Suggestion for all HS2 stations and trains to use UK standard platform dimensions

[MarkyT]

A suggestion - HS2 should be built with UK standard platform heights and clearances throughout. I'm not suggesting building the line to UK loading gauge in terms of bridge and tunnel clearances, just using standard UK platform height and lateral clearance for all trains, so they could all use the same platforms at Euston, Old Oak Common and elsewhere, whether 'classic compatible' or 'captive', for maximum operational flexibility.

With no continental gauge connection to HS1 proposed, there are no plans for any through European services and most commentators feel there would be little market for anything beyond one or two 'token' daily services to Paris or Brussels anyway, so to insist on European platform standards for (at least initially) a totally domestic network makes little sense when this also introduces serious complications to operation of the classic compatible trains that must also interface with UK standard platforms elsewhere once they have the left the HS core trunk network. The plan as I understand it at the moment is to have separate platforms at stations where both captive and classic compatible trains will call, including at the major city terminal sites. This means at some stations there may be more new platforms required than would be the case if there was a unified standard, platforms may not be used interchangeably in the event of train or infrastructure failures, and classic compatible and captive sets may not be coupled together to form longer trains calling at the same platform face.

UK platforms are slightly higher and intrude closer to the rail than the European HS standard, but all the HS2 platforms at intermediate stations are on platform loops, so UK platform standards employed there would not prevent full size European stock passing on the through lines at some time in the more distant future. Anywhere such Euro trains DID stop in the future would then require dedicated segregated platforms clearly, which would seem likely anyway for security and immigration concerns, and they will always be a tiny minority compared to the domestic traffic they would run alongside.

To sum up my suggestion:

Build the line as planned to UIC GC gauge.

Build all new platforms at Euston and intermediate stations en route to UK standards.

Purchase captive AND classic compatible stock with UK platform height and clearance specified. Captive carbodies need not be limited to UK classic size restrictions above the platform, so double-deckers would still be possible.

Build a limited number of terminal platforms at non London city terminals in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham (one or two platforms at each) for possible future conversion to Euro platform standard for future through continental services. Think about security and immigration segregation from other parts of those stations in that design process. All other platforms to be built to UK standard. In the meantime for the foreseeable future, provide conversion decking on the Euro-proofed platforms to bring height and reach to UK standards.

Result:
A standard railway where any UKHS train can use any platform on the system, so groups of platforms at Euston for example need not be dedicated for either classic compatible or captive trains. This brings much more real time flexibility in operations, during construction, and also long term service planning flexibility over the balance in services between the two types of train and how that may change over the years with the size of the network and the extent of through running to the classic network.

Note: According to Wikipedia, Spain uses a non-EU standard platform height of 1250 mm on their standard gauge high speed network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_platform_height

 

[Loki]

Newsflash : there is no such thing as a captive train that fits the UK platforms. Here is something extra - double decker trains won't fit either because protruding platform don't leave enough space for seats at lower deck.
So basically the suggestion is to build a brand new line against the TSI, cripple the loading gauge and make even "captive" stock more expensive and with potentially less capacity because some of the old trains that does not have retractable steps might need to call at a station? No.

This means at some stations there may be more new platforms required than would be the case if there was a unified standard, platforms may not be used interchangeably in the event of train or infrastructure failures, and classic compatible and captive sets may not be coupled together to form longer trains calling at the same platform face.

There is a unified standard. UK platforms are not compliant to it. HS2 as planned is. As a side note - are you aware class 373 is built to UK gauge and yet calls at both UK classic and UIC platforms?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I did wonder whether the number of captive trains required would be worthwhile or whether the entire HS2 fleet should be classic-compatible units. In that case, I would still expect HS2 to be built to European loading guage with the exception of Euston station*, which might save alot of the necessary rebuilding work at Euston with at most a few extra platforms being required.

* Even if a HS1-HS2 link is added to the plans, through trains from the continent, or freight trains, would have no need to access Euston

 

[starrymarkb]

There is a unified standard. UK platforms are not compliant to it. HS2 as planned is. As a side note - are you aware class 373 is built to UK gauge and yet calls at both UK classic and UIC platforms?

