Euston 'level decking' and over-throat development - post-Higgins plans

[swt_passenger]

In light of pablo's subsequent post, I now really have no idea what he was getting at in post #86; anyone else wondering?

 

[The Planner]

Presumably this is on the assumption that the Tring locals go onto Crossrail so platforms 17 and 18 are no longer needed for classic services, as the HS services appear to be going there?

No, the whole lot still uses Euston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, the whole lot still uses Euston.

That's going to work. In a "not going to work" sense...

Neil

 

[Will222]

Is there not a bigger picture to this latest Euston story?

Camden resist a full rebuild due to land take issues, while insisting on social housing levels in the project that would make it uneconomic. Central government make clear the HS2 budget won't be increased again either. So HS2 instead come up with a bare bones proposal that fulfills their narrow brief, while delivering no local regeneration, while extending the construction disruption by a decade or two.

And this after the Chancellor and Mayor say such plans are not adequate. Indeed Boris's Phase 1 petition specifically objects to the unambitious Euston proposal.

End result - more compulsory land take for development, loosening of social housing requirements and a sharing of the costs between HS2, TFL, LDA and central rail budget. When politics meets business...

 

[Mojo]

That's going to work. In a "not going to work" sense...

Will there not be some scope to reduce the Intercity services travelling to Euston on lignes classiques once HS1 opens, though? Will Birmingham and Manchester both really need 3 fast services per hour operated by the WCML operator, for example?

 

[HSTEd]

A rebuild at the soon to be half empty King's Cross would make more sense than using Waterloo in combination with Euston - would also keep all the High Speed services in fairly close proximity.
But then I prefer to get HS2 into only Euston and keep KGX available for the next High Speed line.

 

[edwin_m]

A rebuild at the soon to be half empty King's Cross would make more sense than using Waterloo in combination with Euston - would also keep all the High Speed services in fairly close proximity.
But then I prefer to get HS2 into only Euston and keep KGX available for the next High Speed line.

Why will Kings Cross be empty? It's only losing a few GN trains to Thameslink. And I'd be interested to see how it could be reconfigured to handle 400m trains, given that it's about that distance from the stops to the tunnel portals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will there not be some scope to reduce the Intercity services travelling to Euston on lignes classiques once HS1 opens, though? Will Birmingham and Manchester both really need 3 fast services per hour operated by the WCML operator, for example?

Oh, indeed. But you have to build HS2 first - there'll be a lot of disruption in the interim.

Neil

 

[pablo]

16 to 18 years to rebuild Euston is simply not on.
To get it done in time to serve HS2, the building programme needs to be 5 to 6 years at most. The only way to achieve this is to avoid complex phased rebuilding of an operating station. A clear site largely separated from the operating railway is the only way to go.

Thus my suggestion last Nov was for a modest scheme involving minimal land take and demolition but clear of the reduced active terminus and no phasing necessary before integration. OK, the dissipation would have produced fun elsewhere. It was intended to change the direction of thought away from pie-in-the-sky but all it seems to have done is bring out the traditional negativity.

This current proposal is far more ambitious amounting to a 150% version of Waterloo International built on the west side of Euston. There is really no constraint on how far west you can go. The restraints are economic and political. You might end up with a listed building atop your fancy station or you might have to move it bodily elsewhere. Platforms 17 and 18 would be taken out but I expect you could get by with 16 platforms.

You build a large partition to the west of platform 16, out to the throat one way and Euston Gardens the other, stake your boundary around the other three sides; then demolish and clear the decks. Now, you have a clear site to build a six platform station, etc. This can be done in a reasonable timescale. At a late stage the separation is removed and the new integrated with the old. 16 is extended, possibly to 415m.

HS2 is unlikely to operate at greater than 16tph. The initial service is expected to be 12tph. The theoretical limit is 21tph but a practical limit is 75% of that. Say 16. That accords with the evidence the man from SNCF gave to the Commons Select Committee. The limiting factor seems to be the signalling headway at converging junctions. That’s a physical constraint that won’t go away. ERTMS level 3, or ATO, seems to make little difference. It is possible to get one more path out of it by flighting on the mainline in preference to joining services. That’s one a planner would keep up their sleeve.

