I don't think anyone really 'likes' them. They're a necessary evil if there's no room for a longer junction design. It's interesting that NR seems happy to have far more point-work inside the tunnels in this new design. I guess with more approach tracks there will be more opportunity for possessions to maintain them.
-
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
I don't think anyone really 'likes' them. They're a necessary evil if there's no room for a longer junction design. It's interesting that NR seems happy to have far more point-work inside the tunnels in this new design. I guess with more approach tracks there will be more opportunity for possessions to maintain them.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
jyte
Member
Pretty likely I would say.How likely is this?
One more reason to quit the weekly London commute I think.
The project is currently unfunded but considering they've managed (apparently) to reduce the cost of it by £100mn I'm pretty sure NR will want to go ahead once CP6 funding is released. Depending on the size of the blockade they could fit some OHLE improvements in there too!
My understanding is that currently the KX throat is very short (like the opposite of the Paddington one!) and this imposes the 15mph PSR across all lines once you're into Gasworks tunnel. The removal of the double slips and re-introducing gasworks no.3 will allow for increased speeds in and out of the station. How much increased is someone else's guess haha.
Three questions with that "proposed" plan:
1: how long are the resulting 9 and 10? The existing 9-11 all take 160m trains at the moment, presumably they'll take 240m trains? 260m (2x5car 800) would seem ambitious.
2: Presumably re-signalling would see platform 0 become 1, etc? (a boon to the harry potter lot of course that would finally put 9 3/4 between 9 and 10)
3: I guess the resulting plan doesn't preclude- indeed, potentially enables- a future project to grade separate the Thameslink services at a hugely remoddelled Holloway junction and bring in the eastern Copenhagen tunnel?
1: how long are the resulting 9 and 10? The existing 9-11 all take 160m trains at the moment, presumably they'll take 240m trains? 260m (2x5car 800) would seem ambitious.
2: Presumably re-signalling would see platform 0 become 1, etc? (a boon to the harry potter lot of course that would finally put 9 3/4 between 9 and 10)
3: I guess the resulting plan doesn't preclude- indeed, potentially enables- a future project to grade separate the Thameslink services at a hugely remoddelled Holloway junction and bring in the eastern Copenhagen tunnel?
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,460
I think that's the intention but I don't have numbers at hand.
Exactly what I've been thinking!
Having passed the site a number of times, I can't see there being any feasible means of grade separation at a realistic cost (i.e. not involving serious demolition/restructuring of tunnels).
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Interestingly as observed the new layout has the points in the tunnel whilst the current layout with its double slips and no points in the tunnels. My question is why no points in the tunnel now? Is it too wet crossing under (is it?) Fleet river? Will this make the layout less reliable to operate with failures of axle counters / track circuits and other electronics due to the water? So whilst it may be cheaper to install the proposed layout (against the originally proposed) will it become more expensive to maintain longer term?
They now understand how much cheaper points are to maintain than double slips /switched diamond etc. Also with concrete sleepers switches and crossings now last far longer than wooden ones and maintain alignment far better so need less maintenance so being less accessible is less of an issue.
Acceleration of modern (D)EMUs with distributed traction means trains can now easily run at speeds higher than permitted by double slips where as this wasn't the case before electrification the last time it was remodelled.
The last remodelling was simultaneous with electrification. I probably still have, somewhere, a leaflet showing the then "old" and "new" layouts. (The changes since then are removal of the sidings shown dashed in the upper picture in #28 and the addition of platform 0.)
With respect to grade separation of Kings Cross vs Thameslink: surely there is a grade separated route from Kings Cross to the down slow by using the down fast to avoid the up slow. So as long as there is a slot on the down fast there isn't a conflicting move necessary.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's the Regent's Canal. The Fleet goes through the area but is somewhere underground.
Axle counters are less prone to water-related failures than track circuits and I presume all the equipment cabinets etc will be outside the tunnels. But points in tunnels are obviously more difficult to install, maintain and replace, and there is a greater risk of failure.
