Unsettling Rumours about Kings Cross suburban platforms

[D365]

Operational flexibility or the chance for NR to make money through more retail outlets? Goodbye platforms 9-11.

As was said above though, there's a possibility that GC/HT with their small five-car fleets could move in.

 

[D6975]

Besides, Platform 9 3/4 must be of some literary significance and probably drives quite a lot of non-travellers into the station (and, consequently, its shops which leads to £££). To have a 9 3/4, you surely must need to have a 9 and a 10.

You would have thought so, but in the films, platform 9 3/4 is between platforms 4 and 5 IIRC.

 

[HSTEd]

This is where I note that my proposed reconstruction of King's Cross requires skylighting the tunnel and demolishing half the art school.
8 400m platforms or bust!

 

[adamedwards]

Looking at the Google pic, the logical thing to me would be this:

Close 11
Extend 10 towards the tunnels, but moving the north end westward
Extend 9 towards the tunnels in the space released.
That also extends 8 into a mega long platform.

Caledonian Sleepers move back to KX as they can then save on splitting at Carstairs by running KX - Edinburgh - Glasgow.

Would this make the new 10 and 11 ten car long (which it should do) giving KX 11 platforms 0-10 all able to take 10 car trains. Maximum flexibility!


Shops can go along the west wall on the site of platform 11 tracks.

I can just about remember when 11 did not exist. It was brought back by Network South East to enable Moorgate to be closed at the weekends, I think.

Cheers

Adam

 

[Amy Worrall]

You would have thought so, but in the films, platform 9 3/4 is between platforms 4 and 5 IIRC.

I believe Rowling admitted in an interview that she was imagining the wrong station (Paddington, by memory, but could have been Euston) the whole time when writing that scene. Still, it's a work of fiction, and if the location of a station platform is the biggest challenge to your suspension of disbelief…

Amy

 

[snowball]

I believe Rowling admitted in an interview that she was imagining the wrong station (Paddington, by memory, but could have been Euston) the whole time when writing that scene.

I think she said Euston but I suspect she was not thinking of platforms 9 and 10 there.

 

[NSE]

She said she was thinking of Euston, but its been pointed out that 9 and 10 there don't match up either haha. That said, it is a huge draw for tourists, and I did like what someone said about a Steam service up to Watford Film Studios. I think that would make money, but the operational railway comes first of course and it'd be a nightmare to path. Even if they did demolish those platforms, people would still turn up for the Harry Potter significance.

 

[me123]

It was definitely Euston she was thinking of (IIRC she come up with the series on a journey from Edinburgh to Euston), but she was wrong there too. The reality is that she made a mistake. Which is certainly forgivable.

 

[Antman]

Operational flexibility or the chance for NR to make money through more retail outlets? Goodbye platforms 9-11.

Money that might be spent on something more useful?

 

[Amy Worrall]

It was definitely Euston she was thinking of (IIRC she come up with the series on a journey from Edinburgh to Euston), but she was wrong there too. The reality is that she made a mistake. Which is certainly forgivable.

Yup. Accepting a fictionalised King's Cross is rather less of a stretch of the imagination than a magical boarding school in a castle with moving stairs and ghosts

 

[D365]

Money that might be spent on something more useful?

Didn't think that Network Rail was allowed to have any of their own money.

 

[Trog]

It was the Midland Lake GWR Hall class loco with a Castle name on the West Highland Line that gave me suspension of disbelief problems, some things are just too far fetched.

 

[Supercoss]

More than just rumours, the disused East bore of Gasworks Tunnel will have two lines re installed (and Copenhagen Tunnel also), East side sidings will move to West side so 9-11 will close permanently
The up and down slow lines will primarily feed the 'Canal Tunnel' Thameslink route from December 2018 when work to achieve the above will start allowing an extra set of lines to feed fast lines and separate traffic flow with extra pair or lines.

 

[mr_jrt]

...and to think, I was upset when I found out about the rebuild we got! ...I would have liked to have seen 9-11 demolished and a third clone trainshed built with 4 full-length parallel platforms in it. Seems madness to be reducing platforms at a central London terminus whilst capacity is so tight!

 

[jopsuk]

More than just rumours, the disused East bore of Gasworks Tunnel will have two lines re installed (and Copenhagen Tunnel also), East side sidings will move to West side so 9-11 will close permanently
The up and down slow lines will primarily feed the 'Canal Tunnel' Thameslink route from December 2018 when work to achieve the above will start allowing an extra set of lines to feed fast lines and separate traffic flow with extra pair or lines.

Is there an official announcement of this or Network Rail project page? Forgive my scepticism but I tend to be a little suspicious of things like this till I see a proper source
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems madness to be reducing platforms at a central London terminus whilst capacity is so tight!

