Platform length and capacity at St Pancras

[AndyW33]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #62 were originally in this thread.

Or longer trains.

Pity that each MML platform at St Pancras will only hold at maximum 2x5 car Meridians or a 2+8 HST set then. Longer trains off peak are certainly possible. In the peak many trains are already at the maximum length the station can hold.

 

[HSTEd]

That would fit... an 8 car IEP?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The MML platforms are only marginally shorter than the 276m long Javelin ones at St Pancras. There's an overhead diagram on page 56 of the HS2 Section 2 Register of Infrastructure, which shows the MML platforms as being only 3 7500mm roof spans shorter. That's about 255m long, or enough for a 9 car IEP but only just too short for a 10 car. I'm sure they would find some way to squeeze a 2x5 26m train in if they really needed to.

 

[kevjs]

The MML platforms are only marginally shorter than the 276m long Javelin ones at St Pancras. There's an overhead diagram on page 56 of the HS2 Section 2 Register of Infrastructure, which shows the MML platforms as being only 3 7500mm roof spans shorter. That's about 255m long, or enough for a 9 car IEP but only just too short for a 10 car. I'm sure they would find some way to squeeze a 2x5 26m train in if they really needed to.

So 5 meters too short, looks like that means all the passengers doors fit in the platforms - correct? Presumably the driver can access the north facing cab via the leading carriage, so would the only possible issue be the location of signals at the northern end of the platform?

Doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem if such capacity was needed.

 

[edwin_m]

So 5 meters too short, looks like that means all the passengers doors fit in the platforms - correct? Presumably the driver can access the north facing cab via the leading carriage, so would the only possible issue be the location of signals at the northern end of the platform?

Doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem if such capacity was needed.

If they want to split and join them (as they do today with Meridians) then they need about 5m more than that.

 

[Kettledrum]

The MML platforms are only marginally shorter than the 276m long Javelin ones at St Pancras. There's an overhead diagram on page 56 of the HS2 Section 2 Register of Infrastructure, which shows the MML platforms as being only 3 7500mm roof spans shorter. That's about 255m long, or enough for a 9 car IEP but only just too short for a 10 car. I'm sure they would find some way to squeeze a 2x5 26m train in if they really needed to.

Is it possible to move the buffers 5 or 10m into the original part of the station?

It would mean less passenger circulation space, but the flexibility of being able to get 2 x 5 coach trains into each platform is really useful.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Is it possible to move the buffers 5 or 10m into the original part of the station?

It would mean less passenger circulation space, but the flexibility of being able to get 2 x 5 coach trains into each platform is really useful.

I certainly think that a loss of 10 metres would be too much at the MML waiting area.

 

[takno]

I certainly think that a loss of 10 metres would be too much at the MML waiting area.

10 metres would pretty much the whole of the MML waiting area wouldn't it?

 

[Martin222002]

The MML platforms are only marginally shorter than the 276m long Javelin ones at St Pancras. There's an overhead diagram on page 56 of the HS2 Section 2 Register of Infrastructure, which shows the MML platforms as being only 3 7500mm roof spans shorter. That's about 255m long, or enough for a 9 car IEP but only just too short for a 10 car. I'm sure they would find some way to squeeze a 2x5 26m train in if they really needed to.

I'm not quite sure how you got that 255m figure, as having looked at the station diagram you mentioned the MML platforms appear to be somewhere in the region of 266m (having rounded down) long from the buffers to to where platform end fence is (35.5 x of the 7500mm measurement sections). I also get a figure of 292m (39 x 7500mm) for the Southeastern HS1 platforms, which also differs to the 276 figure you have given.

It's also worth adding that the Network Rail Sectional Appendix gives a figure of 260m for the MML platfroms at St Pancras (pdf page 355).

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm not quite sure how you got that 255m figure, as having looked at the station diagram you mentioned the MML platforms appear to be somewhere in the region of 266m (having rounded down) long from the buffers to to where platform end fence is (35.5 x of the 7500mm measurement sections). I also get a figure of 292m (39 x 7500mm) for the Southeastern HS1 platforms, which also differs to the 276 figure you have given.

It's also worth adding that the Network Rail Sectional Appendix gives a figure of 260m for the MML platfroms at St Pancras (pdf page 355).

