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

[Topological]

Whenever this comes up, I always imagine the parallel universe in which decisions were made earlier and the old Kings Cross goods areas used for all HS rather than becoming Google et al.

I do not fully know if the space would have been easily used, but imagine having international and domestic HS services in a single building with easy transfers (needs border so cannot be cross platform) and maybe even through trains.

As it is, Euston is not that bad an idea.

 

[MatthewHutton]

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).

They didn’t want to go to Paddington so it was ruled out.

Clearly there is space for 4 platforms beyond platform 1 over the Elizabeth line, and 2 additional platforms could be added where the bikes currently are which would give you six, plus given the Elizabeth line do you really need 13 platforms for the remaining long distance Heathrow and Didcot parkway services? Especially as the Didcot parkway services and/or Heathrow express could be run out of the Elizabeth line if the extra space was required.

Paddington and West Hampstead would have been better choices for stops IMO, as that would have connected with the Elizabeth Line, Thameslink, Chiltern, the Mildmay line and six tube lines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Dec 2025 ==

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.

As someone who is obsessed with HS2 costing too much the only real options were what they did, running on the surface from Old Oak Common along the Action-Northolt line and then four tracking the chiltern mainline, using the fast Metropolitan/aylesbury chiltern line tracks from Neasden or building alongside the great western or midland mainline on the surface.

Likely the construction on the surface would have been too controversial like HS2 in Buckinghamshire but with even more angry people.

So the only real options were tunnelling or using the fast metropolitan line tracks and heavily compromising on speed.

 

[Topological]

They didn’t want to go to Paddington so it was ruled out.

Clearly there is space for 4 platforms beyond platform 1 over the Elizabeth line, and 2 additional platforms could be added where the bikes currently are which would give you six, plus given the Elizabeth line do you really need 13 platforms for the remaining long distance Heathrow and Didcot parkway services? Especially as the Didcot parkway services and/or Heathrow express could be run out of the Elizabeth line if the extra space was required.

Paddington and West Hampstead would have been better choices for stops IMO, as that would have connected with the Elizabeth Line, Thameslink, Chiltern, the Mildmay line and six tube lines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Dec 2025 ==


As someone who is obsessed with HS2 costing too much the only real options were what they did, running on the surface from Old Oak Common along the Action-Northolt line and then four tracking the chiltern mainline, using the fast Metropolitan/aylesbury chiltern line tracks from Neasden or building alongside the great western or midland mainline on the surface.

Likely the construction on the surface would have been too controversial like HS2 in Buckinghamshire but with even more angry people.

So the only real options were tunnelling or using the fast metropolitan line tracks and heavily compromising on speed.

Realistically, how many 400m platforms were you going to fit into Paddington?

Not many feel like they could fit more than the 10-car 80x at the moment.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Realistically, how many 400m platforms were you going to fit into Paddington?

Not many feel like they could fit more than the 10-car 80x at the moment.

Either you’d extend the platforms and demolish some surrounding buildings or you'd accept somewhat shorter trains. But it’s not like the Euston option hasn’t involved demolishing some homes in the area.

 

[Topological]

Either you’d extend the platforms and demolish some surrounding buildings or you'd accept somewhat shorter trains. But it’s not like the Euston option hasn’t involved demolishing some homes in the area.

Doesn't Paddington have a bend at the country end though?

Paddington is a lovely station, but you would not build it now if you were choosing where to terminate the GWR lines.

Being in the Euston-St Pancras-Kings Cross group makes a lot more sense.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Has there been any suggestion that an entirely new, presumably subterranean terminal could have been built? I know that the original plans for HS1 envisaged an underground terminal at King’s Cross. A bit grim, but not much grimmer than Euston itself…

 

[MatthewHutton]

Doesn't Paddington have a bend at the country end though?

Paddington is a lovely station, but you would not build it now if you were choosing where to terminate the GWR lines.

Being in the Euston-St Pancras-Kings Cross group makes a lot more sense.

