London St Pancras

[chunky120717]

I've read a thread on here from late 2023 about issues being let onto the platform in time to catch intercity trains out of the Capital and it seems nearly 12 months on nothing has changed. I've also read about the infamous Euston Crush..... it seems LSP isn't fit for purpose. Does anyone who has travelled the route regularly believe any improvement has occurred?

I visited on Fri/Sat, my first time in the capital in 21 years. The last time I visited I think Midland Mainline were running into Kings Cross but I really can't remember that well. The arrival was fine, and although LSP seems more like a glorified shopping centre with a few train tracks on top at least there were lunch options and the toilets were decent to try and get myself an a 7 yr old daughter in and out of. Aside from all having to funnel down one escalator into the shops once our train from Derby emptied up.... it wasn't too bad.
Going back, middle of the afternoon on Saturday... we were there 30 mins before our departure on the Sheffield train as I don't like to rush with the daughter (and my large overnight bag/dodgy knee). There were three lanes to queue in - for a Luton Connect service (platform 1), nothing on 2, a nottingham service waiting on 3 due to leave 5 mins after ours - and platform 4 vacant awaiting out late running arrival from Sheffield to go back up with us on it.
I can't genuinely understand why the Nottingham passengers were held back when they could have been boarding. They were well away from the chaos of people running for the Platform 1 service.
As it was, both they and the Sheffield train customers had to wait until our arriving service had pulled in and emptied - forming long queues at the barrier -before they would let anyone enter the platforms. As a result we had to hustle and bustle through the barriers with the Nottingham queue and push past the arriving passenger queue to get on our train with about 4 minutes to spare - and we were in the front half of those waiting at the barriers!
Is this common practise? I know there are a lot of very busy trains coming out of other stations I've travelled from/to... Manchester intercity services, Sheffield and so on. I don't ever recall this sort of "queue up like cattle" thing being done anywhere else. Usually we can drip feed onto the platform in good time and as long as we stay back from the arriving train it's not an issue. But I get being London how people would ignore that and overcrowding may be an issue.
But if a train is already sat there, and within 15 mins of departure, why couldn't they just let the Notts people on through the finite number of barriers they had open?

 

[800001]

I've read a thread on here from late 2023 about issues being let onto the platform in time to catch intercity trains out of the Capital and it seems nearly 12 months on nothing has changed. I've also read about the infamous Euston Crush..... it seems LSP isn't fit for purpose. Does anyone who has travelled the route regularly believe any improvement has occurred?

I visited on Fri/Sat, my first time in the capital in 21 years. The last time I visited I think Midland Mainline were running into Kings Cross but I really can't remember that well. The arrival was fine, and although LSP seems more like a glorified shopping centre with a few train tracks on top at least there were lunch options and the toilets were decent to try and get myself an a 7 yr old daughter in and out of. Aside from all having to funnel down one escalator into the shops once our train from Derby emptied up.... it wasn't too bad.
Going back, middle of the afternoon on Saturday... we were there 30 mins before our departure on the Sheffield train as I don't like to rush with the daughter (and my large overnight bag/dodgy knee). There were three lanes to queue in - for a Luton Connect service (platform 1), nothing on 2, a nottingham service waiting on 3 due to leave 5 mins after ours - and platform 4 vacant awaiting out late running arrival from Sheffield to go back up with us on it.
I can't genuinely understand why the Nottingham passengers were held back when they could have been boarding. They were well away from the chaos of people running for the Platform 1 service.
As it was, both they and the Sheffield train customers had to wait until our arriving service had pulled in and emptied - forming long queues at the barrier -before they would let anyone enter the platforms. As a result we had to hustle and bustle through the barriers with the Nottingham queue and push past the arriving passenger queue to get on our train with about 4 minutes to spare - and we were in the front half of those waiting at the barriers!
Is this common practise? I know there are a lot of very busy trains coming out of other stations I've travelled from/to... Manchester intercity services, Sheffield and so on. I don't ever recall this sort of "queue up like cattle" thing being done anywhere else. Usually we can drip feed onto the platform in good time and as long as we stay back from the arriving train it's not an issue. But I get being London how people would ignore that and overcrowding may be an issue.
But if a train is already sat there, and within 15 mins of departure, why couldn't they just let the Notts people on through the finite number of barriers they had open?

