Euston 'level decking' and over-throat development - post-Higgins plans

[NotATrainspott]

Yes precisely. Australia and the US both have the problem, in places, of low density making public transport not viable and urban sprawl is no good either.

That's why a proposal such as Ringby is such a good idea but I suppose too complex a comprehensive develoment and too decentralising for our politicians to master. http://thornshapedroute.weebly.com/

But is public transport such a good idea per se? It seems to me that's it's a consequence of high density rather than a beneficail attribute of it. It's rigidities are its downside. You have to go out of your way to use it. It's timing or frequency may not be convenient to you. It's operators are sometimes unreliable or plain bloody-minded. usw. What are its benefits that low-density self-reliance doesn't provide?

......................?

Public transport is inherently more egalitarian than private motoring, for one. An advanced society is one where the rich use public transport as well as the poor, as a result of it being high quality, affordable and attractive for all passengers. Cars benefit only the subset of society who can afford to drive and are able to do so, whereas efficient and attractive public transport benefits everyone, from children to old people to disabled people to the people who would otherwise have the stress of individual motoring (commuting every day to work and back, having to worry about congestion, parking and being unable to do anything else during their journey). Private motoring is to the detriment of people who are not able to drive as it causes environmental damage and takes up space on the roads that would otherwise be available for pedestrians, cyclists and surface public transport.

There are also arguments to be made about the personality of society with private motoring and low-density housing: if you let every person live in their own personal bubble of motoring and their own castle of a home they're not as exposed to the situations of other people around them. Indeed, one of the ideas behind the initial suburban sprawl in American was that a man with his own house wouldn't be a Communist. That's not to say that the provision of public transport is a Marxist plot however...

By the way, since you've been using 'usw' so much are you a German speaker? 'usw' is the German equivalent of 'etc', meaning 'und so weiter' for anyone who didn't know.

 

[pablo]

Thank you for your exposé…interesting.

Nein. Eine kleine. “and so on and so forth” is probably a more accurate if long winded translation. et cetera (latin) doesn't quite say the same. I use some Latin, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin and Umerikan. Don’t we all? But don’t speak any of them well.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I now have it on extremely good authority that there are only two remaining options for Euston and the Hybrid Bill one is not one of them. Either Euston is rebuilt to the original plans or it is double-decked with the WCML fast line platforms put at +1 level above the HS2 platforms (i.e. London Underground at -2, HS2 (with hybrid and WCML slow platforms alongside) at -1, concourse at 0 and WCML fast platforms at +1). The second option means that the station does not expand to the west by very much at all, saving a lot of Camden from demolition. The second option is also said to tick more boxes, despite being much more complicated to construct.

EDIT: Oops, I was mistaken in the last sentence. Numerically the first option ticks more boxes, but some of the ones the second one ticks are significant like the far smaller loss of listed buildings.

 

[pablo]

I see some logic in the second option but more mole-like living. OK, and just to comlicate things further; Euston has a conflicting traffic problem at current passenger numbers. Inbound collides with outbound. Time to separate the flows into Arrivals and Departures at different levels.

Edit: It does beat me though how to dig down to -1, using more or less the same footprint, whilst maintaining a semblance of an operational station.
I used Euston during the last re-build and ISTR, the footfall was a lot less then, but mayhem often prevailed.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sounds like that German multi-level station.

 

[59CosG95]

Sounds like that German multi-level station.

What, Berlin Hauptbahnhof?
There, the two tracks are on different levels, travelling East-west (high-level) and North-south (Low-level). Here, all tracks are terminating. This will be very challenging from an engineering perspective...

 

[pablo]

What, Berlin Hauptbahnhof?
There, the two tracks are on different levels, travelling East-west (high-level) and North-south (Low-level). Here, all tracks are terminating. This will be very challenging from an engineering perspective...

Thank you 59CosG95. Peeps seem to find it difficult to imagine the massive scale of the underground works for a double-decker and the impracticallity of running a classic sevice alongside the activity. Which is why I suggest that Euston is not the place. Might be cheaper to buy up a section of Mayfair and demolish it!

 

[edwin_m]

I assume this is the Euston double deck proposal we are talking about. Some details here of how they would phase the construction:

http://pancamdenhs2alliance.org/?page_id=951

 

[NotATrainspott]

I assume this is the Euston double deck proposal we are talking about. Some details here of how they would phase the construction:

http://pancamdenhs2alliance.org/?page_id=951

No, it's double deck up rather than double deck down.

