• 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!

Fantasy: If you could re-design HS2 ...

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is there really a viable technological development path to short haul electric flight? What energy density would be needed?

Probably one for another thread to discuss in depth but I'd be surprised if battery tech didn't improve enough to do it within 50 years or so, certainly for south east England to Northern Europe - electric cars and mobile phones are a major motivation for companies to research battery tech improvements. It does change the game somewhat for rail, though, as aside from those who fear flying or just prefer rail it means there's no good reason not to fly.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
Regional Eurostar would be expensive and complicated to run, but having a HS2-HS1 link brings a much bigger benefit IMO by connecting HS2 to Stratford and Ebbsfleet/Ashford. Even just to Stratford would have been a game changer - by not having to trawl through London it could save us much off journey time as HS2 itself. And given HS1 and its huge stations are underutilised, this is a comparatively cheap way of delivering a lot of economic benefit. Don't forget the South East is one of the UKs biggest regions economically, as per below and a combined HS2/HS1 would be a massive step forward in reducing the north-south divide & London centric-ness.

PopulationGDP
London
8,945,309​
£617,915​
South East
9,482,507​
£391,807​
North West
7,600,126​
£270,833​
East of England
6,468,665​
£229,264​
South West
5,811,259​
£207,643​
Scotland
5,490,100​
£204,188​
West Midlands
6,085,687​
£195,208​
Yorkshire and the Humber
5,594,126​
£182,509​
East Midlands
4,991,265​
£156,953​
Wales
3,164,404​
£92,767​
North East
2,711,380​
£77,498​
Northern Ireland
1,920,384​
£63,265​
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Regional Eurostar would be expensive and complicated to run, but having a HS2-HS1 link brings a much bigger benefit IMO by connecting HS2 to Stratford and Ebbsfleet/Ashford.

Why? Pretty much nobody wants to go to any of those places from Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham. And if you live in one of them you primarily want to go to London by train, not the North West.

It's just not useful and would do very little for the economy, as well as downgrading the passenger experience.

It might have been useful during the Olympics, but it really wouldn't be now. Stratford is a regional shopping centre, Manchester has its own. It's not a big destination. There is the old adage of "build it and they will come" but only if "it" is useful - this would be more like "build it and we will transport a load of fresh air".

In any case the area around OOC is going to roughly replicate Stratford in concept and in what is available there.
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
Why? Pretty much nobody wants to go to any of those places from Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham. And if you live in one of them you primarily want to go to London by train, not the North West.

It's just not useful and would do very little for the economy, as well as downgrading the passenger experience.

It might have been useful during the Olympics, but it really wouldn't be now. Stratford is a regional shopping centre, Manchester has its own. It's not a big destination. There is the old adage of "build it and they will come" but only if "it" is useful - this would be more like "build it and we will transport a load of fresh air".

In any case the area around OOC is going to roughly replicate Stratford in concept and in what is available there.
Completely disagree, Stratford is not a 'regional shopping centre', its one of the biggest transport hubs in London! In the last ORR figures it had 51,473,518 entries/exits, plus probably same again who stopped there without gettting off who could use HS2 if it was there. Plus it's a major TFL interchange not in these figures. As a comparison Euston was 40,248,974.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Completely disagree, Stratford is not a 'regional shopping centre', its one of the biggest transport hubs in London! In the last ORR figures it had 51,473,518 entries/exits, plus it's a major TFL interchange not in these figures. As a comparison Euston was 40,248,974.

It is a major transport hub for London. It's mostly an interchange for people coming in on the Liverpool St lines who find it more convenient to interchange there than to go into Liverpool St which isn't as well connected.

Old Oak will be the same thing on the west side.

It is not in the remotest bit relevant for people travelling from Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow etc. What would they want by going there that they can't get nearer home or at Old Oak or in central London? Literally nothing unless their office happens to be there, which is going to be a small proportion of demand and thus just taking the Tube, DLR, Overground or Liz is fine.

It does not need connecting directly to WCML destinations, to do so would serve no purpose whatsoever.

