Euston rebuild blockade - possible diversions?

[NotATrainspott]

One of the reasons that the original Euston rebuild fell through was that it was then calculated that it would take longer to build than predicted and wouldn't allow it to open for the necessary 2026 date. The Hybrid bill proposal is capable of being built in the right time frame but now since the Higgins Report, the level of redevelopment will probably end up being the same or similar to what it was to begin with. The construction time will be inversely proportional to the amount of disruption that is allowed to be caused to passengers - if Euston were closed completely the rebuild would take only a couple of years but that clearly cannot happen. What kind of diversions and service changes could be done to allow more of the redevelopment to happen at once?

• The Higgins Report seemed to make the WCML-Crossrail link much more of a certainty than it has been before. It would still need to be delivered quickly though, before the bulk of the station works, in order to make construction any easier though.
• One idea that I have had is that if some kind of agreement were made with LCR, HS1 Ltd and Eurostar it might just be possible to take some of the Eurostar platforms and use them for WCML-via-NLL diversions. This would require considerable operational changes for Eurostar and the security arrangements at St Pancras and would require physical changes to the railway infrastructure to double the NLL junction, add the temporary platform surfaces and replace the French KVB signalling with standard TPWS/AWS. Then there's the issue of limited paths, especially non-stop ones, along the NLL. If it were possible to do this though, it would reduce the number of LDHS long platforms at Euston by a non-inconsiderable number without diminishing the passenger experience by too great a measure. 9 or 11-car Pendolinos could join up with either a Super Voyager or a future mini-Pendolino at Watford Junction or some other location to provide a 400m long train to make full use of the 400m long platforms that would be available at St Pancras. WCML passengers would not be massively inconvenienced - indeed, many would see the change as an upgrade with the nicer station and facilities. St Pancras's six HS platforms were designed for the full International capacity of HS1 and that capacity is nowhere near going to be needed in the Euston rebuild timescale so I'm sure it will be possible somehow to reduce platform usage.
• Thinking about the NLL - if it were possible to four-track the NLL through Camden Road using the disused bridges and providing four platforms, it might also be possible to use the station as a replacement for Euston for more local services beyond a simple diversion of the Watford DC line. With a suitable route to Camden Town tube station or an efficient shuttle service to the Euston one when not closed for reconstruction, a lot of passengers wouldn't have an enormously more difficult journey than they have at the moment. The crowding at Camden Town tube station would need to be sorted properly first though before this could realistically be a good option and it does appear that the rebuilding would take too long for it to work.
• Passengers from Birmingham could be coaxed onto the Chiltern line to free up space on a more limited service into Euston. Some of the Voyagers or other diesel stock (maybe even HSTs displaced from the GWML/ECML) could be put into service on the line to make the Birmingham trains as long as they can physically be. Likewise, if it were possible to route some of the Milton Keynes passengers onto the Chiltern line via East-West it would reduce pressure on Euston even more. At this point it will probably now be the onward links at Marylebone that will limit capacity; if there were some way of keeping the NNML open and connected to the GWML while tunnelling underneath then routing some of the Birmingham trains back to Paddington might be within the realms of feasibility.
• EDIT: The IEPs will cut journey times on the ECML by enough that the ECML could start taking up some of the Glasgow passengers again. It wouldn't make the WCML service pointless but it could allow it to be reduced down to a mini-Pendolino so that it can split/join and reduce platform requirements at Euston even more.

There are likely some very glaring flaws in my ideas but they're just some thoughts which had been going through my mind when thinking about the rebuild. The cost of the rebuild is going to be high so any savings caused by reducing passenger numbers through the station during it would be a real bonus and could be greater than the costs of the diversion.

 

[GingerSte]

I agree that we should be looking at taking a bunch of services out of Euston, to make way for the rebuild. The more that this can be done, the easier and quicker (and therefore cheaper) the rebuild will be. I think that the best strategy to go for would be to spread the increases (pain) between as many London termini as possible, to minimise the problems at any one station and provide a measure of contingency when the inevitable breakdowns happen.

