New International Rail Terminal

[Wokingham]

Hello

With all the ideas and discussions about more international rail services could we see all of st pancras upstairs given to international use, i keep reading that its to small, could east midlands fit into kings cross or somewhere else?

 

[The Planner]

Hello

With all the ideas and discussions about more international rail services could we see all of st pancras upstairs given to international use, i keep reading that its to small, could east midlands fit into kings cross or somewhere else?

No and no.

 

[Basil Jet]

I don't think it needs more platforms, it just needs more customs processing space.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Hello

With all the ideas and discussions about more international rail services could we see all of st pancras upstairs given to international use, i keep reading that its to small, could east midlands fit into kings cross or somewhere else?

No and no.

To expand a bit...

Re all of upstairs being for international use:

It would be possible, in terms of space/geometry, to swing some connections from the international tracks across to the west and take over the EM route line. However, that would (of course) mean a lot of reshuffling of the station approaches; it would also mean massively lengthening the EM platforms to match the length of the trains, which would mean that level would all become platform space again, and other facilities at that level such as the champagne bar would have to go (ah - so not such a crazy scheme after all...); and you would also need to lose a lot of the main passenger concourse - below where you'd (re)placed the platforms - for passenger access to the new platforms and for extra security/passport checking areas etc. So - geometrically (and presumably structurally) not impossible; but you'd run out of space for other things. So not really a go-er.

Re sending EM trains to Kings Cross or somewhere else:

The EM tracks can't access KX - there's simply no way for them to get to the right place at the right level, and no relevant existing connections (especially if the area is filled up with your new links from the international tracks emerging from their tunnel...). Unlike the many south London connections which allow services from various destinations to get to a variety of terminals, there isn't the same interlinking in north London. In principle, trains from the EM line could access the GOBLIN route, thence - eventually, via Clapton - Liverpool Street. Similarly, they could in principle turn off at Brent Cross West and make their circuitous way via Acton Central and Barnes Bridge ... to Waterloo. But apart from folks from Sheffield not wanting a half-hour (or more) scenic ride round London suburbs added to their journey, neither these connecting routes nor these terminal stations are sitting there with lots of spare capacity waiting for a use.

To divert longer distance EM route services to another London radial route completely, they'd have to leave their existing route at least as far back as Bedford (more business for EWR?), if not Leicester. Which in turn would mean that all services stopping at any station at all which is south of that divergence point [unless you say that they should all lose all their rail services] would have to become, in effect, Thameslink trains, coming into central London using the Thameslink tunnels rather than the route into St P proper. But ... the Thameslink core wouldn't have capacity to take all the EM stoppers/semi-fasts (and where would you terminate them anyway?).

So ... yes. (That is, No and No.)

 

[Magdalia]

could we see all of st pancras upstairs given to international use, i keep reading that its to small

you would also need to lose a lot of the main passenger concourse - below where you'd (re)placed the platforms - for passenger access to the new platforms and for extra security/passport checking areas etc.

The security/passport checking is where St Pancras is too small for the International traffic, not platforms for trains.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The poster does raise an interesting point though, what if we did need more platform space? It’s a question I’ve asked myself for a while. The only way I think would be to use the javelin platforms for more international trains - assuming they’re shorter than the current Eurostars which are what - 1100 feet long?

Possibly you could then build a simple two platform underground station and send Javelins onto Heathrow via HS2. Maybe then down onto the SWML.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Here's a novel idea, how about starting and terminating some international services in Kent? Behind locked doors and security barriers is all the infrastructure moulding away, it wouldn't take more than a recruitment drive and a few maintenance contractors to bring all this back into use again and all of a sudden you're problem is solved, okay so some people aren't going to be too happy that having to change drains to access central London but you'd make a lot of other people happy because they know longer had to go through Central London

 

[AlbertBeale]

The poster does raise an interesting point though, what if we did need more platform space? It’s a question I’ve asked myself for a while. The only way I think would be to use the javelin platforms for more international trains - assuming they’re shorter than the current Eurostars which are what - 1100 feet long?

Possibly you could then build a simple two platform underground station and send Javelins onto Heathrow via HS2. Maybe then down onto the SWML.

For heritage - and other - reasons you can't extend the domestic HS platforms, so this would mean shorter international services. Which could - one day - mean inefficient use of tunnel capacity.

