Though it's only Kent where such a link would be materially better than most existing committed connections vis the Busy Lizzie Line.
-
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!
HS1 to HS2 link - possible in the future?
- Thread starter najaB
- Start date
- Status
Though it's only Kent where such a link would be materially better than most existing committed connections vis the Busy Lizzie Line.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
And remember each platform track of such a station would require excavation of at least as much earth as an entire Crossrail station, and that's before considering the massive throat junctions at both ends, and all the access, ventilation and emergency passageways to tie in with all the other local facilities. The costs and risks of such a project would be absurd. Imagine attempting to build something the size of the proposed OOC trench (or Stratford International if you want something existing), but mining the caverns required under and around urban grade one listed buildings, housing, a sensitive international scientific research establishment and the multiple deep basements of a national library. HS2's Euston concept as currently planned is a walk in the park comparatively, and deliberately so in order to limit costs and risks. Expert planners and engineers have come up with and refined this scheme over many years, not these amateur followers of the crayon, no matter how highly placed they are in the corridors of power.
Last edited:
But, at the same time, with a train every 4 hours (going by the 4tpd figure) is only just frequent enough that people might wait, rather than take their multiple-per-hour service to Euston, head across to St Pancras for the most-hours to Brussels service. Or take a hypothetical hourly Manchester-Paris service and change at Lille, though that would be two same-station changes (Brum Interchange and Lille) vs one easyish inter-terminal change in London.
Something like an hourly/two-hourly Manchester and Leeds - all English stops (join at Birmingham Interchange) - Lille - Paris is about the only North-Europe service worth having on the link (though Kent-OOC that doesn't go on HS2 would also be useful) - and you would need to deal with the border issue (perhaps just do on-board checks between Ashford and Lille, as has traditionally been the case at borders between non-Russian/Belarusian European countries that require passport/customs/both checks) - as you will need people doing domestic journeys to get it busy enough as well as maximising the places within one change of the service on both sides of the channel (at the cost of speed) by stopping it everywhere. But even then a Liverpool-EuroDisney journey would be two changes via the link, but one via London termini: such journeys, like Birmingham - Brussels, would benefit from a travelator as much as they would North-Europe trains.
Oh, and let's say we have an hourly Paris train on HS2 - do we remove a second-tier 1tph service from HS2 (eg Stafford-Stoke, or Warrington-Wigan) to make room, or knock a big destination (Leeds?) down to 2tph into Euston?
The North Europe trains would also end up like the Manchester Airport trains - everyone 'must' have direct access and it creates a bit of a mess. But instead of a load of overlapping hourly services, we'd have a load of token 1-4tpd services (especially as this tokenism will probably happen both sides of the Channel - with Brussels wanting to get in on the action) that are far less use than something that's reliable and frequent enough to change onto. And, of course, the best 'relatively frequent services that you can change between to do a myriad of different journeys' option is if you join a terminal with a plethora of frequent trains to the North to a terminal with as many Europe trains as possible with a high-capacity walking link. Add in the many frequent SE links (Bedford, Bletchley, Brighton, Birchington) that you'd also pick up and we've got more connections at a much smaller cost than with a link. But sensible doesn't sell as well as sexy, and so it won't get the will behind it.
If the 1tpd from, say Leeds to Paris, isn't convenient you just get a Leeds to Euston service and a St Pancras to Paris train. You're no worse of than you would be if the direct service didn't exist.
Unless you wanted to use a train to London that would otherwise be in the path that the Leeds-Paris train is taking up. But sure, we can ignore that...
As you point out, a Leeds-Euston ... St Pancras-Paris journey is perfectly acceptable. In which case (reiterating a lot of what I said):
1) The already relatively-low demand for North-Europe through trains would be reduced due to people changing in London rather than taking infrequent through trains.
2) A multi-billion rail scheme to provide token daily direct services, despite changing being acceptable, seems a bit overkill.
3) If we do spend the billions, we need at least 1tp2h running a regular reliable route that serves as many people as possible and which people can easily change onto from places not directly served, rather than a bunch of 1-2tpd everywhere-everywhere else services that go all over the place and make using the link annoying.
4) It's better to spend hundreds of millions making the '...' bit of the journey better, than billions removing the 'Euston ... St Pancras' bit between the two dashes.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Well I’d imagine in my proposal you wouldn’t need a station as big as the Euston Cross one. Probably just a North Greenwich style station, with a cut off bi-directional third platform for the international trains-which wouldn’t be any longer than a 12 car javelin.
Last time I checked, Old Oak Common was in London.
