HS2 Euston - number of platforms... again...

[NotATrainspott]

The problem is no more platforms will be built off the HS network so its difficult to see how short turnarounds in London and long turnarounds at Glasgow / Liverpool / Lancaster / Newcastle / Sheffield will work.

This seems a little bit daft. If the cheapest way to make the HS2 timetable resilient is to build another few platforms at the 'country' end of the network, then why shouldn't we do it?

I know that HS2 doesn't want to get involved in too much scope creep, but NR or regional transport bodies would probably be delighted to be given a bundle of cash to spend on new infrastructure for their railway networks. If that bundle of cash is cheaper than doing the works at the London end, then the Treasury isn't going to complain much either.

NR seem interested in the idea of an extra bank of platforms to the west of Glasgow Central. An extra four platforms could allow suburban services to shift westwards, leaving more room at the eastern end for HS2 services. Building it wouldn't be that complex, or require too much strategic planning (unlike works to the eastern end, where you might want to worry about 400m platforms over the Clyde). It's a project that will probably happen anyway at some point, so having HS2 fund it just means that HS2 can benefit now from the certainty it'll be delivered.

 

[WesternBiker]

One does wonder whether they ever look abroad to see what might be possible?

The entire JR Central Tokaido Shinkansen service is run out of 6 platforms at Tokyo Central, with trains leaving every 3.5 minutes in the peak.

This article explains how they squeezed extra capacity by speeding up the cleaning schedules - an operation which also involves turning around every set of movable seats in the 16-car sets to face the direction of travel. Just reading it illustrates the gulf in working practices between what we do, and what is (arguably) world class. (And from my own experience, I never encountered a Shinkansen train anything less than spotless, inside and out.)

 

[Ianno87]

One does wonder whether they ever look abroad to see what might be possible?

The entire JR Central Tokaido Shinkansen service is run out of 6 platforms at Tokyo Central, with trains leaving every 3.5 minutes in the peak.

This article explains how they squeezed extra capacity by speeding up the cleaning schedules - an operation which also involves turning around every set of movable seats in the 16-car sets to face the direction of travel. Just reading it illustrates the gulf in working practices between what we do, and what is (arguably) world class. (And from my own experience, I never encountered a Shinkansen train anything less than spotless, inside and out.)

Will be helped immensely by Japanese culture - e.g. passengers not leaving their rubbish everywhere, and generally doing as their told. And also the Shinkansen is an entirely self-constained system on dedicated tracks (apart from the Seikan Tunnel)

 

[Class 170101]

One does wonder whether they ever look abroad to see what might be possible?

The entire JR Central Tokaido Shinkansen service is run out of 6 platforms at Tokyo Central, with trains leaving every 3.5 minutes in the peak.

This article explains how they squeezed extra capacity by speeding up the cleaning schedules - an operation which also involves turning around every set of movable seats in the 16-car sets to face the direction of travel. Just reading it illustrates the gulf in working practices between what we do, and what is (arguably) world class. (And from my own experience, I never encountered a Shinkansen train anything less than spotless, inside and out.)

A whole different culture and ethos in Japan compared to the UK and Europe in general, in the UK certainly heavily unionised, whats it like in Japan I don't know but my gut says probably not heavily unionised at all?

 

[D6975]

Will be helped immensely by Japanese culture - e.g. passengers not leaving their rubbish everywhere, and generally doing as their told. And also the Shinkansen is an entirely self-constained system on dedicated tracks (apart from the Seikan Tunnel)

From the videos I have seen the staffing levels are somewhat different in Japan too, which makes a huge difference. An IEP turning round at Pad has half a dozen cleaners at most. The Shinkansens seem to be attended by a mini army of staff.

 

[Nottingham59]

The Shinkansens seem to be attended by a mini army of staff.

I have heard they have one cleaner per carriage, and retractable tape barriers on the doors, so that when the cleaner has finished, they can withdraw the tape and the passengers waiting on the platform can board immediately.

EDIT:

 

[Bald Rick]

One does wonder whether they ever look abroad to see what might be possible?

The entire JR Central Tokaido Shinkansen service is run out of 6 platforms at Tokyo Central, with trains leaving every 3.5 minutes in the peak.

The cheif ‘architect’ of HS2 - in terms of what type of railway it would be, rather than the route - spent much time in Japan and European countries assessing what worked best. It is no coincidence that HS2 is going to be more like a Shinkansen in concept than an LGV.

