Trivia: Stations that should be rebuilt on a different site

[kevconnor]

I am sure I read comments by someone previously on another thread that the way that Bolton station had built up over time now caused problems with being able to look at extending any of the platforms due to its proximity to the curves to the north of the station and for another reason I cant remember why there was an inability to be able to extend it towards the south either.

 

[Bookd]

Walton on Thames is nowhere near the town centre; the problem (as in many other places) is that the station was built next to the railway line rather than the town centre!

 

[PR1Berske]

Or to put it another way, stations were built where towns used to be, not where they subsequently developed

 

[pdeaves]

Are there any stations that should be rebuilt on a different site, e.g. for better transport links or other reasons?

Rochester.

Oh, hang on...

 

[47271]

It was mentioned at a meeting on the Highland Main Line upgrade that Dunkeld station would possibly be moving further north and that consultants were looking at developing a new transport corridor in the area for both road and rail. The listed station building would be moved to the new site brick by brick and relocated on the opposite side of the railway.

A9 dualling will occupy the present station car park with the new northbound carriageway and make safe road access in from the A9 in its present form - which is far from safe as it is - impossible. As I understand it, the two options left on the table for Dunkeld station are:

1. Bring road access in from the A822 Crieff road and make car parking and the main entrance via the present platform 2. This would be a bit like the 'back entrance' recently created for Gleneagles to get its road access away from the A9.

2. Drop the carriageway of the dualled A9 by 7 metres and allow it to pass the station in a short tunnel. The top deck of the tunnel would become the station car park and direct access restored from Birnam Station Road for the first time in over 40 years.

Neither involve changing the location of the station or that of the A-listed building. However, modern accessibility standards are hopelessly overdue at this station (the platforms are still at their 1860s height) and the A9 project will thankfully force this issue. I think that this may mean that the building COULD be moved north (road and rail travel E-W at this point in the corridor) to allow more space to raise the southbound platform to a modern standard.

 

[BurtonM]

Flowery Field - you could just consolidate it into Hyde North by buliding extra platforms at the latter, which is on one side of a junction.

 

[johnnychips]

Flowery Field - you could just consolidate it into Hyde North by buliding extra platforms at the latter, which is on one side of a junction.

I always felt Hyde North was down a dingy unfriendly road, though I did wonder if there were ever any platforms on the Hadfield line? Something an expert like Paul S could answer...

 

[Pigeon]

A couple of places with 2 stations built by separate companies I think could be merged.

St Albans City and Abbey, Windsor and Eton Central + Riverside, Bradford Interchange and Forester Square are some to name a few.

Plans to link Interchange and Forster Square have existed more or less ever since they came into existence, but nothing ever happened, and then just when it was looking as if they might do it at last some idiot sold the land which had miraculously remained more or less clear up until then...

It's an even bigger shame that it isn't possible to have one big station in place of Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria. Or indeed, that the (admittedly rather vague and nebulous) ideas concerning one mega-terminus in central London for all the different lines never happened.

And to keep them away from ladies of the night. The university has a lot to answer for but thankfully the much needed development of this quarter of the city will go a long way to balance things.

And the university admits women now

Windermere: Was in a fairly convenient location until BR sold the land to Booths supermarket, so everyone has to walk the extra distance to get to the station.

Agreed. Would have been even better if the railway had gone all the way to the lake.

And on the same lines, if instead of going over Shap the line had been built up the Kent valley and tunneled under the fells at the head to come out down Mardale, so Kendal at least would have been on the main line.

Euston Square - would obviously have been more sensibly sited closer to Euston.

Or at the very least had the exit, or another exit, at the closer end.

Or a subway. It is said that there is some other underground structure in the way, but surely it is possible to go underneath it.

Bank - putting the Waterloo and City Line platforms a bit nearer the other platforms would've been nice (Would have required extending the tracks a little).

... put 'em at a lower level and have the GN&C at a lower level too (so as to be able to go under the stuff that is in the way), and the W&C to mainline gauge with a mainline connection at Waterloo, and link 'em up.

 

[ian1944]

Have a look at this map, it looks like the current station has always been a through station. The terminal station was on the site currently occupied by the car park at Yeoman's Shore.

Yes, Tay Bridge and East were NBR stations connected by a tunnel, still existing with only the former station (now just Dundee) open. I postulated a move further east somewhere along this stretch. West was at the end of the CR to/from Perth.

It always seemed strange that the through line from the south came in above sea level (obviously) but dived to go under. If it wasn't practicable to go over the docks because of needed headroom, just go round. Indeed, the line does avoid the docks shown on the map cited, so why not at ground level at least? I understand that the underwater section has needed pumping ever since.

 

[Holly]

Hartford so it's a station on both the Liverpool-Crewe and Altrincham-Chester lines.

Hartford so it's a station on the nearby four track section of the WCML.

Acton Bridge - to the same place as the relocated Hartford station.
Some nice long platforms - Hartford at one end and Acton Bridge at the other!

 

[northwichcat]

Hartford so it's a station on the nearby four track section of the WCML.

Maybe adjacent to the A556 and create a Park & Ride?

 

[Bald Rick]

... put 'em at a lower level and have the GN&C at a lower level too (so as to be able to go under the stuff that is in the way), and the W&C to mainline gauge with a mainline connection at Waterloo, and link 'em up.

If this was London Reconnections, you'd now be banned.

The trouble with lowering the GN is that the Northern line is beneath it. It would be cheaper to build a new tunnel along the whole route.

 

[crehld]

Hellifield: Out in the country, but the line goes past the village a little further south. (Although where it is now does allow the rare trains from Clitheroe to stop there).