And if you wanted to get an 11 platform terminus in there to replace long-term Euston, you'd have to knock half of it down!
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,861
It is a major transport hub for London. It's mostly an interchange for people coming in on the Liverpool St lines who find it more convenient to interchange there than to go into Liverpool St which isn't as well connected.

Old Oak will be the same thing on the west side.

It is not in the remotest bit relevant for people travelling from Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow etc. What would they want by going there that they can't get nearer home or at Old Oak or in central London?
The benefit I could see, is that if St Pancras's passenger handling capacity is the limiting factor on Eurostar services, then having an alternative international station with the full security setup, which was a same-station interchange for direct services from those places you mention could be quite attractive.
But that if is doing quite a lot of work and I agree the passenger numbers probably don't add up to providing additional services that miss out Euston.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The benefit I could see, is that if St Pancras's passenger handling capacity is the limiting factor on Eurostar services, then having an alternative international station with the full security setup, which was a same-station interchange for direct services from those places you mention could be quite attractive.
But that if is doing quite a lot of work and I agree the passenger numbers probably don't add up to providing additional services that miss out Euston.

That might be a valid argument for reinstating Eurostar stops at Stratford (after all, with the Liz it's probably slightly easier for a lot of Londoners to reach than St Pancras). But it isn't an argument for running services through from HS2.

The limiting factor for North West-Europe travel by rail is simply that air is both cheaper and more convenient. Going by train just doesn't register with most people and it still wouldn't even if there were a couple of directs a day as it's just too slow and you have the self same security faff etc. And for Glasgow it's just completely irrelevant and always will be.
 

Sorcerer

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2022
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
And London will certainly expand around OOC, making it a worthwhile station. But it isn't the City, nor the West End, nor whatever, and it won't be. It'll be another place worth going to (like maybe Canary Wharf or Wembley's surrounds) but not the be-all and end-all, and not everyone wants to go onward by Tube/Liz.
I actually meant to say I agreed with you, but I still didn't actually think of it that way. I treated it as if the city centre was going to expand. Matter of fact terminating the route at Old Oak Common with onward connections of the Elizabeth Line would be following the Chinese model where the terminus station is connected to the city centre via metro which isn't the right way of going about it.

In relation to the original question. I wouldn't do a lot of redesigning around HS2 beyond possibly reducing it's maximum line speed from 360km/h to 320km/h. Even 300km/h would be sufficient. I would not terminate it at OOC, I would not change the route plan, and I would not include intermediate rural stations mid-way. Parkways only because high-speed is meant to serve cities!
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
It is a major transport hub for London. It's mostly an interchange for people coming in on the Liverpool St lines who find it more convenient to interchange there than to go into Liverpool St which isn't as well connected.

Old Oak will be the same thing on the west side.

It is not in the remotest bit relevant for people travelling from Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow etc. What would they want by going there that they can't get nearer home or at Old Oak or in central London? Literally nothing unless their office happens to be there, which is going to be a small proportion of demand and thus just taking the Tube, DLR, Overground or Liz is fine.

It does not need connecting directly to WCML destinations, to do so would serve no purpose whatsoever.

And if you wanted to get an 11 platform terminus in there to replace long-term Euston, you'd have to knock half of it down!
Youre forgetting HS2 runs both ways. You're right that for people starting from the 'top' (i.e. by residents of the Midlands, Northwest etc), central London will be the main thing, but for those starting at the south, it's suburban London, Hertforshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire etc. that needs to be connected, as only a small % live in central London. And Stratford connects a lot of this better than OOC or Euston.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Youre forgetting HS2 runs both ways. You're right that for people starting from the 'top' (i.e. by residents of the Midlands, Northwest etc), central London will be the main thing, but for those starting at the south, it's suburban London, Hertforshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire etc. that needs to be connected, as only a small % live in central London. And Stratford connects a lot of this better than OOC or Euston.

Unless they live IN Stratford, this isn't true. The Liz connects Stratford and OOC (so I'm confused at the mention of Surrey and Berkshire, because OOC is better for them). They can connect with that. Similarly Liverpool St to Euston is a direct Tube.