WCML-CrossRail - If it can be done easily then I think it would be a good way of moving some of the local services out of Euston temporarily. The mix could always be changed in favour of the GWL and Heathrow Express once the works had finished.

WCML-ST Pancras - I imagine that the cost of the signalling and other infrastructure changes required for this would kill it as a temporary scheme. I might be wrong, though, and would certainly support someone looking into it as a possibility.

NLL - are you nicking some of my ideas from the other thread? More seriously though, using NLL for local services again would probably help. I don't know how much there is, capacity wise, though (not my area). 4-tracking Camden Road is something I've already suggested in the other thread, but I'm wary of it adding to the HS2 cost.

You've also mentioned the capacity of the transport network around Camden to distribute passengers into London. I think I've read somewhere about a scheme to untangle the Northern Line, separating the two branches and providing separate Edgeware-Kennington and Highgate-Morden services. Is this the sort of capacity enhancement you're talking about?

Chiltern Line - I think they would have to strengthen their services, to add a lot of capacity. You've mentioned Birmingham and MK passengers, but I'm also a fan of a possible Marylebone-Coventry service, to give some London connectivity to the new Kenilworth station (which would also act as a nice big carrot for those Warwickshire folk currently fighting HS2). As you mention, I'm not sure about onward travel, in particular the capacity of the Bakerloo line.

I see you mention Birmingham trains going onto the GWML. I wonder if you could actually use the Pendolinos? With electrification currently planned / in progress on GWML and the electric spine, wouldn't you be able to run under the wires from Paddington, through Oxford to Coventry and beyond?

In the same vein as this, during the WCML modernisation, Midland Mainline ran a St Pancras - Manchester service through Sheffield. Nothwithstanding my comments above, could this be back on the cards during a Euston rebuild? It needn't necessarily be through Sheffield either: turning off the WCML at Nuneaton to join the MML south of Leicester would be possible with only a short amount of infill electrification (<10 miles?).

Maybe a Sheffield or a Nottingham service could be diverted from St P to KX now that the Hitchin flyover is in place and the ECML supposedly has a little extra capacity. This would provide a little extra capacity in ST P to accommodate one or more WCML services.

Carrying on with this 'fun with crayons', rather than (or in addition to) moving the Glashow-Euston service to the ECML, a Glasgow-Carlisle-Leeds-KX service would keep at least some of the SW Scotland / NW England connected directly to London. As a Yorkshireman, I don't mind leaving Preston and Lancaster out in the cold, but they would at least have services to Birmingham!

 

[NotATrainspott]

WCML-ST Pancras - I imagine that the cost of the signalling and other infrastructure changes required for this would kill it as a temporary scheme. I might be wrong, though, and would certainly support someone looking into it as a possibility.

I wouldn't think the scheme would be for anything less than a few years. The Euston rebuild can construct the HS2 platforms without too much disruption to the rest of the station but it is the rebuild of the classic ones which will be the most disruptive and I can see the diversion being in place for the full length of these works. Some of the necessary infrastructure improvements will dovetail though with the next idea. As I said though, the cost saving from reducing passenger numbers at Euston could be far greater than the cost of the works needed to do so, so it might not be as impossible as it might seem.

NLL - are you nicking some of my ideas from the other thread? More seriously though, using NLL for local services again would probably help. I don't know how much there is, capacity wise, though (not my area). 4-tracking Camden Road is something I've already suggested in the other thread, but I'm wary of it adding to the HS2 cost.

The idea of using Camden Road probably has come from somewhere else and that's why it is in my mind. There was an idea on SSC which was to run some Javelin services over the existing connection and onto the WCML using the station as the main London one and the infrastructure needed to allow the Euston diversion would provide for this service after construction is complete and there are available paths on the WCML.

