Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

HS2 are proposing an interchange between High Speed 2, Crossrail, and
all services out of Paddington (including the Heathrow express), at
Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

(a) the West London Line
(b) the North London Line
and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station. Old Oak Common could become more important
than Stratford or Clapham Junction.

HS2 don't seem to have investigated (a)-(c) yet, but they are shown as
possibilities in the government command paper.

What are people's views on how plausible these extra interchanges are?
I don't know the area well myself.

The West London Line would be particularly useful for the link with
Clapham Junction. But I imagine there would be dangerous overcrowding
with the current level of service. How much scope is there to upgrade/
get the freight off the route if it became a priority for investment?

It would also only be one stop from Old Oak interchange to Willesden
Junction, for the Bakerloo and West Coast Main Line.

Layout of proposed station (page 83):

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi.../chapter3a.pdf

(The top platforms are HS2, bottom ones are Crossrail/Great Western.
The Central Line is shown in red in the bottom left, the NLL is shown
in orange on the left and the WLL is shown in orange on the right.)

Satellite view of the site:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Diagram of the possible interchanges on p107 of the DfT white paper:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...pdf/cmdpap.pdf

(cross posted to uk.railway and uk.transport.london)

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

HS2 are proposing an interchange between High Speed 2, Crossrail, and
all services out of Paddington (including the Heathrow express), at
Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

(a) the West London Line
(b) the North London Line
and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station. Old Oak Common could become more important
than Stratford or Clapham Junction.

HS2 don't seem to have investigated (a)-(c) yet, but they are shown as
possibilities in the government command paper.

What are people's views on how plausible these extra interchanges are?
I don't know the area well myself.

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 18 Mrz., 19:36, Bruce wrote:
2. *

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. *That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


Can't do that. The propylaeum would look entirely out of place at Old
Oak Common :-)

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 18 Mar, 18:36, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev



wrote:
HS2 are proposing an interchange between High Speed 2, Crossrail, and
all services out of Paddington (including the Heathrow express), at
Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

(a) the West London Line
(b) the North London Line
and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station. Old Oak Common could become more important
than Stratford or Clapham Junction.

HS2 don't seem to have investigated (a)-(c) yet, but they are shown as
possibilities in the government command paper.

What are people's views on how plausible these extra interchanges are?
I don't know the area well myself.

snip

I think it's an excellent idea. *In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2. *

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. *That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

High Speed 2 considered this. Their conclusion:

"Old Oak Common: Further demand analysis continued to suggest that the
journey time penalty for central London passengers using these
stations as the only London terminal was likely to severely reduce the
benefits of HS2. A Crossrail connection at Old Oak Common or Willesden
Junction would allow some passengers a quicker journey time to the
East or West of London, but the bulk of the demand for HS2 would come
from the central, north and south of London which would be best served
by a central London station."

See p59:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...f/chapter3.pdf

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Mar 18, 6:36*pm, Bruce wrote:

Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station.

I think it's an excellent idea. *In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2. *


Not the Central Line no.

We are already at capacity, more or less.

The last thing we need on the Central is a major new flow form a
source like that. We already run 30 TPH with the biggest tube size
tube trains on the network. Crossrail will offer relief to the Central
but I suspect by the time that opens grwoth will be such that both
will actually be relieving each other.

--
Nick

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, D7666 wrote:

On Mar 18, 6:36*pm, Bruce wrote:

Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of and (c) the Central Line serving
the new station.

Not the Central Line no.

We are already at capacity, more or less.

The last thing we need on the Central is a major new flow form a source
like that. We already run 30 TPH with the biggest tube size tube trains
on the network. Crossrail will offer relief to the Central but I suspect
by the time that opens grwoth will be such that both will actually be
relieving each other.

I am trying to picture two tube lines relieving each other. There are
probably very, very specialist magazines for that.

tom

--
1 pWN 3v3Ry+h1n G!!!1

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:
On 18 Mrz., 19:36, Bruce wrote:
2. *

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. *That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


Can't do that. The propylaeum would look entirely out of place at Old
Oak Common :-)


Perhaps a scale model?

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Mar 18, 10:01*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, D7666 wrote:

On Mar 18, 6:36*pm, Bruce wrote:

Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of and (c) the Central Line serving
the new station.

Not the Central Line no.

We are already at capacity, more or less.

