Fantasy: Could GWR use Euston permanently?

[Mgameing123]

I think it was the original intention of the GWR to do so, but it was scrapped in favour of Paddington (I forget why).

It was cheaper as that part of London wasn't well developed at the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2025 ==

Its a shame this route couldn't be normalised and Paddington could be ditched altogether.

I think its better to keep all GWR services terminating at Paddington and then using Euston or Waterloo as a backup. Having one London terminal is more simple for customers and in the future if customers need Euston then they can change to the HS2 at Old Oak Common.

 

[JamieL]

It was cheaper as that part of London wasn't well developed at the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2025 ==


I think its better to keep all GWR services terminating at Paddington and then using Euston or Waterloo as a backup. Having one London terminal is more simple for customers and in the future if customers need Euston then they can change to the HS2 at Old Oak Common.

Old Oak Common is certainly a game-changer but that brings us back to the question of 'what benefits does Paddington bring'? As an out-of-town hub it doesn't work that well because its location is poor and Old Oak Common will perform that function. Diverting all GWR traffic onto the WCML to Euston (with both line capacity and the station enhanced accordingly) would be so much better for the travelling public. With Euston being rebuilt for HS2, now could be the moment to seize the opportunity to expand it and recast it as the principle London terminal. Paddington could be demolished and replaced with housing.

 

[Falcon1200]

With Euston being rebuilt for HS2, now could be the moment to seize the opportunity to expand it and recast it as the principle London terminal. Paddington could be demolished and replaced with housing.

No amount of feasible or affordable rebuilding will make Euston able to accept all Paddington's trains, not to mention the work required to provide a fast route, with sufficient capacity, between the GWML and Euston. Nor is Paddington ever going to be demolished.

The only practical use of Euston for Paddington trains is what is happening now, ie a handful of trains on a small number of occasions. Anything more is a non-starter.

 

[JamieL]

No amount of feasible or affordable rebuilding will make Euston able to accept all Paddington's trains, not to mention the work required to provide a fast route, with sufficient capacity, between the GWML and Euston. Nor is Paddington ever going to be demolished.

The only practical use of Euston for Paddington trains is what is happening now, ie a handful of trains on a small number of occasions. Anything more is a non-starter.

I agree it's not going to happen, it is just too difficult. But de-latch from the practicalities of making it happen and dare to imagine how brilliant it would be if it did happen. Imagine a London super-terminal at Euston, in close proximity to St Pancreas and King's Cross, and paired with Crossrail 2. What a hub that would be!

 

[HSTEd]

No amount of feasible or affordable rebuilding will make Euston able to accept all Paddington's trains, not to mention the work required to provide a fast route, with sufficient capacity, between the GWML and Euston. Nor is Paddington ever going to be demolished.

The only practical use of Euston for Paddington trains is what is happening now, ie a handful of trains on a small number of occasions. Anything more is a non-starter.

The required rebuilding is certainly technically feasible.
It is probably unlikely at this time, but it is certainly achievable in an engineering sense.

The required capacity in the approach would be two tracks and thats about it.

The combined value of the Paddington station site and all the approaches is probably rather large - especially as the Euston station site is encumbered by planning limits.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The combined value of the Paddington station site and all the approaches is probably rather large - especially as the Euston station site is encumbered by planning limits.

The value of Paddington station is probably £0.00. It is Grade 1 listed. You can't just demolish Grade 1 listed structures and build a Tesco and a few office blocks.

 

[DelW]

Was it not possible for the Great Western Railway to get any further into London when it was built, or were there too many buildings in the way, even in the 1800s?

A map from 1841 included in "A History of London in Maps" does indeed show that Paddington was on the edge of the built-up area at the time. Everywhere east of Edgware Road is fully built over, and there is development between the station site and Edgware Road. To the west is still mostly open country.

GWR did subsequently run trains into the City via the Metropolitan Line of course.

 

[JamieL]

Yes, Paddington was chosen because it was cheap unused land with the added benefit that it was near the canal. Hardly the basis for sound decisions on where to have a terminus in the 21st century.

 

[HSTEd]

The value of Paddington station is probably £0.00. It is Grade 1 listed. You can't just demolish Grade 1 listed structures and build a Tesco and a few office blocks.

Even if you assume that primary station building is untouchable, which it isn't. That only makes up a portion of the station site, let alone the approaches.

