What does 6 and 3 stub platforms at Euston mean for hs2?

[bringbackcrouc]

Now that we know that Euston is going to probably be 6 full platforms plus 3 250m stubs.

What are the long term implications for further extensions and the length of those services?

 

[gravitystorm]

This was discussed, but not fully clarified, in the Transport Select Committee yesterday. There were two mentions about this, first discussing platform lengths (2:02:47) and secondly a few minutes later discussing the London Centric article (2:15:12).

Rail Minister questioned by Transport Committee on the progress of HS2 - Transport Committee

MPs on the Transport Committee take evidence for their work on HS2.Witnesses:Mark Wild - Chief Executive at HS2 LtdThe Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE - Mini...

www.youtube.com

On the additional platforms being "hemmed in", the DfT officer didn't confirm the length of the 3 extra platforms, but did say that he had no evidence that they would not be long enough. He also discussed "meanwhile use", which I think is reasonable given that the three extra platforms will not be used, even in 2043 when the Handsacre junction is open. So it's not 100% clear to me whether the 3 are permanently restricted to 250m, or whether the plans are just that the other 150m+ can be used for shops for the foreseeable future and could be eventually demolished?

Peter Hendy discussed the diagrams, and said they were all from last Autumn, so perhaps things have changed again since then?

I really hope there's nothing permanently limiting them to 250m (e.g. support columns for the over-site development). That would be frustrating, particularly if the station box is big enough and it's just something like columns in the way.

 

[Zomboid]

A total of 9?

Hope that's enough for whatever could happen in future. Realistically that means Manchester & Scotland, but not much on the eastern side.

You'd think that a "no development that would prevent them being full length" policy could be applied without creating problems.

 

[HSTEd]

Now that we know that Euston is going to probably be 6 full platforms plus 3 250m stubs.

What are the long term implications for further extensions and the length of those services?

It mean trains will have to carefully planned but the full capacity of the (non ATO) route will still likely be achievable.

Without ATO we are looking at seventeen paths per hour.

In Tokyo they manage fifteen with four platforms....

 

[Kingston Dan]

It means a second high speed terminus when inevitably it becomes clear the south ECML is full to capacity and a London - East Midlands - Leeds - NE relief is needed. People will think for the sake of an extra £10bn in the 2020s we wouldn't have to be spending £300bn on a new Kings Cross station to accommodate 16 high speed services an hour on HS3.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It mean trains will have to carefully planned but the full capacity of the (non ATO) route will still likely be achievable.

Without ATO we are looking at seventeen paths per hour.

Which is never going to be achievable in reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

It means a second high speed terminus when inevitably it becomes clear the south ECML is full to capacity and a London - East Midlands - Leeds - NE relief is needed. People will think for the sake of an extra £10bn in the 2020s we wouldn't have to be spending £300bn on a new Kings Cross station to accommodate 16 high speed services an hour on HS3.

King’s Cross has more capacity as is post electrification of all the branches and standardisation of the rolling stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

In Tokyo they manage fifteen with four platforms..

With nearly zero through running on a mixed traffic line and a much higher dedication to staying on time by the staff. But yes.

Also it’s peak hour, peak direction only - the all day service I think is “only” 10 Shinkansen on 4 platforms as per the timetable.

 

[Bevan Price]

It means a second high speed terminus when inevitably it becomes clear the south ECML is full to capacity and a London - East Midlands - Leeds - NE relief is needed. People will think for the sake of an extra £10bn in the 2020s we wouldn't have to be spending £300bn on a new Kings Cross station to accommodate 16 high speed services an hour on HS3.

ECML passenger capacity could easily be increased by running 10 coach trains rather than 5 coach trains.

 

[cle]

ECML passenger capacity could easily be increased by running 10 coach trains rather than 5 coach trains.

MML is also not there, so the raw volume of travellers really needs to be proven. Especially with the highest Leeds and Yorkshire (addl Harrogate, Skipton…) service in modern times. And Lumo.

And still running 5 car trains.

St Pancras - if there was ever a WCML/HS2 to Burton connection, 2-4 tph heading off there would comfortably address Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield fast service. Nottingham debatable as it might end up with more and therefore super fasts (also the Grantham ECML plan)

It wouldn’t impact West Yorkshire enough I doubt.

 

[Zomboid]

It wouldn’t impact West Yorkshire enough I doubt

Leeds/ Wakefield to Euston via Sheffield using current voyager timings to Tamworth and HS2 assumptions for the rest would be basically the same as it is via the ECML. So if there's space to run them that way it could create ECML capacity without slowing journey times.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Leeds/ Wakefield to Euston via Sheffield using current voyager timings to Tamworth and HS2 assumptions for the rest would be basically the same as it is via the ECML. So if there's space to run them that way it could create ECML capacity without slowing journey times.

