St Pancras - MML platforms

[matacaster]

There seems little opportunity to add extra platforms either side of existing MML platforms. However is there an opportunity to have an extra 4? Platforms on a mezzanine
Deck over the existing (newish) shed roof (IE the flat bit outside Mr Barlow's shed. Doesnt look too difficult and don't think this would upset the aesthetics of the station.This would allow extra trains and maybe even a new non-franchise operator to run out of st p.
Unsure why MML is supposedly full at Southern end, but it's got more 4 track than ECML and no two track pinch points.
Opinions please?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

There seems little opportunity to add extra platforms either side of existing MML platforms. However is there an opportunity to have an extra 4? Platforms on a mezzanine
Deck over the existing (newish) shed roof (IE the flat bit outside Mr Barlow's shed. Doesnt look too difficult and don't think this would upset the aesthetics of the station.This would allow extra trains and maybe even a new non-franchise operator to run out of st p.
Unsure why MML is supposedly full at Southern end, but it's got more 4 track than ECML and no two track pinch points.
Opinions please?

It’s full because of Thameslink. Thameslink uses both slow and fast lines. Thameslink also runs slower than fast MML services so you would need to find a way of separating Thameslink from MML services.

 

[Class 170101]

It’s full because of Thameslink. Thameslink uses both slow and fast lines. Thameslink also runs slower than fast MML services so you would need to find a way of separating Thameslink from MML services.

Separate them? Just tell GTR they are using the slow lines only between Bedford and St Pancras and that they cannot use the Fast Lines.

 

[EM2]

Doesnt look too difficult and don't think this would upset the aesthetics of the station.

I'm afraid it would. Part of the station's Grade 1 listing includes views of it from certain areas, and anything that disrupts that would not be permitted. It's why the Foster Extension is flat, so that it doesn't block the Barlow Shed.
See also https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ghspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3.pdf

St Pancras. We reviewed two options. The first, a ten-platform station constructed immediately above the extended HS1 platform zone, was not pursued as it would present major construction challenges – including building new foundations beneath the existing deck – and would be hugely disruptive during construction since it would require complete closure of the station. The second, a ten-platform terminal station sited to the north-west of St Pancras at the same level as St Pancras International, on the site known as Somers Town, was not pursued. It would entail significant disruption to the local community with housing demolitions and the loss of St Pancras Hospital, commercial property, and a number of listed buildings and monuments.

 

[Aictos]

Separate them? Just tell GTR they are using the slow lines only between Bedford and St Pancras and that they cannot use the Fast Lines.

That ain't going to work either as the Bedford's/Luton's would just catch up with the St Albans stoppers and follow them into London meaning for passengers from Luton northwards, they would face much longer journeys and total gridlock with GTR being forced to use the slow lines.

It just ain't going to happen as it's unworkable unless of course you're proposing to CUT the Thameslink service so there are LESS trains running?
Which I think is career suicide!

 

[InTheEastMids]

Separate them? Just tell GTR they are using the slow lines only between Bedford and St Pancras and that they cannot use the Fast Lines.

You're suggesting booting GTR services off the fast lines and reserving them for the 6tph EMT/EMT services. Are you proposing 6-tracking the MML or significantly reducing Thameslink capacity?

For 6tph, 4 platforms ought to be adequate, but I gather they are inefficiently used, partly because of pathing and partly because EMT have a lot of train variants (4, 5, 7 car 222 plus 6&8 HST). Compare that to LNER who, pre-Azuma had 2 (91, HST) or VWC who have 3 (9&11 car 390 plus 221).

I would suggest that capacity improvements between St Albans and Kentish Town, such as grade-separated junctions would be more impactful than adding platforms at St Pancras.

The cheapest option of all (in terms of capital cost) is probably a homogeneous fleet for EMR to better utilise the 4 platforms and eliminate the performance deficit of the 2+8 HST fleet

 

[RT4038]

I suspect that lengthening the EMT trains to 10 car would provide a sufficient additional capacity for a few years yet, without such expensive or disruptive options.

 

[Verulamius]

You're suggesting booting GTR services off the fast lines and reserving them for the 6tph EMT/EMT services. Are you proposing 6-tracking the MML or significantly reducing Thameslink capacity?

For 6tph, 4 platforms ought to be adequate, but I gather they are inefficiently used, partly because of pathing and partly because EMT have a lot of train variants (4, 5, 7 car 222 plus 6&8 HST). Compare that to LNER who, pre-Azuma had 2 (91, HST) or VWC who have 3 (9&11 car 390 plus 221).

