Capacity of HS2 Euston, and Old Oak Common when used as a terminus

[Manutd1999]

I'd say you want your capacity constraints to be upgradeable. The restrictions north of birmingham are (by building phase 2a and/or the eastern leg). Depending on the design used, Euston may be upgradeable. For example, building the first half of the original two-stage 11-platform design* would give you 6 platforms in a way that would be upgradeable to 11 if needed in the future.

I agree - building a simple 6-platform station with provision/space to expand to 8-10 platforms in the future seems like the most sensible way forward.

Next on the list is ensuring it is as low-cost as possible. I.e. a simple, two-level (entrance + platforms) station and nothing more. No fancy glass roof, as simple an entrance forecourt as possible etc.

 

[MarkWi72]

I have mentioned on another post that Curzon Street will now be 3 platforms only in use (out of 7)

 

[JonathanH]

I have mentioned on another post that Curzon Street will now be 3 platforms only in use (out of 7)

Yes, it has been indicated that the whole station will be constructed, but four platforms won't be fitted out for use.

 

[Mgameing123]

Wow, that is some fantasy. Are people from the Midlands all going to go on holiday to Paris or Brussels? How is running 'short haul holiday' trips going to be 'low cost'? Railways work best with lots of people all going to the same place. Eurostar doesn't run such many services now despite a population of 10 million plus people in its catchment area.

I get that there will be a surplus of platforms constructed at Curzon Street, but I think the response to the National Audit Office was that HS2 will only fit out the platforms they need. Therefore, like Stratford International, the facilities won't exist for international travel. The idea of a HS2-HS1 link has long been folly.

There is definitely demand for international trains from the North to France. You can’t tell me an urban area of 4.3 million can’t justify 2 trains a day to Paris. If we provide the infrastructure for international services north of London then they will come.

Copenhagen has only a population of 1 million people in its urban area yet they can justify 8 trains a day to Hamburg (Having 7 cars) and they are planning to double the amount of departures a day once all their new Talgo train cars come in service.

I understand the distance between Manchester and Birmingham to Paris is quite far but it doesn’t mean there will be no demand for it.

 

[JonathanH]

There is definitely demand for international trains from the North to France. You can’t tell me an urban area of 4.3 million can’t justify 2 trains a day to Paris. If we provide the infrastructure for international services north of London then they will come.

Two trains a day isn't the kind of demand that justifies a significant spend on infrastructure though. The demand of 10 million people in London don't appear to justify 2 trains a day beyond Paris, where the infrastructure exists. What demand there is appears to be met by passengers changing in Lille and Paris.

 

[Trainbike46]

Two trains a day isn't the kind of demand that justifies a significant spend on infrastructure though. The demand of 10 million people in London don't appear to justify 2 trains a day beyond Paris, where the infrastructure exists.

this is almost entirely because of the trouble with border checks at the moment

but I agree that, unless the UK joins schengen or the border situation changes significantly, travel from Manchester to Paris is best done with a change in London

 

[Mgameing123]

this is almost entirely because of the trouble with border checks at the moment

but I agree that, unless the UK joins schengen or the border situation changes significantly, travel from Manchester to Paris is best done with a change in London

The issue is obviously the 10 minute walk from Euston to St Pancras plus there is no change guarantee so if you miss a connection you can’t just take the next train. All this does is force people to fly or drive which is a lot more convenient.

It’s better we start providing direct international services to the North to help people get off planes.

 

[mr_jrt]

Would there be any value in building the full Euston, but using the easternmost platforms for residual WCML services until HS2 needs them? I know the levels are likely an issue, but presumably something could be done to mitigate that?

I guess failing all that, build a 6 platform stub now, and leave the rest until Euston gets it's full rebuild in the distant future, when all the platforms can be dropped down to the HS2 level.

 

[Trainbike46]

The issue is obviously the 10 minute walk from Euston to St Pancras plus there is no change guarantee so if you miss a connection you can’t just take the next train. All this does is force people to fly or drive which is a lot more convenient.