The arches at Paddington could be redeveloped into any number of things whilst leaving them substantially intact - especially as they would be directly adjacent to the remaining underground platforms.

Indeed, as I recall, a serious attempt was made to axe the fourth arch span relatively recently.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Even if you assume that primary station building is untouchable, which it isn't. That only makes up a portion of the station site, let alone the approaches.

It pretty much is and the listing isn't just the station roof. Paddington is worthless as a development opportunity.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Given how big London is these days and how varied people's destinations are, the idea that somehow Paddington is in the middle of nowhere and Euston isn't is hilarious. Most travellers will have to use the tube or other onward travel options whether they arrive into Paddington or Euston so it really doesn't matter.

For anyone who gains because their destination is near Euston, you'll get someone who loses because their destination is nearer Paddington - and for most people they'll just jump on a tube or similar anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2025 ==

Yes, Paddington was chosen because it was cheap unused land with the added benefit that it was near the canal. Hardly the basis for sound decisions on where to have a terminus in the 21st century.

It's hardly cheap and unused land now though, and is as well connected as other terminus stations are.

 

[43096]

Old Oak Common is certainly a game-changer but that brings us back to the question of 'what benefits does Paddington bring'? As an out-of-town hub it doesn't work that well because its location is poor and Old Oak Common will perform that function. Diverting all GWR traffic onto the WCML to Euston (with both line capacity and the station enhanced accordingly) would be so much better for the travelling public. With Euston being rebuilt for HS2, now could be the moment to seize the opportunity to expand it and recast it as the principle London terminal. Paddington could be demolished and replaced with housing.

So the logic is to divert Paddington services to Euston to connect with HS2, when they will already connect with HS2 at Old Oak Common.

Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Bevan Price]

The major problem for all the "Northern" rail terminals in London is that the 19th Century London authorities did not want any surface railways to go south of Euston Road / Marylebone Road. Hence none of them are highly convenient for the "city centre" (which I would describe as roughly the areas around Oxford Street, Leicester Square & Trafalgar Square)

 

[JamieL]

So the logic is to divert Paddington services to Euston to connect with HS2, when they will already connect with HS2 at Old Oak Common.

Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever.

If you think about it, it does. Passengers for EL destinations could alight at OOC, others could disembark at Euston. It is Paddington that OOC makes redundant, not Euston.

 

[SynthD]

Do you (or anyone) know the figure for the other London terminals?

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf page 30 of this pdf.

Old Oak Common is certainly a game-changer but that brings us back to the question of 'what benefits does Paddington bring'?

A third of train passengers aren’t crossing Paddington concourse anymore?

 

[Failed Unit]

It will be interesting to see when Old Oak common is complete what difference it will make. I suspect passengers heading West will still prefer to use Paddington if they can so they are on at the start of the journey. However alighting at Old Oak Common could help if they want cross rail.

The Bakerloo line does cover a lot of useful destinations.I would be interested to now what areas people from the West would gain a significant advantage from if the trains went to Euston instead,

 

[WelshBluebird]

It's worth saying Paddington still gives you more options for future onward travel than what old oak common would. For some journeys that can be incredibly useful, especially in times of disruption.

 

[Falcon1200]

dare to imagine how brilliant it would be if it did happen.

I agree! In fact it would have been wonderful if, when our railways were being built, despite the multiplicity of separate and competing companies, Government had insisted on 'Union' stations, rather than scattered terminals in big (and sometimes small too) places. But it's too late now.....

 

[Mgameing123]

Old Oak Common is certainly a game-changer but that brings us back to the question of 'what benefits does Paddington bring'? As an out-of-town hub it doesn't work that well because its location is poor and Old Oak Common will perform that function. Diverting all GWR traffic onto the WCML to Euston (with both line capacity and the station enhanced accordingly) would be so much better for the travelling public. With Euston being rebuilt for HS2, now could be the moment to seize the opportunity to expand it and recast it as the principle London terminal. Paddington could be demolished and replaced with housing.

And have you thought about tube capacity? Do you think the tube will be able to handle the additional passengers heading towards The City or West End. It’s better to send GWR trains to Paddington to spread out the load.

 

[JamieL]

And have you thought about tube capacity? Do you think the tube will be able to handle the additional passengers heading towards The City or West End. It’s better to send GWR trains to Paddington to spread out the load.

