Trivia - Stations that are underengineered for their current usage

[causton]

I may be biased but Watford Junction is obvious - the platforms are dangerously narrow and the subway, barriers and concourse are too small for peak time flows! Needs a big bridge over the top of it, East Croydon style, I think...

 

[Clansman]

Mount Florida would benefit from a platform extension for up to 9 coaches, and having platforms on both sides of each track as well as improved access to cope with the heavy flow during events at Hampden

Glasgow Central would benefit from a major refurbishment both on the high level and low levels to increase the number of platforms for the near future - but how you'd go about doing that is a different story.

 

[Merseysider]

I'd like to tentatively nominate Bidston - it has 2 platforms (island) and under normal conditions Merseyrail run 4tph in each direction.

The hourly Bidston - Wrexham ATWs which also use the West Kirby-bound platform are timetabled to depart as little as 3 minutes before the following WK passes through. The ATWs could really do with having a separate bay platform; things can get hairy if they pick up just a 5 minute delay arriving into Bidston.

This may be a moot point however as considerations are afoot regarding potential extension of the Borderlands line operations through to Birkenhead.

 

[Dryce]

Glasgow Central would benefit from a major refurbishment both on the high level and low levels to increase the number of platforms for the near future - but how you'd go about doing that is a different story.

Glasgow Queen Street High Level is probably a worse offender given the physical restrictions on platform lengths and inclined tunnel route to access it. The impending extensions are quite restricted.

I wonder if a gutsier extension south right along the west side of George Square wouldn't offer a worthwhile payoff in years to come. (And cynically one might think the council would jumpt at building over West George Street to impede access to the square).

 

[sk688]

I'd like to nominate Marylebone for this one. The selling off of the land around it in the 80s means any development I.e further platforms ( which are needed) too expensive. It also results in compromises eg p4,5,6 being a good walk away from the concourse

Could I also put Euston but platforms 8-11 only. The part near the ticket barriers and the ramp, which often gets dangerously congested ( especially if the LM style of " announce platform as close to departure time as possible " is followed), due to the limited circulation area near the LM Ticket office, and due to the tunnel from the underground, which is intensively used

Oxford Circus. Too small to accommodate the huge crowds now, frequently closed during peaks

I also think Baker Street is too small for its current usage, but can appreciate the historical issues involved with any potential rebuild

 

[Cherry_Picker]

As quoted above, Marylebone is a clear example. Lack of platform space in the station itself is there for all to see but a two track railway into the station isn't enough either really, I know the Jubilee/Metropolitan lines out of Baker Street effectively provide the suburban service along that corridor as far as Wembley but the outer London stations in that part of the world (the Sudburys, Northolt Park arguably even the Ruislips) suffer with a lack of service due to constraints at Marylebone.

Coventry might be another example. It can just about handle the service along the Euston - New Street corridor but anything wanting to use the branch lines out to Leamington Spa or Nuneaton seems to cause serious issues and it seems like any possibility of a cross Warwickshire service between Leamington and Nuneaton will always be a non starter because of the layout at Coventry station.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Waterloo East must be another prime example. The platforms themselves are adequate, but the main entrance (and place where you'd expect any ticket office to be) is basically a long corridor - and it only takes a couple of people stopping to look at the screens to check what platform their train is on to half-block said corridor.

Is there any busier station that doesn't actually have a proper entrance/circulation area?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think we could include any station built/rebuilt by BR in the 1960s-1980s where passenger usage has since grown massively here.

St Albans City being a classic example - rebuilt at the wrong time when there was very little money around , desperately needs a second footbridge. (which I believe is being considered) i

 

[Trainfan344]

Norwich and Ely could both do with another Platform I reckon.

 

[AM9]

You may well be right that politically something may have to happen with the Claphams, particularly if there's ever an incident which brings publicity. However as things stand the money simply isn't there and I don't think any serious design work has even been looked at. Much cheaper just to put in some form of crowd management.

Maybe it could be possible to put PEDs in when NTFLs are introduced, - I believe they are both level and straight.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Bedford

London-bound EMT services have to cross to the down slow to stop - usually at Platform 3 - then continue on the down slow until they can cross back to the UF, which is time-consuming and blocks access to the station for Thameslink services for several minutes at a time.

I assume they'll resolve this, one way or another, as part of the electrification project.

 

[HowardGWR]

Maybe it could be possible to put PEDs in when NTFLs are introduced, - I believe they are both level and straight.

TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) not understood here, I am afraid.

update -nor the 4LA unfortunately, for me.

 

[12CSVT]

Oxford Needs south facing bay(s) long enough to accomodate a HST or 2 x class 180. If there is no adjacent land available to increase the size of the station, then maybe an alteration similar to Gravesend should be done (removal of the centre roads to accomodate an extra platform.

Bedford A crossover from the south end of platform 3 to the up fast, and an extra trailing crossover to allow access from platform 3 onto the up slow would ease congestion considerably

St.Albans Could do with a similar layout to Luton with a fifth platform for termnating trains (and a second footbridge, perhaps level with the platform 4 entrance). Yes, I know this would probably mean slicing part of the current taxi rank.

Luton needs a second (and bigger) footbridge

 

[xotGD]

Skipton needs 2 extra platforms.

One for services to Bolton Abbey

The other for services to Colne & beyond.

 

[LiftFan]

Clapham Junction would be a big one - One train is delayed and it screws up all the other trains trying to fit into the platforms like a funnel! On a much smaller note, Frome needs the track doubling so that trains didn't get constantly delayed when waiting for the other to exit the platform, as well as it is way too short for the terminating service from Paddington.

 

[swt_passenger]

Oxford Needs south facing bay(s) long enough to accomodate a HST or 2 x class 180. If there is no adjacent land available to increase the size of the station, then maybe an alteration similar to Gravesend should be done (removal of the centre roads to accomodate an extra platform.

