I was going to put this in the current thread "Railway locations that are now only a shadow of themselves" - but realised after writing that Sheffield and what follows is not on topic for that thread ( and we had one on precisely the same subject about a year ago, if I remember).

Reading post #1326 by @Killingworth on this thread


helped make me realise what a tragedy Sheffield is from a rail point of view.

No Victoria at all these days, of course, so gone is the brave-new-world 1,500V DC electric system installed post WW2

And, unlike (say) Morecambe or Skegness, Sheffield Midland station is still there, probably with as many platforms as it had in the 60s. But its ability to serve what must be something like the UK's 10th - 15th (?) largest conurbation has been strangled by track rationalisation and subsequent sell offs of bits of land that means it has a mere two-track approach from the south instead of four.

This is the text of @Killingworth 's latest post.

It illustrates how long anything takes from first thoughts to delivery for service.

The old 4 platform station was reduced to one in 1985 as part of the bigger plan to speed services between Sheffield and Bradway Tunnel including removal of the stations at Heeley; Millhouses and Beauchief and slewing of two tracks to make better use of the then cleared trackbed that had carried 4 tracks. That must have been in planning from the early 1970s based on falling passenger and freight volumes.

By 1990 singling tbrough Dore and Totley station waa realised to have been a mistake and soon after 1995 the first plans to redouble were observed on the wall at Railtrack's Manchester offices. They were discussed with Sheffield councillors in 2000 and by late 2001 appeared in their published plans for delivery in 2003-4. 20 years later they will be.

Stockton and Darlington Railway opened 1825, Liverpool and Manchester 1830 and by 1850 you could travel from London to Edinburgh by train!

I digress but this saga gets worse. The Hope Valley scheme is now bigger than just redoubling at Dore. It grew by 2013 into a plan to provide 2 extra hourly fast paths between Sheffield and Manchester.

By 2015 it was realised that couldn't happen due to congestion into both Manchester and Sheffield and the scope was reduced to only one extra fast path. Delivery is imminent and it has dawned that even one extra hourly path is problematic. Why? Partly removal of those two tracks from Dore into Sheffield. Can they be restored? No. Parts of the old track bed have been sold off and built on, bridges have been removed and various items of lineside eqipment would need resiting.


Any worse examples out there (apart, of course, from totally closed stations/lines)?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,041
Location
Liverpool
Aberystwyth Station is a bit of a mess. Only one platform face available yet there are two roads the stump of the other main platform now a second hand furniture store.

If there were going to be two roads in the station, to provide run round for loco hauled trains, surely the other should have been against he other platform?

Would give operational flexibility and allow two passenger trains into the station which might be useful recovering from late running or dealing with other problems given that this is quite a busy station.
 

vic-rijrode

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2016
Messages
452
Sunderland was "rationlised" from 4 platforms to a single island platform (nominally called platforms 1-4!) now serving Metro, local Northern services (which are being increased) and Grand Central to London.

On the plus side a big new surface building is going up currently more in keeping with Sunderland's "City" status and perhaps there will be an increase in platforms.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
21,991
Location
Airedale
Your starter for 10 - How about Sheffield?

I was going to put this in the current thread "Railway locations that are now only a shadow of themselves" - but realised after writing that Sheffield and what follows is not on topic for that thread ( and we had one on precisely the same subject about a year ago, if I remember).

(quoting Killingworth:)

By 2015 it was realised that couldn't happen due to congestion into both Manchester and Sheffield and the scope was reduced to only one extra fast path. Delivery is imminent and it has dawned that even one extra hourly path is problematic. Why? Partly removal of those two tracks from Dore into Sheffield. Can they be restored? No. Parts of the old track bed have been sold off and built on, bridges have been removed and various items of lineside eqipment would need resiting.

One problem is probably the conflict at Dore between trains towards Hope Valley and from Dronfield. A second southbound running line from Millhouses (beyond the supermarkets!) to Dore would allow a Hope Valley train to await a path across the junction without delaying a southbound main line working.
The congestion at the North end would probably be eased by full bi-di signalling through the station, but there's not room for much else.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,433
Location
Yorks
Manchester Victoria is an example of a rationalisation too far. Six through platforms would be very handy !
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,474
Location
Somerset
But its ability to serve what must be something like the UK's 10th - 15th (?) largest conurbation has been strangled by track rationalisation and subsequent sell offs of bits of land that means it has a mere two-track approach from the south instead of four.
Not that size of conurbation necessarily indicates suitability for local rail. Still less the suitability of the original railway infrastructure. Can't really comment on Sheffield - but the fate of the local rail infrastructure in Edinburgh is agood example.
 

WesternBiker

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
692
Location
South Cambridgeshire
I understand Cross Country expressed a desire to serve Weston-super-Mare, but the singling of the loop (in 1972) makes that impossible. Since then, the town's population has doubled to over 80,000.
 

