Did HS2 have to go into Euston rather than another London terminal?

[A S Leib]

Was Euston the only realistic option for a London terminus for HS2? I know that Old Oak Common alone would struggle for capacity on services into London with the originally planned 18 tph, and I think St. Pancras was ruled out (and presumably King's Cross as well?).

The main advantages of Euston I can think of is that it's facing in the right direction more than any other London terminal except Marylebone and Paddington, and that the services HS2 would have (had) are currently Euston and King's Cross / St. Pancras ones. It also has King's Cross, St. Pancras, six tube lines and Thameslink within easy walking distance, which could (have) be(en) an even easier walk with Crossrail 2.

• The first factor means a shorter journey time (slightly; HS2 to e.g. London Bridge wouldn't have taken much longer, going off Stratford International to St. Pancras times) and, probably more importantly, I'd guess lower construction costs from the shorter line in London
• The second one means passengers to current WCML destinations wouldn't need to check which terminal has their next departure, although between advance tickets, HS2 time savings and frequency of Birmingham and Manchester departures, that might not be an issue for most passengers (and e.g. London to Horsham and Manchester to Huddersfield passengers manage)

Are there any other advantages to Euston in particular? If not Euston, where else could a HS2 London terminus have been?

 

[NCT]

Without being a real estate person, I've always been under the impression that only really Euston had significant amount of 'expendable' stuff adjacent to / around it.

For whatever reasons, things like British Library and St Pancras Church are considered sacred.

 

[JamesT]

Was Euston the only realistic option for a London terminus for HS2? I know that Old Oak Common alone would struggle for capacity on services into London with the originally planned 18 tph, and I think St. Pancras was ruled out (and presumably King's Cross as well?).

The main advantages of Euston I can think of is that it's facing in the right direction more than any other London terminal except Marylebone and Paddington, and that the services HS2 would have (had) are currently Euston and King's Cross / St. Pancras ones. It also has King's Cross, St. Pancras, six tube lines and Thameslink within easy walking distance, which could (have) be(en) an even easier walk with Crossrail 2.

• The first factor means a shorter journey time (slightly; HS2 to e.g. London Bridge wouldn't have taken much longer, going off Stratford International to St. Pancras times) and, probably more importantly, I'd guess lower construction costs from the shorter line in London
• The second one means passengers to current WCML destinations wouldn't need to check which terminal has their next departure, although between advance tickets, HS2 time savings and frequency of Birmingham and Manchester departures, that might not be an issue for most passengers (and e.g. London to Horsham and Manchester to Huddersfield passengers manage)

Are there any other advantages to Euston in particular? If not Euston, where else could a HS2 London terminus have been?

Page 7 of https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J011-McNaughton-jtran.18.00070.pdf has a graphic showing all the various different options for the London terminal that were considered. However it doesn't go into detail as to the reasons why each option was rejected or pursued. Presumably there must be some sort of document with that, but may require a FoI request to get it.

 

[A S Leib]

Page 7 of https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J011-McNaughton-jtran.18.00070.pdf has a graphic showing all the various different options for the London terminal that were considered. However it doesn't go into detail as to the reasons why each option was rejected or pursued. Presumably there must be some sort of document with that, but may require a FoI request to get it.

Thank you. Given that I made this post in response to the topic of only building high-speed lines as far as Watford Junction in another thread; with that in mind, it's interesting that both Watford and Willesden Junction were considered and rejected.

 

[redengine]

I'm surprised Paddington wasn't advanced further. It would have removed the extra station at Old Oak Common and the tunnels from there to get over to Euston. Added to that. the government already owns a lot of the land adjacent to Paddington station (St Mary's Hospital and Paddington Canal Basin).

 

[Sorcerer]

Given that it mostly runs as a brand new West Coast Main Line, Euston made sense as the terminus for HS2. Paddington is also a grade listed building, and St Pancras was already the terminus of HS1. Plus they wanted to rebuild Euston at some point anyway. Of course that full rebuild is no longer going ahead but at the time it made sense since Euston was a 1960s trainshed and concourse that was fast becoming outdated and was in need of replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised Paddington wasn't advanced further. It would have removed the extra station at Old Oak Common and the tunnels from there to get over to Euston. Added to that. the government already owns a lot of the land adjacent to Paddington station (St Mary's Hospital and Paddington Canal Basin).

