Trivia: Stations with too many/not enough platforms

[thenorthern]

Whenever I pass through Nuneaton I find it strange that there are still 5 WCML platforms in use considering for most the day the only trains that stop there are the London-Crewe semi-fast trains as well as the Coventry to Nuneaton shuttle on Platform 1. In my view platforms 4 and 5 could be removed at Nuneaton and the station would still work fine.

At the same time whenever I am at Stoke-on-Trent I notice that with the amount of trains using platforms 1 and 2 with varying speeds is probably too much for the station to cope with especially when one train is late it has a knock on effect.

It made me think are there any other stations with too many or not enough platforms for their current capacity?

I reckon there are more with not enough capacity rather than too much.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

In my view platforms 4 and 5 could be removed at Nuneaton and the station would still work fine.

Probably not since no southbound WCML trains would be able to call! (The DF (p3) is bi-di but good luck fitting something on there.)

A lot of seaside termini have an excess of platforms - Blackpool North has 8 (7 operational, though I expect there to be only 5 or 6 post-juicing), Skeg Vegas 6 (though only p2 and 3 IIRC are ever used) and arguably Scarborough's 5.

 

[swt_passenger]

Whenever I pass through Nuneaton I find it strange that there are still 5 WCML platforms in use considering for most the day the only trains that stop there are the London-Crewe semi-fast trains as well as the Coventry to Nuneaton shuttle on Platform 1. In my view platforms 4 and 5 could be removed at Nuneaton and the station would still work fine.

Having all four through platforms available allows them to use various permutations of two track railway during engineering work, and still call at Nuneaton. They cannot do this on most of the four track section north of there, because they only have the two platforms outside the slows.

Although it would not be cost effective to add them if they didn't exist already, it would be pretty daft to remove them.

 

[thenorthern]

A lot of seaside termini have an excess of platforms - Blackpool North has 8 (7 operational, though I expect there to be only 5 or 6 post-juicing), Skeg Vegas 6 (though only p2 and 3 IIRC are ever used) and arguably Scarborough's 5.

Good point about seaside termni particularly Skegness.

Having all four through platforms available allows them to use various permutations of two track railway during engineering work, and still call at Nuneaton. They cannot do this on most of the four track section north of there, because they only have the two platforms outside the slows.

Although it would not be cost effective to add them if they didn't exist already, it would be pretty daft to remove them.

Good Point.

 

[najaB]

It made me think are there any other stations with too many or not enough platforms for their current capacity?

For the number of services actually calling there, Perth has an abundance of platforms. I've never seen Platform 3 used for passenger service, and Platform 6 isn't heavily used either. They are used for stabling, however.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Woking just two platforms in each direction available for through services, plus the two bays, unfortunately unless you do double decking you can't do anything with it, due to the road outside the station on the up side and the large block of flats on the down. Services always suffer there due to congestion at peak times and during disruption.

Guildford could do with a couple of extra platforms too, to cope with some of the conflicting movements, however there the constraint is Chalk Tunnel.

 

[Merseysider]

Deansgate could do with a few extra platforms. It's an absolute bottleneck for services heading to or from Piccadilly, with a train passing through every 4 minutes in each direction.

Also, Bidston has only two platforms. This caters for the Merseyrail services but when the ATW pulls up, it can end up delaying/being delayed by them because it has to share Platform 2.

 

[mr_jrt]

Woking just two platforms in each direction available for through services, plus the two bays, unfortunately unless you do double decking you can't do anything with it, due to the road outside the station on the up side and the large block of flats on the down. Services always suffer there due to congestion at peak times and during disruption.

Convert the road to either one way operation or pedestrianise it and you could probably fit another line through, I suspect.

 

[thenorthern]

Piccadilly I would say needs more through platforms and maybe a bay platform for trains arriving from the West. I don't think it would harm Wakefield Westgate to have another platform as well.

The 3rd platforms at Acton Bridge and Penrith The North Lakes seem rather unused most of the time I have seen them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wakefield Westgate could do with a bay towards Kirkgate for sure.

