Will there ever be a new terminal in London?

[cle]

I suspect at some point we'll see some major work on what will effectively be a new station in London, simply because if population growth continues we're likely going to see increasing numbers of people heading into London, and therefore there will be the demand for it.

The more interesting question is how to deal with the approach tracks, which would probably end up being in tunnel for miles (like HS1 and HS2).

I see the opposite, more Thameslink/Crossrail type schemes and terminals eventually just for long distance traffic, with a lot of premium land freed up.

They needn’t be as grandiose as CR1, or as complex as new Thameslink, but I think it’s an obvious way to go. Fenchurch Street is ripe for it, close a whole place rather than just metro services - nice uniform stock, distance, lengths etc - and won’t be needed for the future as it’s not useful for anything else really. I think it fits great with the Euston 350 operated routes. Wired, 12 car, frequent (a little imbalanced but after HS2 and a Watford rebuild, that could change.)

Plus schemes like doing away with Tower Gateway, a short line from Moorgate down to somewhere (if possible), ELL extensions westwards (Highbury and Dalton are new termini of sorts) and of course Abbey Wood.

 

[gsnedders]

I see the opposite, more Thameslink/Crossrail type schemes and terminals eventually just for long distance traffic, with a lot of premium land freed up.

They needn’t be as grandiose as CR1, or as complex as new Thameslink, but I think it’s an obvious way to go. Fenchurch Street is ripe for it, close a whole place rather than just metro services - nice uniform stock, distance, lengths etc - and won’t be needed for the future as it’s not useful for anything else really. I think it fits great with the Euston 350 operated routes. Wired, 12 car, frequent (a little imbalanced but after HS2 and a Watford rebuild, that could change.)

Plus schemes like doing away with Tower Gateway, a short line from Moorgate down to somewhere (if possible), ELL extensions westwards (Highbury and Dalton are new termini of sorts) and of course Abbey Wood.

FWIW, I can imagine something more like the underground section of Berlin Hbf happening—still more platforms than approach tracks (given intercity services are likely to have longer stops), given you may well want a few minutes layover without stopping all trains behind you.

 

[3141]

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

If it does, then what about Charing Cross Jubilee Line platforms?

 

[3141]

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

Sort of. Really it was just a small platform in an existing location, with existing lines to it converted to a different system.

 

[Mikey C]

I see the opposite, more Thameslink/Crossrail type schemes and terminals eventually just for long distance traffic, with a lot of premium land freed up.

They needn’t be as grandiose as CR1, or as complex as new Thameslink, but I think it’s an obvious way to go. Fenchurch Street is ripe for it, close a whole place rather than just metro services - nice uniform stock, distance, lengths etc - and won’t be needed for the future as it’s not useful for anything else really. I think it fits great with the Euston 350 operated routes. Wired, 12 car, frequent (a little imbalanced but after HS2 and a Watford rebuild, that could change.)

Plus schemes like doing away with Tower Gateway, a short line from Moorgate down to somewhere (if possible), ELL extensions westwards (Highbury and Dalton are new termini of sorts) and of course Abbey Wood.

I guess with all the buildings built over tracks (Fenchurch Street, Charing Cross, Victoria etc) we've got a lot of the financial "benefits" of the air space above the stations without actually the massive expense of sending the station underground. To make it worthwhile, you'd need to be able to remove significant viaducts and build over them (e.g. when the Thameslink line north of Blackfriars was sent underground and Holborn Viaduct replaced by City Thameslink)

 

[cle]

FWIW, I can imagine something more like the underground section of Berlin Hbf happening—still more platforms than approach tracks (given intercity services are likely to have longer stops), given you may well want a few minutes layover without stopping all trains behind you.

Zurich is a good model too. Another idea not much spoken of is underground loops - an underground stop below the terminus, another stop somewhere else and then back out to wherever. This might work with short, self-contained or where the civils might be too much (eg going under Bank etc!) Again Fenchurch St springs to mind.

I understood that the Tower Gateway plan was to divert all current services to Bank, but also to build a new a Tower DLR station on the current Bank route...?

