St Pancras International lower level

[EMD]

With the looming craziness that is the linking of Thameslink with ECML and having 24 tph through the core wouldn't it make more sense to have 4 platforms at STP which would provide contingency in case of the inevitable issues? Since I'm assuming that canal tunnels were built together with the station box was there ever a plan to have more than 2 platforms there?

 

[D365]

Been discussed before, more than two platforms wasn't possible within the space.

Interestingly, Whitechapel Crossrail (where 24tph splits to 12tph on each of the eastern branches) also only has two platforms, but again I believe the space available was too restrictive. Fitting in the necessary access tunnels and bridges would have been impossible.

 

[EMD]

I'm going to do a more thorough search later but in the meantime I'm guessing that the main reason for not being able to do it at STP is because of how tight the curve is heading from south? Also I remember reading somewhere that the lower level was sat unfinished for quite a while because there was no money to install all the fixtures and fittings. Frankly I think that this and the Blackfriars where they could have had 4 through platforms is a bit of a missed opportunity and with 24tph would provide a nice fail safe in case things go wrong (as they usually do).

 

[swt_passenger]

A four platform station at St Pancras was impossible due to physical constraints, so it was never really an 'opportunity to miss'.

I don't think the lack of fit-out was necessarily a question of affordability, it was clearly decided to build the box at the only obvious opportunity in terms of the overall HS1 work at St Pancras.

It was basically advance work which they always intended to fit out later at a date to be decided. If TfL hadn't cracked on with the rest of the LU improvements at St Pancras, (justified by the Olympics IIRC), then I expect the Thameslink box would not have been fitted out until some time later.

 

[b0b]

its a shame there wasn't even room for a third middle bi-di track (maybe even no platforms for space reasons) to act as a bypass in case of failure. I think the core is bi-di but it seems that is never used because of the disruption it causes in the other direction.

 

[MarkyT]

its a shame there wasn't even room for a third middle bi-di track (maybe even no platforms for space reasons) to act as a bypass in case of failure. I think the core is bi-di but it seems that is never used because of the disruption it causes in the other direction.

There's no realistic opportunity to use the bidirectional feature in emergency during daytime and evening, but it can be used to keep a skeleton service running during the dead of night and maybe on Sunday mornings, while one track is closed for maintenance.

A separate track for each incoming Up line at both Blackfriars and St Pancras would have been ideal, with the merging junctions sited clear of overlap distance from the platform starting signals. Then each platform could accept a train independently from it's corresponding route and they could wait any time required in the platform, then be 'clocked-in' to the core as close behind each other as possible.

That must have been either impossible or unaffordable, but in the real world independent approach tracks do exist for the services concerned just before the shared platforms which insulate any trains waiting for their slots from affecting other traffic in the localities. Intelligent real time service planning and ATO systems will be used to help manage timely entry to the core.

 

[AM9]

Posters here have been speculating on the impending doom for about five years now. Well in less than two years, they can all sit back and revel in any teething problems with the service and ERTMS installation shouting 'we told you so'. Then a few weeks later when it could be running as intended, they will be a ghostly silence on the subject.
That is just how it happened with the teething problems on the class 700s. According to this forum, there would be failures in the core every day which would paralyse the MML and all of the lines south of the river. It's been over 120 posts since a fault was reported in the class 700 thread, so they must be performing as the DfT/TOc planned. Maybe the 24 tph timetable will settle down to give the capacity required in future.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A 700 sat down in the core at City Thameslink last evening - which b++d the peak - Baldrick is away cycling in the Pyrenees - else he would be straight in here with a valuable comment.

Remember the DfT failed to agree the fitment out of SPX LL as even a 2 platform station for a good while - giving the "run through" period - after a miserable spilt service period of about a year.

 

[AM9]

A 700 sat down in the core at City Thameslink last evening - which b++d the peak - Baldrick is away cycling in the Pyrenees - else he would be straight in here with a valuable comment.

Remember the DfT failed to agree the fitment out of SPX LL as even a 2 platform station for a good while - giving the "run through" period - after a miserable spilt service period of about a year.

OK, so that's a random failure of 1 in over 1 month which without inside information, may not have been a defective train, unless all the other failures failed to make RUK posts. The situation certainly seems to be no worse than any other EMU type (and a lot better than some).

 

[bramling]

Posters here have been speculating on the impending doom for about five years now. Well in less than two years, they can all sit back and revel in any teething problems with the service and ERTMS installation shouting 'we told you so'. Then a few weeks later when it could be running as intended, they will be a ghostly silence on the subject.
That is just how it happened with the teething problems on the class 700s. According to this forum, there would be failures in the core every day which would paralyse the MML and all of the lines south of the river. It's been over 120 posts since a fault was reported in the class 700 thread, so they must be performing as the DfT/TOc planned. Maybe the 24 tph timetable will settle down to give the capacity required in future.

