How to improve Euston station

[A S Leib]

Anyone have any opinion on the possibility of diverting St PAncras EMR trains into the rebuilt Euston and freeing the St Pancras platforms for HS1 Domestic service in connection with the projected resignalling?

Is there the demand to fill more than ~6 domestic tph through Ebbsfleet without expanding to more destinations (Hastings, all-day Maidstone – going off-topic)?

 

[HSTEd]

Is there the demand to fill more than ~6 domestic tph through Ebbsfleet without expanding to more destinations (Hastings, all-day Maidstone – going off-topic)?

Again, without risking the derailing of the thread, I can't see any reason why you couldn't expand to more destinations, or have all day service to Maidstone.
The capacity of a 230kph ETCS signalled line is rather large, especially given the relatively close spacing of the intervention shafts in the tunnels. Even wasting a path or two to allow Eurostar trains to avoid stopping at Stratford.

 

[Trainbike46]

I almost hesitate to bring it up because it is possibly the most crayonista thing I will say this year.

But I think a rebuilt from scratch Euston could handle a lot of trains using the land available, especially with an elevated concourse and the buffer stops as close as possible to Euston Road. Probably more than HS2 and the WCML need.

The St Pancras and Euston approaches are relatively close together in South Hampstead.
Anyone have any opinion on the possibility of diverting St PAncras EMR trains into the rebuilt Euston and freeing the St Pancras platforms for HS1 Domestic service in connection with the projected resignalling?

It would be major work - and therefore obviously take time to get there, as you'd first have to rebuild Euston, then move the EMR services over, then make changes at St. P to allow HS1 services to access the former EMR platforms, then expand the SE offering.

However, if you need extra High Speed platforms at St Pancras, I could see the case for it.

It would be kind of sad to no longer have EMR services at St P, as that is what the station was built for, but then again, that kind of sentiment should have only a very minor part in decision making (if any at all)!

 

[Bald Rick]

Again, without risking the derailing of the thread, I can't see any reason why you couldn't expand to more destinations, or have all day service to Maidstone.
The capacity of a 230kph ETCS signalled line is rather large, especially given the relatively close spacing of the intervention shafts in the tunnels. Even wasting a path or two to allow Eurostar trains to avoid stopping at Stratford.

Leaving aside the absolute nightmare that would be tunnelling from Camden to West Hamsptead whilst keeping clear of all the existing (and soon to be built) tunnels in the area, the main issue would be dealing with the number of passengers at Euston in terms of onward travel.

 

[Wolfie]

Leaving aside the absolute nightmare that would be tunnelling from Camden to West Hamsptead whilst keeping clear of all the existign (and soon to be built) tunnels in the area, the main issue would be dealing with the number of passengers at Euston in terms of onward travel.

Absolutely. The TfL view certainly was that Crossrail 2 was required to fully handle HS2.

 

[A S Leib]

Leaving aside the absolute nightmare that would be tunnelling from Camden to West Hamsptead whilst keeping clear of all the existign (and soon to be built) tunnels in the area, the main issue would be dealing with the number of passengers at Euston in terms of onward travel.

Would 30+ tph be achievable on both central Northern line branches when / if Camden Town's sorted and the line split in two? I think 32 tph between Baker Street and Liverpool Street was the pre-Covid 4LM target, up from 24 tph now. Of course Euston doesn't have the Piccadilly line or Thameslink which King's Cross / St. Pancras does, and, at risk of wandering off-topic, I wonder if HS2 might cause existing onward connections to be overloaded at times, even if cutting back to Birmingham and Handsacre means fewer passengers and Old Oak Common sends some passengers via Crossrail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Nov 2024 ==

Absolutely. The TfL view certainly was that Crossrail 2 was required to fully handle HS2.

Well, that's part of my question answered.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would 30+ tph be achievable on both central Northern line branches when / if Camden Town's sorted and the line split in two? I think 32 tph between Baker Street and Liverpool Street was the pre-Covid 4LM target, up from 24 tph now. Of course Euston doesn't have the Victoria line or Thameslink which King's Cross / St. Pancras does, and, at risk of wandering off-topic, I wonder if HS2 might cause existing onward connections to be overloaded at times, even if cutting back to Birmingham and Handsacre means fewer passengers and Old Oak Common sends some passengers via Crossrail.

