• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

King's Cross Remodelling: January - March 2020 (infrastructure discussion) - aka "King's Uncrossed"

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkyT

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,255
Location
Torbay
Version 0 of my layout sketch is here: http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf
New layout is not finished yet clearly. Platform length change is interesting (existing figures from sectional appendix). Not a general lengthening but rather reconstruction as necessary to suit the new track alignments in the throat, and would correspond with latest standards being applied for platform starting signal sighting and standback. I wonder what speed is proposed for the throat. Perhaps a blanket 25?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MarkyT

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,255
Location
Torbay
My layout sketch for this project, Version 1, is published here:

http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf

It is complete as far as information I have already been able to gather from the Rail article, this discussion forum, the sectional appendix and Google Earth. Any further information about the project will be gratefully received for possible incorporation in future updates, particularly new line names, speeds and signalling details.
 
whoosh

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,375
Excellent drawing. The 35/45 on the Down Slow actually starts just inside the London end of Copenhagen Tunnel. Apart from that it looks spot on.
 
S

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,743
Location
Leeds
There are some differences between the diagram in Rail (see post #28) and yours. It shows an existing facing crossover (which is to remain) in Copenhagen slow tunnel, and shows the work site as including Copenhagen fast tunnel, with a new facing crossover there. In the existing layout south of Gasworks tunnel it shows a different position for a crossover between the platform 7 and 8 lines.
 
MarkyT

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,255
Location
Torbay
snowball said:
There are some differences between the diagram in Rail (see post #28) and yours. It shows an existing facing crossover (which is to remain) in Copenhagen slow tunnel, and shows the work site as including Copenhagen fast tunnel, with a new facing crossover there. In the existing layout south of Gasworks tunnel it shows a different position for a crossover between the platform 7 and 8 lines.
Click to expand...

Thanks snowball. I had missed that new crossover in the Copenhagen fast tunnel. I have now included it in V4 and extended the work site to include the whole tunnel. As to the arrangement on the suburban side the depiction of the point-work here in the Rail diagram is confusing, in both the existing and new diagram. My existing diagram is definitely correct. In the new, unless the 9,10 turnout is parallel to the 7-8 crossover there's no need for the facing crossover just inside the Gasworks slow tunnel, so I've I've shown it as such. Note also that 8 is one of the very few platforms that actually gains any length which must mean the very tight pointwork at its immediate end must be moved further out. Hence I suggest the arrangement I have shown is likely to be correct broadly in terms of parallelism.
http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf
 
fflint

fflint

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
121
Well done Jyte and other contributors for a well balanced discussion ( not like some on here which degenerate into mindless squabbles ) MarkyT as always your diagrams are superb!
 
Y

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,692
Seen some bits and bobs internally saying renumbering platforms is still being discussed.
 
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,439
Local media around the ECML were reporting on it last month, EG here:
Closures for the remodelling work at King's Cross will begin in March and continue in June, August and October on selected weekends, with partial closures between Christmas 2019 and spring 2020. Individual platforms will also be shut off at other times, as part of the mammoth project to cut journey times and increase the number of long-distance trains. During each closure, some or all of the services run by London North Eastern Railway (LNER) and other operators, such as Govia Thameslink, will need to terminate at alternative stations. East Coast Main Line passengers will likely be offered replacement bus travel from Peterborough into London as a result of the works. Specific dates for the closures have yet to be agreed with Network Rail.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk...l-terminate-in-peterborough-in-2019-1-8682296
Click to expand...
 
I

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,221
Postponed a year until both NR and the TOCs are confident in each others ability to deliver, as I understand the Rail exclusive story.
(Sorry can't manage to copy the link)
 
d9009alycidon

d9009alycidon

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
842
Location
Eaglesham
I still have the old Modern Railways magazines that had diagrams for the original remodelling of the 1970s, one of the diagrams showed the Easternmost bore of Copenhagen and Gasworks Tunnels as the "airport lines", think this was some long forgotten plan to link a new London Airport to a dedicated terminal on the east side of Kings X Station. Must dig these out.

Jim
 
Q

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,265
InOban said:
Postponed a year until both NR and the TOCs are confident in each others ability to deliver, as I understand the Rail exclusive story.
(Sorry can't manage to copy the link)
Click to expand...

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...force-network-rail-to-defer-king-s-cross-plan
Network Rail has confirmed that major track remodelling and asset renewals scheduled to take place between December 2019-March 2020 will no longer go ahead as planned, with alternative dates now being considered.

Sources close to the project told RAIL the decision was taken after train operating companies serving the UK’s ninth busiest station failed to agree to the highly disruptive access that is required to complete the works.

Up to 50% of the station, which currently handles some 38 million passengers per year, will need to close for the three-month duration...
Click to expand...
Yet another benefit of splitting infrastructure and operations. What a fine idea that's proved to be :{
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

TheDavibob

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
407
InOban said:
Postponed a year until both NR and the TOCs are confident in each others ability to deliver, as I understand the Rail exclusive story.
(Sorry can't manage to copy the link)
Click to expand...
This seems sensible: waiting until the Canal Tunnels are fully in use and bedded down a bit (ha) seems sensible, and who knows when that'll be. Assuming the route to St. P can stay open for most of the route, this at least means the suburban services won't be particularly impacted.
 
