Through and bay platforms

[mcmad]

Was the original intention not to run the borders as an extension of
originally the Bathgates (until A2B) and then Fife but the likelyhood of spreading disrutption in Fife onto the single line (and the south end bay platforms) largely put paid to that.

 

[railjock]

Was the original intention not to run the borders as an extension of
originally the Bathgates (until A2B) and then Fife but the likelyhood of spreading disrutption in Fife onto the single line (and the south end bay platforms) largely put paid to that.

That’s how the original Crossrail service to Newcraighall ran but this was changed to minimise delays.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'd argue the bay platforms at Edgware LUL would be more useful had the conversion to through platforms been completed

 

[edwin_m]

I'd argue the bay platforms at Edgware LUL would be more useful had the conversion to through platforms been completed

Only if the development it was intended to serve hadn't been cancelled by introduction of the Green Belt.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Huddersfield has the opposite problem with its bidirectional through platform 4 being used as a pair of bays for most of the day.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Huddersfield has the opposite problem with its bidirectional through platform 4 being used as a pair of bays for most of the day.

That (at least in part) comes down to one of the two East facing bays (5) being very short. At the last May timetable change, that short bay saw very little use as the Wakefield service became diagrammed as a 3-car 144 meaning it had to use 4a or 6. The Leeds via Bradford has a long (>30min) turnaround at Huddersfield and blocks one of those.

When the Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly stopper was split, the Manchester half uses 4b and the Leeds half uses whichever of 4a or 6 isn't occupied by the Bradford service. This in turn meant the Wakefield could only use P5, so can only use a 2-car Pacer, a 153, or a 150 as that's all that'll fit.

 

[Glenn1969]

Platform 5 at Huddersfield is far too short. I did wonder if it could be extended under the Transpennine Route Upgrade?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Platform 5 at Huddersfield is far too short. I did wonder if it could be extended under the Transpennine Route Upgrade?

The medium-term plan should render it obsolete, as only 2 services per hour will terminate at Huddersfield from the East.

 

[PHILIPE]

How about Ormskirk! It was a through platform that is now two bays, so is the opposite way round.

Similarly Kirkby

 

[camflyer]

The 4 bay platforms at Cambridge rather limits capacity at the station.

 

[edwin_m]

The 4 bay platforms at Cambridge rather limits capacity at the station.

But it was much worse until a few years ago.

 

[xotGD]

Newcastle Central lost 6 bay platforms and gained 2 through platforms. Changing requirements and reduced conflicts.

 

[camflyer]

But it was much worse until a few years ago.

True. The island platform and bigger ticket office have helped, though the big improvement which could be made is a new eastern entrance as part of the redevelopment of the Clifton Rd industrial estate#

https://www.railfuture.org.uk/east/...mbridge-Station-Eastern-Entrance-proposal.pdf

 

[Deepgreen]

Redhill! The recent project to provide the additional (through) platform 0 resulted in platform 1 becoming a south-facing bay, when it should have remained a through platform. The cost of re-signalling to permit this has resulted in a sub-optimal layout.

 

[mr_jrt]

Only if the development it was intended to serve hadn't been cancelled by introduction of the Green Belt.

Well, you could argue that even making it as far as Brockley Hill for a P&R would have been very worthwhile - it would have relieved the road pressures around Edgware station massively, and rather handily, would have got the line safely out through the built-up area should things ever change, policy-wise. It would also have probably saved the line between Edgware and Mill Hill East, which would be very useful.

 

[MML]

Redhill! The recent project to provide the additional (through) platform 0 resulted in platform 1 becoming a south-facing bay, when it should have remained a through platform. The cost of re-signalling to permit this has resulted in a sub-optimal layout.

Totally ridiculous layout.
GWR Reading service blocks through platform 0.
Platform 1 now a bay for the Tonbridge shuttle where the 3 car unit sits at the end of the platform without platform canopy.
All the northbound services funnelled into platform 2 while southbound services queued waiting to use platform 3.
Hours spent sat outside Redhill each month.

 

[PeterC]

With hindsight Chalfont and Latimer which would now allow an S8 to operate as a shuttle if necessary or to be held in a platform clear of the branch. Sadly not worth retrofitting. (Would have also allowed freights and locals to be looped when the GCR shared the line)

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Chester - 5 bays but only 3 through platforms so they have had to split them all into a & B to make it work.

Often lots of hanging around at lights outside the station at both ends waiting for a platform.

 

[Aictos]

How about Sheffield?

Link Platform 2C with Platforms 4A/4B and renumber to Platforms 5A/5B.
Extend Platforms 3A/3B to be a though platform and renumber to Platforms 4A/4B

Ideally though the whole station would be remodelled with the following changes:

Platform 1A/1B to stay as it is
Though Line to be served by a new platform numbered as Platform 2A/2B
Platforms 2A/2B become 3A/3B
Platforms 3A/3B become a though platform and numbered as 4A/4B
Platform 2C joins with Platforms 4A/4B and renumber to Platforms 5A/5B
Platforms 5A/5B become a though platform and numbered as 6A/6B
Platforms 6A/6B become a though platform and numbered as 7A/7B with the shunt signal removed and replaced with a full aspect signal
Platform 7 to stay as it is and renumbered to Platform 8
Platforms 8A/8B become 9A/9B

That should provide enough capacity for the next 30 odd years!

