• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Will there ever be a new terminal in London?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,365
1) I don't think a new tunnel would be problematic - if you go for deep level limited stop.
2) For heaven's sake, It's only a couple of hundred yards! Every journey should expect a bit of legwork, unless the traveller is disabled. Euston to Kings Cross/St P is so close that I'm surprised that journey planners suggest the tube, maybe even that the station buggies aren't licensed for the road to do it! I would guess it can't be a particularly heavily used transfer though...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
1) I don't think a new tunnel would be problematic - if you go for deep level limited stop.
2) For heaven's sake, It's only a couple of hundred yards! Every journey should expect a bit of legwork, unless the traveller is disabled. Euston to Kings Cross/St P is so close that I'm surprised that journey planners suggest the tube, maybe even that the station buggies aren't licensed for the road to do it! I would guess it can't be a particularly heavily used transfer though...

2) I do wish journey planners would just show Euston<>King's Cross/St. Pancras as 'walk'
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
St Pancras - Euston is a valid out-of-station interchange on Oyster. 727 Oyster users used it in a recent 4-week period. Which isn't many, but Oyster users make only a small proportion of those using Euston NR station.

It's not short, but going via the Victoria line is going to be about 75% of the walking distance.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,858
Location
UK
Clapham Junction had terminating trains, but was 100% through platforms until the new bay platforms for London Overground were created (1 especially is a proper terminating platform!).

So, therefore, isn't it a new terminal in London, technically speaking...?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,965
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!

The Channel Tunnel having the rather convenient aspect of not requiring stations for 50 km.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,965
That's where the Automated People Mover between Euston and St Pancras is probably going to end up.

MMHNSbB.png

Not sure where that’s come from, but that land is earmarked for Crossrail 2, and then a British Library development.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,858
Location
UK
Not sure where that’s come from, but that land is earmarked for Crossrail 2, and then a British Library development.

HS2 Phase One, section 1.8, Figure 3 shows the route.
The image is from a more detailed report, the conclusions of which ended up in the HS2 Phase One report.
I think the station is intended to be almost entirely over the road and pavement, rather than eating up land earmarked for other purposes.
 
Last edited:

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,646
Location
Huddersfield
My preference to create (virtually, but in effect an extension to St Pancras)a new station in London would be to relocate the British Library elsewhere. Yes, I know it would be expensive, but its not a very nice looking building and quite frankly, as long as its accessible it can be anywhere. The Library's present location was originally the Somers Town Goods yard, so creating a station there ought to be a piece of cake, assuming you demolish the British Library.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,611
Location
Torbay
My preference to create (virtually, but in effect an extension to St Pancras)a new station in London would be to relocate the British Library elsewhere. Yes, I know it would be expensive, but its not a very nice looking building and quite frankly, as long as its accessible it can be anywhere. The Library's present location was originally the Somers Town Goods yard, so creating a station there ought to be a piece of cake, assuming you demolish the British Library.

You'd have a job squeezing in decent length platforms even with the library gone. There's the Francis Crick Institute as well, and much social housing beyond, getting past all of which would force a narrow throat above Midland Road. The BL is not to everyone's taste, but was perhaps deliberately kept fairly low key in size and ornamentation so as not to upstage the amazing St Panras station next door. At least it's faced in matching red brick. It is also apparently like an iceberg with a great deal of its volume hidden under the surface. It was an awfully expensive building to construct with all its special environmental requirements and handling facilities etc, so while it could probably be replaced easily albeit at great cost by an enormous warehouse off the M25, recreating it anywhere else within central London would be eyewateringly expensive. Together with the Crick it helps cement the Kings Cross area as a knowledge and research hub which is good for the immediate area, and London generally, and proximity to all the major Euston Road terminals makes for unsurpassed access from across the UK.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
You'd have a job squeezing in decent length platforms even with the library gone. There's the Francis Crick Institute as well, and much social housing beyond, getting past all of which would force a narrow throat above Midland Road. The BL is not to everyone's taste, but was perhaps deliberately kept fairly low key in size and ornamentation so as not to upstage the amazing St Panras station next door. At least it's faced in matching red brick. It is also apparently like an iceberg with a great deal of its volume hidden under the surface. It was an awfully expensive building to construct with all its special environmental requirements and handling facilities etc, so while it could probably be replaced easily albeit at great cost by an enormous warehouse off the M25, recreating it anywhere else within central London would be eyewateringly expensive. Together with the Crick it helps cement the Kings Cross area as a knowledge and research hub which is good for the immediate area, and London generally, and proximity to all the major Euston Road terminals makes for unsurpassed access from across the UK.
It would also be very expensive to move the contents; the large number of fragile, historic manuscripts can't just be picked up and moved around.
 

Old Yard Dog

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2011
Messages
1,825
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).