Was your train cleaned? Had it been stocked with supplies? Were the crew there?
Any number of reasons why you were not allowed onto platform.
Also, majority of London intercity stations do not allow people to wait on the platform for the train to arrive and decant its customers, all you are doing there is creating congestion on the platform.

You also state you had to wait till the arriving train had emptied but then had to hustle and bustle and push past the arriving passengers, how do you think that would of been like if you had been waiting in the platform? Worse that’s what, as you would of been pushing to get on train while arriving passengers were getting off!

The real problem is, too few platforms for EMR, and too many for Eurostar!

 

[Spartacus]

I'm guessing that with St Pancras, like elsewhere with terminals, is that with limited platform space and a great number of passengers that it's quite possible for someone to be accidentally shoved off the platform under an arriving train.

At the very least, given there's been a marked change in passenger behaviour over the last 20 years, people getting off could be prevented from leaving the platforms, or perhaps even getting off the train itself, by the hoards waiting to board, let alone any cleaning or catering staff. I expect such a situation would similarly be a nightmare for anyone getting off in a wheelchair.

 

[chunky120717]

Was your train cleaned? Had it been stocked with supplies? Were the crew there?
Any number of reasons why you were not allowed onto platform.


The real problem is, too few platforms for EMR, and too many for Eurostar!

My train certainly hadn't been cleaned, someone was coming up and down with a bag as we were sat there having only just left LSP. I quite agree with your second point - it does seem like there's double the number of Eurostar platforms than is needed, and EMR services have just been given token space as an afterthought.

 

[paul1609]

My train certainly hadn't been cleaned, someone was coming up and down with a bag as we were sat there having only just left LSP. I quite agree with your second point - it does seem like there's double the number of Eurostar platforms than is needed, and EMR services have just been given token space as an afterthought.

EMR only has 6 trains per hour timetabled from the 4 platforms off peak. Charing Cross manages 16 tph from 6 platforms overwhat is effectively also a two track railway between metropolitan junction and London Bridge. EMRs St Pancras platforms must be quite low in the utilisation league tables for London Terminals I think.

 

[Horizon22]

EMR only has 6 trains per hour timetabled from the 4 platforms off peak. Charing Cross manages 16 tph from 6 platforms overwhat is effectively also a two track railway between metropolitan junction and London Bridge. EMRs St Pancras platforms must be quite low in the utilisation league tables for London Terminals I think.

Charing Cross manages that with some extremely small (minimal turnarounds). Delays are common (as is running early into London from Waterloo East/London Bridge to save minutes).

Comparing a regional & intercity service (or an international one in the case of Eurostar) to a metro service isn't really the same in terms of platform occupancy at terminus. Much like how the Elizabeth line manages 8tph (and 12tph in the peak) with 2 platforms at Abbey Wood or 2 (and sometimes a 3rd) at Shenfield! The signalling will also play a part.

 

[paul1609]

Charing Cross manages that with some extremely small (minimal turnarounds). Delays are common (as is running early into London from Waterloo East/London Bridge to save minutes).

Comparing a regional & intercity service (or an international one in the case of Eurostar) to a metro service isn't really the same in terms of platform occupancy at terminus. Much like how the Elizabeth line manages 8tph (and 12tph in the peak) with 2 platforms at Abbey Wood or 2 (and sometimes a 3rd) at Shenfield! The signalling will also play a part.

Intercity is really only a marketing brand. EMRs longest route from ST Pancras is to Sheffield a dsitance of 160 miles operated with DMUs. A third of its services only go to Corby 80 miles away and are operated with Outer Suburban EMUs but whichever way you look at it 6 trains from 4 platforms every hour shouldnt be a problem.

 

[Horizon22]

Intercity is really only a marketing brand. EMRs longest route from ST Pancras is to Sheffield a dsitance of 160 miles operated with DMUs. A third of its services only go to Corby 80 miles away and are operated with Outer Suburban EMUs but whichever way you look at it 6 trains from 4 platforms every hour shouldnt be a problem.

No "intercity" services are not a marketing brand. It's a well defined term.

They have regional services, but certainly nothing that I'd consider metro like Southeastern, GTR, SWR etc. or even Northern.

 

[paul1609]

No "intercity" services are not a marketing brand. It's a well defined term.

They have regional services, but certainly nothing that I'd consider metro like Southeastern, GTR, SWR etc. or even Northern.

