How many arrivals / departures per hour can 10 platforms accommodate? Surely upwards of 20 in and 20 out, and probably nearer 30 in and thirty out. That's a lot of capacity for 400m trains. Apologies if service patterns and turnaround times at Euston have been discussed above, but ten still sounds like overkill to me - especially if the Eastern arm is axed.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
HS2 Euston - number of platforms... again...
- Thread starter quantinghome
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It depends on turnaround times. If you assume turnaround times like the Victoria line, you could get rather more than 30 an hour. But I wouldn’t fancy you being able to unload a 400m train from Scotland of passengers, service it, reload it, and have it back on its way in 3 mins and 20 seconds.
On the turnround times assumed, 10 platforms will do 18tph, which leaves some ‘slack’ for late running. Worth remembering that these trains will be driving themselves, so will be very precise in their running into / out of the station.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
No.
AIUI, the 10 platform layout allows 18tph*; the 11 platform layout had a spare platform available at all times. 17tph leaves a spare path, but doesn’t release a platform.
* very roughly, 25 minute turnrounds, 5 minute reoccupation, minus 2 paths, one for each half of the station for the fully conflicting move each half hour. But it’s more complex than that.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Seems ambitious compared to times used for IC services at other London terminals but not unachievable if you've got enough staff available.
As above, it all depends on your turnrounds.
[FACETIOUS] In theory 2 platforms are sufficient for 18tph; the Victoria line does twice as many. [/FACETIOUS]
But, on the turnrounds proposed, 10 platforms matches the capacity of the approaches perfectly.
Avanti routinely plan turnrounds sub 30 minutes now, albeit not on everything. I have personally turned round a long distance train at Euston in 4 minutes, so anything is possible* But given that HS2 is new railway, designed to be extremely reliable, 25 minutes seems generous if anything.
*to comments from the platform staff ... “this isn’t Fenchurch Street mate” (I was keen to make a point)
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I didn't mean 20 per platform - I meant 20 overall - but I think your comment was intended 'tongue-in-cheek'! I see from a post above that planning's based on a 25 minute turnaround time - and I agree with the poster that that seems quite generous. 25 mins may occasionally be needed in the early days while bedding-in etc, but I'd have thought that a few mins could be shaved off this in time - thereby increasing the capacity of the station, when it's needed as later phases are opened.
The issue is that there's no advantage in turning trains around in (say) 21 minutes vs 25 minutes as you'll not be able to use the platform for the extra few minutes.
As I understand it (unless you play random platform allocation) the simple way to manage usage is to have a pattern which allows you have 2tph, 3tph, 4tph, etc. using each platform.
That means 30 minute, 20 minute or 15 minute blocks to work with, with the 5 minutes @Bald Rick mentions that means either 25 minute, 15 minute, or 10 minute turn arounds.
Whilst 25 is probably a bit long, 15 may be more of a challenge to ensure when things are running quite as smoothly as we'd like.
Why use whole hours as the denominator for platforming when there is no need to?
Maybe, but amortised over the lifetime of the infrastructure that's a lot less than an absolute figure sounds, relatively speaking. Let alone as a proportion of the budget, as it stands.
ABB125
Established Member
I'd have thought that 15 minutes would be fine for the London-Birmingham shuttles; at 3tph (I think?) it should be possible to operate these from one platform at Euston (and Birmingham). This in itself could well be enough (combined with the "empty" 18th path per hour) to effectively leave one platform unused each hour (as originally planned with 11 platforms).
You need to weigh up that £500m marginal cost against the benefits that are thereotically generated by the additional 1 service per hour (or whatever it is) over 30/40/50/60 years that you otherwise wouldn't be able to run. One service per hour probably wouldn't offset against that very well (assuming that, with 10 platforms, the most valuable services are prioritised, so it'd be the "straggler" you'd have to be justifying the £500m against).
In part as while hours are what you're using for the timetable, so unless you accept that the 10:20 will use a different platform to the 11:20 which will be a different platform to the 12:20 (which could cause issues for staff and passengers) you're unlikely to gain anything.
