The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,749
Are you genuinely suggesting that a train has a 4 minute turnaround?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the HS2-HS1 tunnel under London be uncancelled?
- Thread starter sad1e
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
In fairness, I read it as you intended it and had to go back to see how it could be read the other way.
(It can, but a bit of a stretch - English can be a pain that way!)
So, just to make sure I’ve got this right, you’re diverting all of Southeastern Highspeed to Old Oak Common. What happened to interchange penalty? Stratford International is a terrible interchange, and you seem to think Old Oak Common is not a good enough interchange to get to Thameslink via the Liz Line, so you’ve just made travelling to London, which is the majority of current journeys, significantly worse than currently. As an added note how are you signalling these trains into Old Oak Common? Are you fitting Javellins with ETCS, the HS2 tunnels with TVM or colour light signals?
Same can be said for HS2, you’re sending a bunch of trains out to the Southeast, when passengers from the southeast will be a small proportion of passengers. These trains don’t get the convenient change you’re speaking of at St Pancras, Stratford certainly isn’t a convenient connection. And how are you running the trains on HS1? Are you fitting them with TVM?
The suggestion it would add 7 minute between St Pancras and Old Oak Common just isn’t true. You aren’t going to be running at any kind of speed next to the NLL, it’s bendy and very open, and Euston to Old Oak is 5 minutes in itself.
We get that there's a interchange penalty, with an element of that about an hour being to allow for arriving with enough time to ensure that you make your booked train.
What we don't get is why there's then a zero interchange penalty if the HS2 services were to call at St Pancras. As if the interchange is so easy that they would forego getting there early to ensure that they make their booked train.
We also do not understand how switching from Euston to St Pancras creates a 30% boost (47% of 70% is about 30%) to all HS2 travel.
Within London there'll be winners and losers, overall maybe a small advantage. For the areas in the South East, at best half would benefit and half wouldn't (Kent and the Sussex benefit, whilst Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire wouldn't).
However, even if that does take in benefits to 47% of the population there needs to be capacity for them to access HS1/HS2 services at St Pancras. You're likely to struggle to get many additional people in the peak hours (which BTW includes on the non HS2 services to get to the interchange).
If there really was the scope for there to be an extra 30 million passengers a year on HS2 then why was that not part of the assessment at the time of picking the solution?
You are quite right that repeating yourself doesn’t make things right. What does make things right is evidence. This link is to the Southeastern HighSpeed timetable pdf:
Loading...
Just in case you don’t want to check it, here is a screenshot of the departures from St Pancras from 1700 to 1830 on a weekday. You will note there are 10 in the 90 minutes (actually, 10 in 78 minutes from 1707), and 7 in the 48 minutes from that time. There is also a spare path from St Pancras to Ebbsfleet (and on to Gravesend) at 1746.
Are you still going to claim there are only 4 trains an hour?
Thanks. I talk to “the drivers”, the Managing Directors, and many people in between, including those responsible for writing the timetables and operating them. Also the people responsible for passenger demand modelling and ’owning’ PDFH. They know their stuff - it is their job to. But you appear to be implying that they are all wrong, but you are right?
I’m not going to write, again, what I already have to challenge your proposal and point out the elements that are built on incorrect sssumptions, are incorrect themselves, or present a significant hurdle to overcome that you have not considered. But you haven’t answered any of the questions put to you by me and many others, except to repeat what you have already written. This can mean one of two things:
1) You have ignored all the challenges / alternative views put to you, which makes you egocentric, or,
2) You have considered the challenges, realised that your proposal has many significant flaws that make it impractical and uneconomic, but have chosen to still keep repeating what you have already said before when you know it is incorrect. That makes you a liar.
Neither are character traits that are particularly welcome on this forum.
Perhaps before you comment again you’d like to read some of the questions put to you, and consider them carefully before providing some answers in response.
John Jefkins
Member
It’s Old Oak to Primrose Hill (not Euston ) and 40mph into St Pancras - so yes 7 to 8 minutes max.
