Kings Cross ‘uncrossed’ Layout/Remodelling - Information and Updates

[Roast Veg]

Well that’s a given isn’t it. But there are also plenty of existing precedents for fences on disused platform faces with no track - if nothing else it allows the full width of the platform to be used safely by people getting off a busy train, without a wasted space beyond the tactile strips that staff will no doubt advise people not to cross…

Staff don't tend to hang around on platforms behind gatelines like this one do they? I agree that a fence would definitely offer more circulation space, but it was probably a cheaper just to do "more of the same" even for a platform with no track. Is the lost space really that much of a concern?

 

[edwin_m]

It's the ALARP principle. In an ideal world you'd fence all platform edges, but that would make it impossible to board and alight trains. But that doesn't apply to a platform with no track, so it ought to be fenced because the safety benefit justifies the cost of doing so. If I was a safety assessor on this project I'd definitely be raising a query about this part of the design.

 

[Starmill]

Platforms without track are very commonly fenced off if they're in public areas of stations. Even the former bay platform 2 at Wigan North Western was recently fenced.

 

[swt_passenger]

Platforms without track are very commonly fenced off if they're in public areas of stations. Even the former bay platform 2 at Wigan North Western was recently fenced.

The long standing example I‘m familiar with is Portsmouth Harbour P2.

 

[OxtedL]

There's a tiny bit of fence visible in this shot, for all you fence enthusiasts:

https://twitter.com/ECMLupgrade/status/1400088774131044352/photo/2

 

[adamedwards]

Are the tactiles there just in case there is a future change of plan?

I think they should put a fence in and then a whole platform length seat to rival Scarborough!

 

[Mcq]

I see that there is full possession from just S of Finsbury Park to KX this weekend (all lines) can anyone detail the works occurring please?

 

[InOban]

Aren't they completing the project this weekend? All platforms in use from Monday.

 

[Mcq]

Oh really - then I have really lost the plot here - full 10 platforms from Monday?
I am full of admiration for the planning and co-ordination of this major project on what is a 'dead end' - read terminus.
Oh and before I'm pulled up again - yes well done all other elements not least the schedulers.
Also thanks to all who have contributed their knowledge and pictures to the project whilst in progress - this is when this forum is at its best.

 

[John R]

Oh really - then I have really lost the plot here - full 10 platforms from Monday?

Hopefully 11, else something has gone badly wrong with the project.

 

[fgwrich]

Just saw a photo on Twitter of the slightly widened end of the former P10/11 platform, and it has had tactile slabs installed on both sides. I would have thought the old P10 side should be fenced off and have no tactiles, because there‘s no longer any track? Are the new tactiles an error?

https://twitter.com/Jay_Tee71/status/1399731511000244225

Could somebody remind me what was the reasoning for the removal of this track / platform?

 

[Mcq]

Yes 11 - ta
My main reason for posting was to thank those in the know for sharing their knowledge and making this thread, for me, so much more interesting and genuinly informative than some of the threads which concentrate on fares etc.

 

[MarkyT]

Could somebody remind me what was the reasoning for the removal of this track / platform?

I think there's a long-standing concern about the #10/#11 island being narrow. What was originally platform #13 had been removed and filled in for the 1970s remodelling, which created a wider platform #10 clearly, but the same platform was reinstated as #11 a few years later, presumably because operators considered the layout had been simplified a little too much for the service being run at the time. With the modern interpretation of stand-back from buffer stops and starting signals, the platforms were a little on the short side for 8x20m trains. The project has thus moved the throat junction a little further out to provide good modern standage, and with the longer, faster turnouts being utlised, there wasn't room for turnouts to all three platforms to remain with suitable geometry. I'd guess it might have been plausible to retain current #10 and abolish #11, but the arrangement now built was favoured for some reason, perhaps because it created a trackless 'ghost' platform just in the right place in the sequence to be labelled #9 3/4. Now waiting for a proposal for a bit of unconnected track at the buffer stop end on which to display a red GWR Hall replica and a couple of Mk1s, animated by theme park experts with steam visuals and sounds, like the inter-park ride in Florida:

 

[fgwrich]

