My suggestion for single platform stations for double track lines

[The exile]

I was in Japan recently and don't think I saw a single broken lift. Perhaps that's the solution we need!

Hear hear!

As a final “tweak” suggestion to the original proposal- just go for gauntleted track through the platform - no need for double length. Just need to timetable it so trains are well apart at stations.

 

[MarkyT]

ETCS does still have overlaps (Supervised locations) although I believe it is possible to have the SvL concurrent with the EoA location.

The cost of that is a slower approach to the target stopping point. Overlaps still have an important role in throughput.

 

[edwin_m]

Hear hear!

As a final “tweak” suggestion to the original proposal- just go for gauntleted track through the platform - no need for double length. Just need to timetable it so trains are well apart at stations.

With gauntlet track the pairs of rails need to be about a foot apart at minimum, so that one rail doesn't get in the way of the fixings for the other one. That means the train on the pair of rails further from the platform will have an excessive and dangerous gap for people boarding and alighting. If trains can be timetabled to not occupy the platform anywhere near the same time then just have a single track through the platforms, as at Ware and effectively also at Malton.

 

[HSTEd]

As noted, gauntlet track through platforms can only be used by trains on one set of rails, unless the trains are of different widths.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

With gauntlet track the pairs of rails need to be about a foot apart at minimum, so that one rail doesn't get in the way of the fixings for the other one.

Strictly speaking the limit is smaller than that. Australia has significant stretches of three-rail dual gauge track for 1600mm and 1435mm, where the two rails are only ~165mm apart as a result. The point remains entirely valid however.

 

[The exile]

With gauntlet track the pairs of rails need to be about a foot apart at minimum, so that one rail doesn't get in the way of the fixings for the other one.

That’s presumably because it has never been viable or worth the effort to develop a “double rail” that goes into one fixing, rather than because it’s physically impossible.Not proposing it as a sensible solution as the whole thing looks like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

[zwk500]

The cost of that is a slower approach to the target stopping point. Overlaps still have an important role in throughput.

Oh completely agree. Its going to be interesting to see how ETCS is used in complex areas to balance approach speed with locking out the pointwork ahead of the train.
Presumably its still possible to have a functional equivalent of Restricted Overlaps in ETCS?

 

[edwin_m]

That’s presumably because it has never been viable or worth the effort to develop a “double rail” that goes into one fixing, rather than because it’s physically impossible.Not proposing it as a sensible solution as the whole thing looks like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I've seen such a double rail in Germany, but only for tramways which have narrower flangeways.

 

[Mgameing123]

Brunel's original Swindon and Reading stations were like this, and Cambridge station remained like this until recently, although with a scissors crossover replacing the cross tracks.

Metro lines however, wouldn't be very well suited to this sort of station- if there were high frequency services with lots of trains an hour, the flat crossovers would cause disruption.

The ideal place for this sort of station is at a passing loop on an otherwise single track line, ideally on a branch line with relatively little through traffic- in other words, where the line as a whole has a capacity limit anyway, and so a single platform design won't make it any worse. Penrhyn station is the best example. Wikipedia has the attached diagram:

The diagram is also found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penryn_track_diagram_2009.png#mw-jump-to-license

Since this is a speculative forum... Stations are now multi million items. Especially with a footbridge with 2 lifts, which can cost 10M+. And they are pain to use especially for those using the lifts. So as a low-hassle (for the passenger) alternative to a typical 2-platform station, which is also more accessible and puts all the facilities in 1 place, here's an idea!

View attachment 198476

Essentially both the up and down line serve a half of the same platform, by using a central crossover, so switch lines between each station. Not much good for through services but perhaps for a new busy metro line to save a few million in stations

To be fair another solution can be the Danish solution at crossing stations as we like to call them.

Having a platform layout like this:

And connect the platfroms with a foot crossing as long the line speeds aren't too fast on the track the passengers have to cross.

 

[zwk500]

To be fair another solution can be the Danish solution at crossing stations as we like to call them.

Having a platform layout like this:

And connect the platfroms with a foot crossing as long the line speeds aren't too fast on the track the passengers have to cross.

That kind of crossing would not be permitted in the middle of a platform in the UK due to the 915mm height, but there are stations that use ramps on the platform ends where needed.

 

[bavvo]

That kind of crossing would not be permitted in the middle of a platform in the UK due to the 915mm height, but there are stations that use ramps on the platform ends where needed.

Some of the original South Eastern Railway platforms had that layout, with the platforms also not opposite each other, but staggered, with a barrow crossing in between the ends sort of like this;
(Hopefully the formatting sticks after posting)

Still, can't see this ever being approved for a modern installation.