So six platforms is adequate for the initial service and the future captive service for the foreseeable future. Overflow CCs go into 12 to 16. They are unlikely to be over 265m long, except perhaps the Scottish ones, since any longer would be embarrassing anywhere off HS2. With this configuration, no dissipation to other termini is necessary.

That leaves 12 plus platforms for the residual WCML. Since it is proposed to reduce the approach roads from six to four, twelve would cope, especially if the Watford DC services are removed. If ever necessary, at a later stage, the throat needs altering and platforms 12 to 15 extended outwards to accommodate longer CCs.

So this is a viable solution. The big question is, will Camden swallow it?

 

[zoomwhoosh]

An issue I raised earlier but didn't seem to get much attention.

Why are they being so generous with the length of time that a high speed train spends on one platform?

This basic assumption is behind the sheer scale and cost of the Euston rebuild, but doesn't seem to have been discussed. Why?

 

[Bletchleyite]

An issue I raised earlier but didn't seem to get much attention.

Why are they being so generous with the length of time that a high speed train spends on one platform?

What figure are they proposing?

Neil

 

[zoomwhoosh]

What figure are they proposing?

Neil

I'm not sure if I've actually read a figure for the length of time it takes to turn around a train. But if you take the figure of 18tph as the reference and you're given between 6 and 10 platforms (depending on the proposal) that gives you between 20 and 33 minutes per train.

It takes a couple of minutes to run a train through the throat and onto a platform. And about the same in reverse. And if you're taking longer than 10 minutes to fully load and unload a train you're simply not trying. It could be done in 5 (though that would require a well designed station).

Keep the time down to 10-15 minutes and you need 3-5 platforms.

 

[po8crg]

What figure are they proposing?

Proposing that a platform can only serve two trains per hour. I think it's a case of a 400m double-decker having 1000 seats in total and only one door per carriage, so the loading/unloading time for a train arriving full in Euston and leaving full will be pretty substantial. There will presumably be some cleaning (at the least, emptying bins and retention tanks, refilling water tanks, restocking the buffet/shop and collecting lost property), at least part of which will have to be done while there are no passsengers on board.

There may be a case for getting a few captive platforms (as few as 4) open quickly and then doing the rest of the works more slowly. There won't be more than nine captive trains per hour for a very long time, and the first generation are going to be single-deckers, with quicker loading and unloading times. The need to future-proof the station with eleven platforms is real - they'll end up rebuilding it eventually, so better to plan it properly from the beginning - but they don't need all eleven on day one.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

Its not the length of the train that counts, Its the number of seats per door. And generally speaking it takes no more than a few minutes to empty a full carriage. A sweep of a carriage (basic tidy, lost property) takes a couple of minutes. Don't believe me, watch how its done on aircraft. All the other maintenance can occur in parallel.

All of this requires proper care and attention to detail and careful organisation, but its still a lot cheaper than the alternative.

The other observation I'd like to make is that if you're not rebuilding any part of Euston (at least to begin with) but merely tacking on a new high speed section, does that not give you the freedom to double stack from the beginning?

 

[Altnabreac]

Proposing that a platform can only serve two trains per hour. I think it's a case of a 400m double-decker having 1000 seats in total and only one door per carriage, so the loading/unloading time for a train arriving full in Euston and leaving full will be pretty substantial. There will presumably be some cleaning (at the least, emptying bins and retention tanks, refilling water tanks, restocking the buffet/shop and collecting lost property), at least part of which will have to be done while there are no passsengers on board.

There may be a case for getting a few captive platforms (as few as 4) open quickly and then doing the rest of the works more slowly. There won't be more than nine captive trains per hour for a very long time, and the first generation are going to be single-deckers, with quicker loading and unloading times. The need to future-proof the station with eleven platforms is real - they'll end up rebuilding it eventually, so better to plan it properly from the beginning - but they don't need all eleven on day one.

Worth remembering that the proposed Phase 2 operating service as well as the proposed 9tph of captive trains will have at least 2tph of 400m Classic compatibles and more likely 3-4tph.

The Scotland - London service is proposed to be 2tph of 400m Classic compatibles.

I suspect to add capacity and maximise usage per path we will see other 400m Classic compatibles proposed such as combining a Liverpool service with the Preston service at Crewe (much more sensible than the current proposal to combine a Liverpool service with a half length Birmingham service at Birmingham Interchange).