I think there's a long-standing concern about the #10/#11 island being narrow. What was originally platform #13 had been removed and filled in for the 1970s remodelling, which created a wider platform #10 clearly, but the same platform was reinstated as #11 a few years later, presumably because operators considered the layout had been simplified a little too much for the service being run at the time. With the modern interpretation of stand-back from buffer stops and starting signals, the platforms were a little on the short side for 8x20m trains. The project has thus moved the throat junction a little further out to provide good modern standage, and with the longer, faster turnouts being utlised, there wasn't room for turnouts to all three platforms to remain with suitable geometry. I'd guess it might have been plausible to retain current #10 and abolish #11, but the arrangement now built was favoured for some reason, perhaps because it created a trackless 'ghost' platform just in the right place in the sequence to be labelled #9 3/4. Now waiting for a proposal for a bit of unconnected track at the buffer stop end on which to display a red GWR Hall replica and a couple of Mk1s, animated by theme park experts with steam visuals and sounds, like the inter-park ride in Florida:

Thanks Mark for the explanation! I did wonder if retaining 10 and abolishing 11 would have been the better idea - then filling in the space behind to create a more simplified 'bay', but the 9 & 3/4 part is rather plausible and does make sense. And if a shorter platform is ever required there, I doubt it would be too difficult to re-lay the track and pointwork back to it.

 

[John R]

I’m sure it is coincidence, but it’s remarkably appropriate to have an empty platform face between 9 and 10.

If it wasn’t for the tedious operational requirements of the day to day railway, one could imagine the platform face built out to form an alternative entrance to trains in platform 9, hidden with some Potteresque appropriate hoardings, and a daily 5 car unit to Fort William to connect into the steam excursion the follow day to Mallaig. The tourists (when they can eventually visit) would lap it up.

 

[Ianno87]

Thanks Mark for the explanation! I did wonder if retaining 10 and abolishing 11 would have been the better idea - then filling in the space behind to create a more simplified 'bay', but the 9 & 3/4 part is rather plausible and does make sense. And if a shorter platform is ever required there, I doubt it would be too difficult to re-lay the track and pointwork back to it.

I’m sure it is coincidence, but it’s remarkably appropriate to have an empty platform face between 9 and 10.

If it wasn’t for the tedious operational requirements of the day to day railway, one could imagine the platform face built out to form an alternative entrance to trains in platform 9, hidden with some Potteresque appropriate hoardings, and a daily 5 car unit to Fort William to connect into the steam excursion the follow day to Mallaig. The tourists (when they can eventually visit) would lap it up.

I'd be surprised if leaving the former Platform 10 as the "ghost" platform 9 3/4 is anything more than happy engineering coincidence.

Keeping Platform 11 gives more length in the throat for the signalling/turnouts etc, which is the more likely reason.

 

[MarkyT]

I'd be surprised if leaving the former Platform 10 as the "ghost" platform 9 3/4 is anything more than happy engineering coincidence.

Keeping Platform 11 gives more length in the throat for the signalling/turnouts etc, which is the more likely reason.

This tweet with latest pictures confirms that keeping #9 and the former #11, now #10, results in a fairly straight run into each. Interesting that if they'd renumbered to remove #0, then the gap would have been between #10 and #11

https://twitter.com/Jay_Tee71/status/1401399039179079683?s=19

 

[Bald Rick]

That picture does show the functionality of the layout really well.

I have never had a good explanation of why the platforms weren’t renumbered to start at 1 through this work ....

 

[Ianno87]

This tweet with latest pictures confirms that keeping #9 and the former #11, now #10, results in a fairly straight run into each. Interesting that if they'd renumbered to remove #0, then the gap would have been between #10 and #11

https://twitter.com/Jay_Tee71/status/1401399039179079683?s=19

Yes, that does show how much more space there is to get the 9/11 turnout in as a result.

 

[MarkyT]

That picture does show the functionality of the layout really well.

I have never had a good explanation of why the platforms weren’t renumbered to start at 1 through this work ....

Certainly would have been the opportunity to do it what with all the signalling and information systems being worked on. The saving on signage etc by not doing it would have been a pittance set against the costs of the whole project.

 

[Ianno87]

Certainly would have been the opportunity to do it what with all the signalling and information systems being worked on. The saving on signage etc by not doing it would have been a pittance set against the costs of the whole project.

I wonder if the logic is that Platform 0 has been there so long, people are just used to it. It doesn't seem to cause any particular issues or confusion.