It’s better we start providing direct international services to the North to help people get off planes.

I'm fully on board with the goal, but there is a misconception in your post.

There is in fact protection if your train to London is delayed, provided your connection is valid (ie meets minimum interchange times)

This fully formalised if you use CIV tickets from your starting station to london ( https://www.seat61.com/european-travel-from-uk-regions.htm#buy-a-ticket-to-london-international-civ )

However, even with a separate tickets eurostar generally allows travel on the next service if there is a delay, but for peace of mind the CIV tickets mentioned above are better, as you don't rely on goodwill but instead have the formal right to travel on the next service.

Eurostar also can get people through security much quicker if their incoming train is delayed, which I've personally experienced in Brussels, where my incoming train pulled into the platform 10 minutes before the eurostar departed due to serious delays on the way - the eurostar staff got me through security in time to make my train

 

[eldomtom2]

The issue is obviously the 10 minute walk from Euston to St Pancras plus there is no change guarantee so if you miss a connection you can’t just take the next train. All this does is force people to fly or drive which is a lot more convenient.

It’s better we start providing direct international services to the North to help people get off planes.

Wouldn't solving those issues be cheaper and just as effective than all the infrastructure necessary for international trains to the North?

 

[Nottingham59]

Are you assuming P6 is the northern most platform?

Yes. It may end up being numbered P14, but HS2's graphics are ambiguous. Let's assume P6 for now.

Considering the cost implications HS2 has suffered, why is anyone going to design, build and remove a temporary layout? How long would it take to remove the temporary layout before usage of Euston is possible, what do you do in the meantime with trains at OOC?

They could run the full service through to Euston on the layout shown below, with other chords that are not shown. So manageable.

So what is your proposed method of operation here? First train into 6 (assuming this the northernmost platform), uses the turn back and into 1, next into 3 reverses and goes north, then 4, reverses, goes north, 5 using the turn back into 2?

I must be misunderstanding this, so are you suggesting 4tph in P3, 4th P4, and 4tph in P5 and 6 to get 12tph total? or 6tph in P5 and 6tph in P6 to make 20tph?

Have a try at platforming that on a piece of paper and see where you run out of reversing capacity or creating clashes and putting a performance buffer in.

This is how you could turn round 400m trains at Old Oak Common arriving at three minute headways. Note this is not a proposal, but showing that 20tph is theoretically possible makes me more confident that 8tph can be achieved in practice.

This diagram shows only those lines that are needed for this operation. Other chords and switches would be used to allow flexibility, and through running to Euston, when that gets built in ten years time. Note that an HS2 train can move 800m stop to stop in 60 seconds (20s acceleration at 1/10g; 20s at 20m/s; 20s braking)


Trains arrive at 3 minute intervals at platforms P6, P5, P4, P6, P5, P3, on an 18-minute repeating cycle.

TRAIN A

1. xx:00 arrives into Platform 6. Three minutes to disembark; four minutes to check clear.
2. xx:07 moves forward to reversing position (Point P), arriving xx:08. One minute to switch cabs over.
3. xx:09 second driver in rear cab at point Q ready to depart; 2 minutes wait to allow Train B to clear crossing.
4. xx:11 moves to platform 2, arriving xx:12. Doors open for 5 minutes, for relaxed embarcation.
5. xx:17 doors close, one minute before departure.
6. xx:18 depart P2

TRAIN B

1. xx:03 arrives into P5
2. xx:10 moves forward to reversing point R, arriving xx:11. One minute to change ends; two minutes wait.
3. xx:14 moves to P1, arriving xx:15. Doors open for 5 minutes, closing at xx:20
4. xx:21 departure P1

TRAIN C

1. xx:06 arrives P4. Doors open for 8 minutes (including 3 min disembark; 3 mins embark)
2. xx:14 doors close for departure (after Train F arrives at platform 3)
3. xx:15 depart P4

TRAIN D - same path at Train A, 9 minutes later.

