59CosG95
Established Member
Indeed it does - if it had gone on at the same time as the upcoming Christmas Blockade at Werrington, the ECML would have been paralysed.
-
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"
- Thread starter 59CosG95
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Looks like regular major Bank Holiday closures coming up for the southern end of the ECML.
I wonder if they have told their WCML opposite numbers, to ensure at least one of the routes to the north/Scotland is open.
The WCML has got into the habit of packing in at Bank Holidays.
I wonder if they have told their WCML opposite numbers, to ensure at least one of the routes to the north/Scotland is open.
The WCML has got into the habit of packing in at Bank Holidays.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,963
Some of the Kings Cross stuff will happen at the same time as Werrington.
We are not allowed to block both routes at the same time.
59CosG95
Established Member
Indeed - though I'm fairly sure the large blockades (e.g. longer than a weekend) are being staged so that neither King's Cross nor Werrington both have simultaneous blockades.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Kings Cross to Doncaster is closed at August Bank Holiday Saturday and Sunday according to Rules. Diversions between Peterborough and Doncaster via the GE/GN Joint Line. No trains south of Peterborough or between Kings Cross and Cambridge.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It probably makes sense to do closures at Kings Cross and Werrington at the same time. Either on its own would cause huge disruption to the ECML with no obvious rail diversion available, so might as well take the hit just once.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
Something I saw in a video reminded me that they currently have an LNER Thunderbird stationed in one of the sidings in the vicinity of the eastern tunnel bore, so I guess that will either move to Hornsey or be discontinued?
Presumably the new trains won't need them so much if they have last-mile diesel engines and the ability to recover their failed compatriots
I have gone through all four pages and nowhere does anyone question the reduction in platforms at Kings Cross during alterations. With the increase in passenger numbers surely every platform is needed and should be increased in number not reduced?
Esker-pades
Established Member
I understood the platform closures to be only for the duration of the upgrade works.
mm333
Member
On one of the threads about this, a forum user created this PDF showing the before and after of the station and its approaches.
http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf The current platform 10 is being removed.
Esker-pades
Established Member
How much of a loss will that be though? The suburban services that would use the shorter platforms will be/have been transferred to Thameslink.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I think that Platform 10 can only take an 8-car EMU (or 5-car Class 180, I suppose). Isn’t the aim to get more 12-car platforms?
Presumably many of the trains using P10 have been or will be diverted to the Thameslink lines?
Presumably many of the trains using P10 have been or will be diverted to the Thameslink lines?
But Thameslink as I understand is at full capacity now. Where will extra capacity come from if needed in future if there is no longer room at Kings Cross. No doubt some money-grabbing developer will build on it and be lost forever.
From what I understand, the current #11 becomes the new #10, and the two suburban platforms that remain are both lengthened to 172m, which is just enough to handle eight cars comfortably, complying with modern stand-back and sighting requirements. I also suspect that the current #10/#11 island is somewhat narrow (at approx 3.2m wide) for its terminal role, and the abolition of current #10 will allow a little widening of the platform, especially towards the buffer stop end, into the former #10 track alignment space, probably with a rear fence provided too. That should be a lot safer for a complete train unloading there. The entry into #9 will require a slight realignment to allow #8 lengthening, and with the throat turnouts shifted north towards the tunnel portals the new #9 alignment can also move over a little into the former #10 alignment. See my sketch here: http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Indeed, personally instead of the square being built in front of Kings Cross, they ought to have used that area for the concourse which would have allowed Platforms 9 to 11 to be extended to 12 cars.
Or build the concourse where it is but slightly East which as these platforms only need a extra 4 cars worth to fit a 12 car in wouldn't have taken up much room.
Yes the front of Kings Cross looks nice without that 1970s concourse but they could easily have built a concourse which takes up some of that space and still have room in front of Kings Cross.
Well, HS2 is part of the answer to future capacity, and 11 platforms should be more than enough for the number of trains that can be squeezed over Welwyn viaduct.
Not sure a developer would be interested in a space 3m x 160m (roughly) in the middle of a working station [but this is London, I might be wrong
] Sorry, MarkyT has just given a serious answer.