 

[iphone76]

Wickford bays - Platforms 1 and 4. Would mean the new trains could fit in the station.

 

[PHILIPE]

Chester - 5 bays but only 3 through platforms so they have had to split them all into a & B to make it work.

Often lots of hanging around at lights outside the station at both ends waiting for a platform.

And one of the bays (alongside platform 1) is not for passenger use.

 

[30907]

How about Sheffield?

Link Platform 2C with Platforms 4A/4B and renumber to Platforms 5A/5B.
Extend Platforms 3A/3B to be a though platform and renumber to Platforms 4A/4B

Ideally though the whole station would be remodelled with the following changes:

Platform 1A/1B to stay as it is
Though Line to be served by a new platform numbered as Platform 2A/2B
Platforms 2A/2B become 3A/3B
Platforms 3A/3B become a though platform and numbered as 4A/4B
Platform 2C joins with Platforms 4A/4B and renumber to Platforms 5A/5B
Platforms 5A/5B become a though platform and numbered as 6A/6B
Platforms 6A/6B become a though platform and numbered as 7A/7B with the shunt signal removed and replaced with a full aspect signal
Platform 7 to stay as it is and renumbered to Platform 8
Platforms 8A/8B become 9A/9B

That should provide enough capacity for the next 30 odd years!

1. The additional platform adjacent to the through road would be very narrow (why only one, BTW) and difficult to provide access to (though it has been done at Gravesend).
2. Sheffield has 5 through platforms for 4 through trains per hour (edit: each way!) plus the two terminating Londons. Does it need more through platforms?

 

[johnnychips]

...
2. Sheffield has 5 through platforms for 4 through trains per hour plus the two terminating Londons. Does it need more through platforms?

I agree it’s impractical and unnecessary, but it is eight through trains an hour. Have you forgotten to double it for the trains in the opposite direction?

 

[jopsuk]

The 4 bay platforms at Cambridge rather limits capacity at the station.

Network Rail have published somewhat speculative plans for adding a second island, that would ideally happen in concert with an eastside entrance. It's going to become a more acute issue, as double-unit West Anglia services when the fleet is replaced won't fit in 2&3. With the current future timetable proposals/stock changes, all that will be able to use 2/3 will be the slow Thameslink (class 700/0) and any Liverpool Street services formed of a single 720/5. Currently the 1Hxx services to Liverpool Street use the bay, but I'd have though there would be a desire to have longer trains on the fast services, as the 2Hxx (which start at Cambridge North) will probably mainly be single units due to calling at shorter platforms.

And if/when the airport services become merged with the norwich services, that's even more use of throughs, less of the bays.

 

[thenorthern]

Manchester Piccadilly I would think is the main one as since the Windsor Link Platforms 13 and 14 are being used by much more services than they are designed to do so.

 

[Taunton]

I lived in Edinburgh for several years in the 1970s and never once saw the mid-platform crossovers used. Don't know if they are now. Apart from the handful of through Aberdeen-London services everything else terminated, but main line services all seemed to use just the two main platforms, generally stopping at the midpoint fouling the crossovers anyway. There were always too many east end bays and not enough west end ones.

A station which could use at least some through platforms is Inverness, all bays, pointing two different directions and linked by a through avoiding line. Some trains have always been run past the station on the avoiding line and then backed into the opposite side of the station, Limerick Junction style, for a range of reasons - transfer of passengers/mail, next working, enabling the loco to be easily released, etc.

 

[Scotrail84]

It has 6. Isn't that enough?

It has 9. Platforms 1 and 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are all through roads.

 

[Steamysandy]

I lived in Edinburgh for several years in the 1970s and never once saw the mid-platform crossovers used. Don't know if they are now. Apart from the handful of through Aberdeen-London services everything else terminated, but main line services all seemed to use just the two main platforms, generally stopping at the midpoint fouling the crossovers anyway. There were always too many east end bays and not enough west end ones.

A station which could use at least some through platforms is Inverness, all bays, pointing two different directions and linked by a through avoiding line. Some trains have always been run past the station on the avoiding line and then backed into the opposite side of the station, Limerick Junction style, for a range of reasons - transfer of passengers/mail, next working, enabling the loco to be easily released, etc.

I used Edinburgh Waverley on a five days a week basis for the best part of 30 years and saw the mid platform crossovers used regularly such as trains via Carstairs leaving old platform 10 crossing to pass whatever was in Platform11 or North Berwick services coming into Platform 1. from Haymarket bypassing old platform 19 to give 2regularly seen examples

 

[TheGrew]

Nobody seems to have said Manchester Victoria which in my experience can get rather congested during rush hour. Though the solution to that might well be extra bays on the western side of the station.

 

[30907]

I agree it’s impractical and unnecessary, but it is eight through trains an hour. Have you forgotten to double it for the trains in the opposite direction?

Knew there was something wrong