Will there ever be a new terminal in London?

[Jorge Da Silva]

Since 1899, when London Marylebone Opened, there has been no new terminal in London however with the Railways growing and a huge demand for more services as well as a lack of room for expansion at stations such as Marylebone and Victoria. Could there ever be a new terminal?
And if so where???

 

[pdeaves]

Since 1899, when London Marylebone Opened, there has been no new terminal in London however with the Railways growing and a huge demand for more services as well as a lack of room for expansion at stations such as Marylebone and Victoria. Could there ever be a new terminal?
And if so where???

Where would the land come from, and who would be prepared to pay for it? Until such time as a huge swathe of 'scummy estates' (I use the term very lightly) need to be rebuilt (potentially freeing up land) I think that for a terminal we will be limited to trying to work what we've got more intensively/efficiently.

Edited for clarity

 

[eastwestdivide]

Maybe more likely that terminus capacity constraints could be eased by linking up lines with tunnels, like Crossrail, the various RER lines in Paris, and probably elsewhere.

 

[quantinghome]

Maybe more likely that terminus capacity constraints could be eased by linking up lines with tunnels, like Crossrail, the various RER lines in Paris, and probably elsewhere.

True. Also, the development of large employment centres outside Zone 1 (e.g. Docklands, Old Oak Common) reduce pressure on the central termini.

 

[swt_passenger]

Old Oak Common should include a couple of terminating platforms for Chiltern.
A new underground station ("Euston Cross" IIRC) was a fairly high profile alternative suggestion for HS2, lying E/W under Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross, but it was soon ruled out in favour of expanding Euston.
Combining routes in the way of Thameslink, Crossrail and in future Crossrail 2 (and possibly 3, 4 etc) will be the solution, a brand new conventional terminus at ground level appears to be impossible.

 

[HSTEd]

Well one could envisage an underground terminal or two to support very high capacity railways in the future.

But they wouldn't be very big because Fenchurch Street demonstrates just how few platforms you can actually get away with for terminating trains.

 

[coppercapped]

What do you think?

Do you have any idea as to the route and destinations it should serve?

 

[edwin_m]

The likeihood is that over time more tunnels will be built between lines on the opposite sides of London so that trains can run through without terminating in the inner city. We saw this with the original Thameslink in the 1980s, now enhanced with more capacity so it effectively replaces trains terminating at Kings Cross, St Pancras, Victoria and London Bridge with through trains. We will soon have Crossrail doing the same for Paddington and Liverpool Street and Crossrail 2 is being talked about to replace services at Waterloo and (again) Liverpool Street. All these through links release capacity at the existing termini for more terminating trains.

HS2 is also increasing capacity significantly at Euston. The only way I can see a totally new London terminus would be if there was ever an eastern high speed lineproviding a more direct route to the north-east than HS2 as currently proposed.

 

[FQTV]

I’ve often wondered whether Battersea Power Station could have formed the nucleus of a major new through station in a below ground level box, with tunnelled lines running through it.

 

[InterCity:125]

I think any new London terminus will be below ground.

 

[Whattraintoday]

The main question that needs to be asked is not "where to put it", but "where would it serve"?
What geographic region of the South East / wider GB doesn't already have a London terminus?
If the answer is none (and I strongly suspect this to be the case), then it's a lot cheaper to expand existing stations and lines to increase capacity than build a duplicate.

 

[InterCity:125]

What geographic region of the South East / wider GB doesn't already have a London terminus?

I don’t know, Ireland?

 

[Whattraintoday]

I don’t know, Ireland?

Which is why I specifically said "GB" rather than UK, as some smart@rse on here would point out that NI is part of the UK and would require an Irish-gauge line (and long tunnel) all the way into London.

 

[DarloRich]

Was Blackfriars not a "new" terminus?

 

[swt_passenger]

Was Blackfriars not a "new" terminus?

It was a rearrangement & lengthening while reducing from 5 platforms to 4...

 

[DarloRich]

It was a rearrangement & lengthening while reducing from 5 platforms to 4...

It is fairly different to the original layout!

 

[MarlowDonkey]

HS2 is also increasing capacity significantly at Euston.

The HS2 route from Old Oak Common to Euston is likely to be awfully expensive. Would it be so bad with Crossrail/Elizabeth to terminate HS2 at OOC? But perhaps the line to Euston is needed as an excuse to redevelop the area round Euston station.

 

[DarloRich]

The HS2 route from Old Oak Common to Euston is likely to be awfully expensive. Would it be so bad with Crossrail/Elizabeth to terminate HS2 at OOC? But perhaps the line to Euston is needed as an excuse to redevelop the area round Euston station.

and also to give a central London terminal

 

[steamybrian]

Do you include St. Pancras International as a "new" terminal when you include HS1..?

 

[duesselmartin]

I would assume any new station would not be a "Terminus" but a through station as that increases flexibility and reduces the number of platforms needed.

 

[cle]

Or the WA lines (and Overground high level for that matter) at Stratford? All those platforms are together and feel like a terminus in busyness!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

My bet is no new termini but more through lines -hey we could call them Crossrail 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

[snowball]

It must be getting quite hard to thread each new tunnel through the central area. There's so much stuff down there already.

 

[InterCity:125]

It must be getting quite hard to thread each new tunnel through the central area. There's so much stuff down there already.

I think at one point the crossrail bore was 21cm either side from and escalator and a tube tunnel.

 

[najaB]

I think at one point the crossrail bore was 21m either side from and escalator and a tube tunnel.

Was that not 21cm?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The HS2 route from Old Oak Common to Euston is likely to be awfully expensive. Would it be so bad with Crossrail/Elizabeth to terminate HS2 at OOC? But perhaps the line to Euston is needed as an excuse to redevelop the area round Euston station.

It would be terrible. You'd have most HS2 passengers immediately flooding onto the Elizabeth line. The two new lines would end up being operationally conjoined, as any delays on one would immediately bring the other to its knees. It's a terrible idea mostly advocated by people living in and around Camden who don't want to live near a building site for a generation.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Does Bank DLR qualify as a newer Central London rail terminal than Marylebone?

 

[ijmad]

It would be terrible. You'd have most HS2 passengers immediately flooding onto the Elizabeth line. The two new lines would end up being operationally conjoined, as any delays on one would immediately bring the other to its knees. It's a terrible idea mostly advocated by people living in and around Camden who don't want to live near a building site for a generation.

It's been suggested the 12tph currently set to terminate at Paddington would terminate and reverse at Old Oak Common, which would mean some empty trains for those passengers would be available.

 

[John R]

Tower Gateway is a new terminal at a completely new location.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

When in its original usage, Waterloo International was in effect a new terminus. Unlike St. Pancras, domestic services to Waterloo didn't have their destination announced as Waterloo International, unlike St Pancras does.