Platform length and capacity at St Pancras

[ashworth]

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

It's always been like that. I don't think it's any faster now than it was when I used to travel that route to college in Derby in the 1970's. I agree that the tight curves are a problem but I've always been surprised that nothing has ever been done about the extremely slow speed over the junctions. However, even increasing those by a few mph is not going to cut more than a couple of minutes off the Nottingham to Derby journey, so probably not worth the expense.

Although I can see the reasoning behind running a fast Nottingham to London train via Grantham, that's another line that needs huge amounts of money spent on it to increase speeds. Nottingham to Grantham is currently not very fast especially the first few miles out of Nottingham as far as Radcliffe on Trent. Even the Liverpool to Norwich 158s seem to crawl along there. Would it really be worth the expense. Having said all that, Kings Cross to Nottingham with good connection at Grantham can currently be done almost as quickly as directly along the MML so if the the line was upgraded it could be quite a quick route.

 

[mr_jrt]

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

Oh, no doubt massive cost. Few things worthwhile are ever cheap.

Personally, given the timescales I'd have been tempted to relocate it to Stratford - the connectivity from HS1 & Crossrail would more than suffice and the whole place was a largely blank canvas at the time.

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.

Agreed, that would be useful - I was of the impression platform length was also an issue, but having gone digging seems I was mistaken - apparently the 4 MML platforms are 280m, so suitable for a 9x26m car IEP. Short of doubling them up I doubt any longer trains would be likely, so perhaps we are indeed fine as we are. Network Rail said in 2011 that platform availability was a major capacity constraint though, so tightening up turnaround times is the easiest way to improve that, but following that I guess an extension over the road for another pair of platforms would have to be looked at.

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?

I seem to recall reading that the plan is now to demolish at least one of those platforms, if not indeed all of them. Short-sighted in the extreme given the Kings Cross rebuild could have provided more platforms, but there you go.

 

[deltic08]

Oh, no doubt massive cost. Few things worthwhile are ever cheap.

Personally, given the timescales I'd have been tempted to relocate it to Stratford - the connectivity from HS1 & Crossrail would more than suffice and the whole place was a largely blank canvas at the time.

Agreed, that would be useful - I was of the impression platform length was also an issue, but having gone digging seems I was mistaken - apparently the 4 MML platforms are 280m, so suitable for a 9x26m car IEP. Short of doubling them up I doubt any longer trains would be likely, so perhaps we are indeed fine as we are. Network Rail said in 2011 that platform availability was a major capacity constraint though, so tightening up turnaround times is the easiest way to improve that, but following that I guess an extension over the road for another pair of platforms would have to be looked at.


I seem to recall reading that the plan is now to demolish at least one of those platforms, if not indeed all of them. Short-sighted in the extreme given the Kings Cross rebuild could have provided more platforms, but there you go.

Reducing capacity when growth is still increasing on an already congested system? When will our decision makers ever learn.

 

[A0]

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?

Surely this creates more problems than it solves though? The ECML has less capacity between Hitchin and London (owing to the two track section between Knebworth and WGC) than the MML does between Luton and London.

 

[Chester1]

Surely this creates more problems than it solves though? The ECML has less capacity between Hitchin and London (owing to the two track section between Knebworth and WGC) than the MML does between Luton and London.

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.

 

[QueensCurve]

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.

Perhaps then St Pancreas would have dipped out on much needed and very beneficial refurbishment.

It would also put 3 stations next door to one another as if 2 wasn't enough.

Sir John Betjemen thwarted BRs intention to demolish the 2 and replace them with one. He would love "beautiful pink Pancras" as it now is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Perhaps a better route would have been Market Harbrough to Northampton. Could that be reinstated?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

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

 

[HSTEd]

Surely this creates more problems than it solves though? The ECML has less capacity between Hitchin and London (owing to the two track section between Knebworth and WGC) than the MML does between Luton and London.

ECML will gain more capacity from HS2 however, and even now has a 1tp2h that just stops at Newark anyway.

 

[asylumxl]

Sir John Betjemen thwarted BRs intention to demolish the 2 and replace them with one. He would love "beautiful pink Pancras" as it now is.

Would he really? I'm not so sure. His beloved neo-gothic masterpiece turned in to nothing more than a glorified shopping mall with a few token platforms attached? I'd imagine he might have a choice words in reality.

 

[swt_passenger]

I seem to recall reading that the plan is now to demolish at least one of those platforms, if not indeed all of them. Short-sighted in the extreme given the Kings Cross rebuild could have provided more platforms, but there you go.

I think when that point was made a little while ago there was no real evidence found to back it up.

 

[Chester1]

St Pancras is good for the job it is doing. Times have changed and being the terminus for 5tph for MML long distance services is only a small part of its role. The site is very constrained and had few options. The British Library is much shorter than Pancras platforms and therefore an enormous amount of demolition of commercial and residential property would need to be demolished for platforms west of the station.