I do agree that there's an issue with not serving outer suburbs, but I take the view that an M25 Parkway would be a better addition to deal with that (a parallel with Stockport, say).

And I'm also not convinced that the Herts to Manchester demand is going to be that big. They'll probably drive to MKC or all the way rather than head south to head north.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Are you serious? Stratford is the link to the whole of East London and the surrounding counties. Its like OOC but much better connected

What does it offer that Euston and OOC don't between them, though? I'm not sure an awful lot when you consider that the majority of the demand is people going TO London, not from it (aside from going home afterwards).

I can see where you are coming from but don't think the likely demand levels back up the idea of running all eleven trains per hour there. And building an expensive urban link to run only a few of them seems poor value. As does building a whackingly expensive underground terminus - Stratford International presently has just two unused platforms.
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
I'm not sure an awful lot when you consider that the majority of the demand is people going TO London, not from it (aside from going home afterwards).
I agree this way round is higher, but if HS2 did away with the having to go through the tube network to Euston, then it could take a large chunk of the journeys the other way around. And if the government succeeds in reducing the north/south divide, it will be this way round that grows.

What does it offer that Euston and OOC don't between them, though? I'm not sure an awful lot when you consider that the majority of the demand is people going TO London, not from it (aside from going home afterwards).

I can see where you are coming from but don't think the likely demand levels back up the idea of running all eleven trains per hour there. And building an expensive urban link to run only a few of them seems poor value. As does building a whackingly expensive underground terminus - Stratford International presently has just two unused platforms.
I would run around half of them to Ebbsfleet or Ashford (i.e. extend some to Ashford) so not requiring any extra infrastracture apart from the HS2-1 link.

I do agree that there's an issue with not serving outer suburbs, but I take the view that an M25 Parkway would be a better addition to deal with that (a parallel with Stockport, say).
Ebbsfleet is not far off an M25 Parkway station
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would run around half of them to Ebbsfleet or Ashford (i.e. extend some to Ashford) so not requiring any extra infrastracture apart from the HS2-1 link.

And additional units.

Ebbsfleet is not far off an M25 Parkway station

On the wrong side of London; because of where it is in relation to the North West it's not unnatural just to travel in via London. Unlike if you live in Buckinghamshire where you're going 40 odd miles in the wrong direction to pick up HS2.
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
On the wrong side of London; because of where it is in relation to the North West it's not unnatural just to travel in via London. Unlike if you live in Buckinghamshire where you're going 40 odd miles in the wrong direction to pick up HS2.
A lot of people live on the wrong side though, and 3 or more trains becomes 1, plus a huge time saving - the scope for time saving across London is probably greater than London-Birmingham (or other pairs)! The alternative of driving round half the M25 to a parkway station the other side like you're suggesting (which I also think is sensible) is often a 2hr journey at the wrong time of day.
 
Last edited:

Shrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
1,350
Discussion about the HS1-HS2 link from the above posts is interesting.

Of course the value of such a link is severely diminished by the British refusal to join Schengen, however in the name of interesting discussion I do wonder about the value of this refusal, and how things might be different if the UK had embraced Schengen.

Look at it this way - even the official Government statistics acknowledge the arrival of well over 100 people entering the UK every single day (over 49,000 in the 12 months to June 2025 as listed in www.gov.uk) and it’s reasonable to assume that there are actually significantly more than this. (Because higher figures equate to Government failure and they are therefore massaged downwards).

So if there are so many illegal entries, this suggests that the UK’s refusal to join Schengen has had limited value. After all the primary reason for this refusal back in 1985 was "to maintain control over its national security and immigration policies". The question is then, whether this figure would be all that much higher if Schengen had been embraced?

The reason I say all this is to lead on to the question of whether figures were ever modelled for how many people might have travelled between Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds etc and Paris/Brussels/Cologne/Frankfurt etc, IF the UK didn’t have border controls – ie if the border was as easy to cross as it is between France and other continental countries?

