HS2: Will Old Oak work and what could be done to improve it?

[Ianno87]

Quite apart from any matters of railway operational practicality, any extension to the dwell time at OOC translates into a journey time extension. To most of us that one minute extra would be meaningless, but to those people driving a computer model which predicts income, there is a correlation between journey time and patronage. In theory a longer journey time makes the journey less attractive, so fewer people will use it. So sitting for an extra minute on every train at OOC damages the business case quite significantly.

In practical terms, the one minute does make a difference where some passengers are making a connection - it may make the difference in making an advertised connection at, say, Manchester Piccadilly possible or not.

 

[BrianW]

Which is not being done; hence 6 platforms being provided at Old Oak Common when 4 (on paper) would suffice for the normal service. And only 18 paths being timetabled when (on paper) 20 would be theoretically be possible. Etc. etc.

If 4 platforms would suffice, why is that not being considered for 'descoping' when reducing platforms at Euston is?

In practical terms, the one minute does make a difference where some passengers are making a connection - it may make the difference in making an advertised connection at, say, Manchester Piccadilly possible or not.

Would I trust a connection timed that tight? Timekeeping will need to improve a lot for me to do that, esp if it means changing platforms.

 

[BayPaul]

Would I trust a connection timed that tight? Timekeeping will need to improve a lot for me to do that, esp if it means changing platforms.

There will always be a tipping point though. Maybe you would trust a 15 minute connection, but not a 14 minute one for example.

 

[Ianno87]

If 4 platforms would suffice, why is that not being considered for 'descoping' when reducing platforms at Euston is?

I'd guess because the flexibility provided by those extra platforms is understood, and probably doesn't save that much in cost terms out at Old Oak which is basically a brownfield railway site.

Would I trust a connection timed that tight? Timekeeping will need to improve a lot for me to do that, esp if it means changing platforms.

Plenty of people rely on 10 minute connections at Piccadilly today, which are perfectly doable in 8 or 9 with slightly late arrival (I've done about 90 seconds between main shed and Platform 14 in extremis). This is basically what is advertised in journey planners, and people base their journey decisions upon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is when you consider what proportion of the necessary headway distance between trains that is.

Then we're back to the infrastructure not being adequate for the proposed service. See also Castlefield.

 

[Ianno87]

Then we're back to the infrastructure not being adequate for the proposed service. See also Castlefield.

No we're not. Each departure from Old Oak needs to be ready as soon as it is the optimum headway behind the previous train, not sitting around wasting line capability. Basic railway operations, learnt from Japan.

Your proposal is taking good infrastructure and then deliberately using its capability inefficiently.

 

[quantinghome]

Castlefield is not a good analogy. A narrow single island with 2 platforms compared to OOC with 6 platforms, three in each direction. OOC is pick-up/set-down only. Compulsory reservations means you can tell people exactly where they need to be standing on the platform. Level boarding. etc.

If you're really worried about it then just have larger doors on the train to double the speed of boarding.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would I trust a connection timed that tight? Timekeeping will need to improve a lot for me to do that, esp if it means changing platforms.

It’s about journey planning, not 1min connections. If the standard connection time is (say) 10 mins, then a 10 min connection will be shown on journey planners. Of the HS service was a minute longer, and the connection became 9 minutes, the connection wouldn’t be shown, and the next connection would be advertised instead, which could be half an hour later. So a 1 minute journey time extension on HS2 could translate into an (official) 30 minute journey time ‘extension’ for those journeys.

 

[Ianno87]

Castlefield is not a good analogy. A narrow single island with 2 platforms compared to OOC with 6 platforms, three in each direction. OOC is pick-up/set-down only. Compulsory reservations means you can tell people exactly where they need to be standing on the platform. Level boarding. etc.

If you're really worried about it then just have larger doors on the train to double the speed of boarding.

Castlefield was an issue because it was being used to pretty much 100% of its technical capability.


