Two St Pancras Platforms

[Richardr]

What I mean by that is using the old KXT platforms to allow extra capacity during peak hours. If two southbound services are due close together, the first could be signalled right into the KXT platforms, with the second pulling into St. Pancras behind it.

At 24 trains per hour, all trains will be pretty close together.

As an added bonus, the only expense needed might be an NSE-style brush-up of KXT and maybe a connecting passage run between there and STP... 8)

You do realise you are talking about stations more than half a mile apart, and certainly further apart than City Thameslink and Blackfriars.

The large platforms at St Pancras are much more likely to be able to cope than the platforms at say Farringdon, which has a better interchange with the circle and met tube lines, will eventually have cross rail, and also has more offices nearby.

 

[tbtc]

St Pancras will probably find itself being too small in not that many years, especially when/if Eurostar begins to expand with services to/from more distant destinations

...sorry to sound bitter and "Northern", but future expansion of Eurostar wouldn't necessarily all serve central London...

 

[jon0844]

Not bitter sounding at all - I would love to see services running beyond London. But, London is still going to be where the majority of new train services to other countries beyond Belgium and France will probably terminate.

If the restrictions are lifted on using the tunnel, I would love to see sleeper services introduced that could take you overnight to destinations much further away - and I think these WOULD prove popular as they would allow easier working, relaxation and also the saving of a hotel stay. You will also compete better with airlines if you aren't just relying on the speed of point-to-point.

Of course, we nearly had this before the low cost airlines came in - but with ridiculous charges turning people away from the likes of Ryanair, and new airline taxes being introduced (as well as fuel price hikes), the airlines are losing some of their advantages - at least for the short-haul flights anyway.

I suspect this is now asking for the post to be broken away into a new thread...

 

[Broken Viking]

You do realise you are talking about stations more than half a mile apart, and certainly further apart than City Thameslink and Blackfriars.

They're not that far apart, surely? Last time I used KXT before it shut, I was seeing a friend off on his train home and had bought myself a platform ticket. After my friend departed, I used the passageways and LuL platforms to come out in the ticket hall at St. Pancreas...And the walk from platform to ticket hall took me no more than two minutes, at the outside! 8)

The large platforms at St Pancras are much more likely to be able to cope than the platforms at say Farringdon, which has a better interchange with the circle and met tube lines, will eventually have cross rail, and also has more offices nearby.

I've never seen the point of City Thameslink, I must admit. The station itself is long enough to accommodate two trains (Probabally what it was originally designed to do) but if one of the platforms was extended just a little bit at both ends, it could be turned into a public footpath permitted path between Blackfriars and Farringdon. This would in turn drop a station from the timetable, and give more space for queueing trains waiting for stations either side! 8)

If the restrictions are lifted on using the tunnel, I would love to see sleeper services introduced that could take you overnight to destinations much further away - and I think these WOULD prove popular as they would allow easier working, relaxation and also the saving of a hotel stay. You will also compete better with airlines if you aren't just relying on the speed of point-to-point.

IIRC, British Rail were planning to introduce a night sleeper through the Chunnel called NightStar, and they actually put in an order for rather heavy rolling stock (Heavier than Pendos, I believe) fairly soon after they had the idea... 8)

...However, this project was put on hold amid concerns over cost, and then eventually abandoned. To recoup some of the cash lost over the half-built rolling stock, BR sold it all at a knock-down price to VIA Rail Canada. If ye ask me, VIA got a damn good deal out of BR's overzealousness!

 

[jon0844]

I know BR was going to do it, and it was the low-cost airlines that apparently killed the idea off.

Now, the low cost airlines aren't so low cost (but, yes, each airline does still do crazy offers from time to time to keep that impression) and they'll probably continue to get more expensive.

Ryanair now makes almost as much money from add-on fees as it does from the ticket sales; and intend to charge more. Sure, someone travelling with hand luggage only, and checked in online having paid by Electron, may still get a good deal.

 

[Snapper]

There are a couple of points about St Pancras. Firstly, four platforms would have been a huge advantage for when things go wrong.

That's a hell of a lot of money to spend 'just in case'. In reality, how often would they be needed - especially in the future when new trains are introduced which will be much more reliable than the 319s. Loops anywhere are of limited use. They're fine if a train breaks down in the right place, but sod all good when it doesn't.

The money that would be wasted on loops or extra platforms with limited use would be better spent on ensuring that they're not needed by improving the reliability of trains and infrastructure.

 

[jon0844]

Are modern trains that reliable though?

Can modern trains go into 'limp mode' to get out of a problem? Say a dual redundant setup with the means to allow one or two engines to power, at low speed, to move a train away - even if every other system (except perhaps the brakes!) has failed?

With no diversionary route for TL (and Crossrail), I'd be making sure that there would be next to no chance of a train actually breaking down and blocking a track for ages.

 

[Snapper]

Are modern trains that reliable though?

.....

With no diversionary route for TL (and Crossrail), I'd be making sure that there would be next to no chance of a train actually breaking down and blocking a track for ages.

Yes, modern trains are more reliable. And the spec for the new Thameslink fleet is demanding in this respect.

