Underway since 2007, the project aims to give the station a major overhaul. Ultimately, the goal is to eliminate the current green canopy on the southern side of the station (a "temporary" structure built in the early seventies for which planning permission has now lapsed), uncovering Lewis Cubitt's original station frontage for the first time in many, many years.
Passenger traffic and booking services are to be relocated to a major new semi-circular concourse on the western side of the station facing onto St Pancras. The location of this can be seen in the photo below, taken from the air during the early stages of construction.
As can be seen, the new concourse abuts the existing station's Western Range, through which passengers will walk to access the main shed. Passengers will also be able to access the suburban lines through the north side of the new concourse.
Until recently, the Western Range contained many of the station's back room functions - from TOC and Network Rail staff areas to storerooms. This has all been relocated to the newly refurbished Eastern Range in order to allow the new work to take place. Interestingly the Eastern Range has always been known within the industry as the "Anthrax Building" due to the rumoured presence of large amounts of horse-hair within the plaster work.
"In the end," Project Director Ian Fry confirmed, however, "I think we found pretty much every form of contamination and disease except Anthrax during the restoration."
With relocation to the Eastern Range completed in 2009, work has since focused on refurbishing the main shed roof and platforms, constructing the new platform 0, putting the new footbridge in place (the last stage of which is due to be moved into place over the August bank holiday weekend) and completing the work on the western side of the station. All this is due to be completed by Spring 2012, with the dismantling of the green southern covering and the construction of the new open space at the front of the station then taking place after the Olympics.
Work on the west side of the station is now reasonably advanced, and thus it seems a good time to take a brief tour through what is currently in place there. The photos below are thus intended to give an idea as to the current state of work on both the new concourse and the Western Range, as well as an idea as to future layout. Many of the images are our own, but Network Rail have been kind enough to provide several shots to "fill the gaps" where necessary - either due to our failures as photographers, or (in one case) the shocking lack of a helicopter here at LR towers in order to gain a suitable aerial shot.
Before looking at the new concourse in more detail, it is worth looking at a couple of mock ups of how it is intended to ultimately look.
As can be seen, the plan is for a wide, open, covered concourse with a central skylight and additional glazed sections around the edges of the roof. The Western Range will contain the new gate line, as well as a new station pub and toilet facilities. Most impressively, the station renovation brings back into being the original double-height 1852 "pay office" which was decommissioned and turned into a plant room in the 1970s, but which will now once again be the primary booking hall for the station.
The finished roof is an impressive structure, as the image above shows. As can also be seen, the new concourse follows the curve of the Great Northern Hotel that sits alongside the station. The ground floor of the Great Northern has effectively been removed in order to provide open, easy access to the new concourse.
Behind the hoardings, Kings Cross is obviously still a fully functional station. Indeed the new concourse sits directly above the new Northern Ticket Hall, the construction of which included various preparation works for this project.
The Concourse
Inside, the sweep and scale of the new roof is really brought home. It's a completely free-standing structure, as the large central pillar suggests. Eagle eyes may already have noticed that the project has also included another piece of construction - the permanent closure of the "Bomb Gap." This is more visible in the photo below on the left.
The Boom Gap was the short length of replacement structure built after the Luftwaffe bombed the station in 1941, which broke three of the ribs on the western side of the station. Temporary and semi-permanent structures had inhabited the space ever since, and these have now been replaced with a permanent structure through which the platforms can be accessed, and which will contain the East Coast First Class Lounge on its 1st floor.
An escalator sits within the centre of the concourse itself, intended to operate on a tidal flow system to help with passenger flows.
Opposite the Western Range, but still within the concourse, is a mezzanine, intended for retail occupation. This sweeps round to the left, over the suburban platform access and through the Western Range into the main train shed where it links up with the new footbridge.
Just through the glass can be glimpsed the restored signage of the old parcel depot, within which will sit the new station pub.
The Gate Line
The new primary gate line is located within the space previously occupied by the old women's toilets and retail space. This will provide the primary route for most passengers into the Main Shed.
The Booking Hall
The experts amongst our readers may well remember that railway managers installed, at one time, a curious feature in the (similarly impressive) space directly above this booking hall - a full badminton court. We hereby confirm, with a certain amount of sadness (and tongues slightly in cheek), that this is not one of the elements of heritage Network Rail have restored or preserved.
At various points within the Western Range, however, can be found small elements of preservation - such as the iron banisters pictured below. These will no doubt add to the atmosphere for the Range's new inhabitants and visitors.
In The Pub
Within the old parcel office can be found the space that will be occupied by the new station pub. This is a surprisingly large space, which contains some of the last remaining original timbers within the station. Indeed various timber features have been preserved here.
At its centre sits a light well, which is in the process of being restored and cleaned out, as can be seen from the photos below.
Through the windows of the parcel office's first floor can also be seen the suburban platforms.
Finally, at the back (and indeed throughout the Western Range) can be found a number of offices - the legacy of the Range's most recent occupation. These can currently be found along the full length of the structure in various stages of restoration and demolition.
Below is the old FCC Driver's Mess - now home to various bits of salvaged heritage material awaiting renovation and repurposing.
Overall, therefore, and as can hopefully be seen from all the pictures above, work at Kings Cross appears to be progressing rather nicely. The new concourse certainly already leaves an impression, and looks like it'll be an interesting addition to one of Europe's busiest interchange points. With it all due to open next spring, work will likely continue to proceed at a rapid pace, and we will endeavour to bring you an updated set of photos in the coming months.
No photos of the barrell roof refurbishment? And I can't say from an aesthetic point of view that I'm a fan of bolting a giant glass eggshell onto a Victorian station.
ReplyDeleteLooks fantastic to me, the whole point of the structure was to blend a large glass roof with a brick structure so this is a natural evolution - fits the GN Hotel perfectly. There was a program about this on BBC2, where they suggested the once hidden atrium/light well was to be re-sealed - good to see thats no longer the case.
ReplyDeleteLooks quite pretty to me, but it seems to me that being on the side rather than the front of the station makes it completely impractical.
ReplyDeleteThis means that all passengers for platforms 0-8 will have to pass just in front of platform 8, making that area very busy. This will be particularly bad for those that arrive at the concourse and see that their train's just about to leave from platform 0! They'll have to fight their way through eight crowded platform mouths to get there.
Admittedly I only use King's Cross for the relatively short-distance Cambridge train, so perhaps I'm more likely to turn up late. But do do long-distance passengers really always turn up with oodles of time to spare?
@Anon2:37 - AIUI the main route to the platforms will be via the footbridge, so no need to squeeze past the platform mouths.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that Network Rail's favourite word was only mentioned once in your piece.
ReplyDeleteThe word? 'Retail'.
I never realized that the station used to have toilets specifically for old women. Was this the only station that had such a facility?
ReplyDeleteI'll get my coat...
If you've not actually been to Kings Cross St.Pancras recently it can be hard to grasp the "masterplan" element. The key point not mentioned in the piece is that the semi-circular Kings Cross building is perhaps 30m from the *side* entrance to St.Pancras, which provides direct access to the Kent trains, Thameslink and East Midlands. The "masterplan" is that the centre of gravity of the entire station area has moved north at least 100m from the Euston Road to this new axis between the Kent platforms, the new Kings Cross concourse and the new tube ticket hall beneath. I believe the basic masterplan will work well. My main concern is that the Kings Cross footbridge may not be wide enough.
ReplyDeleteI have always seen Kings Cross as the prefered station for Roundheads whilst Cavaliers would travel by choice from Saint Pancras. I think that the imaginative use of the intervening space between the two stations will be a real game changer for what was a highly undesirable area.If you want to see what it used to look like can I recommend the 1955 Ealing comedy "The Lady Killers" starring Alec Guinness
ReplyDeleteThe architecture is stunning, & I must disagree with the first anonymous. Modern structures in the correct "spirit" enhance the old, and make a coherent new whole.
