Should the international platforms at Stratford International be converted for domestic use?

[HSTEd]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs2-loading-gauge.214161/

They could significantly improve domestic services if they abandoned the illusion that Stratford International will ever see international services and convert the international platforms for full time domestic use.

 

[paul1609]

They could significantly improve domestic services if they abandoned the illusion that Stratford International will ever see international services and convert the international platforms for full time domestic use.

What domestic services are going to use them though? St Pancras (HS1) is more or less at capacity in the pre-covid peak.

 

[HSTEd]

What domestic services are going to use them though? St Pancras (HS1) is more or less at capacity in the pre-covid peak.

At the risk of derailing the thread, we could question whether we actually need six international platforms for ~25-ish trains in each direction per day.

 

[Ianno87]

At the risk of derailing the thread, we could question whether we actually need six international platforms for ~25-ish trains in each direction per day.

The 6 platforms nominally fit an international service of up to 4 trains per hour with turnround times of around 65-70 minutes each.

 

[swt_passenger]

The 6 platforms nominally fit an international service of up to 4 trains per hour with turnround times of around 65-70 minutes each.

AIUI each platform can only be used on one side at a time to keep arrivals and departures apart. It can’t be compared to a normal station in capacity terms.

 

[paul1609]

At the risk of derailing the thread, we could question whether we actually need six international platforms for ~25-ish trains in each direction per day.

 

[SynthD]

Every passenger carrying train already stops. The extra platforms were accurately destined for international only.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Stratford International all day on 16/02/2021

Train information at Stratford International all day on 16/02/2021. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

PS the 7:50 service doesn’t stop, doesn’t appear to slow down. Does that look good in person, on the platform?

 

[HSTEd]

Every passenger carrying train already stops. The extra platforms were accurately destined for international only.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Stratford International all day on 16/02/2021

Train information at Stratford International all day on 16/02/2021. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

PS the 7:50 service doesn’t stop, doesn’t appear to slow down. Does that look good in person, on the platform?

The problem is that since there is only one domestic platform in each direction, a train stopping at Stratford requires two paths to do so.

If the international platforms were brought into use a train could depart from Stratford into the path of the next arriving domestic train.

AIUI each platform can only be used on one side at a time to keep arrivals and departures apart. It can’t be compared to a normal station in capacity terms.

Why would it be necessary to keep arrivals and departures apart?
Are we concerned someone will arrive from France.... and then turn around and take the train back to France?

 

[Ianno87]

The problem is that since there is only one domestic platform in each direction, a train stopping at Stratford requires two paths to do so.

If the international platforms were brought into use a train could depart from Stratford into the path of the next arriving domestic train.

But that's completely pointless if you don't have the platform capacity at Stratford to run any additional trains.

Why would it be necessary to keep arrivals and departures apart?
Are we concerned someone will arrive from France.... and then turn around and take the train back to France?

Probably more about congestion on the platforms than anything else, I suspect.

 

[HSTEd]

But that's completely pointless if you don't have the platform capacity at Stratford to run any additional trains.

If you sacrifice two of the international platforms at St Pancras you can get more platform capacity.

 

[Ianno87]

AIUI each platform can only be used on one side at a time to keep arrivals and departures apart. It can’t be compared to a normal station in capacity terms.

You can get around that anyway by 'flighting' consecutive departures off opposite sides of the same island each half hour, e.g

xx01/04 off Platforms 5-6
xx31/34 off Platforms 7-8
xy01/04 off Platforms 9-10
And repeat, basically each platform sees a train every 90 minutes, with neat turnround times of about 60-70 minutes per train.

 

[HSTEd]

You can get around that anyway by 'flighting' consecutive departures off opposite sides of the same island each half hour, e.g

xx01/04 off Platforms 5-6
xx31/34 off Platforms 7-8
xy01/04 off Platforms 9-10
And repeat, basically each platform sees a train every 90 minutes, with neat turnround times of about 60-70 minutes per train.

Why does the train need a 60-70 minute turnaround?

 

[Ianno87]

Why does the train need a 60-70 minute turnaround?

International train, needs a full clean, and disgorging and re-boarding of 400 metres worth of luggage-laden passengers, associated catering, etc. etc. etc.

