St Pancras - could the layout be improved for Eurostar?

Bletchleyite · 5 Feb 2024

Taunton said:
I am disappointed that Eurostar, very gradually, just seems to be losing interest in being a key international travel medium. Happening slowly over time, but in particular the recent merger with Thalys seems to have just left it as an outlying branch from an operation mainly focused on the Paris to Amsterdam route. The initial Eurostar passenger number projections have never been met to any extent, the trains have always seem under-employed, and a large part of the potential market, such as on-the-day day leisure returns is completely ignored - it's only two hours to Paris (or to London for Parisiennes).

The space at St Pancras seems, if anything, smaller and more cramped than what was available at Waterloo, where at least their accommodation was used in a useful manner rather than stupidities like Champagne Bars where nobody ever seems to be. There was no excuse for the experiences from Waterloo not being carried forward and improved at St Pancras. Unlike some, who are so eulogistic about what was done to the old station interior, I think they ruined it ...

The champagne bar is itself a massive waste of space and the upstairs part of the station at that end is barely used at all. Could an option be to rejig it a bit to move the arrivals facility up there, and thus have only departures in the area downstairs? That would mean the retail wouldn't need to be moved around, though I suppose another option would be to take out the retail on the Eurostar side only, keeping the other side, and to expand into that space, with some retail moving upstairs as stall style shops with seating, perhaps making a better food court than the cramped area around the departure board?

To gain more space you could extend the mezzanine over the central walkway between the shops. It wouldn't be quite as nice without the view upwards to the trainshed roof, but if lighting was designed well it wouldn't be awful either. And it'd not need to be the full length to get enough space for an arrivals facility or a stall-based food court.

As a further sort-of-related option, could a pre-registration facility be created for people to sign up their fingerprints for the EU scheme in advance in one of the retail units? Wouldn't suit everyone, but if already living or working in London popping in to do it to avoid queues on the day would be a good thing, a bit like the way Gatwick offer (or did offer) the option to check bags in the night before to make things easier/reduce queues for the early morning departures.

RailUK Forums

Dr Hoo · 5 Feb 2024

How does your suggestion fit with the ban on any ‘buildings’ in the train shed at platform level (for architectural heritage reasons)?
The champagne bar is not deemed to be a permanent or enclosed building.

Bletchleyite · 5 Feb 2024

Dr Hoo said:
How does your suggestion fit with the ban on any ‘buildings’ in the train shed at platform level (for architectural heritage reasons)?

Wasn't aware of that. Probably does put the kibosh on an arrivals facility up there then

Stupid requirement, though; the thing is primarily a railway station. Imagine if they'd not been allowed to build the Lawn at Paddington because that was new stuff in an old building? It'd be much the worse for it.

Dr Hoo said:
The champagne bar is not deemed to be a permanent or enclosed building.

Presumably food stalls would be similar in nature? Then you could go for the other option of removing half the downstairs retail to allow a bigger Eurostar facility by moving the "food court" up there, with the food stalls being barrow style?

AlbertBeale · 5 Feb 2024

I did notice, the other day, that in part of the seating area beyond the formalities - where you hang our waiting to be allowed up to the platform for your train - there was a boarded-off area very close to where you exit from the passport checks. Is that part of some reshuffling of space there?

zwk500 · 5 Feb 2024

AlbertBeale said:
I did notice, the other day, that in part of the seating area beyond the formalities - where you hang our waiting to be allowed up to the platform for your train - there was a boarded-off area very close to where you exit from the passport checks. Is that part of some reshuffling of space there?

Believe there is a plan to convert some of the arrivals space, now released from the need to check the Disney trains on arrival, to expand the departures area. It's been mentioned in passing on several other threads

Bletchleyite said:
Stupid requirement, though; the thing is primarily a railway station. Imagine if they'd not been allowed to build the Lawn at Paddington because that was new stuff in an old building? It'd be much the worse for it.

Be careful what you wish for, we could have had arguably the best international arrival sensation in the world replaced by another Euston 60s block worn out of it's space.

Bletchleyite said:
Presumably food stalls would be similar in nature? Then you could go for the other option of removing half the downstairs retail to allow a bigger Eurostar facility by moving the "food court" up there, with the food stalls being barrow style?