Yes, of course it's all just theoretical now (and some might enjoy calling it fantasy :lol:), but nevertheless interesting.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,817
Not making a connection to HS1 has to be a huge mistake. An underground 4 platform Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras station, with trains terminating out at Ebbsfleet where there is a lot more room, land costs are lower and disruption would be less, calling at Stratford on the way

Whilst I quite agree that an HS2 to HS1 link is a missed opportunity, it is only so in the context of the UK in Schengen, as others have said. Given that was such a remote possibility when the project was being developed, and even less of a possibility now, there was and is simply no realistic possibility of building it without it becoming “l’éléphant blanc” and an even more totemic angle for the HS2 antis to hang their hats on.

Meanwhile we have done the HS2 to HS1 link may times on these pages, including the (in)famous thread where one correspondent reckoned you could do it for a hundred million quis while no-one was looking, and have trains reverse in each St Pancras international platform 8 times an hour. The mental scars are still healing.

One more point, a 4 platform underground through station in the vicinity of Euston / St P / KX is simlly not possible.

Firstly it’s not enough platforms. It would need to be six, probably 8 - work out the dwells for a long distance service where several hundred people will be alighting, and another several hundred people boarding, on trains up to 400m, with single leaf end doors and luggage, then add on platform reoccupation times, thenadd ona s,all buffer so that you don’t use all the capacity, thenmultiply by 16 trains each way.

Secondly, it’s not physically possible without widespread demolition above grouns and / or extensive disruption to existing undergorund facilities, including the underground, Thameslink, the Fleet sewer, numerous deep cable tunnels, uitilities, foundations, and the deep basements of the British Library and the Francis Crick Institute.


Given the length of the route even if built in full I can see no reason why it was specced for 250mph/400kph, even the Chinese, with 1000 mile + high speed lines are sticking to around 220mph, and the French, with much longer distances bewteen major centres of population have stuck to 200mph

HS2 has an alignment for 400kph for about 2/3rds it’s length, and the formation is built to take that. However it will run at 350/360 on those sections, the same as in China. AIUI Chinese High speed lines are designed to the same alignment spec.


The route, I think the 'roughly following the M1/M6' would have made more sense, rather than trying to drive it through the Chilterns, it would also have allowed MML long distance services to benefit in the future.

Again this has explained before, but the short version is that a team of experts across all disciplines (engineering, construction, consents, environment, land specialists, noise specialist (there’s only one), demand forecasters, transport planners, political, estimators, planners, and more) assessed scores of potential route variants and scored them on a multi-criteria framework to nsrrow down options for more detailed study, and narrowed them down further before selecting a preferred route. There was peer review, internal and external challenge panels the whole way. This took many, many thousands of ‘person days’. It is reasonable to assume that what they selected made the most sense. Or at least more sense than the opinion of one person who has looked at a map and had a quick think. (There are many, many people who do this, some of them even used to attend cabinet)


Back to speed, if the issue is WCML capacity then a 155mph capable 140mph service speed would be plently for the journey lengths involved

Back to the point above. If you are going to the expense of building a long distance new line, and the incremental cost for speed is almost lost in the roundings, then the higher speed and resulting (much) hugher benefit almost comes for free.

As been highlighted, as far as I can see HS2 terminating at Euston is a complete waste of money, OOC gives far superior connectivity for around London.

See above, and whilst OOC helps, it patently is not better than Euston for connectivity.

Of course the value of such a link is severely diminished by the British refusal to join Schengen, however in the name of interesting discussion I do wonder about the value of this refusal, and how things might be different if the UK had embraced Schengen.

It’s reasonable to assume that if the UK was reliably in Schengen in 2010, the HS2 to HS1 link would have happened. Indeed the existing WCML / ECML to HS1 links would be seeing pretty regular use now. I’m more than happy to say I wish this was the case.
 

Austriantrain

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2018
Messages
1,799
It’s reasonable to assume that if the UK was reliably in Schengen in 2010, the HS2 to HS1 link would have happened. Indeed the existing WCML / ECML to HS1 links would be seeing pretty regular use now. I’m more than happy to say I wish this was the case.

Out of interest: Would you have used the 18th (spare) path for those services?
 