All Southeastern reverse at St Pancras within 6 or 7.5 minute slots to reach OOC ( or possibly Heathrow via the same type of within station box ramp that Stratford international has ).
All initial classic compatible 200m HS2 trains ( 8 are planned per hour ) either terminate in a double slot at St Pancras or reverse within 6 minutes to terminate at either Stratford or Ebbsfleet or Ashford. So that’s 6 of the 8 terminating either at St Pancras or just 7 minutes east of St Pancras at Stratford with just 2 or 3 extended to Kent.
The NNL at 40mph is just fine for trains coming into the station.
The route from the tight HS2 curve at Primrose Hill into Euston is only 50mph so no real difference - apart from St Pancras being £6 billion cheaper and having no 65 minute interchange penalty.
By taking 12 trains per hour between OOC and St Pancras platforms we boost passenger numbers by reducing the interchange penalty for both HS2 and the already overcrowded Elizabeth line. This becomes an alternative route for millions of people from north London , Essex and Kent as well as anybody using the Thameslink network.
For 70% of the HS2 market the connections at either Stratford or St Pancras are the equivalent of an hour better than Euston in rail markets modelling terms. That pushes passenger numbers up by 47% for around 70% of the potential market whilst vastly reducing costs. By avoiding the need to wait for Euston platforms to be completed it delivers revenue earlier too.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hi. I’m not saying I’m right on everything which is why I’m happy to explore the inevitable issues with details. Sorry by the way for repeating stuff because I couldn’t see my replies appearing on subsequent pages that I couldn’t see at the base of my phone ( which I was using instead of my laptop whilst I was away for a few days).You are quite right that repeating yourself doesn’t make things right. What does make things right is evidence. This link is to the Southeastern HighSpeed timetable pdf:
Loading...
timetables.southeasternrailway.co.uk
Just in case you don’t want to check it, here is a screenshot of the departures from St Pancras from 1700 to 1830 on a weekday. You will note there are 10 in the 90 minutes (actually, 10 in 78 minutes from 1707), and 7 in the 48 minutes from that time. There is also a spare path from St Pancras to Ebbsfleet (and on to Gravesend) at 1746.
View attachment 176961
Are you still going to claim there are only 4 trains an hour?
Thanks. I talk to “the drivers”, the Managing Directors, and many people in between, including those responsible for writing the timetables and operating them. Also the people responsible for passenger demand modelling and ’owning’ PDFH. They know their stuff - it is their job to. But you appear to be implying that they are all wrong, but you are right?
I’m not going to write, again, what I already have to challenge your proposal and point out the elements that are built on incorrect sssumptions, are incorrect themselves, or present a significant hurdle to overcome that you have not considered. But you haven’t answered any of the questions put to you by me and many others, except to repeat what you have already written. This can mean one of two things:
1) You have ignored all the challenges / alternative views put to you, which makes you egocentric, or,
2) You have considered the challenges, realised that your proposal has many significant flaws that make it impractical and uneconomic, but have chosen to still keep repeating what you have already said before when you know it is incorrect. That makes you a liar.
Neither are character traits that are particularly welcome on this forum.
Perhaps before you comment again you’d like to read some of the questions put to you, and consider them carefully before providing some answers in response.
I’ve been exploring options with various experts for about 10 years now. Basically we’ve got a situation where there has been a feeding frenzy from consultants who have pushed costs way over what our government can afford - risking wrecking the whole capacity uplift we need from HS2. We simply have to find a better way to do this.
That’s why we need to explore just how we CAN exploit existing unused assets ( unused platforms) at Stratford and Ebbsfleet together with better use of those poorly used 9 platforms at St Pancras.
Yes, my visions need to be tested against your experience and expertise. I’d love to meet and debate this better.
I’m in Harrogate right now and back at my laptop tomorrow when it’s easier to answer your points properly - now that I’ve noticed the little page numbers and spotted that my repeated responses actually were being posted ….. I really wasn’t trying to repeat myself. I just couldn’t see that there were 5 other pages as I’ve never used this website before.
