Euston 'level decking' and over-throat development - post-Higgins plans

[Tio Terry]

Article in tonight's Evening Standard about the over station development at Euston. Talks of some 3800 homes and the need for 40 or 50 stories tall to make it worthwhile!

 

[HSTEd]

Whats wrong with 50 stories?
That sounds just about right to me.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Something to remember is that the Hybrid Bill process is only required for the railway works, not for any over-site development. The Option 8 station in the Hybrid Bill is little more than a half-completed Option 1 and anything that could have been built over the HS platforms in Option 1 can be built over them in Option 8. The Hybrid Bill and the Environmental Statement include the possibility of OSD but all that they are required to do is provide the concrete slab. The actual planning of the OSD would be done entirely through standard planning procedures.

 

[pablo]

More tall stories? :

 

[Tio Terry]

Something to remember is that the Hybrid Bill process is only required for the railway works, not for any over-site development. The Option 8 station in the Hybrid Bill is little more than a half-completed Option 1 and anything that could have been built over the HS platforms in Option 1 can be built over them in Option 8. The Hybrid Bill and the Environmental Statement include the possibility of OSD but all that they are required to do is provide the concrete slab. The actual planning of the OSD would be done entirely through standard planning procedures.

You would need to decide at the outset just what you are going to do above the deck to be able to design a suitable foundation. The weight of 50 floors is considerably different to, say, 10 so it's not something you can easily change your mind on at a later date. You could, of course, design the foundations and support structures for the worst case but that could incur un-necessary costs if such strength was not required.

 

[pablo]

Yep, it's one way to end up with fifty storeys spread horizontally across Euston Road. They do that in China sometimes....

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are limits to how many floors can be put above Euston, both physical/engineering and for townscape issues. The various plans for Euston have all had to deal with the protected sight line from Primrose Hill to St Paul's Cathedral which limits any over-site development through the middle of the site to about 10 storeys. From an engineering perspective it will be easier to locate taller structures on the top of the cutting as the supports can be larger and there is no underground station beneath.

A particular idea that I feel is suitable is that there would be some sort of north-south route along the entire cutting. In the Option 1 plan this is well provided for as there is to be a wide street-level concourse area dividing the HS2 and classic platforms running all the way from Euston Square to the east-west bridge just north of the station. Constructing a slab above the widened station throat and cutting, even if only strong enough to carry 3 or 4 stories, would allow this pedestrian route to continue all the way along the cutting.

 

[Tio Terry]

There are limits to how many floors can be put above Euston, both physical/engineering and for townscape issues. The various plans for Euston have all had to deal with the protected sight line from Primrose Hill to St Paul's Cathedral which limits any over-site development through the middle of the site to about 10 stories. From an engineering perspective it will be easier to locate taller structures on the top of the cutting as the supports can be larger and there is no underground station beneath.

A particular idea that I feel is suitable is that there would be some sort of north-south route along the entire cutting. In the Option 1 plan this is well provided for as there is to be a wide street-level concourse area dividing the HS2 and classic platforms running all the way from Euston Square to the east-west bridge just north of the station. Constructing a slab above the widened station throat and cutting, even if only strong enough to carry 3 or 4 stories, would allow this pedestrian route to continue all the way along the cutting.

The newspaper article mentioned the St Pauls view issue and said that it would not be in a direct line of site but to the west. Looking at Google maps that does appear to be the case.

I do agree there are other issue though, especially building foundations for such a building.

 

[pablo]

Now, I don't know whether we are talking about tall stories or storeys and sites or sights. usw. (and so on and so forth). et cetera.

Vroooooooooomh...............!

 

[NotATrainspott]

The newspaper article mentioned the St Pauls view issue and said that it would not be in a direct line of site but to the west. Looking at Google maps that does appear to be the case.

I do agree there are other issue though, especially building foundations for such a building.

Is there a link to this article? I can't see it on their website.