F

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,881
Location
Central Belt
I guess it makes sense. It is dependent on the Thameslink services actually all going into the core. This is not certain to happen by then.
 
E

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
d9009alycidon said:
I still have the old Modern Railways magazines that had diagrams for the original remodelling of the 1970s, one of the diagrams showed the Easternmost bore of Copenhagen and Gasworks Tunnels as the "airport lines", think this was some long forgotten plan to link a new London Airport to a dedicated terminal on the east side of Kings X Station. Must dig these out.
Click to expand...
Maplin Airport near Foulness.
 
Aictos

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
d9009alycidon said:
I still have the old Modern Railways magazines that had diagrams for the original remodelling of the 1970s, one of the diagrams showed the Easternmost bore of Copenhagen and Gasworks Tunnels as the "airport lines", think this was some long forgotten plan to link a new London Airport to a dedicated terminal on the east side of Kings X Station. Must dig these out.

Jim
Click to expand...

If you do dig them out, could you share them if possible as I for one would most enjoy being able to see these diagrams. :D
 
G

Grumpy

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,070
"Up to 50% of the station, which currently handles some 38 million passengers per year, will need to close for the three-month duration."
Somewhere on youtube there is (or used to be) an old BT Films documentary about the relaying of the approach to St Pancras late 40's early 50's. The memory plays tricks but I seem to recall they shut the station fully for one weekend and partially for another 2 or 3.
 
Dr Hoo

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,976
Location
Hope Valley
quantinghome said:
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...force-network-rail-to-defer-king-s-cross-plan

Yet another benefit of splitting infrastructure and operations. What a fine idea that's proved to be :{
Click to expand...
It is indeed a benefit that ‘operations’ (for which read ‘actually delivering the service to passengers’) has the chance to question project scheduling.
With Thameslink yet to settle down; new rolling stock coming for LNER, Hull Trains and GTR inners; and electrification work continuing for the EMT alternative route for the time being it hardly seems like a good idea to throw in another massive load of blockades, training needs and so forth if it can safely be re-phased to follow.
Let’s not forget that the principal protagonists - LNER and GTR (with due respect to the open access operators) - are DfT-controlled anyway.
 
G

Grumpy

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,070
Grumpy said:
"Up to 50% of the station, which currently handles some 38 million passengers per year, will need to close for the three-month duration."
Somewhere on youtube there is (or used to be) an old BT Films documentary about the relaying of the approach to St Pancras late 40's early 50's. The memory plays tricks but I seem to recall they shut the station fully for one weekend and partially for another 2 or 3.
Click to expand...
Found it . Link here
 
Q

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,265
Dr Hoo said:
It is indeed a benefit that ‘operations’ (for which read ‘actually delivering the service to passengers’) has the chance to question project scheduling.
With Thameslink yet to settle down; new rolling stock coming for LNER, Hull Trains and GTR inners; and electrification work continuing for the EMT alternative route for the time being it hardly seems like a good idea to throw in another massive load of blockades, training needs and so forth if it can safely be re-phased to follow.
Let’s not forget that the principal protagonists - LNER and GTR (with due respect to the open access operators) - are DfT-controlled anyway.
Click to expand...

Well absolutely, I agree that operations must come first. And delaying the work is probably the right call in the circumstances. But don't you think that an integrated railway might have been able to work things out a little more smoothly than the current set-up, rather than have NR soldiering on with the project only to pull the plan seemingly at the last minute? DfT is not capable of working out the detail of getting operational and infrastructure improvements properly aligned; it needs to set policy and then a fully integrated organisation employing experienced operators and engineers needs to be in place to work out the practicalities.
 
Dr Hoo

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,976
Location
Hope Valley
quantinghome said:
Well absolutely, I agree that operations must come first. And delaying the work is probably the right call in the circumstances. But don't you think that an integrated railway might have been able to work things out a little more smoothly than the current set-up, rather than have NR soldiering on with the project only to pull the plan seemingly at the last minute? DfT is not capable of working out the detail of getting operational and infrastructure improvements properly aligned; it needs to set policy and then a fully integrated organisation employing experienced operators and engineers needs to be in place to work out the practicalities.
Click to expand...
Well, seeing as you ask a direct question, I suppose that it is only fair to give a direct answer. Having spent over 20 years working for BR, often very close to major projects of various types I recall frequent cases where schemes were subject to major delays, re-scoping, etc. after the reality of operational implications was brought to bear. The tension between engineers looking for a long blockade and operators wanting to keep some sort of service running was very real. Fortunately in those days we often had a rather less intensively used network and scope to redirect some passengers onto other routes. Now, as numerous other threads demonstrate, all routes north of London are bursting at the seams, including weekends. It isn’t easy.
 
C

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
I suspect its an issue of where all the peak time capacity would be diverted to if blockades are being looked at.
 
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,439
59CosG95 said:
Network Rail have now got this up and running: http://eastcoastupgrade.co.uk

Looks like resignalling is due to take place this summer.
Click to expand...
Following that link, and then clicking on the “find out more” button leads to a page on the National Rail enquiries site. This explains (amongst other news) that the 3 month 50% closure will now be from Christmas 2020 into 2021, so that confirms the one year shift to the right discussed a few months ago...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top