For the Javelin rush hour point,
A) normally it really is only 4 per hour.
B) the new HS2 trains would provide expansion possibilities
C) at OOC those 2 centre platforms are 400m long to enable four Javelins to terminate at once. They typically turn in under 12 minutes anyway.
D) I’m proposing use of platform 10 for rush hour use - eg 90 minutes in mornings and late afternoons. So there’d be 4 platforms available at rush hours ( and 3 roads to those platforms).
E) The extra return trains would be returning from OOC and could of course bypass St Pancras on the NNL - HS1 link track. They could carry passengers too rather than being empty to depot.
I’ve got more time tomorrow to answer your other valid points.
But the reality is that to protect HS2 we really do need to find a more cost effective solution. That’s why we need to explore these options.
When I’m back at a laptop instead of on a phone (stupidly failing to notice page number buttons ) I’ll try to précis your points and answer each of them - by tomorrow lunchtime.
Last edited:
John Jefkins
Member
It’s normally 4 in and 4 out ( 8 movements). Rush hour that’s 10.You are quite right that repeating yourself doesn’t make things right. What does make things right is evidence. This link is to the Southeastern HighSpeed timetable pdf:
Loading...
Just in case you don’t want to check it, here is a screenshot of the departures from St Pancras from 1700 to 1830 on a weekday. You will note there are 10 in the 90 minutes (actually, 10 in 78 minutes from 1707), and 7 in the 48 minutes from that time. There is also a spare path from St Pancras to Ebbsfleet (and on to Gravesend) at 1746.
View attachment 176961
Are you still going to claim there are only 4 trains an hour?
Thanks. I talk to “the drivers”, the Managing Directors, and many people in between, including those responsible for writing the timetables and operating them. Also the people responsible for passenger demand modelling and ’owning’ PDFH. They know their stuff - it is their job to. But you appear to be implying that they are all wrong, but you are right?
I’m not going to write, again, what I already have to challenge your proposal and point out the elements that are built on incorrect sssumptions, are incorrect themselves, or present a significant hurdle to overcome that you have not considered. But you haven’t answered any of the questions put to you by me and many others, except to repeat what you have already written. This can mean one of two things:
1) You have ignored all the challenges / alternative views put to you, which makes you egocentric, or,
2) You have considered the challenges, realised that your proposal has many significant flaws that make it impractical and uneconomic, but have chosen to still keep repeating what you have already said before when you know it is incorrect. That makes you a liar.
Neither are character traits that are particularly welcome on this forum.
Perhaps before you comment again you’d like to read some of the questions put to you, and consider them carefully before providing some answers in response.
Which is why I’d suggest a deal to use platform 10 for rush hours.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It’s not cheaper than replacing steelwork on 6 road bridges and getting HS1 Ltd to fund junction improvements at St Pancras.
And it doesn’t win the passenger uplift of winning 15 million extra passengers a year paying £60 fares that switching the interchange from Euston to St Pancras wins.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It’s not cheaper than replacing steelwork on 6 road bridges and getting HS1 Ltd to fund junction improvements at St Pancras.
And it doesn’t win the passenger uplift of winning 15 million extra passengers a year paying £60 fares that switching the interchange from Euston to St Pancras wins.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Please read my replies instead of repeating misinformation.
All freight would run to Willesden in between TfL trains just as they currently do from Stratford to Camden - so no freight on the Primrose Hill route.
Yes if the bridge superstructure is replaced, Arups drawings show that GC gauge works. Look at those Arun drawings and I’ve also checked the measurements as adjacent buildings have since them been removed which makes it easier to remove the brick parapet wall and replace it with a thinner metal handrail or cantilevered walkway.
Last edited:
How is it ‘misinformation’ to simply suggest that extending the Elizabeth line to Ebsfleet would be cheaper. Do you have some costings to back that up?
I come back to the point that I've asked you about several times now.
How is St Pancras an hour better if a lot of the delay at Euston is too ensure that they make their booked service?