 

[sprunt]

I understood that the Tower Gateway plan was to divert all current services to Bank, but also to build a new a Tower DLR station on the current Bank route...?

I can't remember the full details, but I think that some kind of preparatory work was done in the DLR tunnel where it passes under Tower Hill station.

 

[AndrewE]

Zurich is a good model too. Another idea not much spoken of is underground loops - an underground stop below the terminus, another stop somewhere else and then back out to wherever. This might work with short, self-contained..

... suburban routes??
But why not go on to somewhere else more useful instead? Going back where you came from is a wasted opportunity - but I suppose it does serve to contain disruption on one line! Through trains to somewhere else give another through journey option and must reduce congestion and terminal platform occupation at 2 termini, maybe on LUL too!
I get shouted down each time I say that terminating HS2 at Euston is a waste of an opportunity, but it seems that when away from their entrenched positions people are prepared to consider and even support the idea in principle!

 

[Bald Rick]

I get shouted down each time I say that terminating HS2 at Euston is a waste of an opportunity, but it seems that when away from their entrenched positions people are prepared to consider and even support the idea in principle!

But it’s not feasible. There’s barely enough space at Euston to fit 2 platforms for Crossrail 2; after that the subterranean landscape at Euston is full.

 

[ijmad]

I understood that the Tower Gateway plan was to divert all current services to Bank, but also to build a new a Tower DLR station on the current Bank route...?

Yeah, but not until about 2050 I thought.

I'd guess if they extend the DLR to Euston and Victoria to help transfer passengers from HS2, it might happen sooner as they'll probably need the extra trains to continue through to the new routes (no-one's going to spend all those billions for a 10tph service, would need to be 15tph or 18tph to justify the cost, surely).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

London is already cursed with too many remote terminals, as are Paris, Moscow and most mega-cities.
Berlin has the right idea with east-west and north-south through routes crossing at the new Hbf, and Vienna now has something similar with its new Hbf (eg giving Prague-Graz or Airport-Salzburg services).
Even Madrid's two main stations are linked by a main-line underground route.

Crossrail was initially envisaged as a through route linking (eg) Bristol and Norwich, but the planners have turned it into a glorified Central Line replacement.
Birmingham works quite well with New St and Snow Hill as through stations (OK, Snow Hill has been crippled northwards since 1967).
Manchester is still struggling to link up its original radial lines effectively.
Glasgow doesn't work too well for longer distance passengers either.
Deep level main line through routes are the way to go (as some of the "HS3" options for Manchester show).

 

[Bald Rick]

Crossrail was initially envisaged as a through route linking (eg) Bristol and Norwich, but the planners have turned it into a glorified Central Line replacement.

Crossrail was actually conceived as a Central line relief line, and indeed some parts were actually built as such, albeit as shelters during WWII.

No doubt at some point it has been thought of as a longer distance route, but London is too big for that. It has certainly been planned as a metro service since the 80s, and rightly so.

 

[AndrewE]

But it’s not feasible. There’s barely enough space at Euston to fit 2 platforms for Crossrail 2; after that the subterranean landscape at Euston is full.

I didn't suggest Euston. Why go there and dump all the passengers at a single terminus if it isn't the primary destination for most and LUL is full anyway? I agree with LN-GW Joint that deep level through lines are needed in some cases, perhaps go through somewhere like Old Oak Common in others. I also think that "Get to the terminus as fast as possible" is wrong. All main lines should have a Reading- or Watford Junction-type distributor station to serve people going outwards from their sector of the conurbation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But it’s not feasible. There’s barely enough space at Euston to fit 2 platforms for Crossrail 2; after that the subterranean landscape at Euston is full.

I'd agree that under the concourse at Euston is probably full because Euston tube station is there - and ditto Kings Cross tube station a bit further East if you wanted to extend any tracks.

But what about under the current national rail platforms? What's under those that would you stop you building a through East-West HS2 station there? (presumably with the eastwards tracks passing to the North of Kings Cross underground station, perhaps underneath the Thameslink platforms at St Pancras?