1. xx:09 Arrive P6
2. xx:16 moves forward to reverse into P2, same path as Train A
3. xx:21 arrives P2, doors open for five minutes
4. xx:27 depart p2

TRAIN E - same path as Train B, 9 minutes later

1. xx:12 arrives P5
2. xx:19 moves forward to reverse into P1
3. xx:24 doors open for 5 minutes
4. xx:30 depart P1

TRAIN F - nine minutes after Train C, but using other platform of centre pair

1. xx:15 arrives P3. Door open for 8 minutes. Wait 1 minute
2. xx:24 depart P3

So 20tph reversing at OOC is possible (but would fall over catastrophically at the first disruption)

 

[The Planner]

So 20tph reversing at OOC is possible (but would fall over catastrophically at the first disruption)

So it doesnt work then.

 

[HSTEd]

Has the signalling system contract for HS2 phase 1 actually been let yet?

 

[Manutd1999]

So it doesnt work then.

The original post states that 20ph is theoretical and that ~8ph would be a more realistic limit.

Maybe debate that 8ph figure rather than immediately shooting it down?

 

[Topological]

I like the theory of @Nottingham59 suggestion.

IF a more realistic 8tph was possible for OOC, then assuming that the additional Elizabeth line trains are added in then we would actually not be that far away from a workable solution.

IF it then becomes necessary to increase the 8tph there is the possibility of extending to Euston, or boring tunnels that can allow a more resilient version of @Nottingham59 suggestion.

Two big IFs, but potentially workable so that not all is doom and gloom.

I would like to see a resilient Euston built, but in the modern UK it seems anything ambitious is not allowed.

 

[MarkWi72]

Brexit has ruined, not only our relations border =wise with EU countries, it has stymied our ability to properly invest in infrastructure.

 

[eldomtom2]

Brexit has ruined, not only our relations border =wise with EU countries, it has stymied our ability to properly invest in infrastructure.

I don't see the connection between Brexit and government infrastructure investment. The EU wasn't paying for HS2.

 

[Nottingham59]

The original post states that 20ph is theoretical and that ~8ph would be a more realistic limit.

Maybe debate that 8ph figure rather than immediately shooting it down?

It seems likely that 8tph would be robust: it's less than half the theoretical maximum capacity.

I'm hopeful that 12tph will be a realistic frequency for Old Oak Common, and be adequately resilient. Which would be closer to using the full capacity of the HS2 main line.

 

[MarkWi72]

I don't see the connection between Brexit and government infrastructure investment. The EU wasn't paying for HS2.

I meant in terms of making HS2 more viable by linking it to Eurostar/HS1 - instead of OOC/Euston, taking it further to join the lines after St Pancras. In addition, the effect on the UK economy and investment in the UK has been hit hard by Brexit.

 

[The Planner]

The original post states that 20ph is theoretical and that ~8ph would be a more realistic limit.

Maybe debate that 8ph figure rather than immediately shooting it down?

Not at all, @Nottingham59 has gone away and had a good stab at proving to themselves it doesn't work (I have seen worse work internally). No one in their right mind is going to have 100% occupancy on a 3 minute headway. The May 18 timetable worked on paper remember.

I'm not convinced the planned 18tph on HS2 is wise on a 3 minute planning headway, unless the ETCS technical headway is way below that at around the 75-80 second mark.

As for 8tph, on how many platforms? 6, 4, 2 or 1? 4 easy, 2 if the turnarounds are so small they pose a risk for long distance services as if anything HS2 wise is slightly late on the conventional network, everything else is getting held for it.

 

[Meerkat]

I agree - building a simple 6-platform station with provision/space to expand to 8-10 platforms in the future seems like the most sensible way forward.

Does the current plan for the grade separation allow that sort of later expansion?

 

[The Planner]

Does the current plan for the grade separation allow that sort of later expansion?

Yes, as the grade separation is prior to the throat.

 

[HSTEd]

Brexit has ruined, not only our relations border =wise with EU countries, it has stymied our ability to properly invest in infrastructure.

HS2 was already in serious trouble before the referendum vote even occurred!