 

[Jozhua]

Just seems like a ridiculous cut to save a very limited amount of capex money, while decreasing resiliency that has been built in for a reason (to ensure a consistent service, high capacity and reliable journeys.)

One does wonder whether they ever look abroad to see what might be possible?

The entire JR Central Tokaido Shinkansen service is run out of 6 platforms at Tokyo Central, with trains leaving every 3.5 minutes in the peak.

This article explains how they squeezed extra capacity by speeding up the cleaning schedules - an operation which also involves turning around every set of movable seats in the 16-car sets to face the direction of travel. Just reading it illustrates the gulf in working practices between what we do, and what is (arguably) world class. (And from my own experience, I never encountered a Shinkansen train anything less than spotless, inside and out.)

You see, Japan is able to pull this off because these bottlenecks are few and far between. In the UK loads of stuff is bottlenecked and the whole thing cascades into disaster very quickly. We should spend a little more now (a.k.a build the number of platforms specified for the service) to make up for the fact we need to prepare for delays from bottlenecks elsewhere.

Delays still happen in Japan - actually when my uncle visited Japan he had multiple large delays on the Shinkansen. Worth noting that network has the advantage of being almost entirely isolated. HS2 will bring that advantage to a very good degree in the UK, but until HSR is built all the way to Scotland, a degree of preparedness for knock-on delays seems sensible.

I'm always skeptical of people comparing the UK's "work ethic" or "efficiency" to other countries. People aren't generally more lazy or incompetent here, there is just a culture of being unwilling to learn proper management practices and instead blaming it on the "culture" of the employees. Kind of ironic.

 

[WesternBiker]

I have heard they have one cleaner per carriage, and retractable tape barriers on the doors, so that when the cleaner has finished, they can withdraw the tape and the passengers waiting on the platform can board immediately.

From the videos I have seen the staffing levels are somewhat different in Japan too, which makes a huge difference. An IEP turning round at Pad has half a dozen cleaners at most. The Shinkansens seem to be attended by a mini army of staff.

One cleaner per carriage was my experience - which is not an enormously different staffing level compared with half a dozen for a 9-car IEP.

The costs are of course a trade-off - if you can turn trains around quickly you need fewer of them to run an equivalent service. Culture is an element of course, but the Japanese car companies managed successfully to replicate that culture with UK workforces - and I actually think a lot of UK companies do, too. I have for example seen the rubbish collection idea in the video done here - albeit during the journey - so there's less to do at the end.

That is not to say any of it is easy - but it is doable.

I'm always skeptical of people comparing the UK's "work ethic" or "efficiency" to other countries. People aren't generally more lazy or incompetent here, there is just a culture of being unwilling to learn proper management practices and instead blaming it on the "culture" of the employees. Kind of ironic.

Agree completely.

 

[quantinghome]

A whole different culture and ethos in Japan compared to the UK and Europe in general, in the UK certainly heavily unionised, whats it like in Japan I don't know but my gut says probably not heavily unionised at all?

That will be news to the West Japan Railway Workers Union. Japan has cultivated positive working relationships between government, management and unions over decades, with good results. Food for thought for the UK, I feel.

I'm always skeptical of people comparing the UK's "work ethic" or "efficiency" to other countries. People aren't generally more lazy or incompetent here, there is just a culture of being unwilling to learn proper management practices and instead blaming it on the "culture" of the employees. Kind of ironic.

100%

 

[D6975]

If you watch the Shinkansen videos carefully you will see that although there's one person responsible for the cleaning of one carriage, there are more staff supporting them, collecting the full rubbish bags etc. It's difficult to tell exactly how many staff attend to the set but it's definitely more than 16.

 

[quantinghome]

Just seems like a ridiculous cut to save a very limited amount of capex money, while decreasing resiliency that has been built in for a reason (to ensure a consistent service, high capacity and reliable journeys.)

You see, Japan is able to pull this off because these bottlenecks are few and far between. In the UK loads of stuff is bottlenecked and the whole thing cascades into disaster very quickly. We should spend a little more now (a.k.a build the number of platforms specified for the service) to make up for the fact we need to prepare for delays from bottlenecks elsewhere.

If 11 platforms are needed then 11 platforms is what we should build. However, it's pretty clear that the 11th platform is going to require a significant increase in costs, so with platform space at a premium it's worth asking whether it's absolutely necessary.