They did. But not any more. The track has been raised in Ashford to allow for UIC gauge 374s to call. The other stations on HS1 are all UIC for the international platforms, UK for Domestic.

And before anyone comments on the step issue. Stadler are now building a 150mph Low Floor High Speed Train for SBB that gives completely level boarding at UIC platforms (with retracting steps to bridge any gap). By the time HS2 opens I suspect that will be standard for new builds.

 

[MarkyT]

there is no such thing as a captive train that fits the UK platforms.

That depends whether a 'captive' train is an entirely TSI compliant UIC train or not. 'Captivity' only implies non-compatibility with classic UK lines away from the new infrastructure.

Here is something extra - double decker trains won't fit either because protruding platform don't leave enough space for seats at lower deck.

Fewer seats perhaps in a more comfortable 2+1 configuration down below rather than 2+2, or even 1+1 First class saloons?

So basically the suggestion is to build a brand new line against the TSI, cripple the loading gauge and make even "captive" stock more expensive and with potentially less capacity because some of the old trains that does not have retractable steps might need to call at a station

I would argue that once the bespoke design for a UKHS spec range of trains, classic compatible, captive single and double decker, has been carried out, then the incremental build cost for each vehicle over a bog standard European train will be negligable, and the larger the order the more that one off cost would be spread. How much extra does Spain pay for its 1250mm platform height for instance. A standard UK platform height throughout could provide level boarding at new platforms for all trains and without any need for extending foot-boards, with their cost and reliability implications on the classic compatibles.

There is a unified standard. UK platforms are not compliant to it. HS2 as planned is.

So we engineer a railway for through services from the continent that are not planned or (at least initially) possible, whilst making it more complex to run services from the new line to the classic network that ARE planned. Either classic compatible trains will need their own separate UK standard platforms on the new network (that won't be usable by captives) or they will require expensive extending footboards with either a step up of around 150mm from UIC platforms, or a similar step down from UK classic network platforms.

As a side note - are you aware class 373 is built to UK gauge and yet calls at both UK classic and UIC platforms?

I think 373/1 uses UIC height platforms at Ashford, and historically at Waterloo International when it ran over classic infrastructure between London and the Channel Tunnel. Clearly that is at least partly a classic compatible train to fit within UK loading gauge and pass other UK platforms en route, but at All stations today it needs the extending foot-boards to reach the UIC platforms with acceptable gaps so they may have fixed the step boards permanently in the extended position now.

373/2 (NOL) WAS used with UK classic platforms operated on ECML by GNER. It's possible there were subtle differences in door and step design between the sub-classes to make the NOL sets properly compatible with UK classic platforms.

 

[Loki]

That depends whether a 'captive' train is an entirely TSI compliant UIC train or not. 'Captivity' only implies non-compatibility with classic UK lines away from the new infrastructure.

Yes, brilliant. Lets make new trains to yet another different standard.
Completely useless for anything outside HS2.

Fewer seats perhaps in a more comfortable 2+1 configuration down below rather than 2+2, or even 1+1 First class saloons?

That's your ad hoc rationalization to the reduced capacity?

I would argue that once the bespoke design for a UKHS spec range of trains, classic compatible, captive single and double decker, has been carried out, then the incremental build cost for each vehicle over a bog standard European train will be negligable, and the larger the order the more that one off cost would be spread. How much extra does Spain pay for its 1250mm platform height for instance. A standard UK platform height throughout could provide level boarding at new platforms for all trains and without any need for extending foot-boards, with their cost and reliability implications on the classic compatibles.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you make a difference between a high platform and a high protruding platform? You know that the second one changes the entire profile of the train and the loading gauge?

So we engineer a railway for through services from the continent that are not planned or (at least initially) possible, whilst making it more complex to run services from the new line to the classic network that ARE planned.

More complex?? Your restrictive platforms don't do anything to help compatible services, they just hinder captive ones. That's it.

expensive extending footboards with either a step up of around 150mm from UIC platforms, or a similar step down from UK classic network platforms.

