Could HS2 have terminated at St Pancras?

[SargeNpton]

Would have had to be pretty deep to miss all the existing LU lines and station tunnels, so I think it’s hard to picture exactly where it would have gone in relation to the two existing mainline stations. I’ve read somewhere that it was to be on a NW/SE alignment.

That's about right. When I get a chance I will spread it out on the living room floor to peruse.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don’t recall a tunnelled route direct to Waterloo being planned, if it was it must have been a short lived possibility.

There was to be a big underground junction at Warwick Grdens, where the direct route to KXStP split, and the ‘branch’ to Waterloo surfaced and connected with the Catford Loop in the vicinity of Crofton Road Junction.

Would have had to be pretty deep to miss all the existing LU lines and station tunnels, so I think it’s hard to picture exactly where it would have gone in relation to the two existing mainline stations. I’ve read somewhere that it was to be on a NW/SE alignment.

It was on a Se-NW alignment, and largely under the gap between the two main line stations. I’ve never understood how it missed the various tunnels there.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Would have had to be pretty deep to miss all the existing LU lines and station tunnels, so I think it’s hard to picture exactly where it would have gone in relation to the two existing mainline stations. I’ve read somewhere that it was to be on a NW/SE alignment.

Yes, the tunnel from the south-east, to underground international platforms at Kings Cross - which was superseded by the route under the NLL to above-ground platforms at StP - would have run under the Thameslink alignment until just before KX when it would have carried on NW-wards with the start of the station underneath the southernmost of the 3 blocks to the east of KX station (known as the Bravingtons Block to the locals - immediately to the north of the Lighthouse Block), then running diagonally under the two mainline terminals.

There was to be a big underground junction at Warwick Grdens, where the direct route to KXStP split, and the ‘branch’ to Waterloo surfaced and connected with the Catford Loop in the vicinity of Crofton Road Junction.




It was on a Se-NW alignment, and largely under the gap between the two main line stations. I’ve never understood how it missed the various tunnels there.

Yes - it was clearly intended to be pretty deep - there would have been no way of threading it through otherwise, unless the domestic T/L line was abandoned and it ended up on that level. But even then it wouldn't have been easy...! I've not seen the plans for years now, since I was involved in the campaign to save the area from being knocked down.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It would have been possible, if the British Library and Francis Crick Institute hadn't been built in that location.
Because of that, there is no real viable solution.

 

[JonathanH]

It would have been possible, if the British Library and Francis Crick Institute hadn't been built in that location.

How would it have got past St Pancras Old Church and had long enough platforms?

 

[paul1609]

Maybe better to combine a limited stop, fast WCML classic service to Birmingham with the HS1 domestics, with a reversal at St Pancras. The track layout wouldn't allow it though as the classic track connections were all designed for North of London Eurostars to access the international rather than the domestic side of the station. The area either side of St Pancras isn't suitable for a new set of platforms, even the revised six being touted currently, or at least not without politically difficult demolition of yet more social housing or buildings of major cultural significance. Something might have been concocted in the goods yard area before development, but the walk there would be as far as if not more than getting to Euston. I still think improving pedestrian connections between Euston and St Pancras has to be a major priority even without HS2, as it would also link WCML services better to Thameslink and the HS1 domestic javelins. Current routes are complex, over-long, dirty, and noisy, and perceived to be insecure, but could be enhanced fairly economically. The TfL scheme for significant Phoenix Rd/Brill Place improvements and a new east-side entrance at Euston using the redundant parcels deck for platform access would be a great start.

