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

[zoomwhoosh]

Apart from the disruption of building the temporary station and tieing it in and then removing it after? How do you connect it to the Underground and other transport links? The shed is a no go anyway as HS2 will be building in that area. Euston works very very well now as the throat has an element of grade seperation. Flat crossing to every platform from every line wouldnt improve it.

My suggestion is to use the southeast corner of Regents Park. The tie-in would be via a short tunnel to the other side of the canal. (I don't know what to call the site but it looks like a stabling yard).

The connection to the underground would be via Regents park and Great Portland Street.

I'm not suggesting that the rebuilt Euston use a flat crossing btw. The point is that if you build a temporary station you stop tying yourself in knots and you're free to rebuild the station in a manner befitting.

Plus what got my eye was all the talk about building stuff over the station. That's gonna require serious foundations and rebuilding the site from scratch lets you do the engineering properly (and quite probably at a lot less cost).

 

[The Planner]

You still need to engineer a minimum of a 4 track approach and station with enough platforms though and then rip it out after x years. You also lose all connectivity to the Northern and Victoria lines let alone the loss of whatever retail outlets there would be at Euston. I doubt it would cover its own costs personally.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

You still need to engineer a minimum of a 4 track approach and station with enough platforms though and then rip it out after x years. You also lose all connectivity to the Northern and Victoria lines let alone the loss of whatever retail outlets there would be at Euston. I doubt it would cover its own costs personally.

Its not there to cover its own costs. And you can move some of the retail over.

What its for is to save money and time on Euston. Not just the engineering costs, but the disruption. And when you think about it, its also a path towards getting the above-Euston-station development happening a lot faster and that's also more value capture happening sooner.

I'm not saying it isn't expensive. I'm saying its less expensive, will happen a lot faster, and be a lot more elegant.
And yes a four track tunnel won't come cheap. Maybe you can think of a way to reuse it? Or perhaps come up with a better location?

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe you can think of a way to reuse it? Or perhaps come up with a better location?

As it's your idea in the first place, and everyone else is disagreeing with it, then I think it's down to you to suggest any means of making it more workable.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

As it's your idea in the first place, and everyone else is disagreeing with it, then I think it's down to you to suggest any means of making it more workable.

I already have. The current project is a multi billion pound game of twister. A temporary station is quite likely going to be cheaper and its absolutely going to be a lot faster.

 

[Haydn1971]

The pretty obvious solution for me, would be to distribute the WCML load into several different locations. There's a HS2 station required at Old Oak anyways, a curved chord from the WCML through what will be the Old Oak development site could bring several services per hour into the eastern end of the new HS2 station and onto various London services from there, you could potentially with some track work drop 2-3 extra trains per hour into St Pancras, and then drop the rest into half of Euston - it's going to take almost a decade to rebuild Euston, passengers are going to have to get used to the initial hassle, but some serious thinking about new overground service links, getting the tube extensions to Old Oak done earlier should be all part of the plan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The pretty obvious solution for me, would be to distribute the WCML load into several different locations.

That would be *extremely* irritating to passengers who would have to choose which place to go to for the next service. I'm opposed to putting the Tring locals on Crossrail for that reason, but going further and splitting the VTs up in that manner would be sheer lunacy.

 

[NotATrainspott]

My suggestion is to use the southeast corner of Regents Park. The tie-in would be via a short tunnel to the other side of the canal. (I don't know what to call the site but it looks like a stabling yard).

The connection to the underground would be via Regents park and Great Portland Street.

I'm not suggesting that the rebuilt Euston use a flat crossing btw. The point is that if you build a temporary station you stop tying yourself in knots and you're free to rebuild the station in a manner befitting.

Plus what got my eye was all the talk about building stuff over the station. That's gonna require serious foundations and rebuilding the site from scratch lets you do the engineering properly (and quite probably at a lot less cost).

If you've moved the WCML services to your new station at Regent's Park, you may as well keep them there, leave Euston to HS2 services alone and save the cost of acquiring more land. It's not feasible to build temporary Zone 1 termini; if you're building a new one, you're building one to be used 'forever'.

It would be different in other circumstances though. For example, if the Crewe Hub proposals involved massively rebuilding the existing station, it may well be feasible and ideal to redirect the WCML and build a temporary station there in the meantime. However, that's because there's plenty of railway land available there and onward connections can be provided easily for the time when the station has moved.