An underground Javelin station ... um ... where? Do you mean a new grade-separated junction in the tunnel in the run-in to StP, for domestic services to separate and then burrow down under the maze of KX/StP tunnels for a station somewhere down there, before using a freshly-bored tunnel under north London to go to ... my crayons are throbbing.

 

[JonathanH]

An underground Javelin station ... um ... where? Do you mean a new grade-separated junction in the tunnel in the run-in to StP, for domestic services to separate and then burrow down under the maze of KX/StP tunnels for a station somewhere down there, before using a freshly-bored tunnel under north London to go to ... my crayons are throbbing.

The place seemingly apparent is adjacent to the North London Line on Freight Lane where the Tarmac Concrete Plant is. Camden Accessible Travel Solutions have a depot there which could be expendable. Presumably the need for a concrete plant will diminish once construction in the area is complete.


[Screenshot shows exit from the HS1 route at Belle Isle and patch of land used for various purposes to the north of King's Cross - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5400881,-0.128926,717m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu]

Long way to walk to Kings Cross though.

 

[AlbertBeale]

An underground Javelin station ... um ... where? Do you mean a new grade-separated junction in the tunnel in the run-in to StP, for domestic services to separate and then burrow down under the maze of KX/StP tunnels for a station somewhere down there, before using a freshly-bored tunnel under north London to go to ... my crayons are throbbing.

The place seemingly apparent is adjacent to the North London Line on Freight Lane where the Tarmac Concrete Plant is. Camden Accessible Travel Solutions have a depot there which could be expendable.

View attachment 156937
[Screenshot shows exit from the HS1 route at Belle Isle and patch of land used for various purposes to the north of King's Cross.]

Long way to walk to Kings Cross though.

Aha - you might know that there's long been a local aspiration for an overground - these days, Overground - station on the NLL there, to be called Maiden Lane. So a KX Javelin station deep under the Overground as an integrated station... And of course it would only be a couple of hundred yards as the crow flies from the (long closed) York Road station in the Piccadilly Line underground, which locals have also said they want back one day... Maybe a new Kings Cross North station complex... (For the avoidance of doubt, my tongue is firmly in my cheek, and my crayons aren't out.)

 

[skyhigh]

it wouldn't take more than a recruitment drive and a few maintenance contractors to bring all this back into use again

From memory, when this has been discussed before, the issue is customs/border staff capacity. UK Border Agency is already understaffed so to reopen the Kent stops would need significant ongoing funding to staff the passport controls.

It was also said that neither Ashford or Ebbsfleet were designed to process a full train load so you'd need to redesign the stations to allow full trains to terminate on a regular booked basis.

This was the most recent discussion - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...t-some-trains-at-ebbsfleet-or-ashford.262292/

 

[AlbertBeale]

Ashford would make more sense as an adjunct to StP (to take some pressure off of terminal facilities at St P) if it were connected more like Lille - with the possibility of connecting to speedy long distance services to other parts of Britain without needing to go via London and probably having to change stations there. But its geographical position relative to the rest of the country, combined with the type of connections it has [albeit in several directions], mean that those possibilities aren't very enticing - apart from northbound HS1 connections, which takes you to where the international trains are going anyway! (Compare Lille, with direct fast trains to other parts of France and to adjoining countries.)

Now if it were possible to route some intercity services from Ashford, very quickly(!) through south London, up the WLL say, and on to the west, midlands and north (a bit like the old intercities from Brighton) - then it might be attractive as an entry point to the country from mainland Europe. However, it's probably not feasible to do that without the overall journey time being much longer than carrying on to London and changing there. If possible transit times via a direct-from-Ashford connection were better, and if perhaps fares were significantly discounted for using Ashford in lieu of St P, then it's at least possible that some Eurostar passengers from other part of Britain would choose a not-much-longer overall journey to save the hassle of a change in London and for the less stressed check-in experience at Ashford compared to the scrum at StP. I'd be interested if anyone knew what travel times could be achieved direct to various regions from Ashford (without massive southern region track enhancements), and whether loadings could justify such a service (though perhaps such trains could get as far as, say, Olympia, and then divide - half for the west and Wales, and half for the midlands and north).
'

 

[Wokingham]

Thanks for the interesting replies its a shame old oak could not have been built with a international terminal, i asked the question as have also seen he plans for the hs2/hs1 link under the thames near waterloo that didnt get very far, Ashford does seem like a missed opportunity, as i wonder if it was well served that it would grow, as opposed to the few services it did have.

