Platform Extensions

[matacaster]

I have noticed that, particularly up north, when platform extensions take place, they just make the absolute minimum increase for today's needs. Most of the expense and disruption attached relate to getting equipment, workers, on site and often a longer extension to cater for future growth would be minimally extra. Isn't it time to do a bit of 'predict and provide' up north like they sometimes do in London?

 

[themiller]

Does this one count? Down platform at Silecroft.

 

[neil henderson]

Does this one count? Down platform at Silecroft.

The fox likes it.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Most of the expense and disruption attached relate to getting equipment, workers, on site and often a longer extension to cater for future growth would be minimally extra.

Is that so?

There are a lot of reasons why platforms aren't easily extended - usually there's always something in the way. Junctions immediately adjacent platform ends, level crossings near by, signal post at the end of platform, OLE mast, cabinets galore, a bridge, a tunnel. It's pretty rare for an "easy win".

How much longer would you make a platform? Train unit configuration should be considered - 1 carriage length longer? 2? 4?

There'll be a bit of "chicken and egg" situation with platform extensions. Do you provide a platform that is overly long for today's needs which won't realise its potential until the trains are lengthened (Could be 20-30 years waiting for a renewal of the rolling stock) or do you have overly long trains with a temporary inconvenience of selective door opening before lengthening platforms?

In a perfect world the chicken and egg would come at the same time.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Does this one count? Down platform at Silecroft.

Love it - must be some good captions. Looks like the fox has been banished from his "spot".

 

[Belperpete]

How much longer would you make a platform?

I think that's the problem. You are bound to get it wrong - either the increased length will never be needed (in which case it is a waste of money), or it won't be long enough (in which case, work will still be needed to increase it further, and you won't have saved anything).

Unless you know how long the platform is going to need to be in the future, there is little point in doing it. It adds needless extra cost onto the project. And when investment money is in short supply, that is money that could be better spent on something that is actually needed now.

 

[terryc]

Was there an opportunity missed when Newton-le-Willows station was upgraded last year that the platforms weren't lengthened whilst engineers / plant were already on site? There appears to be plenty of room to the east for around 100m more platform before the curve kicks in.
The new Nova 1's now stop with the doors to the rear 2 units locked out.

 

[Belperpete]

Was there an opportunity missed when Newton-le-Willows station was upgraded last year that the platforms weren't lengthened whilst engineers / plant were already on site? There appears to be plenty of room to the east for around 100m more platform before the curve kicks in.
The new Nova 1's now stop with the doors to the rear 2 units locked out.

It depends on when the N-le-W project was agreed, compared to when it was decided to use the Nova 1's.

 

[themiller]

I think that's the problem. You are bound to get it wrong - either the increased length will never be needed (in which case it is a waste of money), or it won't be long enough (in which case, work will still be needed to increase it further, and you won't have saved anything).

Unless you know how long the platform is going to need to be in the future, there is little point in doing it. It adds needless extra cost onto the project. And when investment money is in short supply, that is money that could be better spent on something that is actually needed now.

The platforms at Silecroft are exactly long enough for a class 156 to stop. I was at the station the other day and the train crept in very slowly so as to stop exactly at the right place so that front and rear doors ware on the platform. If the platform had been longer, the driver could have come in at a higher speed without the worry of stopping with a door off the platform. The extra length would have had a cost but also a benefit. By the way, the platform extends for a considerable length at a lower level from the days when 4 and 6 car 108s stopped regularly.

 

[Belperpete]

The platforms at Silecroft are exactly long enough for a class 156 to stop. I was at the station the other day and the train crept in very slowly so as to stop exactly at the right place so that front and rear doors ware on the platform. If the platform had been longer, the driver could have come in at a higher speed without the worry of stopping with a door off the platform. The extra length would have had a cost but also a benefit. By the way, the platform extends for a considerable length at a lower level from the days when 4 and 6 car 108s stopped regularly.

That is not the same as making the platform longer to cater for potential future needs. I would argue that if trains are having to creep in in order to stop in the right place, then it was not made long enough for today's needs.

 

[Snow1964]

Is that so?

There are a lot of reasons why platforms aren't easily extended - usually there's always something in the way. Junctions immediately adjacent platform ends, level crossings near by, signal post at the end of platform, OLE mast, cabinets galore, a bridge, a tunnel. It's pretty rare for an "easy win".

How much longer would you make a platform? Train unit configuration should be considered - 1 carriage length longer? 2? 4?

There'll be a bit of "chicken and egg" situation with platform extensions. Do you provide a platform that is overly long for today's needs which won't realise its potential until the trains are lengthened (Could be 20-30 years waiting for a renewal of the rolling stock) or do you have overly long trains with a temporary inconvenience of selective door opening before lengthening platforms?

In a perfect world the chicken and egg would come at the same time.

But it can be done, just depends on the budget
An example is Kingston upon Thames, signal moved, platform built across a road, part on an embankment
This was part of the Waterloo suburban extensions from 8-car to 10-car

Here is the Street view, the platform extension is the light grey structure (note it appears to utilise many standard parts),

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.412...4!1su5NILAPTG30tCiM8t-2PwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

If you look to the right there is a (nowadays closed) station entrance which led to the ramp to London bound platform (why use entrance nearest the housing, when you can make people walk around to Wood Street entrance ?), and the newish red brick is a facing to concrete lift tower (and yes a galvanised hanging rail for some kind of hanging lifting frame was included in design)

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't it time to do a bit of 'predict and provide' up north like they sometimes do in London?