As for making these projects more viable, the contribution of international traffic to HS2s business case could never be anything other than negligible.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm hopeful that 12tph will be a realistic frequency for Old Oak Common, and be adequately resilient. Which would be closer to using the full capacity of the HS2 main line.

This is how I would timetable a robust 12tph at OOC as a terminus.

BASE TIMETABLE PATTERN
First, there are four routes that can be used to reverse a train: P4; P3; Reversing siding QP; reverse in SR.
Apart from the diamond crossovers in the track diagram below, these routes do not conflict with each other.




Each route can comfortably handle 4tph. This leads to a maximum-intensity 16tph timetable with a 15-minute cycle that could look like this.

TRAIN A

1. xx:00 Arrives P6. Eight minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and checking clear (5m)
2. xx:08 Moves forward to reversing point P (1m); reverse cabs (1m); move to platform 2 (1m)
3. xx:11 Arrives P2. Leisurely embarcation (5m); Doors close 2m before departure
4. xx:18 Departs P2

TRAIN B

1. xx:04 Arrives P4. Ten minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m); leisurely embarcation (5m); doors closed for 2 minutes before departure
2. xx:14 Departs P4

TRAIN C

1. xx:08 Arrives P5. Eight minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and checking clear (5m)
2. xx:16 Moves forward to reversing point P R (1m); reverse cabs (1m); move to platform P1 (1m)
3. xx:19 Arrives P1. Leisurely embarcation (5m); Doors close 2m before departure
4. xx:26 Departs P1

TRAIN D

1. xx:12 Arrives P3. Ten minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and embarcation (5m) doors closed for 2 minutes before departure
2. xx:22 Departs P3

Train A2: Arrives P6 xx:15. Departs P2 xx:33
Train B2: Arrives P4 xx:19. Departs P4 xx:29
Train C2: Arrives P5 xx:23. Departs P1 xx:41
Train D2: Arrives P3 xx:27. Departs P3 xx:37

== == == == ==

RESILIENCE ANALYSIS

• If any one platform is out of use, or either reversing siding, then it is still possible to run a 12tph timetable using the other three reversing paths at 4tph frequency.
• Any cleaning or set swaps should be done at Curzon Street or other country terminus where possible
• With the mainline able to accommodate 18tph, there is scope in the timetable to bring in ECS trains to add to the fleet in service, or withdraw sets that need to be replaced
• The tunnel space beyond reversing point P (the arrivals side of the station) should be kept free as a space to park failed units
• The tunnel beyond point R should be used to hold one or more hot spares, on the departure side of the station
• Additional chords and switches (shown in black in the diagram) would allow switching between reversing routes. Other chords may be desirable if there is space in the Eastern throat.
• The timetable should be run with 400m trains during the day, but emergency splitting or joining could be undertaken in a reversing siding or on the platform if necessary (assuming this is possible with platfrom edge doors)

== == == == ==
PROPOSED TIMETABLE - 12tph

Assuming the bottleneck at Colwich has been bypassed, 400m platforms built at Crewe and Preston, and capacity found to Manchester, I would propose the following 12tph timetable for HS2 from a terminus at Old Oak Common

• Platform 4: 4tph shuttle to Birmingham (400m)
• Platform 3: 4tph shuttle to Manchester (200m or 400m depending on what gets built in the north)
• Platform 2: 2tph to Liverpool / Preston (200m+200m splitting at Crewe)
• Platform 1: 2 tph to Scotlans (1tph Edinburgh (400m); 1tph Glasgow splitting at Preston)

 

[Trainguy34]

This is how I would timetable a robust 12tph at OOC as a terminus.

BASE TIMETABLE PATTERN
First, there are four routes that can be used to reverse a train: P4; P3; Reversing siding QP; reverse in SR.
Apart from the diamond crossovers in the track diagram below, these routes do not conflict with each other.


View attachment 162697

Each route can comfortably handle 4tph. This leads to a maximum-intensity 16tph timetable with a 15-minute cycle that could look like this.