The last thing we need on the Central is a major new flow form a source
like that. We already run 30 TPH with the biggest tube size tube trains
on the network. Crossrail will offer relief to the Central but I suspect
by the time that opens grwoth will be such that both will actually be
relieving each other.

I am trying to picture two tube lines relieving each other. There are
probably very, very specialist magazines for that.

What can I say... I'm glad you got there first.

(...no, I didn't mean it like that...)

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 18 Mar, 19:53, D7666 wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:36*pm, Bruce wrote:

Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station.
I think it's an excellent idea. *In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2. *

Not the Central Line no.

We are already at capacity, more or less.

The last thing we need on the Central is a major new flow form a
source like that. We already run 30 TPH with the biggest tube size
tube trains on the network. Crossrail will offer relief to the Central
but I suspect by the time that opens grwoth will be such that both
will actually be relieving each other.

n Nick

North Acton station will be within walking distance.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:25:07AM -0700, kev wrote:

The West London Line would be particularly useful for the link with
Clapham Junction. But I imagine there would be dangerous overcrowding
with the current level of service.

They'd have to use longer trains, presumably with selective door opening
because extending Imperial Wharf and West Brompton's platforms could be
tricky. Thankfully, those aren't very important stations, especially
for people going to/from HS2.

How much scope is there to upgrade/
get the freight off the route if it became a priority for investment?

It's a pretty busy freight route, outside of the passenger peaks. While
waiting for a train yesterday evening three freight trains went through
in fifteen minutes.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved
by killing everyone even remotely associated with it

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:24:14 +0000, Tim Fenton wrote:

I'm of the belief that the likes of Simon Jenkins would quickly cease
their anti-Crossrail ranting once they had spent a few weeks as regular
commuters on the Central Line.

Yep. Having commuted on the Central Line for a number of years now, any
doubts I could have ever had that it's running MILES over capacity are
well have been well and truly slapped down.

I have the option of getting to work late (and then leaving late) at the
moment, so I get to Leyton at approaching 9am these days, and even then,
I have never got a seat in 2 years - if I ever do need to get to work for
9, meaning getting to Leyton at about 8-ish, I usually have to let at
least 2 or 3 trains go by before getting on. And even when I used to
travel from Bethnal Green at 7:15am, it would be sardines even at that
time.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce wrote:

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange opportunities
will be far fewer. That will also save the not inconsiderable cost of
rebuilding Euston.

(I actually believe that there should be a NW London interchange (like
OOC), AND tunnelling all the way through to somewhere useful in the South/
East such as London Bridge or L'pool St so that it's not a pain to get to
from the other side of London....of course, I'll take it stopping at OOC
if it will just get built!)

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:57:17 +0000 (UTC), Martin Petrov
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce wrote:

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange opportunities
will be far fewer. That will also save the not inconsiderable cost of
rebuilding Euston.

(I actually believe that there should be a NW London interchange (like
OOC), AND tunnelling all the way through to somewhere useful in the South/
East such as London Bridge or L'pool St so that it's not a pain to get to
from the other side of London....of course, I'll take it stopping at OOC
if it will just get built!)


I think that is a further indication of just how half-baked this whole
idea is. It simply isn't possible to come up with a properly planned
and costed proposal for a mega project like this in such a short time.
Above all, what is missing is a truly strategic view of how high speed
rail would sit alongside, and be integrated with, the classic network,
and how the two together would best serve passengers.

But we have seen this before with IEP. The balkanisation of BR means
that there is no overall strategic direction for the railway. The SRA
provided it to some extent under Alistair Morton, but the disastrous
appointment of Richard Bowker brought that to an end, and began the
era of micro-managing the railway that has been very damaging.

When the Department for Transport saw the complete mess Bowker was
making, they quickly realised that they could do the micro-managing
themselves without any need for a separate agency. So they disbanded
the SRA because it wasn't doing any good, rather than fire Bowker and
appoint someone to head it who was capable of strategic thinking.

With a properly managed SRA in place, the IEP and High Speed 2
mistakes would have been much less likely to occur.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 2010-03-18 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

snip

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

HS2 needs to connect to HS1 doesn't it? If you look at the area near
Euston on Google maps there is an easy connection from HS2 to HS1
via Primrose Hill and Camden Road and the track layout at St Pancras
has two connections to the North London line. There is space for more
tracks through Camden Road. Put the two lines together and we could
have DB ICE3s running through to Birmingham and Manchester. That is
why the London terminus has to be at Euston and not Heathrow or OOC.

