Possible HS2 Euston station de-scoping

[quantinghome]

AIUI, the 400km/h is pretty much only preserved in the straightness of the alignment (the thing that's most difficult to change ever again) and not much else. Which, if anything, helps cost by making the alignment straighter (thus shorter and less construction). So the amount of actual extra cost it is driving is probably not very much.

Not tunnel diameters, track separation, structural live loads?

Certainly there's been a lot of work done on track-ground vibration behaviour in areas where the route passes over high-plasticity clay soils. They have quite low shear wave velocities which means an enormous amount of ground improvement or replacement to stop the 'mach cone' effect.

 

[The Planner]

Also depends on how comfortable the planned turnarounds are at Euston, if you are planning x for the turnaround when y is still perfectly possible then you still have the sponge effect and can get a right time departure.

 

[Bald Rick]

How would this affect the overall projected spend? It seems to me that this is to ensure the Euston work is kept within budget and does not therefore result in pausing or delaying other elements of HS2. I think the biggest risk to HS2 phase 2b (both east and west) is overrun at the London end.

Does anyone have any educated assumptions or educated guesses on how much could be saved by:

1. building the station in one go?
2. only building the eastern branch as far as East Midlands Parkway?

The first one is a tricky question. The second one is slightly easier - it will be somewhere between £10bn -£20bn.

The issue will be the Scotland trains which travel for long distances over the classic network before getting to HS2 so could import a fair amount of delay.

It will bring its own delay, but wouldn’t cause much in the way of delay to other services. HS2 is like a pipe - train in / train out.

I think there is gold plating on the project but I would have preferred to see things like the design speed brought down to reduce infrastructure costs rather than chop platforms.

Not tunnel diameters, track separation, structural live loads?

As @Ianno87 says, the difference in cost for descoping is essentially nil;indeed the costs of redesign and replanning would almost certainly have made it more expensive to reduce the design speed. This was looked at extensively in the Oakervee review.

There might have been a cost saving (maybe a couple of %j if it had been specified at a lower speed before it was submitted to Parliament -but that was 7 years ago.

 

[Horizon22]

Also depends on how comfortable the planned turnarounds are at Euston, if you are planning x for the turnaround when y is still perfectly possible then you still have the sponge effect and can get a right time departure.

At a terminal this is definitely the key thing. I can imagine 10 platforms will reasonably comfortably do 18tph comparing it to other terminals, probably with something like 20-30m turnarounds.

 

[snowball]

AIUI, the 400km/h is pretty much only preserved in the straightness of the alignment (the thing that's most difficult to change ever again) and not much else. Which, if anything, helps cost by making the alignment straighter (thus shorter and less construction). So the amount of actual extra cost it is driving is probably not very much.

Where the route is through open countryside, as on much of phase 1, a higher design speed (and thus larger radii) probably makes the route shorter, but where there are many route constraints, as in the East Midlands and Yorkshire, I suspect it has the opposite effect. It can force longer curves, where a lower design speed would allow two shorter curves connected by a straight, and it can cause some otherwise possible route corridors to be ruled out. Thus when the Meadowhall alignment was dropped, an indirect route much further east was forced.

 

[edwin_m]

Where the route is through open countryside, as on much of phase 1, a higher design speed (and thus larger radii) probably makes the route shorter, but where there are many route constraints, as in the East Midlands and Yorkshire, I suspect it has the opposite effect. It can force longer curves, where a lower design speed would allow two shorter curves connected by a straight, and it can cause some otherwise possible route corridors to be ruled out. Thus when the Meadowhall alignment was dropped, an indirect route much further east was forced.

The route is not designed for 400km/h throughout. Lower speeds are accepted in certain areas where conditions are as you describe. The replacement of the Meadowhall route by one further east was said to save £1bn or so, even allowing for the extra cost of the spur towards Chesterfield, probably because the route was on flatter land so didn't need so much structure and earthwork. I'm not sure what the design speeds were/are here.

 

[BrianW]

From the agenda of a TFL board meeting to be held 3rd Feburary (link), a quote from page


(emphasis mine)

This would be a reduction from the original 11 platforms planned.
This is only something the DfT is proposing/investigating, not an actual set-in-stone thing that is happening.

