Getlink aiming to double the number of destinations from London in ten years

[Bald Rick]

Very pessimistic.

I’ve based that estimate on the size of the space at Stratford provided for security, border control and the post processing waiting area. I have been in there several times.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I’ve based that estimate on the size of the space at Stratford provided for security, border control and the post processing waiting area. I have been in there several times.

Again, you can managing security processing using slots and staggered boarding. I agree that this would be unrealistic if trains originated from St Pancras on these services, I believe that the poster who proposed the idea intended that these trains would begin at Stratford International and board at Ebbsfleet, in addition to the existing services that Eurostar operate from St Pancras.

 

[Chester1]

Oh, this is in the scenario of Scottish independence. Border control would have to be at Berwick most likely.

The train service could be split I.e. An English service between London and Berwick and a Scottish between Berwick and Edinburgh with the border and controls between the two. That would avoid needing passport controls at multiple stations. Eurostar and competitors have fewer options than services that cross land borders.

 

[zwk500]

Again, you can managing security processing using slots and staggered boarding.

In order to utilise the capacity in the way you are suggesting, you would need group 1 (the max departure lounge capacity, c.150people) ready and waiting to board when the train arrives, with Group 2 (the max capacity of the security area, c.50-100 people?) passing through security, while group 3 (everybody else, 700-750 people, assuming 150 joining at Ebbsfleet for the 1,100 capacity train you've been talking about) is held outside the ticket gates. That means you cannot begin processing 2/3rds of your passengers until the train has begun boarding.

I agree that this would be unrealistic if trains originated from St Pancras on these services, I believe that the poster who proposed the idea intended that these trains would begin at Stratford International and board at Ebbsfleet, in addition to the existing services that Eurostar operate from St Pancras.

I assume we're once again completely burying our head in the sand about the track layout at Stratford International?

 

[SynthD]

How would you arrange the public’s interest in boarding 150 people at Ebbsfleet and Stratford, and the rest of the train at St Pancras? It can’t be much of a price cut, with the high fixed costs.

 

[AlastairFraser]

In order to utilise the capacity in the way you are suggesting, you would need group 1 (the max departure lounge capacity, c.150people) ready and waiting to board when the train arrives, with Group 2 (the max capacity of the security area, c.50-100 people?) passing through security, while group 3 (everybody else, 700-750 people, assuming 150 joining at Ebbsfleet for the 1,100 capacity train you've been talking about) is held outside the ticket gates. That means you cannot begin processing 2/3rds of your passengers until the train has begun boarding.

I think I haven't made myself clear enough perhaps.
The train would originate at Stratford International and approximately half of seats available would be sold for boarding there (so approx. 550, split into 3 groups as you suggested) and then another 550 at Ebbsfleet International. I realise this would mean considerable expansion of the security area and departures lounge at Ebbsfleet, but the site is less constrained there, so I think the scheme is worth a trial.

I assume we're once again completely burying our head in the sand about the track layout at Stratford International?

Isn't there a surplus of paths on HS1 and platforms at Stratford International with current service levels?

How would you arrange the public’s interest in boarding 150 people at Ebbsfleet and Stratford, and the rest of the train at St Pancras? It can’t be much of a price cut, with the high fixed costs.

I would start the train at Stratford and stop at Ebbsfleet on the way to Marne-le-Vallee, not St. Pancras. St. Pancras would continue to be the origin point of Eurostar services, I would propose that this service is operated by another operator.

 

[zwk500]

I think I haven't made myself clear enough perhaps.
The train would originate at Stratford International and approximately half of seats available would be sold for boarding there (so approx. 550, split into 3 groups as you suggested)

How often are you planning to do this? having even 500 people hanging around Stratford International Concourse waiting to be called forward won't be fun for the domestic users. It's a big building but the space to stack queues of several hundred people is not infinite.

and then another 550 at Ebbsfleet International. I realise this would mean considerable expansion of the security area and departures lounge at Ebbsfleet, but the site is less constrained there, so I think the scheme is worth a trial.

The site might be less constrained but the building (as at Stratford) isn't magic. It's on an overbridge above the tracks and 'airside' zones can't just be marquees in the car park.

Isn't there a surplus of paths on HS1 and platforms at Stratford International with current service levels?

Not for the extended wrong-road working necessary to terminate in Stratford International's international platforms.

