Platform length and capacity at St Pancras

[duffield]

Are there any direct services to Derby these days via the Earwash Valley?

Yes - one Cross-Country and one East Midlands Trains on Saturday.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P30357/2017/01/07/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80163/2017/01/07/advanced

One EMT on Sunday:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80164/2017/01/08/advanced

I must try to travel on one of these next time I get excess wax affecting my hearing.

 

[Bald Rick]

The primary point was that there aren't enough MML platforms (so you need to add a couple more)

And that primary point is wrong.

There are more than enough platforms on the MML side of St Pancras to operate 8tph 'long distance' services to/from beyond Bedford. (Notwithstanding that there isn't track capacity to get them there.)

 

[CyrusWuff]

It should be pointed out that the post-CTRL layout of St Pancras was set in stone before privatisation, when the basic off-peak service was two trains per hour. Then National Express came along, got Turbostars and doubled it to four (fast and slow Nottingham, Derby stopper and fast Sheffield), and the rest is history.

At one point, Platform 5 was proposed to be dual use, presumably for the proposed Regional Eurostar services, with links to both the NLL (and thence the WCML via Primrose Hill) and ECML.

 

[EM2]

The one factor that no-one has mentioned in all of this discussion is Historic England (formerly English Heritage).
St Pancras is Grade 1 listed, and that means that *nothing* can be done in the way of alterations without the agreement of HE.

 

[mr_jrt]

And that primary point is wrong.

There are more than enough platforms on the MML side of St Pancras to operate 8tph 'long distance' services to/from beyond Bedford. (Notwithstanding that there isn't track capacity to get them there.)

"A key feature causing capacity constraints and affecting performance on this SRS is the mix and sheer volume of traffic between London and Bedford and in particular the problems of platform capacity at St Pancras International and Bedford. St Pancras International has four platforms in the high level part of the station for all East Midlands train services. The limited number of platforms is a capacity constraint, against the background of strong growth in demand for these services in recent years."

https://webcache.googleusercontent....e%20Specifications%202011%20East%20Mids.pdf#5

...or the actual PDF if you prefer:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploa...Plans/Route Specifications 2011 East Mids.pdf

 

[A0wen]

Which is *meant* to be going to Lincoln, but isn't because of rolling stock availability AIUI.


What do you mean "is meant to be going to Lincoln BUT ISN`T" ???
I thought it was a franchise commitment and as a resident of Lincoln we haven`t been told this. Where do you get this information from? Aren`t the IEP bi modes for such routes ?

Sorry - should have been clearer - isn't because it's currently operated by a 91 & Mk4 set which struggles to get to Lincoln shortly after leaving Newark......

Correct, replacement of the 91 & Mk4 with bi-modes or an HST would address this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"A key feature causing capacity constraints and affecting performance on this SRS is the mix and sheer volume of traffic between London and Bedford and in particular the problems of platform capacity at St Pancras International and Bedford. St Pancras International has four platforms in the high level part of the station for all East Midlands train services. The limited number of platforms is a capacity constraint, against the background of strong growth in demand for these services in recent years."

https://webcache.googleusercontent....e%20Specifications%202011%20East%20Mids.pdf#5

...or the actual PDF if you prefer:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploa...Plans/Route Specifications 2011 East Mids.pdf

Perhaps relevant is the next paragraph

"Another major capacity constraint for this SRS is the Bedford station area. The station has five platform
faces in total, but all terminating/starting First Capital Connect services and southbound East Midlands
Trains calling at Bedford must use just three platforms and, together with freight services, they all use
the slow lines between the station and Bedford South Junction. This limits the number of southbound
East Midlands train services that can call and causes congestion during perturbed operations. "

Which I think is the point Bald Rick was making - which is 4 platforms are easily sufficient for 8 tph departures (as an aside Moorgate manages 12 departures an hour out of two platforms in the peaks) - however the problem you've got is the line from Kentish Town northwards is congested with the high volume of Thameslink services - and indeed as the bit of the document I've just added shows, currently Bedford station is also a blocker in terms of providing more services arriving from north of there.

 

[QueensCurve]

Honestly, the current St Pancras has a strong wiff of pretentiousness about it. Given Betjeman was more than happy to satirise the aspiring middle-class (for example "How to get on in soc

I think it is an excellent example of sensitive renovation. The blue roof is a masterstroke.