Either:
- travel from Euston had a delay of (say) 100 minutes with (say) 35 minutes of that being to ensure that the passenger gets there on time for their connection with the remaining 65 minutes required to make a connection which most would be able to do in under 30 minutes and quite a few in around 20 minutes and the delay at St Pancras is 35 minutes
OR
- the total delay at Euston is 65 minutes, of which (say) 35 minutes is to ensure that a passenger makes their connection, however there's also a (say) 35 minutes delay at St Pancras (but almost zero for changing platforms) to ensure that they make their connection
Bottom line of a passenger is wanting to get the 12:25 HS2 service from the central London station what time do they want to be at that station?
At Euston is that 11:20 or some other time earlier than that (say 10:45)?
At St Pancras is that 12:25 or some other time earlier than that (say 11:50)?
Edit:
Predicted passenger numbers for HS2 were not maximised, so even without making changes, there's a fair chance that passenger numbers could be higher than the predictions.
Last edited:
But it isn’t 40mph. It’s 25mph into St Pancras from Camden and the North London Line (NLL, not NNL which is something different).
And it is also 15mph or 20mph on the NLL. None of that is fine for 400m trains several times an hour each way in a throat that has multiple points of conflict if you try to reverse services.
That is incorrect. The current line is 50mph to Park St Tunnel, 40 from there to the last signal gantry then 25moh to the stoos from there. HS2 (heading north) will be:
60km/h (37mph) from the bufferstops to 700 metres
65km/h (40mph) between 700m and 875m
70km/h (43mph) between 875m and 1065m
100km/h (62mph) between 1065m and the Euston tunnel portal at 1275m
145km/h (90mph) between 1275m and 2350m - approximately alongside Primrose Hill
160km/h (100mph) beyond 2350m, before stepping up to 180km/h then 230km/h in the Euston tunnels.
By comparison, coming out of St Pancras would be:
40km/h (25mph) from the bufferstops via Silo Curve, Cedar Junction to Camden Rd Incline Junction (1606m)
15mph between Camden Rd Incline Jn and Camden Rd Central Jn (7 chains, 141metres)
20mph (effective) between Camden Rd Central Jn and the Regional boundary at Chalk Farm bridge (34ch, 684m)
15mph from the Chalk Farm Bridge to your proposed tunnel portal in the vicinity of Primrose Hill station (31ch, 624m).
I make that a total of 3,055 metres to your portal, never higher than 25mph and allowing for acceleration and deceleration from the buffer stops and 15mph restrictions, almost all of it at 20mph or less. So it is much slower and 700metres further. As I said upthread, it will be an additional 3.5 to 4 minutes, and that very definitely matters.
All these taken from publicly available documents - HS2 maps, East Anglia Sectional Appendix, HS1 Sectional Appendix.
I’m going to keep replying until you accept the evidence. It is normally 7tph in peak hours, that is 14 movements. The 4tph is off peak.
Your proposal requires a lot, lot more than replacing steelwork on a handful of bridges. You have to completely rebuild Camden Road, for example. Plus, I have said above - but you have ignored - it all needs resignalling, all OLE replaced, all the tracks replaced, several masonry viaducts widening, with lots of land take.
Now, why would HS1 Ltd fund junction improvements at St Pancras?
Neither does your proposal, regardless of what you might think, because you have not properly assessed it on a common comparison basis. But even if it did, where would these passengers sit?
Last edited:
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 860
Does this proposal still require the magic bridge with 1 in 10 gradients?
Because you can argue all you want about timetables, costs etc..., but you also have to deal with the simple, immutable laws of physics.
You can bemoan consultants all you like (who at the start of this project will have looked at so many options, including this mess) but what makes YOU qualified in telling the people on this forum that they are misguided.
I think with all honesty that if you have been looking at this for 10 years with "experts" you need a new hobby.
If you are not accepting what are basic facts of railway operation and construction that have been repeatedly pointed out, then the idea is worthless.
Sorry for putting it bluntly, but that is the truth.