Once more electrification hits the north you could see further half sets proposed to extend the benefits of HS2. Chester and Hull could both be potential destinations that could be combined with the current proposed Liverpool / York services to form more 400m CC services.

I'd expect at least 4tph of the 7tph Classic Compatibles at Euston to be 400m long when HS2 Phase 2 opens.

Of course the platforms for these don't have to be Captive standard but will need to be 400m. Given the Sleeper also needs 400m platforms in the legacy area of the station it makes sense to have 2 400m platforms that can be accessed from both HS2 and WCML.

All in all 6 platforms is reasonable for HS2 Phase 1 but for Phase 2 I think at least 8 Captive platforms plus 2 400m hybrids will be required.

 

[Deerfold]

You're missing the point. Six platforms will take the whole initial service. SW can have Waterloo all to themselves.

So are you suggesting running HS2 services to Waterloo or not?

 

[pablo]

So are you suggesting running HS2 services to Waterloo or not?

If you fancy them there, why not? But with the current proposal, it's not necessary. Please do keep up.

 

[Deerfold]

If you fancy them there, why not? But with the current proposal, it's not necessary. Please do keep up.

There's no need to be rude. You hadn't made it clear that your suggestion had changed.

 

[Voglitz]

Is there not a bigger picture to this latest Euston story?

The bigger picture is that HS2 cannot be built within the £50.1 billion 'envelope', cannot be built without crowding out other rail investment, and is unlikely to open in 2026.

 

[Deerfold]

The bigger picture is that HS2 cannot be built within the £50.1 billion 'envelope', cannot be built without crowding out other rail investment, and is unlikely to open in 2026.

Really?

Do you have any sources to back that up? Much as I dislike the current government, spending on non-HS2 rail is already at (and planned to continue to be at) pretty much record levels.

 

[The Planner]

I'm not sure if I've actually read a figure for the length of time it takes to turn around a train. But if you take the figure of 18tph as the reference and you're given between 6 and 10 platforms (depending on the proposal) that gives you between 20 and 33 minutes per train.

It takes a couple of minutes to run a train through the throat and onto a platform. And about the same in reverse. And if you're taking longer than 10 minutes to fully load and unload a train you're simply not trying. It could be done in 5 (though that would require a well designed station).

Keep the time down to 10-15 minutes and you need 3-5 platforms.

5 minutes turnaround for a 400m train to get everyone off and back on and go again? Behave, thats just fantasy. So how do you propose to deal with people management during this mythical 5 minutes?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The bigger picture is that HS2 cannot be built within the £50.1 billion 'envelope', cannot be built without crowding out other rail investment, and is unlikely to open in 2026.

Proof?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course the platforms for these don't have to be Captive standard but will need to be 400m. Given the Sleeper also needs 400m platforms in the legacy area of the station it makes sense to have 2 400m platforms that can be accessed from both HS2 and WCML.
.

They will be seperate entities, there wont be access between the two.

 

[swt_passenger]

Proposing that a platform can only serve two trains per hour. I think it's a case of a 400m double-decker having 1000 seats in total and only one door per carriage, so the loading/unloading time for a train arriving full in Euston and leaving full will be pretty substantial.

You make two significant assumptions here.

One - that they'll definitely be double deck trains - the gauge being designed for it doesn't mean they have to use DD trains.

Two - single door per carriage. Presumably you think this because the original Eurostar sets have only one door (per side) per carriage? But the latest Eurostar sets have doors at both ends, so why wouldn't HS2 captive stock?

 

[Altnabreac]

They will be seperate entities, there wont be access between the two.

Thanks for current thinking.

One of the ARUP double deck iterations did propose 2 shared use platforms for HS2 and Classic lines but they obviously don't want the complications that would lead to in the throat.

I guess the 400m platforms for the Sleeper will just be used for ordinary WCML the rest of the day.

 

[Geezertronic]

The bigger picture is that HS2 cannot be built within the £50.1 billion 'envelope', cannot be built without crowding out other rail investment, and is unlikely to open in 2026.