Bradford is also struggling for a crossrail but seems lower down the pecking order than Windsor and Loughborough.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,365
The Channel Tunnel having the rather convenient aspect of not requiring stations for 50 km.
Aren't the crossover caverns almost as big as a station would be?

It would also be very expensive to move the contents; the large number of fragile, historic manuscripts can't just be picked up and moved around.
So just don't bother putting your railway through there then!
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Aren't the crossover caverns almost as big as a station would be?

The caverns are only ~160m long, so not as long as the crossrail station caverns, and whilst 18m wide, there is only one of them rather than 2 slightly smaller ones (without the myriad of connecting passages), nor pesky things like surface access.

Source: https://kentrail.org.uk/Cheriton_3.htm (including a plan view of the Chertion crossover)
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,365
The point being not the size of the caverns, but the need to reach the surface.
As I said in post# 74:
a good deep central station or 2 - which could be chosen and aligned so that their access tunnels (maybe even incorporating travelators) could come out at several useful heavy rail termini
I have great faith that our designers and civil engineers could produce a scheme which would reduce the need for use of the Underground as several termini would be served direct from the new through main line/RER services..
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,965
As I said in post# 74:
I have great faith that our designers and civil engineers could produce a scheme which would reduce the need for use of the Underground as several termini would be served direct from the new through main line/RER services..

Ahh, faith. As in believing that something that is not physically possible might be possible.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,365
Ahh, faith. As in believing that something that is not physically possible might be possible.
OK, how about "In my experience I have learnt to trust our designers and Civils to come up with a workable solution?"
As one of my old colleagues used to say: "Oh, ye of little faith!"
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,965
OK, how about "In my experience I have learnt to trust our designers and Civils to come up with a workable solution?"
As one of my old colleagues used to say: "Oh, ye of little faith!"

You’ll just have to trust me on this. I know the teams of designers and civil engineers that have been looking into it. After Crossrail 2 there is no space* for more railways** under the parts of central London that are the destinations most people currently want to get to, e.g. the City (Liverpool St, Moorgate / Bank), the northern termini (Euston / St Pancras / Kings Cross) and the West End, (Tottenham Court Road / Piccadilly / Oxford Circus / Bond St). Also Victoria and Waterloo.

But if you want a line that doesn’t serve these areas, then go for it!

* in some cases this is literally no space without moving other railways already there, which rather defeats the point. In other cases, it is without demolishing buildings that would make a scheme prohibitively expensive. For example any further new lines that would want to serve Liverpool Street will be knocking down billions of property to do so.

** proper railways that is.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Well said @Bald Rick - which is why I wonder whether post CR2 with a London population of 10.5m in 2041 as TfL are planning we will have to start looking more seriously at bringing back trams in central London.

In fact, given that there will be at least a seven year gap between HS2 Phase 1 opening and CR2 arriving in 2033 with HS 2 Phase 2, it seems to me that Cross River Tram would be a key to providing additional capacity to distribute HS2 passengers from 2026.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,858
Location
UK
Well said @Bald Rick - which is why I wonder whether post CR2 with a London population of 10.5m in 2041 as TfL are planning we will have to start looking more seriously at bringing back trams in central London.

I'm hopeful that by this era, self-driving vehicles may make road use far more efficient, meaning more space for busses, cyclists and yeah, maybe trams.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,733
Location
Scotland
I'm hopeful that by this era, self-driving vehicles may make road use far more efficient, meaning more space for busses, cyclists and yeah, maybe trams.
If you have a large flow of people travelling from Point A to Point B (or between pairs of intermediate points) then mass transit is going to win out for efficiency, even over autonomous road vehicles.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
I'm hopeful that by this era, self-driving vehicles may make road use far more efficient, meaning more space for busses, cyclists and yeah, maybe trams.

I can't see self-driving vehicles making any significant difference in central London. The problem is that cars and taxis are often bumper-to-bumper along many of the main routes. There's no way any self-driving technology can solve that - you need a serious reduction in the numbers of vehicles for most of the people currently in them to start using buses etc. instead. Really needs a Mayor of London to be brave enough to either ban most cars from central London altogether, or reform/raise the congestion charge to the level at which it's a serious deterrent to driving if you don't have to. (Interestingly, this BBC article suggests that some movement towards that may be forthcoming: Taxis and Uber vehicles may have their exemption removed)

I would imagine that if you can reduce traffic levels to the point at which buses can start moving freely again, that might ease some pressure on the underground rail network in central London because buses will become faster than trains (allowing for the walk down to the tunnels) for many shorter journeys.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,858
Location
UK
I can't see self-driving vehicles making any significant difference in central London. The problem is that cars and taxis are often bumper-to-bumper along many of the main routes. There's no way any self-driving technology can solve that - you need a serious reduction in the numbers of vehicles for most of the people currently in them to start using buses etc. instead. Really needs a Mayor of London to be brave enough to either ban most cars from central London altogether, or reform/raise the congestion charge to the level at which it's a serious deterrent to driving if you don't have to. (Interestingly, this BBC article suggests that some movement towards that may be forthcoming: Taxis and Uber vehicles may have their exemption removed

If you have a large flow of people travelling from Point A to Point B (or between pairs of intermediate points) between then mass transit is going to win out for efficiency, even over autonomous road vehicles.