Or as is already planned they could provide an additional down side through platform, forming a western island platform, thereby enabling the existing down side platform to be used for reversing trains back to the south.

Of course they'd probably plan the layout around 5+5 car IETs, as 180s will shortly be history.

 

[The Planner]

There was a plan fairly recently for a south side bay on the up for Oxford which would have been HST length. Bonkers suggestion to remove the middle roads though.

 

[Ianigsy]

I'd nominate the whole of the Ilkley branch- long single-track sections between Dockfield Junction, Apperley Junction and Esholt Junction (essentially the two "legs" connecting the double-track Ilkley-Guiseley section with the Aire Valley main line) and two long sections between Guiseley and Burley and Burley and Ilkley.

It's completely inadequate for the current evening peak timetable (during leaf-fall season it's not unknown for a late-running Bradford-Ilkley to keep the following train from Leeds waiting for ten minutes at Guiseley, while it makes the calls at Menston and Burley) and there's nowhere for a failure to be put out of the way- I've also known an hour's gap in service while an Ilkley-bound unit failed at Guiseley with door problems and had to be run up to Ilkley and back down again.

 

[philthetube]

Maybe it could be possible to put PEDs in when NTFLs are introduced, - I believe they are both level and straight.

PEDs, platform edge doors
NTFL new train for London

I don't thind the platforms are wide enough to fit peds, perhaps someone could supply the widths?

 

[30907]

Skipton needs 2 extra platforms.

One for services to Bolton Abbey

The other for services to Colne & beyond.

What platform do these services currently use?

 

[infobleep]

Oxford, which sorely needs more capacity for London (Paddington) services and a better gateline.

It was OK when they didn't have the gateline. I don't remember any queues then.

 

[infobleep]

I may be biased but Watford Junction is obvious - the platforms are dangerously narrow and the subway, barriers and concourse are too small for peak time flows! Needs a big bridge over the top of it, East Croydon style, I think...

Don't k ow if Wimbledon is under engineered but it could do with a second footbridge.

Also if disruption on the Sutton loop and trains end up stuck outside the station waiting for the single platform to be avilable. The train in the opposite direction might even be at the station or even two stations, head of Wimbledon but you have to wait.

 

[infobleep]

On a personal note I think the Junction before Preston Park as you head north is under engineered. No London trains can run via Hove, skipping Brighton, before about 9am on week day morning. This means no such trains run, as they don't run them via Brighton. They just don't run them or they run additional services to Brighton and additional services from Brighton along the coast. Either way the journey times are not as competitive.

 

[AM9]

PEDs, platform edge doors
NTFL new train for London

I don't thind the platforms are wide enough to fit peds, perhaps someone could supply the widths?

I suppose it depends on the flow. I guess that it would be predominately northbound am and southbound pm. Neither station is an interchange. At least nobody could fall off.

 

[Clansman]

The through platform at Manchester Picadilly is totally inadequate for the amount of useage that it gets. Likewise, Liverpool Central can get pretty congested.

I agree. It's a disgrace.

It should be demolished completely and rebuilt with at least 3 or 4 platforms, no matter the cost, because it's only going to get busier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool Central was done on the cheap, and is now being regretted. It should have been rebuilt from scratch with two island platforms in the first place. It's odd that corners were cut there, given that all the rest of the Link and Loop were near enough full new-build.

 

[Kite159]

Don't k ow if Wimbledon is under engineered but it could do with a second footbridge.

Also if disruption on the Sutton loop and trains end up stuck outside the station waiting for the single platform to be avilable. The train in the opposite direction might even be at the station or even two stations, head of Wimbledon but you have to wait.

Agreed about a 2nd footbridge at Wimbledon at the London end to allow passengers to interchange more easily

 

[fairysdad]

Waterloo East must be another prime example. The platforms themselves are adequate, but the main entrance (and place where you'd expect any ticket office to be) is basically a long corridor - and it only takes a couple of people stopping to look at the screens to check what platform their train is on to half-block said corridor.

Is there any busier station that doesn't actually have a proper entrance/circulation area?

What Waterloo East seems mostly to be lacking is an eastern entrance/exit, where the space where one could go* could be a contender for the sister thread as the area where the Waterloo East and Southwark ticket barriers face off towards each other seems quite large!

(* I assume that when Southwark station was built, the reason this area is like this is because there was supposed to be a station exit here but for some reason the door was never built...)

 

[urbophile]

Skipton needs 2 extra platforms.

One for services to Bolton Abbey

The other for services to Colne & beyond.

I worked as a holiday relief porter at Skipton one summer in the 1960s. The Bolton Abbey/Ilkley trains used to use platforms 5&6 (I'd guess they are still there). One of the jobs used to be to meet (and unload parcels from) two consecutive arrivals , from Leeds and Bradford respectively. It was a great opportunity to skive as there was at least half an hour between them (at lunchtime) and have a kip in the welcome* sun.

*anyone who knows that part of the world will know how welcome, and rare, than can be.

 

[xotGD]

I worked as a holiday relief porter at Skipton one summer in the 1960s. The Bolton Abbey/Ilkley trains used to use platforms 5&6 (I'd guess they are still there). One of the jobs used to be to meet (and unload parcels from) two consecutive arrivals , from Leeds and Bradford respectively. It was a great opportunity to skive as there was at least half an hour between them (at lunchtime) and have a kip in the welcome* sun.

*anyone who knows that part of the world will know how welcome, and rare, than can be.

5 and 6 have long gone but the subway connection to them still exists and is used as a store room. The reinstatement of these platforms is what I was hinting at.

You can't beat a sunny day in the Yorkshire Dales - if you can find one!