St. Pancras International Platform 5

[RochdalePioneers]

Aside from the whys and wherefores of running 373s up the East Coast there is an interesting point being made about capacity at St Pancras.

4 platforms for the MML always struck me as absurdly low - as services and traffic increase you can see how these might not be enough in future. As there is zero prospect of adding more domestic platforms that leaves three options - stop adding services as there's no room, run them to a different station (Sheffield - Kings Cross?) or run across the connection in question into the Barlow trainshed

 

[NotATrainspott]

The NoL Eurostars also had a different suspension arrangement. As the former route into Waterloo had been used by boat trains before, it had a very slightly non-standard loading gauge that the normal Eurostars were designed to use. Presumably this arrangement was superior enough that it wouldn't be a good idea to make all Eurostars capable of going elsewhere.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . 4 platforms for the MML always struck me as absurdly low - as services and traffic increase you can see how these might not be enough in future. As there is zero prospect of adding more domestic platforms that leaves three options - stop adding services as there's no room, run them to a different station (Sheffield - Kings Cross?) or run across the connection in question into the Barlow trainshed

Looking at RTT I cannot agree. In a standard off peak hour there are 5 departures in total from platforms 1-4 and the throat is very flexible with maximum parallelism for a 'flat' layout. Even if that figure doubled in the peaks it would be entirely reasonable to accommodate in four platforms. With electrification and the advent of HS2 in future it's likely that MML trains will take on an increasingly outer suburban/regional express character rather than long distance intercity, so will not need excessively extended turn-rounds for catering restocking etc.

By contrast there are typically only up to 3 departures an hour from the international platforms. I think it's much more accurate to say that figure is absurdly low. By now in the capital city of the worlds 5th largest economy it might have been expected that St Pancras should have been the nexus of a comprehensive network of international day routes stretching right across northern Europe, and in the late evening perhaps a range of longer distance high speed overnight services to the Mediterranean and eastern Europe, lined up waiting for departure!

 

[Phil.]

The problem with getting international trains in and out of platforms 5-10 is the constrictive throat. Only two movements are possible at the same time. There is also the problem that an inbound passenger carrying train cannot arrive on the same island as an outbound train which is boarding due to customs, security and immigration reasons. MML trains with on-board cleaners - or at least rubbish picker-uppers - can be turned around in ten minutes. It's simply not possible to do that with a 373/374. Security search, catering, cleaning plus international passengers tend to take longer to disembark than domestic ones. Then if customs decide to do a full search......

 

[QueensCurve]

Maybe the little bit of track that sees no use can be something the BLS can get done?

Bern Lötschberg Simplon?

 

[MarkyT]

The problem with getting international trains in and out of platforms 5-10 is the constrictive throat. Only two movements are possible at the same time.

Seeing as the throat feeds into a double track railway towards Stratford I would hope no more than two movements are possible at the same time, one in and one out! The problem perhaps is that with only limited parallelism only certain combinations of movements are possible which could in some cases delay incoming movements until an outgoing has not only dispatched (for security on the opposite face of an island) but has fully passed clear of the throat. It's not bad however and quite clever with the grade separation on approach. A few extra point connections could make the layout a lot better with almost any combination of arrival and departure movements possible from any pair of platfroms, but that could affect the simplicity and reliability of the layout so it's swings and roundabouts.

There is also the problem that an inbound passenger carrying train cannot arrive on the same island as an outbound train which is boarding due to customs, security and immigration reasons.

This is a side effect of doing inbound UK immigration checks on the continent, and not (usually) at St Pancras like at UK international airports. With no checks being carried out for arrivals there's a small risk that an outgoing person wishing to evade security and illegally leave the UK could go backwards against the exiting flow and end up on a platform, hence requiring that no departure loading takes place adjacent to an arrival. If there was a proper permanent airside at St Pancras as at airports instead of the temporary transitory setup on the specific island as applied now for each departure, there would be no problem mixing arriving and departing passengers and this restriction could disappear. After all what's the worst that could happen? An illegal entrant who had somehow evaded pre-screening at continental embarkation could get cold feet and go back out of the UK on the next train!

MML trains with on-board cleaners - or at least rubbish picker-uppers - can be turned around in ten minutes. It's simply not possible to do that with a 373/374. Security search, catering, cleaning plus international passengers tend to take longer to disembark than domestic ones . . .