Hardly ever done, anywhere, let alone London. I know of several stations in the London area that have platforms extended more than once.

 

[WatcherZero]

I agree the do minimum is a waste, particularly when the train has to carefully stop as it only just fits. Its also particularly annoying when you see intact decommissioned platform length where they fence off the end as no longer required but when they recommission it they only move the fence the bare minimum.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hardly ever done, anywhere, let alone London. I know of several stations in the London area that have platforms extended more than once.

I suspect in hindsight NR must be a bit pi$$ed about all those extensions for SWT’s 455/456 10 car lash ups, that had to be done because the trains couldn’t do SDO. 2 years later and a decision’s made by First to replace them all with new SDO capable stock...

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect in hindsight NR must be a bit pi$$ed about all those extensions for SWT’s 455/456 10 car lash ups, that had to be done because the trains couldn’t do SDO. 2 years later and a decision’s made by First to replace them all with new SDO capable stock...

Not really, as SDO stations do slow up dwell times, not just at the stations concerned but also elsewhere as people tend not to walk through the carriages of busy trains. I suppose a few of the lighter used stations might have ‘got away’.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not really, as SDO stations do slow up dwell times, not just at the stations concerned but also elsewhere as people tend not to walk through the carriages of busy trains. I suppose a few of the lighter used stations might have ‘got away’.

Yes, I really meant they wouldn’t have needed to do every station, which is basically what happened on the Windsor side, with some minor stations towards Windsor and Reading being left with SDO.

 

[tpjm]

We’ve seen in across the north in such a nonsensical way it hurts...

My local (Slaithwaite) was reopened in 1982, capable of accommodating a 2 car train. It was subsequently extended to accommodate 3 cars (or a 4 car pacer), and was again (in 2018) extended further to a 4 car platform. The most recent extension was to accommodate 6 car TPE services stopping during peak hours. Why on earth they didn’t extend the platform to 5 or 6 cars I do not know as the platform is very busy during these periods as a large number of people drive into the village to use the station.

Theres other examples where the platform has been extended two or three times in recent years to accommodate changes in the rolling stock serving the platform. These certainly make for interesting viewing when the surface and edging changes all the way along the platform.

Mossley is another comedy station... the Manchester line was previously capable of taking 4 cars and has recently been extended to hold 5. The same rolling stock has been working this route for two years by locking rear doors out, makes you wonder why they didn’t go the whole way and just make it 6 cars...

 

[jopsuk]

this is happening somewhat on stations in the Cambridge area- Foxton simply had its Down extended to 160m, the Fen line capacity project is 160m platforms and the piece de resistance, the new Waterbeach will only be 160m platforms.

At a time when Greater Anglia will be introducing 120/240m units to services that continue up the Fen line.

At least we got 250m platforms at Cambridge North.

 

[Spartacus]

Unless you know how long the platform is going to need to be in the future, there is little point in doing it. It adds needless extra cost onto the project. And when investment money is in short supply, that is money that could be better spent on something that is actually needed now.

That's it in a nutshell, money's often tight for any rail investment, especially in the North, and for any place you say a platform should be extended longer than currently needed to allow for future expansion, there'll be two or three places that point out that they need platform extensions just to cater for current demand, and there's only money for one or the other.

There's no point extending your house because you're planning on having a bigger family 'some day' while leaving the already leaking roof.

 

[edwin_m]

At least now platform extensions generally don't re-create the platform end ramp, which makes further extension a bit easier.

 

[TEW]

Yes, I really meant they wouldn’t have needed to do every station, which is basically what happened on the Windsor side, with some minor stations towards Windsor and Reading being left with SDO.

There's definitely a few stations that you feel wouldn't have had their platforms extended in SDO capable stock was in operation. There's a few relatively small stations that have very narrow or curved platforms, or required signalling equipment moved.

 

[matacaster]

I agree the do minimum is a waste, particularly when the train has to carefully stop as it only just fits. Its also particularly annoying when you see intact decommissioned platform length where they fence off the end as no longer required but when they recommission it they only move the fence the bare minimum.

Good point, that's exactly the kind of thing I was getting at, not the desperately expensive ones like Huddersfield platform 1 (Penistone line) where a tiny lengthening to tunnel mouth required control boxes to be moved (and more work to complete job at other end). Generally though, the platforms on the Penistone line are being extended and in several cases it would be pretty easy to extend to the original length of the partly disused platforms. The same is true of quite a number of stations in Yorkshire.

 

[Snow1964]

Good point, that's exactly the kind of thing I was getting at, not the desperately expensive ones like Huddersfield platform 1 (Penistone line) where a tiny lengthening to tunnel mouth required control boxes to be moved (and more work to complete job at other end). Generally though, the platforms on the Penistone line are being extended and in several cases it would be pretty easy to extend to the original length of the partly disused platforms. The same is true of quite a number of stations in Yorkshire.

If the platform wall is still there then should be easy to reinstate it.
In many cases might need extra row (or 2) of bricks to raise height, but it is usually cheaper (and easier) to build up the height of a platform few cm than have to remove top surface to relay it.

Not really any logic (except on obscure lines) in having platforms less than 106m (sufficient for 4car x23m or 5car x 20m), especially if there are peak hour commuter trains. I would consider that the minimum for any platform reinstatement on a diesel operated line. Good practice to have at least 5m extra to avoid slow precision stopping being required