International interoperability regs require 400m platforms. That’s a half kilometre long station, three massive platforms, long junctions caverns either end etc. On the assumption that an (approx) kilometre long / 50 metre wide cavern is not possible in the ground under Euston (it’s not rock), that requires individually bored platform tunnels, which require more horizontal separation, which widens and lengthens the footprint further. That’s before you provide the below ground concourse capacity and vertical circulation for a train to load / unload 1000 people in a couple of minutes.
Assuming that there is still room for a portal at Old Oak Common...
I would dig the tunnel from OOC to the slow lines of the WCML at Queens Park, where the Howarth Timber yard currently is. Rather than 5 miles, this would be <2 miles, so the tunnelling costs would be a lot less. The up slow would be slewed to the north, and two contiguous piled walls between the up and down slow would allow the dive down into the tunnel from this end. From there, international trains would use the slow WCML lines to South Hampstead, and then the North London Line through Camden to access St Pancras.
And then the passengers to London (on one half of the train) would get off, to be replaced by International passengers from London. This could be done at platforms 5 and 6 of St Pancras, with an additional set of escalators down to the concourse roughly where the Oliver Bonas is/was (ie near the ticket office). That way, you've justified running a full service on HS2, and you've allowed for international services. Eurostar will soon be doing this with trains from Amsterdam at Brussels, so they should have the procedures sorted by then.
This would require international facilities at the larger HS2 stations (eg OOC, Birmingham International, Curzon Street and Man Pic). I said one half of the train before: this could be any proportion of the train, as long as the facilities at each station allowed it. You could have different proportions of the train be domestic/international, depending on the tickets sold in advance. Assuming first class at the ends (ie class 374), open up four standard class carriages: two at the domestic end and two at the international end. As bookings progress, open up more carriages to domestic/international depending on ticket sales until they've met in the middle or the departure time comes. For a 16-carriage train this could be rationalised to 4/16, 6/10, 8/8, 10/6 and 16/4 to make it easier. This would be controlled by selective door opening and lockable doors on the train, and gates on the platforms. I wouldn't run internationals in the peak times for HS2; just outside (say one or two before 7:30 into London and the rest after 09:30 into London), so only off-peak capacity would be used. International passengers' needs are different to domestic commuters'.
I would also consider some international trains from Watford Junction, using the land to the north of the station. Remember: in a post-HS2 world there is a lot more availability on the WCML These would also use the same lines to access St Pancras and pick up more passengers before HS1. Some international trains would terminate at St Pancras, some would travel on to Watford Junction, and some would travel on to HS2 via Old Oak Common. If I could find a way to get trains from the HS1 link onto the GWR, I would also do this. (Bristol, Cardiff, Reading and Oxford International, anyone?)
Not part of the international offer, but during construction of HS2, I would take out an extra two platforms' worth of Euston services, by running them over the same lines into St Pancras using the same route and platforms. This would make more space available at Euston, and could possibly simplify / make cheaper the construction process. This would also serve Camden Road Station. This may require some re-jigging of fences/hoarding around St Pancras, but that wouldn't be impossible.
Speaking of Camden Road, the platforms currently in use may have to be moved back to make room for HS2 trains. (I don't know, I just assume so.) Interlaced track could allow HS2 services to get past the platforms while NLL services served the station, but I would move the NLL service to the northern two (currently disused) platforms. I would also remove the bottleneck around Camden Road so keep trains to/from Kentish town separate from freight/HS2 traffic. Basically I would widen to 4 tracks between Kentish Town Road and Camden Road Station with approximately 100 metres of new viaduct, and 500 metres of disused trackbed to the east. This would eliminate any impact on existing NLL services from the HS2-HS1 link, which was one of the sticking points originally.
I would dig the tunnel from OOC to the slow lines of the WCML at Queens Park, where the Howarth Timber yard currently is. Rather than 5 miles, this would be <2 miles, so the tunnelling costs would be a lot less. The up slow would be slewed to the north, and two contiguous piled walls between the up and down slow would allow the dive down into the tunnel from this end. From there, international trains would use the slow WCML lines to South Hampstead, and then the North London Line through Camden to access St Pancras.
And then the passengers to London (on one half of the train) would get off, to be replaced by International passengers from London. This could be done at platforms 5 and 6 of St Pancras, with an additional set of escalators down to the concourse roughly where the Oliver Bonas is/was (ie near the ticket office). That way, you've justified running a full service on HS2, and you've allowed for international services. Eurostar will soon be doing this with trains from Amsterdam at Brussels, so they should have the procedures sorted by then.