EMRs longest service from St Pancras is 15 miles shorter than SWRs Exeter service, Nottingham is shorter than Weymouth (and not much longer than GTRs Horsham to Peterborough Route) and Corby around the same as Pompey. All of those routes have far more passengers than EMRs. to suggest that they need far more resources at London terminals because of some arbitary marketing definition is plain silly.

 

[Horizon22]

EMRs longest service from St Pancras is 15 miles shorter than SWRs Exeter service, Nottingham is shorter than Weymouth (and not much longer than GTRs Horsham to Peterborough Route) and Corby around the same as Pompey. All of those routes have far more passengers than EMRs. to suggest that they need far more resources at London terminals because of some arbitary marketing definition is plain silly.

You seem to be totally misinterpreting what I’m saying.

All the TOCs mentioned run a considerable metro service and what you are mentioning is the exception to that.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Wasn’t the recent weekend affected by the LNER (King’s Cross) dispute, suspended at the last minute and disruption out of Euston?

St Pancras was much busier because of ‘divertees’.

There is major escalator work in progress.

A new, more commodious, bi-mode ‘inter city’ fleet is under construction (but has been delayed).

 

[Senex]

Who specified what was needed for the domestic side of St Pancras when the Great Re-Building was being planned? Was it Railtrack?

The station has never been adequate right from the start. The platforms are too short — where else in Europe does the length of the platforms in a new station dictate a need for a special fleet of trains — and they're too narrow to deal with an arriving train and a departing train simultaneously, as seems too often to be required.

Access to (and from) the platforms through a decent-sized circulating area with reasonable waiting facilities has never been good, and the walks to and from the Euston Road or the Underground are rather lengthy. (Indeed, some of the walks at King's Cross/St Pancras LUL seem to be longer than the walks at a good many major airports, where at least there is help if you need it.)

We know that at the design stage the Midland line lost one extra platform, from the Eurostar allocation, and extending back under the roof. Would that have made a difference, or would the long extension back just have proved an irritating anomaly, as was argued at the time?

As for the Eurostar part, that did seem to work quite well in pre-Covid days, though has never provided enough space for crowded days and the much longer waiting times that came to be expected of Eurostar passengers — and, as we know, has required a lot of money to be spent thanks to Brexit and a government that did not believe that British citizens should have free movement.

Does the CTRL Domestic side of the station work well? I have no experience of that since those platforms were used for MML, which did seem to work quite well for the much smaller number of trains then involved. If that side of the present set-up does work smoothly, then it has to be the only part of the St Pancras disaster that does.

 

[dosxuk]

The platforms are too short — where else in Europe does the length of the platforms in a new station dictate a need for a special fleet of trains

The same question could be asked the other way - who decided to extend the length of the carriages of what was supposed to be a new standard design, such that it maximised the platform usage at the initial stations it was designed for. The network is standardised around formations of 20m or 23m carriages - if anything, the special fleet of trains is the 80x's with 26m carriages.

The MML side of St Pancras was designed with the standard length platforms being installed at the time. It was a significant time later that the initial IEP concepts were thought up, with no thought as to their compatibility with infrastructure away from their initial routes. I don't think we can really blame the designers of St Pancras for this.

We know that at the design stage the Midland line lost one extra platform, from the Eurostar allocation, and extending back under the roof. Would that have made a difference, or would the long extension back just have proved an irritating anomaly, as was argued at the time?

My suspicion is that it would be so awkward with the rest of the MML platforms that it would go effectively unused apart from during disruption.

The scale of the MML operation is significantly larger today than when the station was being redesigned. It's only because of hindsight that we know they got it wrong, at the time the decisions were being made there was basically two HST's an hour and a handful of 170's a day running into the whole of St Pancras. Four platforms would have seemed plenty, even with some expansion of services.

A redesign and expansion of the circulating space for the MML platforms would go a long way. Ideally a separate route off the platforms for arriving passengers would have been provided, this would have greatly improved the flow around the waiting and platform areas.

 

[Merle Haggard]

My suspicion is that it would be so awkward with the rest of the MML platforms that it would go effectively unused apart from during disruption.

The scale of the MML operation is significantly larger today than when the station was being redesigned. It's only because of hindsight that we know they got it wrong, at the time the decisions were being made there was basically two HST's an hour and a handful of 170's a day running into the whole of St Pancras. Four platforms would have seemed plenty, even with some expansion of services.