Fundamentally, the only way you're going to release a substantial amount of space is for the UK government to change it's policy and simply waive customs checks on E*, as the french largely do at Gare du Nord. Then you'd simply walk off the end of the platforms and down the station approach ramps, freeing up the whole downstairs. But I suspect no potential government would ever entertain such an idea.

Bletchleyite said:
To gain more space you could extend the mezzanine over the central walkway between the shops. It wouldn't be quite as nice without the view upwards to the trainshed roof, but if lighting was designed well it wouldn't be awful either. And it'd not need to be the full length to get enough space for an arrivals facility or a stall-based food court.

Believe the light wells were a fundamental part of the design - ventilation may be a concern, although plenty of options to solve it exist. although I'm not sure you really gain much space up top.

Bletchleyite said:
As a further sort-of-related option, could a pre-registration facility be created for people to sign up their fingerprints for the EU scheme in advance in one of the retail units? Wouldn't suit everyone, but if already living or working in London popping in to do it to avoid queues on the day would be a good thing, a bit like the way Gatwick offer (or did offer) the option to check bags in the night before to make things easier/reduce queues for the early morning departures.

Surely the pre-registration will be done on a smartphone app if it's offered?

Trainbike46 · 5 Feb 2024

zwk500 said:
Believe there is a plan to convert some of the arrivals space, now released from the need to check the Disney trains on arrival, to expand the departures area. It's been mentioned in passing on several other threads

This is in use at busy times; I've used it, I think last September

MontyP · 5 Feb 2024

You'd think that at some point someone has to bite the bullet and sort out the sub-optimal mess that St Pancras has become. Not just for Eurostar but for East Midlands services as well. It is crazy that the Channel Tunnel has paths for (I think) 4 or even 5 passenger services every hour yet we seem to be limited to 2 max due to passenger handling issues at St P, with further potential restrictions to come on the number of passengers per service. Personally I'd strip out the retail under the mezzanine and expand the Eurostar facilities into this space.

Sad Sprinter · 5 Feb 2024

MontyP said:
You'd think that at some point someone has to bite the bullet and sort out the sub-optimal mess that St Pancras has become. Not just for Eurostar but for East Midlands services as well. It is crazy that the Channel Tunnel has paths for (I think) 4 or even 5 passenger services every hour yet we seem to be limited to 2 max due to passenger handling issues at St P, with further potential restrictions to come on the number of passengers per service. Personally I'd strip out the retail under the mezzanine and expand the Eurostar facilities into this space.

BR envisioned 8 Eurostars an hour from London to the Tunnel in their 1991 planning document I once got my hands on. 4 from Waterloo and 4 from Kings Cross Low Level.

MontyP · 5 Feb 2024

Sad Sprinter said:
BR envisioned 8 Eurostars an hour from London to the Tunnel in their 1991 planning document I once got my hands on. 4 from Waterloo and 4 from Kings Cross Low Level.

That's unbelievable, where did they envisage them all going to? I can see a market for a second Paris train in some hours, a few extra Lille/Brussels plus maybe 6-8 per day in total to Basel/Geneva/Zurich/Cologne/Frankfurt/Munich. Plus seasonal services to Bordeaux, Avignon and the ski resorts. But not in my wildest crayonista dreams could I come up with a plausible plan for even 4 departures every hour, never mind 8!

Mikw · 5 Feb 2024

Perhaps we could just reverse Brexit? No need for expensive and disruptive remodelling and we'd all be better off. Sorry......

barbicanman · 6 Feb 2024

MontyP said:
That's unbelievable, where did they envisage them all going to? I can see a market for a second Paris train in some hours, a few extra Lille/Brussels plus maybe 6-8 per day in total to Basel/Geneva/Zurich/Cologne/Frankfurt/Munich. Plus seasonal services to Bordeaux, Avignon and the ski resorts. But not in my wildest crayonista dreams could I come up with a plausible plan for even 4 departures every hour, never mind 8!

Presumably direct, if slow and irregular, TEE style services on various circuitous routes through Europe that just happened to originate from London, in addition to the 2+1 per hour on the already-ordered 373 to Paris and Brussels?

Plus possibly some more regional-style services from Waterloo (though that's just conjecture on my part), calling at various places in South London and Kent and then through Pas-de-Calais and / or Belgium? Though I've never heard of any rolling stock orders even being proposed that would have made that possible.

Either way, very much the embodiment of all the problems with the Chunnel, still designed in a world of mixed traffic and meandering TEEs, with subsequent deep confusion about its purpose, useful service patterns, mix of services...