It's also about marrying up the inward and outward paths, which all arrive and depart at about xx00 and xx30 each hour; so the only way to do better than a 60-70 minute turnround time is to 'step up' half and hour on a 30/40 minute turnround time...which is probably too short to be robust (and would fall apart on even slight delays)

 

[cle]

Is the intention to have extra Stratford International terminate trains from Kent? Would that be so useful? It isn't quite the Regional hub with its connections, inc Crossrail. Only DLR.

I do think a little flexibility on the Eurostar platforms (the far left and far right ones for MML and Kent respectively) might be worth exploring for additional services.

 

[jamieP]

The problem is that since there is only one domestic platform in each direction, a train stopping at Stratford requires two paths to do so.

If the international platforms were brought into use a train could depart from Stratford into the path of the next arriving domestic train.


Why would it be necessary to keep arrivals and departures apart?
Are we concerned someone will arrive from France.... and then turn around and take the train back to France?

For the same reason arrivals and depatures are kept apart at airports.

 

[HSTEd]

For the same reason arrivals and depatures are kept apart at airports.

If it's an airport that only serves one legal destination area - Schengen.
That removes many o the constraints.

 

[markymark2000]

Could platform 10 be converted to be an International and Domestic platform. Basically, during the off peak, it is an international terminal with passengers using the existing P9/10 island. At peak time, a platform 10A comes into use (Platform 10A is what I am calling the platform which is opposite platform 10 but isn't full length. It goes from the Eurostar buffers to the Southeastern ticket line) Something would need probably so passengers could use this area but could it work? There would be no mixing of passengers since the doors would open on different sides of the train depending on it being Southeastern or Eurostar. This would essentially give Southeastern an additional platform at peak time.

 

[cle]

If it's an airport that only serves one legal destination area - Schengen.
That removes many o the constraints.

None are like that, other than US domestic when you walk in and out of the gate.
Even domestic passengers in Europe tend to have to re-clear security and become departing passengers again.

 

[zwk500]

Could platform 10 be converted to be an International and Domestic platform. Basically, during the off peak, it is an international terminal with passengers using the existing P9/10 island. At peak time, a platform 10A comes into use (Platform 10A is what I am calling the platform which is opposite platform 10 but isn't full length. It goes from the Eurostar buffers to the Southeastern ticket line) Something would need probably so passengers could use this area but could it work? There would be no mixing of passengers since the doors would open on different sides of the train depending on it being Southeastern or Eurostar. This would essentially give Southeastern an additional platform at peak time.

In short, No. Slightly longer answer is, you could theoretically do it but it's very expensive to set up and operate, so will never happen.

Longer answer: due to the international platforms being after the border checks, they need to be a security sealed environment ('airside'). If an area is removed from the sealed area, it needs to be re-swept to verify it's secure before it can be added back into the sealed area. You would to modify the barrier between P10 track and the walkway to allow it to be demounted/gates opened for passengers when used in domestic mode. As well you'd need some form of barrier on the international side of 10 to prevent domestic passengers pulling the emergency handle and legging it onto a E* in the platform.* This setup would need swapping over at least 4 times a day.
Not to mention that this new platform would be outside the barriers, so ticket enforcement would need to be manual (or non-existant). There's also the issue that building the domestic side platform up to UK standard probably puts it foul of Class 374s, so you'd need to install a retractable surface for at least the disabled doors to preserve level boarding. It would also be very tight on space for passengers walking from 11-13 down to the hotel end once you've cleared the 2.5m platform width for alighting and boarding passengers.

*Although it would be possible to mitigate the risk of a stowaway departing, even the theoretical risk of a delayed departure for E* (with the risk of delays at the Tunnel or in France) will almost certainly block any proposal for shared use.

 

[Starmill]

In short, No. Slightly longer answer is, you could theoretically do it but it's very expensive to set up and operate, so will never happen.

Longer answer: due to the international platforms being after the border checks, they need to be a security sealed environment ('airside'). If an area is removed from the sealed area, it needs to be re-swept to verify it's secure before it can be added back into the sealed area. You would to modify the barrier between P10 track and the walkway to allow it to be demounted/gates opened for passengers when used in domestic mode. As well you'd need some form of barrier on the international side of 10 to prevent domestic passengers pulling the emergency handle and legging it onto a E* in the platform.* This setup would need swapping over at least 4 times a day.
Not to mention that this new platform would be outside the barriers, so ticket enforcement would need to be manual (or non-existant). There's also the issue that building the domestic side platform up to UK standard probably puts it foul of Class 374s, so you'd need to install a retractable surface for at least the disabled doors to preserve level boarding. It would also be very tight on space for passengers walking from 11-13 down to the hotel end once you've cleared the 2.5m platform width for alighting and boarding passengers.