 

[Haydn1971]

That would be *extremely* irritating to passengers who would have to choose which place to go to for the next service. I'm opposed to putting the Tring locals on Crossrail for that reason, but going further and splitting the VTs up in that manner would be sheer lunacy.

Go on then, how would you rebuild Euston then ?

 

[zoomwhoosh]

If you've moved the WCML services to your new station at Regent's Park, you may as well keep them there, leave Euston to HS2 services alone and save the cost of acquiring more land. It's not feasible to build temporary Zone 1 termini; if you're building a new one, you're building one to be used 'forever'.

It would be different in other circumstances though. For example, if the Crewe Hub proposals involved massively rebuilding the existing station, it may well be feasible and ideal to redirect the WCML and build a temporary station there in the meantime. However, that's because there's plenty of railway land available there and onward connections can be provided easily for the time when the station has moved.

That was my original inclination. The problem is you're not going to take over a public park in London and get away with it unless its very clear its temporary.

You could build a permanent station that's simply buried but again that's more costly and you'd also have to do it in conjunction with some other permanent underground infrastructure, like a shuttle to Euston/St Pancras. The start of CrossRail 2? Mabye.

I also think the idea above of moving some WCML services to different termini has some some merit. I'm not sure if its a complete solution but it might help. It certainly would limit the scope of a temporary station and quite probably mean it only requires two tracks to feed it.

 

[The Planner]

How many would you expect to move and can the other terminii actually cope? Bear in mind that currently between 0800-0900 Euston has 27 arrivals and 23 departures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Go on then, how would you rebuild Euston then ?

Does it actually need *rebuilding* entirely? What's wrong with the staged HS conversion proposal which wouldn't leave it down any more than 3 platforms at a time?

It would be harder to operate while down 3 platforms, but I reckon it could be done if servicing was moved off-site - VTs do tend to lay over for rather a long time.

 

[glbotu]

Does it actually need *rebuilding* entirely? What's wrong with the staged HS conversion proposal which wouldn't leave it down any more than 3 platforms at a time?

It would be harder to operate while down 3 platforms, but I reckon it could be done if servicing was moved off-site - VTs do tend to lay over for rather a long time.

That would depend on the capacity of the pointwork in the throat. 27 arrivals and 23 departures is a lot.

If we assume each arrival from VT goes to some sidings (lets say Camden CS). There are 11 VT arrivals. That means the throat now needs to cope with 27 arrivals and 34 departures between 0800 and 0900 (assuming they form a service in the next hour rather than the same hour). All the while, it may also be that these arrivals have to cross half the throat to be serviced at Camden, especially if they arrive in low numbered platforms. This may not be operationally feasible. (I don't know, someone may have to enlighten me).

Taking the Tring stoppers to Crossrail seems sensible. That takes 2 departures and 1 arrival out between 0800 and 0900, which seems pretty small. Is there anything that could be sensibly diverted to another terminus or crossrail? I don't mean a new bespoke one either, I mean an existing one, with capacity. Will there be room at Paddington in a post-Crossrail world for say all Diesel VT services (which could be specified to certain destinations, like, say, North Wales and Edinburgh) to not confuse passengers too much?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taking the Tring stoppers to Crossrail seems sensible.

No, it doesn't. It would only be sensible if you took *all* stopping services onto Crossrail with a timetable recast, which might not get the best capacity out of the line. Otherwise remembering what went from where at some stations would be downright inconvenient, and certain services would end up overcrowded.

It's not like Thameslink where St P has stations on both lines!

People like the services from Euston. Remember the furore about removing LO!

That takes 2 departures and 1 arrival out between 0800 and 0900, which seems pretty small. Is there anything that could be sensibly diverted to another terminus or crossrail?

Diverting to Crossrail to me would need to involve *all* slow line services[2] or none, otherwise it would be a right nuisance to passengers.

If the gain is 2 departures and 1 arrival, that's pointless. Though in reality it'd be more than that - most of the Bletchley starters are basically Tring stoppers that start back from Bletchley because that's where the units and traincrew are.

[2] i.e. Euston would then have no services stopping at anything other than WFJ, MKC and points north, and Crossrail would terminate at MKC. Though I suppose you could have nothing stopping south of Tring except Crossrail if you moved Tring services over, but realistically that would need a lot more than 2tph - you'd probably want 4tph to Tring plus 2tph Watford shuttles - and I doubt there's capacity. Then you'd have something like 2tph EUS-WFJ-Tring-(Cheddington)-LBZ-BLY-MKC, 2tph EUS-LBZ-(BLY)-MKC-Wolverton-Northampton and onto Brum, and 2tph EUS-WFJ-MKC, one going onto Brum and one Crewe, perhaps. But I'm not convinced it would all fit.