I would start the train at Stratford and stop at Ebbsfleet on the way to Marne-le-Vallee, not St. Pancras. St. Pancras would continue to be the origin point of Eurostar services, I would propose that this service is operated by another operator.

And why would people use this service rather than the one that starts at a station far more convenient for their journey? If you live in Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Manchester, Bristol, Reading, etc getting to St Pancras to then get a Javelin to Stratford and wait in an even more cramped departure hall than at St Pancras is hardly an attractive offer.

 

[vuzzeho]

Hang on, I thought you couldn't turn a train around at Stratty Int'l without either having to run into St Pancras or having to do a lot of wrong-way running through the tunnels out of London.

 

[zwk500]

Hang on, I thought you couldn't turn a train around at Stratty Int'l without either having to run into St Pancras or having to do a lot of wrong-way running through the tunnels out of London.

Correct, for an international train. Which is a point that's just been completely ignored by anybody proposing to start from there.

 

[mad_rich]

Hang on, I thought you couldn't turn a train around at Stratty Int'l without either having to run into St Pancras or having to do a lot of wrong-way running through the tunnels out of London.

I think you can if you switch Southeastern services to P1&4, and use P2&3 as terminating platforms for a 200m train.

Requires a lot of fitting out, but then so does bringing Stratford online. It also requires allowing 200m trains through the tunnel, which AFAIU isn't as forbidden as many people believe it to be.

 

[TheGrew]

I don't see Stratford International ever being used for International Services. Why build the infrastructure when people can hop on the next Javelin and be in St Pancras in 6 minutes?
Reinstating Ebbsfleet, Ashford, or ideally both, would be much more useful.

 

[Krokodil]

Stratford International's purpose was to be the London call for Regional Eurostar, allowing those to serve London without reversal. The other 400 odd passengers would already be on the train. In that context it makes sense as a stop. In the absence of Regional Eurostar the station cannot really serve a useful purpose. I don't think that the OOC box at HS2 even includes passive provision for trains to transfer to the NLL any more, let alone passive provision for a Berne gauge connection with HS1.

 

[AlastairFraser]

How often are you planning to do this? having even 500 people hanging around Stratford International Concourse waiting to be called forward won't be fun for the domestic users. It's a big building but the space to stack queues of several hundred people is not infinite.

The site might be less constrained but the building (as at Stratford) isn't magic. It's on an overbridge above the tracks and 'airside' zones can't just be marquees in the car park.

Not for the extended wrong-road working necessary to terminate in Stratford International's international platforms.

And why would people use this service rather than the one that starts at a station far more convenient for their journey? If you live in Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Manchester, Bristol, Reading, etc getting to St Pancras to then get a Javelin to Stratford and wait in an even more cramped departure hall than at St Pancras is hardly an attractive offer.

1.) Initially an offer of 3tpd for both Ebbsfleet and Stratford, increasing when demand and pathing permits.

2.) Of course the building would have to be extended. However, the market for services SE England to France does have a lot of suppressed demand, and MlV has a huge variety of connections to other regions, so it wouldn't be isolated just to people interested in a Paris holiday.

3.) Another poster helpfully highlighted the international platforms could be swapped if neccesary.

4.) Why would passengers use this service?
Stratford could be conveniently used by the millions of people who live in East London and Essex. These regions are mostly very well connected to Stratford, and the time savings passing security at Stratford, compared to travel to and check in + pass security at Stansted/Luton/London City/Southend, would be considerable.

With Ebbsfleet, it's a convenient location close to several key points of the motorway network (including the Lower Thames Crossing, when that opens) and it has a significant population in the hinterland accessed by direct rail services.

It also has massive underused car parks, and there is a significant portion of people across the country who would be open to taking a reliable international service to a holiday or weekend trip destination, without relying on the unreliable and expensive domestic UK rail network. Hence, giving them the option of driving and parking at the station, with a direct service out of the country, is an attractive offer.

Eurotunnel is another option for these people, but it also means people have to drive on unfamiliar roads at the other end and the French tolled road network that you have to use for at least part of the journey (unless heading to Belgium, Lille or Boulogne) on the other end makes journeys expensive very quickly!