I mentioned the solution for this in post #64, namely Crossrail 2. We know we need it, so let's build it!

 

[Mgameing123]

If you think about it, it does. Passengers for EL destinations could alight at OOC, others could disembark at Euston. It is Paddington that OOC makes redundant, not Euston.

That’s when you only consider Crossrail and not the London Underground. Paddington has also access to the Bakerloo, Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines so unless you want many passengers to take a one stop hop on the Elizabeth Line between Old Oak Common & Paddington then I wouldn’t recommend closing Paddington considering also that it’s a cultural icon.

 

[vuzzeho]

This seems like a solution looking for a problem. HS2 interchange at OOC is perfectly fine (and keeps interchanging passengers from going to Euston, reducing crowds) and Paddington isn't poorly situated in the slightest, being near many very popular tourist spots and very well linked to the City and Canary Wharf.

 

[Haywain]

I was at Euston last weekend and there seemed to be an awful lot of dwell time for the GWR services. The service from Bristol Parkway i alighted off ended up there for over an hour before it left making up its next service after arriving 15 mins early and being timetabled for 45 mins dwell time. I assume they were being cautious with the timetabling but could that not be made tighter to add more services?

Trains can only run in, and out, when paths are available. Maybe that's the reason for the longer turnround times.

St Pancreas

St Pancras - no letter e, and not named after a body part.

 

[Mgameing123]

I mentioned the solution for this in post #64, namely Crossrail 2. We know we need it, so let's build it!

Crossrail 2 doesn't have infinite capacity my friend.

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

Actually you know what this is a genious idea. It would actually pressure the government to provide Euston with the full 11 platforms for HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Crossrail 2 doesn't have infinite capacity my friend.

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

Actually you know what this is a genious idea. It would actually pressure the government to provide Euston with the full 11 platforms for HS2.

The capacity of a crossrail sized modern metro line is positively enormous however.

It far exceeds the capacity of a conventional tube line, which is why the Elizabeth Line is able to move so many people - despite not being operated at the limit of the cores capacity in terms of passengers per hour.

I think it would be very difficult for an enlarged Euston-KGX-St Pancras - (King's Pancras in Euston?) complex to saturate it.

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

That’s when you only consider Crossrail and not the London Underground. Paddington has also access to the Bakerloo, Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines so unless you want many passengers to take a one stop hop on the Elizabeth Line between Old Oak Common & Paddington then I wouldn’t recommend closing Paddington considering also that it’s a cultural icon.

A large fraction of the Circle and Hammersmith&City line passengers would be able to board at the Euston-Euston Square-King's Cross-St Pancras complex.

The only line that Paddington has that that station complex does not is the Bakerloo. (EDIT; And of course, Euston has services to the northern half of the Bakerloo line as a matter of course).

Also, is Paddington a "cultural icon"? I can't think of many famous depictions of the station.

EDIT #2: I remember now Paddington also has one branch of the District line, but fundamentally I think its not an unreasonable point to make.

 

[JamieL]

Crossrail 2 doesn't have infinite capacity my friend.

It wouldn't need it. Customers wanting the Elizabeth Line will alight at Old Oak Common. Customers wanting Crossrail 2, Circle, Northern, Metropolitan, Victoria, Hammersmith & City lines could disembark at Euston. Accordingly the Euston arrangement would offer the best connectivity. In contract, Paddington becomes largely redundant when Old Oak Common opens other than for those wanting the Bakerloo (and even then many of those customers will be better served going to Euston and using Circle).

Paddington is something of a lemon with Old Oak Common on the horizon.

 

[Transilien]

Also, is Paddington a "cultural icon"? I can't think of many famous depictions of the station.

There is the Bear that's named after the station!

 

[sprunt]

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf page 30 of this pdf.

Thank you. Looking at that, it doesn't look like Euston's much better than Paddington at delivering people directly to where they want to be, only a small minority continuing their journey on foot so it doesn't seem like there's much advantage to the proposal.

 

[Mgameing123]

There is the Bear that's named after the station!

A bear known all around the world!

 

[Meole]

So the logic is to divert Paddington services to Euston to connect with HS2, when they will already connect with HS2 at Old Oak Common.

Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever.

Divert the Elizabeth line to Euston from Paddington as well ? probably unlikely.