There's a slight point you're missing. Everyone knew the trains would settle down, as any train design should do. Although it was telling to see the fallacy of all the promises, especially from one particular poster, about how the introduction of these particular trains would be so much better than anything ever before. However the trains unreliability did show how easily the service melts down when things go wrong somewhere in the system. Sadly this won't settle down as things will always go wrong, and the extent and fragility of the Thameslink network both increases the likelihood and consequences of a problem. It's not just the Thameslink core with the whizzing 700s and ETCS but the large intensely worked networks either side, especially the highly unreliable Brighton line.

 

[carriageline]

The trains defo still have problems. Some are still driver error (understandable), some are unit faults. But they are massively better than they were, it does seem to be the same units that have problems crop up too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ComUtoR]

Just because it isn't reported on the forums doesn't mean it don't happen. I hear about faults all the time.

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure the main problems will be in the core, but rather the fact so many services must go through it. Passengers will be as much to blame for delays in the future as anything else, I'm sure.

30 or 40 years from now, when the 700s will be looking for a replacement and passenger usage may have grown even more, I wonder if there would be scope to build another north/south line to relieve the core. Perhaps running straight through, allowing for faster services and a bypass during extreme disruption.

Maybe we'll just have more crossrail services by then, to relieve pressure on Thameslink, but there must already be discussions on what happens next, beyond 2018.

I also wonder when the lower level will get 4G access. EE has put in fast 4G at City Thameslink (given its offices are nearby) and I was hoping they'd be installing small cells at St Pancras too. But, it's no good just one network - St Pancras should be trying to get all networks covered down there.

 

[southern442]

Posters here have been speculating on the impending doom for about five years now. Well in less than two years, they can all sit back and revel in any teething problems with the service and ERTMS installation shouting 'we told you so'. Then a few weeks later when it could be running as intended, they will be a ghostly silence on the subject.
That is just how it happened with the teething problems on the class 700s. According to this forum, there would be failures in the core every day which would paralyse the MML and all of the lines south of the river. It's been over 120 posts since a fault was reported in the class 700 thread, so they must be performing as the DfT/TOc planned. Maybe the 24 tph timetable will settle down to give the capacity required in future.

Despite being a 700 skeptic, I sort of agree with you. Again I'm no fan of the trains but the constant going on and on about the teething problems and how it was 'outrageous' that these problems were showing up was kind of ridiculous. No doubt the same thing will happen in the first few months of the new service. However I do have one concern, and that is that GTR are very unreliable when it comes to small delays. They have become slightly better over the past 6 months but the new timetable makes very little room for small delays.

 

[Abpj17]

Posters here have been speculating on the impending doom for about five years now. Well in less than two years, they can all sit back and revel in any teething problems with the service and ERTMS installation shouting 'we told you so'. Then a few weeks later when it could be running as intended, they will be a ghostly silence on the subject.
That is just how it happened with the teething problems on the class 700s. According to this forum, there would be failures in the core every day which would paralyse the MML and all of the lines south of the river. It's been over 120 posts since a fault was reported in the class 700 thread, so they must be performing as the DfT/TOc planned. Maybe the 24 tph timetable will settle down to give the capacity required in future.

I've been on a 700 that had a fault in the last month or so - caused an approx ten minute delay.

I wasn't in work most of the week (half term) but certainly got plenty of emails and reports from friends of issues this week (tho I can't say for sure they were 700s).

And having extra platforms at St P and Blackfriars wouldn't help loads - as Farringdon and City Thameslink are even more squeezed in. For Blackfriars of course there are four platforms, but two of them terminate - which seems to be useful at times.

 

[southern442]

I've been on a 700 that had a fault in the last month or so - caused an approx ten minute delay.

And your point is?

 

[Abpj17]

It's been over 120 posts since a fault was reported in the class 700 thread, so they must be performing as the DfT/TOc planned.

That number of posts on a thread since a 700 fault isn't particularly scientific proof that there have been no faults (not least as Chief Planner and I can immediately recall 2).

 

[southern442]

That number of posts on a thread since a 700 fault isn't particularly scientific proof that there have been no faults (not least as Chief Planner and I can immediately recall 2).

Again - what's your point? The number of faults that the class 700's are experiencing is nothing more than as would be expected of a new fleet of trains - especially given the large numbers of them. Several other trains (458's and 377/5's spring to mind) have had far worse initial performances.

