Reinstating a domestic platform at Ashford International

brad465 · Monday at 11:49

Following the developments that Eurostar are effectively giving up on serving Ashford entirely, is it worth trying to reinstate at least one international platform for domestic use? Even if other operators take up the mantle, I doubt two platforms are needed for this, and they are both bi-directional so one would suffice.

The big challenge of course with only converting one platform is you would have to build a wall to completely separate them, as well as a lift, but there is already a stairwell that exists for fire exit purposes currently.

A fifth platform would provide more resilience and scope to run more services, plus it can reduce overcrowding on platforms 5 and 6, which can be particularly crowded when a HS1 St Pancras service and any other service are due close to each other. Furthermore, while there would still be a hefty amount of work involved, if platform 3 were converted, this would bridge the gap to making a Marshlink line connection from HS1 if an onward service became viable (especially as the platform can easily be shortened at the country end if needed.

RailUK Forums

Dr Hoo · Monday at 11:55

Aren’t the international platforms at Ashford a different height to the GB standard?

zwk500 · Tuesday at 11:52

Dr Hoo said:
Aren’t the international platforms at Ashford a different height to the GB standard?

Yes, they were specially rebuilt to the UIC profile so are 760mm above rail level and further back from the rail than UK platforms.

They could of course be rebuilt back to UK profile, for a cost.

brad465 said:
Following the developments that Eurostar are effectively giving up on serving Ashford entirely, is it worth trying to reinstate at least one international platform for domestic use? Even if other operators take up the mantle, I doubt two platforms are needed for this, and they are both bi-directional so one would suffice.

The big challenge of course with only converting one platform is you would have to build a wall to completely separate them, as well as a lift, but there is already a stairwell that exists for fire exit purposes currently.

You'd need to adjust quite a lot to have a domestic platform backing onto an international platform, to have appropriate separation of the secure zone. Brussels does do it with 3 - although it's a somewhat simpler effort on the passenger flow there. Certainly possible though, if you can get a lift to the subway.

brad465 said:
A fifth platform would provide more resilience and scope to run more services, plus it can reduce overcrowding on platforms 5 and 6, which can be particularly crowded when a HS1 St Pancras service and any other service are due close to each other. Furthermore, while there would still be a hefty amount of work involved, if platform 3 were converted, this would bridge the gap to making a Marshlink line connection from HS1 if an onward service became viable (especially as the platform can easily be shortened at the country end if needed.

The platform could only be meaningfully shortened if both platforms were reduced. This might be possible if only 200m sets would call internationally, but then the operator is likely to want to maximise all 200m for London passengers.

Keeping only 1 platform doesn't make sense to me, as increasing domestic traffic will only make it harder to get international paths through and only having 1 platform is a very high operational risk. There's merit in the suggestion to restore 3/4 to domestic use, but IMO it's both or none, not only 1.

brad465 · Tuesday at 12:07

zwk500 said:
Yes, they were specially rebuilt to the UIC profile so are 760mm above rail level and further back from the rail than UK platforms.

They could of course be rebuilt back to UK profile, for a cost.

You'd need to adjust quite a lot to have a domestic platform backing onto an international platform, to have appropriate separation of the secure zone. Brussels does do it with 3 - although it's a somewhat simpler effort on the passenger flow there. Certainly possible though, if you can get a lift to the subway.

The platform could only be meaningfully shortened if both platforms were reduced. This might be possible if only 200m sets would call internationally, but then the operator is likely to want to maximise all 200m for London passengers.

Keeping only 1 platform doesn't make sense to me, as increasing domestic traffic will only make it harder to get international paths through and only having 1 platform is a very high operational risk. There's merit in the suggestion to restore 3/4 to domestic use, but IMO it's both or none, not only 1.

I certainly would happily see them both returned to domestic use, but there will likely be an outcry from locals who see it as the death knell to international services ever returning. Ebbsfleet would definitely need its Eurostar services back, and Southeastern might have to offer a discount to passengers from Ashford going to the continent from Ebbsfleet, or have a deal with Eurostar for such travel to be included in the Eurostar ticket price.

cle · Tuesday at 14:20

I don't think the outcry of Ashford locals is really worth a hoot as a deterrent. No offence to them but it's been many years without intl service now, and there is no preordained right. If it made money, it'd return.

Class15 · Tuesday at 17:19

cle said:
I don't think the outcry of Ashford locals is really worth a hoot as a deterrent. No offence to them but it's been many years without intl service now, and there is no preordained right. If it made money, it'd return.

I’m sorry but if the people of Ashford would rather hold onto the platforms for international services instead of giving them more domestic service flexibility that’s their choice for me.

yorksrob · Tuesday at 17:45

To be fair, Ashford has made do with four domestic through platforms since 1962. I think locals in that part of Kent would rather see international calls back than more operational flexibility.