You've also mentioned the capacity of the transport network around Camden to distribute passengers into London. I think I've read somewhere about a scheme to untangle the Northern Line, separating the two branches and providing separate Edgeware-Kennington and Highgate-Morden services. Is this the sort of capacity enhancement you're talking about?

Camden Town tube station needs to be rebuilt before that split can happen as it is too busy today and with the number of new interchange passengers it would be too busy forever. I think the current rebuild is mostly designed for these interchange passengers rather than people entering and leaving the station because of the difficulty faced by an earlier, more comprehensive rebuild idea. As a longer post-HS2 measure I think a double-ended Crossrail 3 station, with the northern end connecting to the upgraded Camden Road station and the southern end to the upgraded Tube station, would be a real bonus for the area and would likely make the WCML-HS1 Javelin services popular due to the easy connection to Crossrail 3 (which would then go to EUS-STP-KGX, TCR and wherever else).

Chiltern Line - I think they would have to strengthen their services, to add a lot of capacity. You've mentioned Birmingham and MK passengers, but I'm also a fan of a possible Marylebone-Coventry service, to give some London connectivity to the new Kenilworth station (which would also act as a nice big carrot for those Warwickshire folk currently fighting HS2). As you mention, I'm not sure about onward travel, in particular the capacity of the Bakerloo line.

It's certainly an idea. Even if it would require additional infrastructure works the cost saving from the Euston rebuild could possibly pay for these many times over. If the HSTs can continue working through this time there should be plenty available IC stock to make it work. Even if it meant dragging 9 or 11 car Pendolinos with the diesels designed for pulling the mini-Pendolinos or some other combination it might just be able to work.

I see you mention Birmingham trains going onto the GWML. I wonder if you could actually use the Pendolinos? With electrification currently planned / in progress on GWML and the electric spine, wouldn't you be able to run under the wires from Paddington, through Oxford to Coventry and beyond?

If that were possible it would be great. The Pendolinos would need to be fitted with ETCS (which they will have to be anyway) but apart from that they could even keep up with the IEPs if 225km/h running is ever enabled on the GWML. It would be quite ironic if the only time they would ever reach their design speed would be on one hell of a diversionary route.

In the same vein as this, during the WCML modernisation, Midland Mainline ran a St Pancras - Manchester service through Sheffield. Nothwithstanding my comments above, could this be back on the cards during a Euston rebuild? It needn't necessarily be through Sheffield either: turning off the WCML at Nuneaton to join the MML south of Leicester would be possible with only a short amount of infill electrification (<10 miles?).

It would be interesting to see if this were possible as well. I was aware of Project Rio back in the day and it would certainly be a useful capability if it were possible to happen again.

Carrying on with this 'fun with crayons', rather than (or in addition to) moving the Glashow-Euston service to the ECML, a Glasgow-Carlisle-Leeds-KX service would keep at least some of the SW Scotland / NW England connected directly to London. As a Yorkshireman, I don't mind leaving Preston and Lancaster out in the cold, but they would at least have services to Birmingham!

I wouldn't think that there wouldn't be a Euston/(St-Pancras-via-NLL) to Glasgow via Preston service because otherwise there wouldn't be much of an ICWC franchise left! The Glasgow trains can go via Edinburgh on the already-electrified Carstairs line so there wouldn't be a requirement to wire Carlisle-Newcastle. If a KGX service were used I think it would be as much of a non-stop service as is physically possible though as otherwise there would be too much of a journey time increase to be able to attract many of the ICWC passengers.

 

[GingerSte]

I wouldn't think the scheme would be for anything less than a few years. The Euston rebuild can construct the HS2 platforms without too much disruption to the rest of the station but it is the rebuild of the classic ones which will be the most disruptive and I can see the diversion being in place for the full length of these works. Some of the necessary infrastructure improvements will dovetail though with the next idea. As I said though, the cost saving from reducing passenger numbers at Euston could be far greater than the cost of the works needed to do so, so it might not be as impossible as it might seem.