Paddington is in the sticks. I know there's the Lizzie and it's improved a lot around there of late, but it's not conveniently located for big traffic draws like the City by taxi, which is what a lot of business travellers prefer.

The upside, though (and land was available to build it) would have been the direct connection to the GWML and Heathrow - quite a popular journey for people going to the Westcountry, and same-station would have been quite useful.

 

[NCT]

London's land use is pretty established in that there is Central Activity Zone (CAZ) which is roughly the footprint of Zone 1. The capacity requirement is additional cross-sectional capacity into CAZ which locations like Watford and Willesden Junction won't provide.

Once that's been established, then it's a question of finding somewhere that's the right side of the CAZ (i.e. north) that has a large enough plot of 'least posh' real estate. And realistically only west of Euston fit the bill.

Had King's Cross Central (redevelopment on the former railway yards) not been so advanced by the time HS2 became a thing that land might have been suitable for an HS2 terminus. The location of the canal there might still have placed constraints on vertical alignment though.

 

[stevieinselby]

Was Euston the only realistic option for a London terminus for HS2? I know that Old Oak Common alone would struggle for capacity on services into London with the originally planned 18 tph, and I think St. Pancras was ruled out (and presumably King's Cross as well?).

With the majority of HS2 trains being to destinations already served from Euston, there's a good case that it makes sense to use the same terminus. It's well located, with good Underground connections (Circle & Friends, Victoria and both branches of the Northern), and Old Oak Common adds the Elizabeth Line as well. Compared to other stations around the northern edge of the city it was relatively easy to expand, and the cost and complexity of tunnelling further to one of the southern termini or a new central station would have been much, much higher.

Thank you. Given that I made this post in response to the topic of only building high-speed lines as far as Watford Junction in another thread; with that in mind, it's interesting that both Watford and Willesden Junction were considered and rejected.

I don't think that was with a view to terminating the trains at Watford Junction, but more a commentary that HSR on the continent tends to share the same tracks and stations into the major cities with other services and only gets a new line once it's out of the metropolitan area and land is cheaper. That wouldn't have worked here because there wouldn't be capacity at an unexpanded Euston or on the existing tracks in from Watford Junction to accommodate the additional trains.

I'm surprised Paddington wasn't advanced further. It would have removed the extra station at Old Oak Common and the tunnels from there to get over to Euston. Added to that. the government already owns a lot of the land adjacent to Paddington station (St Mary's Hospital and Paddington Canal Basin).

Paddington isn't a great terminus, because it's a long way out and doesn't have great connectivity. Sure, it has improved with the arrival of the Elizabeth Line, but you've already got a connection to that from Old Oak Common. If Paddington had been the main terminus then fewer people would have had convenient onward connections or been within walking distance of their destination.

 

[HSTEd]

There aren't too many good options for alternative sites.

If the landaround King's cross had not been sold off for a few more years maybe that could have done, but that has all been covered in very expensive buildings owned by powerful groups.

Paddington, and arguably Victoria, are sort of remote and Waterloo is even more crowded than Euston.
Marylebone is also kind of remote and has no real onward connection opporunities. All the other termini are so small that you'd effectively be starting on a new site either way! At which point may as well just go for the "giant station box dug under a royal park" option.

Maybe if you had expedited Crossrail 2, you could have rerouted a bunch of residual services from Waterloo into Victoria and freed it for a rebuild.

But its not hard to see why they selected Euston, although it has hardly gone well.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Was Euston the only realistic option for a London terminus for HS2? I know that Old Oak Common alone would struggle for capacity on services into London with the originally planned 18 tph, and I think St. Pancras was ruled out (and presumably King's Cross as well?).

The main advantages of Euston I can think of is that it's facing in the right direction more than any other London terminal except Marylebone and Paddington, and that the services HS2 would have (had) are currently Euston and King's Cross / St. Pancras ones. It also has King's Cross, St. Pancras, six tube lines and Thameslink within easy walking distance, which could (have) be(en) an even easier walk with Crossrail 2.

