Can a simpler station be built for HS2 at Euston?

[najaB]

If Euston spending was reduced significantly, phase 2a could be bought forward a year or two without increasing annual spend.

In a typical building project, something like 40% of the cost is things that you'll never see (ground works, foundations, services) and another 30% or so goes to meeting the actual functional requirements. Making it 'beautiful' only adds 30% or so.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

There's general silence about the Birmingham end of Phase 1, but it wouldn't surprise me if the construction of the station at Curzon St was phased in some way to reduce the rate of spend until the network grows after several years of operation at low capacity.
Silence also about Birmingham Interchange, another station with an uncertain business case, with no interconnections like OOC.
Old Oak Common is the one site that can't be skimped, or we will throttle the system for decades.

Presumably the silence is because those sites are currently looking to come in at or under their allocated budgets. With piers advancing well at Curzon St, it won't be long until spades are in the ground on the station section itself rather than the approach, so I doubt plans will be altered unless something drastic goes wrong.

Interchange is slightly different, but given the local authority's plans for the area around there, there is going to be a huge amount of works that are enabled from the HS2 works so may be tied into that already.

 

[najaB]

Presumably the silence is because those sites are currently looking to come in at or under their allocated budgets.

Could that be because they are 'just' stations, without concerns of providing for over-site construction?

 

[JonathanH]

Isn't this the answer? Seems to have worked at Cannon Street for many years.

Simple canopies and uncomplicated platforms. I would assume that passengers will be held at barriers until ten minutes before departure in any case.

Cannon Street station in 1972

Before the development over the tracks when daylight still penetrated. The train in the centre is 4-EPB unit 5226 on the 15.26 to Dartford via Sidcup.

www.flickr.com

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Isn't this the answer? Seems to have worked at Cannon Street for many years.

Simple canopies and uncomplicated platforms. I would assume that passengers will be held at barriers until ten minutes before departure in any case.

Cannon Street station in 1972

Before the development over the tracks when daylight still penetrated. The train in the centre is 4-EPB unit 5226 on the 15.26 to Dartford via Sidcup.

www.flickr.com

Yup functional although a cheaper warehouse roof over the lot is probably a necessity to keep people dry walking that 400m!

 

[Brubulus]

In a typical building project, something like 40% of the cost is things that you'll never see (ground works, foundations, services) and another 30% or so goes to meeting the actual functional requirements. Making it 'beautiful' only adds 30% or so.

30% in the case of Euston is at least £1bn so could have a huge impact on 2a phasing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yup functional although a cheaper warehouse roof over the lot is probably a necessity to keep people dry walking that 400m!

A big plastic tent would do.

 

[JonathanH]

A big plastic tent would do.

Yes, but something complex like the roof of the Millennium Dome might need an architect, whereas simple canopies and some bus shelters to a modular design like those at Cannon Street in the 1970s could almost be bought 'off the shelf'.

 

[J-2739]

Time for the nuclear option, open air station with the only covered structure being the shelter for the gate line.

That's on another level of stark compared to the current Euston station, and look how well received that station is!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2023 ==

Yes, but something complex like the roof of the Millennium Dome might need an architect, whereas simple canopies and some bus shelters to a modular design like those at Cannon Street in the 1970s could almost be bought 'off the shelf'.

You're not suggesting a few bus shelters is going to suit one of the major gateways to the capital city?

After what the area has had to suffer under during the last 50 years, is it not time for something more inspiring?

 

[Irascible]

Huge numbers of people use "tatty" stations on the Underground and elsewhere all the time, they don't believe the line is not successful because they aren't at the cutting edge of architectural brilliance.

At the time most of the underground stations *were* at the cutting edge - especially Holden's - and most of the newer ones seem to be, too. You can't do much in a tunnel, but the rest of them are ( mostly ) certainly well considered. Just because they're well used doesn't make them any less well designed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're not suggesting a few bus shelters is going to suit one of the major gateways to the capital city?

Bus shelters no, but plenty of European main termini just have platform canopies along the lines of Rugby, which is fairly cheap to do.

 

[Mordac]

Presumably the silence is because those sites are currently looking to come in at or under their allocated budgets. With piers advancing well at Curzon St, it won't be long until spades are in the ground on the station section itself rather than the approach, so I doubt plans will be altered unless something drastic goes wrong.

Certainly hope so, we need that ready on time for the Eastside tram extension.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Certainly hope so, we need that ready on time for the Eastside tram extension.

Exactly, there are many plans that are based around the HS2 timeline so the knock on effect of any changes would be widely felt.