Pigeon · 6 Feb 2024

MontyP said:
You'd think that at some point someone has to bite the bullet and sort out the sub-optimal mess that St Pancras has become. Not just for Eurostar but for East Midlands services as well. It is crazy that the Channel Tunnel has paths for (I think) 4 or even 5 passenger services every hour yet we seem to be limited to 2 max due to passenger handling issues at St P, with further potential restrictions to come on the number of passengers per service. Personally I'd strip out the retail under the mezzanine and expand the Eurostar facilities into this space.

It always was a sub-optimal mess. It's a bodge design; it's a sub-bodge in a larger scheme of bodgery, and needs something more than just a bit of fettling to sort out. Kick the Eurostar out entirely and build (excavate) a proper station for both that and HS2 with through running, like they should have been for doing all along (with travolator links to the Underground and ordinary mainline stations). Then get rid of all the clutter on the platforms in the main trainshed, tear down that horrid petrol station thing stuck on the end of it, fill in those outrageous bloody holes in the floor, and put it back to use by ordinary services.

Sad Sprinter · 6 Feb 2024

MontyP said:
That's unbelievable, where did they envisage them all going to? I can see a market for a second Paris train in some hours, a few extra Lille/Brussels plus maybe 6-8 per day in total to Basel/Geneva/Zurich/Cologne/Frankfurt/Munich. Plus seasonal services to Bordeaux, Avignon and the ski resorts. But not in my wildest crayonista dreams could I come up with a plausible plan for even 4 departures every hour, never mind 8!

The demand modelling they used in the 80s for the Eurostar gave some very optimistic results. I think something like 10 million a year would use it upon opening, rising to 30 million by 2020. I suppose in that scenario you might need 8tph...

Diagram attached.

gravitystorm · 6 Feb 2024

AlbertBeale said:
I did notice, the other day, that in part of the seating area beyond the formalities - where you hang our waiting to be allowed up to the platform for your train - there was a boarded-off area very close to where you exit from the passport checks. Is that part of some reshuffling of space there?

Every time I use St Pancras, I write a complaint about the additional duty-free zone that's in the midsts of the seating area (towards the far right of the seating area, after leaving passport control). There's a large duty free shop, just a few steps away, but dozens of people need to stand due to those missing seats in that zone. I've also watched the staff in this area, whose main job appears to be asking passengers who are sitting on the floor next to the display cabinets to stop blocking the view of their precious cabinets and go sit on the floor somewhere else.

That would be the first thing I would remove in order to free up space for more useful things, if it hasn't gone already. It feels like the space usage priorities are all wrong, when one or two additional sales of perfume per hour is traded for customers having to sit on the floor while they are waiting on their train. With this sort of prioritisation, I hold up little hope for more space being found for passport gates (never mind more frequent train services) being prioritised.

ShadowKnight · 6 Feb 2024

Sad Sprinter said:
BR envisioned 8 Eurostars an hour from London to the Tunnel in their 1991 planning document I once got my hands on. 4 from Waterloo and 4 from Kings Cross Low Level.

What is the document called?

Sad Sprinter · 6 Feb 2024

ShadowKnight said:
What is the document called?

It was a huge book called something like "Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Summary of Routes". There's only one copy I've ever seen and that was the one I borrowed from the University of London Library. This document here though from UCL has most of the interesting information contained in the book: UK_CTRL_PROFILE.pdf

AlbertBeale · 6 Feb 2024

Sad Sprinter said:
BR envisioned 8 Eurostars an hour from London to the Tunnel in their 1991 planning document I once got my hands on. 4 from Waterloo and 4 from Kings Cross Low Level.

Is the implication that the KX Low Level idea (which was thrown out in parliament prior to the formulating of the StP plan instead) would have had lower capacity than the eventual StP version - hence needing Waterloo to continue even without the full number of services being talked/dreamed about at these earlier stages?

Sad Sprinter · 7 Feb 2024

AlbertBeale said:
Is the implication that the KX Low Level idea (which was thrown out in parliament prior to the formulating of the StP plan instead) would have had lower capacity than the eventual StP version - hence needing Waterloo to continue even without the full number of services being talked/dreamed about at these earlier stages?

