Stoke-on-Trent Platform 3 thought

[Dspatula]

A daft thought I'm sure, but I found myself wondering if extending Platform 3 at Stoke by angling it towards or into the car park had ever been considered?

 

[jfollows]

The car park used to be the goods lines which avoided the station, but they were removed in 1985, and the bay was then long enough for 4-car trains anyway.

 

[pdeaves]

A daft thought I'm sure, but I found myself wondering if extending Platform 3 at Stoke by angling it towards or into the car park had ever been considered?

What need would this fulfil?

 

[zwk500]

A daft thought I'm sure, but I found myself wondering if extending Platform 3 at Stoke by angling it towards or into the car park had ever been considered?

As your line indicates, it would cut across the access of the car park to the station. Also you need a safety zone around the buffer stops in case of a train not stopping, so you would take more than just the lengths of a train you are showing.
If you wanted to extend the platform, would extending it north not be easier?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What need would this fulfil?

It would allow services longer than 3x23m to use the bay, boosting capacity on the Manchester to Stoke stopping service. Currently if longer formations are used they have to use the through platforms and reverse south of the station. Whilst this can happen on the odd occasion there isn't the capacity to do this every hour of every day. Some on the forum have a bit of an obsession about Northern taking the 350/2s on, which currently don't fit in the bay.

As your line indicates, it would cut across the access of the car park to the station. Also you need a safety zone around the buffer stops in case of a train not stopping, so you would take more than just the lengths of a train you are showing.
If you wanted to extend the platform, would extending it north not be easier?

Would a significant reconfiguring of the pedestrian access to the station be cheaper than moving the junction for the bay northwards to allow the existing platform to be extended? Does "railway inflation" still apply to off-line works?

 

[zwk500]

It would allow services longer than 3x23m to use the bay, boosting capacity on the Manchester to Stoke stopping service. Currently if longer formations are used they have to use the through platforms and reverse south of the station. Whilst this can happen on the odd occasion there isn't the capacity to do this every hour of every day. Some on the forum have a bit of an obsession about Northern taking the 350/2s on, which currently don't fit in the bay.

Allowing 4-car units (or even 100m units, if feasible) to use the bay would be a useful option.

Would a significant reconfiguring of the pedestrian access to the station be cheaper than moving the junction for the bay northwards to allow the existing platform to be extended? Does "railway inflation" still apply to off-line works?

Digging up the car park is almost certainly cheaper, but you are losing a lot of car park to make it happen, especially when the collision impact zone is considered. Although given that moving the turnout north triggers a new or relocated crossover maybe it isn't any easier.
Construction inflation would certainly apply to any car park works. What that is in relation to railway inflation I don't know.

 

[MarkyT]

As your line indicates, it would cut across the access of the car park to the station. Also you need a safety zone around the buffer stops in case of a train not stopping, so you would take more than just the lengths of a train you are showing.

20 metres I think.

If you wanted to extend the platform, would extending it north not be easier?

The bay turnout could move ~80m north fairly easily I suggest, and the subsequent facing crossover would also have to move or supplemented by another to retain access from the up direction. That might give an extra ~80m platform standage for a 6-car. Moving the turnout would help arrivals in the down main platform, which at their maximum approach speed of 40mph would always have sufficient overlap clear of the turnout to run in while a movement was taking place to or from the bay. Perhaps the Manchester stopper could then move routinely to the bay rather than terminating in one of the through platforms as often occurs during the day outside the peaks.

 

[zwk500]

20 metres I think.

The bay turnout could move ~80m north fairly easily I suggest, and the subsequent facing crossover would also have to move or supplemented by another to retain access from the up direction. That might give an extra ~80m platform standage for a 6-car. Moving the turnout would help arrivals in the down main platform, which at their maximum approach speed of 40mph would always have sufficient overlap clear of the turnout to run in while a movement was taking place to or from the bay. Perhaps the Manchester stopper could then move routinely to the bay rather than terminating in one of the through platforms as often occurs during the day outside the peaks.

That's the idea, although it's the cost of the extra facing/right-handed crossover that would concern me, given the proximity of the trailing crossover for reversible movements not far away. The extension of the bay northwards could trigger a rather big resignalling.
Trailing crossover ringed in red, connections to the goods lines/yards ringed in yellow, with the bridge visible in the previous post at bottom for reference.

 

[MarkyT]

That's the idea, although it's the cost of the extra facing/right-handed crossover that would concern me, given the proximity of the trailing crossover for reversible movements not far away. The extension of the bay northwards could trigger a rather big resignalling.
Trailing crossover ringed in red, connections to the goods lines/yards ringed in yellow, with the bridge visible in the previous post at bottom for reference.
View attachment 191229

Probably needs to be an additional crossover so access is retained between sidings and both mains. The trailing crossover is close to the protecting up home signal approaching from the north; actually within the full overlap. There's insufficient clear length between them to squeeze in another crossover. The trailing points might be moved a little south to create some space or it could converted to a scissors but as you say the extent of the remodel is expanding rapidly! The up main home signal might be removed from the big signal gantry structure and moved north a little to create the space for the additional crossover, being replaced as one of those narrow lightweight folding signals that can often fit between tracks. The interval to the up adjacent goods is tight though, so I doubt that's possible. The goods might be slightly realigned through this area, removing the first siding to create the required width for a new signal post.