*Although it would be possible to mitigate the risk of a stowaway departing, even the theoretical risk of a delayed departure for E* (with the risk of delays at the Tunnel or in France) will almost certainly block any proposal for shared use.

Such a setup has reportedly been investigated by Eurostar for use at stations such as Koln Hbf, funnily enough. Of course there it would be effectively the only way to directly serve the station at all, and would probably begin with just one train anyway.

 

[zwk500]

Such a setup has reportedly been investigated by Eurostar for use at stations such as Koln Hbf, funnily enough. Of course there it would be effectively the only way to directly serve the station at all, and would probably begin with just one train anyway.

Similar arrangements were also apparently investigated as part of the regional Eurostar proposals at various times. The fact that it was easier to run HSTs into Waterloo, and at Amsterdam was better to layover at Brussels until juxtaposed controls were built should indicate just how difficult such arrangements are to put into practice.

 

[markymark2000]

Longer answer: due to the international platforms being after the border checks, they need to be a security sealed environment ('airside'). If an area is removed from the sealed area, it needs to be re-swept to verify it's secure before it can be added back into the sealed area. You would to modify the barrier between P10 track and the walkway to allow it to be demounted/gates opened for passengers when used in domestic mode. As well you'd need some form of barrier on the international side of 10 to prevent domestic passengers pulling the emergency handle and legging it onto a E* in the platform.* This setup would need swapping over at least 4 times a day.
Not to mention that this new platform would be outside the barriers, so ticket enforcement would need to be manual (or non-existant). There's also the issue that building the domestic side platform up to UK standard probably puts it foul of Class 374s, so you'd need to install a retractable surface for at least the disabled doors to preserve level boarding. It would also be very tight on space for passengers walking from 11-13 down to the hotel end once you've cleared the 2.5m platform width for alighting and boarding passengers.

*Although it would be possible to mitigate the risk of a stowaway departing, even the theoretical risk of a delayed departure for E* (with the risk of delays at the Tunnel or in France) will almost certainly block any proposal for shared use.

If it needs all that work then it probably isn't doable but surely there would be a cheaper or easier way of doing things. Expanding St Panc isn't really possible and so something innovative needs to be done with what the station has.
Based on platform 10 wouldn't be used by domestic passengers, would the security sweep still be needed? Only the track is being used, not the platform.

Barriers could be put on the international side either rising barriers (like Japan has. Then the twice per day, you drop or raise the barriers accordingly. A relatively quick job I would say) or platform length middle barriers with a gate near the travelators to block access onto P10 (Rising barriers would probably look better and wouldn't split the platform in half. Middle platform barriers would be cheaper though).
On the domestic side 10A, I think I would force people to walk back up to the high speed gateline for revenue protection and also it means only 1 door/gate thing is needed and that would be near the gateline so would be easy to sort out blocking the platform with a gate/door thing there.

For the platform, if there are any issues, possibly something could be done by removing about 15cm off platform 10 and then using gauntlet track so that the 395 can use the platform without affecting the 374s hitting the platform or whatever the problem may be.


There would be a large upfront cost but I think the ongoing day to day working could work fine and relatively fault free. The security sweeps would be the only issue I can forsee and then I think it may be worth looking to see if there are ways to reduce the amount the sweeps need to do bearing in mind that passengers wouldn't be on the track and there would be no area where domestic and international passengers would actually be in the same place. If you used P10 for domestic then I fully agree with large sweeps but it isn't P10, it's opposite and by and large, the risks are almost the same as the current risks. Someone using the emergency door release and climbing the wire fence. between P4 and P5 and between P10 and P11.

Similar arrangements were also apparently investigated as part of the regional Eurostar proposals at various times. The fact that it was easier to run HSTs into Waterloo, and at Amsterdam was better to layover at Brussels until juxtaposed controls were built should indicate just how difficult such arrangements are to put into practice.

Was that more to do with sharing platforms which wouldn't nesecerilly need to be the case here.