Mirfield has no real need for platform 2, though as it exists already, it comes in handy when things go belly up. That said, if the whole station area was remodelled I'm sure linespeeds could be improved.

 

[rdeez]

I hesitantly suggest Birmingham New Street is a platform or two short of ideal, as trains waiting for a free platform are not an uncommon occurance, even if it's only for a couple of minutes.

In New Street's case, though, I realise that provision of extra platforms is either exceptionally difficult or impossible.

 

[FQ]

Nottingham could do with an extra one as a train is usually waiting for a spare platform.

 

[MarkyT]

Woking just two platforms in each direction available for through services, plus the two bays, unfortunately unless you do double decking you can't do anything with it, due to the road outside the station on the up side and the large block of flats on the down.

I think it might be possible to squeeze in an extra through platform on the south side at Woking by extending the west end bay (Platform 6). Clearly that would require substantial changes to the buildings along platform 5 and a complete rebuild of the south side entrance to provide access over the new track.

There is a single row of car parking between the bay and the nearest block of apartments that might be reacquired to allow the the new through track to skirt around a widened platform and avoid interfering with the pillars, stairways and lift shafts of the existing footbridges. Of course if that nearest tower block had not been built where it is there could have been room for a complete additional island platform as well as the through conversion of 6.

With a new through platform 6, I would shift the Down lines south by one space, leaving platform 4 as primarily an Up platform for accepting trains from the Portsmouth line without conflict with the Up Fast. At the moment 3 individual Up lines trying to squeeze into 2 Up platforms doesn't really fit, especially with the typically fairly long dwells timed at Woking.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Marylebone could use a few more platforms, but adding more still wouldn't solve the problem that it's only served by a two track railway.

Nuneaton is fine. It's essentially two stations, platforms 6 & 7 are pretty much what the old Abbey Street station used to be, right?

 

[Bevan Price]

Piccadilly I would say needs more through platforms and maybe a bay platform for trains arriving from the West. I don't think it would harm Wakefield Westgate to have another platform as well.

The 3rd platforms at Acton Bridge and Penrith The North Lakes seem rather unused most of the time I have seen them.

The third platform at Acton Bridge gets used if they want to let a southbound WCML service overtake a LM Liverpool - Birmingham service, e.g. when the WCML service is a bit late. Probably preferable to holding the LM service at Weaver Junction.

 

[thenorthern]

I hesitantly suggest Birmingham New Street is a platform or two short of ideal, as trains waiting for a free platform are not an uncommon occurance, even if it's only for a couple of minutes.

In New Street's case, though, I realise that provision of extra platforms is either exceptionally difficult or impossible.

I think I read somewhere that there were once ambitions plans to have 2 platforms underneath Birmingham New Street just for use by Cross City Line trains in a similar way to how St Pancras Thameslink. Sadly though it was never built as it would have cut congestion by quite a bit.

 

[southern442]

I think I speak for everyone that travels through this station when I say East Croydon could do with at least 2 more platforms, as a lot of the time some platforms can have frequencies of up to every 4/5 minutes, and a delay there has a huge knock on effect.

 

[Strathclyder]

Hyndland on the North Clyde/Argyle Lines in the West End of Glasgow could do with at least one more platform.
There were plans to add a bay platform recently, but they were dropped.

 

[306024]

On the Great Eastern Railway lets nominate Chelmsford for too few. Three up morning peak trains have to start from the down platform which is a good timetabling puzzle, but doesn't help when there are minor delays in either direction. Not that there is much you can do about it though.

And in the too many category not so Great Yarmouth, a shadow of its former self.

 

[asylumxl]

I nominate the MML side of St Pancras as having too few platforms. When you consider how many were available before and how little room there is for capacity increases, it's rather depressing.

 

[Trog]

Nuneaton is fine. It's essentially two stations, platforms 6 & 7 are pretty much what the old Abbey Street station used to be, right?

No Abbey Street was well down the line towards Water Orton, on the Birmingham side of the junctions to the avoiding line over the Rocker bridge, and the Ashby branch.