I would suggest that capacity improvements between St Albans and Kentish Town, such as grade-separated junctions would be more impactful than adding platforms at St Pancras.

The cheapest option of all (in terms of capital cost) is probably a homogeneous fleet for EMR to better utilise the 4 platforms and eliminate the performance deficit of the 2+8 HST fleet

So you are proposing electrification north of Kettering so that a homogeneous fleet is possible?

 

[Kettledrum]

One way to make better use of the platforms and paths is to operate trains as 2 x 5 car units that share a platform and path out of St Pancras and then split further North. I've noticed South Western Railway regularly do it with trains out of Waterloo. It would give you more services for the paths available.

For example, for those fans of East Midlands Parkway, you could split trains there and have one 5 car unit going on to Nottingham and one 5 car unit going to Derby - or even fast to Sheffield avoiding Derby.

For some services Kettering would be a good place to split units, but as only the Corby route will be electrified you'd need to have electric units and bi-mode units that could work in multiple.
You'd be able to increase the frequency at which you serve many of the stations and make much better use of the limited paths and platforms at St Pancras.
You would need a common and consistent fleet though, which the current EMR just doesn't have. If all trains paths were used by 2 x 5 car units you'd have more seats too.

 

[route101]

Always thought the MML platforms at Stp looked a bit temopary

 

[Class 170101]

To those a bit sceptical about my thoughts above - it was meant to be tongue in cheek. However since Crossrail is only using the 'slow' lines on either side of London why not the same for Thameslink? Why should MML passengers suffer for Thameslink and what of the money spent to speed up Sheffield services that now seems to have been wasted.

In terms of platforms at St Pancras would it not have been possible to create 6 platforms by extending the two centre lines to the back of the shed with another split so four platforms at the back parallel with the Eurostar Platforms finish and two side platforms where 1 and 4 are now?

 

[EM2]

To those a bit sceptical about my thoughts above - it was meant to be tongue in cheek. However since Crossrail is only using the 'slow' lines on either side of London why not the same for Thameslink? Why should MML passengers suffer for Thameslink and what of the money spent to speed up Sheffield services that now seems to have been wasted.

I can't say for the Western end of Crossrail, but on the Eastern side, it's only using the GE Metro paths, which were slow lines only except in unusual circumstances. You say why should MML passengers suffer for Thameslink, but conversely why should Thameslink passengers be unfairly sidelined for EMT? You could argue that Thameslink runs more services and carries more passengers, so should have the priority...

In terms of platforms at St Pancras would it not have been possible to create 6 platforms by extending the two centre lines to the back of the shed with another split so four platforms at the back parallel with the Eurostar Platforms finish and two side platforms where 1 and 4 are now?

And reduce the size of the already small concourse even further?!

 

[Class 170101]

And reduce the size of the already small concourse even further?!

Could make them wait downstairs.

 

[Surreytraveller]

To those a bit sceptical about my thoughts above - it was meant to be tongue in cheek. However since Crossrail is only using the 'slow' lines on either side of London why not the same for Thameslink? Why should MML passengers suffer for Thameslink and what of the money spent to speed up Sheffield services that now seems to have been wasted.

In terms of platforms at St Pancras would it not have been possible to create 6 platforms by extending the two centre lines to the back of the shed with another split so four platforms at the back parallel with the Eurostar Platforms finish and two side platforms where 1 and 4 are now?

Thameslink operates a mixture of fast and stopping services. Crossrail doesn't.

 

[InTheEastMids]

So you are proposing electrification north of Kettering so that a homogeneous fleet is possible?

Yes I am. It's probably still one of the better business cases for electrification out there.
Which is why the DfT canned it and are intent on creating a mixed fleet of bimodes and 360s...

Edit: or you could use a larger fleet of bimodes for the Corby services...

 

[Chester1]

What about HS2?! The Sheffield-London market will switch, as will most of the Nottingham/Derby-London market. 6tph will be adequate until 2033 with a homogeneous bi mode intercity fleet and 12 car Corby EMUs.

 

[hwl]

I can't say for the Western end of Crossrail, but on the Eastern side, it's only using the GE Metro paths, which were slow lines only except in unusual circumstances. You say why should MML passengers suffer for Thameslink, but conversely why should Thameslink passengers be unfairly sidelined for EMT? You could argue that Thameslink runs more services and carries more passengers, so should have the priority...

