Station Throat redesigns

[Bartsimho]

In 2016 Utrecht Centraal was rebuilt and this included a massive simplification of the station throat leading to the number of switches being 60 from the previous 200.
This helps operational simplicity and reduces maintenance costs. It also helps passengers as the less complex platform pattern means higher frequencies can be achieved. This is also very common in Japan with many station really having completely separate lines like a Metro system despite being mainline.
So to think about what stations could this be done at in the UK. This is more towards the idea of less switches rather than those which need a total redesign (looking at you Sheffield Northern Throat).

My immediate thought in Manchester Piccadilly with it being a known congested throat and it having an engine siding in the middle of the tracks which as far as I can tell doesn't have segregated access either. This combined with Longsight ETMD and Ardwick Depots nearby means to me it feels redundant especially with the 12 terminating platforms.

To me platforms 1-4 should be for the Hope Valley Lines with 2 tracks dedicated to it.
Platforms 5-10 should be for services which run via Stockport and utilise the next 2 tracks with there being no stations on the line between Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction with it becoming 4 track afterwards allowing for fast trains to overtake slow ones in that section.
Platforms 11 and 12 are for terminating services via the Styal line with the 2 tracks being shared with those from Platforms 13 and 14 with commonly used points between these tracks and the central 2 at the throat but also at Slade Lane Junction.

The main issue being that the stations on the Manchester and Crewe line being platforms on the outside compared to and island platform between 2 tracks meaning some crossing is needed as there is not space to build flyovers and dive unders.

 

[JonathanH]

Platforms 11 and 12 are for terminating services via the Styal line with the 2 tracks being shared with those from Platforms 13 and 14 with commonly used points between these tracks and the central 2 at the throat but also at Slade Lane Junction.

Unfortunately, platforms 13 and 14 would need to be moved west to get any sensible access to platforms 11 and 12.

The Manchester Piccadilly throat might need to be dug up, but without moving platforms 13 and 14, and the junction at Ardwick, it isn't going to be as simple as you imply.

 

[jfollows]

My immediate thought in Manchester Piccadilly with it being a known congested throat and it having an engine siding in the middle of the tracks which as far as I can tell doesn't have segregated access either. This combined with Longsight ETMD and Ardwick Depots nearby means to me it feels redundant especially with the 12 terminating platforms.

To me platforms 1-4 should be for the Hope Valley Lines with 2 tracks dedicated to it.
Platforms 5-10 should be for services which run via Stockport and utilise the next 2 tracks with there being no stations on the line between Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction with it becoming 4 track afterwards allowing for fast trains to overtake slow ones in that section.
Platforms 11 and 12 are for terminating services via the Styal line with the 2 tracks being shared with those from Platforms 13 and 14 with commonly used points between these tracks and the central 2 at the throat but also at Slade Lane Junction.

The main issue being that the stations on the Manchester and Crewe line being platforms on the outside compared to and island platform between 2 tracks meaning some crossing is needed as there is not space to build flyovers and dive unders.

This sounds like the 1960 layout, which you can see at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/line-pairings-on-a-4-track-railway.241547/#post-6003988, in which platforms 1-4 were electrified at 1,500V DC and effectively segregated from platforms 5+, and there were routes into platforms 11 & 12 (which were obliterated when platforms 13 & 14 were extended).
The Midland Engine Siding isn't used regularly, I admit, but I don't think its existence does any real harm, otherwise it'd have been removed already.
EDIT In the 1970s when I was a regular user of the station, the segregation of platforms 1-4 was observed for diesel trains as well, the link to/from the up fast was almost never used. The Harwich Boat Train used the slow crossing at Ardwick because it had to use platform 5 (its engine had to run round the stock) but this was the unusual working of the day.

 

[Senex]

This sounds like the 1960 layout, which you can see at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/line-pairings-on-a-4-track-railway.241547/#post-6003988, in which platforms 1-4 were electrified at 1,500V DC and effectively segregated from platforms 5+, and there were routes into platforms 11 & 12 (which were obliterated when platforms 13 & 14 were extended).
The Midland Engine Siding isn't used regularly, I admit, but I don't think its existence does any real harm, otherwise it'd have been removed already.
EDIT In the 1970s when I was a regular user of the station, the segregation of platforms 1-4 was observed for diesel trains as well, the link to/from the up fast was almost never used. The Harwich Boat Train used the slow crossing at Ardwick because it had to use platform 5 (its engine had to run round the stock) but this was the unusual working of the day.

And 5 to 9 were essentially the fast lines platforms (hence the Slade Lane changes), with a point being made at the time about 5, 8 and 9 being significantly lengthened.

 

[jfollows]

And 5 to 9 were essentially the fast lines platforms (hence the Slade Lane changes), with a point being made at the time about 5, 8 and 9 being significantly lengthened.

And, actually, platform 10 was little used in the 1970s, platform 11 was used for parcels trains and platform 12 lost its track at some point before the remodelling but wasn't used by anything at all anyway, there were so few trains compared to today. I agree that a layout reminiscent of the 1960 one would help for the number of trains wanting to use platforms 10-12 today, but then platforms 13 & 14 would need to be drastically changed.

 

[zwk500]

Presumably this thread is inspired by the somewhat high-level overview provided by RMTransit on YouTube?

London Bridge was obviously rebuilt along those lines for thameslink, Piccadilly would definitely benefit from it. Leeds West end is basically operated as such although needs the switches for the constrained platform numbers.
With more space you might get a stricter separation at New Street, Bristol is harder due to the reversals and Cardiff has half of it with the Valley lines but the South Wales Main Lines are very much not.
Part of the problem is that the UK has shared hubs more than central stations like Utrecht - E.g. Leeds/Donny, Manchester Vic/Picc, Bristol TM/Parkway, etc.

If 4-tracking was an option at both ends then turning Sheffield into a Swiss style hub for terminating trains would be worth looking after, but the heritage of the station and lack of.land on approaches makes such an idea almost impossible.

 

[30907]

Fewer switches is pretty basic station design where there is space and traffic flows permit, and has been implemented since the 60s or early 70s (admittedly often during rationalisation, and sometimes overdone, as at York around 1990!).

By contrast mainland European railways have tended to go for maximum flexibility until more recently, though that has changed.