 

[30907]

Lille "works" as an interchange (served by 1 ES in 3) because (1) it is a major city in its own right (conurbation population 1.5m according to Wikipedia, so >10x the population of Ashford) (2) it is en route from Brussels to most of France, thus allowing some synergy.
Even then, only Lille-Lyon (about 2 hourly) has anything like a frequent service.

 

[DanNCL]

The opportunity to route the MML long distance services away was cancelled, it was called the eastern leg of HS2.

If the eastern leg of HS2 had gone ahead that would have left just the Corby services on the MML that needed somewhere to terminate. An option for those would have been to incorporate them into Thameslink and run them through to Maidstone as originally planned for Cambridge services. A shuttle could have linked Leicester and Kettering to keep Market Harborough served, or perhaps a Nottingham/Derby - Bedford stopping service.

Without the eastern leg of HS2 however, Intercity services to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield have to continue to terminate at St Pancras.

The HS1 domestics would also still need to terminate at St Pancras.

Alternatively, and this really is going into the realms of unlikely hypotheticals here, if the UK were to join Schengen and the Channel Tunnel screening was ditched, trackwork could be done to allow Eurostar, EMR and Southeastern common use of all 13 platforms upstairs. But for as long as the UK is a backwards thinking euro-sceptic country that’ll never happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

International platfrom capacity at St P is not an issue. There’s six of them. That could, comfortably, accommodate 8 international trains an hour. (Right next to them, 3 platforms on the MML side comfortably accommodate 4 tph).

HS1 does not have capacity for 8 international trains an hour on top of the domestic service that runs.

Therefore, no need for more international platforms.

 

[Wokingham]

International platfrom capacity at St P is not an issue. There’s six of them. That could, comfortably, accommodate 8 international trains an hour. (Right next to them, 3 platforms on the MML side comfortably accommodate 4 tph).

HS1 does not have capacity for 8 international trains an hour on top of the domestic service that runs.

Therefore, no need for more international platforms.

thanks for the information, so the only improvement for StP would need to be to the facilities hopefully the new services come sooner rather than later,

 

[AlbertBeale]

Thanks for the interesting replies its a shame old oak could not have been built with a international terminal, i asked the question as have also seen he plans for the hs2/hs1 link under the thames near waterloo that didnt get very far, Ashford does seem like a missed opportunity, as i wonder if it was well served that it would grow, as opposed to the few services it did have.

What plans are/were those? When was that mooted?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What plans are/were those? When was that mooted?

I believe it was an Old Oak to Rainham tunnel with an underground station at Waterloo. I can’t remember the project name, but it was proposed within the last 5 years.

International platfrom capacity at St P is not an issue. There’s six of them. That could, comfortably, accommodate 8 international trains an hour. (Right next to them, 3 platforms on the MML side comfortably accommodate 4 tph).

HS1 does not have capacity for 8 international trains an hour on top of the domestic service that runs.

Therefore, no need for more international platforms.

But what IF more international platforms were needed as a thought experiment, what would happen then?

If HS1 can’t handle 8 international tph, how would more capacity to the Channel Tunnel be theoretically released? I’m guessing the Tunnel itself won’t be able to handle 8 passenger tph either

 

[MPW]

Quoting a wise forum member's crayon ideas: ebbsfleet could be an expanded local hub for wider SE. terminating all eurostar there would allow much bigger border control facility and the released capacity for SE HS1 would mean there's always a train waiting to take you rest of the way.

I was reading the croydon area remodelling diagrams and had a thought for orbital route.

The fast lines from bromley South could go in a tunnel (portal near shortlands, or existing station noting the adjacent car park). Through to Norwood junction and linking to Victoria fast lines near selhurst triangle.

All bromley to Victoria Fasts to be redirected to the new connection. That would mean one change from bromley to sussex (via expanded Norwood junction), all of SW London and surrey (via clappy j) and connecting back to existing capacity into Victoria. stopping services to victoria could be made more frequent.

From clappy J can connect to OOC.
HS1 station at barking maybe more doable if eurostar isn't in the mix.

Yes it's a serious intervention but only a few new underground platforms and unlike "R25" it would be a genuinely fast connection without going into central london. Could replace many car journeys on M25.

I understood that EL extension to ebbsfleet was projected to cost a huge amount of money because of need to quad-track existing SE route (especially if wanted SE to run fast).