HS2, for the reasons I've already stated, will not, regardless of what dwell time is used at Old Oak. If anything, sitting trains at Old Oak Common for longer actually makes this worse, not better, by chewing up platforms.s for longer than needed.

 

[quantinghome]

Castlefield was an issue because it was being used to pretty much 100% of its technical capability.


HS2, for the reasons I've already stated, will not, regardless of what dwell time is used at Old Oak. If anything, sitting trains at Old Oak Common for longer actually makes this worse, not better, by chewing up platforms.s for longer than needed.

100% agree

 

[coppercapped]

The timetable should be achieved, precisely (not within 5/10 minutes which is another obfuscatino), over 90% of the time, and only not achieved in the event of serious out of course running, not someone requiring a wheelchair ramp or help with their bags knocking several trains out.

Wheelchair ramp?
The whole point of the high platforms and small platform to train gaps is that wheelchair ramps won't be needed and bags won't have to be lifted into the train.

 

[mark-h]

6 platforms being provided at Old Oak Common when 4 (on paper) would suffice for the normal service.

Do we how they are planning to use these platforms in normal operation?

I would think it would be best to use 4 of them for Northbound services as this would make platform allocations more reliable and make it easier for passengers to be in the correct place for boarding. Services into London are flexible as to which platform they use as there will be no passengers waiting to board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your proposal is taking good infrastructure and then deliberately using its capability inefficiently.

Yes, deliberately so, so that there is leeway for human factors, which is just being realistic in wishing to ensure a punctual operation and a good quality experience for the users.

Again, I refer you to Castlefield.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2021 ==

If you're really worried about it then just have larger doors on the train to double the speed of boarding.

I hardly think a premium high speed service is befitting of a train like a Class 700 (double-width doors and wide aisles with narrow seats), which is the way you achieve boarding of 500 people within the timescales we are talking about.

Attempts to be slick fall over when people get involved.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

If 4 platforms would suffice, why is that not being considered for 'descoping' when reducing platforms at Euston is?

If I were being sceptical, I'd suggest that 6 platforms at OOC vs 4 makes it more feasible to make that station the temporary terminus for a while

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, deliberately so, so that there is leeway for human factors, which is just being realistic in wishing to ensure a punctual operation and a good quality experience for the users

Again, I refer you to Castlefield.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2021 ==

No, you design out the human factors in the first place. Cite source: Shinkansen.

Castlefield (once again) doesn't work as a comparison because it is basically terrible in nearly all regards from that perspective.

I hardly think a premium high speed service is befitting of a train like a Class 700 (double-width doors and wide aisles with narrow seats), which is the way you achieve boarding of 500 people within the timescales we are talking about.

Attempts to be slick fall over when people get involved.

Doesn't need to be wide doors per sé, just ample circulation space for one person + case to enter and head straight into the interior of the train.

 

[quantinghome]

Again, I refer you to Castlefield.

I hardly think a premium high speed service is befitting of a train like a Class 700 (double-width doors and wide aisles with narrow seats), which is the way you achieve boarding of 500 people within the timescales we are talking about.

Attempts to be slick fall over when people get involved.

Castlefield again! Can you not understand why Castlefield and OOC are completely different beasts?

What's wrong with double-width end doors? Perfectly sensible solution to allow fast boarding (especially given it will be completely level), and as I get tired of repeating, happily working on Intercity trains elsewhere.

The good thing about the HS2 loading gauge is you don't have to compromise between wide seats and wide aisles - there's room for both! And taking a lesson from the SNCB M6 carriage, if you stagger the seats on either side of the aisle you remove pinch points at the seat-backs.

Thinking about this further, a well-designed double decker could actually speed up boarding. Each carriage will seat 50% more passengers, but you have effectively double the space to board, through the wider doors and then two aisles.

 

[6Gman]

Have you ever seen a Pendolino boarding at say Stockport (which is comparable as hardly anyone gets off)? If you had, you'd know it wasn't.

I'm assuming you've never used the 1755 Manchester - Euston ?