As if you've got a resource which you are using for 18 hours a day if your subdivision is too small you still don't gain anything.
For example a platform where you have a spare 3 minutes every hour doesn't equal 60, so you don't even gain one whole path over the course of the day.
However even if you did get something which was of use (say 10 minutes, as that would gain you 3 extra paths per platform per day) you've got to ensure that your timetable for all your services matches those time slots so as to not waste time.
In reality it could be that for some journeys (such as to Birmingham and Manchester where they will be sub 70 minutes and so more akin to commuting journey times than long distance journey times) it could make sense to turn them around in 15 minutes (so 3 services per platform per hour) as the risk of long delays and lots of long distance travelers are likely to be reduced compared to (say) the Scottish services (which could then turn around in 25 minutes).
If the Birmingham and Manchester services where to turn around in 15 minutes then that would reduce the number of platforms from 3 (2 Birmingham, 2 Manchester and 1 of each) to 2 (3 Birmingham and 3 Manchester). In doing so it could solve the issue of the reduction in platforms from 11 to 10.
Although I'm sure someone who actual does timetabling for a job will explain why that won't work in due course.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
All the business about timetabling platforms was discussed a few weeks ago, possibly on this very thread, with an interesting solution suggested by (I think) @quantinghome where all trains would have 20min turnaround except the Scotland ones that get 40. If I recall correctly the current timetable gives 25min, but 55min for the Scotland ones, as they "miss" a slot in the normal pattern that repeats every 30min.
I wonder if the notional second stage of Euston could be revived at some later date if the extra platform turns out to be needed, either because of performance issues or to allow an increase from 17TPH to the 18TPH originally proposed (of which I think one was a Heathrow train so wouldn't have gone to Euston anyway).
I wonder if the notional second stage of Euston could be revived at some later date if the extra platform turns out to be needed, either because of performance issues or to allow an increase from 17TPH to the 18TPH originally proposed (of which I think one was a Heathrow train so wouldn't have gone to Euston anyway).
ABB125
Established Member
That would seem so be a sensible option; perhaps a turnout stub could be installed at a suitable place in the station throat, such that if the extra platform is needed, the track can simply (
) be connected up with minimal disruption (or none) to the HS2 side of the station?I didn’t think you meant 20 per platform, but comparisons to the Vic lien were partly tongue in cheeek, yes!
25 minutes turnround for everything on average is relatively sporty by conventional standards - generally speaking only GW routinely turn long distance services in less than this time at London (and only a small proportion); LNER typically have an hour at Kings Cross, Avanti vary from 25 minutes to over an hour.
It won’t be exactly 25 minutes of course, there will be some variation, as services from Scotland (3h50) will need more attention than services from Birmingham (45 minutes).
Given the potential for some (particularly classic line) services to incur delay resulting in out-of-order running on HS2 metals, should we really expect platforming to be rigid at all? Staff at Euston shouldn't need more than a few minutes to mobilize provided the (new!) infrastructure allows it.
What "issues"? Plenty of terminals run on non-repeating platforms each hour (e.g. Avanti at Euston today).
Technology also helps with phone notifications of when your platform is ready, which escalators to use, etc etc (which will be almost certainly necessary anyway to efficiently load a 400m train)
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It would be necessary to close and demolish a slice of the existing station and build an extension to the HS2 station. The provision or otherwise of a turnout stub would be a drop in the ocean compared to that work.That would seem so be a sensible option; perhaps a turnout stub could be installed at a suitable place in the station throat, such that if the extra platform is needed, the track can simply
If the HS2 planners were asked to develop a London station for the LTS, they would be adamant it couldn't be operated with less than a dozen platforms or so. Yet Fenchurch St seems to manage.
HS2 journey times to Manchester are forecast to be little different to today's Shoeburyness. HS2 journey times to Birmingham little different to Skipton-Leeds. If these trains can be turned round in 10 minutes or less why cant HS2 trains, with platform numbers reduced accordingly?