ReplyDeleteThink Tate Bankside!
Looking at the whole thing though, there are, inevitably, things that have gorne worng ...
Specifically two errors of commission and one of omission.
1] The central footbridge inside the main train-shed has already gone. I think this was a mistake, but it's too late to do anything about it now.
Unless a new cross-bridge is built in it's place ....
2] The ticket line/gate barrier.
Grrrrr.
This is a long-distance main line station. We've already had this discussion, and I believe the main fault lies with DafT.
But, Sheffield and York have seen these stupid nannies off - why should we put up with this rubbish?
3] I'm not sure if there would have been room, but....
I understand that an extra platform is being put in (has been put in?) to the "suburban" W-side, BUT:
Could those platforms have been extended to 12-car lengths, or wasn't there space?
It would certainly have been a tight fit, and would have had to intrude some way into/under the "umbrella" but one wonders.
And, of course, SORT THE PLATFORM NUMBERING.
This seems to be a "new" game that NR are playing - we've already mentioned Stratford.
Is there anywhere else that this sort of sillyness is being perpetrated?
There should not be platforms "10a" & "10b", anywhere.
Any station should have a simple, whole-number, logical integral sequence, form ONE up to "N".
Perhaps this should be a separate discussion.
Going back to the original subject, I've always loved King's Cross, and overall (pun intended) I think the new works are a great improvement.
Takes me back to the first time I remember going there, the centenary of the station.
They had a display of locomotives, and my father took me ...
Old No 1, 990, 251, 60103, 60022 and a new A-1. The latter two in BR blue, of course.
I'm looking forward to seeing 60163 in it's proper livery, some time next year, or 2013 .....
Fascinating article, thanks. I particularly like how the arcs of the hotel and concourse fit together.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know why the hotel is curved to begin with? No one I spoke to seemed to know.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the roof, unfortunately I couldn't get access, hence the lack of photos. Apparently the refurbishment there has gone well though - the ironwork is in good condition and much of the old timber at lower level is as well, meaning they're actually leaving that in place rather than replacing it in many places.
In terms of the passenger flow/platform 8 issue, I did raise this.
It's basically a "known bug" - i.e. they ultimately couldn't work out a layout that WOULDN'T cause issues in some way, and this was the best compromise.
They're planning on increasing the space beyond the barriers to try and minimise the issue and, as Solar Penguin says, they're hoping a significant amount of traffic will go via the footbridge anyway. I'm not convinced it will, but ultimately I'm not a PED modeller so what do I know.
With regards to platform numbering, that's another "known bug" - on the list of things to sort out (and will be eventually), but there are bigger things to worry about right now.
The new concourse really is an amazing structure seen up close, and does blend suprisingly well with the restored/clean Western Range.
Greg: "There should not be platforms "10a" & "10b", anywhere."
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I'd agree. But I'd have to point out that it is the most logical way of numbering platforms at Birmingham New Street, where two trains may occupy the same platform face at the same time, heading in opposite directions.
Not that that's how the station wants to be designed in an ideal world, though.
Thanks for this characteristically excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI can't help wondering why they didn't glaze the whole thing, as is usually the case these days. Even on a bright day, as in the photos, it looks very dark indeed and will almost certainly need artificial lighting.
It seems to make no sense at all.
Platform numbering is a subject I could rant over for ages. Does it have to be numerical ? Why start at ONE? Computer programmers and IBM are much happier counting from zero. When you are born you are zero years old in western civilisation but you have already reached the age of one if you are Chinese. Surely all that matters is that it is a logical ascending sequence of something ? It needs to be enumerable but doesn't have to be numerical.
ReplyDeleteMore relevant, and I am surprised Greg hasn't picked up on this one, is that platforms normally go from left to right in the London direction and at London termini go from left to right when facing the country direction. So the platform numbering at Kings Cross and Marylebone is the wrong way round.
Greg - the old footbridge only served platforms 1 and 8, its replacement will serve all the platforms in the main train shed.
ReplyDeleteAs for platform numbering, I understand the problem is that renumbering the platforms means revision of the signalling system, and it's simpler, and less error-prone, to make the minimum changes possible to the numbering unless complete resignalling is taking place. (That said, I have heard of people missing trains because they thought a departure board reading "Platform : 0" meant their train had not yet been allocated a platform).
10a /10b is two halves of the same platform, used to identify which of two short trains in that platform is which.
John Bull
The Hotel is curved because it follows the line of the tunnel leading from the Widened Lines into the old platform 16 - now presumably severed by the new Northern Ticket Hall.
The new concourse brings closer integration of the whole complex - it is surely only a matter of time before the MMR/SER/HS1/Thameslink section becomes the North Terminal, Kings Cross the East Terminal, Eurostar the International Terminal, and Euston (with HS2) the West Terminal.
And yes, I am disappointed there will be a gateline - completely inappropriate for a long distance service
I can't help wondering why they didn't glaze the whole thing, as is usually the case these days. Even on a bright day, as in the photos, it looks very dark indeed and will almost certainly need artificial lighting.
ReplyDeleteTemperature control.
Basically its designed to be as close to "carbon neutral" (as the popular phrase goes) as possible.
Glazing it all would have turned it into a giant greenhouse that needed cooling. Instead, they've gone for a balance between enough glazing (the edges, the skylight) to provide sufficient light (augmented by uplifters where necessary), but not enough to cause temperature issues.
That's the theory anyway. It was actually brighter than the photos make it seem inside. It was also gloriously glare-free, which was nice.
@timbeau ah, but why does the hotel follow the shape of the Widened Lines - was it built at the same time/On acquired land?
Pedantic:
ReplyDeleteEuston is also numbered from right to left. All three stations were originally built with room for expansion on the "departure" (left or west) side, which may explain why the numbers start on the right hand side.
As both a regular long distance (for work) user of Kings Cross (a regular on the 0700 going North) and an engineer (also know some of the project engineers) I have severe doubts about:
ReplyDeleteA) the capacity of the over bridge B) the extra walking distance (and time) to platforms given how most people actually arrive (or leave)
C) Network rails understanding of passengers or their journeys (have they bothered to look at oyster data?)
D the over provision of retail space at the expense of passenger (in common with BAA)
Leading to people avoiding the over-bridge and large passenger flow problems by the arches at the front (around the existing 0-5 gate line). They have attempted to solve the cross flow issue around the gateline but not sufficiently well enough that people won't use their solution.
It would be an interesting test to leave the green monstrosity there for a while to see how many people would still use it because it is a better solution for them!
A) capacity take an early morning example I know well 4 trains departing in 8 minutes 0700-0708 (1 FCC, 3 East Coast - with the most expensive fares of the day i.e. high demand full trains) assuming the FCC train departs from 9-11 it still means that you have 3 long distance which depart from 0-5 (at the moment) with capacity for 550 + each, with a number of the passengers having heavy bags, so a total of 1650 passengers along the overbridge and down escalators (pointing north) half way along the trains. The walkway could just about squeeze 3 people wide. With the exception of P4/5 the lifts, the rest will open directly on to the overbridge so any queue (think bags, pushchairs, wheelchairs) for the lifts will block the overbridge or down escalators. Passengers in rear part of the train (think first class) will have to do a U-turn at the bottom of the escalators.
B&C) If you arrive off the Victoria, Picadilly, Sub-Surface lines or buses you will have a longer walk to the new concourse (the majority of people?), a better interchange for Northern line or St Pancras though. For the long distance passengers then a longer walk across the new concourse to the ticket office then across the concourse again to go upstairs again past retail along a narrow crowded overbridge. Not good thinking as it means passengers need to arrive earlier to catch the train but NR only announce the platform number 15 mins before hand even if the train has been there for several hours leading to a bigger rush.
However unlike Greg I'm actually quite keen on the gatelines (provided there are plenty of them...) as it it quicker than manual ticket check at the end of the platform and has eliminated the need to do on board checks on some East Coast services less disruption while work.