And speeds to Sheffield would be much improved and it would be cheap to extend HS2 to support.

There should be capacity:
3tph birmingham
3tph Manchester
2tph liverpool
1tph chester and north wales
1tph Manchester via Macclesfield
2tph mainline north of Crewe

So that’s only 12tph, I’d have thought we could add in an extra 2tph to Leeds via Sheffield without the world ending. It’s probably all your capacity though.

 

[Zomboid]

And speeds to Sheffield would be much improved and it would be cheap to extend HS2 to support.

There should be capacity:
3tph birmingham (and I’d have thought 2 was sufficient)
3tph Manchester (and I’d have thought 2 was sufficient)
2tph liverpool
1tph chester
1tph Manchester via Macclesfield
2tph mainline north of Crewe

So that’s only 12tph, I’d have thought we could add in an extra 2tph to Leeds via Sheffield without the world ending. It’s probably all your capacity though.

It's probably where you run out of space at Euston, at least. But improving Derby & Sheffield to London without harming Leeds & Wakefield whilst creating capacity on the MML & ECML seems like something worth shooting for.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It's probably where you run out of space at Euston, at least. But improving Derby & Sheffield to London without harming Leeds & Wakefield whilst creating capacity on the MML & ECML seems like something worth shooting for.

9 platforms gives you 38 minutes to turn a train around on average. Or 30 minutes to turn them round plus 2 spares.

 

[hux385]

Given that Birmingham Curzon Street will have 7 platforms, I would suggest that turnarounds for London-Birmingham services are maximised at the Birmingham end with extra time built in for cleaning/delay recovery, whilst there could be a shorter turnaround at Euston due to fewer platforms availavle. The same probably can't happen with other routes but I don't know what capacity is like at Manchester Piccadilly, Liverpool etc?

If cleaning was to happen at the 'country' end rather than London, then platforms wouldn't need to be supressed at Euston and shorter turnarounds wouldn't be so stressful for passengers.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Given that Birmingham Curzon Street will have 7 platforms, I would suggest that turnarounds for London-Birmingham services are maximised at the Birmingham end with extra time built in for cleaning/delay recovery, whilst there could be a shorter turnaround at Euston due to fewer platforms availavle. The same probably can't happen with other routes but I don't know what capacity is like at Manchester Piccadilly, Liverpool etc?

If cleaning was to happen at the 'country' end rather than London, then platforms wouldn't need to be supressed at Euston and shorter turnarounds wouldn't be so stressful for passengers.

Some trains turn round in 30 minutes on a platform at St Pancras or Euston today.

Euston that is fairly insane, but assuming you have a more reliable service it should be pretty comfortable. It’s less aggressive than Tokyo for sure.

 

[Zomboid]

Given that Birmingham Curzon Street will have 7 platforms, I would suggest that turnarounds for London-Birmingham services are maximised at the Birmingham end with extra time built in for cleaning/delay recovery, whilst there could be a shorter turnaround at Euston due to fewer platforms availavle. The same probably can't happen with other routes but I don't know what capacity is like at Manchester Piccadilly, Liverpool etc?

If cleaning was to happen at the 'country' end rather than London, then platforms wouldn't need to be supressed at Euston and shorter turnarounds wouldn't be so stressful for passengers.

The Birmingham trains at least could have tighter turnarounds in London (and tighter scheduling in general as they'll run entirely on HS2 so less susceptible to wider network delays), but the other destinations might not have that luxury.

 

[JonathanH]

Given that Birmingham Curzon Street will have 7 platforms, I would suggest that turnarounds for London-Birmingham services are maximised at the Birmingham end with extra time built in for cleaning/delay recovery, whilst there could be a shorter turnaround at Euston due to fewer platforms availavle.

Is the idea still that only 3 of those 7 platforms will be fitted out for use? The station design couldn't be changed in the build phase but money is being saved in not installing equipment.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Is the idea still that only 3 of those 7 platforms will be fitted out for use? The station design couldn't be changed in the build phase but money is being saved in not installing equipment.

Doesn’t fitting platforms out for use cost very little?

 

[Zomboid]

It's probably a pretty small saving - and perhaps if they are intending on taking the approach of long dwells at Birmingham to allow shorter dwells in London, additional cost of platforms in Birmingham is more than offset by the saving in London. Or maybe it's not...

 

[MatthewHutton]

The other thing they clearly haven’t taken into account is using some of the existing Euston platforms.

