St Pancras Platform 0

[Fyldeboy]

St Pancras is frequently criticised for it's track layout whereby different operators are forced to use only their own limited range of platforms.

Although MML is a relatively modest 'intercity' operation, to restrict it to just 4 platforms necessitates doubling up frequently, with the potential for 'trapped' sets.

How feasible would it be to re-route Midland Rd slightly to the West and build a platform 0 to the west of the current trainshed for the MML?

This would obviously involve clearance, and I don't know the area, but it doesn't seem to be prime commercial or residential land that would need to be cleared?

 

[edwin_m]

Looking at aerial view there might just be room for that, though it would probably be a question of roofing over Midland Road instead of moving it, as there is housing on the other side. Overshadowing of that housing might be a problem though. But I think the current problems with platforming are a short term issue, and when EMR has a uniform fleet of 810s then four platforms should be enough to run the service, and the capacity constraints on Thameslink make it unlikely that there will ever be any more than 6TPH.

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at aerial view there might just be room for that, though it would probably be a question of roofing over Midland Road instead of moving it, as there is housing on the other side. Overshadowing of that housing might be a problem though. But I think the current problems with platforming are a short term issue, and when EMR has a uniform fleet of 810s then four platforms should be enough to run the service, and the capacity constraints on Thameslink make it unlikely that there will ever be any more than 6TPH.

The problem is really in the throat as there isn't much space available for the pointwork without encroaching on the churchyard. It also shouldn't be forgotten that a platform face and the track is needed and a short platform probably wouldn't be worthwhile.

'Bald Rick' wrote about it here in November 2018 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-bedford-and-st-pancras.173040/#post-3713865

 

[geoffk]

To look at this from a different angle, does Eurostar need so many platforms, and what are the practicalities of transferring platform 5 to EMR?

 

[JonathanH]

To look at this from a different angle, does Eurostar need so many platforms, and what are the practicalities of transferring platform 5 to EMR?

It clearly isn't that easy because it is shared with platform 6 and therefore the access to platform 6 from the Eurostar terminal would encroach on the usable space for domestic passengers on platform 5.

 

[David Goddard]

But I think the current problems with platforming are a short term issue, and when EMR has a uniform fleet of 810s then four platforms should be enough

Spot on - the mixed type nature of the MML over the last decade or so has restricted interworking (particularly for the Nottingham fasts). Assuming notionally one platform is dedicated to connect, a uniform IC fleet working five trains per hour in the other three platforms should be fine

It also shouldn't be forgotten that a platform face and the track is needed and a short platform probably wouldn't be worthwhile.

Indeed- its not like its just another face on an "outside" platform

To look at this from a different angle, does Eurostar need so many platforms, and what are the practicalities of transferring platform 5 to EMR?

Possibly not at the moment but you would end up taking 5 and 6 as they are on an island together, else have to install a fence down the middle to separate. Cross platform interchange between Sheffield IET and Paris Eurostar is a long way off pipe dream!

 

[MarkyT]

Possibly not at the moment but you would end up taking 5 and 6 as they are on an island together, else have to install a fence down the middle to separate. Cross platform interchange between Sheffield IET and Paris Eurostar is a long way off pipe dream!

Eurostar's usage of platforms at At Pancras is also complicated by a border security requirement to avoid simultaneous arrivals and departures on the same island, so their passengers can't mix. Their utilisation cannot thus be as efficient as a similar sized domestic terminal.

 

[mmh]

Eurostar's usage of platforms at At Pancras is also complicated by a border security requirement to avoid simultaneous arrivals and departures on the same island, so their passengers can't mix. Their utilisation cannot thus be as efficient as a similar sized domestic terminal.

Which can only be a requirement because of the border being at the departure end and not arrival, or is there another reason? Allowing departing passengers to double back with arrivals could mean somebody being recorded as having left Britain / being in France, when they're not.

The platforms being on an island needn't prevent one of them transferring to domestic use - rebuild the platform layout so it's not an island if you only want to transfer one of them.