KX Low Level would of had I think, somewhere around 10 platforms but would have shared platforms with Thameslink and Network Express (now Javelin) trains, so I imagine that space would have been tight, but there would have been two departure halls. nSE would of had their own where the McDonalds opposite Kings Cross is now. Given that the departure halls for Eurostar would have been, I think, below street level surely there would be less limitations on space than what could be achieved in St Pancras.

Someone posted a full drawing of the station a while back which I have saved. I can post it again unless that person would rather do so. Can’t remember who it was.

swt_passenger · 7 Feb 2024

Sad Sprinter said:
KX Low Level would of had I think, somewhere around 10 platforms but would have shared platforms with Thameslink and Network Express (now Javelin) trains, so I imagine that space would have been tight, but there would have been two departure halls. nSE would of had their own where the McDonalds opposite Kings Cross is now. Given that the departure halls for Eurostar would have been, I think, below street level surely there would be less limitations on space than what could be achieved in St Pancras.

Someone posted a full drawing of the station a while back which I have saved. I can post it again unless that person would rather do so. Can’t remember who it was.

Is this the post last October which includes the drawings you’re thinking of? I think it only has 6 low level platforms, but they’re all through platforms.

Could HS2 have terminated at St Pancras?

Would have had to be pretty deep to miss all the existing LU lines and station tunnels, so I think it’s hard to picture exactly where it would have gone in relation to the two existing mainline stations. I’ve read somewhere that it was to be on a NW/SE alignment. That's about right. When I get...

www.railforums.co.uk

AlbertBeale · 7 Feb 2024

AlbertBeale said:
Is the implication that the KX Low Level idea (which was thrown out in parliament prior to the formulating of the StP plan instead) would have had lower capacity than the eventual StP version - hence needing Waterloo to continue even without the full number of services being talked/dreamed about at these earlier stages?

Sad Sprinter said:
KX Low Level would of had I think, somewhere around 10 platforms but would have shared platforms with Thameslink and Network Express (now Javelin) trains, so I imagine that space would have been tight, but there would have been two departure halls. nSE would of had their own where the McDonalds opposite Kings Cross is now. Given that the departure halls for Eurostar would have been, I think, below street level surely there would be less limitations on space than what could be achieved in St Pancras.

I don't have all the paperwork to hand at the moment, but what I remember from being involved in opposing that first KX Channel Terminal plan (the building I'm a trustee of would have been demolished in the process) - including involvement in the parliamentary petitioning - the low-level station would have had less scope than the current StP version. The route came in along the Thameslink route, leaving the then existing route to Waterloo in south London. It would have had to have been extremely deep to get below all the tube lines (I don't think there was space for it to come along at the same level as the existing Thameslink route - or perhaps the plan was to demolish even more of the area than I remember, and they were planning to do that...). It was on a south-east - north-west alignment. Anyway, my memory was that it wouldn't be 10 platforms; I think there were two domestic - as with Thameslink - platforms, and the plan was for no more than 4 international platforms. However, since there would be a through line anyway for Thameslink, then if some of the international services continued to other parts of the country [still the dream in those days], then not only would that be easier than needing to reverse to continue, or to have completely separate trains for London and elsewhere, the fact that some trains didn't terminate would allow higher capacity on the (only) 4 platforms.

So I'm still unclear whether it was the switch to StP and the expected higher [train service] capacity, or the lowering of the assessment of the likely number of passengers, which led to the change from the "two terminals" plan to the closure of Waterloo when StP opened.

Sad Sprinter · 7 Feb 2024

swt_passenger said:
Is this the post last October which includes the drawings you’re thinking of? I think it only has 6 low level platforms, but they’re all through platforms.

Could HS2 have terminated at St Pancras?

Would have had to be pretty deep to miss all the existing LU lines and station tunnels, so I think it’s hard to picture exactly where it would have gone in relation to the two existing mainline stations. I’ve read somewhere that it was to be on a NW/SE alignment. That's about right. When I get...

www.railforums.co.uk

That’s the one

AlbertBeale said:
I don't have all the paperwork to hand at the moment, but what I remember from being involved in opposing that first KX Channel Terminal plan (the building I'm a trustee of would have been demolished in the process) - including involvement in the parliamentary petitioning - the low-level station would have had less scope than the current StP version. The route came in along the Thameslink route, leaving the then existing route to Waterloo in south London. It would have had to have been extremely deep to get below all the tube lines (I don't think there was space for it to come along at the same level as the existing Thameslink route - or perhaps the plan was to demolish even more of the area than I remember, and they were planning to do that...). It was on a south-east - north-west alignment. Anyway, my memory was that it wouldn't be 10 platforms; I think there were two domestic - as with Thameslink - platforms, and the plan was for no more than 4 international platforms. However, since there would be a through line anyway for Thameslink, then if some of the international services continued to other parts of the country [still the dream in those days], then not only would that be easier than needing to reverse to continue, or to have completely separate trains for London and elsewhere, the fact that some trains didn't terminate would allow higher capacity on the (only) 4 platforms.