D) The whole scheme smells of NR's obsession with the needed for more retail space above all else
E) picking up on Greg's last point it will prevent lengthening of p9-11
stephenc said...
ReplyDelete"My main concern is that the Kings Cross footbridge may not be wide enough." 10 August 2011 08:17
Me too. When I get off in Kings Cross after returning from the north, I'm expecting that the new footbridge will allow me to reach my Southeastern train at St. Pancras by a shorter route.
@ John Bull
ReplyDeleteJohn, I sent you an email or two...
Anon @ 13:03
ReplyDelete"Me too. When I get off in Kings Cross after returning from the north, I'm expecting that the new footbridge will allow me to reach my Southeastern train at St. Pancras by a shorter route."
I suspect you will be waiting a very long time for that to happen as the footbridge is very obviously designed for one way circulation i.e. from the concourse to the trains not for those getting off the trains.
So only 1 escalator down (or up) to the LU Northern Ticket hall? The pit doesn't look sufficiently wide for 2 or the beasts!
ReplyDeleteA few comments have come up about the size/use of the new footbridge.
ReplyDeleteIt is a one way route, intended only for access TO the platforms FROM the mezzanine catering area.
The main access to platforms 0-8 is through the south end of the western range, where there will be a large circulating space because platforms 5-8 have been shortened by about 15m.
All egress from the main platforms will be through the original front of the station - and AIUI arrivals wanting to use the retail facilities will effectively have to re-enter the station using the entrance by the Great Northern Hotel.
The newish stairs down to the Underground (towards the long north/south interchange passageway) will be outside the front of the station, but undercover.
@timbeau "The Hotel is curved because it follows the line of the tunnel leading from the Widened Lines into the old platform 16 - now presumably severed by the new Northern Ticket Hall."
ReplyDelete@John Bull "ah, but why does the hotel follow the shape of the Widened Lines - was it built at the same time/On acquired land?"
The Great Northern Hotel doesn't follow the alignment of the Hotel Curve tunnel, it actually follows the original alignment of St Pancras Road (Plate 5, King's Cross to Potters Bar, Middleton Press 2009). The Great Northern Hotel opened in 1854, some 9 years before the Hotel Curve linking the Great Northern to the Metropolitain Railway opened in 1863.
The Hotel Curve isn't part of the widened lines, it was built before them, when the Metropolitain Railway opened, to connect the Great Northern to the Met. When the widened lines were opened in 1868 the Hotel Curve was shortened to join these as they lie to the north of the original Met lines.
I'd add to the above that the radius of the GN Hotel is also a very good match for the route of the Fleet Sewer, which runs just below St Pancras Rd, and sweeps round towards the junction of York Way and Pentonville Rd.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1516
ReplyDeleteThat escalator is only one of many, and I think it exists mainly to route passengers between the suburban platforms and the long north/south passageway down to the tube and western ticket halls. There are a number of other escalator banks on the other side of the western ticket hall.
Once it is fully opened I suspect some of the elaborate routes from the deep tube lines will suddenly become far more user friendly...
The 1970s front is staying until after the Olympics, isn't it? I asked them about two years ago, and that is what they said. Or have they managed to speed things up?
ReplyDeleteThe Great Northern Hotel was opened in 1854, two years after King’s Cross Station, and owes its curve to the then direction of Old St Pancras Road which followed the east bank of the River Fleet.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of gate-lines, anybody know how that works if you want to be travelling on Grand Central or Hull Trains WHERE YOU DON'T NEED A TICKET BEFOREHAND!!!
ReplyDeleteSurely if you can walk through just by saying that, you can still get on any other train, rendering the whole system pointless?
I'm a bit disappointed to be honest. I think they should have glazed the whole thing, similar to the glazed roof of the British Museum, which is stunning.
ReplyDeleteInstead this looks a bit dark inside and on a dim cloudy day they might have to rely on artificial lighting to compensate when natural would have sufficed.
Temperature control would have been acceptable, given the relatively few short days of hot sunny weather the UK experiences each year. Or they could have arranged for a selection of panels to open to allow heat to escape, or implement some other ventilation methods to mitigate.
*read the comments!* you dont need the whole roof glazed to generate enough light, this is more than sufficient.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the GC/GN ticket issue, i doubt very much the people who try and blag a free journey are aware.
I stand corrected on the Hotel Curve, the curve was built to fit the hotel, not tghe other way round. According to Alan A Jackson's "London Termini" (1969) the original 1863 connection with the Met required down trains to set back into the main departure platform.
ReplyDeleteThe suburban station was opened in 1875, but the platform on the Metropolitan connection was not opened until 1878.
A diagram from 1905 in that book shows arrival platforms 1 to 5 (reading from right to left and corresponding to the present platforms 1 to 4 plus a bay platform 3) and departure platforms 1 and 2 (reading from left to right, and corresponding to present platforms 8 and 5, with three sidings in between) The suburban platforms were numbered A to E, again from left to right, with the Met connection being platform B and separated from the present platforms 9 to 11 (then E, D and C respectively) by a small loco yard.
The platforms were renumbered in 1921, the arrival platforms becoming 6 and 10, and the suburban ones 11-13, 16 and 17. The loco yard between 13 and 16 was replaced by a new platform 14/15 in 1924, and the sidings between 6 and 10 replaced by a new platform 7 and 8, leaving a non-platformed carriage road as track 9. Platform 3 was eliminated in 1934 by widening platform 4, and track 9 disappeared in 1938 when pltaform 8 was widened.
Following diversion of inner suburban services to Moorgate via Drayton Park, and resignalling, in the 1970s platforms 13-17 were closed and platforms 4 to 8, 10, 11, and 12 renumbered as 3 to 10, as they are today. The former Platform 13 has since reopened as platform 11 and the new platform 0 added next to platform 1.
One other station to add to m y list of those numbered right to left - in pre-grouping days at Victoria the LCDR and LBSCR both numbered their platforms starting at the dividing wall between them, (presumably again becuase they could only expand in the other direction) so the Chatham was numbered right to left and the Brighton left to right. They were renumbered in one sequence in 1925, the order of the Chatham's platforms being reversed and the Brighton's all having eight added to their numbers, so the respective platforms 1 became platforms 8 and 9.
"Platform numbering is a subject I could rant over for ages. Does it have to be numerical ? Why start at ONE?"
ReplyDeleteOne big advantage with numbers is that all the names of the numbers in English are pretty distinct, with clear differences in vowels and consonants as well as structure. This helps when the announcements are not too clear. Letter names are a bit crap in this regard because many of them have short names which are easily mixed up. Over a poor speaker system, with bad acoustics, or just bad pronunciation, "bee", "cee" and "dee" sound similar and "ee" is just a recipe for total confusion. And that's just the first five of them! The only way letters could be used would be to use the NATO phonetic alphabet in all announcements, which I am sure a lot of people would find very confusing.
"The next train to depart from platform hotel will be the..."
Mixing numbers with letters is even worse as "Ay" sounds like "eight", "bee", "cee", "dee" and particularly "ee" can all get mixed up with "three".
Zero is OK though, that doesn't sound like anything else and its other names "naught" and "Oh" (yes, I know it isn't really an "O") don't sound like other numbers either.
Numbers are best and letters really should not be used except A and B when really necessary for subplatforms.
Anonymous said... "the footbridge is very obviously designed for one way circulation i.e. from the concourse to the trains not for those getting off the trains." 10 August 2011 15:04
ReplyDeleteThanks for the bad news. That's cheered me up no end. What is the mentality of people who think departing passengers at a terminus are in more of a hurry than arriving passengers?
If I'm departing from Kings Cross, I want to buy a smoked salmon sandwich from Pret a Manager (in St. Pancras). When I'm arriving, I want to get across to St.Pancras and homewards on the next SE High Speed train to leave.