The design seems to have set in stone a 30 minute turnaround - and 60 minutes for Scottish services. It's not at all obvious that this is the most efficient option, and it's not clear that this duration is required to turn around a service running on time, or even a few minutes late. If platform space is at a premium the best option surely is to turn trains around as quickly as possible and send them on their way. Providing a longer standard turnaround time for every train means the platforms are always full, reducing the capacity available should something go wrong. Reducing the turnaround time frees up platforms and improves flexibility.

 

[Ianno87]

Reducing the turnaround time frees up platforms and improves flexibility.

But significantly increases the risk of a late arrival becoming a late departure. Just unloading and re-loading a 400m train of passengers will take some time, and you need some recovery above and beyond this.

 

[quantinghome]

But significantly increases the risk of a late arrival becoming a late departure. Just unloading and re-loading a 400m train of passengers will take some time, and you need some recovery above and beyond this.

Of course you need allowance for recovery. The question is how much recovery should be 'baked in' to the timetable, fixed in place whether it is needed or not, and how much should be left in reserve.

In my view building the timetable around a 30 minute turnaround bakes in too much recovery time for the HS2 captive services, far too much time for the Scotland services, but not enough time for the other classic-network services.

Unloading and reloading passengers should be no more than 10 minutes - compare that to the 2 minutes dwell time assumed for OOC (assuming half the passengers and loading only). So a 20 minute turnaround gives you run-in run-out allowance and a few minutes for minor delay.

Reducing the turnaround to 20 minutes for the captive shuttle services would still provide for run-in run-out time and a margin for a few minutes' delay. Operating a 20-minute step-back for all other services gives more than 20 minutes' margin to recover off-network delays. AND you still have a platform left for further flexibility.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course you need allowance for recovery. The question is how much recovery should be 'baked in' to the timetable, fixed in place whether it is needed or not, and how much should be left in reserve.

In my view building the timetable around a 30 minute turnaround bakes in too much recovery time for the HS2 captive services, far too much time for the Scotland services, but not enough time for the other classic-network services.

Unloading and reloading passengers should be no more than 10 minutes - compare that to the 2 minutes dwell time assumed for OOC (assuming half the passengers and loading only). So a 20 minute turnaround gives you run-in run-out allowance and a few minutes for minor delay.

Reducing the turnaround to 20 minutes for the captive shuttle services would still provide for run-in run-out time and a margin for a few minutes' delay. Operating a 20-minute step-back for all other services gives more than 20 minutes' margin to recover off-network delays. AND you still have a platform left for further flexibility.

It's a very interesting question, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone in HS2 was looking at something very similar.

There may be a bit of an issue with interaction. With a planning headway of 3min, if a train turns up more than a minute or so late off the classic network it will delay the following train, and if it's more than a couple of minutes late then multiple trains will be delayed until recovery either at a "firebreak" path or by the difference between planning and technical headway reducing the delay to zero over several successive trains. This probably means that even for the HS captive shuttles there is a significant risk of a 3min delay on arrival. The platform occupation chart posted above looks to be based on a 5min gap from when a train starts moving until the next one stops in the same platform, and while the achievable time is likely to be less, it still means the 20min between arrivals is reduced to 16 or 17min.

 

[stuu]

One cleaner per carriage was my experience - which is not an enormously different staffing level compared with half a dozen for a 9-car IEP.

The costs are of course a trade-off - if you can turn trains around quickly you need fewer of them to run an equivalent service. Culture is an element of course, but the Japanese car companies managed successfully to replicate that culture with UK workforces - and I actually think a lot of UK companies do, too. I have for example seen the rubbish collection idea in the video done here - albeit during the journey - so there's less to do at the end.

The difference is the culture of the passengers, not necessarily the staff. In Japan everyone is up and ready to get off before arrival, and people wait on the platform markers to board, which obviously speeds things up. But more importantly, there is virtually no litter left on the seats and tables, so cleaning the trains is enormously quicker

 

[Ianno87]

The difference is the culture of the passengers, not necessarily the staff. In Japan everyone is up and ready to get off before arrival, and people wait on the platform markers to board, which obviously speeds things up. But more importantly, there is virtually no litter left on the seats and tables, so cleaning the trains is enormously quicker

Yep - cleaning the train is basically wiping down the tables and surfaces, and maybe changing over the binbags in the on-board bins, as there is basically no litter left behind at seats because Japenese people are consistently respectful to each other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep - cleaning the train is basically wiping down the tables and surfaces, and maybe changing over the binbags in the on-board bins, as there is basically no litter left behind at seats because Japenese people are consistently respectful to each other.