 

[mr_jrt]

Bedford is having work done on it though - platform 1a has been extended to 12 car length (was this converted to a through platform?), and IIRC there were plans at one point to add the opposite face to the fast platform - there's certainly room for it.

EDIT:
1a's supposed to have been extended years ago (by the end of 2011) - though I can find no evidence of it having actually happened. Anyone know where things are?

 

[Bald Rick]

Bedford is having work done on it though - platform 1a has been extended to 12 car length (was this converted to a through platform?), and IIRC there were plans at one point to add the opposite face to the fast platform - there's certainly room for it.

I'm not sure which Bedford you are talking about, but it's not the one in this country.

 

[OxtedL]

@mr_jrt, are you getting confused with the work done when the Jowett sidings were introduced? I think enough was done to allow 1a to be used as a headshunt for 377s, but making it 12-car would be a big job. It also isn't connected to the mainline.

 

[adamedwards]

Given the comments about line capacity north of St Pancras, I wonder if a dynamic loop could be set up between West Hampstead and Silkstream Junction.

Something like this:

- Down goods line made bidirectional for freight along the west side of the line.
- Main lines both move one line westwards along this section.
- Remaining three lines are then for Thameslink with the central line bi-directional in the peak flow direction.
- Possible extra up loop along the Cricklewood depot site.

Would this enable more Thameslink trains to use the slow lines with fast trains passing the stoppers along this section of the line and thus free fast line paths by removing the blocking effect of trains crossing the up fast at West Hampstead and then back over at the latest south of Bedford?

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm not sure which Bedford you are talking about, but it's not the one in this country.

I beg to differ.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...aled-first-glimpse-of-new-station-for-bedford

"As part of this redevelopment platform 1A is being extended to accommodate 12-car train (currently it can only cater for 4-car services), creating additional capacity and increasing reliability and punctuality. To enable this new platform and track to be built, major changes will be needed to the station building."

 

[urpert]

HS2-HS1 through traffic is another matter entirely, (and not one solved by terminal stations!). Not having a link of some sort is stupid - UIC gauge trains built on the continent for HS2 will have to come in by road for want of a few hundred metres of (admittedly, tunnelled) track, let alone the inability to serve the north with through overnight freight on UIC wagons...but this is a discussion on the MML, so we'll have to leave that one for another day.

According to Roger Ford the plans to have a separate UIC gauge captive fleet for HS2 are now dead. (Latest MR or possibly the one before refers.)

 

[Domh245]

I beg to differ.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...aled-first-glimpse-of-new-station-for-bedford

"As part of this redevelopment platform 1A is being extended to accommodate 12-car train (currently it can only cater for 4-car services), creating additional capacity and increasing reliability and punctuality. To enable this new platform and track to be built, major changes will be needed to the station building."

Dated 16 March 2010? If it's not happened already, it probably never will.

 

[Bald Rick]

I beg to differ.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...aled-first-glimpse-of-new-station-for-bedford

"As part of this redevelopment platform 1A is being extended to accommodate 12-car train (currently it can only cater for 4-car services), creating additional capacity and increasing reliability and punctuality. To enable this new platform and track to be built, major changes will be needed to the station building."

I beg to differ. That didn't happen. Platform 1A can take a train 81metres long. Check the Sectional Appendix.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the comments about line capacity north of St Pancras, I wonder if a dynamic loop could be set up between West Hampstead and Silkstream Junction.

Something like this:

- Down goods line made bidirectional for freight along the west side of the line.
- Main lines both move one line westwards along this section.
- Remaining three lines are then for Thameslink with the central line bi-directional in the peak flow direction.
- Possible extra up loop along the Cricklewood depot site.

Would this enable more Thameslink trains to use the slow lines with fast trains passing the stoppers along this section of the line and thus free fast line paths by removing the blocking effect of trains crossing the up fast at West Hampstead and then back over at the latest south of Bedford?

Well it would be possible, but I'm not sure that it would help. The very nature of Thameslink means that the peak flows in both directions. Cricklewood yard further complicates matters.

 

[mr_jrt]

I beg to differ. That didn't happen. Platform 1A can take a train 81metres long. Check the Sectional Appendix.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can beg to differ all you like, but it's plainly obvious that I was clearly referring to Bedford in this country. I didn't state it had happened, I asked if it had, which eventually we got to.