I agree the OOC plan is a good one. Having a major interchange mirroring
Stratford makes a lot of sense.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 2010-03-18 16:25:07 +0000, kev said:

HS2 are proposing an interchange between High Speed 2, Crossrail, and
all services out of Paddington (including the Heathrow express), at
Old Oak Common.

snip

Layout of proposed station (page 83):

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi.../chapter3a.pdf

Looking

at the diagram, OOC station is right next to North Pole depot,
which has lain empty since Eurostar vacated it to move to Temple Mills.
Suddenly it looks like the depot could once again be used for TGV-type
train maintenance. All that would be needed is a connection from HS2
on the other side of the GWML, and since HS2 will be in tunnel east of
OOC, a spur in tunnel coming up inside North Pole would be feasible.
Alternatively, a flyover from the station box, à la Stratford International,
could cross the GWML and come down inside the depot.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Stephen Sangwine" wrote

Looking at the diagram, OOC station is right next to North Pole depot,
which has lain empty since Eurostar vacated it to move to Temple Mills.
Suddenly it looks like the depot could once again be used for TGV-type
train maintenance. All that would be needed is a connection from HS2
on the other side of the GWML, and since HS2 will be in tunnel east of
OOC, a spur in tunnel coming up inside North Pole would be feasible.
Alternatively, a flyover from the station box, à la Stratford
International,
could cross the GWML and come down inside the depot.

It seems that North Pole has been pencilled in as the depot for GW IEPs,
with HS2 trains being maintained at Washwood Heath.

Peter

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

Just noticed this submission to HS2 by Parsons Brinckerhoff:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...pdf/oldoak.pdf

see the diagrams and plans on pages 9, 10 and 20 in particular.

As well as a low level Crossrail/Great Western/HS2 station, they
suggest a high level station with:

*four West Coast Main Line platforms (for services either terminating
or going onto the West London Line)
*two Dudding Hill line platforms (so services could be run onto the
Chiltern and Midland Main lines)
*two North London Line platforms (effectively bays facing the Richmond
direction)
*two West London Line platforms

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Mar 20, 11:03*pm, kev wrote:
Just noticed this submission to HS2 by Parsons Brinckerhoff:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...stakeholdersub...

see the diagrams and plans on pages 9, 10 and 20 in particular.

As well as a low level Crossrail/Great Western/HS2 station, they
suggest a high level station with:

*four West Coast Main Line platforms (for services either terminating
or going onto the West London Line)
*two Dudding Hill line platforms (so services could be run onto the
Chiltern and Midland Main lines)
*two North London Line platforms (effectively bays facing the Richmond
direction)
*two West London Line platforms

Intriguing. Quite a novel solution to the problem of serving both the
WLL and the Richmond Line, though it's not much use for through
service from the Richmond line heading north (be it to Willesden or
Cricklewood.) I'm also not entirely sure of the benefit of serving the
Chiltern and MML either, though I guess it's an extra pair of
platforms each they can both ill-afford at their respective termini.
Their flyunder destroys any possibility of reinstating platforms on
the slow lines at Willesden though, which would be a pity.

....with that much construction going on it'd be handy if the freight
loop at Olympia was extended through to this station to join the
proposed one there though. Might enable the WLL to have the decent
level of passenger service it needs.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:03:33 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

Just noticed this submission to HS2 by Parsons Brinckerhoff:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...pdf/oldoak.pdf

see the diagrams and plans on pages 9, 10 and 20 in particular.

As well as a low level Crossrail/Great Western/HS2 station, they
suggest a high level station with:

*four West Coast Main Line platforms (for services either terminating
or going onto the West London Line)
*two Dudding Hill line platforms (so services could be run onto the
Chiltern and Midland Main lines)
*two North London Line platforms (effectively bays facing the Richmond
direction)
*two West London Line platforms


As I suggested, there would be no need for High Speed 2 to terminate
at Euston.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

In message , at 09:16:49 on
Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Bruce remarked:

As I suggested, there would be no need for High Speed 2 to terminate
at Euston.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...wreck_at_Montp
arnasse_1895_2.jpg
--
Roland Perry

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 20 Mar, 23:03, kev wrote:
Just noticed this submission to HS2 by Parsons Brinckerhoff:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...stakeholdersub...
see the diagrams and plans on pages 9, 10 and 20 in particular.