 

[AM9]

Again - what's your point? The number of faults that the class 700's are experiencing is nothing more than as would be expected of a new fleet of trains - especially given the large numbers of them. Several other trains (458's and 377/5's spring to mind) have had far worse initial performances.

And especially considering that the 700s are the first of the new Desiro City family from Siemens. Given the opportunity for design shortfalls and latent manufacturing process defects, their introduction has been relatively trouble free. The Electrostar family has had a long history in service, especially if the development path from the '80s designed Networker is considered, so their troubles in recent years are in reality far greater failures than the '700s have exhibited to date.

 

[jon0844]

Yesterday was quite chaotic, and I saw that they were holding people upstairs and calling people through as and when. This was due to a signal failure in the south and trains (from what I can see) being turned back at Blackfriars.

The problem seemed to be that they called people down for a train that then left, as they weren't literally calling people in and then making sure everyone going down was on the train.

Trains were leaving as and when, and no sooner did the train leave that people had crammed on, but another two trains appeared on the boards. Many people who squashed on the train they called people down for could have taken the empty train behind.

People were also allowed on to a train going south, but it never left and I am not sure it ever did.

What happens when they have services going to all different destinations? When they call people through, it's fair to say that some will just go through just to get onto the platform.

 

[edwin_m]

When they get the full service it might be best for them to advise passengers at Farringdon (maybe City Thameslink too) to board the first train from the platform and change at St Pancras or Blackfriars.

 

[jon0844]

Controlling people getting to the platforms at Farringdon could be quite hard too, given some people will want access to other lines. I doubt staff will stop people using the Circle, Met, H&C lines because Thameslink is up the creek.

I remember at Old Street that when they regulated flows to the Northern line during disruption, they wouldn't let anyone in for the (then) FCC trains. I don't know what they do now, but you were effectively screwed until the Northern line platforms were clear.

 

[A Challenge]

Otherwise people could (and would have) used the FCC Platforms to bypass the queueing system...

 

[jon0844]

Otherwise people could (and would have) used the FCC Platforms to bypass the queueing system...

Of course, but it stitches up everyone that genuinely wants another line.

Farringdon would presumably be the same. St Pancras offers some control, but the problem there would be that people can't properly be separated based on their destination. They too could and would likely lie to bypass the queue.

 

[Jnismith]

I dont' think it so much an issue of the type of train, its just that at Farringdon, when Crossrail comes in, there will be a huge increase in passengers. If you add that together with train faults, signalling faults, flooding and, dare I day it, potential security incidents, then running 24 mph through the core is going to be optimistic at least.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm not convinced that the 700s aren't having issues, since I deal with their issues daily, PIS, AC/DC at Farringdon, GSM-R, doors, WSP, DOO. AT least two have had problems today already, with two faults on one unit, which is a frequent problem: one fault often seems to lead to another. Twice yesterday 700 faults on the MML managed to rack up over 3 hours worth of delays. In my opinion they've been complicated too quickly, since the Desiros were relatively trouble free. The 700s have been likened by some to a Class 50 compared to DP2.

Now, the faults aren't always big, but with the very high frequency through the core anything running less than perfectly is going to cause problems, so the regularity of issues means that things take hours to get back to normal but when the frequency is increased I doubt the timetable will mean a thing.

 

[D365]

... then running 24 mph through the core is going to be optimistic at least.

24mph isn't all that difficult

 

[DerekC]

24mph isn't all that difficult

I doubt if the service achieves 24mph as an average speed including stops. (Yes, I know it should be 24 tph).

There was a plan to have an additional through track/platform at Blackfriars (the only realistic possibility) as late as 2004 or so, but it got shouted down by the projects people who had already completed the design of the new station.

The problem which seems to be most worrying currently is the low service reliability of the Brighton Line. If this isn't fixed the high performance of the Class 700s and the technology in the core won't be able to rescue the 24 tph. And I hear rumours that GTR have got cold feet over the ERTMS and ATO technology and are looking for excuses not to use it.

 

[Busaholic]

I dont' think it so much an issue of the type of train, its just that at Farringdon, when Crossrail comes in, there will be a huge increase in passengers. If you add that together with train faults, signalling faults, flooding and, dare I day it, potential security incidents, then running 24 mph through the core is going to be optimistic at least.

Any bets on how long before a Crossrail train is prevented from stopping at Farringdon purely because of Thameslink? First day, anyone?

 

[ComUtoR]

24mph isn't all that difficult

Depends on which direction your going.