The 276m figure comes from a datasheet in the HS1 Technical Specification that I linked to. I didn't measure the platforms from the diagram; I just noted that the MML platforms appeared to be that bit shorter than the Southeastern ones. Some of the confusion might come from the distinction between total and usable platform length. The Sectional Appendix should be authoritative on this.

 

[adamedwards]

Might a solution be for MML to take over St Pancras platform 5? One gets the impression Eurostar isn't rushed when it comes to stock turnrounds, so could possibly cope. The platform would need fitting with screens to separate it from the secure International bit and a bridge over the track to the MML concourse. That might then be arranged to create a longer platform for MML and give them a joining trains platform without the expense of extending the others. (The rump of platform 5 could be used to display some Golden Arrow and Night Ferry coaches as a memorial to past channel crossings.)

 

[RichmondCommu]

(The rump of platform 5 could be used to display some Golden Arrow and Night Ferry coaches as a memorial to past channel crossings.)

In my opinion I don't think the average traveler would be in the slightest bit interested and you would be wasting a valuable resource.

 

[asylumxl]

In my opinion I don't think the average traveler would be in the slightest bit interested and you would be wasting a valuable resource.

If anything wastes valuable resources, it's the idiotic design they chose for the remodelling of St Pancras. Honestly, they couldn't possibly have the great unwashed boarding and alighting their trains under the main shed. The space was needed for those oh so valuable retail units and the frequent, heavily loaded Eurostars.

 

[Magicake]

Some years ago one of the designers told me that it was a design requirement that diesel trains weren't to come into the main shed so as to keep the refurbished roof clean. It always seemed faintly ridiculous to me but hey ho

 

[RichmondCommu]

If anything wastes valuable resources, it's the idiotic design they chose for the remodelling of St Pancras. Honestly, they couldn't possibly have the great unwashed boarding and alighting their trains under the main shed. The space was needed for those oh so valuable retail units and the frequent, heavily loaded Eurostars.

So how would you have accommodated MML, SE and Eurostar services all under the original train shed? Are you suggesting that St Pancras should have been a three tier station with platforms where the shops are in the under croft? How many additional platforms could have been installed if all the shops had been ripped out?

 

[NotATrainspott]

If anything wastes valuable resources, it's the idiotic design they chose for the remodelling of St Pancras. Honestly, they couldn't possibly have the great unwashed boarding and alighting their trains under the main shed. The space was needed for those oh so valuable retail units and the frequent, heavily loaded Eurostars.

They couldn't have done much else when the Eurostar platforms have to be dead-straight and 400m long while the HS1 throat is constrained by the need to have a flyover and turn north-east for the tunnel. End loading of the Eurostar platforms wouldn't work and it would be stupid to load them from a mezzanine level when the entire station is raised up above the ground anyway.

 

[QueensCurve]

If anything wastes valuable resources, it's the idiotic design they chose for the remodelling of St Pancras. Honestly, they couldn't possibly have the great unwashed boarding and alighting their trains under the main shed. The space was needed for those oh so valuable retail units and the frequent, heavily loaded Eurostars.

Given that the station is Grade 1 listed, and the undercroft was required for passenger facilities, it seems difficult to think were else the MML could have been accomodated.

 

[asylumxl]

Given that the station is Grade 1 listed, and the undercroft was required for passenger facilities, it seems difficult to think were else the MML could have been accomodated.

To you and all others who've quoted me, the original plan was to have the MML platforms go some distance in to the shed but the idea was eventually scrapped to allow for more retail and circulation space.

Putting the platforms entirely within the extension had the advantage of allowing for a larger waiting area, which EMT then significantly reduced upon installation of barriers. As a regular user, I can definitely say that more space is often needed.

Both the length of the platforms and the number of them will limit capacity and potential future growth.

 

[asylumxl]

So how would you have accommodated MML, SE and Eurostar services all under the original train shed? Are you suggesting that St Pancras should have been a three tier station with platforms where the shops are in the under croft? How many additional platforms could have been installed if all the shops had been ripped out?

That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting the buffers should have been in place of that cringy Champagne Bar or similar, as was the initial plan for the stations redevelopment.