Because you can argue all you want about timetables, costs etc..., but you also have to deal with the simple, immutable laws of physics.
You can bemoan consultants all you like (who at the start of this project will have looked at so many options, including this mess) but what makes YOU qualified in telling the people on this forum that they are misguided.
I think with all honesty that if you have been looking at this for 10 years with "experts" you need a new hobby.
If you are not accepting what are basic facts of railway operation and construction that have been repeatedly pointed out, then the idea is worthless.
Sorry for putting it bluntly, but that is the truth.
honestly if you really want to link HS1-HS2, doing so outside London is prob the better option LGV Interconnexion Est style like the HS4Air proposal, Serves a new catchment area for HSR (including Airport traffic) and prob faster as less need for complex junction work in a expensive built up area
zwk500
Veteran Member
Where would you put the junction? Anywhere on the Essex ground level section is still going to need a massive tunnel and demolition of surrounding industrial areas, anywhere south of Ebbsfleet will require a new tunnel under the Thames, or orbiting London across Surrey (good luck getting consent there!)
There was already a map for HS4air at least, would branch off HS2 north of Old Oak Common, pass under Heathrow, Gatwick them follow the classic line to meet HS1 at Ashford
Last edited:
zwk500
Veteran Member
IIRC the map for HS4air was no more sophisiticated than somebody drawing a smooth line between those 4 points on MS Paint.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,285
We already have services from the "north" terminating next to the STP Eurostar station, as the MML services also terminate at STP, and the ECML services terminate next door at Kings Cross.
Has anyone actually done comparisons between the major cities on those lines and those on the WCML, to see whether having more convenient trains to catch the Eurostar actually makes a difference to the number of people who actually do so?
Has anyone actually done comparisons between the major cities on those lines and those on the WCML, to see whether having more convenient trains to catch the Eurostar actually makes a difference to the number of people who actually do so?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,386
Given the relatively low speed north of Ebbsfleet (230km/h), you might be able to escape to the north near Purfleet. Perhaps a route over the Ingrebourne Links Golf Course.
Technologist
Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2018
- Messages
- 471
Given the stonking costs of Euston I do wonder if a simplified version of what is proposed in this thread would be possible.
1: Double track junction off the tunnels to Euston, would need to build an underground box off existing tunnels Channel Tunnel style.
2: 2.5km of twin tunnels to join HS1 just north of St Pancras
3: A similar double track junction to join to HS2
With this arrangement a portion of HS2 trains could terminate on HS1 by passing Euston entirely, there would be most space to do this at Ebbsfleet though a portion could do it at Stratford. The same would be true of Javelins which could bypass St Pancras and terminate at OOC.
Such a proposal would still be extraordinarily expensive. The amount of people living on HS1 is comparatively small compared to London. 10 million people live in the ‘South East’ and 5 million problem visit it a year (using numbers for the entire south east is very generous given it includes even Oxfordshire). How many of those come from a HS2 served area? There is no way that justifies the cost of such a tunnel.
Maybe if you include Eurostar, but if they want to tempt people connecting when they have more capacity, they just need a well made ad campaign on existing agreements to carry delayed passengers. That’ll save a few billion.
Class15
Established Member
It’s even worse. The 15mph speed limit sign is literally located just after leaving the NLL (indeed, as you have said, it is not the NNL). The 15mph limit starts at Hawley Wharf. You can see it very easily from passing Overground trains on the Gospel Oak route.
How do you build the junctions, and the tunnels?