 

[frankmoh]

Some of the original South Eastern Railway platforms had that layout, with the platforms also not opposite each other, but staggered, with a barrow crossing in between the ends sort of like this;
(Hopefully the formatting sticks after posting)
View attachment 198588
Still, can't see this ever being approved for a modern installation.

Mitcham Eastfields is staggered with a level crossing in the middle. Is 2008 still modern these days?

 

[MarkyT]

Oh completely agree. Its going to be interesting to see how ETCS is used in complex areas to balance approach speed with locking out the pointwork ahead of the train.
Presumably its still possible to have a functional equivalent of Restricted Overlaps in ETCS?

I believe so. Defined overlaps can be selected and an appropriate release speed calculated to make a guaranteed stop safely within the selected overrun path if the train passes the end of authority, triggering a trainstop response. A shorter overlap means a slower approach, just as for a Warning route to a Restricted Overlap in TCB colour lights, but in ETCS, it's all more tightly controlled and adapted to the braking performance of the vehicles.

 

[Mgameing123]

That kind of crossing would not be permitted in the middle of a platform in the UK due to the 915mm height, but there are stations that use ramps on the platform ends where needed.

Well as you said you can put them at the end of the platforms but the point still stands.

 

[zwk500]

Well as you said you can put them at the end of the platforms but the point still stands.

Yes but the points are that 1. The UK is already doing that so it's hardly a novel solution 2. It's being phased out as they're subject to misuse (often serious) and 3. putting them at the ends of platforms extends walking routes, sometimes significantly compared to what a footbridge would offer.

 

[Mgameing123]

Yes but the points are that 1. The UK is already doing that so it's hardly a novel solution 2. It's being phased out as they're subject to misuse (often serious) and 3. putting them at the ends of platforms extends walking routes, sometimes significantly compared to what a footbridge would offer.

But you can save alot of money at the smaller stations where as I said the line speeds aren’t high.

 

[Magdalia]

But you can save alot of money at the smaller stations where as I said the line speeds aren’t high.

On railways in Britain, I doubt any new station will be built that require passengers to cross the tracks, and progress is being made on eliminating the need for passengers to cross the tracks at existing stations. A recent example I can think of near here is Littleport, where passengers crossed the tracks until 2020:

Better platform access for passengers at Littleport station

Passengers will start to see a benefit from the investment being made to introduce eight-car services on the Fen line between Cambridge and King’s Lynn.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Passengers will start to see a benefit from the investment being made to introduce eight-car services on the Fen line between Cambridge and King’s Lynn.

Station users at Littleport will have a much improved and safer route to/from Platform 1 to access southbound train services from Monday 24 February,

A new access ramp and staircase has been constructed to allow direct access to the platform from road level together with a dedicated route via an underpass at the south end of the station.

The changes to the station mean that the track crossing, currently the only access to Platform 1, can be permanently removed to allow platform extension work for Platform 2 to continue.

Just along the line at Downham Market, Network Rail proposed a footbridge in 2009, see here:

NEW FOOTBRIDGE TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR DOWNHAM MARKET RAIL USERS

Information for journalists, press, bloggers and the media about Network Rail. Contact the press office to receive news, updates, press releases, videos, pictures, and factsheets, and to arrange interviews, filming and photography

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Network Rail has today (10 August) submitted a planning application to build a pedestrian footbridge at Downham Market station. The proposal is part of Network Rail’s programme to further improve the safety of crossings across the country.

All level crossings are safe if used correctly. Yet, the lack of a physical barrier at Downham Market means that users are more likely to ignore the red light and cross the tracks when it is not safe to do so – something which happens on a daily basis. This constant misuse of the crossing means that Network Rail and the train operating company, First Capital Connect, are increasingly concerned about the risk of a serious incident in the future.

The new footbridge would mean that the current barrow crossing, one of the highest risk crossings on the rail network, would be able to be closed in order to improve safety for pedestrians who have to cross the tracks. It would provide permanent, safe access for rail users between platforms 1 and 2 as well as improved direct access to Fairfield Road car park.

If the planning application is successful, Network Rail aims to complete construction and open the footbridge to the public by summer 2011.

Planning permission for the footbridge was refused, but the barrow crossing was closed anyway. The only walking route between the two platforms at Downham Market is via the road level crossing, an arrangement that also exists at various other East Anglian stations.

The report on the fatal accident at Elsenham in 2005 sets out the main issues.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c9062e5274a42900001d1/R232006_061211_Elsenham.pdf

Investigation into station pedestrian crossings (including pedestrian gates at highway level crossings); with reference to the fatal accident at Elsenham station on 3 December 2005