Terminal capacity is not a constraint on the East Coast Main Line/Great Northern Electrics, especially with the inner suburban moving entirely to Moorgate and most of the Peterborough/Cambridge service moving to Thameslink. Empty terminal capacity at King Cross can't be used as relief for, eg, Waterloo.

 

[D365]

Empty terminal capacity at King Cross can't be used as relief for, eg, Waterloo.

But it can be used as relief for the mainline platforms, e.g, a separate terminal for GC/HT.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I believe Rowling admitted in an interview that she was imagining the wrong station (Paddington, by memory, but could have been Euston) the whole time when writing that scene. . . . .

I think she said Euston but I suspect she was not thinking of platforms 9 and 10 there.

It was definitely Euston she was thinking of (IIRC she come up with the series on a journey from Edinburgh to Euston), but she was wrong there too. The reality is that she made a mistake. Which is certainly forgivable.

The last thing I would want to do is incur Mr Murray's wrath and enthusiasm for litigation (the current husband of J K R), so to play safe, I will not refer to her 1997 Harry Potter novel at all, but will instead, refer to an entirely different children's novel, which was published three years earlier, and which refers to a magical platform at Kings Cross which at special times can operate as a portal to a magical other world inhabited by strange characters.

It was platform 13 at Kings Cross.

It was written by Eva Ibbotson and published in 1994, who devoted her later life to writing childrens stories about wizards, witches and of course, the children who enter their fantastic world. Via Kings Cross station. On Platform 13.

No connection to Ms Rowling's subsequent novels at all then.

 

[HSTEd]

More than just rumours, the disused East bore of Gasworks Tunnel will have two lines re installed (and Copenhagen Tunnel also), East side sidings will move to West side so 9-11 will close permanently
The up and down slow lines will primarily feed the 'Canal Tunnel' Thameslink route from December 2018 when work to achieve the above will start allowing an extra set of lines to feed fast lines and separate traffic flow with extra pair or lines.

Is it really worth sacrificing three platforms to allow the sidings to move? Rather than sacrificing the sidings?
How many platform equivalents of storage capacity do the sidings have?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Which platform(s) are normally used for any railtours or charters departing or arriving at Kings Cross?

 

[NSEFAN]

Which platform(s) are normally used for any railtours or charters departing or arriving at Kings Cross?

Most often I've seen if platform 1.

Regarding the closure of platform 11, presumably the trainshed roof will be left alone and the proposed outlets will be small cabin types? If so, it will always be quite easy in the future to reinstate it.

 

[Altnabreac]

The last thing I would want to do is incur Mr Murray's wrath and enthusiasm for litigation (the current husband of J K R), so to play safe, I will not refer to her 1997 Harry Potter novel at all, but will instead, refer to an entirely different children's novel, which was published three years earlier, and which refers to a magical platform at Kings Cross which at special times can operate as a portal to a magical other world inhabited by strange characters.

It was platform 13 at Kings Cross.

It was written by Eva Ibbotson and published in 1994, who devoted her later life to writing childrens stories about wizards, witches and of course, the children who enter their fantastic world. Via Kings Cross station. On Platform 13.

No connection to Ms Rowling's subsequent novels at all then.

Dr Murray... Now he's going to sue you for forgetting about his medical training...

 

[Ianno87]

...and to think, I was upset when I found out about the rebuild we got! ...I would have liked to have seen 9-11 demolished and a third clone trainshed built with 4 full-length parallel platforms in it. Seems madness to be reducing platforms at a central London terminus whilst capacity is so tight!

And where would all the passengers waiting for their trains be held, and how would the station integrate with St Pancras in the way it does so well today?

 

[Supercoss]

Page 14 here refers
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...467/possible-enhancements-to-rail-network.pdf

so if you visualise post 2018 4 lines in and out of which 2 (the slows) don't have a regular service from/to KX - Belle Isle an extra pair of lines on East side allows more paths for arrivals/departures without affecting Thameslink moves

 

[mr_jrt]

And where would all the passengers waiting for their trains be held, and how would the station integrate with St Pancras in the way it does so well today?

At the time I envisioned closing Pancras Road and putting a new roof over the space linked to St Pancras, so in my opinion, even better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Terminal capacity is not a constraint on the East Coast Main Line/Great Northern Electrics, especially with the inner suburban moving entirely to Moorgate and most of the Peterborough/Cambridge service moving to Thameslink.

Maybe at this exact moment in time, but these are big changes that will last long after the current timetables.

The Thameslink core will top out at 24tph. Moorgate can only turn around so much, and the platform lengths are limited so if longer trains become required, you lose Moorgate. Through simple virtue of the fact that two two-track railways will merge at St Pancras capacity is going to be wasted as you couldn't increase the service on both the MML and ECML slows to 24tph if required to handle future growth.