So my thinking was instead of expanding the current abbey wood to dartford route to 4 tracks from 2, you could instead spend the money on a tram route. That tram route would better serve the 'opportunity areas' in north and east greenwhich, which are mostly closer to the river than the existing railway. Only the tram itself is a significant cost output (i know, 'only') whereas the SE fasts would effectively just be mothballing existing stations, with no alignments, bridges, clearances, etc.

If people from dartford want the EL, they can get to Abbey wood faster if the SE route didn't stop on the way. That should make up for requirement to change trains rather than having one seat all the way. The faster SE trains would also hopefully encourage some of those people to avoid the EL core altogether.

If passengers want to go somewhere in thamesmead, belvedere etc, the tram will probably take them closer to the actual destination than current railway alignment.

I guess other option is to do larger dlr extension instead of tram. Might need public acceptance of elevated track to be viable. (Again, lots of dual carriageways which could go down to one lane each direction with pedestrian/cycling space under elevated sections).

faster service from North Kent to cannon street.

 

[The Mercian]

Ashford would make more sense as an adjunct to StP (to take some pressure off of terminal facilities at St P) if it were connected more like Lille - with the possibility of connecting to speedy long distance services to other parts of Britain without needing to go via London and probably having to change stations there. But its geographical position relative to the rest of the country, combined with the type of connections it has [albeit in several directions], mean that those possibilities aren't very enticing - apart from northbound HS1 connections, which takes you to where the international trains are going anyway! (Compare Lille, with direct fast trains to other parts of France and to adjoining countries.)

Now if it were possible to route some intercity services from Ashford, very quickly(!) through south London, up the WLL say, and on to the west, midlands and north (a bit like the old intercities from Brighton) - then it might be attractive as an entry point to the country from mainland Europe. However, it's probably not feasible to do that without the overall journey time being much longer than carrying on to London and changing there. If possible transit times via a direct-from-Ashford connection were better, and if perhaps fares were significantly discounted for using Ashford in lieu of St P, then it's at least possible that some Eurostar passengers from other part of Britain would choose a not-much-longer overall journey to save the hassle of a change in London and for the less stressed check-in experience at Ashford compared to the scrum at StP. I'd be interested if anyone knew what travel times could be achieved direct to various regions from Ashford (without massive southern region track enhancements), and whether loadings could justify such a service (though perhaps such trains could get as far as, say, Olympia, and then divide - half for the west and Wales, and half for the midlands and north).
'

Surely this was the ill fated HS4 Air idea? I must admit I quite liked it but realise it was a classic case of crayonista overreach.

 

[DanNCL]

If HS1 can’t handle 8 international tph, how would more capacity to the Channel Tunnel be theoretically released? I’m guessing the Tunnel itself won’t be able to handle 8 passenger tph either

Signalling. Though TVM is in cab signalling it's still fixed block. ETCS will eventually resolve that on HS1. The blocks in the tunnel are shorter iirc.

 

[SynthD]

If you want more paths for passengers, cut paths for freight. It may not be a good decision in the wider context.

Eurostar is faster than domestic and freight, if you don’t want to slow Eurostar then pay to speed up the others.

 

[Meerkat]

Stratford Int could be a London terminus, with Ebbsfleet as a P&R for a low cost operator, if they could cover the cost of expansion of facilities and hiring more Border Force.
But is there demand for low cost international rail travel?

 

[JonathanH]

Stratford Int could be a London terminus, with Ebbsfleet as a P&R for a low cost operator, if they could cover the cost of expansion of facilities and hiring more Border Force.
But is there demand for low cost international rail travel?

I am not sure what is low cost about the need to cover the cost of expansion of facilities and hiring more Border Force.

 

[zwk500]

Quoting a wise forum member's crayon ideas: ebbsfleet could be an expanded local hub for wider SE. terminating all eurostar there would allow much bigger border control facility and the released capacity for SE HS1 would mean there's always a train waiting to take you rest of the way.

Can't terminate at Ebbsfleet without changing the layout for Eurostar or a lot of wrong-road running

HS1 station at barking maybe more doable if eurostar isn't in the mix.

Where? HS1 is underground at Barking.

Signalling. Though TVM is in cab signalling it's still fixed block. ETCS will eventually resolve that on HS1. The blocks in the tunnel are shorter iirc.