Because of Ebbsfleet's proximity to the motorway network, the coach system I proposed (similar to the Flibco connections to Ryanair-dominated airports that I talked about before) could efficiently deliver passengers from major urban areas outside of the South East in an integrated fare structure with the high speed rail service. I do expect that business and high-end leisure sector travellers will still prefer trains direct from their home city or town to London and will use Eurostar from St Pancras, but not everyone is prepared to use the domestic rail network. Some may be open to a shuttle-style coach connection that many utilise to travel to airports (think the kind of people who mostly drive everywhere, but will use public transport in niche situations).

 

[mad_rich]

I don't see Stratford International ever being used for International Services. Why build the infrastructure when people can hop on the next Javelin and be in St Pancras in 6 minutes?
Reinstating Ebbsfleet, Ashford, or ideally both, would be much more useful.

If you can build capacity at Stratford cheaper and / or better than St Pancras, that's why.

Well connected by lots of lines that don't serve KXSP. If people want to be in St Pancras, they can be there in 6 minutes, as you say.

 

[SynthD]

Another poster helpfully highlighted the international platforms could be swapped if neccesary.

I think the platforms are different heights. The cost of changing this, including escalators and lift, might fall on the company who is asking for it to happen.

 

[zwk500]

1.) Initially an offer of 3tpd for both Ebbsfleet and Stratford, increasing when demand and pathing permits.

So you're also being incredibly inefficient in the use of 'ground' staff.

2.) Of course the building would have to be extended. However, the market for services SE England to France does have a lot of suppressed demand, and MlV has a huge variety of connections to other regions, so it wouldn't be isolated just to people interested in a Paris holiday.

So the operator's going to pay for the building extension?

3.) Another poster helpfully highlighted the international platforms could be swapped if neccesary.

Throw enough cash at it and yes, but 200m trains aren't going to help with the above 2 points in addition to the cash needed to rebuild the station (a very disruptive option as well because you'll need to completely reconfigure the security spaces).

4.) Why would passengers use this service?
Stratford could be conveniently used by the millions of people who live in East London and Essex.

Well we're already not off to a good start if your target market is about a quarter of London and 1 county. All those costs above will have to be spread over quite a thin pool of customers, especially if it's only a 200m train.

With Ebbsfleet, it's a convenient location close to several key points of the motorway network (including the Lower Thames Crossing, when that opens) and it has a significant population in the hinterland accessed by direct rail services.

Although Ebbsfleet isn't without it's connectivity problems (the A2/M25 junction is hardly the most free-flowing piece of road in the country, the proximity to the general north kent urban area and the LTC will bypass it) it does have a role as a P&R site. It certainly used to be used for that purpose for a reasonable amount of business and Disney traffic. However, trying to persuade people to drive around the M25 to get to it when they could fly from Luton or Stansted instead is going to be difficult, so your market is still reasonable regionalised (being generous)

If you can build capacity at Stratford cheaper and / or better than St Pancras, that's why.

But *can* you build capacity at Stratford more cost-effectively than at St Pancras? The fact that the proposals are currently to rebuild St Pancras slightly rather than try and open Stratford suggest that the people running the railway/train companies believe you can't.

 

[TheGrew]

If you can build capacity at Stratford cheaper and / or better than St Pancras, that's why.

Well connected by lots of lines that don't serve KXSP. If people want to be in St Pancras, they can be there in 6 minutes, as you say.

I am highly doubtful building additional capacity would be cheaper at Stratford. I agree there is direct connectivity at Stratford that doesn't exist at St Pancras, but how many people can simply do the Elizabeth Line->Thameslink change at Farringdon. Which I would argue is not likely to be a great deal less convenient than walking through Westfield or using the DLR.

 

[Meerkat]

Correct, for an international train. Which is a point that's just been completely ignored by anybody proposing to start from there.

Not ignored - terminating at Stratford and then the empty train going into St Pancras to turnround is a suggestion if there is line/platform capacity but St Pancras can't cope with any more passengers.

 

[Trainbike46]

Not ignored - terminating at Stratford and then the empty train going into St Pancras to turnround is a suggestion if there is line/platform capacity but St Pancras can't cope with any more passengers.

But with the passenger capacity upgrades for St Pancras that HS1 is pursuing, what would the benefit be over just having those passengers use St Pancras instead?

 

[zwk500]

Not ignored - terminating at Stratford and then the empty train going into St Pancras to turnround is a suggestion if there is line/platform capacity but St Pancras can't cope with any more passengers.