 

[theageofthetra]

I guess once the Bakerloo upgrade and modernisation commences that will eventually have new terminus with Lewisham rather than Hayes being the most likely

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Walk 55%
Northern/Bakerloo 22%
Bus 11%
Rail 6% (!!!)
District / Circle 5%
Cycle / Taxi 2%

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf

Since then I suspect cycling and walking have gone up a couple of clicks at the expense of other modes. Particularly as a significant proportion of passengers going on by tube are destined for somewhere along Tottenham Court Rd, which is very walkable from Charing Cross.

Thanks, that's interesting.

I was initially a bit puzzled that the proportion heading for the tube was so low, since my initial assumption was that people for the most part would be heading for destinations right across zone 1. But thinking about it at bit more...

1. Most zone 1 Bakerloo line destinations are also within walking distance of the Jubilee line, and people on Charing Cross trains can easily get to the Jubilee Line at Waterloo East/Southwark and slightly less easily at London Bridge.
2. Of the Northern line destinations, Tottenham Court Road is, as you say, walkable, and heading further north you quickly reach destinations that can be more quickly got to from the Bank branch, changing at London Bridge.
3. The separate national rail/LUL fares will encourage some people who don't have travelcards to walk to save money, even if their destinations can be reached by the tube. I incidentally fall into this category: Usually when I get to Charing Cross, I'm actually heading for Covent Garden or Holborn, and I normally choose to walk rather than pay the extra £1.50-ish on my Oyster. If rail and LUL fares ever got merged, I'd become more likely to use the tube, at least to get to Holborn (Covent Garden is just as quick to walk).
4. There's also the tendency of people in to try to live/work in places that are convenient to commute between. Hence you'd expect that people who work in the Charing Cross area are more likely to choose to live somewhere along the SouthEastern network than - say - people who work near Paddington.

Putting all those together, I think I can understand why such a high proportion of people walk and such a low proportion use the tube.

One other interesting thing... I notice from page 27 of that report that (if I've eyeballed the graph correctly) about 74% of people arriving at Charing Cross are making onward journeys of more than 1km - from which we can deduce that at least half of people walking are walking at least that distance. That seems consistent with my point 3.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd agree that under the concourse at Euston is probably full because Euston tube station is there - and ditto Kings Cross tube station a bit further East if you wanted to extend any tracks.

But what about under the current national rail platforms? What's under those that would you stop you building a through East-West HS2 station there? (presumably with the eastwards tracks passing to the North of Kings Cross underground station, perhaps underneath the Thameslink platforms at St Pancras?

Directly under the platforms, there’s not much. But immediately west and east of them are both branches of the Northern line heading north. And then a bit further east are some very deep basements of the British Library and the Francis Crick Institute. To get under those you need to be at least 50 metres down, and that means building some very, very big and deep holes to get a large amount of people up and down. A train with 900 people on it, many with luggage, needs a lot of escalators and lifts.

 

[Busaholic]

Thanks, that's interesting.

I was initially a bit puzzled that the proportion heading for the tube was so low, since my initial assumption was that people for the most part would be heading for destinations right across zone 1. But thinking about it at bit more...

1. Most zone 1 Bakerloo line destinations are also within walking distance of the Jubilee line, and people on Charing Cross trains can easily get to the Jubilee Line at Waterloo East/Southwark and slightly less easily at London Bridge.
2. Of the Northern line destinations, Tottenham Court Road is, as you say, walkable, and heading further north you quickly reach destinations that can be more quickly got to from the Bank branch, changing at London Bridge.
3. The separate national rail/LUL fares will encourage some people who don't have travelcards to walk to save money, even if their destinations can be reached by the tube. I incidentally fall into this category: Usually when I get to Charing Cross, I'm actually heading for Covent Garden or Holborn, and I normally choose to walk rather than pay the extra £1.50-ish on my Oyster. If rail and LUL fares ever got merged, I'd become more likely to use the tube, at least to get to Holborn (Covent Garden is just as quick to walk).
4. There's also the tendency of people in to try to live/work in places that are convenient to commute between. Hence you'd expect that people who work in the Charing Cross area are more likely to choose to live somewhere along the SouthEastern network than - say - people who work near Paddington.