I agree, it is the classic platform upgrade (if that's what it's to be) that will be the most difficult. I imagine that use will be made of the HS2 platforms by classic trains (if that's do-able) before HS2 opens while the classic side is being worked on. Diverting passengers to other stations as discussed may reduce the number of phases from 4 to 3, or 3 to 2, and provide the time/cost savings that way.

The idea of using Camden Road probably has come from somewhere else and that's why it is in my mind. There was an idea on SSC which was to run some Javelin services over the existing connection and onto the WCML using the station as the main London one and the infrastructure needed to allow the Euston diversion would provide for this service after construction is complete and there are available paths on the WCML.

I wonder if extending this to Stratford would help in this regard, as it is a larger station, and is much better connected.

Camden Town tube station needs to be rebuilt before that split can happen as it is too busy today and with the number of new interchange passengers it would be too busy forever. I think the current rebuild is mostly designed for these interchange passengers rather than people entering and leaving the station because of the difficulty faced by an earlier, more comprehensive rebuild idea. As a longer post-HS2 measure I think a double-ended Crossrail 3 station, with the northern end connecting to the upgraded Camden Road station and the southern end to the upgraded Tube station, would be a real bonus for the area and would likely make the WCML-HS1 Javelin services popular due to the easy connection to Crossrail 3 (which would then go to EUS-STP-KGX, TCR and wherever else).

Crossrail 3? I thought I was ambitious!

I think I need to go have a lie down!

It's certainly an idea. Even if it would require additional infrastructure works the cost saving from the Euston rebuild could possibly pay for these many times over. If the HSTs can continue working through this time there should be plenty available IC stock to make it work. Even if it meant dragging 9 or 11 car Pendolinos with the diesels designed for pulling the mini-Pendolinos or some other combination it might just be able to work.



If that were possible it would be great. The Pendolinos would need to be fitted with ETCS (which they will have to be anyway) but apart from that they could even keep up with the IEPs if 225km/h running is ever enabled on the GWML. It would be quite ironic if the only time they would ever reach their design speed would be on one hell of a diversionary route.



It would be interesting to see if this were possible as well. I was aware of Project Rio back in the day and it would certainly be a useful capability if it were possible to happen again.



I wouldn't think that there wouldn't be a Euston/(St-Pancras-via-NLL) to Glasgow via Preston service because otherwise there wouldn't be much of an ICWC franchise left! The Glasgow trains can go via Edinburgh on the already-electrified Carstairs line so there wouldn't be a requirement to wire Carlisle-Newcastle. If a KGX service were used I think it would be as much of a non-stop service as is physically possible though as otherwise there would be too much of a journey time increase to be able to attract many of the ICWC passengers.

I was thinking more of a service on the Settle-Carlisle line than the Carlisle-Newcastle line.

I was more wondering if it would be possible to clear Euston entirely, using a combination of the following

• Kings Cross for North of Lancaster (with exception of Sleeper services), and also approx. half of Sheffield/Nottingham services to provide relief for St Pancras.
• St Pancras for Nuneaton to Lancaster (using Leicester to Nuneaton line),
• NLL for approx. a third/half of local WCML services to Rugby
• Crossrail (via link at Old Oak Common) for other half / two thirds of local WCML services
• Marylebone for Birmingham services (with some relief from Paddington via Oxford)
• Paddington for sleeper services (as I imagine Paddington already has facilities for sleeper trains to the South West, and the GWML-Oxford-Nuneaton-WCML route would be available), and to help with Birmingham aswell.

I would also note that by the time construction of HS2 starts, Thameslink will be taking some of the strain out of the local services from ST P and KX, which may help them take some of the strain from Euston.

With a cleared out Euston (save for underground trains), you could shave years off the construction timetable

 

[kevconnor]

It would be interesting to see if this were possible as well. I was aware of Project Rio back in the day and it would certainly be a useful capability if it were possible to happen again.

From memory this route was labouriously slow, currently running MAN - STP via Sheffield is, at best, just over 3 hrs . A direct route could save about 30 mins but the other savings in time may only be possible if they choose to electrify the Hope Valley Route (including the south bound curve at Dore).