Like others, I would love to see proof of your comment. It seems like a typical anti comment which has no basis with actual facts

 

[HSTEd]

Why will Kings Cross be empty? It's only losing a few GN trains to Thameslink.

It now looks likely to also lose Hertford Loop to Moorgate - as we keep hearing more and more about keeping that station open 24/7 - indeed there is no major technical reason you couldn't do that.
That leaves KGX with some peak extras, Intercity trains and the Beer Train - hardly enough to justify the cavernous station.

And I'd be interested to see how it could be reconfigured to handle 400m trains, given that it's about that distance from the stops to the tunnel portals.

The tunnel has little reason to exist - not in the age of powered excavation equipment. You can skylight it and have the canal (which has to remain open unfortunately) cross the approach on an aqueduct.
That sounds excessive but it is not really that massive a project compared to some of the other insane things involved in building high speed lines in this tunnel-happy era.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It now looks likely to also lose Hertford Loop to Moorgate - as we keep hearing more and more about keeping that station open 24/7 - indeed there is no major technical reason you couldn't do that.
That leaves KGX with some peak extras, Intercity trains and the Beer Train - hardly enough to justify the cavernous station.

But just like Euston, Virgin East Coast may seek to increase services (indeed I believe they do plan that) and thus make it busier with IC services. Euston used to be quiet - it's now nothing of the sort with 3 rather than 1tph to Manchester and Brum.

Neil

 

[HSTEd]

You make two significant assumptions here.

One - that they'll definitely be double deck trains - the gauge being designed for it doesn't mean they have to use DD trains.

So we expend insane amounts of money building this new line capable of taking double decker trains - then throw away 40% of the capacity it makes available because we don't want to pay for proper provision of platforms.
Can you imagine the political cost? One of the big benefits in the public eye of HS2 is mass capacity, symbolised by double deck trains.

Two - single door per carriage. Presumably you think this because the original Eurostar sets have only one door (per side) per carriage? But the latest Eurostar sets have doors at both ends, so why wouldn't HS2 captive stock?

Because the only double deck train actually available today only has 1 door per carriage?
A 400mm Double Deck train could easily seat ~1350 people and only have 18 doors on the set.
And remember you have to account for the fact you could have a train fail in a platform and block it up.
So if you have nine platforms you have to be able to run an undisrupted service with eight.

But just like Euston, Virgin East Coast may seek to increase services (indeed I believe they do plan that) and thus make it busier with IC services. Euston used to be quiet - it's now nothing of the sort with 3 rather than 1tph to Manchester and Brum.

Neil

And because its Branson, it means that Virgin can magically escape the laws of physics?
There is absolutely no more capacity on the ECML than is used right now. Flash Virgin marketing can't build two more tracks through Welwyn.
Services to more destinations are to be provided by extending the current Newark and York terminators.

An 8 400m platform KGX could support ~16-18tph. That is enough for the HSL, many of which will be direct replacements for Classic Trains (at least partially) anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the only double deck train actually available today only has 1 door per carriage?

Where did you get that from? It is completely false.

Neil

 

[Voglitz]

So we expend insane amounts of money building this new line capable of taking double decker trains - then throw away 40% of the capacity it makes available because we don't want to pay for proper provision of platforms.

Can you imagine the political cost? One of the big benefits in the public eye of HS2 is mass capacity, symbolised by double deck trains.

You are mistaken. In some commuter scenarios, double deck trains can permit an uplift in capacity of ~40%. In other scenarios, the uplift is **much** lower.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I imagine the worst-case scenario is that the new reconstruction programme would still allow a full passenger-experience change for all passengers, but wouldn't involve dropping the classic platforms below ground level. The Hybrid Bill scheme kept the existing 60s 'trainshed' over the classic platforms, and this was one of the least palatable parts of the idea for Camden and for Boris. This 'trainshed' could be torn down and replaced with a new light passenger deck, possibly involving reconstruction of the classic platforms at their existing level for better passenger movement, and it would have quite a few of the benefits that the full reconstruction would have but without the massive cost. Combine this with works on the eastern side so that Eversholt Street doesn't just have a hulking great black brick wall there and it wouldn't be the end of the world at all. You could put a replacement for St James Gardens on top of the classic side, like how Paris Montparnasse has the Jardin Atlantique on its roof.