 

[MattRat]

You're not suggesting a few bus shelters is going to suit one of the major gateways to the capital city?

After what the area has had to suffer under during the last 50 years, is it not time for something more inspiring?

I think it's time for something to serve it's purpose, rather than trying to be anything but a train station.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think it's time for something to serve it's purpose, rather than trying to be anything but a train station.

Well, fair enough as a view.

Can I ask your opinion on (say) the new London Bridge in regards to what proportion of the costs might have been avoided if any ‘non train station’ elements were excluded?

 

[MattRat]

Well, fair enough as a view.

Can I ask your opinion on (say) the new London Bridge in regards to what proportion of the costs might have been avoided if any ‘non train station’ elements were excluded?

It's more than cost. Cost is important, of course, but function is also important. No one will go to the station to get on the train if they get lost in a shopping mall attached to it, or if it's poorly designed because the designers were too busy recreating the Sistine Chapel instead of focusing on foot flows.

 

[HSTEd]

That's on another level of stark compared to the current Euston station, and look how well received that station is!

Well noone would be complaining about the lack of natural light!

After what the area has had to suffer under during the last 50 years, is it not time for something more inspiring?

How inspiring is a non existant station?

 

[J-2739]

Bus shelters no, but plenty of European main termini just have platform canopies along the lines of Rugby, which is fairly cheap to do.

Out of interest, do you have any examples to hand?

It's more than cost. Cost is important, of course, but function is also important. No one will go to the station to get on the train if they get lost in a shopping mall attached to it, or if it's poorly designed because the designers were too busy recreating the Sistine Chapel instead of focusing on foot flows.

How do you define function though? Is the station a space that simply protects one from the weather as they wait for the train? Is it only successful if it satisfies the needs of the passengers, keeping in mind that its scale means it is likely to have to have a visual impact on non-passengers? What about the station as a public space? Do the other characters in the area matter?

Well noone would be complaining about the lack of natural light!

How inspiring is a non existant station?

I mean, both fair points! I guess I don't want this station to experience the same problems that the Victoria line stations suffer from now, due to lack of future proofing resulting from reduced spending.

 

[MattRat]

How do you define function though? Is the station a space that simply protects one from the weather as they wait for the train? Is it only successful if it satisfies the needs of the passengers, keeping in mind that its scale means it is likely to have to have a visual impact on non-passengers? What about the station as a public space? Do the other characters in the area matter?

Well, passengers determine whether a station is fit for purpose, and they just want to go to a station to get on a train, with only the most necessary extras, like a toilet or a place to grab a drink.

I think Victorian stations are the best example of good stations. It's basically just a glass canopy supported by pillars in a lot of them. Plenty of light, plenty of space, makes the act of going through the station simple, as you can see everything. Any facilities added are also off to the side, there if you need them, but not in the way if you don't.

 

[dosxuk]

Making it 'beautiful' only adds 30% or so.

It adds even less than that, as a significant amount of that money is going to need to be spent on fit and finish regardless of whether you're building something purely functional or as beautiful as possible. Walls, ceilings and floors all need finishing to a high standard in a building that is expected to last a long time with the expected numbers of people passing through. Electrical, water, and HVAC systems likewise.

I don't understand why people are surprised that building a half mile long building, underground, in the middle of London, designed for thousands of the general public to pass through every hour, is an expensive proposition. There isn't a cheap way of building it. It's a complicated, large and demanding project - it's not going to be possible to do on the cheap.

 

[JonathanH]

I don't understand why people are surprised that building a half mile long building, underground, in the middle of London, designed for thousands of the general public to pass through every hour, is an expensive proposition. There isn't a cheap way of building it. It's a complicated, large and demanding project - it's not going to be possible to do on the cheap.

It is an expensive proposition because as a country, we are not generating enough government income to build it alongside other demands on the public purse. Therefore it becomes a choice between doing something on the cheap or not doing it at all.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't understand why people are surprised that building a half mile long building, underground, in the middle of London, designed for thousands of the general public to pass through every hour, is an expensive proposition. There isn't a cheap way of building it. It's a complicated, large and demanding project - it's not going to be possible to do on the cheap.

The entire Elizabeth Line with ten new stations cost £18.8Bn. It handles twice as many trains and four times as many passengers per hour as will HS2 Euston. This does make £4.8Bn at 2019 prices seem a teeny weeny bit excessive. Given inflation in construction costs since 2019, the cost in 2023 prices must be around £7Bn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It adds even less than that, as a significant amount of that money is going to need to be spent on fit and finish regardless of whether you're building something purely functional or as beautiful as possible. Walls, ceilings and floors all need finishing to a high standard in a building that is expected to last a long time with the expected numbers of people passing through. Electrical, water, and HVAC systems likewise.