• The first factor means a shorter journey time (slightly; HS2 to e.g. London Bridge wouldn't have taken much longer, going off Stratford International to St. Pancras times) and, probably more importantly, I'd guess lower construction costs from the shorter line in London
• The second one means passengers to current WCML destinations wouldn't need to check which terminal has their next departure, although between advance tickets, HS2 time savings and frequency of Birmingham and Manchester departures, that might not be an issue for most passengers (and e.g. London to Horsham and Manchester to Huddersfield passengers manage)

Are there any other advantages to Euston in particular? If not Euston, where else could a HS2 London terminus have been?

Think you’ve made a pretty good case for why it needs to be Euston there! In summary in my view in broad order of preference / importance:

• Development land adjacent to the station that would not be too disruptive or expensive to acquire.
• As most services would be replacing / supplanting West Coast Mainline Services, the lowest number of ‘additional’ platforms would be needed.
• Well served by the underground – Two Northern Line branches, Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith and City, Victoria and Lioness Line.
• Of the five north and west facing termini, Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross have better walking catchments (Euston a shorter walk to Oxford Circus than Marylebone and Paddington and also walking distance to the city fringe with just over half an hour to Chancery Lane).
• Limited heritage or other development constraints associated with the development of the station itself or the adjacent land.
• The station itself would need redeveloping at some point in the near future too – two birds with one stone.

 

[The Pelican]

The HS1 (kent and Eurostar) plus Thameslink to the brighton line have really increased the area of the south east which Euston Road is accessible from- it's mainly Waterloo, Paddington and Liverpool Street which require a second change. Paddington will allow a direct change via Old Oak Common, which also gives a one seat ride to the Shenfield Elizabeth line stations, and the South-eastern Canary wharf branch.

 

[pieswick]

Ever so slightly disapppointed we aren't in the timeline of HS2 terminating below Trafalgar Square, what a mammoth construction effort that would've been!

 

[edwin_m]

Page 7 of https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J011-McNaughton-jtran.18.00070.pdf has a graphic showing all the various different options for the London terminal that were considered. However it doesn't go into detail as to the reasons why each option was rejected or pursued. Presumably there must be some sort of document with that, but may require a FoI request to get it.

Page 47 onwards of this report gives a longish summary of a much longer report that described the process of whittling them down to a preferred option: extension://bfdogplmndidlpjfhoijckpakkdjkkil/pdf/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F5a7c67e4e5274a5590059a58%2FVol1_Alternatives_Report_CT-002-000_wm.pdf

7.1.1 The Government’s remit to HS2 Ltd in January 2009 included consideration of options for access to central London. A terminus station would need to be large enough to accommodate up to 18 trains per hour. With this in mind a long list of potential sites was prepared.

The full report referenced in a footnote here does not seem to available on line any more.

 

[NCT]

Ever so slightly disapppointed we aren't in the timeline of HS2 terminating below Trafalgar Square, what a mammoth construction effort that would've been!

Looking at the Stuttgart 21 debacle, we've dodged a bullet here!

 

[Brubulus]

I think the best solution would have been to follow the European model and effectively start HS2 from Watford. This would be achieved by separating the fasts from the rest of the WCML and treating them as the first section of HS2. There would then be a 4 track WCML (Slows+DC line, which might mean that freight has to use the DC line in areas, and would be a bit of a squeeze for the residual WCML passenger service, but not entirely unacheivable. However this might mean that stopping patterns are meaner, with no non-DC lien trains stopping south of Watford.

Euston station would be split into 8 High-Speed platforms, of which at least 5 could cope with 400M trains, and 8 conventional platforms. While platform utilisation would be tight, it would not be entirely unfeasible.

 

[NCT]

I think the best solution would have been to follow the European model and effectively start HS2 from Watford. This would be achieved by separating the fasts from the rest of the WCML and treating them as the first section of HS2. There would then be a 4 track WCML (Slows+DC line, which might mean that freight has to use the DC line in areas, and would be a bit of a squeeze for the residual WCML passenger service, but not entirely unacheivable. However this might mean that stopping patterns are meaner, with no non-DC lien trains stopping south of Watford.

Euston station would be split into 8 High-Speed platforms, of which at least 5 could cope with 400M trains, and 8 conventional platforms. While platform utilisation would be tight, it would not be entirely unfeasible.

Wishful thinking. This is just superficially copying a solution without actually understanding the problem.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the best solution would have been to follow the European model and effectively start HS2 from Watford. This would be achieved by separating the fasts from the rest of the WCML and treating them as the first section of HS2. There would then be a 4 track WCML (Slows+DC line, which might mean that freight has to use the DC line in areas, and would be a bit of a squeeze for the residual WCML passenger service, but not entirely unacheivable. However this might mean that stopping patterns are meaner, with no non-DC lien trains stopping south of Watford.