Lots of discussion on twitter here: https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1354329833568874498

One platform doesn't sound like much of a reduction, but I guess if you're designed the station for maximum utilisation of platforms, it can have a big knock-on effect.

I don't understand the issue here- there was a review (Oakervee); options were developed and presented; a decision was made; progress is being made; the TfL board is kept informed and can question and respond. That all sounds good to me, unless of course we attribute malign intent to some buffoons along the way. The discussion here seems to suggest the range of views and issues that must surely have been taken into consideration and weighed. TfL wants further consideration of local 'consequences' eg more 'development' meaning more local traffic?- sounds fair to me.

 

[CW2]

If HS2 were to be an entirely closed system then it could run with a high degree of regularity / punctuality, with predictable and repetitive platforming at Euston. However with trains originating (far) beyond the ends of the HS2 network, i.e. Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle there will be a tendency to import delays from the NR system onto HS2. This means the trains themselves need to be more complicated (multiple sigalling systems, different OLE, etc.) and their presentation onto the HS2 network is likely to be less reliable. Therefore you cannot simply average the turnround times at Euston and pronounce yourself satisfied with fewer platforms. Some element of realistic contingency planning needs to be included. Having a spare set on permanent standby at Euston is a necessity, not a luxury.

 

[Glenn1969]

Unless there is already a plan to cancel HS2b that is yet to be made public because they know it would upset most of the North that would mean a lot less than 18tph being required so less platforms too ?

 

[BayPaul]

If HS2 were to be an entirely closed system then it could run with a high degree of regularity / punctuality, with predictable and repetitive platforming at Euston. However with trains originating (far) beyond the ends of the HS2 network, i.e. Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle there will be a tendency to import delays from the NR system onto HS2. This means the trains themselves need to be more complicated (multiple sigalling systems, different OLE, etc.) and their presentation onto the HS2 network is likely to be less reliable. Therefore you cannot simply average the turnround times at Euston and pronounce yourself satisfied with fewer platforms. Some element of realistic contingency planning needs to be included. Having a spare set on permanent standby at Euston is a necessity, not a luxury.

Could a spare unit not be on permanent standby at OOC instead if one were required. 6 platforms there (as I recall) seems very generous. Also, by definition, these imported delays would be known about long before the train gets anywhere near Euston (it would presumably be obvious when the train is in the Crewe area), so a replacement set could even be run down from Calvert in the path originally planned for the inbound service, with ample time for it to take the northbound service. If there is no platform at Euston available for the inbound to terminate, then it could terminate at OOC without significant disruption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A spare unit could just go in a siding. You aren't likely to need it at zero notice.

 

[CW2]

A spare unit could just go in a siding. You aren't likely to need it at zero notice.

Yes, let's build an extra siding. For a few bob more we could build a platform face next to it, for extra flexibility.
BTW, haven't you ever been turfed off a train due to a last minute failure?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, let's build an extra siding. For a few bob more we could build a platform face next to it, for extra flexibility.

Quite a lot of "bob" I suspect.

BTW, haven't you ever been turfed off a train due to a last minute failure?

If it's that close to departure it will just be cancelled.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, let's build an extra siding. For a few bob more we could build a platform face next to it, for extra flexibility.
BTW, haven't you ever been turfed off a train due to a last minute failure?

How often do modern trains actually fail? Southeastern's 395 fleet strikes me as highly reliable, for something so intensively used.

Treat the condition, not the symptom.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

Unless there is already a plan to cancel HS2b that is yet to be made public because they know it would upset most of the North that would mean a lot less than 18tph being required so less platforms too ?

Transport Questions in the House Of ommons (28/01/2021)

Craig Whittaker
It is concerning to see, in the local press at least, incredibly negative and biased reporting that the High Speed 2 eastern leg is to be scrapped. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether those reports are true? If so, how does that fit in with his longer-term ambition to improve rail connections in the north?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend frequently raises his constituents’ concerns, particularly about the Calder Valley line and the need for improvements in local services. He is completely right to raise the importance of major rail infrastructure projects such as the eastern leg of HS2. We are committed to building HS2 phase 2b and to enabling the east midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east to reap the benefits of high-speed rail services. We aim to publish the integrated rail plan early this year, which will set out our plans covering the eastern leg.