 

[Nottingham59]

If you wanted to extend the platform, would extending it north not be easier?

Almost certainly. And that would have the added benefit of extending the northbound main platform too.

As soon as HS2 starts running, I think there will be a urgent need to extend platforms at Stoke and Crewe to allow 400m trains to split on the way into Manchester, adding capacity without using any more paths through Colwich.

I'd envisage a Piccadilly through train combined with a Macclesfield terminator in a single 400m unit, splitting at Stoke. As southbound paths from Stoke through Colwich are less constrained than northbound, they could recombine the units at Old Oak Common and keep the southbound platform at Stoke at its current length.

 

[cle]

Almost certainly. And that would have the added benefit of extending the northbound main platform too.

As soon as HS2 starts running, I think there will be a urgent need to extend platforms at Stoke and Crewe to allow 400m trains to split on the way into Manchester, adding capacity without using any more paths through Colwich.

I'd envisage a Piccadilly through train combined with a Macclesfield terminator in a single 400m unit, splitting at Stoke. As southbound paths from Stoke through Colwich are less constrained than northbound, they could recombine the units at Old Oak Common and keep the southbound platform at Stoke at its current length.

Would this just be so that Manchester services can skip Macclesfield? It feels a bit over-engineered and probably the longer call at Stoke to split/attach would negate any savings skipping Macc. Best to just call.

It would block the main line and you'd still have 2 x XC / Birmingham services, the Derby service and the legacy Pendo to Euston each hour, minimum.

I would expect the faster service to run via Crewe anyway, especially if p2 is resurrected to at least there.

 

[Nottingham59]

Would this just be so that Manchester services can skip Macclesfield? It feels a bit over-engineered and probably the longer call at Stoke to split/attach would negate any savings skipping Macc. Best to just call.

You can't fit 400m trains into Piccadilly and there are likely to be no paths available through south manchester for a second unit. So you either run one 200m unit, calling at Stoke, Macc, Stockport and Piccadilly (as Avanti do now), or you run two units, one serving Stoke and Macc, and one serving Stockport and Picc.

It would block the main line and you'd still have 2 x XC / Birmingham services, the Derby service and the legacy Pendo to Euston each hour, minimum.

Splitting would only take a minute or two at the platform, so would not block the main line. The second unit could follow immediately behind the first.

I don't believe that there will be a legacy Pendo from Euston to Manchester when HS2 starts. There is no capacity through Colwich. And certainly not via Stoke - any legacy Pendo to serve MK customers will go via Crewe.

I would expect the faster service to run via Crewe anyway, especially if p2 is resurrected to at least there.

Currently it's faster via Stoke.

Phase 2a, if it ever gets built will be at least a decade after phase 1. And phase 2a won't work without extending plaforms at Crewe, at least, and even that will not add any more paths through the suburbs of south Manchester.

 

[zwk500]

You can't fit 400m trains into Piccadilly and there are likely to be no paths available through south manchester for a second unit. So you either run one 200m unit, calling at Stoke, Macc, Stockport and Piccadilly (as Avanti do now), or you run two units, one serving Stoke and Macc, and one serving Stockport and Picc.

Or you run a 2x200m service to Liverpool & Manchester splitting Crewe, with a 2nd 1x200m unit via Stoke.

Splitting would only take a minute or two at the platform, so would not block the main line. The second unit could follow immediately behind the first.

Splitting would take longer than a minute. You need to release doors to let people off, close doors, uncouple, reopen doors then despatch. And 2nd train would need to wait for the planning headway. At best the 2nd train is in the platform for 7 or 8 minutes (4 to uncouple, 3 or 4 minute headway).

 

[43096]

Splitting would only take a minute or two at the platform, so would not block the main line.

You have seen the rigamarole that goes on for attaching and detaching currently? There's all sorts of door ceremonies, coupler hatch opening/closing, stopping three times in the coupling process, more door ceremonies, etc etc. But only in Britain, because, y'know, it ticks a risk assessment box somewhere on a bit of paper.

Go to Vienna and such procedures are done routinely, using nothing more than trains with sets of buffers, screw couplings and a man with gloves in the time taken for a British coupling manoeuvre to even start thinking about the process.

 

[Dspatula]

As your line indicates, it would cut across the access of the car park to the station. Also you need a safety zone around the buffer stops in case of a train not stopping, so you would take more than just the lengths of a train you are showing.
If you wanted to extend the platform, would extending it north not be easier?