As well as a low level Crossrail/Great Western/HS2 station, they
suggest a high level station with:

*four West Coast Main Line platforms (for services either terminating
or going onto the West London Line)
*two Dudding Hill line platforms (so services could be run onto the
Chiltern and Midland Main lines)
*two North London Line platforms (effectively bays facing the Richmond
direction)
*two West London Line platforms

I like this proposal better - it actually links the station up to
nearby lines instead of ignoring them.

But I don't see why the design needs to be on such a huge scale. Its
basically just another willesden junction, a junction between two rail
routes, in the middle of nowhere, but with twice as many lines
stopping at it, but the design seems to be for a major-central-london-
terminus-style station.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 18/03/10 16:25, kev wrote:
It would also only be one stop from Old Oak interchange to Willesden
Junction, for the Bakerloo and West Coast Main Line.

It's less than half a mile from OOC to Willesden Junction. It ought to
be possible to arrange a proper interchange without needing to catch a
train between the two.

Roger

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Roger Lynn" wrote in message
...
On 18/03/10 16:25, kev wrote:
It would also only be one stop from Old Oak interchange to Willesden
Junction, for the Bakerloo and West Coast Main Line.

It's less than half a mile from OOC to Willesden Junction. It ought to
be possible to arrange a proper interchange without needing to catch a
train between the two.

Depending on relative orientations, and considering that the HS2 platforms
cover a quarter of a mile walk anyway, a randomly arranged collection of
underground passageways, escalators, lifts and ticket halls could easily
hide the walk. Just like KX/St P... :-)

Paul S

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:
On 18 Mrz., 19:36, Bruce wrote:
2. *

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. *That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


Can't do that. The propylaeum would look entirely out of place at Old
Oak Common :-)


Perhaps a scale model?

Um... 18", anyone?

Sam

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Mar 18, 11:36*am, Bruce wrote:

I think it's an excellent idea. *In fact it is such a good idea that
OldOakCommon (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2. *


Pardon my asking a naive question:

would it be technically feasible to split a Southbound HS train at
OOC with half going East to Euston and the other half going West
to somewhere near Heathrow? Without causing material delays?

Presumably such a feature/arrangement would have to be designed in
from the start.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 04:06:36PM -0700, Mis wrote:

would it be technically feasible to split a Southbound HS train at
OOC with half going East to Euston and the other half going West
to somewhere near Heathrow? Without causing material delays?

Presumably such a feature/arrangement would have to be designed in
from the start.

No doubt it would be possible. But splitting takes time. And of course
you'd also need to combine north-bound trains, and joining trains
together generally takes more time, and is a great recipe for delays.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Mis
wrote:

On Mar 18, 11:36*am, Bruce wrote:

I think it's an excellent idea. *In fact it is such a good idea that
OldOakCommon (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2. *


Pardon my asking a naive question:

would it be technically feasible to split a Southbound HS train at
OOC with half going East to Euston and the other half going West
to somewhere near Heathrow? Without causing material delays?

Presumably such a feature/arrangement would have to be designed in
from the start.


It's not a bad idea. There's no reason why it wouldn't work with two
200 metre trains. But the computers in both "halves" would need to be
rebooted, and that seems to take time and/or be a source of problems
when splitting trains.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Mis
wrote:

Pardon my asking a naive question:

would it be technically feasible to split a Southbound HS train at
OOC with half going East to Euston and the other half going West
to somewhere near Heathrow? Without causing material delays?

Presumably such a feature/arrangement would have to be designed in
from the start.


It's not a bad idea. There's no reason why it wouldn't work with two
200 metre trains. But the computers in both "halves" would need to be
rebooted, and that seems to take time and/or be a source of problems
when splitting trains.

Why would anyone want to design splitting and joining trains with
computers that needed rebooting? Just because the current programming
is crap doesn't mean it always will be.

Sam

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bruce wrote:

It's not a bad idea. There's no reason why it wouldn't work with two
200 metre trains. But the computers in both "halves" would need to be
rebooted, and that seems to take time and/or be a source of problems
when splitting trains.