See below for various photos.

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/nuneatonabbeystreet.htm

 

[waterlooroader]

Can an argument be made for Wolverhampton?

Discounting the rarely used (Bay) platform 6, Wolverhampton sees 3.8 trains per platform per hour. Birmingham New Street sees 3.4 per hour.

Trains are periodically held at distance signals whilst platforms become available.

Although I would be the first to admit that I have no idea where they would fit another platform; the new platform 4 built on the old sidings, which pushed the station right to the edge of the bridge that the station sits on.

 

[thenorthern]

Crewe was a strange one until 2004 where the Crewe-Derby trains were extended to Manchester Airport where they used the bi-directional platform 1 at Crewe in both directions which was also used by the then First North Western slow trains to Manchester (I think) which made Platform 1 very congested. At the same time Platforms 2, 3 and 4 were hardly used as it was before the London-Crewe LM was introduced and Central Trains didn't use them but all this has changed now. I don't think I have ever seen Platform 2 at Crewe ever used but its useful as an overflow platform if either LM or EMT are running late.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think I speak for everyone that travels through this station when I say East Croydon could do with at least 2 more platforms, as a lot of the time some platforms can have frequencies of up to every 4/5 minutes, and a delay there has a huge knock on effect.

There are plans firming up to do this though, on the west side of the station, there is at least one positive sign in that the new footbridge allows for the necessary width....

 

[ian959]

Can an argument be made for Wolverhampton?

Discounting the rarely used (Bay) platform 6, Wolverhampton sees 3.8 trains per platform per hour. Birmingham New Street sees 3.4 per hour.

Trains are periodically held at distance signals whilst platforms become available.

Although I would be the first to admit that I have no idea where they would fit another platform; the new platform 4 built on the old sidings, which pushed the station right to the edge of the bridge that the station sits on.

The most logical way of adding another through platform at Wolverhampton would be to rebuild the station entrance and continue platform 5 through to platform 6 then add a new bay platform next to the existing bay platform 5 for the Walsall services. You could do the same with adding a bay platform next to the existing platform 6 if that bay really is necessary. The only problem, barring the inconvenience of a total (but justifiable) rebuild of the station buildings is possibly the location of the new footbridge at the end of platform 1.

But yes Wolverhampton does need another through platform, especially if demand on the Shrewsbury line increases.

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't there a fenced off platform at Bletchley?

 

[jopsuk]

Stirling has an excess, though several are used for stabling. I don't think any passenger services actually use 4 & 5 (northern bays). of the southern bays, really only one out of 7, 8 and 10 is actually needed. For through trains to Alloa only 6 is actually needed (one an hour each way is easily handled!). I'd seriously sever the footbridge (perhaps just to passengers- leave it for staff access) to 9 & 10, using 9 just for coal trains and 10 just for stabling- there's no cover out there and no disabled access.

 

[Busaholic]

Crystal Palace former northern bay platform 4 is disused - it wasn't brought back into service when the southern bay platform 3 was, in time for the Overground. Would have thought it could be useful in times of disruption/ engineering work on the Anerley to West Croydon section. I don't think there are any plans for it to be used for the on/off/on/off/on (?) Tramlink extension either.

 

[Bald Rick]

But yes Wolverhampton does need another through platform, especially if demand on the Shrewsbury line increases.

Why would anyone want to go through Wolverhampton? Surely everyone would want to get off to visit the best pub in the world (next door) and the best football club in the world (round the corner) ? Bay platforms seem sufficient!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I nominate the MML side of St Pancras as having too few platforms. When you consider how many were available before and how little room there is for capacity increases, it's rather depressing.

Past platform provision is no guide to current or future requirement.

As has been said previously, if we can't get 6 trains an hour off 4 platforms, we may as well pack up now.

 

[thenorthern]

Dore and Totley station doesn't have enough for sure it should have at least 2.

I have never been that far north but at Inverness there are 7 platforms which may seem excessive but I am not sure as I have never seen how many are used.