Stevenage platform 5

[Strat-tastic]

Why can't 91s go via Cambridge?

 

[swt_passenger]

Diversionary routes aside, if it's true that Platform 5 is being planned for commissioning this August Bank Holiday, isn't that ahead of schedule? (albeit a consistently delayed and, from a layman's perpsective, conservative schedule). That means Watton-at-Stone - Hertford travellers may not have to put up with the bus service for very long. I'm surprised that this info hasn't been jumped on by stakeholders.

Perhaps commissioning the track and signalling changes doesn’t guarantee the platform will be open in the same timescales?

 

[jopsuk]

Why can't 91s go via Cambridge?

Some may mention power supply issues along the Shepreth branch and north of Chesterton, but the real kicker is a serious power supply problem between Ely and Peterborough

 

[Fred26]

Will drivers have to be trained to use the new track/platform?

 

[OxtedL]

Looks like the August Bank Holiday possession will be massive
Possession register here http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse documents/Rules Of The Route/Viewable copy/EASyearXX/70lneXX.pdf
Currently listed on pages 263 to 265

No trains at all south of Peterborough, so no GTR ECML service at all.

Trains arriving into Peterborough from the north will be 3 every 2 hours travelling via GN/GE due to Newark Flat Crossing renewal. This by itself will take all of the diesel fleet and rules out extending anything to Cambridge.
No Hull Trains/Grand Central south of York.

Edit: As already mentioned here, apologies:

Looks like NR are planning for it to be commissioned at August Bank Holiday Saturday and Sunday. No trains south of Peterborough or west of Shepreth Branch Jn to Kings Cross throughout on all routes.

Page 264 of the following link makes mention of Stevenage Turnback commissioning
http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse documents/Rules Of The Route/Viewable copy/EASyearXX/70lneXX.pdf

 

[Class315]

Will drivers have to be trained to use the new track/platform?

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a track access 'route learning video', they we have to watch and some paperwork to sign. I know when Cambridge North opened the outer driver depots had a computer imaged video to utilise.

 

[Fred26]

Shouldn't take too long then.

 

[A0wen]

Why can't 91s go via Cambridge?

Because once you get to Cambridge there isn't a wired route back to the ECML.

The wires go through Ely and onto Kings Lynn. Ely to Peterboro isn't electrified. So there would need to be a diesel 'drag' for that section.

 

[Aictos]

But the footbridge does present an immovable obstruction

However footbridges can always be replaced, it's costly but it can be done.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

However footbridges can always be replaced, it's costly but it can be done.

Of course! But someone has to pay for it

 

[Strat-tastic]

Some may mention power supply issues along the Shepreth branch and north of Chesterton, but the real kicker is a serious power supply problem between Ely and Peterborough

Thanks.

Because once you get to Cambridge there isn't a wired route back to the ECML.

The wires go through Ely and onto Kings Lynn. Ely to Peterboro isn't electrified. So there would need to be a diesel 'drag' for that section.

Bit of a show stopper that really, isn't it. Thanks.

 

[Aictos]

Of course! But someone has to pay for it

Which is why I said it can be done but it would be costly

I will be surprised though if the new platform opens this summer as I guess it will have a lift installed which will take time.

Still once Platform 5 opens at Stevenage, all they have to do is swap the Welwyn stoppers which don't call at Hornsey or Harringay with the Stevenage via Hertfords and you've got services pretty much insulated from Finsbury Park all the way to Stevenage which can only be a good thing.

These Welwyn stoppers can then serve Hornsey and Harringay again so passengers from these stations don't have a cut in trains.

You could even timetable the service so you get cross platform interchange at Finsbury Park or Alexandra Palace!

 

[Julia]

Looks like the August Bank Holiday possession will be massive
Possession register here http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse documents/Rules Of The Route/Viewable copy/EASyearXX/70lneXX.pdf
Currently listed on pages 263 to 265

Page 263 also says "Kings Cross Remodel" - is this for opening up one line through the eastern Gasworks tunnel?

 

[swt_passenger]

Page 263 also says "Kings Cross Remodel" - is this for opening up one line through the eastern Gasworks tunnel?

Its been said that major work in the Kings Cross area is postponed. However IIRC the publicly available version of the Engineering Access Statement (EAS) is only something of a long term heads up, and doesn’t get regularly updated.

The detailed info goes in something called the Confirmed Period? Possessions Plan, (CPPP) but this isn’t made public. You’ll see all the pages of the EAS up until about April are over stamped with these initials.

 

[cle]

It is crazy that there is an additional tunnel bore and trackbed(s) extending up to practically Finsbury Park which could be used. What benefits or additional capacity might this unlock - given that it suits the lowest numbered platforms at Kings Cross most?