DM352

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2019
Messages
290
Location
White north
Blackpool South - could have had a right of way to Central

Bradford FS. Not sure if this counts as moved east in a very rationalised form.
 

InkyScrolls

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jul 2022
Messages
1,463
Location
North of England
Bradford FS. Not sure if this counts as moved east in a very rationalised form.
A case could be made that BDQ doesn't really count - not because it's been moved, but because, despite its reduced size, it does meet the requirements demanded of it adequately.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,434
Location
The Fens
These aren't stations but fit the theme of 20th century rationalisations that are a constraint on meeting 21st century needs.

Ely North Junction has to be a top example here. The rationalisation of the track layout for resignalling and electrification is now a major constraint that is now very difficult and expensive to deal with.

I would also add the single track sections on the Fen Line and the single lead at Haughley Junction.

Singling Diss-Norwich was a narrow escape from being on this list.
 

156421

On Moderation
Joined
23 Aug 2022
Messages
342
Location
Weſtmorland 'n' Furneß
Maryport... why only one platform but 2 running lines. This means that when stuff goes wrong (train breaks down at platform or something) all other trains are blocked or have to overcarry passengers. Whitehaven... why not have a second through platform (remains of one still exist) so trains can pass each other at the station. Also the pointless dropping to single track for about 100 yards immediately to the north of the station is pretty dumb.
 

Mat17

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2019
Messages
962
Location
Barnsley
Penistone?

Once a significant interchange station, with trains to Sheffield and Manchester, stoppers to Doncaster, Huddersfield and Barnsley.

The junction swept away, the electrified mainline gone, the Doncaster trains gone.

The solitary track and loops on the branch platforms keeps only the stopper to Huddersfield (on a singled line) and a very meandering service to Sheffield running.

Truly a shadow of its former self.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,612
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Maryport... why only one platform but 2 running lines. This means that when stuff goes wrong (train breaks down at platform or something) all other trains are blocked or have to overcarry passengers.

Has Maryport not only ever had one through platform, so not 'ruined by rationalisation?

There or course a few stations where the rationalisation ruining has subsequently been reversed; Charlbury, Dunlop and Stewarton for example (all on lines singled but since re-doubled).
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,306
Has Maryport not only ever had one through platform, so not 'ruined by rationalisation?
Rationalised back in 1860, so essentially been like that for some time! (Was, at the time, both the HQ, and the end of the passenger line that was for many years operated by 'The Maryport and Carlisle Railway' company (the clue's in the name!)
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,664
Location
Northampton
Your starter for 10 - How about Sheffield?
Sheffield is an interesting one because the problem with the station itself is arguably that it hasn't been rationalised enough, with the centre sidings still in place leading to slow entries and tight signalling controls. However the lines south of the station could certainly have done with a slow on the western side being retained (ideally 2) for Freight and Hope Valley trains.
Aberystwyth Station is a bit of a mess. Only one platform face available yet there are two roads the stump of the other main platform now a second hand furniture store.

If there were going to be two roads in the station, to provide run round for loco hauled trains, surely the other should have been against he other platform?

Would give operational flexibility and allow two passenger trains into the station which might be useful recovering from late running or dealing with other problems given that this is quite a busy station.
There may have been problems with the swing of locos using the run-round loops. Steam locos are not usually permitted to use crossovers between platforms due to the risk of the buffer beam clouting the platform copers.
Manchester Victoria is an example of a rationalisation too far. Six through platforms would be very handy !
100%.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,233
Location
Dyfneint
Both main Exeter stations are constraining traffic now, iirc. You could talk about the WoE line, but that's a line rather than a station being a problem :p.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
6,135
I understand Cross Country expressed a desire to serve Weston-super-Mare, but the singling of the loop (in 1972) makes that impossible. Since then, the town's population has doubled to over 80,000.
The singling between WSM and Worle Junction already results in significant delay minutes, both to GWR services and southbound Cross Country ones held up by a GWR service having to wait to access the loop. There was a proposal to redouble it around 15 years ago which was in NR’s plans, but it came to nothing.
 

WesternBiker

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
692
Location
South Cambridgeshire
The singling between WSM and Worle Junction already results in significant delay minutes, both to GWR services and southbound Cross Country ones held up by a GWR service having to wait to access the loop. There was a proposal to redouble it around 15 years ago which was in NR’s plans, but it came to nothing.
I know - though I think it was the Weston-Worle Junction section, rather than the whole loop? And the loss of the bay at Weston reduces flexibility still further.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,904
With hindsight, getting rid of all of the former platforms 4-6 at Newcastle Central was an error, now that the new service round the Blyth and Tyne is starting. Digging out some of the car park to create a new Platform 0 next to the current Platform 1 (former Platform 7) now seems to be a worthwhile endeavour.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
6,135
I know - though I think it was the Weston-Worle Junction section, rather than the whole loop? And the loss of the bay at Weston reduces flexibility still further.
I think that is what I stated "singling between WSM and Worle Junction"?
 

jhy44

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2008
Messages
202
Location
Marylebone (London)
Cheltenham Spa is a bit of a mess which would actually be relatively easy to solve.
You've got two through platforms on the mainline, which also need to act as terminators for the London - Cheltenhams and the Cardiff - Cheltenhams. One siding north of the station isn't really sufficient imo.