So I'm still unclear whether it was the switch to StP and the expected higher [train service] capacity, or the lowering of the assessment of the likely number of passengers, which led to the change from the "two terminals" plan to the closure of Waterloo when StP opened.

My authority on the subject is the book The Railway Metropolis which does suggest the scale of demolition would be truly vast. I don’t have access to that book at the moment but I do remember a passage saying that everything as far as Omega Place and Keystone Crescent would be demolished. Apparently a BR manager who designed the Low Level station happened to live in Keystone Crescent which is a bit unfortunate.

I believe that it was the lower passenger numbers that forced the change. Partly because by 2004 it would have been long clear that Eurostar was not operating anywhere near its original intended level of passengers (again a reason suggested in The Railway Metropolis) and news reports on the move in 2004 are particularly coy on the reasons why Eurostar was abandoning Waterloo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4012329.stm

I’m intrigued to know where the depot would have gone if the Low Level plan had been selected. I asked this question before on this forum and one commenter seemed to have it on good authority a new international depot would be built at Cricklewood, but I’ve never seen a mention of that anywhere ever. Getting a quarter of a mile long train for some miles up the Midland Mainline couldn’t have been a good idea either.

AlbertBeale · 8 Feb 2024

Sad Sprinter said:
That’s the one

My authority on the subject is the book The Railway Metropolis which does suggest the scale of demolition would be truly vast. I don’t have access to that book at the moment but I do remember a passage saying that everything as far as Omega Place and Keystone Crescent would be demolished. Apparently a BR manager who designed the Low Level station happened to live in Keystone Crescent which is a bit unfortunate.

I believe that it was the lower passenger numbers that forced the change. Partly because by 2004 it would have been long clear that Eurostar was not operating anywhere near its original intended level of passengers (again a reason suggested in The Railway Metropolis) and news reports on the move in 2004 are particularly coy on the reasons why Eurostar was abandoning Waterloo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4012329.stm

I’m intrigued to know where the depot would have gone if the Low Level plan had been selected. I asked this question before on this forum and one commenter seemed to have it on good authority a new international depot would be built at Cricklewood, but I’ve never seen a mention of that anywhere ever. Getting a quarter of a mile long train for some miles up the Midland Mainline couldn’t have been a good idea either.

Yes - perhaps the scale of demolition on the right-hand side (as you arrive from Europe!) of the tracks would have been sufficient to bring the Channel trains up to the sub-surface level alongside the Thameslink route, so the whole station wouldn't have had to be many storeys down. Though assuming that the international and Thameslink trains could not have shared tracks coming across under central London to that point, and that the international tracks would have been pretty deep prior to KX, then I'm not sure where the international tracks would have (almost) surfaced on the final run-in, so as to be at the same level as the Thameslink tracks (especially remembering where the Northern and Victoria tunnels are, east of KX!). But maybe sufficient demolition alongside the Thameslink tracks south of Kings Cross might have made it possible... I don't remember the reams of paperwork I had at the time giving a lot of information about the plan beyond the immediate environs of KX and the area where I'm based that was due to be demolished, but I suppose it did. I just have to find where that bundle of papers is...

Incidentally, (besides a possible BR manager) one of the long-time residents of Keystone Crescent was an important figure in the (eventually successful) campaign to move the terminal.

danchester · 8 Feb 2024

Dr Hoo said:
How does your suggestion fit with the ban on any ‘buildings’ in the train shed at platform level (for architectural heritage reasons)?
The champagne bar is not deemed to be a permanent or enclosed building.

How strict is that ban? Could they, say, use the impending EES crisis to justify introducing 'temporary' customs checks in a cordoned off area upstairs, with no permanent fixtures?

St Pancras - could the layout be improved for Eurostar?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Established Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

New Member