The bottom line is that there aren't really any destinations on either HS2 or the WCML that are going to attract significant numbers of passengers from Kent even if a through service is provided. Why travel to Birmingham if everything it provides is available in London bigger and better and a third of the distance and cost. If its a short break there are any number of destinations on the near continent that are better in all respects. I think Ive been to Birmingham twice in the last 20 years once to the NEC for a motorbike show and once to a Portsmouth v Coventry City match and I'm probably exceptional. From a practical point of view I doubt that platforms 5/6 at Ashford international even have capacity for a Nol service to pass through let alone terminate there. The other HS1 stations don't have capacity for terminators and anywhere further in Kent requires complex dual voltage stock for the third rail.
Cross London Services only really make sense if their are destinations on the connected lines that people want to travel to on top of the existing business. Thameslink has Brighton, Gatwick and Luton. Crossrail has Heathrow and Reading. A HS1 to 2 link doesn't provide any of that.
From a Kent point of view if we had money to spend Id much rather it was spent on:
Connecting HS1 to Eastbourne via Hastings
Restoring Eurostar services at Ashford
Through services to Reading via a Redhill Flyover
Restoring through services to Gatwick
Local service through the Tunnel to Calais and Le Touquet.
In fact through services to Milton Keynes and Birmingham quite possibly wouldn't come in the top 25 of wants.

 

[SargeNpton]

Hopefully, these will show up well enough. Pictures of the original plan for what was intended to be the HS1 station below Kings Cross. Note that North is to the left.

The first picture shows the station itself - six platforms across three islands. The second picture shows where the extensions to the north of London main lines were.

Dated 15/11/88 and commissioned by the BRB Director of Civil Engineering at Paddington

 

[swt_passenger]

Hopefully, these will show up well enough. Pictures of the original plan for what was intended to be the HS1 station below Kings Cross. Note that North is to the left.

The first picture shows the station itself - six platforms across three islands. The second picture shows where the extensions to the north of London main lines were.

Dated 15/11/88 and commissioned by the BRB Director of Civil Engineering at Paddington

Thanks for those, I’ll definitely save them!

Interesting that south of the station it shows both a possible connection to the future channel tunnel link and connections onto the Thameslink route, with the existing Kings Cross Thameslink station and the curves to the Midland route abandoned.

So did they really think that the 6 new platforms would cope with both the Thameslink service levels as the expected by the 2000s, and a part of the international service - perhaps only 50% if they assumed a more direct route to Waterloo at the same time?

That’s without considering border controls and customs requirements for platform usage.

So with 35 years of hindsight it doesn’t seem such a brilliant plan, does it?

 

[SargeNpton]

Thanks for those, I’ll definitely save them!

Interesting that south of the station it shows both a possible connection to the future channel tunnel link and connections onto the Thameslink route, with the existing Kings Cross Thameslink station and the curves to the Midland route abandoned.

So did they really think that the 6 new platforms would cope with both the Thameslink service levels as the expected by the 2000s, and a part of the international service - perhaps only 50% if they assumed a more direct route to Waterloo at the same time?

That’s without considering border controls and customs requirements for platform usage.

So with 35 years of hindsight it doesn’t seem such a brilliant plan, does it?

I think this idea got abandoned quite quickly. Makes you wonder whether it was just done as a red herring, to make the case for running in to St Pancras look that much better?

 

[HSTEd]

So did they really think that the 6 new platforms would cope with both the Thameslink service levels as the expected by the 2000s, and a part of the international service - perhaps only 50% if they assumed a more direct route to Waterloo at the same time?

That’s without considering border controls and customs requirements for platform usage.

So with 35 years of hindsight it doesn’t seem such a brilliant plan, does it?

Well Thameslink as it stands only uses 2 platforms, so if you assume that international services will be split between here and Waterloo 4 platforms for that seems ample.
Waterloo International only had four platforms total after all!

 

[MarkyT]

The bottom line is that there aren't really any destinations on either HS2 or the WCML that are going to attract significant numbers of passengers from Kent even if a through service is provided. Why travel to Birmingham if everything it provides is available in London bigger and better and a third of the distance and cost.

I agree. The vast majority of people are either going to London itself or are crossing to a myriad of possible destinations on the other side. I was just suggesting that maybe a classic WCML service might be a better match for HS1 domestic for any notional through running than the HS2 Birmingham service. I don't believe either is particularly desirable or practical.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2023 ==

Well Thameslink as it stands only uses 2 platforms, so if you assume that international services will be split between here and Waterloo 4 platforms for that seems ample.
Waterloo International only had four platforms total after all!

Waterloo International had 5 platforms for ~2 TPH max, with long dwells.

 

[SargeNpton]

Well Thameslink as it stands only uses 2 platforms, so if you assume that international services will be split between here and Waterloo 4 platforms for that seems ample.
Waterloo International only had four platforms total after all!