717001
Member
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 221
The reduction of capacity to handle additional trains when there’s disruption on the Moorgate branch or via the Thameslink core, is worrying.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
The end state reduction is only the one short platform though. It isn’t normal to have spare platforms whose primary purpose is to deal with problems on another route, is it?
If there's no space to divert a Moorgate train into King's Cross, the next option I assume is to terminate at FPK and turn it back there? Quite often trains run into King's Cross and then run empty to Finsbury Park to start back to WGC or Hertford don't they?
SteveOfTheStow
Member
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 169
Thameslink isn't near full capacity - the Core is capable of 24tph under ATO, which is not yet in use. That has to be shared between the Bedford and Great Northern branches, yes, but still an uplift for Great Northern versus pre-Thameslink (yes, ok, if it ever works; this isn't the thread for that).
Yes, this is the case. It's a shame the old Platform 9 isn't being kept as a fenced-off 6-car stabling siding for turning diverted Moorgates ECS (for which there could be space after the remodelling), but I totally understand that this is a very eccentric use and does not justify the cost. Ideally the Moorgate branch doesn't fall over much at all - hopefully once ETCS is in and the branch gets some investment (ha), it becomes more reliable.
So looking at the diagram, you've got 4 platforms for Thameslink (7, 8, 9, 10 - former two are 12-car and latter two are 8-car). That leaves 6 platforms for LNER & open access + 7 and 8 that could be shared with Thameslink if required, all of which appear capable of taking 2x5 car 800 (platform 0 is the longest and probably easy to isolate for charters).
I don't know how intensively used those 4 Thameslink platforms will be given how much is intended to go through the Core once ATO is in, so turning wandering 717s would probably still be doable with a little platform juggling.
Last edited:
Would it have been worthwhile during the redevelopment to knock down the suburban shed completely and build a 3rd shed identical to the existing ones alongside (i.e. with 4 long platforms in it)? There was room, even with the GN Hotel retained, I think. Don't get me wrong, what was built is nice, but more platforms has to be a good thing, right?
Where would the concourse have been located?
Brissle Girl
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 2,657
An appropriate number of platforms has to be a good thing. With many suburban services now routed via the lower level route, it seems to be a sensible decision to return the suburban shed to two platforms (as it was until the 90s) for the reasons others have given. It should certainly suffice for the next 10 to 15 years after which who knows what the demand will be given HS2.
This is the trouble with our railways in the last 60 years. Paring everything down to the absolute bare minimum until there is no resilience left and everything grinds to a halt. HS2 is not the solution to all our problems. York to London will still be quicker via Grantham and Peterborough by 5 minutes.
York (and Darlington, Durham, Newcastle) - London on HS2 should save around 30 minutes compared to ECML.
An absolutely valid question. It seems bizarre that the redevelopment left the suburban platforms suitable only for 8 car lengths. Should at least have tried to go to 12 car lengths, with the concourse above. Projects which are once in a generation opportunities should always build in capacity for future growth. Need to be thinking 20+years ahead. Similarly there should have been 4 Thameslink platforms down below. The redevelopment looks pretty but the objective should have been long term operational need rather than architectural awards.
240-ish metre long platforms would not be sufficient for two 5-car 80xs. 280m might just have been possible, but the stops would have been very tight up against the Great Northern Hotel, undesirably so I suggest. Longer platforms here would also break the nice direct and level pedestrian link between the KX booking hall and St Pancras over the road. A raised concourse would have placed the platforms in an enclosed environment at least at the bufferstop end, unpopular among many on the forums, and possibly introducing safety concerns that would need further mitigations. The platforms as proposed will be able to be used by single 5-car 80x trains, as planned by Hull Trains for instance, and probably by any Peterborough peak outer suburban limited stop services additional to the Thameslink core services, whoseoever ends up operating those, and assuming they can be formed of units that will fit.
How when London- Leeds will be 80 minutes, London- York 95 minutes and London-York by Hitachi bimodes is planned for 90 minutes? Even HSTs were timed at 95 minutes non-stop to York a year or two after introduction. 30 minutes faster by HS2 would be 60 minutes. Impossible even if HS2 is ever extended beyond Brum.
- Status