 

[JonathanH]

The platforms being on an island needn't prevent one of them transferring to domestic use - rebuild the platform layout so it's not an island if you only want to transfer one of them.

How are you going to do that and still have wide enough separate platforms 5 and 6 for modern standards? I doubt it is feasible at all given the escalators, travelators etc on the current platform 5 and 6 Island which mean that the residual platform 6 island (even if right up against the slewed platform 5 line) would be wider than the new platform 5 island.

The whole of St Pancras is on stilts - do they support where the train line would have to be moved to?

What would happen whilst the platform 4 and 5 running lines are closed for this work?

 

[Bald Rick]

Am I having Deja vu? I swear this came up yesterday on another thread.

It come s up about every 6 months too.

Answers
1) it’s not needed
2) it’s not easy - Midland Road would have to shift, and what is underneath it woul need to be closed for a long time to be rebuilt to support the load (Thameslink)

 

[Fyldeboy]

Am I having Deja vu? I swear this came up yesterday on another thread.

It come s up about every 6 months too.

Thanks for your support Rick, Great to have such a constructive comment from an established user.

Answers
1) it’s not needed
2) it’s not easy - Midland Road would have to shift, and what is underneath it woul need to be closed for a long time to be rebuilt to support the load (Thameslink)

You've been beaten to those points.

I don't give a dooh-dah about St Pancras - I worked on the station for about a fortnights training in 1999 and have never been near the place since. This post was a 'could we', presumably for the benefit of the passengers (for whom the railway runs) and not a 'lets do this brilliant idea'.

 

[YorksLad12]

I don't give a dooh-dah about St Pancras - I worked on the station for about a fortnights training in 1999 and have never been near the place since. This post was a 'could we', presumably for the benefit of the passengers (for whom the railway runs) and not a 'lets do this brilliant idea'.

To be fair to @Bald Rick and others, the question you asked was:

How feasible would it be to re-route Midland Rd slightly to the West and build a platform 0 to the west of the current trainshed for the MML?

To which the answer seems to be "it isn't" for the reasons given.

 

[Clansman]

Out of curiosity, what kind of timetable was St Pancras' domestic platforms designed to handle, and what do they currently see - and how long is the current layout sustainable?

 

[JonathanH]

Out of curiosity, what kind of timetable was St Pancras' domestic platforms designed to handle, and what do they currently see - and how long is the current layout sustainable?

Covered in a few messages here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/st-pancras-no-room-at-the-inn.217692/page-2#post-5147163

The current set up should be sustainable and that will be made easier by the use of uniform 5-car and 10-car 810 formations on the Nottingham and Sheffield services in platforms 2-4 and the Corby electric service in platform 1. The six 7-car Meridians are one factor that complicate things at the moment.

 

[TheBigD]

If my memory is correct, the early/original plan for the MML platforms at St Pancras had platform 4 extended in to the train shed giving a double length platform. It was then changed to the current length and the area used for retail/concourse space etc.

If there is a platform shortage (and with 6 arr/dep per hour for 4 platforms there shouldn't be), wouldn't a lengthened platform 4 be a far cheaper solution than a platform 0?

Happy to be corrected if my memory is wrong.

 

[swt_passenger]

If my memory is correct, the early/original plan for the MML platforms at St Pancras had platform 4 extended in to the train shed giving a double length platform. It was then changed to the current length and the area used for retail/concourse space etc.

If there is a platform shortage (and with 6 arr/dep per hour for 4 platforms there shouldn't be), wouldn't a lengthened platform 4 be a far cheaper solution than a platform 0?

Happy to be corrected if my memory is wrong.

Yes, that was a definite part of the earliest proposals. I’ve got an Arup pdf somewhere that describes the reasoning to change it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for your support Rick, Great to have such a constructive comment from an established user.

That’s fine, happy to help!

Here’s the other thread from the previous day

St Pancras - no room at the Inn

Just waiting outside St Pancras on 1B94 to be told we have an up to ten minute wait (already 6 late) as there are no free platforms. Does this happen regularly?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Fyldeboy]

That’s fine, happy to help!

Lol, that's the sort of response I do approve of