If you need more capacity on the MML slows, where can you send the services if the Thameslink core is full? St. Pancras has no platforms spare. There are no handy branches a-la Moorgate. Where would they go? The only reasonable option is to divert paths from the ECML services which do have alternatives, be they KX, Moorgate, or something else.

 

[John R]

The report linked to talks of up to 11 intercity services out of KX each hour, and more Great Northern services also (in addition to the 6 local per hour anticipated in the peak under the current GTR consultation). That would be a challenge if 9-11 were removed given the length of time longer distance services typically occupy the platforms for.

Even without that increase in long distance services, there needs to be capacity for periods of disruption, e.g. what happens when the thameslink tunnels are closed for any reason. Although I acknowledge that the existing platforms' length does pose considerable restrictions on their use.

Finally, we've already seen that the MML capacity provided at St Pancras is already limiting thought of future growth. It would seem unwise and very shortsighted to constrain KX similarly, at least until HS2 reaches the ECML.

 

[Class 170101]

Page 14 here refers
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...467/possible-enhancements-to-rail-network.pdf

so if you visualise post 2018 4 lines in and out of which 2 (the slows) don't have a regular service from/to KX - Belle Isle an extra pair of lines on East side allows more paths for arrivals/departures without affecting Thameslink moves

At the time I envisioned closing Pancras Road and putting a new roof over the space linked to St Pancras, so in my opinion, even better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Maybe at this exact moment in time, but these are big changes that will last long after the current timetables.

The Thameslink core will top out at 24tph. Moorgate can only turn around so much, and the platform lengths are limited so if longer trains become required, you lose Moorgate. Through simple virtue of the fact that two two-track railways will merge at St Pancras capacity is going to be wasted as you couldn't increase the service on both the MML and ECML slows to 24tph if required to handle future growth.

If you need more capacity on the MML slows, where can you send the services if the Thameslink core is full? St. Pancras has no platforms spare. There are no handy branches a-la Moorgate. Where would they go? The only reasonable option is to divert paths from the ECML services which do have alternatives, be they KX, Moorgate, or something else.

The report linked to talks of up to 11 intercity services out of KX each hour, and more Great Northern services also (in addition to the 6 local per hour anticipated in the peak under the current GTR consultation). That would be a challenge if 9-11 were removed given the length of time longer distance services typically occupy the platforms for.

Even without that increase in long distance services, there needs to be capacity for periods of disruption, e.g. what happens when the thameslink tunnels are closed for any reason. Although I acknowledge that the existing platforms' length does pose considerable restrictions on their use.

Finally, we've already seen that the MML capacity provided at St Pancras is already limiting thought of future growth. It would seem unwise and very shortsighted to constrain KX similarly, at least until HS2 reaches the ECML.

I have to agree with those above that removing the Platforms is a mistake. The short platforms would be ideal for all the open access operators to layover there. An appropriate layover is ideal for performanance and ensures as far as is practically possible that delays are not transmitted to the return journey, by putting the shorter trains in the long platforms means less space for East Coast.

It should be noted that at Liverpool Street is to lose its local services to Shenfield (except for peak times) yet it is to lose only one platform (of 16, 17, 18) to allow the remaining two to be lengthened. This is useful for diversion to Liverpool Street High Level if the link to Crossrail is closed or if the Abbey Wood branch becomes busier than expected then I guess the balance of Crossrail services can shift from Shenfield to Abbey Wood with Shenfield served from the High Level Station once again.

 

[petersi]

Are the sidings still required as I thought the class 800 introduction removed the need for a rescue loco

 

[Class 170101]

Are the sidings still required as I thought the class 800 introduction removed the need for a rescue loco

Until one fails completely.

 

[swt_passenger]

That report doesn't explicitly suggest to me that P9-11 are definitely being closed; just seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption at this stage

 

[bramling]

At the time I envisioned closing Pancras Road and putting a new roof over the space linked to St Pancras, so in my opinion, even better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Maybe at this exact moment in time, but these are big changes that will last long after the current timetables.

The Thameslink core will top out at 24tph. Moorgate can only turn around so much, and the platform lengths are limited so if longer trains become required, you lose Moorgate. Through simple virtue of the fact that two two-track railways will merge at St Pancras capacity is going to be wasted as you couldn't increase the service on both the MML and ECML slows to 24tph if required to handle future growth.

If you need more capacity on the MML slows, where can you send the services if the Thameslink core is full? St. Pancras has no platforms spare. There are no handy branches a-la Moorgate. Where would they go? The only reasonable option is to divert paths from the ECML services which do have alternatives, be they KX, Moorgate, or something else.

The trouble is that the suburban platforms are currently only 8 cars long, and extension to 12 cars is now very difficult due to the concourse having been built where it has.

It's all very nice having a paved empty space out the front, but the flip side of the coin is three short platforms.