 

[asylumxl]

They couldn't have done much else when the Eurostar platforms have to be dead-straight and 400m long while the HS1 throat is constrained by the need to have a flyover and turn north-east for the tunnel. End loading of the Eurostar platforms wouldn't work and it would be stupid to load them from a mezzanine level when the entire station is raised up above the ground anyway.

As above.

 

[mr_jrt]

What would have made far more sense would have been to move the British Library and build London's high speed terminus on the site, leaving the St. Pancras shed for the MML.

Failing that, I agree the MML should have had platforms into the shed. Maybe once the MML gets bimode or full electric trains (and the OHLE gets upgraded for 125mph operation!) then the restriction on diesel under the roof becomes moot and they can extend 2 or three of the platforms into the shed over the champagne bar...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

What would have made far more sense would have been to move the British Library and build London's high speed terminus on the site, leaving the St. Pancras shed for the MML.

Failing that, I agree the MML should have had platforms into the shed. Maybe once the MML gets bimode or full electric trains (and the OHLE gets upgraded for 125mph operation!) then the restriction on diesel under the roof becomes moot and they can extend 2 or three of the platforms into the shed over the champagne bar...

Seems remarkably lightly used that champagne bar now the fizzy euphoria of the "longest one in Europe" popped.

Too cold out there anyway IMHO.

 

[RichmondCommu]

What would have made far more sense would have been to move the British Library and build London's high speed terminus on the site, leaving the St. Pancras shed for the MML.

At what cost? Where would you have located the British library?

Failing that, I agree the MML should have had platforms into the shed. Maybe once the MML gets bimode or full electric trains (and the OHLE gets upgraded for 125mph operation!) then the restriction on diesel under the roof becomes moot and they can extend 2 or three of the platforms into the shed over the champagne bar...

I wonder how much it would cost to extend two tracks all the way back into the train shed? In my opinion it would cost way too much money for very little benefit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Both the length of the platforms and the number of them will limit capacity and potential future growth.

A much cheaper solution would be reduce the amount of time that trains are left in the platforms.

I would be interested to know whether MML platform capacity is less now than it was back in the 1990's before the station was redeveloped.

 

[Bald Rick]

A much cheaper solution would be reduce the amount of time that trains are left in the platforms.

I would be interested to know whether MML platform capacity is less now than it was back in the 1990's before the station was redeveloped.

Well there are fewer platforms, so strictly speaking there is less platform capacity.

However, as has been discussed on these very pages before, operating 5 trains per hour from a 4 platform station is hardly at the cutting edge of terminal station train planning.

It is not platform capacity that is the constraint, but line capacity further north with the mix of services on the fast lines between Carlton Road Junction and Bedford South Jn, plus EMTs slightly unconventional views on train turnaround times.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It is not platform capacity that is the constraint, but line capacity further north with the mix of services on the fast lines between Carlton Road Junction and Bedford South Jn, plus EMTs slightly unconventional views on train turnaround times.

This is what I've never understood. Compared to Virgin over at Euston I can't for the life of me think why EMT take such an age to turnaround services.

 

[HSTEd]

The simple solution is upgrades between Grantham and Nottingham to allow Nottingham traffic to be transferred to KGX.
There are 3 8-car platforms at KGX that are going to be going spare soon.
And is 21 minutes really the best available between Nottingham and Derby?

 

[Bald Rick]

This is what I've never understood. Compared to Virgin over at Euston I can't for the life of me think why EMT take such an age to turnaround services.

Because (generally) they want to keep Short trains on lightly used services (eg Corbys) and long trains on busier services. Complicated diagrams result.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And is 21 minutes really the best available between Nottingham and Derby?

I don't see how the journey could be done any quicker given all the tight curves in and around Trent Junction.

 

[Bald Rick]

The simple solution is upgrades between Grantham and Nottingham to allow Nottingham traffic to be transferred to KGX.

Not so useful for anyone at intermediate stations who want to travel to London or Nottngham though. Which are rather more in number than those travelling London to Nottingham.

 

[HSTEd]

Not so useful for anyone at intermediate stations who want to travel to London or Nottngham though. Which are rather more in number than those travelling London to Nottingham.

I am not suggesting total withdrawal.
What I am suggesting is that the fast Nottingham be transferred to the route via Grantham.
That gives you another path for a stopping train to Nottingham or to anywhere else.

St Pancras is not going to be remodelled - and if it is full it will remain full.