The new escalators, lifts and footbridge would be handy. They'd be even more handy if they were finished mid-afternoon on Saturday 13 August, instead of after the end of the curretn football season!
MiaM: Not to worry, there's also a subway connecting the northern concourse at St. Pancras with the northern ticket hall at Kings Cross.
ReplyDeleteFurther to my previous comment, there's a rather nice map of all the passageways on the last page of this pdf: http://www.balfourbeatty.com/bby/media/inthenews/2010-04-22/2010-04-22.pdf
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly from others' postings, the "designers" of the internal layout .... (As opposed to the architects/engineers for the main structure, who've done a brilliant job ...) ...
ReplyDeleteHave imported an "idea" from Air travel. ugh. "Departing" and "Arriving" passengers are completely segregated, and there isn't a single concourse?
If so what unspeakable moronic idiot thought of that one?
Arriving passengers will have to go "around the houses" before accessing the tube? Uh?
I agree with the previous poster that there should be a covered way between the NW corner (oops sector/segment) of the new area and the main domestic section of St. Pancras, next door.
Incidentally, how long before a couple more terminal platforms are needed, stilted over St Pancras/Midland Road?
@greg
ReplyDeleteI actually think it makes sense. The concourse has the screens and retail. Departing people need a large space to wait, shop and watch the boards before heading to the trains. Arrivals just want to leave. If you filter arrivals via the concourse you decrease its capacity for departures and you're keeping more people in the structure for longer (rather than getting them out as fast as possible via the large open front, which ensures there are more space for departures to access trains). It looks like an effective flow of people from a station management point of view, there'd be fewer crams and crowds.
As for tube access, it is hardly a long walk. Remember there is also an access to the south via the square. If you were to go through the concourse and round to the entrance that way it may take just as long due to crowds and the zigzag route. And there is a covered way between the two stations, via the Northern Ticket Hall. There seems more than enough for the odd rainy day. Maybe I'd have preferred integration of the two stations but looking at it it probably wouldn't have been practical given other uses of the area
Greg: The left hand side of the station is due to receive the people-moving system from Euston HS2, is it not?
ReplyDeleteI am way off topic here Anon @ 22:05 and I know this would be rather silly but there is no reason why you couldn't "number" platforms after the supposed colours of the rainbow. It doesn't in principle even need to be alphabetic - just a logically ordered list that people are familiar with. It just so happens that the strictly positive integers is a list that most people understand and know. Consistently adding or omitting zero would make equal sense but for the fact that some poeple cannot get their head around the fact that there is nothing whatsoever that is illogical about platform zero. I understand that the Bluebell railway even has sidings called -1, -2 etc.
ReplyDeleteA particularly sensible use of letters is at New Cross where platform letters A-D (south to north) do not clash with the running line numbers to/from London Bridge which are numbered 1-5 (north to south)
@ Pedantic of Purley and @ Timbeau, re numbering of platforms at London Terminii:
ReplyDeleteFenchurch Street is also numbered from right to left.....
I think the new concourse looks great, but what about the practicalities? The artists impressions all show the new concourse relatively uncrowded with people just walking about. At busy times the present concourse has lines of queues of people waiting to board as yet unannounced trains. Where will they be in the new concourse? Which way do people go when the train is announced - all over the bridge, or some round the south end of the platforms?
ReplyDelete@anonymous:
ReplyDeleteE) picking up on Greg's last point it will prevent lengthening of p9-11
@Greg
Incidentally, how long before a couple more terminal platforms are needed, stilted over St Pancras/Midland Road?
My concern is the scope of the rebuilding. There is only one new mainline platform (number 0/zero/A/ultra-violet), no new suburban platforms and the suburban platforms will be restricted to 8 carriages. The mainline platforms are also being slightly shortened.
Yes, there is Thameslink Key Output 2 on the way, which will transfer some GN suburban services onto it. But there will be a great deal of growth in demand as a result of the new Thameslink. StP is capacity constrained in the medium term (even with Greg's new stilted platforms).
One long-term solution might be to lengthen the main trainshed platforms and re-create a south concourse in front of the station façade with circulating space. The platforms could even pass through the faaçade to a front space designed in a more visually attractive manner than the 1970s hut.
Having said that, the new rotunda seems gorgeous.
Lovely to see the station being spruced up at last. May be it will have some problems but it is far better than what was there previously
ReplyDeleteBut I still don't get why Thameslink trains have to be so far away from the bulk of the station with 10 minutes plus walk to any of the tube network. Sort of wish the old Kings Cross Thameslink station was still there as it is much closer to most of the tubes.
Er.. WTF is a 'Boom Gap'?
ReplyDeleteSomething from 'Allo, 'Allo maybe?
@T33 - I suspect this has a lot to do with the future planned increased throughput through the Thameslink line and the consequent safety considerations - the old station was extremely constrained.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth noting that the St Pancras Thameslink station brings much improved interchange with other National Rail services from the two stations - the old station was not accessible from the other mainline services without a trip outside.
Anything will be better than the massive impenetrable crowd standing in front of the current departures board. NR may love its retail, but I do too! KX lacks any sensible facilities at present. I cannot even buy a paper in WHS without walking sideways and holding my breath. The whole concept looks good to me, including the separation of departures and arrivals. Does anyone yet know what ales will be on in the new pub!
ReplyDeleteRe the Hotel Curve: I have a vague suspicion that it may actually now contain a sewer (the Fleet?), rerouted due to the massive rebuildings of the LU ticket halls.
I think the Hotel Curve contains a relocated gas main, rather than the Fleet, but in any case the line of the curve ran straight through the site of the Northern ticket hall, so re-use is completely out of the question.
ReplyDelete@ Anon 1302
ReplyDeleteI think it's a typo for "Bomb Gap", which as the article explains, is a part of the western range damaged in the Blitz and (until now) replaced with temporary structures.
Hitler was also responsible for the 70-year-old gap in the canopy on Platforms 8/9 at Clapham Junction, which leaves an exposed space of 10 yards or so between the top of the stairs from the subway and the end of the platform canopy.
Yes, the stub of the Hotel curve now contains re-routed gas and also water mains.
ReplyDeleteThe Fleet sewer has however been diverted in the Farringdon area as a result of Thameslink work there...
Anon @ 1428
ReplyDeleteEr yes I got that - I was just having a gentle dug at the author's prof roding skulls...
I do think lack of proof reading is an almost inevitable consequence of blogging. I know from personal experience one can never successfully proof-read ones own work but it is so easy to see the mistakes in others.
ReplyDeleteFor those wondering about the Hotel Curve and the shape of the Great Northern Hotel, this map is worth a 1000 words
ReplyDeletehttp://d240vprofozpi.cloudfront.net/co/GNR/kingsx_map1874.png However note that it is pre the building of the suburban platforms
Looking at it again in view of the comments here, it also shows how much the emphasis was on the Western side rather than the end of the platforms. Admittedly there was only one departure platform then...
ReplyDelete@Fandroid
ReplyDeleteI attended the presentation about the new station square, and the presenter chatted to me about the new pub. He was a tad secretive, but it has already been let to a small specialist ale-focused company. they want to compete with the Betjeman's. It will have views over both the Suburban and Mainline platforms, and have easy access to both.
He also said that they were trying to find a small space elsewhere for another boutique pub, Euston Tap-style.
Pedantic of Purley - I plead guilty as charged. You are correct about proof reading one's own work.It's not that I don't do it, I don't do it well enough.
ReplyDelete@Jeremy
ReplyDeleteHow much was spent on the "new box" that could have been used to improve and expand the old Thameslink station?
How many people leave the EMT services (coming from Bedford) to cross onto Thameslink and from the SET services as well. In terms of total users probably very few.
I've stopped using it because the interchange just takes too long but I used to change from Thameslink to Vic Line daily. Even taking the non-signposted short cut to the old ticket hall its still miles....