The Pelican · Tuesday at 17:45

How about a double decker Ashford-Ebbsfleet-Stratford Intl- St Pancras service using the former international platforms at the first three and a raised former Class 395 plaftform at the third? It could use a small build of new trains similar to Eurostar's recent order.

brad465 · Tuesday at 17:59

The Pelican said:
How about a double decker Ashford-Ebbsfleet-Stratford Intl- St Pancras service using the former international platforms at the first three and a raised former Class 395 plaftform at the third? It could use a small build of new trains similar to Eurostar's recent order.

Probably too much of a bespoke microfleet in that form. Southeastern could do with more HS1 service capacity, but really it needs to be something that could do any current service 395s do, especially if said fleet has a follow-on order that also replaces 395s.

wimbledonpete · Tuesday at 18:08

I think Ashford platforms 5&6 could be made better at lower cost by an extension at either end of the platform canopies. As it stands people do bunch up, especially if it's raining, under the canopies and just about all of 5&6C are out in the open, so for a 12 car 395, one and a half coaches are in the open at the London end and six at the country end. Contrast platforms 1&2 where at least a full 9 coaches can fit under the canopies. Feels perverse that the platforms for HS services, as well as for multiple main line trains, have less shelter than the rest of the station. One of the two waiting rooms on 5&6 has been permanently shut now, too.

William3000 · 2026-10-16T04:13:45+0100

zwk500 said:
Yes, they were specially rebuilt to the UIC profile so are 760mm above rail level and further back from the rail than UK platforms.

They could of course be rebuilt back to UK profile, for a cost.

You'd need to adjust quite a lot to have a domestic platform backing onto an international platform, to have appropriate separation of the secure zone. Brussels does do it with 3 - although it's a somewhat simpler effort on the passenger flow there. Certainly possible though, if you can get a lift to the subway.

The platform could only be meaningfully shortened if both platforms were reduced. This might be possible if only 200m sets would call internationally, but then the operator is likely to want to maximise all 200m for London passengers.

Keeping only 1 platform doesn't make sense to me, as increasing domestic traffic will only make it harder to get international paths through and only having 1 platform is a very high operational risk. There's merit in the suggestion to restore 3/4 to domestic use, but IMO it's both or none, not only 1.

If no international trains stop there why does there need to be a ‘secure zone’?

zwk500 · 2026-10-16T06:41:23+0100

William3000 said:
If no international trains stop there why does there need to be a ‘secure zone’?

I understood the proposal was to still allow for international trains to stop at the retained international platform, eventually.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 06:46 ==

Class15 said:
I’m sorry but if the people of Ashford would rather hold onto the platforms for international services instead of giving them more domestic service flexibility that’s their choice for me.

But the railway does not belong to one town. If eastern/southern Kent and parts of Sussex could have improved services from returning the platforms to domestic use, why should Ashford be given that veto? Obviously there's a wider discussion as to what the regional demand actually is.

yorksrob said:
To be fair, Ashford has made do with four domestic through platforms since 1962. I think locals in that part of Kent would rather see international calls back than more operational flexibility.

The railway's got a bit busier in the intervening 63 years.

The Pelican said:
How about a double decker Ashford-Ebbsfleet-Stratford Intl- St Pancras service using the former international platforms at the first three and a raised former Class 395 plaftform at the third? It could use a small build of new trains similar to Eurostar's recent order.

Why would you raise platforms 11-13 higher than their existing 915mm? Regardless, I doubt there's enough demand from the direct HS1 stations to justify a double-deck shuttle from a line capacity perspective or a captive domestic fleet from a financial perspective.

yorksrob · 2026-10-16T06:58:06+0100

zwk500 said:
But the railway does not belong to one town. If eastern/southern Kent and parts of Sussex could have improved services from returning the platforms to domestic use, why should Ashford be given that veto? Obviously there's a wider discussion as to what the regional demand actually is.

The railway's got a bit busier in the intervening 63 years.

In that time Ashford's also lost the need to accommodate New Romney services as well.

The whole point of International services from Ashford is so that people from Kent and East Sussex don't have to traipse all the way up to London to catch a train to the Continent. The building site at Ebsfleet would not perform that purpose.

Reinstating a domestic platform at Ashford International

brad465

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Dr Hoo

Established Member

zwk500

Veteran Member

brad465

Veteran Member

cle

Established Member

Class15

Established Member

yorksrob

Veteran Member

The Pelican

Member

brad465

Veteran Member

wimbledonpete

Member

William3000

Member

zwk500

Veteran Member

yorksrob

Veteran Member