I had been assuming 10m for buffers for the top image so 96m for 4 car 331 and 106m total space, but 20 metres does seem more likely so avoiding the impact on the carpark.
I'd assume a platform off the main line and a car park extension to the north would be cheaper than rebuilding the junction north of Stoke.
Rebuilding the junction and siding access the to south of the station so they're a bit quicker to use might be the cheaper option overall.
I am as ever no expert.

 

[Starmill]

That might give an extra ~80m platform standage for a 6-car.

It would be a lot less than that because you'd have to play signal tetris. The current platform has pretty terrible signal sighting, but a new installation would need to be compliant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2025 ==

Perhaps the Manchester stopper could then move routinely to the bay rather than terminating in one of the through platforms as often occurs during the day outside the peaks.

Do you mean the other way around?

 

[MarkyT]

It would be a lot less than that because you'd have to play signal tetris. The current platform has pretty terrible signal sighting, but a new installation would need to be compliant.

Agreed, and the buffer arrangements would likely need upgrading to new build standards. Looks like an old-fashioned rail-built stop very close to a platform building today. Upgrade to a modern friction type would eat up some more length no doubt. I guess it's already quite short for a typical 3-car so you only just fit behind the signal. Even if 3 or 4 car standage can't be improved on with a new turnout and signal position, the down main arrival clear overlap benefit might make the work desirable so #3 can be used routinely for the Manchester stoppers.

Do you mean the other way around?

Well usage of #3 is intermittent, with big gaps through the day.

 

[Starmill]

Well usage of #3 is intermittent, with big gaps through the day.

Gaps between when? Weekdays there's a departure at 0725 from platform 2 and that's the only one.

There are arrivals granted but two of them are late evening. So the only one in scope for change is the 1819. Obviously each originating and terminating service is accompanied by the appropriate shunt.

A grand total of two moves a day?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2025 ==

As soon as HS2 starts running, I think there will be a urgent need to extend platforms at Stoke and Crewe to allow 400m trains to split on the way into Manchester, adding capacity without using any more paths through Colwich.

I think that's a big assumption to be honest. Currently all that's being delivered is Old Oak Common - Birmingham Curzon Street.

Getting anything beyond that like Euston - Manchester is going to be one herculean effort and another two decades of work.

 

[MarkyT]

Gaps between when? Weekdays there's a departure at 0725 from platform 2 and that's the only one.

There are arrivals granted but two of them are late evening. So the only one in scope for change is the 1819. Obviously each originating and terminating service is accompanied by the appropriate shunt.

Apologies. I was looking at today's RTT, which has been unusual. The last morning arrival in platfrom #3 was 08:40. It's corresponding departure at 0855 was cancelled. The next service shown in #3 is an empty stock departure to Ardwick booked at 17:52, so I can only assume the stock sat in #3, blocking it all day. I can see from tomorrow's plan that the stoppers are usually accommodated in the bay.

 

[cle]

You can't fit 400m trains into Piccadilly and there are likely to be no paths available through south manchester for a second unit. So you either run one 200m unit, calling at Stoke, Macc, Stockport and Piccadilly (as Avanti do now), or you run two units, one serving Stoke and Macc, and one serving Stockport and Picc.

You do the former, but then you also run 200m via Crewe (also calling Wilmslow/Stockport) - and then there is the below...

I don't believe that there will be a legacy Pendo from Euston to Manchester when HS2 starts. There is no capacity through Colwich. And certainly not via Stoke - any legacy Pendo to serve MK customers will go via Crewe.

There will be, to service MKC-Manchester and a second train via Stoke. This still equates to the 3tph London-Manchester - a like for like in paths via Colwich and also Stockport, the two toughest parts.

Any growth would be at the expense of something else, eg a Birmingham XC. I have my eyes on that South Wales path, sometimes only 2-4 cars - which shouldn't be allowed... it could run out of Victoria instead and go fast to Warrington and Crewe. \

And the Stoke stopper, per this exact topic, could also extend to Curzon Street, and be 6-8 cars using the throughs, giving a local service and fastest ever Birmingham-Stoke.

 

[The Planner]

You do the former, but then you also run 200m via Crewe (also calling Wilmslow/Stockport) - and then there is the below...

There will be, to service MKC-Manchester and a second train via Stoke. This still equates to the 3tph London-Manchester - a like for like in paths via Colwich and also Stockport, the two toughest parts.

Any growth would be at the expense of something else, eg a Birmingham XC. I have my eyes on that South Wales path, sometimes only 2-4 cars - which shouldn't be allowed... it could run out of Victoria instead and go fast to Warrington and Crewe. \

And the Stoke stopper, per this exact topic, could also extend to Curzon Street, and be 6-8 cars using the throughs, giving a local service and fastest ever Birmingham-Stoke.

There is no way that South Wales path will go.