Could HS2 have terminated at St Pancras?

[Agent_Squash]

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.

HS2 was the WCML relief line, not the ECML relief. There’s far more demand to Birmingham/Crewe/Manchester/Liverpool than Leeds/York/Doncaster too.

 

[AlastairFraser]

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

West Yorkshire, South Yorks, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester (to mention a few) still have a significant population combined.
Plus you'd accelerate rapidly the modal shift London to Edinburgh.

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.

I know, but places like Barton Hills just next to Sharpenoe Clappers are only around 150m, as opposed to Haddington Hill near Wendover (close to the HS2 route) at 267m.
And the band of the Chilterns is Beds is significantly narrower.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

HS2 was the WCML relief line, not the ECML relief. There’s far more demand to Birmingham/Crewe/Manchester/Liverpool than Leeds/York/Doncaster too.

The M1 corridor has potential for significant modal shift too, it isn't just Yorks itself.

 

[The Planner]

West Yorkshire, South Yorks, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester (to mention a few) still have a significant population combined.
Plus you'd accelerate rapidly the modal shift London to Edinburgh.

I know, but places like Barton Hills just next to Sharpenoe Clappers are only around 150m, as opposed to Haddington Hill near Wendover (close to the HS2 route) at 267m.
And the band of the Chilterns is Beds is significantly narrower.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==


The M1 corridor has potential for significant modal shift too, it isn't just Yorks itself.

The value is on the WCML, it is the biggest money spinner of all the routes north both passenger and freight, as well as having a much larger population. It is logical to do that first.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The value is on the WCML, it is the biggest money spinner of all the routes north both passenger and freight, as well as having a much larger population. It is logical to do that first.

But a MML/ECML HSR replacement would be significantly cheaper to build.

 

[Trainbike46]

But a MML/ECML HSR replacement would be significantly cheaper to build.

you keep saying this, but is that actually true? All the big costs associated with building a brand-new line would still exist

and even if it was true, that wouldn't have protected it against the short-termist political decisions that broke HS2 - note how some of the cheaper bits of HS2, like phase 2A got cancelled

 

[Bald Rick]

But a MML/ECML HSR replacement would be significantly cheaper to build.

It really wouldn‘t.

 

[The Planner]

But a MML/ECML HSR replacement would be significantly cheaper to build.

But that is irrelevant if the benefits it brings are massively reduced as well.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It really wouldn‘t.

Why do you say this?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why do you say this?

Well its pretty obvious for those of us who have built railways. Why do you think it would be cheaper, specifically what scope would you not need going up the M1 / MML corridor compared to the one chosen? Think about the process used to finalise the scope of the line being built.

 

[HSTEd]

I remember arguing for an M1 alignment on this forum at the time, but my point was to relieve the WCML of the vast majority of its passenger traffic via building a Shinkansen with intermediate stations.

Not much point going up the M1 corridor and not going to Birmingham at the end of the day.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Well its pretty obvious for those of us who have built railways. Why do you think it would be cheaper, specifically what scope would you not need going up the M1 / MML corridor compared to the one chosen? Think about the process used to finalise the scope of the line being built.

You'd need less significant viaducts and earthworks for a less steeply graded terrain...

 

[The Planner]

You'd need less significant viaducts and earthworks for a less steeply graded terrain...

That is a big assumption unless you have plotted out the trace.

 

[Bald Rick]

You'd need less significant viaducts and earthworks for a less steeply graded terrain...

How do you know?

 

[Austriantrain]

I remember arguing for an M1 alignment on this forum at the time, but my point was to relieve the WCML of the vast majority of its passenger traffic via building a Shinkansen with intermediate stations.

IMHO, the idea of building a UK Shinkansen was flawed from the start.

First, it is very doubtful the Japanese would have built it that way originally if they had had a classic standard gauge network.

Second, although the population density between England and Honshu are comparable, in other ways they are not. Most notably, cities in Honshu are much bigger, if you ignore Tokyo/London - meaning that England is more densely settled outside of the main cities. As such, a network only based on the largest cities was bound to have much less advantages for the population at large than in Japan.