I don't mean a new bespoke one either, I mean an existing one, with capacity. Will there be room at Paddington in a post-Crossrail world for say all Diesel VT services (which could be specified to certain destinations, like, say, North Wales and Edinburgh) to not confuse passengers too much?

Again, it would be a nuisance.

 

[Haydn1971]

Does it actually need *rebuilding* entirely? What's wrong with the staged HS conversion proposal which wouldn't leave it down any more than 3 platforms at a time?



It would be harder to operate while down 3 platforms, but I reckon it could be done if servicing was moved off-site - VTs do tend to lay over for rather a long time.

Think of London Bridge, just several times more difficult - the more trains and passengers you can move away from the construction site, the quicker and less costly the new station will be. I've been involved with building motorways and major roads over the years, the more you can build away from the daily traffic the easier life becomes - ease of construction lowers construction costs.

With regard to passengers being displaced, you wouldn't just move random trains, the methodology may include redirecting services from (for example) Liverpool & Wales to a different site, then the Manchester services to another - it's not going to be an easy task to redesign the timetabling but let's face it, the disruption will be for nearly a decade and the routing will change after completion anyways.

Re the laying over - give a yard and the other person will take a mile - whilst I accept that some lay over time is necessary, platform space will be at a premium and reviewing operational methods are a way of reducing that lay over time, could be using extra drivers to move stock out to service areas away from the station, or extra staff to get the cleaning and routine checks done quicker.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Again, it would be a nuisance.

Nuisance or not, some pain will come from construction of HS2 - you can't just do the works overnight for a decade. The key is to make the changes compatible with the end product - There is a clear concern from TfL and others that banging 18 train loads of HS2 stock into Euston is going to need substantial works to the tube stations serving Euston, cause upheaval in bus and roads based links.

Whilst traditionally central London was the target destination for the mainline services, times have changed, passengers arriving at Euston are heading to a variety of different places not just in central London, but across the SE of England and beyond - simply accepting Euston as "the" place to terminate services from the north is backward looking and doesn't acknowledge the economic spread of businesses and tourism out of the city centre, nor the casual traveller who has an ongoing trip from London - Thameslink, Crossrail 1, 2 and hopefully 3 will go someway to resolving this, but further work is needed going forward.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nuisance or not, some pain will come from construction of HS2 - you can't just do the works overnight for a decade. The key is to make the changes compatible with the end product - There is a clear concern from TfL and others that banging 18 train loads of HS2 stock into Euston is going to need substantial works to the tube stations serving Euston, cause upheaval in bus and roads based links.

Very true. One thing sorely needed is an entrance to Euston Square right outside the station - the mind boggles as to why this has never been done given that the platforms do reach there!

Whilst traditionally central London was the target destination for the mainline services, times have changed, passengers arriving at Euston are heading to a variety of different places not just in central London, but across the SE of England and beyond - simply accepting Euston as "the" place to terminate services from the north is backward looking and doesn't acknowledge the economic spread of businesses and tourism out of the city centre, nor the casual traveller who has an ongoing trip from London - Thameslink, Crossrail 1, 2 and hopefully 3 will go someway to resolving this, but further work is needed going forward.

This is true - the difficulty is that the very mixed stopping-pattern service that operates from Euston in the peaks is designed (and very well designed at that) to minimise overcrowding and make best use of stock. You couldn't just move some of it onto Crossrail without ending up with a very inconvenient distribution of services, while recasting to a more regular timetable would reduce capacity heavily. Whereas because platform lengths aren't uniform, if you tried (for example) making everything 12-car to make up for a service reduction you'd lose the effective use of platforms 9 and 10.

You might be right that moving VTs might actually be easier than moving LMs, because the stopping pattern of those is much more segregated (or could more easily be changed such that it was). But maybe there is an option for regularisation that would work. To me the key is that either there should be a regularised, memorable split for a given station (e.g. to Tring would be XX and YY minutes past from Euston, and AA and BB from Crossrail, with only XX and AA continuing past 2100, say) or everything for a given station should go from only one of the two. This might well mean a need for overprovision in the evening, or possibly a rolling stock order[1] to allow the number of stopping patterns from Euston to be reduced.