Why would anyone want to design splitting and joining trains with
computers that needed rebooting? Just because the current programming
is crap doesn't mean it always will be.

I'm not sure they do - I travel fairly regularlyon SN and SWT trains that
split or join, and don't recall any issues with the train systems. I think
it is AC/DC changeover (eg on FCC Thameslink) where the rebooting issues
normally arise...

Paul S

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:50:58 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

It's not a bad idea. There's no reason why it wouldn't work with two
200 metre trains. But the computers in both "halves" would need to be
rebooted, and that seems to take time and/or be a source of problems
when splitting trains.

Where do you get that idea from? Many trains on the current rail
network split journeys without problem. TPE for one do it several
times a day at Preston.

The alternative to splitting (as I queried upthread) is to run
occasional services to Heathrow instead of Euston. I guess it depends
ultimately what kinds of rolling stock are specified - a 'standard'
400m version or 2 x 200m, as used on TGV services.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010031918314916807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-03-18 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

snip

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

HS2 needs to connect to HS1 doesn't it? If you look at the area near
Euston on Google maps there is an easy connection from HS2 to HS1
via Primrose Hill and Camden Road and the track layout at St Pancras
has two connections to the North London line. There is space for more
tracks through Camden Road. Put the two lines together and we could
have DB ICE3s running through to Birmingham and Manchester. That is
why the London terminus has to be at Euston and not Heathrow or OOC.

I agree the OOC plan is a good one. Having a major interchange mirroring
Stratford makes a lot of sense.


That means using the EU low-platform standard, rather than level access @ ~
1100mm suited to all wheeled items, whether wheelchair, mobility scooter,
pram/stroller, luggage .... etc

I haven't seen this side of things discussed, but rather expect it to be a
matter of some significance.

I read the comment about IC3s as inferring the use of DB stock on hire to
provide domestic services. Through services from German cities are for a
future dimension when Fortress Britannia is dismantled to become immersed in
the melange of Greater Europe.

DW downunder

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 2010-04-04 13:15:41 +0100, "DW downunder" noname said:


"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010031918314916807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-03-18 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

snip

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

HS2 needs to connect to HS1 doesn't it? If you look at the area near
Euston on Google maps there is an easy connection from HS2 to HS1
via Primrose Hill and Camden Road and the track layout at St Pancras
has two connections to the North London line. There is space for more
tracks through Camden Road. Put the two lines together and we could
have DB ICE3s running through to Birmingham and Manchester. That is
why the London terminus has to be at Euston and not Heathrow or OOC.

I agree the OOC plan is a good one. Having a major interchange mirroring
Stratford makes a lot of sense.


That means using the EU low-platform standard, rather than level access
@ ~ 1100mm suited to all wheeled items, whether wheelchair, mobility
scooter, pram/stroller, luggage .... etc

I haven't seen this side of things discussed, but rather expect it to
be a matter of some significance.

I read the comment about IC3s as inferring the use of DB stock on hire
to provide domestic services. Through services from German cities are
for a future dimension when Fortress Britannia is dismantled to become
immersed in the melange of Greater Europe.

DW downunder

There has been talk of ICE3s running through to St Pancras, which does
not have low platforms, so running to Birmingham would be no different.
The spacing between platform edge and track would be critical - stations
with domestic-standard platforms such as Birmingham New Street would not
be suitable, but the international platforms at St Pancras are not built
to domestic UK standards.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 05/04/2010 19:50, Stephen Sangwine wrote:
On 2010-04-04 13:15:41 +0100, "DW downunder" noname said:


"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010031918314916807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-03-18 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

snip

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

HS2 needs to connect to HS1 doesn't it? If you look at the area near
Euston on Google maps there is an easy connection from HS2 to HS1
via Primrose Hill and Camden Road and the track layout at St Pancras
has two connections to the North London line. There is space for more
tracks through Camden Road. Put the two lines together and we could
have DB ICE3s running through to Birmingham and Manchester. That is
why the London terminus has to be at Euston and not Heathrow or OOC.

I agree the OOC plan is a good one. Having a major interchange mirroring
Stratford makes a lot of sense.


That means using the EU low-platform standard, rather than level
access @ ~ 1100mm suited to all wheeled items, whether wheelchair,
mobility scooter, pram/stroller, luggage .... etc

I haven't seen this side of things discussed, but rather expect it to
be a matter of some significance.