The main benefit foreseen for cities is that self driving cars would need far fewer parking spaces needed in the middle of urban areas, which is capacity that could be given over to extra lanes for more traffic capacity. Most cars are idle for over 20 hours a day, and just sit doing nothing. I think I read something like a third of all road space in cities is dedicated to parked vehicles.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
The main benefit foreseen for cities is that self driving cars would need far fewer parking spaces needed in the middle of urban areas, which is capacity that could be given over to extra lanes for more traffic capacity. Most cars are idle for over 20 hours a day, and just sit doing nothing. I think I read something like a third of all road space in cities is dedicated to parked vehicles.

I think that logic is flawed (and on a quick Google I can't find anything to back it up). You're correct that most cars are idle most of the time. However most of those cars spend their idle time either on residential streets or in car parks - and neither offer much prospect for reducing congestion via extra lanes:
  • Most car parks could not usefully be turned into roads because they are the wrong shape: Squarish and don't lead anywhere :)!
  • Getting rid of parked cars on residential streets would certainly make those streets far more pleasant, and would ease traffic flow somewhat on those streets, mainly by avoiding the problem of cars going in opposite directions unable to pass each other. It could also allow some one-way residential streets to go back to being 2-way. But the problem is, on the whole, residential streets are not where the big congestion problems are, so overall this isn't going to make much difference.
Off the top of my head, I can think of very few streets in centres prone to traffic jams where the main reason for congestion is parked cars narrowing the streets (And of those that I can think of, none are in central London, and for most of ones I know of, it tends to be cars parked for 5 or 10 minutes while people pop to the shops, or lorries or vans unloading, not cars parked for hours on end. Would self-driving vehicles really reduce that kind of parking?).

You have to remember too that the pinch points that cause the most congestion tend to be the junctions and traffic lights - and almost invariably on-street parking is already not permitted in those places (precisely because those are the pinch points!). And further, self-driving vehicles that are not parked will often be spending some of that time driving empty to their next customer - adding to congestion in the process.

Certainly on Googling, the main consensus seems to be that self-driving vehicles are likely to make congestion worse, not better, in cities, since without action by the authorities, their main impact is likely to be to cause a shift away from public transport, increasing the numbers of vehicles driving around the roads.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,755
Location
Nottingham
The main benefit foreseen for cities is that self driving cars would need far fewer parking spaces needed in the middle of urban areas, which is capacity that could be given over to extra lanes for more traffic capacity. Most cars are idle for over 20 hours a day, and just sit doing nothing. I think I read something like a third of all road space in cities is dedicated to parked vehicles.
After carrying peak-time commuters all the cars will have to run empty to some suburban location for parking instead. Won't that just double the number of cars on city centre roads?
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
After carrying peak-time commuters all the cars will have to run empty to some suburban location for parking instead. Won't that just double the number of cars on city centre roads?

Short answer, no.

Long answer, although there may be some demand to move cars out of urban areas there's often a lot of people who need to be moved about. For instance those going to meetings having gone into their office or those who live in urban areas going out for the day.


There will also be those who start work early who's vehicle can then be used to get a child to school.

I think there's likely to be some reduction in vehicle numbers, but but as much as some think that there may be.

The one thing that we could see is a vehicle with multiple pods which offer those which share the vehicle for some of their journey a discount compared to having their own vehicle. Such a setup could reduce the number of vehicles but increase capacity.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,611
Location
Torbay
After carrying peak-time commuters all the cars will have to run empty to some suburban location for parking instead. Won't that just double the number of cars on city centre roads?

And the danger is that for short visits to town people might just tell their robot chauffeurs to circle for 30 minutes while they get on with business instead of paying extortionate parking fees, so although there'd be less demand for central parking, circulation traffic might increase markedly to replace it. Not good from any perspective really. The better future would be not to have a personal car at all, so a vehicle goes off to find another useful job nearby after dropping a fare.
 

ess

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2010
Messages
573
And the danger is that for short visits to town people might just tell their robot chauffeurs to circle for 30 minutes while they get on with business instead of paying extortionate parking fees, so although there'd be less demand for central parking, circulation traffic might increase markedly to replace it. Not good from any perspective really. The better future would be not to have a personal car at all, so a vehicle goes off to find another useful job nearby after dropping a fare.

This is fine until you think about the grubby trains you sit in sometimes full of newspapers, chewing gum on seats, coffee cups or worse. Then compare that to your own car!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top