Have you seen a modern train recently?

I think 373/1 uses UIC height platforms at Ashford, and historically at Waterloo International when it ran over classic infrastructure between London and the Channel Tunnel. Clearly that is at least partly a classic compatible train to fit within UK loading gauge and pass other UK platforms en route, but at All stations today it needs the extending foot-boards to reach the UIC platforms with acceptable gaps so they may have fixed the step boards permanently in the extended position now.

Ok, so you have seen a 373. It's curious why you would make suggestions like this then? The fact such train even exists makes your suggestion useless. The "problem" you are trying to solve does not exist.

 

[MarkyT]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you make a difference between a high platform and a high protruding platform? You know that the second one changes the entire profile of the train and the loading gauge?

I am merely trying to have a rational discussion based on an idea I suggested in good faith. That doesn't mean I have no idea what I'm talking about, nor that I'm irrationally wedded to the suggestion if it's not relevent. That's just plain rude. I clearly realise that the protruding UK platform will alter the profile of the stock.

I note the requirement 3.2 (l) for classic compatible trains from this document:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....drail/hs2ltd/technicalappendix/pdf/report.pdf

"provision to enable passengers to safely alight or board at platforms of TSI or UK standard design (e.g. platform heights of 760mm and 915mm
respectively"

Yet I also recall seeing plans for Euston that had some specific platforms identified for classic compatibles and I've also seen other discussions about dedicated CC platforms elsewhere. If however those trains will be able to use the UIC platforms, then fine there's no real problem and my suggestion is not relevant, but why are dedicated platforms being discussed. Is there still some debate going on about this, perhaps related to level access issues? Frankly I'm confused.

More complex?? Your restrictive platforms don't do anything to help compatible services, they just hinder captive ones.

Well if it is the case that both captive UIC and UK classic compatible trains will be able to call unhindered, flexibly, coupled in mixed formations etc at all platforms on the new network, all built to UIC standards, then fine I will accept your argument and withdraw my suggestion. You could have simply said that yourself.

 

[Loki]

Yet I also recall seeing plans for Euston that had some specific platforms identified for classic compatibles and I've also seen other discussions about dedicated CC platforms elsewhere. If however those trains will be able to use the UIC platforms, then fine there's no real problem and my suggestion is not relevant, but why are dedicated platforms being discussed. Is there still some debate going on about this, perhaps related to level access issues? Frankly I'm confused.

That's a good question. I suppose the idea is that those platforms can be used by "legacy" stock from other lines that does not have boarding platforms.

 

[Altnabreac]

That's a good question. I suppose the idea is that those platforms can be used by "legacy" stock from other lines that does not have boarding platforms.

Indeed I believe the plan is effectively to have 4 types of platform at Euston:

1. HS2 UIC platforms - Can be used by Captive HS2 trains and Classic Compatible HS2 trains.
2. HS2 Classic platforms - Can be used by Classic Compatible HS2 trains and legacy network trains (OHL)
3. Classic platforms - Can be used by legacy network trains (OHL)
4. DC platforms - Can be used by legacy network trains (Third rail)

As I understand it there is no physical difference in design between 2 and 3 it's just that only type 2 will have physical access to the HS2 tracks.

A major advantage of this proposal is that 2 x 400m platforms that can be used by legacy network trains are required for the Sleepers morning and evening but they would be underused for the rest of the day. Allowing classic compatibles to use them when Sleepers don't require them is more efficient than building 400m platforms for the Sleepers that are then used most of the day by 250m long trains on the classic network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And before anyone comments on the step issue. Stadler are now building a 150mph Low Floor High Speed Train for SBB that gives completely level boarding at UIC platforms (with retracting steps to bridge any gap). By the time HS2 opens I suspect that will be standard for new builds.

That looks a nice bit of kit - and it's reassuring that not all of SBB's new kit will be crap double deckers with tiny windows. Does it tilt? It seems to have a tilt profile a bit like the ICN, which it more than passingly resembles.

FWIW all newish[1] SBB stock has retracting steps, would be a good addition to UK stock as it prevents there being a gap to mind. Pendolinos of course already have them.