'Making sure' is a fine idea - but not when it comes to ignoring the price tag and what is practicable and sensible.

 

[EM2]

Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier just to have a couple of Thunderbird 73s at Herne Hill & Smithfield Sidings?

 

[jon0844]

How much it would it cost (silly question; not expecting an answer) to build in some sort of safety system that could ensure a train can move even if it has failed - assuming it has a working electrical supply from the wires or third rail.

I know trains in places with very harsh climates already use dual redundancy, so I am sure the train manufacturers already offer such things - and so the cost can't be that high, it's just another thing to 'tick on the order form' so to speak.

 

[ukrob]

Are modern trains that reliable though?

Can modern trains go into 'limp mode' to get out of a problem? Say a dual redundant setup with the means to allow one or two engines to power, at low speed, to move a train away - even if every other system (except perhaps the brakes!) has failed?

With no diversionary route for TL (and Crossrail), I'd be making sure that there would be next to no chance of a train actually breaking down and blocking a track for ages.

The spec for the new trains includes being able to push a failed train, being able to move a short distance without any power supply, and being able to move at reduced speed despite a major on board failure.

 

[jon0844]

Thanks - sounds like they have thought ahead!

 

[Broken Viking]

That's a hell of a lot of money to spend 'just in case'. In reality, how often would they be needed - especially in the future when new trains are introduced which will be much more reliable than the 319s. Loops anywhere are of limited use. They're fine if a train breaks down in the right place, but sod all good when it doesn't.

I don't know much about the St. Pancras refit at all, and where the foundations of the station building (Part of the listed structure) lie...But would it have cost them that much more to cut a slightly wider "box" during construction, assuming it would've been possible?

Of course, anything added to St. Pancras now would have to be a retrofit...And retrofits are time consuming, costly, and highly disruptive. Therefore I doubt that anything significant will be done at St. Pancras for at least the next 75 years, unless it's something bought in as a result of future changes in safety standards, or something else categorising as safety critical.

Are modern trains that reliable though?

<Cough> Class 170's and 458's </Cough>

Can modern trains go into 'limp mode' to get out of a problem? Say a dual redundant setup with the means to allow one or two engines to power, at low speed, to move a train away - even if every other system (except perhaps the brakes!) has failed?

If my understanding is correct, most trains are designed to apply the emergency brakes immediateley if a failure occurs in anything more critical than on-board lighting. Of course such a fail-to-safe option seems good on paper, but IMO it'd be much better for the driver to have the final say-so in what the train does in such a situation.

After all, a train stopping in the middle of the countryside isn't a problem in itself as passengers could be evacuated via the lineside if need be. A train stopping in a tunnel or on a viaduct on the other hand could pose many difficulties - Especially if disabled passengers need to be evacuated as well! hock:

Personally, I think that trains should have the option to "coast" in the event of a failure, which might allow it to continue to the next available platform where evacuation would be much easier and safer. Furthermore, being able to "coast" a unit would allow failed stock to still run certain services on routes where a rollercoaster style approach to operation could be applied!

 

[MCR247]

Whats so unreliable about 170s?

 

[Broken Viking]

Whats so unreliable about 170s?

Not much nowadays...But ye should've seen the mess they were in back when SWT had a few! hock:

The only time I had a fault-free journey on an SWT 170 was going between Basingstoke and Reading (About 15 miles)...Which isn't saying much!

 

[Tom C]

Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier just to have a couple of Thunderbird 73s at Herne Hill & Smithfield Sidings?

Problem with Smithfields is it can only accommodate an 8 car set which will be a problem with the super duper 12 cars start running. Moorgate will be completely gone (although that could only hold 8 cars anyway) so its going to be interesting to find out what contengency they put in for failed trains within the core section. No stock is 100% reliable and I argue that the more bells and whistles you cram into a train, the more likely something will go wrong with it.

Yes, modern trains are more reliable. And the spec for the new Thameslink fleet is demanding in this respect.

I think thats a very general statement. Certainly when you compare stock such as Voyagers vs LHCS in the dying days then yes I would agree but can we say the same about the Locomotives and LHCS when they were in their prime? I would be very interested in seeing any reliability figures from the 70's and 80's to see just how reliable LHCS, HST's etc were when they were in their prime. Would you say that 180's were more reliable than HST's for example?.

In 3rd rail land, the replacements for the 400 stock are still a very long way away from the frankly legendary level of reliability which their predecesors offered which even I would admit would be down to the simplistic nature of the stock but nonetheless they were a tough act to follow and I think there is still room for improvement before we can offer a general statement like they ARE more reliable.

Also, from experience on Thameslink, the 377's are certainly far more likely to go wrong than the 319's and most of the daytime problems are caused by 377's not switching between AC & DC at Farringdon and problems with the cameras on the units failing meaning trains have to NTS at stations without train dispatch. Perhaps its teething problems but it keeps happening on a daily basis sometimes.

 

[thelem]

The 377s are pretty reliable on Southern. I heard that there were software compatibility problems between the 377/2s and 377/5s, which matches up with my experience (i.e. when I'm delayed by technical problems it seems to be a train formed of a /2 and /5).