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/C220-ARP-EN-REP-01A-000004.pdf

 

[Tobbes]

I assume this is the Euston double deck proposal we are talking about. Some details here of how they would phase the construction:

http://pancamdenhs2alliance.org/?page_id=951

Very interesting, but I'm inherently cynical about costings that assume that it will all be cost-neutral because of the cost of rehousing those in West Euston. It also seems rather glib on the ease of building on two levels and over the top of the underground. But what do I know?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Very interesting, but I'm inherently cynical about costings that assume that it will all be cost-neutral because of the cost of rehousing those in West Euston. It also seems rather glib on the ease of building on two levels and over the top of the underground. But what do I know?

Arup looked at double deck down, including the Pan Camden Alliance design. One of the biggest problems is that there isn't enough space above the Northern Line tunnels for both decks to actually be below ground, resulting in the concourse being several metres above street height. In both Option 1 and 19 the concourse is entirely level with the street, meaning that it would be possible to have pedestrian avenues running through the unpaid concourse to make the station effectively disappear.

 

[pablo]

No, it's double deck up rather than double deck down.

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/C220-ARP-EN-REP-01A-000004.pdf

It's exceedingly well thought-out. 16 year programme starting on site Aug 2016. Isn't that a bit previous? You can kiss goodbye to 2026 in service. Be lucky to see the full monty by Dec 2033. First four HS platforms after more than eight year's construction. ..... OOC?

"Having redirected the fast WCML services to the upper deck, the site for the new HS2 dive-under and portal becomes available. Construction of both would proceed, with the portal becoming ready to receive the TBMs two years later. (i.e. after 12 years from 2016 SoS) Completion of the portal and dive-under would enable the tunnel cleaning to progress and then fit-out of the tunnel and construction of systems from the tunnel to the station, when commissioning and test running using the first four HS2 platforms would proceed.

From the Programme: 10475 Earliest TBMs can arrive at Euston 14-Apr-28
2920 Run first HS2 service train into Euston 21-Aug-28

 

[NotATrainspott]

Indeed. The two remaining options - 1 and 19, have total construction times of 13.5 and 16.5 years respectively starting from roughly next year so it seems inevitable that there would be some years of using Old Oak Common as a temporary terminus. If one or other of the tunnels can be brought into service before Euston then it might be possible to have services run into them to turn back rather than waiting at OOC for long periods of time.

 

[HSTEd]

Or more likely they could just push Phase 1 back a couple of years and bring Phase 1 and 2 into service simultaneously.

It also saves ordering unnecessary CC units that are not required to run the second phase services.

 

[Wolfie]

Imagine the pollution of London sprawled even further and everyone commuted by car...

...to get a feel try Dublin sometime, smaller scale but....

 

[NotATrainspott]

Or more likely they could just push Phase 1 back a couple of years and bring Phase 1 and 2 into service simultaneously.

It also saves ordering unnecessary CC units that are not required to run the second phase services.

All the Phase 1 CCs are used in Phase 2 as the ones freed up from London-Manchester and due to the decreased journey times to other places are then used on London-Newcastle, Birmingham-Scotland and Birmingham-Newcastle runs.

 

[HSTEd]

Estimated additional cost of roughly £160m.... if it removes the Camden complainers lets just do it so we can get on with it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

One issue with the 'double deck up' idea is that the people whose homes won't need to be demolished will then complain about the enormous viaduct that carries the fast line platforms. This viaduct is high enough to provide full clearance over the Hampstead Road bridge and would be very long and rather wide. Double-decking also restricts what is possible in terms of over-site development, both above the station itself and the station throat. Combined with the three extra years of construction it does mean that the option isn't a universal panacea to solve all of the problems in Camden. If the buildings that were to be demolished have already been compulsory purchased it wouldn't save that much money to not have to demolish them.

 

[edwin_m]

It also saves ordering unnecessary CC units that are not required to run the second phase services.

The CC units that serve Manchester in phase 1 are re-used to serve Edinburgh and Newcastle in phase 2.

 

[po8crg]

Indeed. The two remaining options - 1 and 19, have total construction times of 13.5 and 16.5 years respectively starting from roughly next year so it seems inevitable that there would be some years of using Old Oak Common as a temporary terminus.

If they were building an HS2-HS1 link with a decent capacity, some trains could perhaps terminate at Stratford International (or even Ebbsfleet/Ashford). That assumes that the link would be complete at the same time as OOC and HS2 Phase One, but there's no particular construction reason to doubt that. There might be political reasons relating to Camden, of course.