 

[MarkyT]

If 4 platforms would suffice, why is that not being considered for 'descoping' when reducing platforms at Euston is?

The big trench will hold six platforms. The whole station has been designed to a high level of detail around this. You could avoid constructing two possibly but you'd still have the massive wasted space in the trench. Might as well put the platforms in - provides resilience and caters for initial interim service more competently.

Do we how they are planning to use these platforms in normal operation?

I would think it would be best to use 4 of them for Northbound services as this would make platform allocations more reliable and make it easier for passengers to be in the correct place for boarding. Services into London are flexible as to which platform they use as there will be no passengers waiting to board.

I would probably work on using the four platforms of the two outer islands normally, with one platform of the inner third island used selectively as an overflow for certain northbound trains in the peak, if required to deal with regular or special event crowding. Also, anything leaving Euston and immediately found to have a minor onboard problem could bump every other following train to the middle island until the issue is sorted. The second platform on the middle island would be the spare kept normally clear for emergency out of course reversals arriving late from the north. Keeping the middle island clear of traffic normally during the bulk of the day could allow environmental savings to be made, with lighting dimmed for instance, and platform staff redirected to assist elsewhere, although available to return to post at very short notice when required.

If I were being sceptical, I'd suggest that 6 platforms at OOC vs 4 makes it more feasible to make that station the temporary terminus for a while

With the initial interim service, OOC will be the terminus while the single-stage Euston is completed, according to the latest plan.

 

[Ianno87]

With the initial interim service, OOC will be the terminus while the single-stage Euston is completed, according to the latest plan.

Phasing aside, extra platforms at Old Oak means that a more credible service can be maintained should Euston be inaccessible for whatever reason (e.g. a security alert)

 

[BayPaul]

Again, I refer you to Castlefield.

I would say that Stratford is probably the closest station in the UK as a comparison, with fairly long distance trains stopping on the outskirts of London at an excellent hub. 1 minute dwells there are standard. 2 minutes at OOC seems quite generous in comparison. There really is no comparison to Castlefield, which is messed up by narrow platforms, simultaneously busy boarding and alighting, too short trains, too few platforms, and a huge variety of train types. OOC has none of these issues.

 

[BrianW]

Phasing aside, extra platforms at Old Oak means that a more credible service can be maintained should Euston be inaccessible for whatever reason (e.g. a security alert)

I too understand OOC to be terminal-able at least as Plan B for late completion of Euston as well as during major works, security etc.
Am I right in thinking OOC- Euston is only two-track? That might be consideration too.
And there's the 'Chiltern shuttle' to factor in?

 

[Bald Rick]

I too understand OOC to be terminal-able at least as Plan B for late completion of Euston as well as during major works, security etc.
Am I right in thinking OOC- Euston is only two-track? That might be consideration too.
And there's the 'Chiltern shuttle' to factor in?

Yes two track to Euston.

The Chiltern station, if it ever happens, won’t be in the box.

 

[Greybeard33]

Have you ever seen a Pendolino boarding at say Stockport (which is comparable as hardly anyone gets off)? If you had, you'd know it wasn't.

There's always someone who blocks the aisle while faffing with their bags etc.

I have spent a lot of time at Stockport waiting for connections and can assure you that the 2 minute dwell for Pendolinos works fine most of the time, including the peaks. This despite it being more challenging than OOC will be, due to the slow, narrow 390 doors, the steep steps and the Stockport - Manchester commuters conflicting with the Stockport - London travellers.

 

[Ianno87]

I have spent a lot of time at Stockport waiting for connections and can assure you that the 2 minute dwell for Pendolinos works fine most of the time, including the peaks. This despite it being more challenging than OOC will be, due to the slow, narrow 390 doors, the steep steps and the Stockport - Manchester commuters conflicting with the Stockport - London travellers.

Stockport is also another station where the advertised departure time is 1 minute by below the working timetable time to encourage prompt dispatch at an early stage of the journey if the train is ready.