A redesign and expansion of the circulating space for the MML platforms would go a long way. Ideally a separate route off the platforms for arriving passengers would have been provided, this would have greatly improved the flow around the waiting and platform areas.

Not sure about further South but Wellingborough & Kettering are 12 car and I think Mkt Harborough became 12 car at recent rebuild. Leicester, Loughborough, Parkway also look long enough for 12. Derby is.

The 170 service was every half-hour.

 

[swt_passenger]

Who specified what was needed for the domestic side of St Pancras when the Great Re-Building was being planned? Was it Railtrack?

From Arup’s summary of the project linked below:

“Union Railways had established initial proposals in an outline or 'Reference Design', which formed the basis for the PFI tender won by LCR and for the passage of the CTRL Bill through Parliament. The Reference Design had not resolved satisfactorily the juxtaposition of the MML and CTRL international train services. It tried to include as many platforms as possible into Barlow's trainshed and made no clear provision for the future development of St Pancras Chambers.“

I think Union Railways was the DfT owned arms length sponsor at the time?

The station has never been adequate right from the start. The platforms are too short — where else in Europe does the length of the platforms in a new station dictate a need for a special fleet of trains — and they're too narrow to deal with an arriving train and a departing train simultaneously, as seems too often to be required.

Access to (and from) the platforms through a decent-sized circulating area with reasonable waiting facilities has never been good, and the walks to and from the Euston Road or the Underground are rather lengthy. (Indeed, some of the walks at King's Cross/St Pancras LUL seem to be longer than the walks at a good many major airports, where at least there is help if you need it.)

We know that at the design stage the Midland line lost one extra platform, from the Eurostar allocation, and extending back under the roof. Would that have made a difference, or would the long extension back just have proved an irritating anomaly, as was argued at the time?

This thing about “lost one platform”, is not quite how Arup explained it. They said in their summary of the station planning:

“MML was to have its Platforms 1-3 on the west side, with their buffer-stops to the north of the existing station, and one very long Platform 4 extending right into the trainshed. MML passengers would have bought their tickets in the existing ticket hall and then proceeded to their trains via the long Platform 4.”

So still only 4 platforms, although one would have been double length. 2 train working maybe? A bit like the set up on the west side at Marylebone?

The pdf report is downloadable on the Arup website here:

The Arup Journal 2004 - Issue 1

This special issue of The Arup Journal looks at Arup's work on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project. Articles include a look at the rail engineering, ground engineering and the tunnel engineering involved in delivering this mega project.

www.arup.com

 

[dosxuk]

Not sure about further South but Wellingborough & Kettering are 12 car and I think Mkt Harborough became 12 car at recent rebuild. Leicester, Loughborough, Parkway also look long enough for 12. Derby is.

St Pancras is also designed for 12 cars.

From the sectional appendix, the key stations along the route have the following platform lengths. I've marked those that are longer than the ones at St Pancras in bold.

St. Pancras - all 260m
Luton Airport Parkway - all 245m
Luton - P1-4 255m, P5 250m
Bedford - P1 250m, P2-3 260m, P4 245m
Wellingborough - all 245m
Kettering - all 245m
Market Harborough - P1 245m, P2 265m
Leicester - P1 270m, P2 280m, P3 275m, P4 285m
Loughborough - P1-2 240m, P3 150m
East Midlands Parkway - P1-2 240m, P3-4 120m
Derby - P1 330m, P2-3 335m, P4-5 310m, P6 340m
Chesterfield - P1 210m, P2 205m, P3 240m
Sheffield - P1 260m, P2 330m, P5 230m, P8 380m
Nottingham - P1 300m, P2 90m, P3 300m, P4 110m, P5 155m, P6 270m, P7 260m

Notably the two new build stations (Luton Airport Parkway, East Midlands Parkway) have shorter platforms than St Pancras, as do those stations that have had significant works done as part of electrification.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Saint pancreas post pandemic has become even more irritating than it was pre-pandemic, the only bit of it that seems to function reasonably well is the undercroft where temslink lives. But of course that's all down to whether the TL core has fallen to bits by breakfast time or not as the case may be. Too often. The Eurostar q is right back past Marx and Spencer's and all too often. There's at least one lift or escalator out regardless of the recent upgrade works done to them, which simply exacerbates the situation. The lifts are too small, too slow and there are too few of them, escalators and stairs are also inadequate and concourse and circulating spaces for all areas including Eurostar are also unfit for purpose. But no doubt in these straightened financial times it would be considered a wicked waste. A certain proportion of the more vocal members of the public literally rip it all out and start again, which of course could be done, you could reduce the whole thing to a blank canvas in just a couple of weeks of intensive demolition and strip out.