I read the comment about IC3s as inferring the use of DB stock on hire
to provide domestic services. Through services from German cities are
for a future dimension when Fortress Britannia is dismantled to become
immersed in the melange of Greater Europe.

DW downunder

There has been talk of ICE3s running through to St Pancras, which does
not have low platforms, so running to Birmingham would be no different.
The spacing between platform edge and track would be critical - stations
with domestic-standard platforms such as Birmingham New Street would not
be suitable, but the international platforms at St Pancras are not built
to domestic UK standards.

What about spacing and traffic issues, however?

With Eurostar trains going in and out the whole time (on how many
tracks?) would there be any room for DB or NS trains?

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

In message , at 20:55:54 on Mon, 5
Apr 2010, " remarked:
There has been talk of ICE3s running through to St Pancras, which does
not have low platforms, so running to Birmingham would be no different.
The spacing between platform edge and track would be critical - stations
with domestic-standard platforms such as Birmingham New Street would not
be suitable, but the international platforms at St Pancras are not built
to domestic UK standards.

What about spacing and traffic issues, however?

With Eurostar trains going in and out the whole time (on how many
tracks?) would there be any room for DB or NS trains?

They could probably cope if they stabled the trains somewhere else. I
don't know if they have the paths or the capacity at Stratford depot.
But with up to five Eurostars inside St Pancras at times (but probably
only three scheduled to depart in the next hour), there isn't room for
much more!
--
Roland Perry

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

They could probably cope if they stabled the trains somewhere else. I
don't know if they have the paths or the capacity at Stratford depot. But
with up to five Eurostars inside St Pancras at times (but probably only
three scheduled to depart in the next hour), there isn't room for much
more!

E*s proliferate to fill the platform space available at St Pancras. There
are six international platforms, so there should be no difficulty in
handling six arrivals and departures per hour, and eight should not be
impossible. Currently the Channel Tunnel can provide 20 paths per hour.
Eurotunnel is entitled to use half of these, leaving 10 paths for
international railways trains. But because E*s (and potentially other
international passenger trains) run at a higher speed through the Tunnel
than Eurotunnel Shuttles, a E* takes two paths, or a flight of two E*s takes
three paths. So the capacity for international passenger trains is only 6
tph. If the signalling in the Tunnel was beefed up it is possible that there
could be 24 paths per hour. 12 of these would be available for through
railways trains, which, in flights of two, makes a maximum capacity of 8
tph. Of course, ir would be better use of Tunnel capacity, if the traffic
could be attracted, to use a good proportion of the through railways
capacity for international freight.

Peter

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On 05/04/2010 21:49, Peter Masson wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote

They could probably cope if they stabled the trains somewhere else. I
don't know if they have the paths or the capacity at Stratford depot.
But with up to five Eurostars inside St Pancras at times (but probably
only three scheduled to depart in the next hour), there isn't room for
much more!

E*s proliferate to fill the platform space available at St Pancras.
There are six international platforms, so there should be no difficulty
in handling six arrivals and departures per hour, and eight should not
be impossible. Currently the Channel Tunnel can provide 20 paths per
hour. Eurotunnel is entitled to use half of these, leaving 10 paths for
international railways trains. But because E*s (and potentially other
international passenger trains) run at a higher speed through the Tunnel
than Eurotunnel Shuttles, a E* takes two paths, or a flight of two E*s
takes three paths. So the capacity for international passenger trains is
only 6 tph. If the signalling in the Tunnel was beefed up it is possible
that there could be 24 paths per hour. 12 of these would be available
for through railways trains, which, in flights of two, makes a maximum
capacity of 8 tph. Of course, ir would be better use of Tunnel capacity,
if the traffic could be attracted, to use a good proportion of the
through railways capacity for international freight.

Peter
Another issue of course, is that the E* rolling stock is specially
designed to run under the tunnel. IIRC, that is a requirement.

Does DB or NS have such equipment at the moment? If not, then from where
are they going to get it?

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

In message , at 21:49:15 on
Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Peter Masson remarked:
They could probably cope if they stabled the trains somewhere else. I
don't know if they have the paths or the capacity at Stratford depot.
But with up to five Eurostars inside St Pancras at times (but
probably only three scheduled to depart in the next hour), there
isn't room for much more!

