Stations in need of additional platforms

[William3000]

I saw a similar post about stations with too many platforms: Skegness the prime example, but which stations could benefit from additional platforms or are in need of them that could reasonably be reopened to improve existing services/reliability or accommodate additional services. This should be where to do so would be reasonably practicable: for example reopening a bay platform like at Southampton or King’s Lynn, or building new ones as has recently been done at Stevenage, and could be done - e.g. to the east of the station at Leicester on goods sidings etc.

Some stations may have too many bays but not enough through platforms.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I saw a similar post about stations with too many platforms: Skegness the prime example, but which stations could benefit from additional platforms or are in need of them that could reasonably be reopened to improve existing services/reliability or accommodate additional services. This should be where to do so would be reasonably practicable.

Was going to suggest the possible additional platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly (on the viaduct section heading off towards Manchester Oxford Road), but your last condition (above) probably rules that out.

 

[AM9]

Surely if only "reasonably practical" is of interest, then most or all of those have been done, or there isn't a genuine need.

 

[zwk500]

I saw a similar post about stations with too many platforms: Skegness the prime example, but which stations could benefit from additional platforms or are in need of them that could reasonably be reopened

York could do with another North facing bay, next to p8. Additional through platforms are harder to build.
Crewe could do with a north facing bay next to p1.
Bournemouth could do with another platform in the space left by the middle roads.

 

[306024]

Ipswich is a particularly difficult station to plan. There are some examples of trains in sub optimal timings just to fit everything in, now that the regional trains are longer. With Freightliner moving across the road the space should be there, but almost certainly the money isn’t.

 

[Flying Snail]

Crewe could do with a north facing bay next to p1.

A new platform 13 connected to the independent lines to get most of the conflicting moves out of the northern approach to the station would be rather useful as well.

 

[zwk500]

A new platform 13 connected to the independent lines to get most of the conflicting moves out of the northern approach to the station would be rather useful as well.

While I agree it might be useful there's nowhere you can practically fit in a platform long enough unless you tear up the whole of Crewe station and start again.

 

[Halifaxlad]

How about Halifax ?

Ideally if the disused 3rd platform was brought back into use then terminating services could terminate in Platform 2 rather than having to cross paths with services in the opposite direction in order to reach the turnback siding!

 

[zwk500]

Malton is a rather obvious candidate, embarrassed I missed it first time round!
East Croydon could have really done with the 2 extra proposed in CARS, but that looks a very long shot now.

I would say Clapham junction needs extra platforms on the SWML and BML Fasts, but there's no way to fit them in.

 

[william.martin]

When you approach Wolverhampton, you often get held up as the services seem to clash, as I type I realised there is not the capacity for an additional platform however maybe they should remodel the timetable to suit better.
There maybe a reason why they can't do it as I am sure that they would of realised that trains are being held up too often, as soon as I noticed this (years ago) the timetable has not changed on the stour valley to relief Wolverhampton of congestion.
I apologise if it is a bit of topic for the "in need of extra platforms" as it does not, it needs a completely remodeled timetable.

 

[Flying Snail]

While I agree it might be useful there's nowhere you can practically fit in a platform long enough unless you tear up the whole of Crewe station and start again.

I can think of a number of ways to do it without touching the current station.

 

[LLivery]

Clapham High Street. A Southeastern, Overground, Northern Line interchange would be very useful. Likewise, further along at Brockley for a Southeastern, Southern, Overground interchange.

 

[Halifaxlad]

York could do with another North facing bay, next to p8. Additional through platforms are harder to build.

Ironically the disused North facing bay next to P8 did used to be a through platform.

 

[zwk500]

I can think of a number of ways to do it without touching the current station.

Does it involve touching the depot behind platform 12?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2022 ==

Ironically the disused North facing bay next to P8 did used to be a through platform.

When? All the pictures/drawings of York I've ever see show what is now Platforms 6, 7, 8 and the disused edge as 4 bay platforms.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Does it involve touching the depot behind platform 12?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2022 ==


When? All the pictures/drawings of York I've ever see show what is now Platforms 6, 7, 8 and the disused edge as 4 bay platforms.

A long time ago, sorry I can't be more precise but have a look at the planning application for the York Station Gateway development, the above image comes from a document about the stations history and its development.

 

[zwk500]

View attachment 123172
A long time ago, sorry I can't be more precise but have a look at the planning application for the York Station Gateway development, the above image comes from a document about the stations history and its development.

Fair enough, 1877 is the date on that plan. Either way, putting that (back) in as a through platform is neither practical nor desirable. New through platforms would be on the site of the IECC.

 

[iphone76]

Abbey Wood Elizabeth Line definitely needs another platform. If anything goes wrong, things soon stack up as there is currently no slack.

Things will get slightly better next week when the frequency on the Abbey Wood branch reduces, but it would still be good to have a bit of breathing space.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Fair enough, 1877 is the date on that plan. Either way, putting that (back) in as a through platform is neither practical nor desirable. New through platforms would be on the site of the IECC.