 

[Brissle Girl]

That will take us rather off topic and I suspect there is already a thread on the subject.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is crazy that there is an additional tunnel bore and trackbed(s) extending up to practically Finsbury Park which could be used. What benefits or additional capacity might this unlock - given that it suits the lowest numbered platforms at Kings Cross most?

There’s an existing discussion here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-march-2020-infrastructure-discussion.158859/

 

[jyte]

Try this existing discussion please: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/kings-cross-throat-remodelling.158750/

There's a different thread on the same topic that is much more used than just two posts...I'll try and dig it up.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a different thread on the same topic that is much more used than just two posts...I'll try and dig it up.

Yes my mistake, should be this one from last year:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-march-2020-infrastructure-discussion.158859/
Not sure how I picked up the wrong thread initially.

 

[adamedwards]

Picking up the lift comment earlier, surely best to get the platform open asap even without the lift as there is potential flat access to the car park? Interchanging disabled passenger s could then be taxied round to the existing lift temporarily. That way the bus link to Watton is removed asap.

 

[malc-c]

Picking up the lift comment earlier, surely best to get the platform open asap even without the lift as there is potential flat access to the car park? Interchanging disabled passenger s could then be taxied round to the existing lift temporarily. That way the bus link to Watton is removed asap.

I'm wondering if they may incorporate the existing ramp from the leisure park that zig-zags up to the ticket office within the design for the 5th platform

 

[Hadders]

Picking up the lift comment earlier, surely best to get the platform open asap even without the lift as there is potential flat access to the car park? Interchanging disabled passenger s could then be taxied round to the existing lift temporarily. That way the bus link to Watton is removed asap.

Agreed. Do we know for definate that there's a lift planned. The platform is sufficiently far enough away from the concourse that a ramp might be feasible. Bear in mind there'a already a ramp from the station concourse to the Leisure Centre car park.

 

[Hadders]

I'm wondering if they may incorporate the existing ramp from the leisure park that zig-zags up to the ticket office within the design for the 5th platform

You beat me to it but this would make sense.

 

[jon0844]

Ideally, you'd create a new side entrance to the platform with level access and also build a lift, so you would allow people to get into the station without using the long ramp first. The side entrance would of course need a gateline, perhaps with remote monitoring?

 

[Skimble19]

Agreed. Do we know for definate that there's a lift planned. The platform is sufficiently far enough away from the concourse that a ramp might be feasible. Bear in mind there'a already a ramp from the station concourse to the Leisure Centre car park.

There is definitely a lift and a gateline planned for Platform 5, there will be no car park entrance or use of the existing ramp as it's not railway property.

 

[Aictos]

There is definitely a lift and a gateline planned for Platform 5, there will be no car park entrance or use of the existing ramp as it's not railway property.

Granted but does the design mean two lifts and footbridge to link Platforms 4 and 5 that is separate from the existing concourse/footbridge or is it more likely that the design allows for a extension of the former?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Are we sure the platform is to be commissioned in August? Is that official?

 

[OFFDN]

Its been said that major work in the Kings Cross area is postponed. However IIRC the publicly available version of the Engineering Access Statement (EAS) is only something of a long term heads up, and doesn’t get regularly updated.

The detailed info goes in something called the Confirmed Period? Possessions Plan, (CPPP) but this isn’t made public. You’ll see all the pages of the EAS up until about April are over stamped with these initials.

The King’s Cross work itself is postponed for a year but the possession proposed mentioned up thread for the August Bank Holiday weekend is going ahead.

It will be a 48 hour block of Huntingdon/Shepreth Branch Jn to King’s Cross (Saturday morning to Monday morning), the purpose of which is to resignal the ECML to York ROC. There are a couple of other minor schemes being undertaken at the same time, including some work on Stevenage platform 5 and some work in Gas Works Tunnels, but primarily it’s resignalling.

I’m led to believe that there was a big meeting scheduled for it this week between all the TOCs and FOCs, actually.

 

[cle]

How much of the Stevenage P5 works would require a closure? Given that most trains call at P4 (or could slow if not) - and the work access is on the P5 side, I can't see why it couldn't crack on with the operational railway...

 

[Aictos]

How much of the Stevenage P5 works would require a closure? Given that most trains call at P4 (or could slow if not) - and the work access is on the P5 side, I can't see why it couldn't crack on with the operational railway...

I'm open to being corrected but I agree because they should be able to crack on with building the new Platform 5 with the only closure being when it's actually being connected with track to the existing Down Hertford and also when the platform starter (signal at end of the platform) is linked in with the rest of the signalling in that area.

After all, they did manage to construct what is now Platform 3 at Peterborough while the Up Fast which is next to it was seeing services daily plus they managed to construct what is now Platforms 6 and 7 on the old Flyash line at Peterborough station without it affecting Platforms 4 and 5 there either so yes I believe they CAN get away without having to have a closure until the project is more or less completed with track and signalling done.