The whole HS2 mindset seems to be about squandering money on something that can be seen as grand as anything in the world.
HS2 journey times to Manchester are forecast to be little different to today's Shoeburyness. HS2 journey times to Birmingham little different to Skipton-Leeds. If these trains can be turned round in 10 minutes or less why cant HS2 trains, with platform numbers reduced accordingly?
The whole HS2 mindset seems to be about squandering money on something that can be seen as grand as anything in the world.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
See how long it takes to empty a Pendolino and then load again at Euston. You aren't comparing apples with apples.
When London Fenchurch Street was running at maximum capacity, almost everyone knew where they were going already because they did it every day, almost nobody had any luggage beyond their backpack, briefcase, or handbag, and nobody had a reserved seat. Trains were also much shorter than 400m and the doors were wider. It doesn't seem really much more relevant than the Victoria line.
It's disappointing but hardly surprising that the government has gone for the 'cheap and cheerful' option at Euston.
10 platforms are sufficient for 17tph on paper, and indeed if HS2 were a captive network it would probably be excessive.
But of course many of those 17tph will interact with the "classic" network, where trains are much more liable to be delayed. Suddenly 10 platforms doesn't look so generous anymore, and what works in theory leads to delays in practice.
I suspect that this is simply a prelude to the Government shelving the eastern leg - in which case you're never going to run 17tph and it becomes a moot point.
10 platforms are sufficient for 17tph on paper, and indeed if HS2 were a captive network it would probably be excessive.
But of course many of those 17tph will interact with the "classic" network, where trains are much more liable to be delayed. Suddenly 10 platforms doesn't look so generous anymore, and what works in theory leads to delays in practice.
I suspect that this is simply a prelude to the Government shelving the eastern leg - in which case you're never going to run 17tph and it becomes a moot point.
HS2 wont be running Pendolinos. It should be buying new trains optimised for 40-60 minute journeys with door positions and sizes designed to facilitate quick turnrounds. Quick turnrounds=fewer platforms and smaller fleet required
Of course it's relevant-HS2 will be a glorified outer suburban service. If you want a different example Cross Country run long distance HST'S through New St. Probably 80% of the passengers join/alight through relatively narrow end doors. Plenty of passengers have reserved seats and luggage. Yet they manage to get trains through in 10 minutes or less.
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
Pendolinos to Euston today operate much longer journeys that what the HS2 stock will do.
HS2 rolling stock will almost inevitably end up resembling the interior of A Class 185 more than a Class 390.
Some journeys will fit that description, but not all.
Anyway if you can turn a train around in 25 minutes of 10 minutes, it's not going to cut your overall fleet size by much.
Currently the 390's going between London and Manchester require about 5 hours to go there and back, so a 3tph frequency would require 15 units. Under HS2 with a ~30 minute turn around at each end this falls to 3 hours 20 minutes and requires 10 units.
It's possible that you could reduce this to 9 units over 3 hours. However to get this down to 8 units you'd need to reduce the end to end time to 160 minutes, well given that the traveling time each way is 68 minutes that's a 12 minute turn around at each end.
Being comfortable is 10 units, cutting it tight is 8 units. It's hardly going to make a significant saving if you reduce by one or two units. However chances are with such a right turn around you'll much more likely need to use a spare unit in service and so you might end up with nearly the same number of units, it's just that more of them being spare units.
Whilst it's possible to run trains to random platforms, it makes things easier if trains generally run from the same platforms.
For instance, the Birmingham and Manchester trains are likely to have different catering requirements than the Scottish Services. As such is you can (generally) fix the timetable so that the same type of services use the same few platforms it makes the logistics easier.
In an ideal world it would be most helpful to most people of the same platforms were used by the same services.
The service frequency is one factor where this would be helpful. In that you don't really want to mix 3tph services with 2tph services as otherwise you could end up with more time with an empty platform than you need.
Last edited:
- Status