To that end, I suspect it will be reassessed when EWR eventually makes an appearance, if indeed it ends up running through Bedford Midland at all. Regardless, converting 1a to a through platform would help matters in the meantime as Thameslink could then use it if required inbetween the somewhat infrequent Marston Vale services. Though potentially the pending extension to Corby may reduce pressure on the Thameslink platforms if less services are going to be starting from Bedford.

If EWR does end up running through Bedford then the solution is fairly simple - what are currently platforms 1a and 1 for EWR, platforms 2 & 3 for Thameslink (with a turnback north of the station aligned with the island between the lines), and platform 5 and a new platform 6 for the fast lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can beg to differ all you like, but it's plainly obvious that I was clearly referring to Bedford in this country. I didn't state it had happened, I asked if it had, which eventually we got to.

Apologies. I read "platform 1a has been extended to 12 car length (was this converted to a through platform?)" as a statement that it had happened.

My response to that was before you edited it.

 

[matacaster]

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...

Actually, moving the British library now would provide hs2 with a decent terminal in central London in the old summerstown goods yard with good connectivity to hs1 and the continent.

 

[takno]

Actually, moving the British library now would provide hs2 with a decent terminal in central London in the old summerstown goods yard with good connectivity to hs1 and the continent.

Knocking down the building they've literally just finished right behind it might be a bit contentious.

 

[richieb1971]

Bedford was supposed to be upgraded for EWR from what I recall in the local papers. It never happened.

From what I understand they will demolish the ticket hall (or some of it) and push it towards Ashburnham road. The 1A platform will then be extended into the northern siding and become a platform in its own right.

 

[mr_jrt]

Apologies. I read "platform 1a has been extended to 12 car length (was this converted to a through platform?)" as a statement that it had happened.

My response to that was before you edited it.

That makes sense, thanks. It was my surprise that I couldn't find anything that prompted my edit and query. Funny story though, when looking up unrelated stuff earlier today this cropped up: http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/...tion-upgrade/story-21724694-detail/story.html

I can't say I buy Network Rail's argument that the works became unnecessary due to the platform extensions - 12 car services to Bedford didn't somehow get dreamt up in 2010 after all, they were always the plan, AFAIK.

 

[Chris125]

According to Roger Ford the plans to have a separate UIC gauge captive fleet for HS2 are now dead. (Latest MR or possibly the one before refers.)

I thought that was just phase 1?

 

[Abpj17]

An alternative would be to divert MML long distance services onto the Marston Vale line and into Euston after 2026. I reckon once its been upgraded for East West Rail a journey time of 50 minutes from Bedford to Euston would be possible. EMT services ussually take 39 minutes.

No. Because when Thameslink melts down, there would no MML as an alternative to get home!

Incidentally, I'm moderately certain Thameslink service quality contributes to the sometimes crowded 'waiting area' and MML trains going north.

On St P, the term I can remember most from the documentary about its construction was 'destination station' which rather explains the retail outlets and the champagne bar. (Personally, the shops are great - better than any other major London station I can think of)

 

[urpert]

No. Because when Thameslink melts down, there would no MML as an alternative to get home!

Incidentally, I'm moderately certain Thameslink service quality contributes to the sometimes crowded 'waiting area' and MML trains going north.

On St P, the term I can remember most from the documentary about its construction was 'destination station' which rather explains the retail outlets and the champagne bar. (Personally, the shops are great - better than any other major London station I can think of)

Agreed, though Waterloo runs it close since they built the mezzanine.

 

[adamedwards]

Knocking down the building they've literally just finished right behind it might be a bit contentious.

And repace the 7 story basement under the building. The Victoria Line runs through it!

 

[edwin_m]

No. Because when Thameslink melts down, there would no MML as an alternative to get home!

Incidentally, I'm moderately certain Thameslink service quality contributes to the sometimes crowded 'waiting area' and MML trains going north.

On St P, the term I can remember most from the documentary about its construction was 'destination station' which rather explains the retail outlets and the champagne bar. (Personally, the shops are great - better than any other major London station I can think of)

MML would be available from Euston so would be relatively unaffected by problems on Thameslink, and Bedford passengers would have the choice. However Luton passengers wouldn't, and MML would become vulnerable to WCML problems instead. For those reasons and the extended journey time as well as Euston capacity issues after HS2, diversion via Marston Vale is a thoroughly bad idea.

 

[Phil.]

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.

Worked at Waterloo.