The current version of the proposal doesn't even include passive provision (ie a spur) for later construction at OOC. I wrote to the DfT and asked...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The CC units that serve Manchester in phase 1 are re-used to serve Edinburgh and Newcastle in phase 2.

Don't forget that there will be CC trains from Birmingham in phase 2 as well as ones from London, so there will be Birmingham-Glasgow and Birmingham-Liverpool trains.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If they were building an HS2-HS1 link with a decent capacity, some trains could perhaps terminate at Stratford International (or even Ebbsfleet/Ashford). That assumes that the link would be complete at the same time as OOC and HS2 Phase One, but there's no particular construction reason to doubt that. There might be political reasons relating to Camden, of course.

The current version of the proposal doesn't even include passive provision (ie a spur) for later construction at OOC. I wrote to the DfT and asked...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Don't forget that there will be CC trains from Birmingham in phase 2 as well as ones from London, so there will be Birmingham-Glasgow and Birmingham-Liverpool trains.

We still do not know what, if anything, will be done to provide for a HS1-HS2 link as Higgins/the DfT did indicate that another, better solution would be found that could be implemented once the network starts running. If that means that passive provision needs to be introduced into the scheme, albeit a different passive provision to the one that would build the Hybrid Bill link, then there's no reason it cannot be introduced.

The HS1-HS2 link and Heathrow Spur are somewhat connected as the same paths were to be used for both services. Any of the current Airports Commission shortlists may work in the favour of the Heathrow Spur, with the Gatwick solution making a 'London Interconnection South' line via Heathrow a feasible proposition as a high speed rail link between the two would be a useful thing to have if a dual-hub approach is to be followed. Once you've got an HS2-Heathrow spur and a Heathrow-Gatwick HSR line it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the loop could be closed up to join back to HS1 near the disused Southfleet/Fawkham Junction connection built to allow Eurostars to go to Waterloo after running on HS1 Phase 1. This is one possibility that would be expensive but would serve as another important component of the future British Isles HSR network and it could be built after Phase 2. There is no cost in passively providing for this line now as the Heathrow Junction is already designed into HS2 and the final engineering options for the Heathrow station explicitly allowed for it to be incorporated into a loop back to HS2.

No, Birmingham Curzon Street doesn't have anything more than the 3tph to London in Phase 1 and the northern chord at Coleshill is similarly unused, except possibly for a limited number of ECS runs to/from Washwood Heath. Similarly, Manchester Piccadilly will not see any classic-compatible services to Scotland and its northern chord is also unused by passenger services, albeit used frequently for ECS runs to Golbourne depot. The reasoning is the same for both: classic-compatible trains are expensive and there's no point using them for journeys with only a tiny proportion on high speed track. In Manchester's case the long diversion via the airport would nullify any high speed gains over the final few kilometres.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Don't forget that there will be CC trains from Birmingham in phase 2 as well as ones from London, so there will be Birmingham-Glasgow and Birmingham-Liverpool trains.

It's such a pity that they won't be used to offer limited direct services to Nottingham and Derby from London via HS2.

 

[Taunton]

In both Option 1 and 19 the concourse is entirely level with the street, meaning that it would be possible to have pedestrian avenues running through the unpaid concourse to make the station effectively disappear.

The typical Railtrack approach to such an arrangement, as seen at a number of other stations around the country, would then be to install ticket gates all across the station to make the pedestrian avenues, as shown in the design documents to get approval, then unusable.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's such a pity that they won't be used to offer limited direct services to Nottingham and Derby from London via HS2.

Yes, but remember these places will still have electrified MML services to St Pancras that will be run with something comparable to an IEP by the time HS2 comes around.

The typical Railtrack approach to such an arrangement, as seen at a number of other stations around the country, would then be to install ticket gates all across the station to make the pedestrian avenues, as shown in the design documents to get approval, then unusable.

Well they would have a rather difficult time justifying doing that to the people of Camden and to HS2 Ltd. In both options the street-level concourse is completely unrestricted and could entirely cover the lower level of platforms so there's no worry about running out of space. The need for over-site development to pay for the scheme will likely result in the majority of the station being covered in a sort of high-class shopping centre with the paid areas of the concourse minimised to ensure that as many people can visit the retail areas as possible.