 

[absolutelymilk]

It would also put 3 stations next door to one another as if 2 wasn't enough.

Surely putting stations near one another is a good idea? It means that transferring between them is easier and they could share one big tube stations for easy access.

 

[Flying Phil]

Perhaps a better route would have been Market Harbrough to Northampton. Could that be reinstated?

It would be quite difficult as the track bed in Market Harborough now has houses and apartment blocks built on it. The bridge from the station has gone completely. However the track bed across country has a cycle path (Brampton Way) and, of course, there is the Northampton and Lamport Railway preserved line on the route. I think the route into Northampton has also been built on.

 

[mr_jrt]

The site is very constrained and had few options. The British Library is much shorter than Pancras platforms and therefore an enormous amount of demolition of commercial and residential property would need to be demolished for platforms west of the station.

At the time of St. Pancras' redevelopment the Francis Crick Institute had not yet been built, so the northern half of the Midland Goods site was still clear. Even if you had wanted to build a high speed terminus there a look at an old map will show that the main issue was just a few modern properties on what is now "Neville Close". Irrespective of that, an elevated pair of platforms over the road would suffice, and IIRC at worst would get a bit close a building or two near the northern ends. The cost of purchasing said properties and removing them or selling them on with a covenant acknowledging the railway's proximity would be tiny:

 

[Senex]

Perhaps a better route would have been Market Harbrough to Northampton. Could that be reinstated?

It would be quite difficult as the track bed in Market Harborough now has houses and apartment blocks built on it. The bridge from the station has gone completely. However the track bed across country has a cycle path (Brampton Way) and, of course, there is the Northampton and Lamport Railway preserved line on the route. I think the route into Northampton has also been built on.

That would never have been a fast line. The ideal connection to the WCML was the one that was destroyed much earlier, the original Midland Counties Railway line continuing straight south from Wigston Jn to head to Rugby -- that could have been a really fast line.

 

[Chester1]

At the time of St. Pancras' redevelopment the Francis Crick Institute had not yet been built, so the northern half of the Midland Goods site was still clear. Even if you had wanted to build a high speed terminus there a look at an old map will show that the main issue was just a few modern properties on what is now "Neville Close". Irrespective of that, an elevated pair of platforms over the road would suffice, and IIRC at worst would get a bit close a building or two near the northern ends. The cost of purchasing said properties and removing them or selling them on with a covenant acknowledging the railway's proximity would be tiny:

Thats interesting but I really don't see what is very bad about the location of the current MML platforms. Its not ideal but it is not bad either.

That would never have been a fast line. The ideal connection to the WCML was the one that was destroyed much earlier, the original Midland Counties Railway line continuing straight south from Wigston Jn to head to Rugby -- that could have been a really fast line.

There is a tendancy amongst enthusiasts to want NR to undo Beaching rather than focus on the best solutions for today. I suggested Marston Vale Line because it is an existing branch line and will be rebuilt as a mainline as part of East West Rail anyway. Adding another 5tph to East West Rail usage would require rebuilding stations to add through tracks and add to signalling costs but that is much cheaper than building a new line. Bedford to St Pancras could then be devoted to Thameslink and some trackwork changes would allow the MML platforms to be used for extra domestic HS1 services. There should be enough space at Euston once the HS2 station rebuild has been finished or perhaps earlier.

 

[edwin_m]

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

Also they keep the HSTs on the Nottingham diagrams during the off-peak and the way the timetable works one of these is occupying one platform all the time and two for a few minutes each hour. This could be improved by interworking a future common fleet with the Sheffields and/or by re-casting the timetable.

St Pancras has six EMT arrivals between 0900 and 1000 so can clearly handle more when it needs to.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

That would extend the journey time even more than today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

Kings Cross is expecting to handle eight Long Distance Trains Per Hour Soon. I hardly think there is room for more of these coming from Nottingham. Lincoln will soon get its one train to London every two hours into Kings Cross.

I did hear suggestions that the short platforms at Kings Cross would close, however I think they would be useful for Grand Central / Grand Northern and Hull Trains plus also between the peaks for Cambridge Crusier services to Cambridge and Kings Lynn in the hands of the Class 387s.

 

[HSTEd]

Kings Cross is expecting to handle eight Long Distance Trains Per Hour Soon. I hardly think there is room for more of these coming from Nottingham. Lincoln will soon get its one train to London every two hours into Kings Cross.

Newark Terminators will be extended to Lincoln. KGX will have no more trains going in after that happens.

And eight Long Distance Per Hour for a station with 9/12 platforms is not that heavy going.
There isn't much left apart from ICEC and the Open Access stuff left after Thameslink is completed.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Would he really? I'm not so sure. His beloved neo-gothic masterpiece turned in to nothing more than a glorified shopping mall with a few token platforms attached? I'd imagine he might have a choice words in reality.