[1] Actually pretty much all UIC stock has the bottom step folding in when the door closes - but the new SBB design goes right out to meet the platform, meaning no gap.

Neil

 

[The Planner]

Indeed I believe the plan is effectively to have 4 types of platform at Euston:

1. HS2 UIC platforms - Can be used by Captive HS2 trains and Classic Compatible HS2 trains.
2. HS2 Classic platforms - Can be used by Classic Compatible HS2 trains and legacy network trains (OHL)
3. Classic platforms - Can be used by legacy network trains (OHL)
4. DC platforms - Can be used by legacy network trains (Third rail)

As I understand it there is no physical difference in design between 2 and 3 it's just that only type 2 will have physical access to the HS2 tracks.

A major advantage of this proposal is that 2 x 400m platforms that can be used by legacy network trains are required for the Sleepers morning and evening but they would be underused for the rest of the day. Allowing classic compatibles to use them when Sleepers don't require them is more efficient than building 400m platforms for the Sleepers that are then used most of the day by 250m long trains on the classic network.

No, you will have HS2 platforms and non HS2 platforms including DC, that is it. No access between the two. I doubt you'll get more than one sleeper platform either.

 

[MarkyT]

Indeed I believe the plan is effectively to have 4 types of platform at Euston:
. . . As I understand it there is no physical difference in design between 2 and 3

So these hybrid HSCC platforms would be especially long classic platforms connected to and under the primary control of the HS network, but also connected to the classic network. Clearly not available to UIC trains, incoming CC trains will dock in classic mode rather than UIC. There would be a regular arrangement to accept the sleepers in the morning and late evening and for other classic trains at other times perhaps in emergency and during prearranged windows to allow routine maintenance and repair access along other classic-only platforms. In the afternoon they could be dedicated to building up a small fast response tactical reserve of cleaned and watered CC trains for the evening peak to cover peak extras and help cushion any delay incurred during long day-trips by incoming CCs.

 

[Altnabreac]

That's a good question. I suppose the idea is that those platforms can be used by "legacy" stock from other lines that does not have boarding platforms.

No, you will have HS2 platforms and non HS2 platforms including DC, that is it. No access between the two. I doubt you'll get more than one sleeper platform either.

Yes, misremembered and it was only the Arup double deck proposals which proposed sharing CC / legacy platforms not the current bill design.

Platforms 1 and 13 (current 1 and 15) should be staying similar lengths to now at 400m+ so both would be available for sleepers. Would make sense to try and reduce occupancy to a single platform but currently they are timetabled to overlap in platform usage in the morning.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, misremembered and it was only the Arup double deck proposals which proposed sharing CC / legacy platforms not the current bill design.

So I guess the outline final layout as in the original design here: http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/C220-ARP-CV-DPP-01A-580103.pdf stays unless something else formally replaces it, whatever development gets built on top.

 

[starrymarkb]

That looks a nice bit of kit - and it's reassuring that not all of SBB's new kit will be crap double deckers with tiny windows. Does it tilt? It seems to have a tilt profile a bit like the ICN, which it more than passingly resembles.

FWIW all newish[1] SBB stock has retracting steps, would be a good addition to UK stock as it prevents there being a gap to mind. Pendolinos of course already have them.

[1] Actually pretty much all UIC stock has the bottom step folding in when the door closes - but the new SBB design goes right out to meet the platform, meaning no gap.

Neil

I believe it does, long term plan is to replace the ICN and Pendolinos. But as a stop gap SBB are buying more ETR610s as getting rid of the crap Fiat built ETR470 has become urgent!

 

[edwin_m]

Professor McNaughton of HS2 has suggested that their platforms might be higher than the TSI standard, but still set back far enough to allow UIC stock to operate. This would put them level with the train entrances and allow wheelchairs, pushchairs and suitcases to roll straight on an off, making them much quicker and easier for people to use and avoiding the delays caused by deploying ramps. This might also simplify the design of the classic compatible, as it would only have to compensate for a varying horizontal gap not a vertical one too. However I suspect it would need a change to the TSIs or at least a derogation.

