Stations with just one platform...that could really do with two

[py_megapixel]

Has anyone said Dore yet? That station is a bottleneck for all traffic between two of the largest cities in northern England, surely an extra platform would't be a bad investment.

 

[R G NOW.]

Has anyone said Dore yet? That station is a bottleneck for all traffic between two of the largest cities in northern England, surely an extra platform would't be a bad investment.

Thought this is in the process of being improved.

 

[R G NOW.]

I would say Melksham, Down by Wesbury as it would get a better service, but an additional line needs to be laid first though.

 

[yorkguy]

At Malton there was an island platform that existed between the Scarborough-bound line and the York-bound line; passengers for York had to cross to this island platform. I believe it was by a movable bridge or similar, and that there wasn't a footbridge (happy to be corrected). The island platform was demolished (in the 1960s?) leaving all stopping trains in both directions going through what was previously the Scarborough-bound platform. In the regular timetable I don't think anything was non-stop through Malton in the 1970s and 1980s, but there was plenty of non-stop services in both directions on summer Saturdays.

The trolley crossing at Malton would’ve been a health and safety impossibility today!

 

[james60059]

Kenilworth, along with the re-doubling between Kenilworth Jct and Milverton. Improve capacity at least

 

[The Planner]

Kenilworth, along with the re-doubling between Kenilworth Jct and Milverton. Improve capacity at least

Doesn't need two as it is though.

 

[ivorytoast28]

Tbh any station that has one platform really needs two. It just helps everything.
Specifically Dore and Totley, no idea why they would deliberately create a bottleneck there by reducing it to one line. Others i know of: South hylton as a terminus of the metro, no reason the line should go single fold just before the station, even if it keeps 1 platform there should be two lines for trains to pass each other.
Another maybe less important one is hartlepool, all trains stop there and no real reason why there shouldn't be a second platform to improve reliability and improve frequency

 

[Bletchleyite]

My vote would be for Windermere which would benefit from an extra platform, so excursion trains would be able to come here as a destination. This of course would be dependant on doubling the track along some or all of this branch to cope with increased traffic.

Windermere is a funny one, what is there actually serves it quite well, to be honest, probably better than what was there before. Due to COVID you have to walk round to get into Booths, but in normal circumstances the Booths provides better facilities - toilet, cafe and shopping - than a station on its own would ever provide.

Though yes, I'd agree excursions could provide decent trade, but would, as you say, require both a second platform (for which there is room) and a loop at perhaps Burneside or Staveley. Either that, or I suppose you could do it with only the second platform and no loop if the signalling was adapted to allow "flighting", i.e. sending the charter down just behind the service train.

Just had a read through the thread - I don't think anyone has mentioned Malton, which is the real oddity of a single-platform station on a double-track railway requiring trains to cross over to serve it - is that the only example of that in the UK? I can't think of another.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Just had a read through the thread - I don't think anyone has mentioned Malton, which is the real oddity of a single-platform station on a double-track railway requiring trains to cross over to serve it - is that the only example of that in the UK? I can't think of another.

Maryport is another.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maryport is another.

Thanks, surprised I didn't think of that as I've been to Scarborough precisely once, but round the Cumbrian Coast quite a number of times.

 

[alistairlees]

Windermere is a funny one, what is there actually serves it quite well, to be honest, probably better than what was there before. Due to COVID you have to walk round to get into Booths, but in normal circumstances the Booths provides better facilities - toilet, cafe and shopping - than a station on its own would ever provide.

Though yes, I'd agree excursions could provide decent trade, but would, as you say, require both a second platform (for which there is room) and a loop at perhaps Burneside or Staveley. Either that, or I suppose you could do it with only the second platform and no loop if the signalling was adapted to allow "flighting", i.e. sending the charter down just behind the service train.

Just had a read through the thread - I don't think anyone has mentioned Malton, which is the real oddity of a single-platform station on a double-track railway requiring trains to cross over to serve it - is that the only example of that in the UK? I can't think of another.