Ummm….

 

[A S Leib]

Ummm….

I'm only 56 years out of date. Piccadilly.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm only 56 years out of date. Piccadilly.

Of course, that leads me to the answer…. Mornington Crescent!

 

[Wolfie]

I'm only 56 years out of date. Piccadilly.

It's access to the Circle and Hammersmith & City is much less convenient too.

 

[uglymonkey]

The problem is any rebuild that would make a difference in a radical way, would be so gold plated, so extreme cost lead that it would cost billions and billions and billions. As a result it would be cut back to have a few billion saved and then cancelled/ downgraded again when the next parliament cycle starts. Short term ism. Kings Cross is nice, St Pancras is nice, Euston no.

 

[Richardr]

It would be major work - and therefore obviously take time to get there, as you'd first have to rebuild Euston, then move the EMR services over, then make changes at St. P to allow HS1 services to access the former EMR platforms, then expand the SE offering.

However, if you need extra High Speed platforms at St Pancras, I could see the case for it.

It would be kind of sad to no longer have EMR services at St P, as that is what the station was built for, but then again, that kind of sentiment should have only a very minor part in decision making (if any at all)!

Would it be a problem that there is no direct connexion at St Pancras between the EMR and the HS platforms, that Eurostar is in the middle? Thus a change in platform would see passengers having to go down one set of stairs, across the concourse, and then up a different set of stairs. Perhaps passengers would wait downstairs by the boards to prevent this - so the Euston issues are transferred to St Pancras?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The St Pancras and Euston approaches are relatively close together in South Hampstead.
Anyone have any opinion on the possibility of diverting St PAncras EMR trains into the rebuilt Euston and freeing the St Pancras platforms for HS1 Domestic service in connection with the projected resignalling?

Could I suggest that if you were going to do something like that, it might work better to tunnel from near where the MML enters the existing tunnel under Finchley Road to join the WCML near Chalk Farm. That way I don't think you have to contend with any of the other existing tunnels @Bald Rick refers to. Plus you wouldn't have to worry accommodating extra trains on the tunnels between South Hampstead and Chalk Farm.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2024 ==

Leaving aside the absolute nightmare that would be tunnelling from Camden to West Hamsptead whilst keeping clear of all the existing (and soon to be built) tunnels in the area,

Soon to be built tunnels? Which ones are those? The only one I can think of is the HS2 tunnel, but I'd assume that will be South of the WCML so not in the way of where @HSTEd was proposing a tunnel? (Although I still like my idea better anyway )

the main issue would be dealing with the number of passengers at Euston in terms of onward travel.

Agreed. But... I'm pretty sure the MML carries far fewer passengers than the WCML does or HS2 will do, so we're talking a fairly small % increase in the numbers of passengers at Euston. And that could be mitigated by

(1) Building Crossrail2
(2) Rebuilding Camden Town to allow the promised increase in Northern Line frequencies
(3) Building the cancelled Eastern entrance to Euston Square.

- all things that really ought to be done anyway.

 

[Wolfie]

Could I suggest that if you were going to do something like that, it might work better to tunnel from near where the MML enters the existing tunnel under Finchley Road to join the WCML near Chalk Farm. That way I don't think you have to contend with any of the other existing tunnels @Bald Rick refers to. Plus you wouldn't have to worry accommodating extra trains on the tunnels between South Hampstead and Chalk Farm.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2024 ==



Soon to be built tunnels? Which ones are those? The only one I can think of is the HS2 tunnel, but I'd assume that will be South of the WCML so not in the way of where @HSTEd was proposing a tunnel? (Although I still like my idea better anyway )



Agreed. But... I'm pretty sure the MML carries far fewer passengers than the WCML does or HS2 will do, so we're talking a fairly small % increase in the numbers of passengers at Euston. And that could be mitigated by

(1) Building Crossrail2
(2) Rebuilding Camden Town to allow the promised increase in Northern Line frequencies
(3) Building the cancelled Eastern entrance to Euston Square.