If that means there's no 'train shed' that's not really a big problem because Grand Central Terminal in New York doesn't have one either. Grand Central manages just fine to have one excellent waiting area and concourse building which is relatively compact on the site, with all access to platforms being underground. A similar situation in Euston, along with open parkland covering the front and surrounding the rebuilt Arch, would be excellent. All that land on top of the station throat and behind the main station building would be available for development, just as there are skyscrapers and city blocks sitting on top of the platforms and throat in New York.

EDIT: Euston Station - Sift 3 Options Report

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes, but remember these places will still have electrified MML services to St Pancras that will be run with something comparable to an IEP by the time HS2 comes around.

I hope you are right. My concern is that the DfT will seek to reduce the level of service on the MML once the second stage of HS2 is open which would be a disaster for the East Midlands.

 

[pablo]

Further observations:
Classic approach roads reduced from 6 to 4. Add 2 HS approaches. Gets back to existing provision but with ~50% extra traffic. How will that work out? Choke, choke.

As noted above. the top deck is 35ft in the sky and the viaduct approach vies with the Skyway Bridge in Florida.

This plan is all madness.

The incredible delay before this programme can accept the tubes from OOC to Euston prompts a thought I had some time ago. What if the tubes are built early and the slows are connected and diverted into them temporarily. That could free up the slow Primrose Hill tunnel so it could be over-bored to GC+ gauge and provide the elusive connection to HS1. Would the WC connection and the NNL still be problems?

It would make certain that some WC slows ended up on Crossrail and shorten this unprecedented 16 year programme by a couple of years or so.

...and, the author of a report like this should know the difference between anticipated and expected. They don't mean the same thing and are not interchangeable.

 

[po8crg]

Once you've got an HS2-Heathrow spur and a Heathrow-Gatwick HSR line it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the loop could be closed up to join back to HS1 near the disused Southfleet/Fawkham Junction connection built to allow Eurostars to go to Waterloo after running on HS1 Phase 1. This is one possibility that would be expensive but would serve as another important component of the future British Isles HSR network and it could be built after Phase 2.

I've been tempted in the past to suggest looking at upgrading the Redhill-Ashford line. It's probably outrageously expensive and disruptive to widen it to GC loading gauge and put all the stations on loops (so the high-level UK platforms are not on the mainline) but Redhill is awfully close to Gatwick, and that line is so straight it looks like a Victorian engineer attacked a map with a ruler.

At least you're not fighting major land-acquisition battles, and local services along the line would end up greatly upgraded, as you'd be running fast commuter trains to keep the train paths manageable, even if you're not running Javelin-style services. That might keep most of the NIMBYs at bay - if you live near the line, you already live next to a railway anyway, and local rail service would be much better afterwards than before.

If you could run Old Oak Common-Heathrow-Gatwick-Tunnel trains, then class 374-type ("captive") services could run from HS2 stations in the North of England and class 373-type ("classic compatible") could run from GWML (e.g. Cardiff-Paris would be around four hours) as well as from locations in the North of England and/or Scotland that don't have HS2 stations (e.g. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle).

 

[Chris125]

Further observations:
Classic approach roads reduced from 6 to 4. Add 2 HS approaches. Gets back to existing provision but with ~50% extra traffic. How will that work out? Choke, choke.

IIRC one of the 6 lines down Camden Bank is only used as an ECS line, and four is believed to be sufficient - even if capacity did become an issue, that could be easily addressed by the WCML Crossrail branch being pushed by TfL.

What if the tubes are built early and the slows are connected and diverted into them temporarily. That could free up the slow Primrose Hill tunnel so it could be over-bored to GC+ gauge and provide the elusive connection to HS1. Would the WC connection and the NNL still be problems?

I don't see how that would help - the problem isn't between Old Oak Common and Primrose Hill, where a single bore tunnel would be relatively simple to achieve, but the viaduct from there to HS1 through Camden Town with all the disruption involved.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

Four approach lines should be doable for the classic component of the station if the same assumptions that hold for the high speed sections hold for them.

At some point it might become necessary to install ATO in the Euston approach though to improve performance if classic service provision continues to increase.

 

[edwin_m]

Excluding the DC lines (which would probably disappear out of Euston at least during the rebuild) all of Euston's trains plus some others are successfully fed through four tracks north of Wembley. So having that number closer to Euston isn't automatically a showstopper. The devil would be in the detail, particularly what speed would be achievable and the tradeoff between the time it takes the train itself to pass and the signalling braking distance needed before the next one.