The sheer length of the international trains also adds to boarding time. It can easily take over 5 minutes to walk the full length of a Eurostar if you seat happens to be at the far end.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Bern Lötschberg Simplon?

Branch Line Society

 

[EM2]

Looking at RTT I cannot agree. In a standard off peak hour there are 5 departures in total from platforms 1-4 and the throat is very flexible with maximum parallelism for a 'flat' layout. Even if that figure doubled in the peaks it would be entirely reasonable to accommodate in four platforms.

Indeed. It is not unknown for a full EMT Saturday timetable (pretty much the same as the weekday timetable) and 4tph GTR services to run from platforms 1-4 without any real issues.

 

[mr_jrt]

Build out over Midland Road. Job done

 

[MarkyT]

Build out over Midland Road. Job done

Agreed, a pair of the MML tracks and their platform in the existing station takes up about 16m. An extra pair of similar dimensions might fit without getting too close to the housing on the west side of the road and the new Francis Crick Institute building, although how to arrange the support columns without blocking the road beneath would be a considerable challenge. I don't think any extra capacity is really needed though, either now or in any foreseeable future.

 

[louis97]

Indeed. It is not unknown for a full EMT Saturday timetable (pretty much the same as the weekday timetable) and 4tph GTR services to run from platforms 1-4 without any real issues.

Not so before the 125mph timetable, but could present an issue now. EMT now have two trains sharing a platform every hour to avoid holding stuff outside the station. I can only imagine that 4tph GTR would result in trains being held outside the station, and if the turnaround times are close to the minimum allowed, that could present a problem.

 

[jopsuk]

Agreed, a pair of the MML tracks and their platform in the existing station takes up about 16m. An extra pair of similar dimensions might fit without getting too close to the housing on the west side of the road and the new Francis Crick Institute building, although how to arrange the support columns without blocking the road beneath would be a considerable challenge. I don't think any extra capacity is really needed though, either now or in any foreseeable future.

There's not 16m available

 

[edwin_m]

Not so before the 125mph timetable, but could present an issue now. EMT now have two trains sharing a platform every hour to avoid holding stuff outside the station. I can only imagine that 4tph GTR would result in trains being held outside the station, and if the turnaround times are close to the minimum allowed, that could present a problem.

However the Nottingham fasts each have just over an hour of turnaround time because these are the only off-peak HST workings. A uniform fleet would allow these to interwork with other routes, or if there was a big problem with occupancy at St Pancras then EMT could change the timetable to transfer some of the layover to Nottingham.

Thameslink normally terminate in the low level station when there is a blockage further south, and I believe turnback facilities were put in at Kentish Town early in the St Pancas rebuilding to avoid having to reverse Thameslink at St Pancras after some platforms were removed.

 

[MarkyT]

There's not 16m available

Fair point but that building is not housing. it is a row of small businesses in a single storey structure in the St Pancras brick gothic style that might be removed or altered. The nearest housing is set back further from the road behind this.

 

[jopsuk]

Fair point but that building is not housing. it is a row of small businesses in a single storey structure in the St Pancras brick gothic style that might be removed or altered. The nearest housing is set back further from the road behind this.

It's a Grade II listed building

 

[edwin_m]

It is probably the only surviving fragment of the Midland's goods depot that used to occupy the site of the Crick Institute and the British Library.

 

[MarkyT]

It is probably the only surviving fragment of the Midland's goods depot that used to occupy the site of the Crick Institute and the British Library.

Yes that makes sense. It could probably be partly removed or altered at it's southern extremity in the event that the MML part of the station HAD to expand over Midland Road. I don't think there's any remote chance of that being required though, but if it was an important enough project the heritage concerns for this attractive and intersting but relaively minor range of buildings might be overuled due to an assessment of greater public good of the scheme overall (Ordsall chord comes to mind!). Even if the majority of that building remained physically unaltered, views of it would be terribly marred by a new raft over the adjacent road and it'd be a pretty horrible environment for pedestrians under there. Personally I don think it's neccessary or desirable to extend the width of the MML station so I don't support it at all, but if it became absolutely essential to do so, the work might just be possible. Finding a solution for support structures whilst retaining the road beneath would be a bigger problem I think.