 

[MarkyT]

Professor McNaughton of HS2 has suggested that their platforms might be higher than the TSI standard, but still set back far enough to allow UIC stock to operate. This would put them level with the train entrances and allow wheelchairs, pushchairs and suitcases to roll straight on an off, making them much quicker and easier for people to use and avoiding the delays caused by deploying ramps. This might also simplify the design of the classic compatible, as it would only have to compensate for a varying horizontal gap not a vertical one too. However I suspect it would need a change to the TSIs or at least a derogation.

That's interesting, a good compromise seeing as there's no planned through running to the continent, which together with the desire to ensure the best possible experience for the disabled and encumbered groups listed would form the basis for the derogation application. It would allow standard bodyshell dimensions to be used even if a comparatively inexpensive 'false floor' assembly inside the cars might be required in some designs to bring the floor up to the requisite level.

In my initial post I claimed (from Wikipedia!) Spanish standard gauge HS lines used a platform height of 1250mm. I've found no further evidence of this and the Adif (Spanish Network Rail) network statement document found here: http://www.adif.es/en_US/conoceradif/doc/CA_DRedEn_Capitulo_3.pdf contradicts:

"On platforms of conventional rail network, two nominal values of platform height are permitted, namely, 550 mm above the running surface for conventional traffic and 760 mm above the running surface for high-speed traffic."

 

[NotATrainspott]

The plan as I understand it at the moment is to have separate platforms at stations where both captive and classic compatible trains will call, including at the major city terminal sites. This means at some stations there may be more new platforms required than would be the case if there was a unified standard, platforms may not be used interchangeably in the event of train or infrastructure failures, and classic compatible and captive sets may not be coupled together to form longer trains calling at the same platform face.

If that is your understanding then I'm afraid to say you are completely wrong, and thus your entire argument falls apart. All platforms on HS2 will be the same captive gauge, and the difference between a classic-compatible and a captive train will be like the difference between a Eurostar and a standard TGV. The classic-compatibles will simply have retractable steps, as have the Eurostars, at the approximate height and horizontal displacement of a standard UK platform. HS1 is different, as its 'classic-compatibles' are not capable of using the international captive platforms and vice-versa.

 

[MarkyT]

If that is your understanding then I'm afraid to say you are completely wrong, and thus your entire argument falls apart. All platforms on HS2 will be the same captive gauge, and the difference between a classic-compatible and a captive train will be like the difference between a Eurostar and a standard TGV. The classic-compatibles will simply have retractable steps, as have the Eurostars, at the approximate height and horizontal displacement of a standard UK platform. HS1 is different, as its 'classic-compatibles' are not capable of using the international captive platforms and vice-versa.

Ok I totally accept and understand now there is no need for separate platforms which was my concern originally regarding operational flexibility. I am now wearing a hair shirt and flogging myself incessantly to atone for my base stupidity. I like the Prof. McNaughton suggestion though for the higher platforms, yet with the standard UIC carbody width.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I did wonder whether the number of captive trains required would be worthwhile or whether the entire HS2 fleet should be classic-compatible units. In that case, I would still expect HS2 to be built to European loading guage with the exception of Euston station*, which might save alot of the necessary rebuilding work at Euston with at most a few extra platforms being required.

* Even if a HS1-HS2 link is added to the plans, through trains from the continent, or freight trains, would have no need to access Euston

Euston needs to have extra platforms added and each one to be used by HS2 services must be 400m long. Getting that sorted at minimum requires a complete rebuild of the HS2 side, meaning there is no need to worry about UK gauge at all given that there is no extra cost in building captive platforms over UK ones.

That depends whether a 'captive' train is an entirely TSI compliant UIC train or not. 'Captivity' only implies non-compatibility with classic UK lines away from the new infrastructure.

'Captive' means bog-standard-off-the-shelf-train-used-on-continent in HS2 speak, like an AGV or an ICE3.

Fewer seats perhaps in a more comfortable 2+1 configuration down below rather than 2+2, or even 1+1 First class saloons?