TRAIN A

1. xx:00 Arrives P6. Eight minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and checking clear (5m)
2. xx:08 Moves forward to reversing point P (1m); reverse cabs (1m); move to platform 2 (1m)
3. xx:11 Arrives P2. Leisurely embarcation (5m); Doors close 2m before departure
4. xx:18 Departs P2

TRAIN B

1. xx:04 Arrives P4. Ten minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m); leisurely embarcation (5m); doors closed for 2 minutes before departure
2. xx:14 Departs P4

TRAIN C

1. xx:08 Arrives P5. Eight minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and checking clear (5m)
2. xx:16 Moves forward to reversing point P (1m); reverse cabs (1m); move to platform P1 (1m)
3. xx:19 Arrives P1. Leisurely embarcation (5m); Doors close 2m before departure
4. xx:26 Departs P1

TRAIN D

1. xx:12 Arrives P3. Ten minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and embarcation (5m) doors closed for 2 minutes before departure
2. xx:22 Departs P3

Train A2: Arrives P6 xx:15. Departs P2 xx:33
Train B2: Arrives P4 xx:19. Departs P4 xx:29
Train C2: Arrives P5 xx:23. Departs P1 xx:41
Train D2: Arrives P3 xx:27. Departs P3 xx:37

== == == == ==

RESILIENCE ANALYSIS

• If any one platform is out of use, or either reversing siding, then it is still possible to run a 12tph timetable using the other three reversing paths at 4tph frequency.
• Any cleaning or set swaps should be done at Curzon Street or other country terminus where possible
• With the mainline able to accommodate 18tph, there is scope in the timetable to bring in ECS trains to add to the fleet in service, or withdraw sets that need to be replaced
• The tunnel space beyond reversing point P (the arrivals side of the station) should be kept free as a space to park failed units
• The tunnel beyond point R should be used to hold one or more hot spares, on the departure side of the station
• Additional chords and switches (shown in black in the diagram) would allow switching between reversing routes. Other chords may be desirable if there is space in the Eastern throat.
• The timetable should be run with 400m trains during the day, but emergency splitting or joining could be undertaken in a reversing siding or on the platform if necessary (assuming this is possible with platfrom edge doors)

== == == == ==
PROPOSED TIMETABLE - 12tph

Assuming the bottleneck at Colwich has been bypassed, 400m platforms built at Crewe and Preston, and capacity found to Manchester, I would propose the following 12tph timetable for HS2 from a terminus at Old Oak Common

• Platform 4: 4tph shuttle to Birmingham (400m)
• Platform 3: 4tph shuttle to Manchester (200m or 400m depending on what gets built in the north)
• Platform 2: 2tph to Liverpool / Preston (200m+200m splitting at Crewe)
• Platform 1: 2 tph to Scotlans (1tph Edinburgh (400m); 1tph Glasgow splitting at Preston)

Probably a dumb question but how do trains get from point P to Platform 1, the closest you can get on the diagram is Platform 2.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Probably a dumb question but how do trains get from point P to Platform 1, the closest you can get on the diagram is Platform 2.

It never does in Nottingham59's proposal

 

[Trainguy34]

Train C step 2:

TRAIN C

1. xx:08 Arrives P5. Eight minutes at platform, to allow unloading (3m) and checking clear (5m)
2. xx:16 Moves forward to reversing point P (1m); reverse cabs (1m); move to platform P1 (1m)

 

[HSTEd]

Train C step 2:

It drives through to the "Euston" end of the station and reverses into Platform 1.

Personally I would prefer just a remodel of the approach, but this does notionally avoid that.

 

[Trainbike46]

Train C step 2:

I believe that is a mistype, and should say point R instead of P

 

[Nottingham59]

Probably a dumb question but how do trains get from point P to Platform 1, the closest you can get on the diagram is Platform 2.

I believe that is a mistype, and should say point R instead of P

Sorry. It was a mistype. Train A reverses at point P; Train C reverses at point R.

From the plans for the Eastern end of OOC, I don't think there is the space to get a curve all the way across from P6 to the southern tunnel, and vice versa. Now corrected.