ETCS L2 (which AIUI is the plan) is still Fixed Block. AFAIK there's no suggestion to install ETCS L3 on HS1. I wouldn't have thought that ETCS would give a significant capacity upgrade over TVM as both are speed-signalling so don't need the blocks to explicitly link to service braking distances in the traditional manner for multiple-aspect signalling.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Where? HS1 is underground at Barking.

Of course HS1 surfaces east of Barking (presumably for freight trains to switch to the adjacent Tilbury Loop line - assuming freight stays on HS1 that far from the tunnel), and so non-Eurostars could in principle also switch across and then access Barking station. (I realise it's not obvious where they'd go after that...!)

 

[zwk500]

Of course HS1 surfaces east of Barking (presumably for freight trains to switch to the adjacent Tilbury Loop line - assuming freight stays on HS1 that far from the tunnel), and so non-Eurostars could in principle also switch across and then access Barking station. (I realise it's not obvious where they'd go after that...!)

HS1 is on the surface through Dagenham and freight trains can connect to Ripple Lane - which some do as the yard has some UIC cleared roads to allow transhipment.
However the connections are only allowed for passenger use in an emergency so would need upgrading, and they definitrly wouldn't be able to make a 400m platform at Barking Station without demolishing the whole thing and much around it and starting again, which may be a tad disruptive to deliver a station in a part of London that will be a very low percentage of travellers final destination when St Pancras offers so many more useful connections.

 

[Meerkat]

I am not sure what is low cost about the need to cover the cost of expansion of facilities and hiring more Border Force.

Its low cost if you can get large numbers using them. As its a low cost operator the new facilities would be little better than a shed, though the cost would be offset with concessions for a Wetherspoons etc! The bigger problem is that I am not sure there is the market for it, considering that destinations within a reasonable travel time are limited, and you are trying to fill whole trains not 737s.

Can't terminate at Ebbsfleet without changing the layout for Eurostar or a lot of wrong-road running

The passengers can terminate. The empty train can carry on to wherever they can spin them (only at St Pancras or in tunnel to the west of Stratford?). The aim is to avoid overloading St Pancras passenger facilities, not the paths. And I was thinking Ebbsfleet and Stratford would be served by the same train - Ebbsfleet for park and ride and Stratford for onward connections. I was wondering whether the train itself would have to be cleaned and re-provisioned at St Pancras anyway to save platform occupation?

 

[zwk500]

Its low cost if you can get large numbers using them. As its a low cost operator the new facilities would be little better than a shed, though the cost would be offset with concessions for a Wetherspoons etc! The bigger problem is that I am not sure there is the market for it, considering that destinations within a reasonable travel time are limited, and you are trying to fill whole trains not 737s.

Trains aren't inherently suited to low cost, especially when there are so many barriers to efficient operation. For the fares that would be achievable I think only offering a shed isn't going to attract enough custom.

The passengers can terminate.

Not without building much more terminal space at Ebbsfleet. It was only designed for a fraction of a train's capacity at a time.

The empty train can carry on to wherever they can spin them (only at St Pancras or in tunnel to the west of Stratford?). The aim is to avoid overloading St Pancras passenger facilities, not the paths. And I was thinking Ebbsfleet and Stratford would be served by the same train - Ebbsfleet for park and ride and Stratford for onward connections. I was wondering whether the train itself would have to be cleaned and re-provisioned at St Pancras anyway to save platform occupation?

If terminating at Ebbsfleet you can either reverse on the main line north of the station to shunt from one international platform to the other, or you can terminate northbound trains in the southbound international platform using an existing trailing crossover. You can also run wrong-road from Ebbsfleet to Singlewell jn.
If terminating at Stratford there is no way to shunt from one international platform to the other at either end, so you will either need to run to St P (or the NLL connection) and back, or to work wrong road between Wennington crossovers (dagenham) and Stratford in either direction.
Calling at Stratford as well as either St Pancras or Ebbsfleet serious extends the journey times on what is a very time-sensitive market, and using 3 stations not one increases the overheads (driver/train manager depots, catering/cleaning facilities) and therefore limits how low fares can go.
Bear in mind that track access is charged on HS1 by the minute. This means that you want trains to absolutely minimise the amount of non-revenue time they spend on the network.

Whereas providing a bigger lounge at St Pancras requires a bit of creativity but is not beyond the realms of practicality.