AlexSJW

On Moderation
Joined
3 Feb 2026
Messages
192
Location
London
See above, and whilst OOC helps, it patently is not better than Euston for connectivity.
Getting from The City is quicker via the Elizabeth Line to OCC than to Euston. How well connected do you want it?

1280px-Willesden_Junction_map_with_Old_Oak_Common.png
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Getting from The City is quicker via the Elizabeth Line to OCC than to Euston. How well connected do you want it?

Rail is not the only onward connectivity. Foot, bus, cycle (owned and hire) and taxi are also onward connectivity options, and in the hierarchy of encouragement for modes both foot and cycle sit above public transport because of their health benefits. Therefore Euston is essential.

The idea that OOC is enough on its own is "rail brain", i.e. failure to consider other modes.

OOC is necessary and will be a good interchange for many people, but a station inside Zone 1 is absolutely essential too.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,374
Location
belfast
Rail is not the only onward connectivity. Foot, bus, cycle (owned and hire) and taxi are also onward connectivity options, and in the hierarchy of encouragement for modes both foot and cycle sit above public transport because of their health benefits. Therefore Euston is essential.

The idea that OOC is enough on its own is "rail brain", i.e. failure to consider other modes.

OOC is necessary and will be a good interchange for many people, but a station inside Zone 1 is absolutely essential too.
Agreed. I would add that sending 20 trains (10 tph per direction) of ~1000 people all onto the rail connections at OOC is likely to cause overloading. There isn't capacity for an extra 20,000 passengers per hour there. Splitting the passengers between OOC and Euston spreads the load and prevents onward travel options from becoming too overloaded.
 

321362

Member
Joined
31 Oct 2023
Messages
323
Location
London
Instead of serving Central London, build a high speed loop around the outskirts of London parallel to the M25, with 10 or so stations connected by tube to the centre. People can choose which station to get off at for their destination rather than all crowding into Euston or OOC. Do the same for Birmingham, with half the trains going round a loop and half continuing in a straight line up towards Manchester where more of the same antics ensue.
 

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,263
Location
London
Rail is not the only onward connectivity. Foot, bus, cycle (owned and hire) and taxi are also onward connectivity options, and in the hierarchy of encouragement for modes both foot and cycle sit above public transport because of their health benefits. Therefore Euston is essential.

Absolutely.

The idea that OOC is enough on its own is "rail brain", i.e. failure to consider other modes.

It's not even that. Euston serves Green Park, Victoria, Charing Cross, Angel, Old Street, Bank/Monument, Aldgate and London Bridge, which Crossrail does not. Even just 'City and West End' is a lot bigger than Crossrail's catchment.

OOC is necessary and will be a good interchange for many people, but a station inside Zone 1 is absolutely essential too.

Agreed.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,817
Out of interest: Would you have used the 18th (spare) path for those services?

No. If UK were in Schengen, some of the services that would otherwise go to Euston (or Kings Cross) would go to HS1 and Europe. Perhaps 2 an hour.


Getting from The City is quicker via the Elizabeth Line to OCC than to Euston. How well connected do you want it?

What about the rest of London? Eg Camden, Islington, the South Bank, Victoria, Southwark, Tottenham, etc etc.

What proportion of people on long distance trains arriving London are heading for the City?
 

AlexSJW

On Moderation
Joined
3 Feb 2026
Messages
192
Location
London
Instead of serving Central London, build a high speed loop around the outskirts of London parallel to the M25, with 10 or so stations connected by tube to the centre. People can choose which station to get off at for their destination rather than all crowding into Euston or OOC. Do the same for Birmingham, with half the trains going round a loop and half continuing in a straight line up towards Manchester where more of the same antics ensue.
Liverpool was to do that with its Outer Loop Metro line, with a six platform parkway station at Broad Green in he east of the city on the Liverpool-Manchester line, and Liverpool South parkway station to the south of the city, on a second Manchester line and the WCML. Few need then enter the city centre to get to long haul destination trains like London. Work started but then Thatcher got into power.