E*s proliferate to fill the platform space available at St Pancras.
There are six international platforms, so there should be no difficulty
in handling six arrivals and departures per hour, and eight should not
be impossible.

But you would need to fins somewhere to stable the E* units that
currently lurk there for what must be hours on end (just because they
can).

Currently the Channel Tunnel can provide 20 paths per hour.

It was paths to/from/into a depot - presumably Stratford. Unlike
Brussels and Paris there aren't any sidings close to the terminal
station.
--
Roland Perry

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

On Apr 5, 10:21*pm, "
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 21:49, Peter Masson wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote

They could probably cope if they stabled the trains somewhere else. I
don't know if they have the paths or the capacity at Stratford depot.
But with up to five Eurostars inside St Pancras at times (but probably
only three scheduled to depart in the next hour), there isn't room for
much more!

E*s proliferate to fill the platform space available at St Pancras.
There are six international platforms, so there should be no difficulty
in handling six arrivals and departures per hour, and eight should not
be impossible. Currently the Channel Tunnel can provide 20 paths per
hour. Eurotunnel is entitled to use half of these, leaving 10 paths for
international railways trains. But because E*s (and potentially other
international passenger trains) run at a higher speed through the Tunnel
than Eurotunnel Shuttles, a E* takes two paths, or a flight of two E*s
takes three paths. So the capacity for international passenger trains is
only 6 tph. If the signalling in the Tunnel was beefed up it is possible
that there could be 24 paths per hour. 12 of these would be available
for through railways trains, which, in flights of two, makes a maximum
capacity of 8 tph. Of course, ir would be better use of Tunnel capacity,
if the traffic could be attracted, to use a good proportion of the
through railways capacity for international freight.

Another issue of course, is that the E* rolling stock is specially
designed to run under the tunnel. IIRC, that is a requirement.

Yes.


Does DB or NS have such equipment at the moment? If not, then from where
are they going to get it?

A train manufacturer. Any such train could likely be based on the
existing ICE train type, so it wouldn't have to be designed from
scratch.

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

But you would need to fins somewhere to stable the E* units that currently
lurk there for what must be hours on end (just because they can).

It was paths to/from/into a depot - presumably Stratford. Unlike Brussels
and Paris there aren't any sidings close to the terminal station.

Say 20 paths per hour between St Pancras and Stratford. Knock a few off for
conflicts in the station throat leaving say 16 usable paths. Off-peak 6-8
international, 4 domestic high speed, leaving 4-6 available for ecs to/from
Stratford. Few if any peak-direction ecs paths, but they wouldn't be needed,
only paths to bring in ecs from Stratford in the evening peak, or take ecs
out to Stratford in the morning peak.

Peter

Old Oak Common mega interchange
 

"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010040519504716807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-04-04 13:15:41 +0100, "DW downunder" noname said:


"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010031918314916807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-03-18 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

snip

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

HS2 needs to connect to HS1 doesn't it? If you look at the area near
Euston on Google maps there is an easy connection from HS2 to HS1
via Primrose Hill and Camden Road and the track layout at St Pancras
has two connections to the North London line. There is space for more
tracks through Camden Road. Put the two lines together and we could
have DB ICE3s running through to Birmingham and Manchester. That is
why the London terminus has to be at Euston and not Heathrow or OOC.

I agree the OOC plan is a good one. Having a major interchange mirroring
Stratford makes a lot of sense.


That means using the EU low-platform standard, rather than level access @
~ 1100mm suited to all wheeled items, whether wheelchair, mobility
scooter, pram/stroller, luggage .... etc

I haven't seen this side of things discussed, but rather expect it to be
a matter of some significance.

I read the comment about IC3s as inferring the use of DB stock on hire to
provide domestic services. Through services from German cities are for a
future dimension when Fortress Britannia is dismantled to become immersed
in the melange of Greater Europe.

DW downunder

There has been talk of ICE3s running through to St Pancras, which does
not have low platforms, so running to Birmingham would be no different.
The spacing between platform edge and track would be critical - stations
with domestic-standard platforms such as Birmingham New Street would not
be suitable, but the international platforms at St Pancras are not built
to domestic UK standards.


Then to which standards are they built? ... and how do Euro* trains cope
with the differences from French low level platforms ... do the ICEs have
similar means to adapt?

DW downunder