It is clearly an effective tool for the overall performance of the railway.

 

[Roast Veg]

I would say that Stratford is probably the closest station in the UK as a comparison, with fairly long distance trains stopping on the outskirts of London at an excellent hub. 1 minute dwells there are standard. 2 minutes at OOC seems quite generous in comparison.

Stratford and Stratford International are both pretty apt comparisons. Both have very short dwells.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stockport is also another station where the advertised departure time is 1 minute by below the working timetable time to encourage prompt dispatch at an early stage of the journey if the train is ready.

It is clearly an effective tool for the overall performance of the railway.

You aren't going to convince me with regard to Avanti at least, because you're mis-selling the arrival time (if by 2 minutes). I still think for HS2 it will look sloppy, but I suppose at least nobody is being sold an inaccurate arrival time because HS2 won't be selling London-OOC tickets.

 

[Ianno87]

You aren't going to convince me with regard to Avanti at least, because you're mis-selling the arrival time (if by 2 minutes). I still think for HS2 it will look sloppy, but I suppose at least nobody is being sold an inaccurate arrival time because HS2 won't be selling London-OOC tickets.

The arrival time is not being mis-sold.

Taking the xx55 departure from Piccadilly the working times at Stockport are arrive 02.5, depart 04. (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30055/2021-04-07/detailed)

The public times are arrive 03, depart 04 (or could equally well be arrive 03 and depart 03).


The xx15 off Piccadilly does advertise the Public departure 1 minute ahead of the working departure (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y30042/2021-04-07/detailed), albeit the working arrival being 30 seconds 'late' against the public time (but could equally well be the same arrival and departure time). In reality 99.9999% of Manchester-Stockport passengers won't care. Most passengers just want the train to arrive at the advertised time, board, and then depart as promptly as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The arrival time is not being mis-sold.

Sorry, I was referring to MKC where it definitely is - the billed arrival time is 30 minutes after departure from Euston, but only in the event of a very clear run (all greens) does that happen. More usually it's 31 or 32 minutes after.

It's minor time-wise, but it looks terrible.

Didn't take long for me to find an example, either (though it's one with a WFJ stop so gets slightly longer):

Realtime Trains - 9G65 1134 London Euston to Wolverhampton

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Also appears to have required a 2 minute dwell (based on the actual times) for the tiny amount of passengers at MKC in the middle of a pandemic. May well have been nobody at all!

 

[Ianno87]

Sorry, I was referring to MKC where it definitely is - the billed arrival time is 30 minutes after departure from Euston, but only in the event of a very clear run (all greens) does that happen. More usually it's 31 or 32 minutes after.

It's minor time-wise, but it looks terrible.

Didn't take long for me to find an example, either (though it's one with a WFJ stop so gets slightly longer):

Realtime Trains - 9G65 1134 London Euston to Wolverhampton

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Also appears to have required a 2 minute dwell (based on the actual times) for the tiny amount of passengers at MKC in the middle of a pandemic. May well have been nobody at all!

Let's consider the alternative, which is to schedule it for 31 or 32 minutes. That means:

-When you do get a good run, that means sitting at MK for longer to wait departure time, when you could be on your way (having loaded passengers) and saving opportunity to recover further north where it matters (thus more likelihood of delay further north), and/or
-Taking a train out of the timetable, if trains can no longer stop at MK and still get away in front of the next train, plus
-Passengers will head to the platform fractionally later, and will be less ready to board as the train arrives for a prompt departure (and thus more likelihood of a delayed departure and able to be recovered)

A classic example of searching for a perfect solution where there isn't one. It is indeed a deliberate "trick" to maximise performance overall with the practical reality of running a busy railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A classic example of searching for a perfect solution where there isn't one. It is indeed a deliberate "trick" to maximise performance overall with the practical reality of running a busy railway.

But such "tricks" should not be applied to a brand-new railway. They are done to maximise capacity of one whose capacity can't be increased any more.