 

[popeter45]

sharing platforms would be a mess but could sharing tracks work?
would require a large reconfig of st pancreas (so would never happen) but if some tracks had 2 platforms (one each side) you could have one as the domestic platform and the other as the international platform

 

[Ianno87]

Every time this subject comes up, I remind myself that over in the parallel universe to us where Stratford was not built with international platforms, there must be endless Railforums threads lamenting how it was "short sighted" and a "mistake".

 

[zwk500]

sharing platforms would be a mess but could sharing tracks work?
would require a large reconfig of st pancreas (so would never happen) but if some tracks had 2 platforms (one each side) you could have one as the domestic platform and the other as the international platform

That's exactly what MarkyMark2000 is proposing.

Barriers could be put on the international side either rising barriers (like Japan has. Then the twice per day, you drop or raise the barriers accordingly. A relatively quick job I would say) or platform length middle barriers with a gate near the travelators to block access onto P10 (Rising barriers would probably look better and wouldn't split the platform in half. Middle platform barriers would be cheaper though).
On the domestic side 10A, I think I would force people to walk back up to the high speed gateline for revenue protection and also it means only 1 door/gate thing is needed and that would be near the gateline so would be easy to sort out blocking the platform with a gate/door thing there.

Japanese-style rising barriers won't be enough for border security. Everywhere else at St Pancras has a 3m-high permanent barrier. You'd need Crossrail/Jubilee Extension style edge doors, along 600m of platform. Forcing everybody to walk back to the SE departure boards will constrict passenger flow - the passage next to P10 is well used. Would you have a permanent barrier to P10a (so permanent loss of space for the walkway) or tensile barriers (staff need to set out for every use)?

For the platform, if there are any issues, possibly something could be done by removing about 15cm off platform 10 and then using gauntlet track so that the 395 can use the platform without affecting the 374s hitting the platform or whatever the problem may be.

Depends on the minimum acceptable width for P10, which I suspect is the current width so no scope for reduction.

There would be a large upfront cost but I think the ongoing day to day working could work fine and relatively fault free. The security sweeps would be the only issue I can forsee and then I think it may be worth looking to see if there are ways to reduce the amount the sweeps need to do bearing in mind that passengers wouldn't be on the track and there would be no area where domestic and international passengers would actually be in the same place. If you used P10 for domestic then I fully agree with large sweeps but it isn't P10, it's opposite and by and large, the risks are almost the same as the current risks. Someone using the emergency door release and climbing the wire fence. between P4 and P5 and between P10 and P11.

The upfront cost would be huge, and the ongoing cost would be significant - Edge doors aren't cheap to maintain. Climbing the wire fence isn't easy, as there's a track in front of it and a 25KV wire at the top. Pulling the handle and dashing across to a waiting train is, by comparison, substantially easier.

Was that more to do with sharing platforms which wouldn't nesecerilly need to be the case here.

It was, but it illustrates the difficulties of shared areas generally.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, the non-platform opposite P10 would only be long enough for 1 x 395. Seems an awful lot of hassle for a short train.

 

[Alfie1014]

Running all the peak train full length would be the easiest quick win. SE High Speed has been calling out for an expanded fleet for years, 12 additional 6 cars would go a long way to improving matters.

 

[markymark2000]

Also, the non-platform opposite P10 would only be long enough for 1 x 395. Seems an awful lot of hassle for a short train.

Yes it may seem like a lot of hassle for a short train but over the peak period (of 3 hours), the platform could take 6 trains (based off todays SE running in P11 & 12 during 6am-9am). Could be upto 3600 passengers if the train was completely full. That's a lot of extra commuters able to get the train.

There are only a few solutions to expand the high speed network taking into account the St Panc issue.
1. Portion run until Ebbsfleet/Ashford and then run as a 12 car set into London. This means that trains would be going basically 2 or 3 stops before splitting to go to respective destinations which is confusing for passengers.
Or 2. Find another platform in St Panc to run the extra trains into.

Option 2 is the least confusing for passengers and probably the easiest operationally since the industry has moved away from portion working as much as possible. Either you take away a Eurostar platform and convert it to domestic use (this works but not sure how happy Eurostar would be being condensed down to 4 platforms and being forced to reduce their turnaround time so that all services can still work in the platform) or you look at a peak time platform solution (which is when the high speed paths would actually be needed and used and also when Eurostar has less departures).
There are some things to overcome yes and hopefully there may be some way of doing things so that the security sweeps don't need to happen with large P10 platform screen doors/fence in place and the fact there would be zero chance of domestic and international passengers mixing.
Fares is one area to overcome, maybe something could be worked out there for that to work.