 

[The Planner]

There is no way on earth Euston will shut down completely. There have been various suggestions of trying to make it work with only 6 platforms and 4 lines in and out, I am not convinced HS2 really realise how much this is going to cost them in schedule 4 payments in the construction phase whichever solution is chosen. There is a very real danger of people being put off train travel entirely during this. It will make West Coast Route Mod look like a walk in the park.

 

[edwin_m]

It probably gets easier if the bulk of the work is left until HS2 is in operation, the HS2 platforms having been built "offline" before that. HS2 will then take the principal flows from Birmingham and beyond, and anyone from other stations north of Birmingham could be directed to change into HS2 (another good reason to provide good interchange where stations are not adjacent).

If it is possible to build the whole of the HS2 side of the station in this way, then it will have some spare platform capacity which is eventually to be used by Phase 2 trains to the North East. These platforms could be built as UK gauge but designed to be easily rebuilt to European dimensions (as the European platforms at Stratford were temporarily rebuilt to UK gauge during the Olympics).

This timescale also ought to make it possible to build a Crossrail link before the main works begin at the existing part of Euston. The remaining AC trains would then be shared with the shorter-distance ones predominantly going to Crossrail and the longer-distance to any available platforms at Euston, to Paddington via East West Rail and Oxford or possibly to St Pancras international platforms. DC lines would terminate at Queens Park or somewhere on the North London for a Tube interchange.

If it is planned far enough in advance then the closure of Euston would be part of the franchise specification. The bidders would then have factored it into their bidding and wouldn't be entitled to compensation (though there would be extra subsidy or less premium to reflect the loss of revenue).

 

[NotATrainspott]

For reference, this is what the 11th March 2010 initial HS2 documents said:

5.2.9. Constructability
Initial studies were carried out on methods of constructing the station. Key objectives were:
• maintain rail and underground operations as far as reasonably possible (displacing the minimum number of services);
• To minimise land take which recognises the need to replace residential accommodation on site in advance of its demolition due to the extension of the station and throat footprints westward.

The provisional construction plan would be:
• Phase 1 – Enabling Works (No station closure) (18 months)
– Demolish buildings along west side of station in extension zone to enable development above
– build new station structure.
• Phase 2 – First Station closure – build new classic Platforms 1-6 (24 months; 12 months overlap with Phase 2)
– Demolish and remove station (platforms and concourse) platforms 1-8 along east side (platforms 9-18 remain active);
– build new low level LUL concourse with new platform access facilities;
– build new east side platform deck tracks including eastern throat. (Note: This would require the modifications at camden Junction to be carried out);
– build the new concourse level along the east side.
– Simultaneously construct the new western concourse deck structure, the new residential accommodation and commence west side commercial air-rights development.
• Phase 3 – Second closure of Euston.(24 months)
– Demolish and remove classic station platforms and concourse, platforms 9-14, the central zone (new platforms 1-6 and platforms 15-18 remain active);
– Replace existing LUL concourse with new concourse (Phase 3 to 4 concourse join to double the capacity of LUL passenger facilities);
– build new classic platforms 7-16 (includes ‘hybrid’ platform) together with second classic throat;
– build new central rail concourse zone;
– commission the remaining classic platforms. The classic station is now complete.
– Simultaneously the commercial air- rights development may be pursued over the Phase 2 site and works can start on demolition of the residential blocks north of the Phase 1 site.
• Phase 4 – Final closure of Euston.(24 months)
– complete demolition of west side throat zone;
– complete demolition of existing station platforms and concourse;
– construct new track fans, grade separation and all HS2 platforms;
– construct remaining concourse zone;
– commission new HS2 station.
– Typically there would be a rearrangement of the approach throat layouts at each successive release of new platforms, with “double-handling” of all approach trackwork, signalling and OLE. The development above would then need completion.
– Detailed planning of the throat and any temporary throat design has yet to be addressed. Similarly, detailed planning of the replacement of Hampstead Road bridge has yet to be addressed.
• Total construction Period - 78 months
It is recognised that the Euston works would require stageworks involving multiple handling of track, signalling and OLE equipment. The multiplicity of these changes was captured in the cost estimates.