What would you do with the Southeasterrn services?

 

[HSTEd]

What would you do with the Southeasterrn services?

Well, given that IIRC the HS1 services were envisaged to be operated by some sort of super Networker at the time, run them as part of Thameslink I guess?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2023 ==

Waterloo International had 5 platforms for ~2 TPH max, with long dwells.

Oops, silly mistake.
But remember when Waterloo International was specced a lot more services were envisaged. We didn't fall back to that sort of value until low cost airlines destroyed the rationale for Eurostar services beyond Paris and Brussels.

 

[Northumbriana]

If we could go back in time I expect the best time to do any of this would be before the British Library and Crick Institute are built. Then have HS2 and Crossrail 1 & 2 run into the Euston Cross Station as proposed from the West. And HS1 from the East. With Crossrail 1 joining its current route at Liverpool Street, Crossrail 2 going North East and HS1 either following its current path or more South Easterly.

Would have required Schengen though so trains could be a mix of domestic and international passengers. And maybe some trains from the East going to a Heathrow branch to terminate.

Perhaps the library and Crick Institute could have then been built over Euston.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I think this idea got abandoned quite quickly. Makes you wonder whether it was just done as a red herring, to make the case for running in to St Pancras look that much better?

Not so quickly that there wasn't a detailed legal procedure to authorise it which locals spent a very long time resisting!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2023 ==

If we could go back in time I expect the best time to do any of this would be before the British Library and Crick Institute are built. Then have HS2 and Crossrail 1 & 2 run into the Euston Cross Station as proposed from the West. And HS1 from the East. With Crossrail 1 joining its current route at Liverpool Street, Crossrail 2 going North East and HS1 either following its current path or more South Easterly.

Would have required Schengen though so trains could be a mix of domestic and international passengers. And maybe some trains from the East going to a Heathrow branch to terminate.

Perhaps the library and Crick Institute could have then been built over Euston.

The siting of the BL was fixed long ago. In the '60s the plan was to knock down 7 acres of Bloomsbury opposite the BM to build it; locals eventually put a stop to that (though not until much of the area had bee CP'd), and the StP plan was fixed on in the '70s. I seem to remember initial building work was already underway in the early '80s - so already too late to use the site for rail stuff. (Although some of the BL-allocated land was later taken away from it by the government in a penny-pinching move before it could be built on.) Crick, though, was rather later.

 

[AlastairFraser]

How would it have got past St Pancras Old Church and had long enough platforms?

I would have built it underneath as a bored tunnel station. Extraordinarily expensive yes, but I'd have chosen either that or Old Oak Common.
Unfortunately the Francis Crick Institute has rather deep vaults, so this makes this impossible.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I’ve done some extensive research on this plan over the years after gaining an obsessive interest in it a few years ago (the joys of autism). As I understood it the station would have been on a level above the tube railways, because the Thameslink route would have been diverted into it to provide long-straight platforms for the unbuilt Class 371 Universal Networker and the Networker Express - which would have been NSE’s Javelin train. Both of these new Networkers would have had longer carriages that would not have been able to negotiate the curve under the Euston Road on the existing Thameslink tunnel.

HS1 domestics would have either run straight into KXLL (branded Kent Express) or exited HS1 at Warwick Gardens and joined Thameslink (Network Express). I have seen at least one plan of the station that colour codes the platforms for what useage, but can’t remember if that was a source in my own library or online.

I have a number of interesting maps of the route saved I can dig out if interested. But one thing I’ve always wondered is where you’d service the Eurostars If this route was built. How would they get from Kings Cross to North Pole ? Would a totally new depot be built?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2023 ==

Well, given that IIRC the HS1 services were envisaged to be operated by some sort of super Networker at the time, run them as part of Thameslink I guess?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2023 ==


Oops, silly mistake.
But remember when Waterloo International was specced a lot more services were envisaged. We didn't fall back to that sort of value until low cost airlines destroyed the rationale for Eurostar services beyond Paris and Brussels.