 

[Deerfold]

Now, I don't know whether we are talking about tall stories or storeys and sites or sights. usw. (and so on and so forth). et cetera.

Vroooooooooomh...............!

Glad it wasn't just me there.

 

[Chris125]

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/travel_2_3170/blow_as_government_refuses_to_support_Blow as government refuses to support Camden-backed HS2 Euston station design

In a letter sent to Cllr Sarah Hayward on Monday, Mr McLoughlin MP wrote: “Experts from HS2 Ltd and Network Rail have looked at this in detail and have provided strong and definitive adivce that the ‘double deck down’ solution is not viable.

“On the basis of this advice [...] the Department intends to do no further work on the ‘double deck down’ solution.”

An attached letter sent by Rupert Walker, head of high speed rail development at Network Rail, listed a number of concerns about DDD2, including fewer opportunities for “over site development”, the impact of construction on rail capacity and reduced concourse and passenger circulation.

Chris

 

[pablo]

Seems that the SoS made an annoucement in early August, during the silly season of course, ostensibly about Crossrail going to Tring.
LR doesn't believe that. They reckon it's about removing the slow commuters from the WCML to relieve Euston so its re-building can be speeded up. Crossrail is far less controversial than HS2. Crafty dog! Wonder who will pay for this?
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/coming-across-rail-turmoil/

 

[The Planner]

It also to do with the fact you aren't going to have all the platforms during the rebuild, ergo, it makes it much more difficult to keep the same level of service without it going tits up at the drop of a hat.

 

[swt_passenger]

Seems that the SoS made an annoucement in early August, during the silly season of course, ostensibly about Crossrail going to Tring.
LR doesn't believe that. They reckon it's about removing the slow commuters from the WCML to relieve Euston so its re-building can be speeded up. Crossrail is far less controversial than HS2. Crafty dog! Wonder who will pay for this?
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/coming-across-rail-turmoil/

It was hardly news, it was in the 2011 London and SE RUS, and as described there is is about improving journey times to central London and the City for WCML commuter services. They emphasised back then that the proposal has a positive BCR without considering the effects of HS2 on Euston. I suggest there's no big conspiracy about HS2 going on.

All that happened in August was that a consultation on the details was announced. The current thread about Old Oak Common has some detailed drawings of the proposed route for the link - the suggestion is that NR and HS2 must have been looking at the details for some time.

 

[edwin_m]

Might even provide an opportunity to divert a few other suburban services from Euston into Paddington.

 

[pablo]

It was hardly news, it was in the 2011 London and SE RUS, and as described there is is about improving journey times to central London and the City for WCML commuter services. They emphasised back then that the proposal has a positive BCR without considering the effects of HS2 on Euston. I suggest there's no big conspiracy about HS2 going on.

All that happened in August was that a consultation on the details was announced. The current thread about Old Oak Common has some detailed drawings of the proposed route for the link - the suggestion is that NR and HS2 must have been looking at the details for some time.

The timescale has changed. Higgins has realised he can re-phase Euston's re-building if he gets rid of traffic elsewhere earleir. The SoS hijacked a presentation on Crossrail to re-announce it. Geddit?

 

[Olaf]

The latest news regarding Euston redevelopment - from minutes of a meeting on teh 9th October 2014:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1982033&postcount=139

 

[zoomwhoosh]

The latest news regarding Euston redevelopment - from minutes of a meeting on teh 9th October 2014:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1982033&postcount=139

Ok, I'm just a stray Aussie and this is my first post so be nice

I couldn't help notice the discussion about Euston station (I've been there a few times). And one of my fascinations is with the game called "Concrete Twister". You know like the old fashioned Twister party game, only you play it with multiple layers of infrastructure And oh yes, you Londoners have excelled in this one..

Having had a read through the DDD proposal and the feasibility study it does occur to me that the only way out of this jam is to back up one step. And that's to shut down Euston. But not before putting something else in its place to serve much the same function, at least temporarily.