 

[bramling]

I wonder if the logic is that Platform 0 has been there so long, people are just used to it. It doesn't seem to cause any particular issues or confusion.

Some people do seem to have difficulty finding it, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a numbering issue, but more that it’s somewhat hidden away compared to the other platforms.

I think it would have been better to remember everything, but from a personal point of view having been used to the current numbers for many years I would likely have found that difficult to get used to.

In some ways the whole numbering and line naming could be said to be haphazard. Firstly it would be more logical for the platform numbers to run left to right, in which case 1 and 2 would be the former suburban platforms. Likewise one might have thought lines A and B would be the former slow tunnel, and so on. Indeed the old layout had a slight oddity in that for something like Gasworks West Tunnel looking north it was D-C, yet SL1-SL2.

I’m sure there’s a continuity element to all this.

 

[DDB]

I suspect given that it didn't introduce new complications (there was already a platform zero) that someone with Harry Potter knowledge thought it would be a nice, fun touch.
However when the first overexcuted muggle child knocks themselves out running into a wall they might reconsider!

 

[edwin_m]

Certainly would have been the opportunity to do it what with all the signalling and information systems being worked on. The saving on signage etc by not doing it would have been a pittance set against the costs of the whole project.

The signage is probably due for replacement with the new style before long anyway.

I wonder if the logic is that Platform 0 has been there so long, people are just used to it. It doesn't seem to cause any particular issues or confusion.

As far as I know the platform numbering at Nottingham was unchanged since Edwardian times, but that didn't stop them in 2013. P0 couldn't be eliminated at Cardiff, where the ornate tiling signs to the other platforms are part of the listed station and it would be too confusing if the numbers on them were wrong. But no such issue at KX.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could somebody remind me what was the reasoning for the removal of this track / platform?

If you refer to the drawing in post #227, I think, (as do previous replies), it’s clear that the main thrust of the works was about improving the track alignment etc both in and out of P9, and a knock on benefit of that is giving both P8 and P9 a fully usable width all the way up to their ends.

It‘s that work that prevents the use of old P10. On the other hand the improvement in width of new P10 is only over a relatively much smaller area in plan view, the reason for its rebuild extending over both sides of the structure, and for a greater distance, was to alter the height of the platform.

 

[jon0844]

That picture does show the functionality of the layout really well.

I have never had a good explanation of why the platforms weren’t renumbered to start at 1 through this work ....

I'm a little confused too, given that new track, signalling and the move from King's Cross to York for a more modern setup, seemed like an ideal opportunity.

 

[YorksLad12]

Some people do seem to have difficulty finding it, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a numbering issue, but more that it’s somewhat hidden away compared to the other platforms.

I think it would have been better to remember everything, but from a personal point of view having been used to the current numbers for many years I would likely have found that difficult to get used to.

In some ways the whole numbering and line naming could be said to be haphazard. Firstly it would be more logical for the platform numbers to run left to right, in which case 1 and 2 would be the former suburban platforms. Likewise one might have thought lines A and B would be the former slow tunnel, and so on. Indeed the old layout had a slight oddity in that for something like Gasworks West Tunnel looking north it was D-C, yet SL1-SL2.

I’m sure there’s a continuity element to all this.

Interestingly: I've no idea where I came across this (it might even be up-thread) but the main shed platforms used to be numbered in the opposite direction...

 

[59CosG95]

Well, it's all done now. In a perhaps ironic twist, there's already been a pantograph/OLE interface problem in the station, and a Class 700's had its pan damaged after (I think) clipping the contenary support beneath the footbridge in the station over P8.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well, it's all done now. In a perhaps ironic twist, there's already been a pantograph/OLE interface problem in the station, and a Class 700's had its pan damaged after (I think) clipping the contenary support beneath the footbridge in the station over P8.

Not sure if it’s actually “ironic” if something they’ve been working on as part of the project fails at first use. The OHLE has been replaced all the way to the stops.

 

[zwk500]

I'm a little confused too, given that new track, signalling and the move from King's Cross to York for a more modern setup, seemed like an ideal opportunity.

I wonder if it's related to a potential issue with having two platforms 6s in the interlocking at the same time during the changeover period? It's the kind of thing I can see being highlighted as a potential risk, and of all the mitigations not having the risk at all is far and away the easiest, cheapest and most reliable one to implement.