As has been stated multiple times up thread - you can’t terminate at Stratford from the west. And terminating at OOC from the East is not simple. Besides, there would be absolute uproar, not to mention a very significant loss of revenue, if the Javelins did not serve central London.
country_end_37
Member
Exactly — I often think that so much of the perception of the hassle (including my own) is because the walking route just does not come across as coherent. If you know to look out for the Phoenix Road route there are a few signs, but the most obvious tourist route along Euston Road is terrible — uneven paving for people dragging suitcases, lots of pedestrian crossings with not enough pavement space for all those suitcases, buses turning, taxis turning without indicating, no consistent branding or signage. It could be so much better. I honestly think a covered pedestrianised route of some kind — maybe an attractive 'greenhouse' avenue — along Phoenix Road and Brill Place, with a new, properly signed, step-free "St Pancras" entrance/exit to Euston Station on Eversholt Street, and luggage trolleys, however much it might change some of the character of the area and disrupt local traffic, could make a huge difference. Why not have street food stalls, benches, mini-exhibitions, etc? People walk that kind of distance at airports and maybe it's perceived as hassle too, but it's presented as a coherent path, rather than a mess like the current routes are. Move St Pancras & Euston next to each other on schematic maps. Show them connected as an interchange, even.
It's a shame in a way that the layout of St Pancras means there couldn't be HS2 > Eurostar (or others) security & border stuff along that 10-minute walking route, but I appreciate it's on the wrong side of the "secure" side of the station.
I agree. TfL studied a scheme to improve the route in conjunction with a new Euston east side entrance formed from unused parcel buildings and the raft over the platforms. It's already local access traffic only. The project would widen walkways, improve lighting, furniture and signage.
Perhaps a canopy part of the way on one side of the road.
Maybe the bit alongside the Crick. Listed Chamberlain House with its shopfronts and entrance arch could be controversial.
Indeed, Kent has a population of 1.6 million.
However, Hampshire at 1.4 million isn't much smaller, but then has connections on to Portsmouth, Southampton, Wiltshire and Dorset.
Given that HS2 was arguably slightly pessimistic on the growth rate (whilst it's currently behind where it was expected to be current growth rates could recover that within a few years and that's only because of significant reduction due to COVID and the lag in recovery due to strikes and the slowness of some TOC's to restore services - when those which did are above their pre COVID numbers) and the arguments for a HS1-HS2 link generating a lot of extra passengers, the same reasoning could justify Crossrail 2.
As bit only would it benefit London travel, it would (due to an easier interchange) boost HS2 passenger numbers and boost rail travel across Surrey and Hampshire from more services beyond Woking.
Of course those arguing for the HS1-HS2 link would say it's but the same, but given they've got several questions that they've not answered and it's not even likely that it's all that practical to build, if you're going to back one project then arguably Crossrail 2 is the better one to do.
Especially given a chunk of the investment is paid by Londoners.
John Jefkins
Member
1) As we're only talking about the first 1,000 metres in and out of St Pancras instead of Euston, your HS2 speed of 35 mph for the 1st 700 metres compares very well.
Your speeds along the NNL are incorrect as TfL trains aren't limited to 25mph along the same stretch. Its 35mph around the curves and up to 40mph elsewhere.
That means the 35mph out of Euston is EXACTLY THE SAME speed as 35mph around the Camden Market curve and 40mph along to the St Pancras throat.
The speeds out of the platforms would be exactly as out of the Euston throat as you've ignored our plan to provide 3 roads (and of course half the movements into and out of those platforms would be going in the HS1 direction and could happen whilst another Eurostar was inbound or outbound.
So there would be under 2 minutes difference in journey time into St Pancras compared with Euston, but up to an HOUR saved in interchange times for 70% of the markets.
The key thing you are ignoring is that people are not starting their journeys at either Euston or St Pancras. Its that better interchange speed that cuts far more off their total journey time (up to an hour) compared with more like 2 minutes extra journey time into or out of St Pancras compared with Euston.
Your speeds are a wild exaggeration, demonstrated by the faster speeds of TfL trains alongside. Do you have a vested interest Sir in dismissing Arup's drawings on this?
2) There is absolutely no land take (apart from the 1st floor of one dentists surgery at Kentish Town Rd where a wider viaduct is needed to cross it).
3) As said earlier the single freight train per hour using the route to Primrose Hill would continue to use one of the 8 slots in-between TfL trains to connect to the WCML at Willesden instead (just as they run in-between TfL trains now all the way from Stratford). There is room to expand freight 8 fold. TfL trains would shift over to the 2 restored tracks along the existing railway land and use restored platforms at Camden Rd.