It was done before electrification. But not very long before.
And the linespeed through the throat was almost doubled, from 8mph to 15mph.
jyte
Member
I wonder what NR is aiming/hoping to get. 15mph feels glacial today, wonder what 8mph must have been like.
Well obviously they do the track before the wires, but it was certainly part of the same programme, much like Reading has now been remodelled and then wired. My recollection is that the Kings Cross throat remodelling came after the inner suburban half of the Great Northern Suburban Electrification. In other words, BR had already taken over the Northern City Line from LT and were running 313s between Moorgate and Welwyn Garden City.
InTheEastMids
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 731
So, if Platform 0 becomes 1 during this project, what does it mean for the location of platform 9 3/4?
And surely much needed accessibility improvements could be done as part of this project, allowing 9 3/4 to be brought into regular use, thus compensating for the loss of platform 11?
Correct, although:
-The current layout means you can't access the Down Fast from Platforms 10 or 11 so the conflicting move cannot be avoided for these platforms
-You still do have to be pretty lucky to have a happy coincidng vacant Down Fast path (even post full Thameslink timetable there'll be up to 12 Fast Line peak departures per hour)
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
It was possible because the GN elecrifcation diverted a significant proportion of trains to Moorgate, via Drayton Park, and also removed the few remaining trains to Moorgate via York Rd curve. There have been previous discussions of the 1976 changes in these forums, I'll try and find a link:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/kings-cross-tunnel.46300/#post-688664
My post #17 therein includes an attachment showing before and after layouts.
Also worth noting that the previous 6 track approach had to allow for significant traffic to and from Kings Cross goods and traction depot. It's a bit chalk and cheese compared to present day operations.
We don't really need to discuss the 70s all over again though?
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
9 3/4 is on what was the outside of the west wall of the main shed, very conveniently located so the queue waiting for selfies blocks the way to the toilets.
This shed contains platforms 0 to 8, with 9 to 11 being further west in the suburban shed. So re-numbering 0 to 1 and so on would put 9 3/4 in the correct place sequentially.
As opposed to currently, if a train breaks down halfway through the throat, which will be less impactful after the remodelling.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
And that of course removed most of the inner suburban traffic from the Kings Cross approaches and throat. Previously, these trains had run via the city widened lines to Moorgate.
no platform renumbering proposed on this on as yet...
planned platform lengths as follows:
Platform 0 303m
Platform 1 296m
Platform 2 270m
Platform 3 284m
Platform 4 284m
Platform 5 269m
Platform 6 286m
Platform 7 286m
Platform 8 287m
Platform 9 172m
Platform 10 172m
planned platform lengths as follows:
Platform 0 303m
Platform 1 296m
Platform 2 270m
Platform 3 284m
Platform 4 284m
Platform 5 269m
Platform 6 286m
Platform 7 286m
Platform 8 287m
Platform 9 172m
Platform 10 172m
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,088
Would that make 0 and 1 long enough for the sleepers?
Looks sensible - So 10 car IEP would fit in 9 platforms and 6 car IEP in the other 2 if the TOC are interested in extending to add a bit more capacity.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Longest platforms at Euston are given in the Quail map as 20 cars, which are based on 20m stock so the actual length is about 400m. The sleeper only just fits so the current formations wouldn't fit in the lengthened KX. Looks very logical to aim for the 10 car IEP though, as that's what will mostly be using it, and getting another 100m would probably involve opening out some of the tunnels.
The trouble with pointwork is it costs a fortune in time and money to maintain. Building more pointwork to make it easier to maintain the infrastructure sounds like an oxymoron to me - you want as little as possible and if it is 15mph rather than great flying leads at 70mph more the better!
I count 37 pairs of point noses in the current layout of the proposed work boundary, and 31 in the same area of the planned layout.
Not to mention the fact that four simple diverging track points are easier to maintain than a double slip, with the same number of point noses.
Not if it's been discussed in the other thread. All this was before my time of course.
Elecman
Established Member
Probably because they are a maintenance nightmare
- Status