Putting all those together, I think I can understand why such a high proportion of people walk and such a low proportion use the tube.

One other interesting thing... I notice from page 27 of that report that (if I've eyeballed the graph correctly) about 74% of people arriving at Charing Cross are making onward journeys of more than 1km - from which we can deduce that at least half of people walking are walking at least that distance. That seems consistent with my point 3.

The removal of the Jubilee Line from Charing Cross in the name of a 'greater good' was an extremely retrograde step: now we are about to get the enforced removal by TfL of one of the two remaining bus routes from CX up to Regent and Oxford Streets so even more walking will shortly ensue.

 

[AndrewE]

Directly under the platforms, there’s not much. But immediately west and east of them are both branches of the Northern line heading north. And then a bit further east are some very deep basements of the British Library and the Francis Crick Institute. To get under those you need to be at least 50 metres down, and that means building some very, very big and deep holes to get a large amount of people up and down. A train with 900 people on it, many with luggage, needs a lot of escalators and lifts.

The point of going deep is to allow through lines and maybe another Central zone station or two, so a lot of people might well get off at the other stops, plus the people who don't want to get off in the city at all! But if you are going deep, why stop at Euston anyway?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Directly under the platforms, there’s not much. But immediately west and east of them are both branches of the Northern line heading north. And then a bit further east are some very deep basements of the British Library and the Francis Crick Institute. To get under those you need to be at least 50 metres down, and that means building some very, very big and deep holes to get a large amount of people up and down. A train with 900 people on it, many with luggage, needs a lot of escalators and lifts.

This is interesting. According to this map of Euston station the Northern line branches are respectively 20.4m and 29.8m underground, so by themselves that doesn't seem like an obstacle. I'm guessing that would comfortably leave room for an HS2 concourse - say, 5m below the existing National Rail platforms, and HS2 tracks 5m below the concourse - so going above the Northern Line branches and close enough to ground level for escalators etc. not to be too much of a problem.

I'm not sure the British Library and Francis Crick basements are such a problem in themselves: I would have thought the easiest solution would be to align the Euston HS2 platforms SW-NE, so that the Eastbound tracks pass to the North of Francis Crick. That also has the advantage of taking the lines comfortably out of the way of Kings Cross tube station (And even if you couldn't avoid them, would the cost of claiming either institution's basement and then paying to build another one somewhere else really be significant in comparison to the total cost of HS2? After all various utilities etc. had to be moved in order to build Crossrail, and that didn't stop Crossrail getting built).

However, you then hit a problem of threading across first the Thameslink tracks, and then the Piccadilly line (21.3m below ground) and the Victoria line (15.7m - apparently the Victoria line climbs considerably between Euston and Kings Cross?). I don't know enough about the precise alignments to know how possible that is - I'm guessing it could be doable with some gradients on the HS2 lines to drop below Thameslink and then rise again to pass over the Victoria line. It would certainly be easier the further North you are because of the increased horizontal distance between the three northbound lines - that ties in nicely with trying to route North of Francis Crick.

Obviously, I realise the decision has been made so this is all hypothetical, and there are all sorts of questions about whether extending HS2 East would have been worthwhile. I'm more interested here in whether it would have been practically possible.

In terms of a use for it, personally I think it would have been nice to extend HS2 to Stratford, as that would make access to HS2 much easier for a fair swathe of East London and Essex, and would also relieve some pressure on both Crossrail through Central London and the tube network around Euston. It would also allow a connection to HS2 if at some point in the future that's considered desirable (though I think at the present time that was ruled out as not sufficiently beneficial).

 

[edwin_m]

This is interesting. According to this map of Euston station the Northern line branches are respectively 20.4m and 29.8m underground, so by themselves that doesn't seem like an obstacle. I'm guessing that would comfortably leave room for an HS2 concourse - say, 5m below the existing National Rail platforms, and HS2 tracks 5m below the concourse - so going above the Northern Line branches and close enough to ground level for escalators etc. not to be too much of a problem.