I also extensively researched the unbuilt Networkers, even went to the National Arxhives at Kew, but sadly forgot my ID so couldn’t view the material! That was just before the pandemic so I never got the chance to try again.

Below is a link to my old alternative history story on what BR would have been like if it wasn’t privatised. Managed to get 10 years of alternate history written down from 1990-2000. Anyway this page has a directory of the unbuilt Networkers and what they looked like and where they were going to run to. Scroll to the bottom of the page to begin: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/thatcher-survives-so-does-british-rail.433521/page-4

Some of the knowledge might have been slightly out of date as I gained more information in years since

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2023 ==

I think this idea got abandoned quite quickly. Makes you wonder whether it was just done as a red herring, to make the case for running in to St Pancras look that much better?

As I understand it this was an official plan until 1993. So even when the present day HS1 route was chosen.

Had John Major chose BR’s southerly approach I do wonder what would have happened to this terminal. It’s clearly unbuildable, so maybe the route would have been built as far as Warwick Gardens and no further?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2023 ==

Hopefully, these will show up well enough. Pictures of the original plan for what was intended to be the HS1 station below Kings Cross. Note that North is to the left.

The first picture shows the station itself - six platforms across three islands. The second picture shows where the extensions to the north of London main lines were.

Dated 15/11/88 and commissioned by the BRB Director of Civil Engineering at Paddington

Incredible! I’ve been searching for something like this for many years. My dad would love to see this too.

I actually build a model of this station in the game Minecraft. Was a wonderful project to build.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for those, I’ll definitely save them!

Interesting that south of the station it shows both a possible connection to the future channel tunnel link and connections onto the Thameslink route, with the existing Kings Cross Thameslink station and the curves to the Midland route abandoned.

So did they really think that the 6 new platforms would cope with both the Thameslink service levels as the expected by the 2000s, and a part of the international service - perhaps only 50% if they assumed a more direct route to Waterloo at the same time?

That’s without considering border controls and customs requirements for platform usage.

So with 35 years of hindsight it doesn’t seem such a brilliant plan, does it?

I‘ve been holding my thoughts pending the drawings as it was my recollection from the time that the international servcies would be routed in via Thameslink. I can certainly remember debate about how to get international services to KXSP, and that using the Thameslink tunnels was cheaper but with obvious drawbacks.

Also building that station at sub surface level beneath KX would be a non-trivial exercise!

Note the link form the ECML to St P high level for ‘NSE’ services…

If we could go back in time I expect the best time to do any of this would be before the British Library and Crick Institute are built.

As said above, the decision to build the Library at that location was confirmed in 1978, long before the Channel Tunnel got going, let alone a high speed link aiming at KXSP.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I‘ve been holding my thoughts pending the drawings as it was my recollection from the time that the international servcies would be routed in via Thameslink. I can certainly remember debate about how to get international services to KXSP, and that using the Thameslink tunnels was cheaper but with obvious drawbacks.

Also building that station at sub surface level beneath KX would be a non-tribial exercise!

Note the link form the ECML to St P high level for ‘NSE’ services…




As said above, the decision to build the Library at that location was confirmed in 1978, long before the Channel Tunnel got going, let alone a high speed link aiming at KXSP.

Yes it would have been a combined Eurostar, Thameslink and “Kent Express” services. The route from Warwick Gardens would have taken it underneath Peckham and Walworth. I’ll attach a route map I have.

Note “Elephant and Castle” and “New Cross Gate”, which were rejected sites for the CTRL connection with BR

 

[AlbertBeale]

I‘ve been holding my thoughts pending the drawings as it was my recollection from the time that the international servcies would be routed in via Thameslink. I can certainly remember debate about how to get international services to KXSP, and that using the Thameslink tunnels was cheaper but with obvious drawbacks.

Also building that station at sub surface level beneath KX would be a non-tribial exercise!

Note the link form the ECML to St P high level for ‘NSE’ services…




As said above, the decision to build the Library at that location was confirmed in 1978, long before the Channel Tunnel got going, let alone a high speed link aiming at KXSP.