 

[CW2]

How often do modern trains actually fail? Southeastern's 395 fleet strikes me as highly reliable, for something so intensively used.

Treat the condition, not the symptom.

Doesn't only have to cater for set failures. There can be traincrew issues, weather related issues, late arrivals from Up North, trespass, etc. It is very poor practice to build infrastructure to be operated at (or near) 100% capacity without any contingency allowance - and impossibly expensive and disruptive to add it back in at a later date once you realise how short-sighted you've been.

 

[Purple Orange]

The first one is a tricky question. The second one is slightly easier - it will be somewhere between £10bn -£20bn.

Hypothetically then, would £20bn be saved by full cancellation of the eastern branch and £10bn saved if partially built?

 

[Ianno87]

Doesn't only have to cater for set failures. There can be traincrew issues, weather related issues, late arrivals from Up North, trespass, etc. It is very poor practice to build infrastructure to be operated at (or near) 100% capacity without any contingency allowance - and impossibly expensive and disruptive to add it back in at a later date once you realise how short-sighted you've been.

The key question is whether 18tph in 10 platforms constitutes "near 100% capacity" use. Assuming that 2tph per platform is the "benchmark", then 9 of 10 platforms would be 90%.

Then subtract a bit more for:
-Whether the 18th "reserved" path is ever used (85% straightaway)
-Bunce on turnround time for recovery
-Bunce on headways, planning rules for etcrecovery
-Ability to platform share in perturbation where two 200m trains are involved
-Ability to use Old Oak Common
-Etc.

Then the "100%" starts to rapidly fall to a more reasonable value in the 60-70odd% range.

I'm not disputing that this percentage is higher with 10 platforms than 11 - it is. The key is whether that change is material to the basic operability of the railway on good and bad days.

Good days ought to be just as good. The worst bad days will still be bad. There's be a small set of days where the difference will matter. But that just means operating the railway differently on those days.

 

[bassmike]

It would be great if a saving here helped HS2 to come in slightly under budget, it would give a lot more credibility to mega projects in the future. It does seem like the 11th platform was to a certain extent gold plating, and if construction can all happen in a single phase, that sounds like a good saving, both in cost and also possibly in time.

Come in under budget??? you must be joking!

 

[Bald Rick]

Doesn't only have to cater for set failures. There can be traincrew issues, weather related issues, late arrivals from Up North, trespass, etc. It is very poor practice to build infrastructure to be operated at (or near) 100% capacity without any contingency allowance - and impossibly expensive and disruptive to add it back in at a later date once you realise how short-sighted you've been.

Totally agree.

10 platforms won’t be at, or near 100% use though.

Hypothetically then, would £20bn be saved by full cancellation of the eastern branch and £10bn saved if partially built?

No idea I’m afraid.

 

[flitwickbeds]

If there is no platform at Euston available for the inbound to terminate, then it could terminate at OOC without significant disruption.

Apart from the disruption to a whole train load of people who are already on a significantly delayed journey, who then have to delay their arrival even more by changing at a station and getting another train?

 

[Ianno87]

Apart from the disruption to a whole train load of people who are already on a significantly delayed journey, who then have to delay their arrival even more by changing at a station and getting another train?

Although around one third of passengers will be getting off at Old Oak Common anyway, so will not be inconvenienced in such a way.

Of the remaining 2/3, some will just be getting Crossrail onwards to Zone 1 from Old Oak in place of whatever tube/bus they would have got from Euston.

It's only the passengers who specifically want to go to Euston that would be the most "delayed" by that.

 

[BayPaul]

Apart from the disruption to a whole train load of people who are already on a significantly delayed journey, who then have to delay their arrival even more by changing at a station and getting another train?

Although around one third of passengers will be getting off at Old Oak Common anyway, so will not be inconvenienced in such a way.

Of the remaining 2/3, some will just be getting Crossrail onwards to Zone 1 from Old Oak in place of whatever tube/bus they would have got from Euston.

It's only the passengers who specifically want to go to Euston that would be the most "delayed" by that.

