HS2 is going to add more than 100x more passengers than the sleeper though.We can if we build HS2, which we are doing.
Local service can use platforms more aggressively and there’s freight which doesn’t need any platforms.The classic line won't have fewer trains. It'll have more of a local
service
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: ==
Doesn’t sound like something worth spending billions to avoid.IIUC, it's the platforms that are different height, needing recourse to ramps/ assistance for boarding, alighting rather than 'level boarding'.
Maybe not. The Equality Act and related policies before and since 2010 have endeavoured to provide better access (and egress) for disabled people, folk with prams etc. Ask Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson.Doesn’t sound like something worth spending billions to avoid.
No. Remember HS2 comes into Euston in a tunnel. The planned platforms are 8 metres below ground level.Could you not just have some steep track to connect them? Bearing in mind you might be able to shorten the platforms somewhat.
You’re confusing platform height wrt trains with station depth below local ground level - they’re completely separate issues.Maybe not. The Equality Act and related policies before and since 2010 have endeavoured to provide better access (and egress) for disabled people, folk with prams etc. Ask Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson.
Maybe I am confused. I thought I was responding to a suggestion that HS2 trains might use platforms in the existing 'classic' Euston station' (in extremis?). Happy to be wrong, if I am.You’re confusing platform height wrt trains with station depth below local ground level - they’re completely separate issues.
Would it really not be cheaper to make the entrance to the tunnel closer to the surface? Bearing in mind high speed trains can go on up to a 4% gradient.No. Remember HS2 comes into Euston in a tunnel. The planned platforms are 8 metres below ground level.
The rules require “reasonable adjustments” for the disabled. It’s tough to argue that it’s necessary to spending billions on it when you could staff the platforms with assistants to help people onto the train for a fraction of that.Maybe not. The Equality Act and related policies before and since 2010 have endeavoured to provide better access (and egress) for disabled people, folk with prams etc. Ask Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson.
If only they hadn’t already built so much of it…Would it really not be cheaper to make the entrance to the tunnel closer to the surface? Bearing in mind high speed trains can go on up to a 4% gradient.
I have to assume the depth of the tunnel is dependent on what’s above it. So making it shallower presumably means having to buy more expensive London property to knock down. I can’t see that being a cheap option.Would it really not be cheaper to make the entrance to the tunnel closer to the surface? Bearing in mind high speed trains can go on up to a 4% gradient.
This way you’re having to build 9 platforms wide by 400m and an 8m deep hole rather than at most 6 platforms on the surface by 400m plus a bit more space at the far end for a dive under, actually if you needed 200m to go down 8m at full width it would be about the same amount of space.I have to assume the depth of the tunnel is dependent on what’s above it. So making it shallower presumably means having to buy more expensive London property to knock down. I can’t see that being a cheap option.
Or they are incompetent and got it wrong.I would imagine the choice of depth has been made for a good reason, and if an extremely steep approach to reduce the depth offered more benefits than what they're doing, they'd be doing that.
It's going to be quite a complicated approach with an underground grade separated junction to avoid conflicts (the same as St Pancras on HS1, just in a tunnel), which probably limits the options somewhat.
Could it go from Waterloo old Eurostar platforms?Regarding the sleeper, that can run from Victoria and up the WLL, and remember it would only be the Highlander.
Given they aren’t giving up any Euston platforms in the existing station it can stay as is.Could it go from Waterloo old Eurostar platforms?
No. They are no longer long enough.Could it go from Waterloo old Eurostar platforms?
Broadly they are assuming they can use the platforms more efficiently, and broadly that is sensible given the high costs of building the station and that the trains will be much more likely to be on time than on the pure classic network.What I’m trying to understand is what is now impossible given that Euston was once going to be 11 full length hs platforms but now it is going to be 6 full length plus 3 250m “stubs”. The correspondence says that is going to allow for 16tph but my understanding was that the original was designed for 18tph. Also, it looks like some of those 16 will be shorter trains all the way rather than full length trains that split on the mainline (eg front to Glasgow, back to Edinburgh)
You can run the Victoria line from 2 platforms at Brixton, so it's not essential to have 11 for 16tph. That's obviously an absurd analogy, but the point is you can use terminal platforms quite intensively if necessary. What will probably be lost by reducing turnaround times on HS2 is resilience.What I’m trying to understand is what is now impossible given that Euston was once going to be 11 full length hs platforms but now it is going to be 6 full length plus 3 250m “stubs”. The correspondence says that is going to allow for 16tph but my understanding was that the original was designed for 18tph. Also, it looks like some of those 16 will be shorter trains all the way rather than full length trains that split on the mainline (eg front to Glasgow, back to Edinburgh)
Well with 18 trains an hour, long sections of classic running on congested lines and all the train splitting it was never really going to achieve that.But wasn’t the whole point of hs2 meant to be a game changer in that not only would the network be resilient and recover there was a leaf on the line but also if a train is out of sequence because of a passenger falling sick etc.
It was as if the most optimistic of spotters had been given a deluxe set of crayons. Which I bet isn't that far from what actually happened. You can definitely see the influence of "railway people," we never learn.Well with 18 trains an hour, long sections of classic running on congested lines and all the train splitting it was never really going to achieve that.
Wasn't that when Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds were entirely on high speed lines? Optimistic maybe but not ridiculous, IMO.It was as if the most optimistic of spotters had been given a deluxe set of crayons. Which I bet isn't that far from what actually happened. You can definitely see the influence of "railway people," we never learn.
There was always going to be through running to Edinburgh and Glasgow in particular as well as Liverpool and Newcastle - and the train splitting risks reliability as well.Wasn't that when Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds were entirely on high speed lines? Optimistic maybe but not ridiculous, IMO.
True but most services would have run entirely on HS2 infrastructure (including Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds). I wouldn't be surprised if the theoretical maximum capacity of the high speed line was designed to be closer to 24tph, so probably some slack for things being out of sequence.There was always going to be through running to Edinburgh and Glasgow in particular as well as Liverpool and Newcastle - and the train splitting risks reliability as well.
And 18 trains an hour doesn’t exactly leave a lot of slack in case of delays - you’re basically screwed if a train enters the high speed section 90 seconds behind schedule.
Yes but the powers that be be might want to build an eastern leg in forty years time and they’ll be livid if we haven’t built enough platforms nowI thought I read somewhere that the new plan is based around ~10ph once Handsacre opens (3x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, 2x Liverpool, 2x Scotland?). That seems sensible and should be comfortable enough using 6x platforms, with 30min turnarounds on average and a bit of slack.
The original plan for 13 platforms at Euston (and 7 at Curzon St) was always conservative/gold-plated and completely unnecessary as soon as the eastern leg was scrapped.
We can't plan and build (very) expensive infrastructure based on what may happen in forty years. There's no realistic prospect of reviving the full Eastern Leg, so we shouldn't be planning for it.Yes but the powers that be be might want to build an eastern leg in forty years time and they’ll be livid if we haven’t built enough platforms now