Yes, but you can use gap fillers to get around that. I do also accept that without the Elizabeth line Paddington has a worse location.

But the Elizabeth line was planned ahead of HS2, so at least Paddington should have gone further into the process.

 

[MPW]

The coolest alternative site would have been Buckingham palace. Imagine being on the platforms and looking up to see the inner courtyard from below! With a horse drawn underground people mover connection to green park.
Pretty sure I saw that option in the shortlist.

 

[mike57]

Given the current situation Euston is probably the 'least worst' option. In an ideal world Kings Cross redevelopment would have left space for future rail expansion including new build rail lines, and would have opened up future options to run through services to the continent as well as possibly Birmingham - Ashford cross London high speed services calling OOC, Stratford and Ebbsfleet. However that is now history.

I do think the Kings Cross - Euston walking route needs sorting properly, its not that far, it needs a level route, preferably covered and well lit, which is also permitted for luggage trollies and a 24/7 security presence to curb anti social behaviour. Its not far, but really not passenger friendly at the moment.

As for other terminals, 'South' facing ones are a no, tunnelling under central London would be hugely expensive, with no real benefit. Paddington, connectivity is much poorer than Euston and I dont see any benefits, Assuming you treat Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross as one large interchange then the '1 change' journey possibilities are much wider.

 

[philosopher]

Has there been any suggestion that an entirely new, presumably subterranean terminal could have been built? I know that the original plans for HS1 envisaged an underground terminal at King’s Cross. A bit grim, but not much grimmer than Euston itself…

Somewhere I remember seeing a list of long listed and short listed options and it definitely included options for an underground terminal under a Royal Park or Trafalgar Square. I dread to think how much the Trafalgar Square option would have costed.

There were definitely options for a terminal at Paddington and near Kings Cross and I think the Kings Cross option got short listed.

From the options list, which I seem to recall included approx 20 options, it does definitely seem that the planners concluded that Euston was the best option there was for a London HS2 terminal.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Paddington, connectivity is much poorer than Euston

I mean that isn’t really true given the Elizabeth line exists.

I dont see any benefits

The benefits are connectivity to the Thames Valley lines without having to add an extra stop. Clearly from Reading coming into London to use HS2 is reasonable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Dec 2025 ==

There were definitely options for a terminal at Paddington

Deep platforms underneath paddington were considered in one report I read, it’s deliberate weakening of it as an option.

 

[Snow1964]

No really big sites exist in London that are close in.

Possibly something could have been slotted in around Smithfield as lot of markets disused and due to be rebuilt anyway. But would have needed lot of adjacent land and the Metropolitan line tunnels are there so not practical.

Could potentially have built an underground cut and cover station mainly under a park, and restored park afterwards. Not much onward connection at Hyde Park Corner though.

if wanted station in heart of London, then although it might look easy on a map to approach Trafalgar Square under the Mall, I but don't think would have got permission to dig up Mall for years (and there are a number of semi-secret bunkers and Citadels built in war and Cold War era somewhere around there, the existence is on record, but where isn't)

 

[Topological]

I mean that isn’t really true given the Elizabeth line exists.


The benefits are connectivity to the Thames Valley lines without having to add an extra stop. Clearly from Reading coming into London to use HS2 is reasonable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Dec 2025 ==


Deep platforms underneath paddington were considered in one report I read, it’s deliberate weakening of it as an option.

Doesn't Old Oak Common provide all of these?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Doesn't Old Oak Common provide all of these?

Sure. But at a time cost for both the fast trains from the south west and services on HS2. And sure it maybe gets you access to the Mildmay line (albeit at two different stops) and potential access to some Chiltern stops but that does assume the supporting infrastructure is built and for Chiltern that the extra trains are run.

 

[Topological]

Sure. But at a time cost for both the fast trains from the south west and services on HS2. And sure it maybe gets you access to the Mildmay line (albeit at two different stops) and potential access to some Chiltern stops but that does assume the supporting infrastructure is built and for Chiltern that the extra trains are run.