Japanese-style rising barriers won't be enough for border security. Everywhere else at St Pancras has a 3m-high permanent barrier. You'd need Crossrail/Jubilee Extension style edge doors, along 600m of platform. Forcing everybody to walk back to the SE departure boards will constrict passenger flow - the passage next to P10 is well used. Would you have a permanent barrier to P10a (so permanent loss of space for the walkway) or tensile barriers (staff need to set out for every use)?

A permanent barrier wouldn't work at all, the barrier would have to be movable in some way, shape or form to enable the opposite platform to be used. Could you do 3m high roller shutter style fencing? I'm sure that something would be able to be worked out so that the area is kept secure. I was only using the Japanese barriers as an example since they drop down to block people getting to the train and rise up when the train is in. Better than Crossrail style edge doors which rely on the train being in the exact position for the platform doors to open which isn't really ideal for trains which are driver operated (vs Crossrail central section and JLE which is ran by ATO).

As for the passage next to P10, something would need sorting out if using the platform would take up too much space from that walkway. Forcing people to go back up to the normal SE gateline it perfectly fine if you can work out all the trains using P10a to be the trains which come in (PM) or leave (AM) ECS so in the morning, you only have arriving passengers and evening only departing passengers. No passenger flow issues then. That said, there is hardly a huge counter peak flow on the high speed at London so while yes it would constrict passenger flow, it would generally not be an issue since 99.5% of people would be travelling the same way.

The upfront cost would be huge, and the ongoing cost would be significant - Edge doors aren't cheap to maintain. Climbing the wire fence isn't easy, as there's a track in front of it and a 25KV wire at the top. Pulling the handle and dashing across to a waiting train is, by comparison, substantially easier.

If the ongoing cost is mainly the edge doors, I suppose it depends on the type of platform edge barrier used. rising or sliding. Sliding probably requires more work as it would be 1 door per train door, it also needs technology to make sure that the train is aligned. Rising seems to be cheaper. Not saying to use them but just for comparison, shop shutters work extremely well for long periods of time. Depending on the style (person or electric making the shutter rise/fall), the costs again change.

It was, but it illustrates the difficulties of shared areas generally.

That would be shared platforms though. Not just a shared track. This is very, very different since there is no opportunity (without using the emergency door release but you alerted me to that and a solution could be sorted for that) for passengers to mix.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are only a few solutions to expand the high speed network taking into account the St Panc issue.
1. Portion run until Ebbsfleet/Ashford and then run as a 12 car set into London. This means that trains would be going basically 2 or 3 stops before splitting to go to respective destinations which is confusing for passengers.
Or 2. Find another platform in St Panc to run the extra trains into.

I can tell you from having run trains in that part of the world that (1) is far easier operationally than having a platform at St P that is sometimes domestic / somtimes international, and all the operational changes that needs. I’d also suggest that (1) is more passenger friendly than having an occasional platform that needs a long walk to get to/from.

Splitting and joining is a common feature of railways south of the Thames, and elsewhere in the world, it’s really not an issue.

But there is a third option which is even better - just run 12 car services throughout to end destination. And that’s what is most likely to happen.

 

[markymark2000]

I can tell you from having run trains in that part of the world that (1) is far easier operationally than having a platform at St P that is sometimes domestic / somtimes international, and all the operational changes that needs. I’d also suggest that (1) is more passenger friendly than having an occasional platform that needs a long walk to get to/from.

Splitting and joining is a common feature of railways south of the Thames, and elsewhere in the world, it’s really not an issue.

But there is a third option which is even better - just run 12 car services throughout to end destination. And that’s what is most likely to happen.

1 is cheaper short term. Not sure if it's more passenger friendly though. Spliting/joining is often frowned upon by passengers. As for the walk, it shouldn't be any more than walking to the leading unit of a 12 car unit (using portion working, some people will of course need to be in the leading unit for your destination).

Splitting and joining I would say used to be common but it has been reduced quite a bit in recent years both with companies using longer sets (not coupled units) but also franchises like London North Western where they used to portion work a lot of trains out of Euston, instead they have reduced that as much as possible. Southern similarly has reduced their portion working. Not sure on numbers but South West Trains/South Western Railway seem to have reduced their portion working too. I think while it may happen, it is being reduced as much as possible to try and make things simpler for passengers.