Pardon? St Pancras now has way more platforms than it ever had when the station was built and I dare say he would be delighted to see how clean it looks and more importantly how busy it is.

Not only that but I think you would be hard pressed to find a major station that doesn't have shops attached to it. The M & S always seems busy and of course those retail outlets generate important revenue streams for the railway. I honestly don't understand why you have a problem with shops at railway stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

No not as far as I know and in all fairness it would be quicker to drive from Langley Mill / Ilkeston into Derby. Even from Alfreton if you had a clear run along the A38 you would probably beat the train.

 

[asylumxl]

Pardon? St Pancras now has way more platforms than it ever had when the station was built and I dare say he would be delighted to see how clean it looks and more importantly how busy it is.

Not only that but I think you would be hard pressed to find a major station that doesn't have shops attached to it. The M & S always seems busy and of course those retail outlets generate important revenue streams for the railway. I honestly don't understand why you have a problem with shops at railway stations.

It has more platforms perhaps, shame the international ones are underutilised. I'm not entirely sure how he would feel about the current station to be honest, but given that he was not a fan of modern design I think he too would have a dislike of the leaky extensions.

I don't have a problem with stations with shops, rather I have a problem with stations where it seems the shops have taken precedence over the function of the railway itself. I feel the redevelopment of King's Cross struck a much better balance in this regard and is in general more pleasant to use.

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 society"), it'd certainly be interested to hear his thoughts on it now.

This is rather off-topic I suppose, so if you wish we can continue this conversation via PMs.

 

[mr_jrt]

Thats interesting but I really don't see what is very bad about the location of the current MML platforms. Its not ideal but it is not bad either.

The primary point was that there aren't enough MML platforms (so you need to add a couple more), and the secondary point was that ideally with a bit of forethought the High Speed platforms would have been built on the former Midland Goods site, leaving St. Pancras free for MML services. Having a dedicated high speed terminus would also (with an unrealistic amount of forethought) have potentially have enabled the new HS2 platforms to be located on the same site as well.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The primary point was that there aren't enough MML platforms (so you need to add a couple more), and the secondary point was that ideally with a bit of forethought the High Speed platforms would have been built on the former Midland Goods site, leaving St. Pancras free for MML services. Having a dedicated high speed terminus would also (with an unrealistic amount of forethought) have potentially have enabled the new HS2 platforms to be located on the same site as well.

However surely it would have made less sense to have the HS1 lines crossing over the MML on their way out to the Kent coast? With such a small amount of space to play with (assuming that you built the HS1 station on the site of the Somers Town goods yard) the curves / gradients would have been crazy. And it's hard to imagine that there will be that many people interchanging between HS2 and HS1. If nothing else at least the Government have had the good sense to understand that.

 

[mr_jrt]

However surely it would have made less sense to have the HS1 lines crossing over the MML on their way out to the Kent coast? With such a small amount of space to play with (assuming that you built the HS1 station on the site of the Somers Town goods yard) the curves / gradients would have been crazy. And it's hard to imagine that there will be that many people interchanging between HS2 and HS1. If nothing else at least the Government have had the good sense to understand that.

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.

Now, there are all sorts of issues with my proposal, but the curvature is not one of them - the curves would have been largely the same, the difference is marginal to have HS1 run on the west side of the MML lines. The main difference would have been the gradients, which if designed in during the reconstruction could have been fine (i.e. swap the NLL chord elevations around and descend to whatever platform level was desired from north of the canal, remember - as a separate station you're not bound by St. Pancras' platform levels. You may not be able to go under the MML tracks due to the canal and the Thameslink tunnels, but over them would be fine. The size of the throat you could achieve would be the crucial factor, I suspect 2-3 tracks for HS1 would be fine, another couple for HS2 as well might have been a tad tight though.

 

[Senex]

There is a tendancy amongst enthusiasts to want NR to undo Beaching rather than focus on the best solutions for today. I suggested Marston Vale Line because it is an existing branch line and will be rebuilt as a mainline as part of East West Rail anyway.

You were suggesting a time of about 50 minutes between Euston and Bedford. The current net time for a fast train from leaving St Pancras to passing Bedford is 29½ minutes. Surely a deceleration of 20 minutes on a half-hour schedule is not a "best solution" for anyone.

As to wanting to undo Beeching, I was not proposing that. I was merely regretting the passing of a line that might have offered the solution you wanted if it still existed. Though it is worth acknowledging that mistakes were made in the closure programme of the 1960s, and the Scots have shewn us that closed and dismantled lines can be restored if the political will is there.

 

[edwin_m]

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?