You lose a small amount of time, but gain better connections with Heathrow.

I appreciate that it is not the UK way, but there is actually an argument that a properly designed Old Oak Common could actually be the terminus for HS2. The cost of reaching Euston could have paid for some additional underground capacity to complement the Elizabeth Line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I appreciate that it is not the UK way, but there is actually an argument that a properly designed Old Oak Common could actually be the terminus for HS2. The cost of reaching Euston could have paid for some additional underground capacity to complement the Elizabeth Line.

It's a poor argument, because it assumes that absolutely everyone will want to cram themselves onto the Elizabeth Line and reach their destination that way or by connecting to the Tube. This isn't the case; a lot of people leave Euston on foot, by bicycle, by bus and by taxi. Terminating at OOC basically removes these options that they currently have.

Putting high speed railway stations in the suburbs is something you see to save money in developing countries. It is not something we should do. Paddington is bad enough in that regard.

 

[NCT]

The single point of failure dimension of 'OOC only' has been covered numerous times, and the same argument applies for Paddington.

An underground Paddington would cost an astronomical amount. The base cost would be far higher than Euston's and the risk of cost escalation even greater still.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An underground Paddington would cost an astronomical amount. The base cost would be far higher than Euston's and the risk of cost escalation even greater still.

And it'd be in the sticks!

Euston is pretty well located, in terms of connectivity with Tube lines (not the Lizzie, but it will be for Crossrail 2 when that eventually happens), buses, roads for taxis/bikes/pedestrians and is close to St Pancras for onward high speed connections and it isn't that far from theatre land, a lot of hotels and the City. Aside from taking it into St Pancras itself (which would have to be underground so more costly) or having some sort of through line (which falls down due to the fact that there aren't that many desirable long distance destinations south east of London) Euston is probably the best option.

 

[Topological]

It's a poor argument, because it assumes that absolutely everyone will want to cram themselves onto the Elizabeth Line and reach their destination that way or by connecting to the Tube. This isn't the case; a lot of people leave Euston on foot, by bicycle, by bus and by taxi. Terminating at OOC basically removes these options that they currently have.

Putting high speed railway stations in the suburbs is something you see to save money in developing countries. It is not something we should do. Paddington is bad enough in that regard.

I think the solution that has been reached is the best. OOC plays a very useful role connecting Heathrow and the South West, whilst those who want Euston can go to Euston.

However, if you were looking to save money and only build new tube like infrastructure then it would have been possible to add even a shuttle to new underground platforms at Euston for less than the cost of HS2 and a HS2 station at Euston.

I am minded that at one point Euston was "out in the sticks" compared to what it is now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the solution that has been reached is the best. OOC plays a very useful role connecting Heathrow and the South West, whilst those who want Euston can go to Euston.

Agreed. Having both is a fairly good solution in my eyes too. I think there's a reasonable chance it will look like Manchester-London, where often as many as half the passengers find Stockport more convenient. Choice and convenience is good.

However, if you were looking to save money and only build new tube like infrastructure then it would have been possible to add even a shuttle to new underground platforms at Euston for less than the cost of HS2 and a HS2 station at Euston.

I don't think people specifically want to go to Euston, it's just that they want a "one seat ride" into London, they don't want the faff of a change, particularly not if they have luggage.

 

[mike57]

they don't want the faff of a change, particularly not if they have luggage.

Also add reduced mobility, children, or just inexperienced travellers. Euston - St Pancras - King Cross has direct connectivity to far more of the country than either OOC or Paddington, as well as connections within Greater London via 5 or 6 (depending on how you count Circle/Hammersmith and City) underground/tube lines and Thameslink services. Any change also comes with a time penalty, at best that will likely be 15 minutes.

 

[A S Leib]

Euston - St Pancras - King Cross has direct connectivity to far more of the country than either OOC or Paddington

A lot of that direct connectivity is to other destinations planned to have been served by HS2 (but convenient for Luton, Brighton or Cambridge).

as well as connections within Greater London via 5 or 6 (depending on how you count Circle/Hammersmith and City) underground/tube lines and Thameslink services

Or seven lines, depending on how you count the Northern line.