 

[Nym]

Would be interesting to see what their plans for a renewed LUL station are...

 

[IanXC]

I think Paddington is the most likely alternative terminal - if there are to be WCML-Crossrail services, then that brings most of the links into place to run WCML services into Paddington. Given the services due to be removed from Paddington in the Crossrail project, it would seem there will also be available platform space for diverted services too.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think Paddington is the most likely alternative terminal - if there are to be WCML-Crossrail services, then that brings most of the links into place to run WCML services into Paddington. Given the services due to be removed from Paddington in the Crossrail project, it would seem there will also be available platform space for diverted services too.

Expansion of GWML services with IEP introduction is already intended to take up the small amount of platform capacity that Crossrail frees up, we also keep hearing that the existing short terminating platforms at Paddington will be re-modelled and reduced in number so that all the platforms will be full length.

Edited to add:

The CP5 enhancements delivery plan includes this section within 'GWML IEP capacity' on page 93:

at Paddington station: combining two short platforms (12 and 13) to provide a single
platform to accommodate a 260m long Class 800 or Class 801 train or 12 x 20m car EMU;
and extension of platform 14 to accommodate a 12 x 20m car EMU contributing to the
delivery of the HLOS capacity metric for London Paddington.

The practicalities of getting a train from the WCML into Paddington shouldn't be overlooked either - they are already removing the Greenford service to prevent it causing flat crossing conflicts at West Ealing. I suggest therefore that there is no capacity on the reliefs, and no route across to the mains...

 

[joeykins82]

If London Overground and the London Midland slow services were diverted elsewhere (LM on to Crossrail) presumably the remaining LM 110mph and VT services could function from the 10 operational platforms throughout the rebuild?

 

[pablo]

A phrase like "a quart into a pint pot" comes to mind.

 

[Bald Rick]

During the 1999-2000 remodelling, we ran the whole service off 10-11 platforms quite easily. It required the DCs to be out, only 1 sleeper to be in at any one time, and much more 12 car working by Silverlink than they did normally (ie none). But in terms of peak service levels, back then wasn't light years away from that today.

Find another home for the sleepers and 10 platforms feels doable. If only there was a Central London station with under utilised 300m+ platforms...

 

[swt_passenger]

...Find another home for the sleepers and 10 platforms feels doable. If only there was a Central London station with under utilised 300m+ platforms...

Ah yes, St Pancras. Or did you mean Stratford International perhaps...

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah yes, St Pancras. Or did you mean Stratford International perhaps...

Mount Pleasant!

 

[Nym]

Perhaps somewhere on the South Bank?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Judging from the uproar in the Scotsman (I think) about the very idea of moving the sleepers to Waterloo (even closer to Westminster for all the MPs who use it!) I think the idea of moving them to Stratford International would be seen as even worse. It would probably be doable though - use 92s that have been fitted with the TVM signalling and most of the railway operational requirements are there already. With a complimentary Crossrail, DLR or Jubilee line journey into/from Zone 1, a conversion of the International bit of the station into a dedicated sleeper terminal and some additional perks to smooth it all over it might just work. Unless Eurostar plan to use the International platforms for emergency evacuation with the 374s there would be absolutely no loss involved in adding the temporary platform surfaces from the Olympics back again.

 

[westcoaster]

Just flicking through so sorry if it's already been mentioned, st pancras could be gained via 2 ways via the MML and use p1-4 but these are already full, and via the NLL and the shall I say never used westbound departure viaduct into the international / HS1 platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually you can acess all platforms at st pancras From the MML not just 1-4 forgot about the single line that connects the MML to HS1.