Rule of thumb for a bored tunnel is that it has to be its own diameter below ground level, and I think something similar applies to mined tunnels. A HS2 station tunnel would be well over 10m diameter (I can't find a dimension for Crossrail station tunnels but Crossrail 2 running tunnels are assumed to be 7.2m external diameter, without platforms and for smaller trains - http://crossrail2.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CRL-Information-for-Developers-Feb-2018-FINAL.pdf). Cut-and-cover through Euston and Kings Cross would be an absolute nightmare, so I think the HS2 station would have to be below the Northern and Victoria tunnels. In any case, work is now under way at Euston for the surface HS2 station so it's far too late to change it now.

Although high speed can accommodate some pretty servere gradients, in stations areas such as this one it has to be close to level as well as straight. This would make it very difficult to miss the Underground and passage/escalator/lift tunnels at both stations, which would effectively be at opposite ends of the HS2 platforms.

 

[ess]

I see the opposite, more Thameslink/Crossrail type schemes and terminals eventually just for long distance traffic, with a lot of premium land freed up.

I'm expecting a grand scheme to move at least one existing mainline terminal underground where a developer will reclaim the land above the station (and a long, wide strip of land leading to it) for buildings on top of where the existing tracks are now.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is interesting. According to this map of Euston station the Northern line branches are respectively 20.4m and 29.8m underground, so by themselves that doesn't seem like an obstacle. I'm guessing that would comfortably leave room for an HS2 concourse - say, 5m below the existing National Rail platforms, and HS2 tracks 5m below the concourse - so going above the Northern Line branches and close enough to ground level for escalators etc. not to be too much of a problem.

I'm not sure the British Library and Francis Crick basements are such a problem in themselves: I would have thought the easiest solution would be to align the Euston HS2 platforms SW-NE, so that the Eastbound tracks pass to the North of Francis Crick. That also has the advantage of taking the lines comfortably out of the way of Kings Cross tube station (And even if you couldn't avoid them, would the cost of claiming either institution's basement and then paying to build another one somewhere else really be significant in comparison to the total cost of HS2? After all various utilities etc. had to be moved in order to build Crossrail, and that didn't stop Crossrail getting built).

However, you then hit a problem of threading across first the Thameslink tracks, and then the Piccadilly line (21.3m below ground) and the Victoria line (15.7m - apparently the Victoria line climbs considerably between Euston and Kings Cross?). I don't know enough about the precise alignments to know how possible that is - I'm guessing it could be doable with some gradients on the HS2 lines to drop below Thameslink and then rise again to pass over the Victoria line. It would certainly be easier the further North you are because of the increased horizontal distance between the three northbound lines - that ties in nicely with trying to route North of Francis Crick.

Obviously, I realise the decision has been made so this is all hypothetical, and there are all sorts of questions about whether extending HS2 East would have been worthwhile. I'm more interested here in whether it would have been practically possible.

In terms of a use for it, personally I think it would have been nice to extend HS2 to Stratford, as that would make access to HS2 much easier for a fair swathe of East London and Essex, and would also relieve some pressure on both Crossrail through Central London and the tube network around Euston. It would also allow a connection to HS2 if at some point in the future that's considered desirable (though I think at the present time that was ruled out as not sufficiently beneficial).

It is often forgotten that aside from the station tunnels (which would need to be around 420m long for HS2), you need to build tunnels for the trains to reach them, and these tunnels themselves need to meet necessary standards for horizontal and vertical alignment and curvature with respect to the linespeed. And of course they also have to be clear of any obstruction. Then you have to provide all the shafts for escalators, lifts and other connecting passageways, including those dedicated for emergency escape. Enough to deal with the number of passengers that could be expected to use the station. And these also have to miss anything else already down there. Let’s not forget that apart form the station and running tunnels for the existing underground, there are many connecting passageways, some of which are not usually visible to the public.