And reduce the size of the already small concourse even further?!

Freight runs on GW reliefs (matches MML slows) which is the main difference to the GEML.

The capacity limits on the MML fasts aren't the St Pancras platforms but legacy signalling and track layouts further north. St Pancras MML platform utilisation (services/hour) would need to increase by 50% to match the current Kings Cross which has significant throat limitations pre-rebuild.

Thameslink carry more passengers on the MML fasts than EMT does (8tph on the fasts in the peak). Especially as Thameslink runs 240m trains on the fasts which is 40+% longer than the current EMT average.
Going to 6tph and new (more and longer) Rolling Stock would get you at least 70% increase in capacity, (which might be why they are doing that!)

 

[Kettledrum]

If you needed an extra platform, could you build an elevated one on top of the adjacent street

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

If you needed an extra platform, could you build an elevated one on top of the adjacent street

In theory, the 4 platforms could cope with 8 trains per hour which enough to cope with MML traffic until HS2 opens. The problem is Thameslink and how to get extra trains between St Pancras and Bedford.

 

[swt_passenger]

If you needed an extra platform, could you build an elevated one on top of the adjacent street

Bald Rick thought it’s not at all easy in a recent post in the HS2 thread here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-hs2-discussion.177112/page-88#post-4035308

 

[43096]

For 6tph, 4 platforms ought to be adequate, but I gather they are inefficiently used, partly because of pathing and partly because EMT have a lot of train variants (4, 5, 7 car 222 plus 6&8 HST). Compare that to LNER who, pre-Azuma had 2 (91, HST) or VWC who have 3 (9&11 car 390 plus 221)

EMT is an InterCity operator where turn round times should be at least 30mins: anything much less than that risks performance impacts with even fairly minor disruption. The Corby electric service will be more a “Regional Express” than an IC, so could probably be less of a turn round time, but that doesn’t give a huge benefit - they could probably run the Corby using one platform. But that only leaves three for everything else. Right from the start it has been clear that the Midland platforms are inadequate for the service being delivered.

 

[London Trains]

EMT is an InterCity operator where turn round times should be at least 30mins: anything much less than that risks performance impacts with even fairly minor disruption. The Corby electric service will be more a “Regional Express” than an IC, so could probably be less of a turn round time, but that doesn’t give a huge benefit - they could probably run the Corby using one platform. But that only leaves three for everything else. Right from the start it has been clear that the Midland platforms are inadequate for the service being delivered.

No they are not. The current utilisation is very inadequate, having different length Meridians which need to be used on different services, HSTs which wait around for 70 minutes because (obviously) 10 minute turnarounds are too short, Meridians on commuter services to Corby etc.

All of these problems will be fixed when the 810s and 360s enter service. I would expect the Corby services to use one platform, with less than 30m turnarounds, leaving 3 platforms for 4tph. Even with long turnarounds, that is more than adequate for an intercity service.

 

[43096]

No they are not. The current utilisation is very inadequate, having different length Meridians which need to be used on different services, HSTs which wait around for 70 minutes because (obviously) 10 minute turnarounds are too short, Meridians on commuter services to Corby etc.

All of these problems will be fixed when the 810s and 360s enter service. I would expect the Corby services to use one platform, with less than 30m turnarounds, leaving 3 platforms for 4tph. Even with long turnarounds, that is more than adequate for an intercity service.

Has it taken you 372 days to write that reply?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The easiest methodology I can see, based on my previously working on that patch, is to amend Kentish Town to just the current incumbent two through platforms for Thameslink, and effectively segregated running to West Hampstead.

Turn the Kentish Town ‘middle platforms’ into emergency stabling or even off-peak East Mids stabling, and then north of West Hampstead eliminate the goods lines as they currently are from West Hampstead North (as well as the Carriage Road), and put grade separate so Thameslink fast stuff can get onto/off the fast lines. It would also, helpfully, let all Thameslink trains stop at West Hampstead with no capacity loss for East Mids stuff.

After the M25 near Napsbury you could have the next grade separation allowing Thameslink stuff back onto the slows for St Albans, which in turn needs a ‘slow line middle platform’ rather than a turnback, so as to increase slow line capacity and through-service platform occupancy.