 

[Senex]

The pdf report is downloadable on the Arup website here:

The Arup Journal 2004 - Issue 1

This special issue of The Arup Journal looks at Arup's work on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project. Articles include a look at the rail engineering, ground engineering and the tunnel engineering involved in delivering this mega project.

www.arup.com

Thanks for the Arup Journal reference, which I did not know of. I've come across that publication in other contexts and have found it makes very interesting and informative reading.

 

[Merle Haggard]

St Pancras is also designed for 12 cars.

From the sectional appendix, the key stations along the route have the following platform lengths. I've marked those that are longer than the ones at St Pancras in bold.

St. Pancras - all 260m
Luton Airport Parkway - all 245m
Luton - P1-4 255m, P5 250m
Bedford - P1 250m, P2-3 260m, P4 245m
Wellingborough - all 245m
Kettering - all 245m
Market Harborough - P1 245m, P2 265m
Leicester - P1 270m, P2 280m, P3 275m, P4 285m
Loughborough - P1-2 240m, P3 150m
East Midlands Parkway - P1-2 240m, P3-4 120m
Derby - P1 330m, P2-3 335m, P4-5 310m, P6 340m
Chesterfield - P1 210m, P2 205m, P3 240m
Sheffield - P1 260m, P2 330m, P5 230m, P8 380m
Nottingham - P1 300m, P2 90m, P3 300m, P4 110m, P5 155m, P6 270m, P7 260m

Notably the two new build stations (Luton Airport Parkway, East Midlands Parkway) have shorter platforms than St Pancras, as do those stations that have had significant works done as part of electrification.

Thanks.
The relevance of M.M.L. stations accommodating '12-car' 360 trains is this.
On the West Coast South end stations were extended to take 12-car 350 trains, and my guess is that, for instance, Rugby new Platforms 1 and 5 were built to take 12 car e.m.u. - and full length 2x5 8xx trains call there, but this logic doesn't apply on the M.M.L. Why would the Rugby work make the platforms longer than that needed for 12 car e.m.u. and 11 car Pendos?
This is the conundrum I can't solve !

 

[MetalMicky]

The same question could be asked the other way - who decided to extend the length of the carriages of what was supposed to be a new standard design, such that it maximised the platform usage at the initial stations it was designed for. The network is standardised around formations of 20m or 23m carriages - if anything, the special fleet of trains is the 80x's with 26m carriages.

The MML side of St Pancras was designed with the standard length platforms being installed at the time. It was a significant time later that the initial IEP concepts were thought up, with no thought as to their compatibility with infrastructure away from their initial routes. I don't think we can really blame the designers of St Pancras for this.

My suspicion is that it would be so awkward with the rest of the MML platforms that it would go effectively unused apart from during disruption.

The scale of the MML operation is significantly larger today than when the station was being redesigned. It's only because of hindsight that we know they got it wrong, at the time the decisions were being made there was basically two HST's an hour and a handful of 170's a day running into the whole of St Pancras. Four platforms would have seemed plenty, even with some expansion of services.

A redesign and expansion of the circulating space for the MML platforms would go a long way. Ideally a separate route off the platforms for arriving passengers would have been provided, this would have greatly improved the flow around the waiting and platform areas.

Would it help if Corby services were to be replaced by a 2tph service through the Thameslink core?

 

[Spartacus]

Would it help if Corby services were to be replaced by a 2tph service through the Thameslink core?

Not especially I would have thought as that's only really part of the problem with the MML. The other is that the lines are paired by speed rather than direction, which really does not favour regular crossing between the fasts and the slows as it means there's a conflict with an opposing line every time you do it. And there's a LOT that cross between the fasts and the slow. No need to add four more, plus add more to the core.

Personally I'd cut one of those Corbys back to become a Corby - Bedford - Corby, using the slows all the way. Not sure if you'd be able to get a stop in at perhaps Wellingborough on the existing services to offer some compensation without a recast though, everything's so reliant on something crossing from the slows to fasts or fasts to slows the other way to afford much in the way of white space in the timetable where it would be needed, particularly in the up direction.