Hartlepool

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Crewkerne, Feniton and Whimple

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Surprised that the bizarre layouts at Tisbury and Templecombe haven't merited discussion yet.

Tisbury’s loop outside the station allows for a half hourly service as far west as Yeovil, so Tisbury and T’combe don’t really need any changes as the demand will never justify any more than 2tph. It’s further west where double tracking is needed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Tbh any station that has one platform really needs two. It just helps everything.
Specifically Dore and Totley, no idea why they would deliberately create a bottleneck there by reducing it to one line. Others i know of: South hylton as a terminus of the metro, no reason the line should go single fold just before the station, even if it keeps 1 platform there should be two lines for trains to pass each other.
Another maybe less important one is hartlepool, all trains stop there and no real reason why there shouldn't be a second platform to improve reliability and improve frequency

Somewhere like Sheringham doesn't need two, especially now that the crossing has been reinstated for charters. In the normal timetable there is no need for two platforms at the terminus as by definition that would need a long layover.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Castleford.

Having 2 platforms would reduce the knock-on effects when one train is late, facilitate a through service to York and reduce the number of people getting on a train going the wrong way. And the platform is already there.

Here, here.

 

[Ianno87]

Tbh any station that has one platform really needs two. It just helps everything.
Others i know of: South hylton as a terminus of the metro, no reason the line should go single fold just before the station, even if it keeps 1 platform there should be two lines for trains to pass each other.

What does that solve? Even if frequency increases from 12 minutes to 10 minutes, two platforms is no real advantage; in the event of one late train, the second train just waits outside the station; there's no point it arriving sooner into a second platform as that make the headway spacing between trains worse, not better.

 

[geordieblue]

South Hylton is an extra-long platform anyway, theoretically allowing two sets to stable there at once in the event of a problem.

 

[p.d87]

St Anne's or Ansdell and Fairhaven. Provide a loop for Blackpool South to go 1/2 hourly.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks, surprised I didn't think of that as I've been to Scarborough precisely once, but round the Cumbrian Coast quite a number of times.

Dunbar was a good example until very recently, although slightly different as the single platform was also on a loop off the up side.

 

[Anvil1984]

Hartlepool

Hartlepool has two platforms, the main through platform and the bay platform (used on a Sunday). It does fit in the other thread of places with 2 platforms that could do with 3

 

[alistairlees]

Hartlepool has two platforms, the main through platform and the bay platform (used on a Sunday). It does fit in the other thread of places with 2 platforms that could do with 3

Well, the bay platform is not of much help for increasing through services really. Being only used on Sundays is indicative of that.

 

[Anvil1984]

Well, the bay platform is not of much help for increasing through services really. Being only used on Sundays is indicative of that.

True but in the name of the question or the description, Hartlepool doesn't have just one platform so it doesn't count. The disused platform is currently undergoing survey work and has apparently got funding to be brought back into use so touch wood it happens soon

Actually thought I was getting Deja Vu. This has already been discussed upthread Post 69 etc

 

[Energy]

Doesn't need two as it is though.

Double tracking should be done for the line. Having a second platform isn't needed but would make sense if they double track it. Another platform will not be expensive. There is already a spot for it and a footbridge.

 

[The Planner]

Double tracking should be done for the line. Having a second platform isn't needed but would make sense if they double track it. Another platform will not be expensive. There is already a spot for it and a footbridge.

It is planned to be at some point. CP7 was the last rumour. It was going to be built with two from the start but it got cut out, likely cost and it didnt exactly go to programme as it was.

 

[Jack Hay]

The trolley crossing at Malton would’ve been a health and safety impossibility today!

The trolley crossing was interlocked with the signalling. The trolley slid away under one of the platforms and only then could the signals be cleared to allow a train into the platform. I can see that the lack of guard rails at the sides of the trolley might be frowned upon. Another problem was that when there was a train in the platform, access to the other platform was a bit difficult... but not impossible!