4) As the Arup drawings show, the viaduct is already wide enough (at 8.4 metres) to take a pair of GC guage trains passing each other. It is only the central I frames of the bridge superstructures that get in the way, with the steelwork of 6 road-bridges needing to be replaced.
5) The key thing is that even if this costs about £250 million (part funded by HS1 Ltd from their extra revenue and TfL from saving £1 billion on not needing to upgrade Euston tube), it SAVES around £6 billion by (a) not needing to tunnel from Primrose Hill to Euston, (b) by never needing 10 platforms at Euston and (c) by avoiding a £1 billion need of upgrading the tube station at Euston tube (or postponing it until Crossrail 2). A similar upgrade at Victoria tube station just cost £900 million.
6) You were also worried about St Pancras platform usage. Normally only 4 Javelins/hr use those 3 platforms (8 movements) and we'd have a new cross-over viaduct to cross over the 2 Eurostar trains/hr (only 4 movements). At Rush hour all the Javelins would run to O.O.C with those couple of empty returns able to by-pass St Pancras on the by-pass connection to HS1. But we'd suggest using the Javelin side of platform 10 (opening it up as a 4th platform at rush hours able to take your extra trains) by just raising it's floor level and adding glass doors at each end - with the passageway behind possibly opened up as a 1st floor link route).
St Pancras already has an upgraded tube station. St Pancras first floor has loads of spare space for extra passengers, and the drafty atrium by Javelin platforms could be filled in by HS1 Ltd to add extra capacity there (with extra lifts added on the south facing wall where the doors are now permanently closed).
So, yes, let's properly assess it. I expect you are right on the odd thing, but you really cannot claim that trains would run at only 25 mph when TfL trains clearly don't do that alongside exactly the same track. As your own figures show, HS2 track is only 35mph for the 1st 700 metres and we're only talking about the same 35mph for 1km to Juniper Crescent.
This SAVES about £6 billion, can be delivered EARLIER than a rebuilt Euston, and BOOSTS markets by saving 70% of HS2 users up to an hour of interchange time - to boost markets by almost 50% for most of London and the south east. 15 million extra passengers paying £62 (2040s) for fares from home counties (eg Cambridge, Colchester, Chelmsford, Sevenoaks, Ashford, Gillingham, South East London, North East London to Manchester or Bristol) would earn £1 billion/yr extra revenue.
Total journey time including the interchange penalty is what needs to be compared here.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Bald Rick was also worried about St Pancras platform usage. Normally only 4 Javelins/hr use those 3 platforms (8 movements) and we'd have a new cross-over viaduct to cross over the 2 Eurostar trains/hr (only 4 movements). At Rush hour all the Javelins would run to O.O.C with those couple of empty returns able to by-pass St Pancras on the by-pass connection to HS1. But we'd suggest using the Javelin side of platform 10 (opening it up as a 4th platform at rush hours able to take your extra trains) by just raising it's floor level and adding glass doors at each end - with the passageway behind possibly opened up as a 1st floor link route).
Last edited:
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 860
That bridge is IMPOSSIBLE. Stop repeating it as an option.
There is no physical way in that distance to get a line up and over and down into St Pancras using the basic limitations of gravity.
I think you are being incredibly rude in your postings on here and you have not responded to any valid critiscism.
You can claim that only 4 javelins per hour use St Pancras normally, however at some point you will have to face that in reality at rush hour it is much more and this is likely when you will have your HS2 services arriving.
I am sure all the HS1 javelin customers will also be thrilled that they are now getting dumped in OOC rather than St Pancras.
Last edited:
TBF I think the OP is only proposing to run the trains there, and they will still call at STP - where of course the vast majority of the passengers will alight (and a few board!). Similarly the HS2 trains will empty out at STP before continuing to the international platforms at Stratford/Ebbsfleet/Ashford (thus preventing them being used by international services) for the remaining passengers.
But at least they won't have to use the tube from EUS to STP (as post #178 claims.)
- Status