I'm not sure about the discussion about Crossrail 2 etc. But what I was actually thinking was this.

Is is possible to actually build a new, temporary version of Euston station. Or even a not so temporary version. I might leave you guys to speculate on this but just looking around I have a few ideas. And I should point out that for the amount of time, energy and cost that could be saved it would be worth throwing in a new tunnel.

First random idea: the south eastern corner of Regents park. Ok, so you'd have to manage the trees carefully, but you could build a temporary station and it would be connected to Regents Park tube station. If you wanted to make this permanent you could even stick the whole thing in a box and put the park back on top.

Second random idea: up at the corner near Chalk Farm and near a place called the Roundhouse. This one would be temporary for sure. And I don't know much about the surrounding buildings but I'm sure a temp station could be squeezed in here.

Third random idea: how about a tunnel extension heading south to a new Euston station. This time under Russell Square and taking up the two blocks to the north of it. The Royal National Hotel (judging by the last time I stayed there) could do with some aggressive renovation. Please don't tell me its heritage or I'll cry.. Anyhow its worth a thought. I'm just putting forward a concept.

Anyhow, if you can move Euston station then the rest falls into place fairly easily.

Cheers (don't forget to send me my consultants fee )

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ok, I'm just a stray Aussie and this is my first post so be nice

I couldn't help notice the discussion about Euston station (I've been there a few times). And one of my fascinations is with the game called "Concrete Twister". You know like the old fashioned Twister party game, only you play it with multiple layers of infrastructure And oh yes, you Londoners have excelled in this one..

Having had a read through the DDD proposal and the feasibility study it does occur to me that the only way out of this jam is to back up one step. And that's to shut down Euston. But not before putting something else in its place to serve much the same function, at least temporarily.

I'm not sure about the discussion about Crossrail 2 etc. But what I was actually thinking was this.

Is is possible to actually build a new, temporary version of Euston station. Or even a not so temporary version. I might leave you guys to speculate on this but just looking around I have a few ideas. And I should point out that for the amount of time, energy and cost that could be saved it would be worth throwing in a new tunnel.

First random idea: the south eastern corner of Regents park. Ok, so you'd have to manage the trees carefully, but you could build a temporary station and it would be connected to Regents Park tube station. If you wanted to make this permanent you could even stick the whole thing in a box and put the park back on top.

This wouldn't be a 'temporary' station because the cost of building it would be so immense there would never be a business case in demolishing it again. This permanent solution was one of the final proposals then rejected in favour of Euston, and it is realistically the only possible option for a future high speed rail terminus in London, so do not discount this happening at some point.

Second random idea: up at the corner near Chalk Farm and near a place called the Roundhouse. This one would be temporary for sure. And I don't know much about the surrounding buildings but I'm sure a temp station could be squeezed in here.

The issue here is that there isn't enough land available for there to be enough platforms for it to be worth doing. If divine chance meant there was a King's Cross Railway Lands-style area of derelict land on the same level as and adjacent to the Euston throat it would be a realistic possibility for a new set of permanent platforms, leaving the existing Euston land available for the high speed platforms. This wouldn't be dissimilar to how St Pancras was reconstructed, when the MML Fast line platforms were moved out into their current new terminus away from the trainshed so that the very intensive works could be done there without any disruption to services.

Third random idea: how about a tunnel extension heading south to a new Euston station. This time under Russell Square and taking up the two blocks to the north of it. The Royal National Hotel (judging by the last time I stayed there) could do with some aggressive renovation. Please don't tell me its heritage or I'll cry.. Anyhow its worth a thought. I'm just putting forward a concept.

Anyhow, if you can move Euston station then the rest falls into place fairly easily.