There's absolutely no point whatsoever, as any extra seats provided on the decks would be negated by the space taken up by the stairs and the equipment needing moved around. HS2 Ltd have no plans to use standard double decker stock at this point in time for the same reason.

I would argue that once the bespoke design for a UKHS spec range of trains, classic compatible, captive single and double decker, has been carried out, then the incremental build cost for each vehicle over a bog standard European train will be negligable, and the larger the order the more that one off cost would be spread. How much extra does Spain pay for its 1250mm platform height for instance. A standard UK platform height throughout could provide level boarding at new platforms for all trains and without any need for extending foot-boards, with their cost and reliability implications on the classic compatibles.

Extending foot boards really don't cost that much in the grand scheme of things. It's likely that the New Tube for London will have them to narrow the gap with the platform when they implement platform edge doors.

I think 373/1 uses UIC height platforms at Ashford, and historically at Waterloo International when it ran over classic infrastructure between London and the Channel Tunnel. Clearly that is at least partly a classic compatible train to fit within UK loading gauge and pass other UK platforms en route, but at All stations today it needs the extending foot-boards to reach the UIC platforms with acceptable gaps so they may have fixed the step boards permanently in the extended position now.

Waterloo International and Ashford were both entirely UK-gauge but 400m long. When HS1 was completed, the international tracks at Ashford were relaid to provide a GB+ loading gauge on Network Rail infrastructure and signalling. Waterloo has always been UK gauge and that means it is already taking standard SWT 3rd rail commuter services on one platform without any infrastructure modifications.

373/2 (NOL) WAS used with UK classic platforms operated on ECML by GNER. It's possible there were subtle differences in door and step design between the sub-classes to make the NOL sets properly compatible with UK classic platforms.

The NoL sets had a slightly different suspension setup that allowed them to fit on any relevant route in the UK, but the step boards and doors were the same.

I am merely trying to have a rational discussion based on an idea I suggested in good faith. That doesn't mean I have no idea what I'm talking about, nor that I'm irrationally wedded to the suggestion if it's not relevent. That's just plain rude. I clearly realise that the protruding UK platform will alter the profile of the stock.

I note the requirement 3.2 (l) for classic compatible trains from this document:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....drail/hs2ltd/technicalappendix/pdf/report.pdf

"provision to enable passengers to safely alight or board at platforms of TSI or UK standard design (e.g. platform heights of 760mm and 915mm
respectively"

Yet I also recall seeing plans for Euston that had some specific platforms identified for classic compatibles and I've also seen other discussions about dedicated CC platforms elsewhere. If however those trains will be able to use the UIC platforms, then fine there's no real problem and my suggestion is not relevant, but why are dedicated platforms being discussed. Is there still some debate going on about this, perhaps related to level access issues? Frankly I'm confused.

Indeed I believe the plan is effectively to have 4 types of platform at Euston:

1. HS2 UIC platforms - Can be used by Captive HS2 trains and Classic Compatible HS2 trains.
2. HS2 Classic platforms - Can be used by Classic Compatible HS2 trains and legacy network trains (OHL)
3. Classic platforms - Can be used by legacy network trains (OHL)
4. DC platforms - Can be used by legacy network trains (Third rail)

As I understand it there is no physical difference in design between 2 and 3 it's just that only type 2 will have physical access to the HS2 tracks.

A major advantage of this proposal is that 2 x 400m platforms that can be used by legacy network trains are required for the Sleepers morning and evening but they would be underused for the rest of the day. Allowing classic compatibles to use them when Sleepers don't require them is more efficient than building 400m platforms for the Sleepers that are then used most of the day by 250m long trains on the classic network.

The original plan released back in March 2010 was that there would be 10 HS2 captive platforms, 2 hybrid platforms at 400m long but UK gauge, 6 320m long UK gauge WCML fast and 6 280m long UK gauge WCML slow platforms. Watford DC services would all be removed from Euston entirely. The Hybrid Bill plan was to have 11 captive platforms and no other changes to the WCML ones, but with the full rebuild back on the table it appears the plan is for 11 or 12 captive, 2 400m WCML fast, 4 320m WCML fast and 6 280m WCML slow platforms, with no connection between HS2 and the WCML at all.