@TallTim
ReplyDeleteOh wow! That's an awesome map.
One can see how the curve just squeezes between the station and the hotel.
Such an excellent article with fascinating comments.
Great article, and indeed great map Talltim.
ReplyDelete@T33 - Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would have been a technical nightmare to lengthen, widen and generally enhance the old Thameslink platforms for the level of expected demand. Major demolition of buildings above would have been a minimum, and widening the platforms would impinge on the adjacent sub-surface lines.
Would it have been possible for the entrance to the new station box at St Pancras to be further south, emerging in what is no a shopping arcade, with a tunnel link to the subsurface ticket hall? Probably an equally difficult challenge with the main station and St Pancras Chambers on top.
If the people mover/rapid transit idea ever comes off could it work with stops directly under Kings Cross, St Pancras and Euston?
I agree that the main reason for closing the old Thameslink station was the impossibility of updating it either for 12 car trains, or for the sheer numbers of passengers expected. This was all explained in the DfT's closure procedures.
ReplyDeleteI think you only have to look at the numbers on the new low level platforms to realise that the old station couldn't possibly have coped.
Regarding the low level station, I believe the escalators are where they are so that they are in the middle of the 12 car platform length - the platforms could not be further south because of the bend in the tunnel, and 'single end fed' busy platforms are not preferred nowadays - part of the reason for the Northern Ticket Hall and its passageways feeding people onto the deep tube platforms away from their earlier entrances.
Lastly, the possible Euston people mover. One of the HS2 ancillary reports discusses this, and points out that there is no likelihood whatsoever of it being underground. It would have to be so deep to get under the British Library and all the other LU lines that you might as well just carry on using the Northern or Victoria lines.
The only sensible option seems to be to run it at rooftop height somewhere parallel to the Euston Rd, but a couple of streets back. Personally I see it as a very low priority though...
Euston-StP-KX "People Mover" WAS a real possibility.
ReplyDeleteIt was called CRT (Cross-River Tram/Transit).
But BoJo killed it, stupid posturing idiot.
Just that BoJo is a slightly less stupid posturing idiot than Ken - sad isn't it?
Sorry for continuing the off-topic discussion, but Pedantic mentioned the platforms at New Cross being A-D being something to do with London Bridge running line numbers. Admittedly I don't know what a running line number is, but I was under the impression that New Cross platforms are numbered that way to avoid confusion with New Cross Gate platforms, as with Waterloo vs Waterloo East. On reflection mixing those platforms up does seem a bit unlikely, though (unlike Waterloo).
ReplyDeleteI'm still firmly of the option that the suburban shed should have been demolished and a replica of the existing main shed built alongside the main building (a 3rd arch, if you will). The new ticket hall could then have be located on the side of this.
ReplyDeleteUnless they plan on farming the Hull trains services out into the suburban shed, then it's not much use to anyone at peak times as more and more suburban services get lengthened to 12 cars.
Interesting idea, Mr JRT. If Hull trains were to use platforms 9-11 that would solve the problem of "open access" to these trains whilst keeping the rest of the station gated. And before anyone points it out, I know platforms 9-11 are gated but you could let people through without tickets without giving them access to all the platforms - provided you used a fence to separate the far end of platforms 8 and 9 so that those in the know couldn't access platform 8 from platform 9.
ReplyDelete@ greg
ReplyDeleteCome now, the people mover is totally separate and even follows a different route. The tram would come in road level from high down between SP and KX where as the people mover goes straight along Phoenix Road to the western entrance to SP - either elevated or subterranean. It would be happen in any HS2 rebuild of Euston. The tram wouldn't satisfactorily fulfil the same role.
On platform lengths, it seems there's plenty of space from the platforms up to the tunnel mouths, and the approaches are lop-sided because the eastern tunnel has no tracks. Could they not put a track back into the eastern tunnel (I heard that the bore is too small for a double track with wires) and remodel the approaches so that most of the sorting happens at Belle Isle? Then the platforms can be remodelled and extended.
ReplyDeleteI take anon's point about tram vs "people-mover ("travelator").
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, a travelator of that length?
They would do better for money-value overall (there's the difficult bit) re-instituting the trams plan and FINALLY putting in a Euston<->Euston Square tunnel, only 100 years overdue, after all!
As for the suburban platforms @ KX and the "impossibility" of platform-renumbering...
Words almost fail me.
The first involves MONEY and track-re-arrangements, which are ludicrously expensive here (thank you moronic tories in the '90s) The second involves telling certain people - "Bollocks - I just gave you an order - DO IT!"
Or it requires "political" (note the small"p") will ....
Just a thought - Phoenix Road/Brill Place is about 500m, a bit long for a travelator but comparable with the "Transits" between Gatwick Airport's north and south terminals.
ReplyDeleteIs the travelator planned for above/below/on the surface?
Euston - Euston Square tunnel is a classic issue of forward planning. I take it this is the same as the idea of "double-ending" Euston Square station. It was seriously reconsidered in the 1980's then died a death again. It then resufaced as a "relatively quick win" to ease capacity before the money ran out but got tied up in the issue of rebuilding Euston. It will happen ... one day.
ReplyDeleteBy the way there are, or were, Tube Lines hoardings roughtly in the location of the eastern extremity of Euston Square station. Anyone know what these are for ?
Apologies for going a bit off topic but is is close to King's Cross.
While KX Thameslink is mentioned, what has happened to the platforms? Are they still there? Have they been stripped of posters etc?
ReplyDelete@Anon08:44 and greg
ReplyDeleteIt won't be a travelator, it will be a shuttle of some description, either single or double tracked.
Looking again at the Gasworks Tunnels, it appears the eastern bore which is empty is the same size as the centre bore, so perhaps could take two tracks. So the 2018 ECML resignalling and works could allow provision of 2 more running tracks through to Holloway, and new junctions at Belle Isle, and therefore platform extensions at Kings Cross. Good for future-proofing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what plans are there for the area to the west of the suburban platforms 9-11? Could this area be safeguarded for additional platforms if needed. Again, future-proofing.
There will be no prospect of western extension of the Suburban Train shed:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kingscrosscentral.com/the_site
anon: "it will be a shuttle of some description, either single or double tracked" - Uually defined as a TRAM, I believe?
ReplyDeleteoops.
Arkady's pointer (thanks) to the plan is SO depressing....
more office space, when a new platform is needed.
Idiots.
@greg
ReplyDeleteIncorrect, your generalising. The DLR for instance is not a tram is it? Think airport ATMs. You're looking at one carriage driverless shuttles going between two stops. It could be in a tunnel but the preferred option is an elevated alignment along Phoenix. The Euston stop would be within or alongside the rebuild and at the St. Pancras end it would be above the current western taxi rank with passengers able to walk straight onto the upper concourse next to the Midland platforms. It would probably be two lines with each shuttle going along that line then back again without changing onto the other.
No more go-karting in the goods shed?
ReplyDeleteNo loss, I was terrible at it!
i'm still hoping that the rapid transit between Esuton & st Pancras ends up being part of this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WXthdyYxzzs/Tb5bmUtGTWI/AAAAAAAAAAU/AzRnimjWVJE/s1600/dlrextensions.jpg
ReplyDeleteGreg, platform renumbering has to be done alongside resignalling - that costs MONEY, lots of it.
ReplyDeleteChris, why does resignalling have to be done at the same time as platform renumbering? Can't they just swap the numbers round and leave everything else the same?
ReplyDeleteI thought the plan for HS2 included a direct link to HS1 anyway?
ReplyDeleteAnnon @ 14.33
ReplyDeleteYUK!
I'd rather not think of "airport shuttles" thank you.....
Quite frankly, the idea strikes me as only marginally less-daft than BoJo's death-trap, oops, "Cable Car" ....
Arkady - perhaps.
I'm more in favour of a DLR W-end extension going S-W AND X-river tram, of course (dream on ...)