Euston station would be split into 8 High-Speed platforms, of which at least 5 could cope with 400M trains, and 8 conventional platforms. While platform utilisation would be tight, it would not be entirely unfeasible.

This sort of comes down to HS2 actually being about capacity about speed. In some European countries high speed lines were actually more about shortening journey times, in which case they might (at least in part) replace existing services from the same terminus. Some Continental termini were also worked less intensively, leaving some capacity to add extra high speed trains in the existing stations. In the UK we have capacity issues at our main stations as well as on the lines between them.

The other reason at the time of planning HS2 was the intention to run some services with the wider/taller trains as used in mainland Europe. These couldn't run onto the classic network so needed new infrastructure end to end. This is no longer the case now that the HS2 trains will be compatible with normal UK infrastructure. However, they will probably achieve level boarding from the platforms at dedicated HS2 stations, but not at existing stations.

 

[The Planner]

I think the best solution would have been to follow the European model and effectively start HS2 from Watford. This would be achieved by separating the fasts from the rest of the WCML and treating them as the first section of HS2. There would then be a 4 track WCML (Slows+DC line, which might mean that freight has to use the DC line in areas, and would be a bit of a squeeze for the residual WCML passenger service, but not entirely unacheivable. However this might mean that stopping patterns are meaner, with no non-DC lien trains stopping south of Watford.

Euston station would be split into 8 High-Speed platforms, of which at least 5 could cope with 400M trains, and 8 conventional platforms. While platform utilisation would be tight, it would not be entirely unfeasible.

How does that release capacity? You have just added a Phase 1 Handsacre constraint at Watford.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the best solution would have been to follow the European model and effectively start HS2 from Watford. This would be achieved by separating the fasts from the rest of the WCML and treating them as the first section of HS2. There would then be a 4 track WCML (Slows+DC line, which might mean that freight has to use the DC line in areas, and would be a bit of a squeeze for the residual WCML passenger service, but not entirely unacheivable. However this might mean that stopping patterns are meaner, with no non-DC lien trains stopping south of Watford.

Euston station would be split into 8 High-Speed platforms, of which at least 5 could cope with 400M trains, and 8 conventional platforms. While platform utilisation would be tight, it would not be entirely unfeasible.

But that doesn’t help capacity Euston to Watford. Having spent more time than I care to remember studying, modelling, timetabling and (sort of) operating Euston, the practical headway for departures on the fast lines is 3 minutes. Realisitcally that is around 16tph to allow for conflicting movements in the throats (seperate throat for low numbers and high numbers), ie there has to be an empty path out every half hour or so on each side as a an arriving train train crosses the lot, preventing a departure.

From the Dec 25 timetable there are 15tph fast line departures in the peak.

 

[Brubulus]

But that doesn’t help capacity Euston to Watford. Having spent more time than I care to remember studying, modelling, timetabling and (sort of) operating Euston, the practical headway for departures on the fast lines is 3 minutes. Realisitcally that is around 16tph to allow for conflicting movements in the throats (seperate throat for low numbers and high numbers), ie there has to be an empty path out every half hour or so on each side as a an arriving train train crosses the lot, preventing a departure.

From the Dec 25 timetable there are 15tph fast line departures in the peak.

A train every 3 minutes + 1 spare path per half hour = 18tph = HS2 (this is higher than 16, but a 16tph HS2 would still be fine overall). The slows would have to deal with the entire WCML AC residual service minus some freight that could go on the DC lines, as the GW slows manage to cope with 10tph + freight. All residual WCML services would run on the slows or DC lines Euston to Watford, either nonstop or with all trains stopping at Willesden. DC lines (after Willesden) would be 8-10tph with some stations getting skipped by some services to keep reasonable journey times + managing freight. It would be something of a constraint, but it's a constraint also faced by HS2, except for that they are planning a very expensive grade separated throat, for 2tph that are basically hypothetical.