- all things that really ought to be done anyway.

Your point 3 would be unnecessary if Crossrail 2 happens. Rather like Liverpool St/Moorgate on the Lizzie there would be a new Kings Cross/Euston station.

 

[Trainbike46]

Your point 3 would be unnecessary if Crossrail 2 happens. Rather like Liverpool St/Moorgate on the Lizzie there would be a new Kings Cross/Euston station.

Point 3 certainly wouldn't be unnecessary - Just as Liverpool Street and Moorgate have their own separate circle/hammersmith&city/Metropolitan line stations, so would Euston and King's Cross St. Pancras. It doesn't make sense to make all passengers for the sub-surface tube lines walk from Euston to KGX/STP, and make that station even busier, especially when Euston Square is right there at Euston, and would allow you to split the load somewhat

 

[Wolfie]

Point 3 certainly wouldn't be unnecessary - Just as Liverpool Street and Moorgate have their own separate circle/hammersmith&city/Metropolitan line stations, so would Euston and King's Cross St. Pancras. It doesn't make sense to make all passengers for the sub-surface tube lines walk from Euston to KGX/STP, and make that station even busier, especially when Euston Square is right there at Euston, and would allow you to split the load somewhat

Kings Cross/Euston will connect the extant tube stations at Kings Cross/St Pancras, Euston and Euston Square. It will doubtless have new entrances and do what you suggest. My point, perhaps not as well conveyed as l thought, was that a new entrance at Euston Square wouldn't be a scheme in its own right.

 

[bramling]

Well if its a total reconstruction, we could fix that annoying reverse curve and skew the station around to actually face the throat. That should simplify things quite a bit.
Simplistic measurements I did using Google Earth suggest that a significant number of very long platforms could be fitted on the existing station complex area (including the cleared for HS2 area) like that. Especially if we adopt the aforementioned airport style departure deck over the platforms.

Obviously doing anything that drastic requires the entire station building to come down as a first step.

EDIT:
Edited for clarification about the meaning of "station complex" - also I guess the question is how close the buffer stops can be to Euston Road before they interfere with other stuff.
My understanding is Euston's platforms are more or less at street level, so I don't think they should interfere directly with the underground should they?

If Euston was to be started from a completely blank sheet, you’d want the platforms below street level, in order to prevent the station acting as such a roadblock to the surrounding area. I’m not saying covered over, but with one or more bridges crossing over the entire site.

It doesn’t help that the station has already been shifted further towards Euston Road than the original, severing Drummond Street in the process. The current HS2 works has made this worse, for the time being at least.

One wonders how much of the congestion and awkward flows on the concourse aren’t helped by non-travellers using the station as a through walking route, simply because the next point north where it’s possible to cross the railway isn’t until Mornington Crescent, whilst the area out the front (the bus station etc) is almost a slum, and Euston Road is an unpleasant experience as well. It’s another aspect of the 1960s station that the designers got completely wrong, and subsequent changes have exacerbated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One wonders how much of the congestion and awkward flows on the concourse aren’t helped by non-travellers using the station as a through walking route, simply because the next point north where it’s possible to cross the railway isn’t until Mornington Crescent, whilst the area out the front (the bus station etc) is almost a slum, and Euston Road is an unpleasant experience as well. It’s another aspect of the 1960s station that the designers got completely wrong, and subsequent changes have exacerbated.

Don't think I've ever seen anyone walking through it in that way. Visible movement only occurs when a train is called.

 

[bramling]

Don't think I've ever seen anyone walking through it in that way. Visible movement only occurs when a train is called.

There’s certainly a flow from the Eversholt Street entrance across the concourse to/from the back entrance that leads towards Drummond Street, which will conflict with any flows to/from trains. Not saying it’s massive, but quite possibly enough to cause issues at busy times.