Re the Francis Crick institute. You can’t just demolish a basement, the whole thing has to go. It cost £650m including all the clever kit in there, and that was a few years ago. Including the cost of relocation 1500 scientists, it would be closer to £1bn now. Yes you could build something on the site when the work is done, but the deep basements were necessary for certain scientific purposes. There’s a very good reason Crossrail 2 is carefully avoiding it!

I'm expecting a grand scheme to move at least one existing mainline terminal underground where a developer will reclaim the land above the station (and a long, wide strip of land leading to it) for buildings on top of where the existing tracks are now.

Well you can expect all you like, but it’s not happening.

 

[AndrewE]

In terms of a use for it, personally I think it would have been nice to extend HS2 to Stratford, as that would make access to HS2 much easier for a fair swathe of East London and Essex, and would also relieve some pressure on both Crossrail through Central London and the tube network around Euston

So go the whole hog then, run through at deep level avoiding Euston and its complicated / inconvenient neighbours, call at a suitably located station or two and connect to HS2 at Ashford or somewhere else convenient.

Although high speed can accommodate some pretty servere gradients, in stations areas such as this one it has to be close to level as well as straight. This would make it very difficult to miss the Underground and passage/escalator/lift tunnels at both stations, which would effectively be at opposite ends of the HS2 platforms.

not if it went down somewhere in N London like Northolt, called at a good deep central station or 2 -which could be chosen and aligned so that their access tunnels maybe even incorporating travellators could come out at several useful heavy rail termini -then come up en route to the HS2 interchange.

It is often forgotten that aside from the station tunnels (which would need to be around 420m long for HS2), you need to build tunnels for the trains to reach them, and these tunnels themselves need to meet necessary standards for horizontal and vertical alignment and curvature with respect to the linespeed. And of course they also have to be clear of any obstruction. Then you have to provide all the shafts for escalators, lifts and other connecting passageways, including those dedicated for emergency escape. Enough to deal with the number of passengers that could be expected to use the station. And these also have to miss anything else already down there. Let’s not forget that apart form the station and running tunnels for the existing underground, there are many connecting passageways, some of which are not usually visible to the public.

All much more easily done if you are starting with a blank canvas deeper than everything else. Clearly it would take clever design to optimise the surface connections, but as for the the actual workings, many longer tunnels get dug with less convenient access - like being under the Channel, for instance!

 

[ijmad]

Well you can expect all you like, but it’s not happening.

Network Rail seem quite keen to sell more air rights, though.
They tried to sell a scheme when the London Bridge redevelopment was being planned.

In future, surely we could surely see something similar over one of the non-listed trainshed roofs such as the modern part of St Pancras, similar to what's been done at Charing Cross and Cannon Street.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

In future, surely we could surely see something similar over one of the non-listed trainshed roofs such as the modern part of St Pancras,

Is there much that isn't listed, or would be listed if there was a development threat?

 

[ijmad]

Is there much that isn't listed, or would be listed if there was a development threat?

Victoria
Clapham Junction

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Taking this onto a slightly new tack... From the preceeding discussion, I think people are mostly agreed that a completely new London Terminus (HS2 at Euston aside) is unlikely. There also seems to be a consensus that after Crossrail 1 and 2, new tunnels under central London are going be increasingly problematic.

So, assuming CR2 is built, but demand continues to grow for travel in and to central London so we end up needing more capacity again (based on recent history and assuming the worst Brexit predictions don't come true, that seems very plausible in 20 years or so), what other possible solutions are there? Off the top of my head, you could probably gain a fair amount by banning private cars and taxis from a lot of central London - that would free up space for more buses or possibly trams, as well as letting buses get around at more reasonable speeds, which would probably tempt some people off the tube etc, but that's not going to be a huge difference next to the capacity of a train. You could perhaps remove some people from central London by better links to Old Oak Common and Stratford, but again I'd imagine that would only make a small difference.

Anything else?

 

[matacaster]

Could a couple of additional platforms be built next to MML platforms on a raised deck over St Pancras Road?

 

[ijmad]

Could a couple of additional platforms be built next to MML platforms on a raised deck over St Pancras Road?

That's where the Automated People Mover between Euston and St Pancras is probably going to end up.