Given how shallow the T/L route is at KX (and it couldn't be lower because of all the tube lines it has to cross) then opening that out into a sub-surface station was going to mean demolition of a lot of stuff on the surface there [as I well know - I've worked of years in one of those buildings...], and would have inevitably had great difficulty navigating the bowels of Kings Cross without the old station caving in!

The only option to avoid this were a really deep station - below everything else (not easy!), or coming in from a different direction, as happened in the end.

 

[david1212]

The area that was St Pancras goods yard should never have been released for any non railway building.

Once out of London HS2 phase 1 could then have headed nominally north between the M1 and Midland Main line to serve Sheffield, Leeds and feed into the Leeds - York line south-west of York. Phase 2 would have split off around where the A14 is crossed to Birmingham International / Airport then north to Manchester and the West Coast Main Line south of Preston.

Phase 3 Birmingham Curzon Street to meet phase 1 either East Midlands Parkway / Airport or Toton.

For Heathrow a spur or loop on the Elizabeth Line to serve St Pancras.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The area that was St Pancras goods yard should never have been released for any non railway building.

Once out of London HS2 phase 1 could then have headed nominally north between the M1 and Midland Main line to serve Sheffield, Leeds and feed into the Leeds - York line south-west of York. Phase 2 would have split off around where the A14 is crossed to Birmingham International / Airport then north to Manchester and the West Coast Main Line south of Preston.

Phase 3 Birmingham Curzon Street to meet phase 1 either East Midlands Parkway / Airport or Toton.

For Heathrow a spur or loop on the Elizabeth Line to serve St Pancras.

Pretty much what I would have planned in most of the areas.
But for some reason, they decided to try and serve both the WMs and the North West on the same line.

 

[Austriantrain]

Since a direct connection between HS2 and HS1 seems not to be allowed in the UK, why not use the 400m-platforms at St Pancras for HS2 and let E* end at Stratford International?


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2023 ==

But for some reason, they decided to try and serve both the WMs and the North West on the same line.

The reason is quite obvious: to build less new line (and at the same time improve connenctions from the WM in both northerly directions). And with the planned 17 tph, both regions could have been served from London. Considering not even the one line is going to be built (for now) in its entirety, a wise decision; imagine if two lines from London had started to be constructed.

 

[Bald Rick]

The reason is quite obvious: to build less new line (and at the same time improve connenctions from the WM in both northerly directions).

Its even more obvious - connected the three largest centres of economic activity in the country with one line rather than two…

 

[AlastairFraser]

The reason is quite obvious: to build less new line (and at the same time improve connenctions from the WM in both northerly directions). And with the planned 17 tph, both regions could have been served from London. Considering not even the one line is going to be built (for now) in its entirety, a wise decision; imagine if two lines from London had started to be constructed.

Terrain would be significantly easier to build through on a London-East Midlands-Yorkshire route (inc. a spur B'ham to Yorks) and thus significantly cheaper.
If we could only afford to build one, we should have built that one in full, and then considered HSR London - WM - North West later.

 

[Bald Rick]

Terrain would be significantly easier to build through on a London-East Midlands-Yorkshire route (inc. a spur B'ham to Yorks) and thus significantly cheaper.

Thats rather fanciful. Terrain is straightforward on the route being built now.

 

[The Planner]

Terrain would be significantly easier to build through on a London-East Midlands-Yorkshire route (inc. a spur B'ham to Yorks) and thus significantly cheaper.
If we could only afford to build one, we should have built that one in full, and then considered HSR London - WM - North West later.

That makes no sense, why would you leave the largest cities in England, with the most congested railway later?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thats rather fanciful. Terrain is straightforward on the route being built now.

The Chilterns? Straightforward?!!

That makes no sense, why would you leave the largest cities in England, with the most congested railway later?

Because the route can be built in full, then provide revenues and a better business case for further HSR expansion

 

[The Planner]

The Chilterns? Straightforward?!!

Because the route can be built in full, then provide revenues and a better business case for further HSR expansion

Except the money will be in Birmingham and Manchester, that still doesnt answer why you would leave them second.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Chilterns? Straightforward?!!

Yep.

Also the M1 and MML go through what is the eastern end of the Chilterns, as anyone who has cycled up Bison Hill, Sharpenoe Clappers or Hexton Hill will attest.