And with HS1 charging per minute of line occupancy, that's a great way to drive up fares by incurring an extra 15 minutes of running time on top of the turnrounds, and long dwells at Stratford.

 

[Meerkat]

But with the passenger capacity upgrades for St Pancras that HS1 is pursuing, what would the benefit be over just having those passengers use St Pancras instead?

It was assuming those wouldn't be enough. Think the discussion started before they were made public anyway.

And with HS1 charging per minute of line occupancy, that's a great way to drive up fares by incurring an extra 15 minutes of running time on top of the turnrounds, and long dwells at Stratford.

HS1 and St Pancras are owned by the same lot no? They might do a deal if there was a St Pancras passenger capacity problem so it was the Stratford terminator (for passengers) or nothing, and no track charges.

 

[zwk500]

HS1 and St Pancras are owned by the same lot no? They might do a deal if there was a St Pancras passenger capacity problem so it was the Stratford terminator (for passengers) or nothing, and no track charges.

HS1 and St Pancras is owned by London and Continental Railways yes, but are also required to offer the same prices to all operators. If I was LCR, I'd want any train occupying track capacity at St Pancras to be available for passenger service, because those designer handbags don't sell themselves.
Important to note that retail is an extremely important income stream for transport companies. Look at Japan railways, Hong Kong Metro, airports, ferry terminals, etc...

 

[martin2345uk]

When's the report on Temple Mills capacity due again..?

 

[Meerkat]

HS1 and St Pancras is owned by London and Continental Railways yes, but are also required to offer the same prices to all operators. If I was LCR, I'd want any train occupying track capacity at St Pancras to be available for passenger service, because those designer handbags don't sell themselves.
Important to note that retail is an extremely important income stream for transport companies. Look at Japan railways, Hong Kong Metro, airports, ferry terminals, etc...

Again i was working on the basis that track/platform capacity was greater than passenger capacity.
If they manage to fix that then there is indeed no point in stopping short.
I reckon they wouldn’t have to offer the same prices if the end bit was non-passenger - it’s clearly not as valuable a path, as you have pointed out.

 

[zwk500]

I reckon they wouldn’t have to offer the same prices if the end bit was non-passenger - it’s clearly not as valuable a path, as you have pointed out.

I don't get the logic here. LCR don't make any money off passenger for empty movements, so why would they be charging *less* for the access, rather than more?

Btw, HS1 charges for access by the minute, it's all in the Network Statement: https://stpancras-highspeed.com/our-company/regulatory/regulatory-docs/. By the time you've added all the charges up, Stopping at Stratford and then running empty out-and-back isn't going to help any operator offer lower fares.

 

[vuzzeho]

2.) Of course the building would have to be extended. However, the market for services SE England to France does have a lot of suppressed demand, and MlV has a huge variety of connections to other regions, so it wouldn't be isolated just to people interested in a Paris holiday.

Where exactly would this extension go? Building over the platforms is massively disruptive to all of HS1, and with Westfield and East Village, where would it go?

 

[stuving]

For the record, LCR stopped owning or running HS1 and St Pancras many years ago. It is now a government-owned property company, used for example to park bits of land needing to be sold off.

Union Railways (North) Ltd was spun off to own HS1, and was later renamed HS1 Ltd. But as of last month it changed its name to London St. Pancras Highspeed. I think that is a simple name change, though it's not visible at Companies House yet. It's sometimes hard to know what's going on with these companies; High Speed One (HS1) Ltd was set up owned by LCR in 2007, and has been dormant - but with a full complement of directors (some shared with HS1 Ltd) - ever since.

 

[TheWierdOne]

When's the report on Temple Mills capacity due again..?

No fixed date, but soon I would imagine. Does anyone know if this report will be publicly released?

 

[zwk500]

Does anyone know if this report will be publicly released?

I expect at least the outcome will need to be, given the ORR's function as the regulator.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't get the logic here. LCR don't make any money off passenger for empty movements, so why would they be charging *less* for the access, rather than more?

The hypothetical scenario is that St Pancras can’t take any more passengers (despite track/platforms being available)
An operator is considering emptying at Stratford and running empty into St Pancras to turnaround . They say it’s not viable to pay standard access charges into St Pancras. LCR either offer lower fees for the empty bit and get something, or they get nothing as the service doesn’t happen.

It’s all irrelevant if LCR can match passenger capacity to track/platform capacity at St P.