"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

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.

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?

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

"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

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?

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

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.

"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

"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