 

[Sorcerer]

A train every 3 minutes + 1 spare path per half hour = 18tph = HS2 (this is higher than 16, but a 16tph HS2 would still be fine overall). The slows would have to deal with the entire WCML AC residual service minus some freight that could go on the DC lines, as the GW slows manage to cope with 10tph + freight. All residual WCML services would run on the slows or DC lines Euston to Watford, either nonstop or with all trains stopping at Willesden. DC lines (after Willesden) would be 8-10tph with some stations getting skipped by some services to keep reasonable journey times + managing freight. It would be something of a constraint, but it's a constraint also faced by HS2, except for that they are planning a very expensive grade separated throat, for 2tph that are basically hypothetical.

I don't quite understand how the constraints from your idea would somehow be faced by HS2. What you're suggesting is basically pushing the infrastructure to it's limits with the existing capacity while HS2 would be adding an entirely new trunk route that not comes with 18tph by itself but also adds an additional 9/10tph on the classic routes. Japan already had the same issue with the Tokyo-Osaka line back in the 1950s and solved it with a grade separated route.

But Euston station as it stands now is also struggling and needs a massive rebuild, and going back to the original question one of the reasons it was selected was because HS2 provides the perfect opportunity to rebuild it. It didn't have the same constraints as nearby King's Cross and St Pancras, and it also wasn't grade-listed like Paddington. I think it's a huge shame that the glorified trainshed isn't getting the full treatment that was originally planned.

 

[Bald Rick]

minus some freight that could go on the DC lines

Ah. But freight doesn’t fit on the DC lines tunnels.

 

[Zomboid]

There may be an argument that the DC lines are not fully utilized, especially north of Harrow/ south of Queens Park, but if you were to AC electrify them and cut the Bakerloo off at QP that still wouldn't create the game changing capacity increase that HS2 was designed to. You'd still spend a fortune to achieve a lot less than the M25 to Euston section would, whilst causing years of disruption to the WCML.

No doubt this was considered as part of the early stages of HS2 design and ruled out because you'd spend 90% of the money for 10% of the benefits.

 

[The Planner]

A train every 3 minutes + 1 spare path per half hour = 18tph = HS2 (this is higher than 16, but a 16tph HS2 would still be fine overall). The slows would have to deal with the entire WCML AC residual service minus some freight that could go on the DC lines, as the GW slows manage to cope with 10tph + freight. All residual WCML services would run on the slows or DC lines Euston to Watford, either nonstop or with all trains stopping at Willesden. DC lines (after Willesden) would be 8-10tph with some stations getting skipped by some services to keep reasonable journey times + managing freight. It would be something of a constraint, but it's a constraint also faced by HS2, except for that they are planning a very expensive grade separated throat, for 2tph that are basically hypothetical.

GWML has lower headways. HS2 were being ambitious with running that many on headway. Doing it on the conventional network is frankly heroic. How are you getting all this freight off the slows on to the DC? What are you doing with anything that is going to Mitre Bridge?

 

[Zomboid]

It'd need grade separation at Watford to get freight onto the DC lines, grade separation again in the Willesden area, conversion of the DC lines to AC, and probably ETCS signaling to squeeze the last tiny bit of capacity out of all 6 lines. And then you still wouldn't have actually solved the problem

 

[edwin_m]

It'd need grade separation at Watford to get freight onto the DC lines

A fairly humungous flyover in a built-up area, considering the Fast lines are in the way of getting to the Slows that the freight would use further north.

 

[SynthD]

Added to that. the government already owns a lot of the land adjacent to Paddington station (St Mary's Hospital and Paddington Canal Basin).

The canal itself isn’t useful for this, and the offices around the basin are private developments. I’d be interested in a proposal for a surface HS2 from OOC to east Paddington anyway.

Crossrail 2 was meant to take people from Euston, not free up mainline termini platforms. The decision not to build it will come back as bottleneck.

I think the best solution would have been to follow the European model and effectively start HS2 from Watford.

What if the Europeans were asked in the HS2 planning process and we have what they wished they could have?

 

[WWTownEnth]

Does anyone know which month next year the tunnel drives will begin from OOC to Euston?

 

[och aye]

Without being a real estate person, I've always been under the impression that only really Euston had significant amount of 'expendable' stuff adjacent to / around it.

For whatever reasons, things like British Library and St Pancras Church are considered sacred.

The BL site, where the Somers Town Goods Depot once occupied would have been a great location for HS2 to terminate, but alas Euston it is (hopefully/maybe?!).