 

[mike57]

direct connectivity

And of course places outside the UK...

The Euston - St Pancras - Kings Cross complex is about as close to a London 'Hauptbahnhof' as you will ever get. I wonder what things would look like today had Charles Pearson managed to build his Grand Terminus at Farringdon, which was in the planning stage in the 1840s

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think the solution that has been reached is the best. OOC plays a very useful role connecting Heathrow and the South West, whilst those who want Euston can go to Euston

HS2 at OOC is definitely useful for connectivity to Reading and perhaps Didcot, Oxford and Swindon but certainly not beyond that. Faster to use the classic lines beyond it.

And also you are using up capacity into London which is probably undesirable and you would be reducing trip times by a few minutes into the capital.

And of course places outside the UK...

The Euston - St Pancras - Kings Cross complex is about as close to a London 'Hauptbahnhof' as you will ever get. I wonder what things would look like today had Charles Pearson managed to build his Grand Terminus at Farringdon, which was in the planning stage in the 1840s

This is a good point.

 

[Acfb]

I'm interested to see how OOC works in practice when it eventually opens. Hopefully like a simplified version of Shinagawa but we'll see.

 

[Topological]

HS2 at OOC is definitely useful for connectivity to Reading and perhaps Didcot, Oxford and Swindon but certainly not beyond that. Faster to use the classic lines beyond it.

And also you are using up capacity into London which is probably undesirable and you would be reducing trip times by a few minutes into the capital.

This is a good point.

I would love to think there were capacity constraints on HS2 created by OOC, but with the Eastern leg scrapped and most of the Western potential unrealised, that is highgly unlikely. Besides having platforms such that one train arrives as another departs means you are not losing as much capacity as an "in line" station.

The same applies with GWR trains. Two platform faces in each direction will not eat into the timings like stops at single platform faced stations would. The result is no different to Reading.

I think OOC is going to see a lot of usage and the cost in time is going to be a small inconvenience for those actually wanting the London terminals and produce big savings for those wanting places like Heathrow (or making the GWR-HS2 connection).

I feel like there is a cohort on here who just look at end-to-end journey times and forget that many stations on the way have markets. As @Bletchleyite rightly mentioned, you would not cut Stockport from Manchester trains.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I would love to think there were capacity constraints on HS2 created by OOC. The same applies with GWR trains. Two platform faces in each direction will not eat into the timings like stops at single platform faced stations would. The result is no different to Reading.

Not on HS2 on the classic great western services that are basically already at capacity going into Paddington - at least in terms of frequency.

And even with a one minute dwelling and 90 seconds for acceleration and deceleration you are still looking at a 2.5 minute stop penalty. Maybe only 2 minutes as it is fairly close to the terminus.

I think OOC is going to see a lot of usage

To Elizabeth line destinations - sure. Reading I am sure will be respectable. But elsewhere it’s more doubtful.

 

[A S Leib]

To Elizabeth line destinations - sure. Reading I am sure will be respectable. But elsewhere it’s more doubtful.

Nearby destinations from Willesden Junction?

 

[AndrewE]

I feel like there is a cohort on here who just look at end-to-end journey times and forget that many stations on the way have markets. As @Bletchleyite rightly mentioned, you would not cut Stockport from Manchester trains.

would you like to post this on the "Give London 2 trains an hour to Glasgow" thread? Posters there seem to think that intermediate stops are an infringement of Londoners' rights!

 

[Uncle Buck]

I feel like there is a cohort on here who just look at end-to-end journey times and forget that many stations on the way have markets. As @Bletchleyite rightly mentioned, you would not cut Stockport from Manchester trains.

It seems to me that whereas Euston serves inner London (huge city, main cultural centre of the country), OOC serves much of outer London (population somewhere over ten million). There is definitely a need for two! It’s normal abroad- consider Termini and Tiburtina in Rome.