Though even with the British messy culture, the TOCs (e.g. Avanti) that have people on board walking round with a bin bag do make a considerable difference to what is left at the end.

 

[The Ham]

Not sure if this is the best place for it, the latest review by the Public Accounts Committee appears to be less damming of HS2, other than governments delay in a decision on Euston:

MPs alarmed by HS2’s Euston uncertainty

The House of Commons public accounts committee says that it is ‘increasingly alarmed’ about the lack of progress on HS2’s Euston Station plans.

www.theconstructionindex.co.uk

The House of Commons public accounts committee says that it is ‘increasingly alarmed’ about the lack of progress on HS2’s Euston Station plans.​

A report from the public accounts committee says that the lack of progress at Euston Station could result in yet more costs, delays and uncertainty over the promised benefits of the project.

Euston station is a key part of Phase One – it is meant to be the London terminus – but despite the necessary planning consents being in place since last year, according to HS2 Ltd, the Department for Transport is prevaricating. It has yet to make key decisions on the design and approach to construction there.

HS2 Ltd told the committee that it was “getting close to the point where the programme will literally run out of time” if this next decision is not made soon.

 

[mr_jrt]

Spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar with Euston. Very disappointing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar with Euston. Very disappointing.

More than a ha’billion of tar.

 

[ABB125]

How can not (re)building a single platform face make Euston so much easier (and cheaper) to (re)build (by doing it in one go)? Is it something to do with the space taken from the existing station to facilitate the works?

 

[SynthD]

How can not (re)building a single platform face make Euston so much easier (and cheaper) to (re)build (by doing it in one go)? Is it something to do with the space taken from the existing station to facilitate the works?

Some of the better headlines say it's a change from building 11 in two stages to 10 in one stage. It's a simpler build project, more than the 1/11th fewer of platforms would suggest.

 

[Ianno87]

Some of the better headlines say it's a change from building 11 in two stages to 10 in one stage. It's a simpler build project, more than the 1/11th fewer of platforms would suggest.

Not just the headlines - it's stated in the report (linked in post #1104)

 

[ABB125]

Some of the better headlines say it's a change from building 11 in two stages to 10 in one stage. It's a simpler build project, more than the 1/11th fewer of platforms would suggest.

Yes, but that doesn't actually explain why the 11th platform makes the project so much more complex.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, but that doesn't actually explain why the 11th platform makes the project so much more complex.

Could well be the cut line with the conventional station.

 

[BrianW]

Yes, but that doesn't actually explain why the 11th platform makes the project so much more complex.

Is there an official document somewhere that shows the rationale (and costs and risk analysis) related to the 10 platform/ 1 stage project by comparison with the 11 platform/ 2 stage project?

 

[SynthD]

Not just the headlines - it's stated in the report (linked in post #1104)

I was thinking of the headlines being better for how well they inform those not as interested in the project. The PR of changes like this is interesting - will people think this should have happened a decade ago when excess resilience was planned, or does the simplification, if mentioned in what they read, justify it only now?

 

[snowball]

Yes, but that doesn't actually explain why the 11th platform makes the project so much more complex.

Presumably 10 HS2 platforms is the most that can be built while keeping enough of the old station layout open to run the necessary trains during construction.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably 10 HS2 platforms is the most that can be built while keeping enough of the old station layout open to run the necessary trains during construction.

And the flipside of that is that the sequence is as follows:

1. Knock down west side of the existing station (done)
2. Build as many HS2 platforms as can be fitted (maybe not 10 if some space needs to be left for later stages)
3. Bring this part of the HS2 station into service
4. When HS2 is running reliably to at least Birmingham, cancel some trains out of Euston on the classic line and replace with HS2 trains, releasing some platform capacity
5. Knock down some more of the existing station
6. Build the rest of the HS2 station

If 10 platforms fit on the footprint they already have, then they only need to do steps 1 to 3. It may be that the classic Euston station keeps at least one extra platform too.

It would still be interesting to see whether this is actually their line of argument, and also how they plan to resolve the timetabling/performance issue.