 

[edwin_m]

Personally I don think it's neccessary or desirable to extend the width of the MML station so I don't support it at all, but if it became absolutely essential to do so, the work might just be possible. Finding a solution for support structures whilst retaining the road beneath would be a bigger problem I think.

I agree it's hypothetical, but the solution might be to close it to traffic and incorporate it into the St Pancras "shopping experience"...

 

[Phil.]

Seeing as the throat feeds into a double track railway towards Stratford I would hope no more than two movements are possible at the same time, one in and one out! The problem perhaps is that with only limited parallelism only certain combinations of movements are possible which could in some cases delay incoming movements until an outgoing has not only dispatched (for security on the opposite face of an island) but has fully passed clear of the throat. It's not bad however and quite clever with the grade separation on approach. A few extra point connections could make the layout a lot better with almost any combination of arrival and departure movements possible from any pair of platfroms, but that could affect the simplicity and reliability of the layout so it's swings and roundabouts.



This is a side effect of doing inbound UK immigration checks on the continent, and not (usually) at St Pancras like at UK international airports. With no checks being carried out for arrivals there's a small risk that an outgoing person wishing to evade security and illegally leave the UK could go backwards against the exiting flow and end up on a platform, hence requiring that no departure loading takes place adjacent to an arrival. If there was a proper permanent airside at St Pancras as at airports instead of the temporary transitory setup on the specific island as applied now for each departure, there would be no problem mixing arriving and departing passengers and this restriction could disappear. After all what's the worst that could happen? An illegal entrant who had somehow evaded pre-screening at continental embarkation could get cold feet and go back out of the UK on the next train!



The sheer length of the international trains also adds to boarding time. It can easily take over 5 minutes to walk the full length of a Eurostar if you seat happens to be at the far end.

And what you've highlighted there is the impracticalness of St. Pancras over Waterloo. At Waterloo it was possible to have two trains arriving or departing at the same time. At Waterloo if a train was required to be shunted from one platform to another - was certainly done if a train failed whilst passengers were boarding and the only replacement was on another island - then it was a simple job to take it out and back. No such move is practically possible at St. Pancras. Although it has one less platform Waterloo was a much easier station to plan train movements with. Disembarkation was quicker at Waterloo as there were three egress points adjacent to coaches 12,8 and 4. St. Pancras passengers have to walk all the way to a point adjacent to coach 1.
In effect there is an airside - it's the departure lounge and beyond. Just like an airport departing passengers pass through check-in and enter the departure lounge to wait for their train to be made available. The last time that I travelled - circa July last year - French border police were checking passports as were U.K. border people were at Lille when I returned. Arriving passengers come off the train and enter the arrivals hall before making an exit into St. Pancras shopping area. The original Eurostar plan was that all passport checks would be carried out whilst in transit on the train. It certainly was in the first eighteen months or so but there was some sort of to-ing and fro-ing between agencies and Eurostar/government which brought it to a halt.

 

[Clip]

I agree it's hypothetical, but the solution might be to close it to traffic and incorporate it into the St Pancras "shopping experience"...

Camden want to transform Midland road into some sort of cycle/taxi/bus street so couldn't factor in any more shops I think

 

[CyrusWuff]

The future layout of St Pancras, with the four platforms for services using the Midland Main Line, was fixed back in British Rail days, when the service (if memory serves) was 1tph to Sheffield and 1tph to Nottingham.

Then National Express came along, and ordered Turbostars as a stopgap to introduce the additional Nottingham (Semi-Fast) and Derby (Semi-Fast) services each hour.

If memory serves, at one point there was a proposal that it should be possible to use Platform 5 to "quarantine" trains from either the MML or HS1 in the event of a problem, with access available from both sides, though that (obviously) wasn't carried through in the final design.

Alternatively, it may have been Regional Eurostar related, and you'd detrain passengers on the Domestic side, send them all through Security and Passport Control, and reboard on the International side, to save having to implement check-in and whatnot at intermediate stations.

 

[EM2]

I agree it's hypothetical, but the solution might be to close it to traffic and incorporate it into the St Pancras "shopping experience"...

And where would the southbound traffic go?

 

[edwin_m]

And where would the southbound traffic go?

That question should be directed at the actual proposal reported by Clip, not my hypothetical one!