Signalling/Platform numbers ... erm - isn't that "just" a software change, in these days of IECC's?
You replace the platform numbers in the software - you DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE.
Surely?
Think of Stratford.
The Down suburban platform (which has always been No 8), is track 2 if numbering R-to-L or track 5 if numbering L-to-R. The Central line platforms aren't even ON Twotwork Fail's signalling system, and their tracks are, anyway, reading S-to-N:
Up electric/slow, down electric/slow, up main. down main, up relief/loop (reversible), down relief/loop (reversible), up lea valley. down lea valley.
( And ignoring the curves to the N&W of the station, and the dead-end NLL platforms, since these can only be accessed from said NW direction. )
@Malc: Firstly a link between HS2 and HS1 is only a possibility at this stage. Second there are two options, one is via the NLL from OOC and the second is an extra single tunnel to the Primrose Hill area and then again taking the NLL. Both of those would have limited capacity and there would be only a few trains taking that route. Third there are also the classic services at both stations that would benefit from a station-to-station link.
ReplyDelete@greg et al: If you start integrating it with other networks then you have a problem of having to cater a wider market of passengers and risk overloading what they intend to be a very basic, low impact link. Given the restraints of the site there will be little chance of platform extensions or a huge increase in car numbers.
Furthermore in order for it to continue on from Euston and/or St. Pancras they'd need different alignments and station sites which would most likely lengthen the journey time (reducing the advantage of the links significantly) and the accessibility of the platforms.
The present proposal would make it incredibly easy to get to the APM, get to the other station in a minute and rapidly move to onwards services. There would be little impact on the residential area if you kept the system small and it wouldn't suffer greatly from congestion from local commuters.
If you had a DLR system then you have huge disruptive tunnelling not far beneath residential housing or a bulky track above them which would require widening of Phoenix road (and hence demolitions). You'd have to create sites for 3 DLR cars (there are limited opportunities for doing this above or under St. Pancras due to the foundations) and you most likely have less accessible platforms as a result. All in all, it would fulfil the purpose of an APM between the stations.
Likewise with a tram, the stop would be in KX Central between the two stations and it then goes on a roundabout trip up via Pancras Road and down the side of Euston. Trams also would be goign slower as it would be running on streets rather havign its own dedicated isolated track. And again you'd get a lot more passengers on it. As with trams and the DLR you need carriages that can cater to lots of luggage and won't get too cramped.
@arkady
ReplyDeleteYes, the DLR extensions would be good. However I'm not sure that they would work as the people mover here.
Why? Because they would be the last two stations on a very long line away from the depot (Poplar or even Gallions Reach). If there is disruption then it's the ends that are typically hardest to serve. Unless of course you run a shuttle service, but that kind of defeats the point of connecting it to the wider network.
If the money was available then I'd build the DLR extension, cross-river tram and (if necessary) a separate people mover.
However, if there was anywhere in London that an airport-style people mover system would be beneficial it would be to link City Airport with Crossrail. Either at Custom House or a shorter distance to a new Crossrail station near the disused Silvertown NLL station.
Chris M
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest (a higher frequency shuttle between the end two stations of a longer line) works well at Zermatt, where a shuttle service runs between the last two stations on the Visp-Zermatt branch to provide a park and ride service to car-free Zermatt, but we are talking about a twenty minute frequency shuttle supermimposed on a one-or two trains an hour service - although five trains each way on a single track is actually quite impressive.
I doubt you could get the frequencies required for a people mover over such a short distance as Eu-KX, especially for people with connections to make.
Another problem with providing the link as part of the DLR or Tramlink is the same as that of the existing Tube connections - the fare. Unless you can make a free zone like that at Heathrow - easier to achieve if it's the end of a line rather than the middle.
One advantage of using transits like those at gatwick is that the can be engineered to run on a single track with a passing place, (like a funicular) reducing the land take.
Greg, signalling is highly complex - im not an expert, but i've seen it explained plenty of times here and elsewhere whcih make it quite clear that it isnt affordable just to make it look nicer. If even if you ignore the cost of fundamentally altering decades-old interlocking, and the signals themselves, you have the cost of practical changes to make sure that all railway staff now which platform is which, crucial in safety situations as well as day-to-day operations. It all adds up.
ReplyDeleteI definitely read somewheres that the proposed route for the Euston/KX extension to the DLR is identical to the proposed people-mover, so one presumes that the Powers That Be have got some plan in mind for them to be one and the same system
ReplyDeletechris
ReplyDeleteBUT YOU ARE NOT CHANGING THE INTERLOCKING.
Just the label(s) attached to the fixed platform(s).
( I'll ask my signalling friend who works for Invensys/Westinghouse sigs down in Corydon - he'll know ...)
Re the people mover. Remember that the HS2 has got folk thinking about Crossrail 2 running through Euston, as the way to avoid local tube overload due to the massive new demand. A Euston-KX people-mover would only ever be built if HS2 was. It's difficult to see investment in both (Crossrail 2 & a people-mover) happening at the same time. The London & SE RUS shows Crossrail stations at both Euston & KX,(although that's only NR speculation at present), so creating a third direct underground rail link between the two. Crossrail would have to be mighty deep to squeeze past all the other lines, so fast lifts would have to exist to make it convenient for a bag-carrying people to transfer quickly. However, BAA seems to think such a thing is right for Heathrow inter-terminal shuttles (aka HeX)so perhaps that may be what we end up with.
ReplyDeleteIf CR1 can ghave one station serving both Moorgate and Liverpool Street, and another serving both Oxford Circus and TCR, why can't CR2 have a station under the Euston Road or Phoenix Road serving both KXSP and Euston? At 12 x 23 metres the trains and therefore platforms) would be would be 275metres long, leaving little more than 100metres to span horizontally to the nearest points of the two main line stations - much of which will be needed for the escalators anyway.
ReplyDeleteRename Euston as the West Terminal of the St Pancras complex (KX being the East Terminal as I mentioned earlier)
@ timbeau
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the best and most likely outcome is a join Euston - KXST Crossrail station. If you look at the CR2 safeguarding, to put in two stations and move the Euston platforms right under Euston would create an incredibly sharp turn out of TCR. In building it you could also fit in a travelator from one end to the other maybe.
However I'm not sure we'd want to rename the whole kit en caboodle as some kind of "London International" or "London North" split into aiport style terminals. The idea is attractive in theory but it would probably only increase confusion rather than reduce it - and of course its not very London. We don't have "Central Station" and "Line 1", we have "Waterloo" and the "Piccadilly Line" and for me that is important.
As for CR1 having stations spanning two tube stops. I think the best thing they can do is pick one name and reference the other. So "Farringdon (for Barbican)" - like Cutty Sark (for Maritime Greenwich). If we apply that to CR2, we could have "Kings Cross St. Pancras (for Euston)" and it would work.
Two points here (and forgive me if somebody has already mentioned it above, but there is a mass of comments in this!)
ReplyDelete1) While a cover over the road between the two stations to keep the rain off while passing between the two stations seems like a good idea, the problem will be height and width. As there is a taxi rank, and hence a publicroad running between the two stations it has to have a certain minimum height under any bridge/ cover - incase a HGV etc somehow tries to go up it - this height can be reduced by putting a height restriction on the road, but carries risks of people ignoring it. So if you make it high enough to prevent the above, you then have the issue that rain does not normally come down vertically, so to cause it to actually keep a good area dry you will have to make it very wide indeed!
2 - as for the transit idea people seem to be thinking of very good ideas regarding this transit system, but systems like this seem to be much more reliable if they work independently. They are usually much cheaper! For example the monorail systems used by BAA between gatwick terminals, or the ones that Disney installed between their theme parks in Florida, are basically a concrete girder with a train sat on top, and an electrical conductor strapped to either side of it, and uses very light weight trains and carages. If you make it part of a city wide/ linger distance system, you will have to bring in lots of additional costs as your trains have to be heavier to meet the safety standards needed for tube/ faster trains etc. For this short distance it may even be cheaper to have two independent tracks with just two trains on it to minimise any track switching/ signalling / point etc. While I'm not suggesting not taking the DLR here, I'm just point out how this could bring up costs v's a cheap light weight monorail / closed track tram like system.