[1] You'd probably need to remove the semifasts and stop more trains on the slows at all stations, which as they'd run slower would need more stock. Reducing overall capacity would not be acceptable.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

Does it actually need *rebuilding* entirely? What's wrong with the staged HS conversion proposal which wouldn't leave it down any more than 3 platforms at a time?

It would be harder to operate while down 3 platforms, but I reckon it could be done if servicing was moved off-site - VTs do tend to lay over for rather a long time.

The problem is having a long and narrow work site. Access to machinery, builders tripping over each other, etc, etc.

I can perhaps live with a two stage (which would still require sending some trains elsewhere) but even then there will be issues in terms of the necessary engineering to support anything above the station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Speaking of the tube stations, one of the things that I read in a report about double decking which frankly was dumb was that in digging close to the tube station you'd have to have tension piles to pull down on the floor above to continue to keep constant force on the platform tunnels.

Totally wrong.

A better way to do this is to excavate right down to the tube station platform levels and rebuild from there. That's another thing that's nearly impossible to do without moving the trains elsewhere and having a clear site to work on.

 

[Haydn1971]

You couldn't just move some of it onto Crossrail without ending up with a very inconvenient distribution of services

To clarify, I'm not for a moment suggesting putting VT's onto Crossrail, I'm suggesting better integration of VT's during HS2 construction with Crossrail and other TfL provided services at sites remote to Euston - Essentially get Old Oak up and running with connections before starting major construction at Euston. Gets the concept of distributed arrivals working prior to HS2 becoming operational - indications in meetings I've been privy to is that TfL are starting to understand that all HS2 arrivals at London couldn't be accommodated just at Euston and the vocabulary is such that something more is required.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Does it actually need *rebuilding* entirely? What's wrong with the staged HS conversion proposal which wouldn't leave it down any more than 3 platforms at a time?

It would be harder to operate while down 3 platforms, but I reckon it could be done if servicing was moved off-site - VTs do tend to lay over for rather a long time.

The western half of Euston must be rebuilt, as the only way to have enough 400m platforms for HS2 is to run them well beyond the existing buffer stops, and as the front of the station must remain flat for buses and the like the HS2 platforms must then be several metres lower than the existing ones.

There is no overwhelming operational need to rebuild the remaining classic platforms. Once rebuilt, they would be more efficient as there would be better passenger distribution and the platform lengths would be normalised, but it's not a matter of absolute urgency to do so when the large passenger flows will be on HS2 to the west. The aspiration to rebuild the rest of the station is so that it would be architecturally complete, and would help minimise the negative effects of the westward expansion needed for HS2.

What David Higgins appears to be saying in the interview is that HS2 Ltd would try to get Network Rail to pay for the reconstruction of their part within their own long-term planning and funding processes. That helps keep HS2 Ltd on budget and without including the feature creep which could derail the scheme. As a consequence, the eastern half would need to be rebuilt in isolation from the western half, whereas in initial plans the western half would be built first and used for temporary WCML services before HS2 is finished.

 

[The Planner]

You wont get the turnarounds shorter at Euston than what they are for long distance services. They are better in the platforms than trying to find ECS paths to somewhere and back (which arent there anyway)

 

[Bletchleyite]

To clarify, I'm not for a moment suggesting putting VT's onto Crossrail, I'm suggesting better integration of VT's during HS2 construction with Crossrail and other TfL provided services at sites remote to Euston - Essentially get Old Oak up and running with connections before starting major construction at Euston. Gets the concept of distributed arrivals working prior to HS2 becoming operational - indications in meetings I've been privy to is that TfL are starting to understand that all HS2 arrivals at London couldn't be accommodated just at Euston and the vocabulary is such that something more is required.

If HS2 is going to have services terminating at Old Oak, they might as well just give up now, in my view. People will not accept an InterCity train service terminating in the suburbs. They'll use the classic lines instead.

I am strongly of the view that if HS2 doesn't have its main terminus for near enough all trains in central London somewhere, it is an utter dead duck.

 

[po8crg]

If HS2 is going to have services terminating at Old Oak, they might as well just give up now, in my view. People will not accept an InterCity train service terminating in the suburbs. They'll use the classic lines instead.

I am strongly of the view that if HS2 doesn't have its main terminus for near enough all trains in central London somewhere, it is an utter dead duck.

If HS2 is temporarily terminating at Old Oak in order to give more time to get Euston into a fit state to accept trains, then I could live with that.