No. If UK were in Schengen, some of the services that would otherwise go to Euston (or Kings
Look at the map, OOC is well connected and can be even better if Acton North is moved down the line the length of the platforms, giving a Tube-Overground interchange. Also lifts can drop down to a pedestrian tunnel to OCC mainline.

East London can get to OOC fast via the Elizabeth Line.
 
Last edited:

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,383
If due to HS2 being designed by a team of experts it is the best possible design, what external factors mean it differs so much in design from, say, the Shinkansen?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Liverpool was to do that with its Outer Loop Metro line, with a six platform parkway station at Broad Green in he east of the city on the Liverpool-Manchester line, and Liverpool South parkway station to the south of the city, on a second Manchester line and the WCML. Few need then enter the city centre to get to long haul destination trains like London. Work started but then Thatcher got into power.

I've never heard that, it certainly isn't in the 1970s Merseyrail proposals newspaper articles I've got. (The line is, but not the Broad Green Parkway station idea, and Liverpool South Parkway absolutely was not).

It is however total fantasy. That line would have been well used for going into Liverpool, but demand for London is not such that that alone would have justified it, certainly not back in the 1970s when the London service was a slowish, hourly at best (sometimes less frequent) diesel-hauled service plus a Sleeper. The two fast trains per hour that exist today, and the slightly faster ones HS2 will bring, would have been an utter fantasy back then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

East London can get to OOC fast via the Elizabeth Line.

The Elizabeth Line doesn't do anything fast. It's an urban metro - it's about capacity. Yes it's a bit quicker than the Central Line, but it is not an express railway.

But nobody is saying OOC is a bad thing nor that anyone for whom it's more convenient shouldn't use it, as your argument seems to be centred around. We're saying Euston is essential in addition to OOC - and I'd go as far as to say that if it isn't built then open access operations that might take some classic WCML paths into Euston are going to do rather well. You're yet to provide a decent argument as to why those who wish to go onwards from Euston by a mode other than the Tube, or for whom the Northern and Victoria Lines reach their destination more conveniently, should be forced to do an extra change onto an urban metro and thus have no time gain over the classic WCML.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,568
Location
Torbay
No. If UK were in Schengen, some of the services that would otherwise go to Euston (or Kings Cross) would go to HS1 and Europe. Perhaps 2 an hour.
Agreed. You'd be actively trying to build the traffic and demand in line with EU integration policies. That's where a Stratford stop (with all its connections like OOC) could come into play as an alternative London domestic destination as well as another international boarding point. You could transfer straight from GWR expresses to European trains at OOC. That 2tph would easily fit through the single bore connection but Camden would require some work. It's all fantasy since Brexit, clearly, so the industry must focus on hubbing via London.
What proportion of people on long distance trains arriving London are heading for the City?
I'd guess far more are heading for a myriad of destinations all over central and greater London, while others are heading to countless places beyond the city across the South East, for which London acts as a super hub.
 

Austriantrain

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2018
Messages
1,799
No. If UK were in Schengen, some of the services that would otherwise go to Euston (or Kings Cross) would go to HS1 and Europe. Perhaps 2 an hour.

Thank you. With a stop in Stratford presumably?

Interesting, I wouldn't have thought the HS2 services would have had enough capacity for London passengers if some of them were diverted away.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,379
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Agreed. You'd be actively trying to build the traffic and demand in line with EU integration policies. That's where a Stratford stop (with all its connections like OOC) could come into play as an alternative London domestic destination as well as another international boarding point. You could transfer straight from GWR expresses to European trains at OOC. That 2tph would easily fit through the single bore connection but Camden would require some work. It's all fantasy since Brexit, clearly, so the industry must focus on hubbing via London.

Unless we were going to go all RENFE and have security on domestic trains (God forbid, if there's one thing that'd make me switch to the car more often it's that) even with Schengen we'd have still had to have some sort of provision for checks which would either mean it just being at a couple of stations and the European services being very fast (e.g. direct Manchester Picc-OOC with no stops) or the hub model still being used anyway.

The security on the Chunnel is probably not really necessary post-IRA, but who's going to sign off removing it?
 

Top