Maybe KX and StP should display each other's departures?
ReplyDeleteThe people mover should work like a horizontal lift/elevator.
Press the button and it comes to you.
As has been suggested, running it from the upper level of St Pancras new shed, bridging over Midland Road, along, on stilts, Brill Place and Phoenix Road and into a new Euston would be ideal.
Maybe it should be behind the ticket barrier?
Excuse me, but there shouldn't be ANY bloddy ticket barriers for long-distance platforms.
ReplyDeleteThe stations hould be "open" with on-train checking.
It just improves the circulation enormously, and saves the vast expense of installing and maintaining said barriers.
After all, it onlt DafT and the greedier TOC's who are trying to force barriers on us!
If CR2 does get built I cannot see two stations happening, it does not make sense. It is not just the short distance meaning as soon as a 10-car train pulls out of one station it rolls into an other - it is also the cost.
ReplyDeleteHaving one station with 2 ticket halls is surely more cost effective than having two costing hundreds of millions each. Look at how deep the escalators are at Paddington's CR station from ground level to the ticket hall. You could do the same here, and then another set of escalators continuing west/east to the platforms (but shorter).
The only issue is that it would be far from the deep-tube lines. However, who is going to want to change from CR2 to the VL or PL? It duplicates some of the destinations. There is the NL, but Thameslink and the SSL serve most of those and Bank is close enough to the likes of Moorgate. IN fact, it may help as passengers from SP at least will find it easier going to CR2 than the tube lines, freeing up space for commuters who need to use those routes.
Direct duplication of lines is unhelpful - if CR2 has stops at both Euston and KXSP potential passengers will have four different platforms to choose from to get from one to t'other - but how should they choose? It's bad enough with three. Better to provide new links, thereby relieving the existing ones by removing passengers who currently have to change. A direct link from KX to Waterloo would relieve the Vic and Bakerloo for example, Wloo to Holborn would relieve the Central and Northern, etc.
ReplyDeleteI admit I had thought that CR2 might have a joint station for KX & Euston a la Liverpool St - Moorgate on CR1, but while that might be the best/cheapest way for CR2 it won't provide any people-moving capability for those transitting between HS2 and HS1. Unless- in line with many modern underground station designs, it is built as a 'box' rather than as a 'tube' and the space for the people-mover is fitted in behind a platform. Then with fast lifts you have a weatherproof set-up. Going back to Heathrow, the transits between T5A and its satellites B & C provide a model. Sorry, it does look remarkably like an airport solution, but the UK experience already exists and why ignore successful precedents?
ReplyDeletePicking up on the barrier sub-topic, they are not so new in London Termini. Paddington has had them for a fair old time now (except Platform 1 & HeX) and so have the big stations down the line ( Reading & Bristol TM). Their worth can be seen from the massive queues on Saturdays at the unpaid fares office inside the Reading barriers. Sheffield & York only threw them out because the station overbridges are used by the non-paying public to cross the railway. The same problem was sorted at Reading by dividing the overbridge.
JB - Is this the most commented upon article in the history of this blog?
ReplyDeleteLike the idea of a DLR extension from Bank to Kings Cross, Euston & Marylebone.
ReplyDeleteThis latter station is poorly connected to the undergroud, but still has considerable untapped potential.
I really don't know why there are thoughts of extending DLR into central London. It requires bigger tunnels than a deep tube and cannot provide the relief to existing surface rail termini that a full-sized crossrail would. The trains (even 3-car) are short on capacity. If there was a possible surface route (or even elevated), that might justify a scheme, but both are fairly unlikely in the centre.
ReplyDeleteThe Euston-St Pancras people-mover would only be used by passengers transitting between HS2 & HS1 plus a few others who had come in via one set of suburban lines to access long-distance trains at the other station(s). If HS2 trains are able to access HS1 then the people-mover traffic would be reduced even more. High-frequency airport transits can easily cope with that sort of traffic level.
So Greg, what did your signalling friend say? The same that thing you keep being told no doubt - that if all the signalling and other changes was economic it would be done, but they arent, so its not unless in conjunction with resignalling. Thats just how it is im afraid.
ReplyDeleteChris: - I haven't asked him yet.
ReplyDeleteWill do that on Wednesday, over a beer in Xtal Palace .....
As a computer programmer, I can't believe that changing platform numbers requires changing signalling. The numbers on platforms just need to be repainted, and the numbers on the electronic displays can be "repainted" virtually.
ReplyDeleteOf course in that case there would be "real" platform numbers behind the scenes, requiring the control room to add one when reading out service alterations, but I'm sure they could cope.
We softies call this a "hack", or a "kludge" if you're from the states (only film producers use "hack" to mean breaking into a computer; this is really a "crack").
I've got an aswer - which I'm ptting up (with source removed, obviously ...
ReplyDelete"Well in theory it could be done cheaply for an IECC.
However Delta Rail, who have the ONLY means of turning the signalling data into run-time files for loading onto the IECC, charge several arms and legs for any data change as they have NR by the short and curlies.
For an Invensys WestCAD or a GETS MCS controlled system, yes it would be cheaper.
NR only go to Delta Rail for IECCs as they come with ARS, something that GETS and Invensys don't have, but are working on getting."
So, not on for KX, as it is still a wire-&-relay based system.
For anywhere with an IECC, we're stuffed by privatisation, as it COULD be done cheaply, but, um, err ...
What was the name of that report?
Mc-Numpty, or something similar?
@Windsorian
ReplyDeleteI agree - have as another poster on another LondonReconnexions thread said - take the DLR from Bank up to the now disused Thameslink tunnels betwixt Moorgate & Farringdon, thence up to KXSP then Euston.
@Fandroid
The Thameslink tunnels are mainline Ry diameter, large enough for DLR trains without need for reboring.
Note that a DLR station at Moorgate'll not likely be feasible, but platforms at Farringon already exist and'll provide a connexion to CrossRail as well as the Tube line there.
A net win all round, more throughput at Bank, reuse dormant Thameslink tunnels, & provide excellent capacity twixt KXSP & Euston.
"Platforms at Farringdon already exist" - there are only four: two are in use by Thameslink, and two by LU.two more are being built for Crossrail. Where would the DLR fit in?
ReplyDeleteA DLR extension to the Widened Lines was one of the options proposed in the DLR Horizon 2020 report. It came out with a middling BCR of 2.7:1 - better than an extension to Charing Cross but not as good as extensions to Shoreditch or Liverpool St. However, the extension assessed only went to Barbican, as it was assumed that there would not be space at Farringdon with the Crossrail development.
ReplyDeleteHowever, LUL are now looking at using the empty tunnels east from Farringdon for stabling, extending from the Farringdon sidings. Given this, it should be possible to create DLR platforms where the LUL sidings at Farringdon currently are. If this is possible, to me it's a no-brainer.
lemmo:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, it's a win/win/win no-brainer.
So, like alternating (10-min frequency from Chingford) trains via Clapton and Lea Bridge ...
They'll go and do something else, and something monumentally stupid, with it.
Like the death-trap, oops, "Cable Car"
Cynical; MOI?
Back on the DLR, It might be possible to use the widened lines from Moorgate to Farringdon, but from there on, they will be just a little bit busy with Thameslink trains. I suppose you could tunnel to Mount Pleasant and then squeeze it along the Post Office tunnel (I assume that goes to KX and Euston). My guess is that they've already flogged that right of way for fibre optic cables. Why would a DLR from Bank to Farringdon be any use? If we assume it heads for Moorgate first to pick up the widened lines, then it'll already be at a Crossrail station, so why go on to Farringdon? Methinks if Farringdon-Moorgate so desperately needed another link, the City wonks would have fought a lot harder to keep the Thameslink branch to Moorgate open. I would love to see DLR extended more, but I think the suburbs need it more and are the most practical places for it.