That would be expensive Im sure!

I am interested to know why you don't think reinstating it would be a good idea ?

 

[zwk500]

That would be expensive Im sure!

I am interested to know why you don't think reinstating it would be a good idea ?

Because 6 is used for the LNER stopper to connect into the London train and you'd want the additional bay platform for the Harrogate line to be between 5 and 9. Putting it back as a bay allows for smoother operation of each side of the station, without needing permissive signalling and restrictive overlaps that restrict capacity at station throats.

 

[Iskra]

Leeds needs a longer P17, its short length dictating 2 carriage trains between 3 large cities is a ridiculous situation.

Weymouth seemed a bit short of platforms when I visited on a railtour this year, with the railtour having to shunt multiple times in and out of the platforms to allow passengers to alight, water the stock and allow passengers to board, in order to allow local services to get in and out.

 

[Parallel]

Westbury could do with the fourth platform face being brought back into use - quite often seem get held outside the station because there are no platforms available. It sees 2 services an hour towards Bath and Bristol, one train every two hours to Swindon via Melksham, also Weymouth via Yeovil, 1tph to Portsmouth, a few additional SWR services that reverse in the station, a two-hourly London- West of England service and a few other local short workings to Frome, Warminster or Salisbury, plus a fair few terminating trains, trains shunting in and out of the sidings and train crew swaps. Unsurprisingly when there’s disruption, it becomes a bottleneck.

 

[zwk500]

Leeds needs a longer P17, its short length dictating 2 carriage trains between 3 large cities is a ridiculous situation.

Agree with this

Weymouth seemed a bit short of platforms when I visited on a railtour this year, with the railtour having to shunt multiple times in and out of the platforms to allow passengers to alight, water the stock and allow passengers to board, in order to allow local services to get in and out.

The railtour also sometimes will shunt to the sidings to allow a water tanker to retank the train, but also the fact it was able to get in and out suggests that it isn't short of platforms - railtours being additional, not part of the normal service.

 

[NoRoute]

On two track lines, passing through suburban areas with frequent 2 platform suburban stations on the main route, would an additional platform each way allow faster services to over-take the suburban services, thereby releasing additional capacity on the whole route?

The railway's approach of adding station platforms directly onto significant routes has always perplexed me, it's like adding a bus-stop on the side of the motorway.

 

[The Planner]

A new platform 13 connected to the independent lines to get most of the conflicting moves out of the northern approach to the station would be rather useful as well.

Crewe hub does remove some conflicts. 13 is technically still there on the current layout.

 

[PGAT]

Reigate could definitely use an extended 3rd platform.

 

[The Planner]

On two track lines, passing through suburban areas with frequent 2 platform suburban stations on the main route, would an additional platform each way allow faster services to over-take the suburban services, thereby releasing additional capacity on the whole route?

The railway's approach of adding station platforms directly onto significant routes has always perplexed me, it's like adding a bus-stop on the side of the motorway.

Yes and no, it would comprimise the overtaken train by having to have a sizeable dwell when overtaken. You would be adding 3-4 minutes into it, arguably more if you have to have approach control on the loop and the red at the end of the platform.

 

[zwk500]

On two track lines, passing through suburban areas with frequent 2 platform suburban stations on the main route, would an additional platform each way allow faster services to over-take the suburban services, thereby releasing additional capacity on the whole route?

It does, but at the expense of a very long stop for the train being overtaken. Which is why the aim now tends to be to identify 2 stations next to each other, and 4-track the line in between.

The railway's approach of adding station platforms directly onto significant routes has always perplexed me, it's like adding a bus-stop on the side of the motorway.

It's a balance between something or nothing. At least with a train timetable you can accurately predict how disruptive the stop is likely to be.

Reigate could definitely use an extended 3rd platform.

Well, a new 3rd platform and 2 extended ones. Redhill could also do with a Tonbridge bay on the Up side, although a 4-car length may fail the practicality test.

 

[The Planner]

When you approach Wolverhampton, you often get held up as the services seem to clash, as I type I realised there is not the capacity for an additional platform however maybe they should remodel the timetable to suit better.
There maybe a reason why they can't do it as I am sure that they would of realised that trains are being held up too often, as soon as I noticed this (years ago) the timetable has not changed on the stour valley to relief Wolverhampton of congestion.
I apologise if it is a bit of topic for the "in need of extra platforms" as it does not, it needs a completely remodeled timetable.

Wolves, apart from 6, has a pretty flexible layout.

 

[Western 52]

Llanelli could do with the former up bay platform being reinstated for the trains that terminate or reverse there. Other trains can be delayed waiting for platform 1 to be cleared, especially as the timekeeping on the Heart of Wales line can be poor.

 

[JonathanH]

East Croydon could have really done with the 2 extra proposed in CARS, but that looks a very long shot now.

You say that, but it would have had to operate with 4 for a period if the works had proceeded.

One of the problems with the project was that it involved ten years of disruption to achieve relatively little in terms of enhanced services given the bottlenecks elsewhere. (I appreciate that there were operational advantages.)