 

[HSTEd]

IMHO, the idea of building a UK Shinkansen was flawed from the start.

First, it is very doubtful the Japanese would have built it that way originally if they had had a classic standard gauge network.

The proposals for Shinkansen style lines predate the decision to build at standard gauge however.
It's a concept that dates originally from before WW2, so I am a little skeptical on that score.

Second, although the population density between England and Honshu are comparable, in other ways they are not. Most notably, cities in Honshu are much bigger, if you ignore Tokyo/London - meaning that England is more densely settled outside of the main cities. As such, a network only based on the largest cities was bound to have much less advantages for the population at large than in Japan.

But a Shinkansen style solution would not be based solely on the main cities? Indeed that is the central characteristic of Shinkansen.
An M1 Shinkansen would likely go London-Luton-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Coventry-BIrmingham

The problem is that HS2, as currently conceived, doesn't really reduce the operating expenses of the WCML by very much.
It would make a great deal of sense if our rail service patterns were like Europe with a clear delineation between "Intercity" and "Local". The Intercity trains would be removed and their costs transferred to the new lines, and the local service would continue as before.

But British rail services aren't like that, so HS2 is unlikely to allow many services (and thus costs) to be removed from the WCML because the intermediate destinations all have to be served regardless and the government is unwilling to make the sort of swingeing service cuts required.

If we had a Shinkansen, there would be little need for anything but a small local service north of Wolverton/MKC, which could be served by extending the Tring terminators. Virtually everything else would have moved to the high speed line.
But this is all wandering rather far off topic! So I suggest we either create another thread or park it.

 

[Energy]

But British rail services aren't like that, so HS2 is unlikely to allow many services (and thus costs) to be removed from the WCML because the intermediate destinations all have to be served regardless and the government is unwilling to make the sort of swingeing service cuts required.

Initial HS2 service plans had the majority of fast services removed with only 4 Avanti services remaining on the WCML.

 

[AlbertBeale]

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?

In fact, the plan to have the Channel Tunnel station (or second station) below KX wasn't abandoned quickly - the parliamentary bill spent ages being pushed in parliament (I was involved in the campaign lobbying against it). For those of us active over the issue, we were never in doubt that the KX low-level scheme started out being a serious proposal with serious intent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2024 ==

I agree that doing anything now beyond creating a decent walking route between Euston and Kings Cross St Pancras is just not possible, but if you go back to when the Kings Cross area was being redeveloped and improved things could have been different. St Pancras International is very much constrained by space and this limits passenger numbers. In a parallel universe build a new Midland mainline station where they built the British Library. HS2 and domestic HS1 service terminates in St Pancras station, a new international station either in the triangle of land between Kings X and St Pancras or to the east. Bearing in mind back in the 70s and early 80s the whole area was run down, so in effect you had a blank sheet of paper. When did the idea of HS1 terminating at St Pancras surface, I understood original proposals were for tunnel under south London still terminating at Waterloo. Its very much crayon thinking as other developments have constrained space to expand and its no longer possible.

It's a common myth that everywhere around KX was a blank sheet of paper. Sure it was grotty in parts; sure a lot of it was economically deprived. But it also had homes and jobs for thousands of people, and was actually a genuine community. (And those parts not destroyed by gentrification still are.) It was the strength of that community (including people who'd lived and/or worked there for decades - in some cases all their lives) which enabled a campaign to come together to (finally successfully) oppose the plan to raze it all to the ground for a new international station under KX.

Re the tunnel under south London, there were various ideas floated - including one for a tunnel which would divide to serve both Waterloo and the KX or StP terminal. I seem to remember that there was a suggestion at one point for a StP terminal with arrivals from the south, as well as the one for a KX one from the south-east (which was defeated) and the eventual one of StP from the east. For much of the time the arguments and plans were under way concerning a north London terminal, it was assumed that Waterloo would stay as well, irrespective of what Waterloo-related tunnelling was added to the mix; though the eventual StP plan made it impossible to combine extra tunnelling for Waterloo with the new tunnels for the north Lonon terminus.