I don't understand why people are surprised that building a half mile long building, underground, in the middle of London, designed for thousands of the general public to pass through every hour, is an expensive proposition. There isn't a cheap way of building it. It's a complicated, large and demanding project - it's not going to be possible to do on the cheap.

Obviously you won't be able to do it for £100K, but there are absolutely expensive and cheap options. The original design is expensive. A warehouse/supermarket style shed for the terminal (don't laugh, it's how most airports are) at one end and metal canopies or similar along the platforms is cheap.

The upside of the expensive design is that some of the cost can be recouped by selling property on top, but that's only worthwhile if the income outweighs the extra cost and there seems to be some suggestion it might not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

It's more than cost. Cost is important, of course, but function is also important. No one will go to the station to get on the train if they get lost in a shopping mall attached to it, or if it's poorly designed because the designers were too busy recreating the Sistine Chapel instead of focusing on foot flows.

People will go to badly designed buildings if HS2 suits their travel needs. Many airports rare terribly designed but people still use them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

Out of interest, do you have any examples to hand?

Paris-Lyon is one, it has a trainshed but it's very short and several platforms are completely outside it:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Belgrade was another, but I can't get a decent aerial picture as demolition is already well underway, sadly.

Geneva isn't a terminus, but very much a main station, but this sort of layout with a station building and platforms with individual canopies are common in Switzerland and Italy:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[dosxuk]

Obviously you won't be able to do it for £100K, but there are absolutely expensive and cheap options. The original design is expensive. A warehouse/supermarket style shed for the terminal (don't laugh, it's how most airports are) at one end and metal canopies or similar along the platforms is cheap.

It is an expensive proposition because as a country, we are not generating enough government income to build it alongside other demands on the public purse. Therefore it becomes a choice between doing something on the cheap or not doing it at all.

The entire Elizabeth Line with ten new stations cost £18.8Bn. It handles twice as many trains and four times as many passengers per hour as will HS2 Euston. This does make £4.8Bn at 2019 prices seem a teeny weeny bit excessive. Given inflation in construction costs since 2019, the cost in 2023 prices must be around £7Bn.

Please note I was responding to the idea that 30% of the budget goes on beautifying the project - and that you can't just take 30% off the budget because you'll still have to do a load of that work regardless if you do it in a budget manner or a fancy manner.

I made no comment about whether they were spending too much on the beautifying, whether it was value for money or if it was affordable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please note I was responding to the idea that 30% of the budget goes on beautifying the project - and that you can't just take 30% off the budget because you'll still have to do a load of that work regardless if you do it in a budget manner or a fancy manner.

I made no comment about whether they were spending too much on the beautifying, whether it was value for money or if it was affordable.

I think build quality and beautifying are two different things.

FWIW I'd be more than happy if the terminal looked like Rugby Services but a bit bigger, for anyone who's ever been there. It's got decent shops, it's got decent toilets and it's got a decent seating area. Just put trains outside instead of cars. It's a big tin shed, quite cheap to build.

 

[edwin_m]

Madrid Chamartin is an example of a major city station that's fairly basic in specification.

 

[Nottingham59]

Can a simpler station be built for HS2 at Euston?​

Undoubtedly. I think there are several ways this could be done.

1. With the loss of the Leeds and ECML connections, HS2 will only need to handle 12tph. 6 platforms at Euston should be plenty, allowing a 30mins reoccupation time.
2. You could also terminate 4tph in the centre platforms at Old Oak to give a total capacity of 16tph.
3. If you really wanted HS2 Euston to be able to handle the full 18tph, then you would need to re-occupy 6 platforms every 20 minutes. That would be tight with delays imported from the classic lines, but quite possible if the HS2 ran as a completely segregated network. So run HS2 trains only to Curzon St, HS2 platforms at Crewe and Preston (via Golborne) and to Airport/Piccadilly. Clean and restock trains at the country terminus only. Extend HS2 sevices to Liverpool via Warrington low-level and to Leeds when dedicated NPR infrastructure gets built, allowing the HS2/NPR network to remain segregated. No need for through trains anywhere else: passengers to Glasgow will get there faster anyway by changing to tilting trains at Preston.
4. Terminate all HS2 trains at Old Oak Common, and let passegers use the Elizabeth Line to get to Central London. Start with 12tph and increase frequency with experience. And if you really need direct access to Euston ....
5. Shorten the two centre platforms at OOC to 200m and use the spare length at the Eastern end for a 30 tph automated shuttle service to Euston, using class 345-like stock. This would need only two platforms at Euston, so extremely simple. At 30tph, the capacity of the shuttle would be 45,000pax/h, far exceeding the carrying capacity of HS2 (18,000pax/h).
6. In fact, you could get by with 100m long shuttles, so could find space to fit them into the Eastern throat of OOC and keep 6x400m platforms. This would need only 2x100m platforms at Euston. Is that simpler enough?