And with trains every 3 minutes, and with it being quite simple to set up a cross platform interchange, the wait for another train at OOC is hardly all that much. I'm all for robust infrastructure, but this scenario is for an occasional very late running train, with the very unlikely case that there is no platform available, there will be a <10 minute delay for 2/3 of the passengers on that train. It really doesn't feel like something we should be spending 10s of millions of pounds (I suspect even 100s) of taxpayers money to provide an additional platform for. Its also worth saying that an extra platform means extra pointwork, signalling and a more complex throat that could all cause delays.

 

[Class 170101]

Binning the overground would also beg the question of what to do with South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road, its a non-starter.

There have been plans in the past to run via Primrose Hill to Stratford (and as described above that godforsaken shopping centre) calling at (a new) Primrose Hill Station.

These days the NLL between Camden and Stratford is too busy for that.

 

[BrianW]

Ah yes, Primrose Hill, and so attractive sounding.
As a youth I used it often, at least four times a year, to try to get into Camden Shed (1B IIRC). 'They' closed it; they closed them both!! I only got past the shed foreman's office once but it was exciting- Duchesses, Royal Scots, Jubilees, Peaks, D5000s, the frisson of the DC 3rd rail Electrics a few feet or steps away ...Primrose Hill station platforms all weeds already then, next to no passengers I recall, windswept ... Watford- Broad Street via Willesden J LL usually after 'success' at 81A (Old Oak fabulous 4 turntables of polished 4-6-0s and a line of panniers), IA Willesden with its Brits, 10000 and 10202, and 14A Cricklewood ... ah yes ...

Locomotive Sheds, Depots and Stabling Points | Camden Shed 100862 DC869

Camden Shed 10/8/62, a selection of English Electric Type 4's (Class 40) with D214 nearest the camera, Coronation Pacific 46250 stands on the coal road. ©Dave Cobbe/ Rail Photoprints

railphotoprints.uk

A shame HS2 folk will be miles in tunnel ...

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

Apart from the disruption to a whole train load of people who are already on a significantly delayed journey, who then have to delay their arrival even more by changing at a station and getting another train?

Since HS2 services are meant to be "all seated," I wonder how that would work? I suppose there's still plenty of time to work out the details of perturbation planning.

It really doesn't feel like something we should be spending 10s of millions of pounds (I suspect even 100s) of taxpayers money to provide an additional platform for. Its also worth saying that an extra platform means extra pointwork, signalling and a more complex throat that could all cause delays.

Depending on which platform they axe it's not going to make that much difference to the Euston throat topology - it could be a little as one set of points and a platform road (unless they are going to redesign the whole thing.) Here's a (my) diagram of said topology based on the AP3 Parliamentary plans: "As designed" at AP3, the Euston throat has been laid out so that it's always possible for one train to be departing at the same time as one is arriving. And at relative high speeds (IIRC 60kph) if we compare to the Victorian "legacy" designs NR is currently spending lots of money of retrospectively "fixing" (e.g. Reading, Kings Cross, Lime Street, Derby, etc.)

 

[DerekC]

From a gentleman who knows a lot more about HS2 than I do (unfortunately I can't quote his name):

"I’m just stumped as to how anyone can seriously propose anything so cretinous.

It’s fantasy to think a platform could be taken out of Euston without losing something – either trains or reliability. There is no slack, simply options for graceful degradation of which the 11th platform is one. So anyone who wants to take one away needs to say whether they intend the hit to be taken in frequency or reliability, and if frequency, which HS2 destination they intend to abandon. Of course they won’t! And either way the benefits at risk are an order of magnitude greater than the cost pressure."

 

[mr_jrt]

Perhaps plan for the loss of that platform will be that'll by the time it's needed the fabled eastern HSR will be on the cards (which I seem to recall was one of the arguments why not to build HS2 with 4 tracks from the outset) so all those services will be running into wherever the terminal for that ends up.

 

[D365]

Come in under budget??? you must be joking!

There is a very high degree of padding in the budget...

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps plan for the loss of that platform will be that'll by the time it's needed the fabled eastern HSR will be on the cards (which I seem to recall was one of the arguments why not to build HS2 with 4 tracks from the outset) so all those services will be running into wherever the terminal for that ends up.

Or trains for the north east will stay on the ECML with some level of bypass/upgrade to match what the times would have been on HS2 (about 27min difference).