We've been through this at great length on another thread, and I'm not going to repeat it here except to point out that the need for good services to Leicester and south makes this unlikely to reduce the number of MML paths from St Pancras - or frankly to benefit anywhere else.

 

[Chester1]

You were suggesting a time of about 50 minutes between Euston and Bedford. The current net time for a fast train from leaving St Pancras to passing Bedford is 29½ minutes. Surely a deceleration of 20 minutes on a half-hour schedule is not a "best solution" for anyone.

As to wanting to undo Beeching, I was not proposing that. I was merely regretting the passing of a line that might have offered the solution you wanted if it still existed. Though it is worth acknowledging that mistakes were made in the closure programme of the 1960s, and the Scots have shewn us that closed and dismantled lines can be restored if the political will is there.

Nearly all fast services take 39 minutes not 29 so it would be 10-11 minutes lost. Its not ideal but after HS2 it wont matter as much. The benefit of being able to dedicate the MML south of Bedford to Thameslink is huge and would provide enough spare capacity for many years of growth. 4 extra domestic platforms for HS1 would allow more services, personally I think a link with one of the lines to Southend should be considered, combined with upgrades east of HS1 and route changes to do a very fast service.

 

[Verulamius]

According to real time trains, the next five MML trains have the following expected times to Bedford:

9.58 - 10.28 (fast not stopping)
10.01 - 10.35 (stopping at Luton, arrival time in Bedford)
10.15 - 10.47 ( fast not stopping)
10.26 - 10.56 (fast not stopping)
10.29 - 11.02 ( stopping at Luton Airport Parkway, arrival time in Bedford).

So the slowest MML train takes 34 with one previous stop at Luton.

 

[A0]

ECML will gain more capacity from HS2 however, and even now has a 1tp2h that just stops at Newark anyway.

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

I have to say it would make rather more sense for that to be turned into another York service rather than just terminating at Newark.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps a better route would have been Market Harbrough to Northampton. Could that be reinstated?

It would be quite difficult as the track bed in Market Harborough now has houses and apartment blocks built on it. The bridge from the station has gone completely. However the track bed across country has a cycle path (Brampton Way) and, of course, there is the Northampton and Lamport Railway preserved line on the route. I think the route into Northampton has also been built on.

The route into Northampton is clear - indeed it's a long term aspiration of the NLR to run into Northampton station.

The NLR now has track to Boughton Crossing (junction of Brampton Lane and Northampton Road).

The trackbed south of Northampton Road runs behind the houses on Spring Park (west side of Northampton Road) and I'm pretty sure the houses along there were built before the line was uplifted. There's no space for more housing down there - it's also flood plain territory so more houses there really wouldn't be a good idea !

And it joined the main line before the Mill Lane bridge - so actually it's clear.

The bits of the line which have gone are in and around Market Harborough and where the A14 has been built over it I believe there is only a pedestrian sized 'tunnel'.

Doesn't address the issue that the south end of the WCML doesn't exactly have alot of capacity and even post HS2 (if that happens) it's already planned to reuse it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a tendancy amongst enthusiasts to want NR to undo Beaching rather than focus on the best solutions for today. I suggested Marston Vale Line because it is an existing branch line and will be rebuilt as a mainline as part of East West Rail anyway. Adding another 5tph to East West Rail usage would require rebuilding stations to add through tracks and add to signalling costs but that is much cheaper than building a new line. Bedford to St Pancras could then be devoted to Thameslink and some trackwork changes would allow the MML platforms to be used for extra domestic HS1 services. There should be enough space at Euston once the HS2 station rebuild has been finished or perhaps earlier.

The EWR plus locals will keep Marston Vale busy enough and the southern end of the WCML doesn't have capacity and won't post HS2 because of the demands already planned on it.

You'd also remove Bedford and Luton - with the airport being relevant - from connection to the East Midlands which woudn't be popular and you'd extend journey times into London from across the East Mids.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Now, there are all sorts of issues with my proposal, but the curvature is not one of them - the curves would have been largely the same, the difference is marginal to have HS1 run on the west side of the MML lines. The main difference would have been the gradients, which if designed in during the reconstruction could have been fine (i.e. swap the NLL chord elevations around and descend to whatever platform level was desired from north of the canal, remember - as a separate station you're not bound by St. Pancras' platform levels. You may not be able to go under the MML tracks due to the canal and the Thameslink tunnels, but over them would be fine. The size of the throat you could achieve would be the crucial factor, I suspect 2-3 tracks for HS1 would be fine, another couple for HS2 as well might have been a tad tight though.

But what you gain by not having HS1 terminating inside St Pancras? You would cut any future capacity increases for HS1 and even if you add more platforms for MML services you still have the existing constraints between London and Bedford. The Government would have ended up spending a fortune for very little gain in my opinion.

 

[class26]

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 ?