 

[Trainbike46]

A question that somehow hasn't come up yet directly in this thread (though referred to indirectly) is why the Euston station is so problematic. I think these are a significant part of the problem:
- repeated redesigns: Design work is expensive. Repeatedly binning designs and starting over inflates cost and causes delays. I think we're currently at the third redesign?
- conflicting demands meaning no design meets all the requirements set (for example, the whole "there will be oversite development to recoup costs" and "there will not be enough budget for foundations to support oversite development" saga)
- The inherent costs of building in central london

Personally, I think the solution is at least in part to drop some of the requirements, preferably in such a way that one of the existing designs meets all remaining requirements

Out of interest, do you have any examples to hand?

Utrecht centraal similarly has platform canopies at the busiest station in the Netherlands. A Utrecht Centraal-type station would actually be really good here I think:
- concourse along the middle of the platforms for easy access in both directions, designed for high throughput of people
- platforms long enough for 2 trains (for any trains that are 200m long, having sufficient length that both could be open for boarding at the same time prevents crowding of the concourse)
-attractive and affordable platform canopies
-lots of natural light

 

[Bletchleyite]

Undoubtedly. I think there are several ways this could be done.

1. With the loss of the Leeds and ECML connections, HS2 will only need to handle 12tph. 6 platforms at Euston should be plenty, allowing a 30mins reoccupation time.
2. You could also terminate 4tph in the centre platforms at Old Oak to give a total capacity of 16tph.
3. If you really wanted HS2 Euston to be able to handle the full 18tph, then you would need to re-occupy 6 platforms every 20 minutes. That would be tight with delays imported from the classic lines, but quite possible if the HS2 ran as a completely segregated network. So run HS2 trains only to Curzon St, HS2 platforms at Crewe and Preston (via Golborne) and to Airport/Piccadilly. Clean and restock trains at the country terminus only. Extend HS2 sevices to Liverpool via Warrington low-level and to Leeds when dedicated NPR infrastructure gets built, allowing the HS2/NPR network to remain segregated. No need for through trains anywhere else: passengers to Glasgow will get there faster anyway by changing to tilting trains at Preston.
4. Terminate all HS2 trains at Old Oak Common, and let passegers use the Elizabeth Line to get to Central London. Start with 12tph and increase frequency with experience. And if you really need direct access to Euston ....
5. Shorten the two centre platforms at OOC to 200m and use the spare length at the Eastern end for a 30 tph automated shuttle service to Euston, using class 345-like stock. This would need only two platforms at Euston, so extremely simple. At 30tph, the capacity of the shuttle would be 45,000pax/h, far exceeding the carrying capacity of HS2 (18,000pax/h).
6. In fact, you could get by with 100m long shuttles, so could find space to fit them into the Eastern throat of OOC and keep 6x400m platforms. This would need only 2x100m platforms at Euston. Is that simpler enough?

All of these are highly undesirable and further the idea that it's an utter white elephant. Do it properly, or don't bother at all.

 

[Wolfie]

oh so we need to spend money we don't have to create a fancy station in 10-15 years time rather than go for something bland that functions as a station. The whole point of a train is to be able to breeze onto the station 5mins before the train goes and get on it not arrive half an hour early to admire the station go by plane if you want that experience.

HS2 will have sunk 40B by the time phase 1 opens ex Euston is built but how much income will it generate vs a station located at Euston - a lot less i'll wager so better to have a terminus even if it is bland. Go to Germany and majority of their large city stations are bland monolithic concrete structures but that never put off passengers.

What exactly makes you think that the local council (Camden) and Mayor of London will give planning approval to some ugly lump of concrete or even worse a B&Q replica on a prime London site?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2023 ==

All of these are highly undesirable and further the idea that it's an utter white elephant. Do it properly, or don't bother at all.

Absolutely.