Well it is at one end of the village (not completely out in the sticks), but you're never more than 10 mins walk away from the station.

 

[najaB]

Yes, Tay Bridge and East were NBR stations connected by a tunnel, still existing with only the former station (now just Dundee) open. I postulated a move further east somewhere along this stretch. West was at the end of the CR to/from Perth.

I misread your post.

 

[thealexweb]

I've always thought this. I think there's many technical reasons why turning Lostock Parkway into Lostock Junction is a non starter, though.

The station did have four platforms in the past. Has any railway land been sold off and consequently there being insufficient room?

 

[backontrack]

Waterloo (East): In my experience almost everyone who gets off there actually wants to get to Waterloo main. If the platforms had been about 100m further West along the track, this would have been a much shorter walk.

Yes, it is rather annoying that you now have to travel via Southwark - but I wouldn't want to change it, as the money could be better spent further north.

Personally, I also think that Leuchars station is a bit too far from the main town it serves, although I don't think they should move the station... :P

 

[thenorthern]

Pilning as its nowhere near the village and hard to get to.

 

[Train man]

Move Livingston South to Near by Oakbank after the Shotts line gets the wires. Google maps link below.


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8734514,-3.4930954,674m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

 

[12CSVT]

The problem with thirsk, you would have to move the entire east coast mainline 2 mileseast of its current alignment.

Or reopen thirsk town at the cost of the local Tesco, but then part of its route now lies under the A1(M)

Reminds me of a joke about a traveller who visits a town, and suggests to the railway company that the station should be next to the town it serves. An official from the railway company writes back saying it was decided it wouls be better if the station was next to the railway line.

 

[Pigeon]

If this was London Reconnections, you'd now be banned.

The trouble with lowering the GN is that the Northern line is beneath it. It would be cheaper to build a new tunnel along the whole route.

I was thinking of London Reconnections when I posted it

It was the way they carry on about it on there that induced me to dig up as many diagrams of the underground structures in that area as I could find in order to get a handle on the tangle and see exactly what is in the way of what. I figured that since this was (a) not London Reconnections and (b) a fantasy thread with "Trivia" in the title, it was a case of "anything goes"

 

[DarloRich]

If we are just going to suggest moving entire towns or lines or whatever, rather than moving existing stations on existing lines to slightly more convenient locations, i would propose moving Milton Keynes Central to, say, Nice or Monaco or St Tropez.

Before anyone else says it I think I am going to mention Teesside Airport.

Well, Teesside Airport station is a complete farce.

Didn't know we were talking about moving the line as well! BTW why is Teesside Airport station "a complete farce" ?

Thirsk (ditto)

It would be easier to move the town!

 

[jopsuk]

Cambridge. It was deliberately built in a silly place to make it hard for the university students to use it.

Cambridge's current station is actually really well placed for the bulk of the population kiving in Cambridge. It's a bit rubbish for tourists visiting, and for Cambridge University students, but for ARU, locals and existing/future major employers it's well placed- indeed, the city grew east because of the station; the "centre" is quite to the west. If anything, the station is simply too far south- it would be even better were it between Mill Road & Coldhams Lane

 

[Buttsy]

Dent - move the line 4.5 miles closer to the village
Kirkby Stephen - move the line 1.5 miles closer to the town
Oxford - the plans to move the station south to the Oxpens/ice rink (Beckett Street goods) area would have brought the station slightly closer to the town (near the bottom of Westgate shopping centre) and would have allowed the bus station to move there as well to give a better transport interchange.
Yarm - always seemed to be too far south for the centre, on the outskirts of the place - move it north an overbridge?

 

[bradders1983]

A couple of places with 2 stations built by separate companies I think could be merged.

St Albans City and Abbey, Windsor and Eton Central + Riverside, Bradford Interchange and Forester Square are some to name a few.

And how do you plan to do that? :roll:

 

[RichmondCommu]

Dent - move the line 4.5 miles closer to the village

Why on earth the Midland Railway didn't call the station Dentdale is beyond me. It would have made life so much easier!

 

[bradders1983]

Why on earth the Midland Railway didn't call the Station Dentdale is beyond me. It would have made life so much easier!

Or Dent Parkway

 

[D841 Roebuck]

No point in doing so for 2 trains per day, but IF the Scotrail Dunbar services were extended to Newcastle (stopping at Reston, Berwick, Alnmouth, Morpeth and Cramlington, then the closure of Chathill and reopening of Belford (possibly south of the level crossing, to utilise the existing loops) as a bus interchange for Wooler/Belford village/Bamburgh/Seahouses) might make sense.

 

[Howardh]

Lostock Parkway should've been built south of the junction or have platforms built on the Wigan line.

Beat me to it. Daft how it only serves one of the two lines, and to shift it to the eat a touch would have solved everything!

As it is I think there is enough room for platforms and access on the Wigan line, I think it's planned for some time in the future, but why have the cost of four platforms when it could have been just the two?!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Poole could have the platforms moved a bit further towards Weymouth so that they're straight, would probably then allow for coupling and uncoupling units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Similar to Lostock Parkway, Ravensthorpe could be served by Wakefield services if either there were 2 platforms built on that side, or the whole station was relocated the other side of the road bridge. There'd need to be some movement of pointwork for Leeds-Huddersfield services to still call though in that case. Arguably the station as a whole though isn't convenient for the village, as shown by usage statistics it's far and away the least-used station on the route.

When I lived in Kingston upon Thames I always felt the station (or at least the entrance thereof) could do with being moved closer to the river and the main shopping area.