Cheers (don't forget to send me my consultants fee )

The reason the north London terminals are where they are is that Parliament did not allow the railway companies to build them south of Euston Road. Building a new terminus south of there would be effectively impossible, given that any new terminus would have to dwarf the surrounding area and there are no real areas available for that level of regeneration (indeed, is there any place in Zone 1 that needs regeneration?). The only reason new railway lines would be built south of Euston road is to build cross-city links and HS2 simply does not work with them given that London is tucked in one small corner of the island and the Continent is in a different passport zone. I do think though that high speed rail to the west and the north east is going to be needed in the same general time frame and it would be a good idea to share one single station box in a Royal Park for both, allowing services to continue through London from one extreme of the country to another.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

This wouldn't be a 'temporary' station because the cost of building it would be so immense there would never be a business case in demolishing it again. This permanent solution was one of the final proposals then rejected in favour of Euston, and it is realistically the only possible option for a future high speed rail terminus in London, so do not discount this happening at some point.



The issue here is that there isn't enough land available for there to be enough platforms for it to be worth doing. If divine chance meant there was a King's Cross Railway Lands-style area of derelict land on the same level as and adjacent to the Euston throat it would be a realistic possibility for a new set of permanent platforms, leaving the existing Euston land available for the high speed platforms. This wouldn't be dissimilar to how St Pancras was reconstructed, when the MML Fast line platforms were moved out into their current new terminus away from the trainshed so that the very intensive works could be done there without any disruption to services.



The reason the north London terminals are where they are is that Parliament did not allow the railway companies to build them south of Euston Road. Building a new terminus south of there would be effectively impossible, given that any new terminus would have to dwarf the surrounding area and there are no real areas available for that level of regeneration (indeed, is there any place in Zone 1 that needs regeneration?). The only reason new railway lines would be built south of Euston road is to build cross-city links and HS2 simply does not work with them given that London is tucked in one small corner of the island and the Continent is in a different passport zone. I do think though that high speed rail to the west and the north east is going to be needed in the same general time frame and it would be a good idea to share one single station box in a Royal Park for both, allowing services to continue through London from one extreme of the country to another.

The thing about the feasibility study that struck me is how much of its conclusions rest on one simple assumption. That in order to build over the LU tunnels you leave the tunnel structure in place and pile around them. Which then brings on much discussion related to the release of compressive forces, It struck me as an oversight that they didn't consider actually digging down to the level of the tunnels and simply removing their structure. So what you'd have is effectively an underground station being rebuilt in open cut form. Do this and much of the technical difficulty goes away and more importantly you can then lower the level of the lower deck. And thus a lot of the later discussion is moot.

There is also the assumption that you need an average of 36 minutes (11 / 18 * 60) of platform time per train. I'm surprised that a core assumption that has a direct effect on the scope and cost of the station isn't receiving careful scrutiny. Ok, so you need to consider human factors, baggage, issues to do with less mobile passengers. But to my mind, 10 minutes is a reasonable length of time once you have the proper systems, the correct staff training and so on. Using that factor you now need 3 platforms. So lets be generous and call it 4. Now step back and think what that means for Euston.

Here in Australia, the government commissioned a study into high speed rail and that was released last year. The largest station at Sydney ended up with 10 HSR platforms in a double deck arrangement that was costed at several billion AUD. There were numerous other acts of gold plating. And very often for reasons that basically boil down to assumptions that were never actually examined but just taken for granted.

The reason I mentioned Russell Square was to introduce the concept of a large modern station that for the most part is hidden from view and a level or two below ground. Implicit in this was the idea of not dwarfing the surrounding area and instead being able to rebuild above ground in a sympathetic fashion. Russell Square itself would be rebuilt to be exactly like it was. And since I know bugger all about London's buildings and what is heritage or not, I used the example of the Royal National Hotel. I do have to wonder if there aren't plenty of other examples of whole blocks of fairly ordinary bits of architecture with single owners. I note also that if you go north to the area which is just south of Euston there are the Tavistock Square Gardens and Gordon Square Garden and between and to the north of these are buildings which appear to be all in the hands of University College London.