Most of them are 300m long or longer and they won’t need all of them when HS2 is finished as the classic line will have fewer trains - and certainly fewer long distance trains that take a while to turn around.

The sleeper(s) could also terminate outside London - perhaps somewhere with HS2 connectivity if that was required to free up platforms. They could also sit in a dedicated platform until e.g 10am making them more civilised as well.

 

[mmh]

Doesn’t fitting platforms out for use cost very little?

In the scheme of things you'd imagine so. I suppose the rationale might be if you don't fit it you don't need to maintain it, but again the cost is surely negligible and offset by the advantage of having more space in case of disruption.

But it allows for "look, we've cut stuff!"

 

[MatthewHutton]

In the scheme of things you'd imagine so. I suppose the rationale might be if you don't fit it you don't need to maintain it, but again the cost is surely negligible and offset by the advantage of having more space in case of disruption.

But it allows for "look, we've cut stuff!"

I am sure there are better things to cut.

 

[zwk500]

I am sure there are better things to cut.

The previous government already cut the bits north and east of Birmingham...

(not that these were actually good things to cut, but they were the big-ticket cuts)

 

[MatthewHutton]

The previous government already cut the bits north and east of Birmingham...

(not that these were actually good things to cut, but they were the big-ticket cuts)

Are you really not able to reduce the construction costs by building to a lower standard?

I mean we are now only running at TGV speeds.

 

[zwk500]

Are you really not able to reduce the construction costs by building to a lower standard?

I mean we are now only running at TGV speeds.

As explained on other threads, even dropping to classic line speeds wouldn't save that much.

But also we are now well into the detailed design phase (indeed much of the design is already built!), and therefore trying to change the specification now will incur significant extra cost as everybody has to take things back and re-start the detailed design.
The cost saving of dropping to 320kph will be in not needing to certify the design to the full 360/400kph. The advantage of not redesigning away from 400kph is that it could, in theory, be certified for the extra 80kph at a later date.

 

[MatthewHutton]

As explained on other threads, even dropping to classic line speeds wouldn't save that much.

According to a bunch of very stupid people who suffer from Dunning Kruger.

But also we are now well into the detailed design phase (indeed much of the design is already built!), and therefore trying to change the specification now will incur significant extra cost as everybody has to take things back and re-start the detailed design.
The cost saving of dropping to 320kph will be in not needing to certify the design to the full 360/400kph. The advantage of not redesigning away from 400kph is that it could, in theory, be certified for the extra 80kph at a later date.

Fair. But also if stuff does come up where there’s a choice to do it the expensive way or a cheaper way that’s still valid for 320 you can do that.

 

[JonathanH]

The other thing they clearly haven’t taken into account is using some of the existing Euston platforms.

That can't be done because they are at a different height.

 

[zwk500]

According to a bunch of very stupid people who suffer from Dunning Kruger.

This was the thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ence-between-hs2-at-225mph-and-185mph.300221/, claiming a 9% price difference between 125mph and 225mph.

Fair. But also if stuff does come up where there’s a choice to do it the expensive way or a cheaper way that’s still valid for 320 you can do that.

You *could* have done that, if it hadn't all been designed now.

There might be some savings in the track, OLE, and Rolling Stock designs possible. But all the big stuff (bridges, tunnels) is under construction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other thing they clearly haven’t taken into account is using some of the existing Euston platforms.

Most of them are 300m long or longer and they won’t need all of them when HS2 is finished as the classic line will have fewer trains - and certainly fewer long distance trains that take a while to turn around.

The classic line won't have fewer trains. It'll have more of a local
service.

The sleeper(s) could also terminate outside London - perhaps somewhere with HS2 connectivity if that was required to free up platforms. They could also sit in a dedicated platform until e.g 10am making them more civilised as well.

Ridiculous idea, every bit as stupid as permanently terminating HS2 at Old Oak.

 

[MatthewHutton]

This was the thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ence-between-hs2-at-225mph-and-185mph.300221/, claiming a 9% price difference between 125mph and 225mph

Yes. So the officials/HS2 limited made the claim. It’s difficult to accept they knew what they were doing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2026 ==

That can't be done because they are at a different height.

Could you not just have some steep track to connect them? Bearing in mind you might be able to shorten the platforms somewhat.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2026 ==

Ridiculous idea, every bit as stupid as permanently terminating HS2 at Old Oak.

We cannot spend billions extra building more platforms just because a train with 250,000 passengers a year exists. Even if it is popular with MPs and their staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We cannot spend billions extra building more platforms just because a train with 250,000 passengers a year exists. Even if it is popular with MPs and their staff.

We can if we build HS2, which we are doing.