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS1 Section 2 Register of Infrastructure

This wonderful document has all the information you never even knew that you wanted to know about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Phase 2. Diagrams! Station plans! Evacuation procedures!

EDIT:
HS1 Section 1 Register of Infrastructure here as well for the curious. It's pretty gripping stuff.

 

[adrock1976]

From memory this route was labouriously slow, currently running MAN - STP via Sheffield is, at best, just over 3 hrs . A direct route could save about 30 mins but the other savings in time may only be possible if they choose to electrify the Hope Valley Route (including the south bound curve at Dore).

A possibility could be is to reinstate the track between Matlock and Buxton. This would avoid going the long way round via Sheffield.

In peace

Adam

 

[IanXC]

Expansion of GWML services with IEP introduction is already intended to take up the small amount of platform capacity that Crossrail frees up, we also keep hearing that the existing short terminating platforms at Paddington will be re-modelled and reduced in number so that all the platforms will be full length.

Very good points! I guess really I was thinking comparatively - against the North London meander required for St Pancras, its a relatively good option!

Actually you can acess all platforms at st pancras From the MML not just 1-4 forgot about the single line that connects the MML to HS1.

By my reconing that drawing shows a route from the MML to the Eurostar platforms, but not the South Eastern ones?

 

[Haydn1971]

For my money, I'd look at options at Old Oak - divert a proportion of WCML services into a temporary station linked with Crossrail, creating as much space at Euston as possible for reconstruction - then seek to get Old Oak to Birmingham NEC built and operational with classic compatible stock as soon as possible to reduce the long distance strain on Euston as early as possible

 

[edwin_m]

Putting the sleepers into St Pancras International would actually be a benefit for those connecting to/from Eurostar.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . route from the MML to the Eurostar platforms, but not the South Eastern ones?

Google Earth shows all three single track links from, MML, ECML, and NLL joining the throat on the west side, giving access to all six international platforms, but not the South Eastern ones as you say.

 

[carriageline]

When i was in Wembley mainline box for the day a little while ago, I saw how delicate and easy it is for it to all go up the wall (during the peaks at least)

 

[59CosG95]

Putting the sleepers into St Pancras International would actually be a benefit for those connecting to/from Eurostar.

Does anyone know when the last Eurostar departure actually is? After all the 373s (+374s in the near future) have gone, I'd imagine it's easy enough for sleeper passengers to use the HS platforms. With Waterloo, the connecting infrastructure is in place-all that's needed is a 92 to haul instead of a 90. However, the top speed of a 92 is lower than a 90's, so maybe OHLE on the SWML is required into Waterloo International. Sleeper services from there would certainly benefit all the MPs and SWT passengers!

That said, maybe St Pancras is a better idea as capacity is more readily available, but new connecting track to the WCML may be needed. That single track NLL link just might not cut it.

 

[po8crg]

Does anyone know when the last Eurostar departure actually is? After all the 373s (+374s in the near future) have gone, I'd imagine it's easy enough for sleeper passengers to use the HS platforms.

Last departure is the Sunday 20:31 to Paris, Fridays it's the 20:09 sleeper to the Alps (winter only). The other five days of the week, it's the 20:01. Arrivals after 20:00 are four Mon-Fri, three Sat and five Sun.

The early (Highland) sleeper departure is 21:16 Mon-Fri and 20:57 or 20:28 Sun at present.

So, yes, it would be straightforward for Eurostar to clear a platform or two for sleeper passengers.

 

[59CosG95]

Last departure is the Sunday 20:31 to Paris, Fridays it's the 20:09 sleeper to the Alps (winter only). The other five days of the week, it's the 20:01. Arrivals after 20:00 are four Mon-Fri, three Sat and five Sun.

The early (Highland) sleeper departure is 21:16 Mon-Fri and 20:57 or 20:28 Sun at present.

So, yes, it would be straightforward for Eurostar to clear a platform or two for sleeper passengers.

Where does the sleeper stock at Euston get maintained out of the station? Wembley?

 

[MCR247]

Yes, Wembley