Anyhow rather than speculate further I'd be interested to know what ideas there are on where to site a new station.

 

[WatcherZero]

Camden Journal is saying there has been a triple U-turn and the plan is now a phased approach to build a new station box beside the existing station containing six platforms and open by 2026 and then in 2034 to extend 5 of the existing platforms to HS2 length.

 

[NotATrainspott]

This annoys me.

 

[Altnabreac]

Camden Journal is saying there has been a triple U-turn and the plan is now a phased approach to build a new station box beside the existing station containing six platforms and open by 2026 and then in 2034 to extend 5 of the existing platforms to HS2 length.

It does fit with the David Higgins philosophy which is very much "Interfaces with the existing railway are bad and should be avoided."

Simplifies the construction schedule no end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably this is on the assumption that the Tring locals go onto Crossrail so platforms 17 and 18 are no longer needed for classic services, as the HS services appear to be going there?

Must admit I don't like the Crossrail idea. It will mean that you have to choose between two stations for a local service to Watford etc. So unless *all* LM services went onto Crossrail (except maybe the Crewe semifast services which could go to VT) it'd be a right faff if you lived at one of the stations split between the two.

Neil

 

[pablo]

Quote from 26th November 2014:
"StP has what? Four Euro* tph and five international platforms. There are, at least, four suitable platforms extant in London and no suggestion of using them.

Extend Euston on the west side only, using the carriage shed space and some significant demolition. Insert 4 to 5, 415m platforms, on west side at existing gl. Thus 8/10 tph to EUS. Might just get away with that politically. Construction period becomes acceptable too.

Then 2 to Waterloo via the WLL; will require gauge clearance for Captives but not for CCs. 2 tph to StP Euro* platforms via NLL; maybe reverse onto HS1 from there. Move the security fence usw. 2 direct to Stratford or Ebbsfleet or beyond. Accept 2 or 4 tph turning back at OOC for now (if run at 18 tph), and most pax having to change there. They probably will anyhow. Wonderful dispersal.....

Think again about terminating in London.

Want to bet?" /Quote
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1986288&highlight=pablo#post1986288

Ha ha ha. What did I say?

It's a no-brainer. 6 is possible and will take the initial service.

 

[HSTEd]

And where do all the WLl and NLL paths come from for this?
And having the service split over three stations is going to cause all sorts of service provision problems.

 

[Deerfold]

Quote from 26th November 2014:
"StP has what? Four Euro* tph and five international platforms. There are, at least, four suitable platforms extant in London and no suggestion of using them.

Extend Euston on the west side only, using the carriage shed space and some significant demolition. Insert 4 to 5, 415m platforms, on west side at existing gl. Thus 8/10 tph to EUS. Might just get away with that politically. Construction period becomes acceptable too.

Then 2 to Waterloo via the WLL; will require gauge clearance for Captives but not for CCs. 2 tph to StP Euro* platforms via NLL; maybe reverse onto HS1 from there. Move the security fence usw. 2 direct to Stratford or Ebbsfleet or beyond. Accept 2 or 4 tph turning back at OOC for now (if run at 18 tph), and most pax having to change there. They probably will anyhow. Wonderful dispersal.....

And problems in just about any area of London will have a knock-on effect on HS2.

And the planned change of use of the Waterloo platforms to local services will no longer be possible.

And if you want to travel North your train will be going from - oh, let me see, one of how many places, all with a very low frequency?

 

[swt_passenger]

It's a no-brainer. 6 is possible and will take the initial service.

and it's just as ridiculous an idea as it was in November. Waterloo is NOT available, as repeatedly explained, and is about 30 mins from Old Oak anyway. What would be the point?

 

[pablo]

You're missing the point. Six platforms will take the whole initial service. SW can have Waterloo all to themselves.

You're all very good at the negativity bit. Try some positive thought like a solution to Euston that delivers in time for the opening of Ph1.