This would require international facilities at the larger HS2 stations (eg OOC, Birmingham International, Curzon Street and Man Pic). I said one half of the train before: this could be any proportion of the train, as long as the facilities at each station allowed it. You could have different proportions of the train be domestic/international, depending on the tickets sold in advance. Assuming first class at the ends (ie class 374), open up four standard class carriages: two at the domestic end and two at the international end. As bookings progress, open up more carriages to domestic/international depending on ticket sales until they've met in the middle or the departure time comes. For a 16-carriage train this could be rationalised to 4/16, 6/10, 8/8, 10/6 and 16/4 to make it easier. This would be controlled by selective door opening and lockable doors on the train, and gates on the platforms. I wouldn't run internationals in the peak times for HS2; just outside (say one or two before 7:30 into London and the rest after 09:30 into London), so only off-peak capacity would be used. International passengers' needs are different to domestic commuters'.
I would also consider some international trains from Watford Junction, using the land to the north of the station. Remember: in a post-HS2 world there is a lot more availability on the WCML These would also use the same lines to access St Pancras and pick up more passengers before HS1. Some international trains would terminate at St Pancras, some would travel on to Watford Junction, and some would travel on to HS2 via Old Oak Common. If I could find a way to get trains from the HS1 link onto the GWR, I would also do this. (Bristol, Cardiff, Reading and Oxford International, anyone?)
Not part of the international offer, but during construction of HS2, I would take out an extra two platforms' worth of Euston services, by running them over the same lines into St Pancras using the same route and platforms. This would make more space available at Euston, and could possibly simplify / make cheaper the construction process. This would also serve Camden Road Station. This may require some re-jigging of fences/hoarding around St Pancras, but that wouldn't be impossible.
Speaking of Camden Road, the platforms currently in use may have to be moved back to make room for HS2 trains. (I don't know, I just assume so.) Interlaced track could allow HS2 services to get past the platforms while NLL services served the station, but I would move the NLL service to the northern two (currently disused) platforms. I would also remove the bottleneck around Camden Road so keep trains to/from Kentish town separate from freight/HS2 traffic. Basically I would widen to 4 tracks between Kentish Town Road and Camden Road Station with approximately 100 metres of new viaduct, and 500 metres of disused trackbed to the east. This would eliminate any impact on existing NLL services from the HS2-HS1 link, which was one of the sticking points originally.
True, providing that a Leeds-Paris train uses the path of a Leeds-Euston train.
And then would a Manchester-Paris train use the same hourly path as the Leeds-Paris train, denying Leeds customers a train to London (OOC or Euston*)? Or would these trains run at a different time for each destination (having a destination-Europe train use a destination-Euston path) and either wait to join the High Speed line either end of the link, or muck up the HS1 timetable?
*Which are different, and serve different areas of the Metropolis (OOC pretty much entirely via changing onto the Elizabeth line). If Sheffield can legitimately argue that service to Meadowhall is not serving the city, London can say that OOC-only services are not really serving London.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
In that case, we wouldn’t need the international platform. International trains could stop at Stratford if they really need to stop in London. The fact is a Euston Cross-lite with two platforms for Javelin trains would just need a third avoiding track for Regional Eurostar trains.
The difference being, as you pointed out yourself, Crossrail. It will be just as easy (or easier) to get to many places in London from OOC using the Elizabeth Line than it would be from Euston using the current tube lines (e.g. no Euston to Euston Square walk for destinations to the East).
Why do the frequent (there's 9tph off-peak, which is really frequent for that part of the world) NR services from Meadowhall to Midland in Sheffield don't count, but they do between OOC and Central London? And that's before we look at tram, the fact that they would have upped the Midland-Meadowhall service if HS2 was there, etc...
There's little overlap though - Tottenham Court Road and Moorgate, and with the SSLs (that will be better integrated into Euston and less of a walk when the terminal extends to it with the new platforms): Paddington, Farringdon/Barbican and Liverpool Street. Now sure, the Oxford Circus area can be easily got to from Bond Street/TCR Liz stations, and one can always make a second change and thus get anywhere, but the following areas aren't direct from OOC, but are from Euston: Waterloo, Theatreland, Marylebone/Baker Street area, Kings Cross area, southern City, London Bridge, northern suburbs, southern suburbs (via Northern/Victoria line). It's certainly not nothing!
Now OK, Euston is bad for Docklands, Heathrow, eastern suburbs (there's the H&C but at 6tph that's really not a good link in London) that OOC is good for - but that's why there's two stations: because they work together to serve the whole city. Serving just one of the two (and a poorly-connected station in East London that's a walk nearly as long as StP-Euston from a really connected station that, however, doesn't offer much different from OOC) is not really serving London.
You'd have to ask the people who hold that view.
- Status