And if it's made clear that it's a temporary measure because Euston is such a mess (and that's announced in advance so it doesn't look like they just couldn't complete in time) then I expect most people will be happy with the service opening part at a time.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Although Old Oak Common will be designed so that it would be feasible to terminate some services there, everything we've heard from HS2 Ltd about HS2-Euston not being delivered on time has been denied.

If there's a need to shunt more people off of HS2 trains at Old Oak Common than the 1/3 expected already then that could be done without terminating trains short. For it to work, there would need to be very good onward connections available, beyond those which are already planned. Offering differential ticket prices for the few years before Euston is capable of handling that many passengers would be the simplest option - if given the option, I think a lot of people would be happy to use other transport methods to get to Old Oak Common to save a few bob off their ticket price.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If HS2 is temporarily terminating at Old Oak in order to give more time to get Euston into a fit state to accept trains, then I could live with that.

And if it's made clear that it's a temporary measure because Euston is such a mess (and that's announced in advance so it doesn't look like they just couldn't complete in time) then I expect most people will be happy with the service opening part at a time.

I think people will tolerate that, but they won't be using HS2 when they could use regular West Coast services (or Chiltern if travelling from Brum) until such time as HS2 does reach Euston.

Actually, if WCML Brum services moved away from Euston in their entirety, even temporarily, I reckon Chiltern will need to hunt down a few more Mk3s from somewhere.

Paddington is bad enough!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there's a need to shunt more people off of HS2 trains at Old Oak Common than the 1/3 expected already then that could be done without terminating trains short. For it to work, there would need to be very good onward connections available, beyond those which are already planned. Offering differential ticket prices for the few years before Euston is capable of handling that many passengers would be the simplest option - if given the option, I think a lot of people would be happy to use other transport methods to get to Old Oak Common to save a few bob off their ticket price.

No objections to that - provided the alternative is indeed up to scratch. Might also be popular for those going to West London.

Of course we've had that sort of differential for "via Kensington Olympia" fares for a while, and back in the day before Westfield opened they were quiet enough even at 4-car except one run south in the morning peak and one run north in the evening...but those trains are now getting so overcrowded I think there's a strong argument for dropping those fares and just having +Any Permitted.

 

[po8crg]

I think people will tolerate that, but they won't be using HS2 when they could use regular West Coast services (or Chiltern if travelling from Brum) until such time as HS2 does reach Euston.

Actually, if WCML Brum services moved away from Euston in their entirety, even temporarily, I reckon Chiltern will need to hunt down a few more Mk3s from somewhere.

Sure. Though do bear Crossrail in mind. The map of "nearest station by time" for London has even parts of the City closer to OOC than Euston.

Euston is mostly North/South London; Old Oak mostly East/West.

There's a slide from HS2 showing this, but the quality of the only version I can find is terrible

 

[Haydn1971]

Offering differential ticket prices for the few years before Euston is capable of handling that many passengers would be the simplest option - if given the option, I think a lot of people would be happy to use other transport methods to get to Old Oak Common to save a few bob off their ticket price.

Spot on, whilst Old Oak won't suit most, there will be a small percentage that it does suit, you could increase that by adding attractive connection options - HS2 will end up completely changing the timetables north of London, there's no reason not to expect similar changes to connecting services in London. Offer the right carrot and people will make the change.

 

[HSTEd]

Do the vaults at the British Library extend under the huge plaza they have there?
You could always dig it up to build a station under it - it would be less objectionable to most than doing it to a park with all the old growth trees.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

Do the vaults at the British Library extend under the huge plaza they have there?
You could always dig it up to build a station under it - it would be less objectionable to most than doing it to a park with all the old growth trees.

If you were going to do that you'd probably have to relocate the library. My problem is that I don't know what occupies the land up to Brill Place. I assume those other buildings are part of the library complex but I'm not sure.

I guess the other question is what the site is big enough for. And you might also have to build the terminal fan underground.

I'm only suggesting you use the corner of Regents park on the assumption that you can (temporarily) relocate at least some of those trees.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Btw, how much spare capacity is there at Paddington, and given the CrossRail connection there, would this be a good choice for diverting some trains that would otherwise go to Euston?

 

[Haydn1971]

If you were going to do that you'd probably have to relocate the library.

Would that be the same "national" library that took about a decade to sort a site for and another decade to build ?

 

[zoomwhoosh]

Would that be the same "national" library that took about a decade to sort a site for and another decade to build ?

That would be the one. Its all a matter of how much money isn't it..