Things pretty regularly go wrong meaning the line gets clogged up, or connections missed resulting in some very long waits.

If one or two bay platforms could be built just to the east of the station, where the former line to Honeybourne went off, currently occupied by a car park; it would introduce so much more operational flexibility. Would also surely be better for the train staff on the GWR/TFW terminators too in terms of having better facilities whilst waiting for their return departures.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,832
Location
West is best
I understand Cross Country expressed a desire to serve Weston-super-Mare, but the singling of the loop (in 1972) makes that impossible. Since then, the town's population has doubled to over 80,000.

The singling between WSM and Worle Junction already results in significant delay minutes, both to GWR services and southbound Cross Country ones held up by a GWR service having to wait to access the loop. There was a proposal to redouble it around 15 years ago which was in NR’s plans, but it came to nothing.

I know - though I think it was the Weston-Worle Junction section, rather than the whole loop? And the loss of the bay at Weston reduces flexibility still further.
Cross Country have run trains via W-s-M in the past (as in trains that call here). And indeed there was in the last timetable (don’t know about now) a non-stop service that ran through W-s-M at certain times, presumably for route retention purposes.

Network Rail do have plans to double the line between Uphill Junction and W-s-M and to double the line between W-s-M and Worle Junction. But it’s unfunded. Without external funding it’s not going to happen no matter how much chaos and delays the single line sections cause.

I don’t know if there is any plans to bring the Bristol end bay platform back into passenger use. The current (trailing) crossover would need to be removed and a facing crossover provided.

Back in the 1980s, the current layout made sense, as on Sundays, Intercity 125 HSTs that terminated in platform 2 would shunt to the upside carriage sidings so that ‘local’ trans could pass (one up, one down). Then the HST would shunt back to platform 2 ready for it’s next London Padd. service.
 

geordieblue

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
790
Location
Leeds
With hindsight, getting rid of all of the former platforms 4-6 at Newcastle Central was an error, now that the new service round the Blyth and Tyne is starting. Digging out some of the car park to create a new Platform 0 next to the current Platform 1 (former Platform 7) now seems to be a worthwhile endeavour.
Newcastle is not overly congested and at most only 3.5tph will ever be terminating from the north (Morpeth, Ashington x2, Edinburgh stopper). The north bay plus the four through platforms adequately covers this particularly considering Northern’s propensity for combining diagrams and interworking in the northeast.
 

vic-rijrode

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2016
Messages
452
Newcastle is not overly congested and at most only 3.5tph will ever be terminating from the north (Morpeth, Ashington x2, Edinburgh stopper). The north bay plus the four through platforms adequately covers this particularly considering Northern’s propensity for combining diagrams and interworking in the northeast.
Actually there are 5 through platforms plus one bay at the east end (for departures to the north) and 4 bays at the west end, which can be used for departures towards Hexham, Chester-le-Street and Sunderland.
 

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
734
Location
North Oxfordshire
Only 3 bays at the west end now that P12 has been taken out of use. This is because P11 has been extended to accommodate a 5-car 80x, overall much more useful.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
And, unlike (say) Morecambe or Skegness, Sheffield Midland station is still there, probably with as many platforms as it had in the 60s. But its ability to serve what must be something like the UK's 10th - 15th (?) largest conurbation has been strangled by track rationalisation and subsequent sell offs of bits of land that means it has a mere two-track approach from the south instead of four.

I actually would consider Morecambe relevant to this thread, since the pre-2000 relocation of the station was part of a rationalisation, and the accompanying rearrangement of the tracks in to two entirely separate single lines must reduce operational flexibility and make it harder to implement the kind of clockface timetable that the station arguably needs. Ditto Bare Lane.

I'd also cite Carnforth, with the 1974 (according to wikipedia) demolition of the main line platforms. At the time that was possibly justified because there were no trains likely to use them, but these days you have the Windermere services that ought to be prime candidates for calling there (if pathing allows it).

(Granted though neither of those would really meet the part of the thread title that says, Worst Examples. They are fairly minor as things go).

And can I cite Tisbury. I really think one of the worst examples of rationalisation was the singling between Salisbury and Exeter, which makes it very difficult to operate today's level of services on the line. But since the thread title requires that I specify a station rather than a section of track, I'll go for Tisbury - one of the stations on the route that actually did have a platform demolished. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top