Radlett and Harpenden junctions would be withdrawn, same for Leagrave and Flitwick. The only junction you’d need would be Bedford South and one near Luton Airport (south of) for faster Thameslink trains. Bedford also needs to be re-modelled: an island platform on the fast lines, and four terminating platforms (all bi-directional and able to get to/from Bedford St Johns and Sharnbrook so freight can flexibly move through).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The easiest methodology I can see, based on my previously working on that patch, is to amend Kentish Town to just the current incumbent two through platforms for Thameslink, and effectively segregated running to West Hampstead.

Turn the Kentish Town ‘middle platforms’ into emergency stabling or even off-peak East Mids stabling, and then north of West Hampstead eliminate the goods lines as they currently are from West Hampstead North (as well as the Carriage Road), and put grade separate so Thameslink fast stuff can get onto/off the fast lines. It would also, helpfully, let all Thameslink trains stop at West Hampstead with no capacity loss for East Mids stuff.

After the M25 near Napsbury you could have the next grade separation allowing Thameslink stuff back onto the slows for St Albans, which in turn needs a ‘slow line middle platform’ rather than a turnback, so as to increase slow line capacity and through-service platform occupancy.

Radlett and Harpenden junctions would be withdrawn, same for Leagrave and Flitwick. The only junction you’d need would be Bedford South and one near Luton Airport (south of) for faster Thameslink trains. Bedford also needs to be re-modelled: an island platform on the fast lines, and four terminating platforms (all bi-directional and able to get to/from Bedford St Johns and Sharnbrook so freight can flexibly move through).

How many trains per hour would that allow for?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

How many trains per hour would that allow for?

The same as now but with improved pathing times and less conflicts requiring pathing allowances, therefore journey times reduced for Intercity traffic?

But I would strongly suspect you could get 16tph out of the core to West Hampstead and St Albans (mix or fast, semi-fast and slow) and 8tph East Midlands.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The same as now but with improved pathing times and less conflicts requiring pathing allowances, therefore journey times reduced for Intercity traffic?

But I would strongly suspect you could get 16tph out of the core to West Hampstead and St Albans (mix or fast, semi-fast and slow) and 8tph East Midlands.

how can we get 8tph for East Midlands Railway??? What by doing that?

if so where would the additional 2 go? Derby Or Leicester

 

[4-SUB 4732]

how can we get 8tph for East Midlands Railway??? What by doing that?

if so where would the additional 2 go? Derby Or Leicester

I hate to say this but I’m simply discussing the options of capacity uplift. Quite frankly they could operate a Kettering shuttle or a new super express to Barnsley and Burton on Trent. The reality is, create the capacity and even if it isn’t needed now it’s there for the future.

 

[Peter Kelford]

In terms of platforms at St Pancras would it not have been possible to create 6 platforms by extending the two centre lines to the back of the shed with another split so four platforms at the back parallel with the Eurostar Platforms finish and two side platforms where 1 and 4 are now?

I'm not sure if the structure will take such weights...

 

[Bald Rick]

The easiest methodology I can see, based on my previously working on that patch, is to amend Kentish Town to just the current incumbent two through platforms for Thameslink, and effectively segregated running to West Hampstead.

Turn the Kentish Town ‘middle platforms’ into emergency stabling or even off-peak East Mids stabling, and then north of West Hampstead eliminate the goods lines as they currently are from West Hampstead North (as well as the Carriage Road), and put grade separate so Thameslink fast stuff can get onto/off the fast lines. It would also, helpfully, let all Thameslink trains stop at West Hampstead with no capacity loss for East Mids stuff.

After the M25 near Napsbury you could have the next grade separation allowing Thameslink stuff back onto the slows for St Albans, which in turn needs a ‘slow line middle platform’ rather than a turnback, so as to increase slow line capacity and through-service platform occupancy.

Radlett and Harpenden junctions would be withdrawn, same for Leagrave and Flitwick. The only junction you’d need would be Bedford South and one near Luton Airport (south of) for faster Thameslink trains. Bedford also needs to be re-modelled: an island platform on the fast lines, and four terminating platforms (all bi-directional and able to get to/from Bedford St Johns and Sharnbrook so freight can flexibly move through).

The same as now but with improved pathing times and less conflicts requiring pathing allowances, therefore journey times reduced for Intercity traffic?

But I would strongly suspect you could get 16tph out of the core to West Hampstead and St Albans (mix or fast, semi-fast and slow) and 8tph East Midlands.

That’s about £2-3bn with the only benefit apparently being being able to stop an extra 2tph at West Hampstead in the standard hour, compared to the 8 tph today. This is up with Aberystwth to Carmarthen in terms of business cases...