That'd help all facets of the MML's issues, St Pancras and just general congestion.

 

[fandroid]

I arrived at St. Pancras from Nottingham in the late morning on the Thursday before the recent Bank Holiday. The square concourse area outside the ticket gates was packed. There had been some disruption at Leicester so that might have increased the crowd somewhat, but it ought to be big enough to deal with fairly routine problems like that. Anyway, my obvious conclusion was that the review of St. Pancras capacity needs to look at the feasibility of increasing the full width MML concourse area to at least as far back as the up escalators

 

[Russel]

If the money and willingness was there, looking at Google Maps, an extra platform could be added, though it would require major alterations and covering Midland Road...

Would an extra platform help?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

a government that did not believe that British citizens should have free movement

I think it was the British public that believed that.

 

[YorksLad12]

I don't think platforms are the issue so much as the lack of concourse. The one time I used it to leave I felt as if I was being kettled (moral: never let someone else buy your train tickets just because they're cheap). The two times I've arrived there I felt bed for the people waiting to board as I squeezed past them.

 

[Bald Rick]

A counter view.

I use St Pancras twice a day, and the EMR side about once a week on average.

With the exception of the very early hours of the Saturday before Christmas in 2011, I have never had or seen a problem with crowding under normal operation (ie without severe disruption, when all major stations struggle).

 

[Dr Hoo]

I first used St Pancras I attended my first BR job interview in the early 1970s. Working in London initially I became well acquainted with operation back then. Subsequently I commuted through St P on Midland Main Line services for 19 years encompassing the whole of the rebuild period. Since retirement to the Peak District the station continues to be one of my main gateways to the capital.

Like @Bald Rick I have never experienced serious problems under normal operation. Since the 'three-way' service pattern (Sheffield/Nottingham/Corby) became established the process for parallel queues along the upper level during times like ECML closures has seemed to work adequately when introduced. I certainly don't subscribe to the 'massive open area for people to mill around in regardless of destination' suggestion that often seems to be made.

If we have lost the ability to handle six multiple unit trains per hour on four platforms I really do despair. I do not support either a 'fifth platform' or cutting services (e.g. Corby to Thameslink or local shuttle) as being necessary.

On Monday afternoon the entire complex was just ticking over nicely. Not a significant queue in sight. Every eatery and retail unit seemed to have customers inside; with the refreshment facilities particularly well patronised for a relatively slack time of day. I was pleased to take the opportunity to visit what might be regarded as an 'up market' shop to purchase a gift for someone. Living in a rural area it is great to be able to shop at St Pancras rather than having to make a special trip to somewhere like Meadowhall or the Arndale Centre.

A passenger with impaired mobility was happily whizzing around on a mobility scooter and a long-cane user was being led along by a companion. Both up escalators to the EMR platforms were working after recent overhaul and someone was using the lift.

The retail units on the upper level were also being used. This included the new combined EMR booking facility and welcome point.

A modest knot of intending passengers were waiting for the 1602 to Sheffield to be boarded. It was late inbound and going to run 5 v 10 cars. The 1605 to Nottingham was already open for boarding on Platform 3 as I walked up at 1549. The 1337 ex Sheffield arrived late at that moment (due 1539) and started to disgorge its passengers onto Platform 2. As soon as the flow had stabilised the 1602 was 'called' and passengers directed to walk along on the Platform 1 side and just give a moment for the arriving passengers to clear.

The 1440 ex Corby had been hard on the tail of the late Sheffield and ran slowly into Platform 1 at 1552, 1 minute late. Staff ensured that the outgoing Sheffield passengers remained clear of the platform edge. Passengers started to alight from the Corby arrival just as the departing Sheffield passengers were able to move across to their train. Everyone was able to fit onto the 5-car train. It was poetry in motion and calm crowd control.

As a former Station Manager who has experienced many hairy moments back on the Southern in 12-CEP, 12-VEP and 4-REP plus 8-TC (etc.) it was great to see staff well on top of their task.

The 1602 to Sheffield departed on time. (Sadly it had a poor run and was then further delayed at Derby while the missing 5-car set was attached, getting to Sheffield to late to make my hoped-for Hope Valley connection, but nothing to detract from St P.)