ReplyDeleteRe comment above about the Post Office Railway. Wikipedia now tells me it missed KX & Euston altogether, preferring Oxford Street to the Euston Road! That reminds me that a source told me that Crossrail considered using it for shifting construction spoil around, but gave up. Sorry, getting even more wildly off-topic.
ReplyDeleteThe gateline is the most absurd feature of the new King's Cross, as it is both pointless and an inconvenience to most users. DaFT cannot understand this and believe that all major stations should have them to enhance security and revenue control. At King's Cross most users are encumbered and unfamilar with them, while it only protects the minimum fare as it is a common gateline to all platforms - thus a Finsbury Park ticket or a Freedom pass lets you in or out and there is no check that is train or class of travel specific and no check on discount entitlement. In short of little use to East Coast and a nuisance to the OA operators who did not want it, but were outvoted. Elaine Holt however believes in barriers. The ticket technology does not adequately support gates at KX and there is massive manual intervention at a cost in staff. Just look at the shambles of the interim gateline in the evening peak. Also NR have assessed their gate numbers on an underground throughput of 24 passengers per minute, which is quite unrealistic for an intercity station. East Coast passengers are now also subjected to the inconvenience of an exit check when they could once walk off with tickets checked on board, and the only benefit East Coast can claim is a reduced assalt rate on their staff, who now do fewer on board checks.
ReplyDeleteThe new footbridge only has a capacity of about 12 passengers down to a platform per minute because of the width of the escalators so most people will still have to go round the platform ends where they will encounter those struggling to get out through the gates. None of this has been thought through, but neither the TOCs, DfT of Network Rail will respond with a sensible answer to any of these points.
Anon @ 17.01, 17th August...
ReplyDeleteOf course DafT, the TOC's, NR etc won't give you a sensible answer.
THEY HAVE DECIDED, and the travelling public can stuff it.
Rather like the perpetual lies put out by the TOC's and LUL about announcements, that I'm always on about.
I'm not the only one, though ...
see THIS ARTICLE where a guvmint Minister complains...
And, I hope you note the usual weaselling lies from ATOC, et al in their so-called "answer". that actually say "we know best, piss off".
Same as they do to everyone else.
It is eerily reminiscent of airports, where the professionalism of the actual Air operating staff contrasts bleakly with the "security" jobsworths.
Sadly Greg Tingey is right. Noone will answer my points. Elaine Holt said the decision is not for debate, Robin Gisby told me to move on, DafT said barriers work at Waterloo or Heathrow, and even the user groups swallow the revenue and security myth. Mostly they simply ignore us. I just wish they would ask the passengers what they think. And I am with you on the announcements too, try complaining and they tell you all that nonsense that only some of them practise is a legal obligation.
ReplyDeleteRe: Announcements.
ReplyDeleteI did once have a minor success when complaining about announcements. I complained to First Capital Connect about their pointless announcement at Blackfriars exhorting us to stand behind the yellow line. Since complaining I haven't heard the announcement since.
Mind you, the grounds for my complaint was that there was no yellow line to stand behind in the first place!
Re: The Euston->StP People mover.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of this scheme to me is that it would be self-contained and easily (=quickly) accessible from concourse level at both ends and carry luggage trolleys. Incorporating it into a bigger network would be self-defeating - the whole point is that it's exclusively for passengers changing trains to get their luggage/children from one platform to another without negotiating hordes of commuters.
Practically, I've read the study that was done and the sub-surface option seems like a non-starter. Essentially the practical approach would seem to be a Sydney-style small profile monorail with trains reversing at each end. The Southern end of Walker House would probably need demolition to accommodate two tracks at that point.
The "lift car" style option is an interesting one - maybe similar to the ULTra pods at Heathrow? Presumably ULTra could be adapted to run as monorail for elevated sections with no junctions moving onto flat elevated sections to switch tracks. This would fit down Phoenix Road with minimal intrusiveness.
Could ULTra also be adapted to somehow travel vertically like a lift? I guess it would probably need a lift to carry the whole pod from one level to another. Expensive compared to a lift for just the passengers, but feasible.
If ULTra is the pod system from Heathrow T5 to the business car park, then I suspect it could work for Euston-St Pancras. The T5 version certainly manages to be elevated, on fairly light supports, where it crosses the airport perimeter road. However, all of its earthbound supports are within secure fencing. I'm not sure they would like the louts of N London climbing around on it. It was also hideously late (but not publicly mentioned!)in being put into operation. As I said earlier, there wouldn't be a massive number of people wanting to use a people mover to/from Euston & St Pancras, and solving Euston tube capacity may use up all the spare cash left after spending zillions on HS2. The good folk going on special long journeys with bags/children are often happy to pay for a cab for inter-station transfers.
ReplyDeleteULTra is designed for a multi-station, multi-route network, where the individual pods are routed according to destination, without intermediate stops. The Heathrow installation is a single line, three station trial for a proposed airport-wide system.
ReplyDeleteThe Euston-KingsX people mover will be a single line, two station route with little scope for expansion. This is much more suited to a traditional airport shuttle. Two cars on a single track with central passing loop should be fine.
@Crujiente. The PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system at Heathrow T5 may well be suitable as a people-mover for Euston-St Pancras/KX. Having Googled a paper on the subject I see that the loading on the infrastructure is expected to be significantly lower than for a conventional airport people-mover. Certainly, driving under it on a Railair bus, that appears to be the case. Lighter supports means lower costs and also should make it easier to squeeze such a beast through the mean streets behind Euston Road. There's no reason why it should have only 2 stations. After all, KX is dividing arrivals and departures. St Pancras is massive and I would expect the new Euston to be similar. However that PRT paper expected the Heathrow pilot to be operational in 2008 (it seems to be a mere 3 yrs late?). The link you provided showed a system for moving between T1,T2,T3 and their business car parks, not an airport-wide system, but it does make ingenious use of the small side access tunnels.
ReplyDeleteYou might be onto something re:costs/constructino difficulty. ULTra does indeed have very lightweight infrastructure and capacity can be added quite easily with a larger fleet and more docking terminals.
ReplyDeleteAs for multiple stops, you have a good point at the Euston end. I could imagine a stop at either side of the building, seeing as it will be even wider when HS2 comes in. At the St.Pancras end, I'm not so sure. The obvious terminus would be alongside the new extension, above the taxi rank. But how could the line go any further? (eg. to Kings Cross proper) There is sufficient headroom in the East Midlands upstairs concourse, but is there enough clearance over the Eurostar lines? And even then, is an "upstairs" access particularly practical? The line could run round the front of St. Pancras I suppose, but that would raise some serious opposition. Regardless of how slender the elevated track, it would still 'spoil' the view of the Midland Grand.
Of course one of the great things about PRT is the simplicity of network expansion. A 2-stop route that proves the idea could well expand in all sorts of directions...
@Crujiente. You are right that there is not much opportunity for a PRT to get through St Pancras. It really should have its stations at the basement level there (for direct connection with HS1) In my experience, there is loads of underused room at the basement level in what is laughingly called Eurostar Arrivals (where our glorious Border Agency & Customs pretend to protect us from foul foreigners), but the PRT track would have to somehow clear the main pedestrian access from the Circle/Met/Hammersmith & City lines. The only other possibility at that level is where St Pancras Road crosses beneath the station. I only have a dim recollection of how wide that is, but I know it passes under at the end of the flat extension roof to the station, so is beneath the north end of all platforms there. If escalator/lift access were provided, there could be a station on top of the flat roof just outside the original station canopy. There should be space enough from there to whizz over to Kings Cross and loop back(or have a combined St Pancras/Kings Cross station between the two).
ReplyDelete