I'm in Brighton though, so I can't comment on reliability at Farringdon.

 

[jon0844]

Someone installed new drivers to play World of Warcraft, the Southern 377s haven't applied SP2, an engineer accidentally deleted config.sys?

Isn't it funny when so many problems come down to software - while it's the mechanical things you'd expect to fail!

(And I know config.sys isn't relevant these days!)

 

[EM2]

Problem with Smithfields is it can only accommodate an 8 car set which will be a problem with the super duper 12 cars start running.

I was suggesting that a rescue loco could live at Smithfields, ready to drag out anything out of the core that failed. Not necessarily to drag it there and leave it.

 

[Aictos]

What about Kentish Town? Couldn't a bay platform be provided for a Thunderbird?

Surely any Thunderbird should be based there to haul any failed services as there would be no need to shunt via City Thameslink to rescue any in the northern part of the core ie Farringdon to Kentish Town.

Plus wouldn't take long anyway to rescue failed services in the southern part of the core ie Farringdon to Blackfriars.

If the Smithfield sidings do need to be used, I rather they were used to stable crowd buster services or as they are going to be used as a place to get failed services out of the way.

 

[ukrob]

What about Kentish Town? Couldn't a bay platform be provided for a Thunderbird?

Surely any Thunderbird should be based there to haul any failed services as there would be no need to shunt via City Thameslink to rescue any in the northern part of the core ie Farringdon to Kentish Town.

Plus wouldn't take long anyway to rescue failed services in the southern part of the core ie Farringdon to Blackfriars.

If the Smithfield sidings do need to be used, I rather they were used to stable crowd buster services or as they are going to be used as a place to get failed services out of the way.

But the units can rescue each other, it is part of their spec so I don't see why a thunderbird would be needed?

 

[Waddon]

by the way, does anyone know if the new Blackfriars arrangement of four platforms will be four through platforms, or will two just be terminating platforms only?

 

[jopsuk]

There will only be two through platforms- confusingly though on the opposite side of the station to the current ones.

 

[Waddon]

There will only be two through platforms- confusingly though on the opposite side of the station to the current ones.

Its a pity the station couldn't be built with four through platforms, as that would help deal with a lot of what has been mentioned before in this thread. But I can understand why the terminating platforms would be on the other side as most terminating services come off the Elephant & Castle route. I guess services off this line will eventually all terminate at Blackfriars in future when the works are finished?

 

[Aictos]

I think that's the general idea to have the Sutton/Wimbledon services via Elephant and Castle to terminate at Blackfriars instead of St Albans or Luton.

Would like to know what will happen to the paths from Blackfriars northbound though?

 

[jas_sl]

Didn't I read somewhere that some services from the south would terminate at Kentish Town? (Seeing that it can be extended to 8 coaches)

 

[Tom C]

I think that's the general idea to have the Sutton/Wimbledon services via Elephant and Castle to terminate at Blackfriars instead of St Albans or Luton.

That is what the current plan is. Originally the pre blockade service of Blackfriars to Sevenoaks and Sutton/Wimbledon to St Albans/Luton would remain however they now think that because the 2O/2V use the slow lines and would not affect traffic coming from London Bridge, they would be a better candidate to terminate at Blackfriars which also coincides with the decision to spend no money on extending the platforms or resignalling because its too expensive.

Didn't I read somewhere that some services from the south would terminate at Kentish Town? (Seeing that it can be extended to 8 coaches)

They already do. The Sevenoaks to Blackfriars service currently terminates at Kentish Town outside of the rush hour, then goes on to Cricklewood to reverse. In the peaks they carry on St Albans, Luton or Bedford as replacements for the ex 2A/2G trains out of Moorgate. All 4 platforms at Kentish Town are 8 car platforms

 

[jas_sl]

They already do. The Sevenoaks to Blackfriars service currently terminates at Kentish Town outside of the rush hour, then goes on to Cricklewood to reverse. In the peaks they carry on St Albans, Luton or Bedford as replacements for the ex 2A/2G trains out of Moorgate. All 4 platforms at Kentish Town are 8 car platforms

All the way to Cricklewood to reverse - seems a long way? Are there any plans to make use of the engineering yard directly North of the Kentish Town station for reversing or any other purposes? Joe Brown's atlas shows lots of old tracks used to be there.

 

[Firestarter]

if the Sutton/Wimbledon trains terminate at Blackfriarrs, are there still going to be terminaters at St Albans and Luton with other services? If no will St Albans centre siding still be used or will it be done away with long term?

 

[johnb]

They already do. The Sevenoaks to Blackfriars service currently terminates at Kentish Town outside of the rush hour, then goes on to Cricklewood to reverse. In the peaks they carry on St Albans, Luton or Bedford as replacements for the ex 2A/2G trains out of Moorgate. All 4 platforms at Kentish Town are 8 car platforms

I don't think this is right - IMX (of using Kentish Town every day), the KT terminators both arrive in and depart from Platform 3 of KT, compared to Platforms 1 and 2 for through trains to/from the north. I've not stayed to watch one actually reverse, but it'd be odd to path them that way otherwise.