No, you will have HS2 platforms and non HS2 platforms including DC, that is it. No access between the two. I doubt you'll get more than one sleeper platform either.

There are two sleepers per night therefore there must be two platforms capable of taking them. This is unless you want to build HS2 to Scotland fast enough that there would be no point in the lowland before Euston is finished. In 2030 the projected journey time is still 3hr40 or so which won't do much to kill off the sleeper; only once times drop to around 2 hours with a full captive line will the sleeper be completely pointless.

Yes, misremembered and it was only the Arup double deck proposals which proposed sharing CC / legacy platforms not the current bill design.

Platforms 1 and 13 (current 1 and 15) should be staying similar lengths to now at 400m+ so both would be available for sleepers. Would make sense to try and reduce occupancy to a single platform but currently they are timetabled to overlap in platform usage in the morning.

The double deck down and double deck up ideas all had the sleepers use standard WCML-only platforms.

 

[MarkyT]

Have you seen a modern train recently?

Seeing as I live in Devon I usually get 30 plus year old HSTs, sprinters and pacers from the 1980s and 'ultra-modern' Voyagers if they can make it past Dawlish, so I guess that would be a no.

 

[The Planner]

There are two sleepers per night therefore there must be two platforms capable of taking them. This is unless you want to build HS2 to Scotland fast enough that there would be no point in the lowland before Euston is finished.

You are assuming it can't be sorted so one comes in, dumps out and ECS out again before the next. The timetable is highly unlikely to be the same.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You are assuming it can't be sorted so one comes in, dumps out and ECS out again before the next. The timetable is highly unlikely to be the same.

I very much doubt that they could ever be timetabled that way. Delays are not uncommon given the complexity of the operation and unlike a standard service, there would be no possibility of a last minute platform swap if the other service weren't able to leave the single 400m platform. Needing to wait another 40 minutes or so for it to clear and exit and entry paths to become available would destroy the business market given the entire point of the service is to get people to Zone 1 for the start of the business day from anywhere in Scotland. In any case, the new station design will have all platforms as island pairs since that's the most efficient way of providing the escalators and lifts down to them, and so having one 400m platform effectively necessitates having another one share the same island.

 

[Tobbes]

All the more reason not to have the sleepers terminating at Euston, but instead to send them to Waterloo on the old international platforms.

 

[gordonthemoron]

All the more reason not to have the sleepers terminating at Euston, but instead to send them to Waterloo on the old international platforms.

nah, Wembley Mail Depot

 

[The Planner]

All the more reason not to have the sleepers terminating at Euston, but instead to send them to Waterloo on the old international platforms.

Suggested before, Transport for Scotland said get lost, they are only interested in the Euston Road in some shape or form.

 

[gordonthemoron]

they could go into Paddington

 

[HowardGWR]

they could go into Paddington

Indeed and given the fact that sleepers can literally take all night, why not a more restful trip? I have only been on sleepers a few times abroad, and just do not understand why they wake you up at some unearthly hour, often hours before you have to get off. If I get a sleeper (I don't care where I'm going in distance) I want to be awoken at 0730 at the earliest.

If it meant going via the Severn tunnel and up through the Marches to while away the hours, so be it. On second thoughts, you would probably find yourself stuck at Leominster at 1100 the next day, stuck behind a broken down freight!.

 

[Noddy]

I thought a through line was pretty much certain? Surely one of the major advantages of HS2 would be to compete with air - Bham-Paris/Brussels would be less than three hours, Manchester 3.5

 

[edwin_m]

I thought a through line was pretty much certain? Surely one of the major advantages of HS2 would be to compete with air - Bham-Paris/Brussels would be less than three hours, Manchester 3.5

The through line that was planned, from Old Oak to near St Pancras using bits of the North London Line, was deleted because Higgins didn't consider it was a good solution. We've been over the issues of through services from beyond London numerous times on here, with the general conclusion being that there isn't enough traffic to justify them especially when Tunnel security measures are taken into account.