 

[The Planner]

If Euston was to be started from a completely blank sheet, you’d want the platforms below street level, in order to prevent the station acting as such a roadblock to the surrounding area. I’m not saying covered over, but with one or more bridges crossing over the entire site.

That would make Camden bank very steep, its 1 in 70 on the approach as it is, and you wouldn't really want to be messing with Park St tunnels.

 

[HSTEd]

If Euston was to be started from a completely blank sheet, you’d want the platforms below street level, in order to prevent the station acting as such a roadblock to the surrounding area. I’m not saying covered over, but with one or more bridges crossing over the entire site.

Covering over the station will be necessary anyway to get the required concourse space onto the site.
Putting pedestrian bridges over the top of that is going to result in a rather tall construction!

It will be a long climb to the top, to the point that I'm skeptical anyone would use it.
I suppose people would believe a subway under the platforms would be too unwelcoming to use either.
Digging into the ground forces the buffer stops further north and limits the size of the station that can be built on the available land, because we can't do much to the tube station.

EDIT:
As noted before I would like a concourse covering the entire site above the platforms, with gatelines around the edges, and with people exiting the station at platform level from both ends.
Likely would put a deck over the station throat with a bus station, to encourage traffic to the north end of the platforms and reduce flows out of the south end.

But such a thing would require a total demolition and rebuild.

 

[Bald Rick]

Could I suggest that if you were going to do something like that, it might work better to tunnel from near where the MML enters the existing tunnel under Finchley Road to join the WCML near Chalk Farm. That way I don't think you have to contend with any of the other existing tunnels @Bald Rick refers to.

I’m afraid it would - theres all sorts of tunnels around Chalk Farm. WCML, DC Lines, the connections to / from the NLL, the Up Empty Carriage Line, Met Line, Jubilee, and…

Soon to be built tunnels? Which ones are those? The only one I can think of is the HS2 tunnel, but I'd assume that will be South of the WCML so not in the way of where @HSTEd was proposing a tunnel? (Although I still like my idea better anyway )

the soon to be built HS2 tunnels, which are north of the WCML tunnels through South Hampstead.

Agreed. But... I'm pretty sure the MML carries far fewer passengers than the WCML does or HS2 will do, so we're talking a fairly small % increase in the numbers of passengers at Euston. And that could be mitigated by

(1) Building Crossrail2
(2) Rebuilding Camden Town to allow the promised increase in Northern Line frequencies
(3) Building the cancelled Eastern entrance to Euston Square.

- all things that really ought to be done anyway.

But (1) alone is going to be the best part of £50bn…

Kings Cross/Euston will connect the extant tube stations at Kings Cross/St Pancras, Euston and Euston Square.

It wouldn‘t, indeed it can’t. The plan for Crossrail 2 connected Euston with St Pancras main line, roughly where Hamleys is. There would be no connection to the KX / St P underground station, not least because there’s a railway in the way.

 

[Wolfie]

I’m afraid it would - theres all sorts of tunnels around Chalk Farm. WCML, DC Lines, the connections to / from the NLL, the Up Empty Carriage Line, Met Line, Jubilee, and…




the soon to be built HS2 tunnels, which are north of the WCML tunnels through South Hampstead.



But (1) alone is going to be the best part of £50bn…



It wouldn‘t, indeed it can’t. The plan for Crossrail 2 connected Euston with St Pancras main line, roughly where Hamleys is. There would be no connection to the KX / St P underground station, not least because there’s a railway in the way.

Interesting because as l recall that isn't what was said a few years ago. I may of course be wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time lol). Having no direct interchange would definitely be limiting connections-wise.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting because as l recall that isn't what was said a few years ago. I may of course be wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time lol). Having no direct interchange would definitely be limiting connections-wise.

It’s definitely the case, and always was. You can see it on the Euston St Pancras page of the CR2 website in terms of where the worksites were to be located.

Direct interchange was with Thameslink at the south end of the low level platforms at St P, and with the Victoria / Northern at Euston, and also the Met / Circle assumign HS2 rebuild happened.