Potentially stupid question... HS3/4 terminus

[Nym]

Now, eventually HS3 and HS4 will come, if there is a line to Bristol and beyond, proberbly, London - Swindon - Bristol - Cardiff or somthing similar.

I've spotted a nice big space in central london where a terminus could be put, theres space for 5 platforms, should be enough if it's only for the west country, and since most of the current route to old oak for HS2 is in a tunnel anyway, can't be that much different to tunnel from here to Old Oak, and have a surface juntion to change between HS2 and HS3/4 (for access to HS1 via HS2, or diversions closing one of the termini), Waterloo International anyone?

Now we'd assume a 30min turnround on a train, so 2tph per platform, comes out at 10tph, add in some insurance and get 8tph possible out of waterloo int.

From there, immidiatly go underground and aim at old oak, have some platforms underground for it, if the HS2 side was built with enough platforms for any HS3 international services to change onto the HS2 tracks while on the surface, using a scissors viaduct (also to be used for diversions). Then you're free out to the west to point the line at bristol...

Still, then in my world we'd have...

HS1 - As is
HS2 - Euston - Old Oak - Birmingham - (Leeds - York classic compatable to NCL)/(Manchester S Parkway - Manchester (On Branch) - Preston - CC to Glasgow / Edinbrugh)
HS3 - Waterloo - Old Oak - (?Heathrow?) - ?Didcot maybe? - Bristol - Branches to West County and Cardiff, Swansea
HS4 - Liverpool St (or somwhere near) - Stratford (with connection to HS1 east and westbound from the north) - Stanstead Airport - Maybe Cambridge - Peteborough - Doncaster - Branches off to HS2 (York) and HS2 (Leeds)
HS5 - Birmingham Branch of HS2 (looks like theres space for a slow diamond junction and some old perminant ways) - Gloucster / Cheltenham - Bristol (HS2 northern destinations to HS3 western destinations)

HS2 would possibly have some more branches, such as Liverpool... and significant line upgrades to chester.

 

[Striker]

There's far more scope for making the terminus of a potential HS3 to the west of England in or around Paddington (or provided enough space is made for expansion, Euston). Why they'd mess around building tunnels to get to an already overcrowded (do you think those 5 platforms will be still vacant if and when HS3 is built) Waterloo is beyond me.

 

[Nym]

Because theres only going to be capacity for 24tph out of Euston....?

 

[Striker]

Because theres only going to be capacity for 24tph out of Euston....?

Paddington then. Much more space there than Waterloo, which is obviously a complete non-starter.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Paddington then. Much more space there than Waterloo, which is obviously a complete non-starter.

To be fair , I doubt there is much existing capacity or land nearby at any useful London terminals: Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras, Marylebone (maybe), and Paddington (almost certainly) are full up with not much land nearby.

 

[pablo]

Paddington ruled out in the Heathrow Report. Throat too short for 400m trains.
Waterloo doesn't need tunnels; surface infrastructure already in place but alterations at Waterloo are intended to take platforms 21/20 or thereabouts for SWT's trains, closing a couple at the other side of the station. Read up.

 

[swt_passenger]

Paddington ruled out in the Heathrow Report. Throat too short for 400m trains.
Waterloo doesn't need tunnels; surface infrastructure already in place but alterations at Waterloo are intended to take platforms 21/20 or thereabouts for SWT's trains, closing a couple at the other side of the station. Read up.

None of the infrastructure is in place for high speed running though. Spending half an hour at normal speeds getting round west London will take up most of the time saved on a HS line, which was the main problem with Eurostar running off HS1 into Waterloo.

 

[LE Greys]

OK, assuming they dive into a tunnel at Old Oak and head east, what's to stop them running right through parallel to Crossrail? (Other than cost :roll: ) There could be a double-tube underground station at Liverpool Street, preferably with arrival and departure platforms on opposite sides of the train. The line could then surface at Stratford to make a connection with HS1 or one of Greengauge 21's ideas, the northward line from Stratford to York via Stansted and Cambridge.

 

[pablo]

How long did it take empty stock to get from Waterloo to North Pole depot?
Apparently there's a headroom problem at Stratford that prevents that sort of connection. a crossing drain or somesuch, although I think possibly there are ways around it. That's why Ebbs is touted as the nearest connection to HS1 and so out on cost....
Agreed though. Who needs another London terminus? Through running gives nearly double value for money.

 

[Nym]

Well, for one, the idea wasn't to use suface infastructure to get to Old Oak, was to tunnel there, so the time from Waterloo - Old Oak would be very similar to Euston - Old Oak, maybe a couple of minutes longer. And most of the costs, after tunneling are buying up land for platforms, Theres already space for 6 EU Guage platforms at Waterloo Intl.
Paddington just doesn't have space, it's too tight and the corners are too sharp, unless you demolish a load of development north of paddingtion and south of Westway. Liverpool St. has some space to the north and some of the old Bishopgate site, most of the space is to the East of the A10 near Shordich High St.
The problem is, tunnels for railway lines aren't that difficult, just hard to route them, but you have a tunneling machine that makes them. Stations are another matter, for suburban stations or even crossrail ones, it doens't need very big caverns, as it's mainly commuters that don't have large bags and move quickly. When you start to have dwelling passengers, you need a large cavern, again this is fine if you can have cut and cover inferstructure, but for the main part, in C. London, you can't, because everything is already built on, so drilling out these frankly massive caverns (if you can find space between everything already down there) is going to be damn near impossible. The only underground HS stations entertained where in Regent park IIRC, when you can cut and cover. Asside from demolishing big swathes of development on former railway land, theres nothing you can do at Paddington, Liverpool St is not without it's problems because of the Shordich developments, that leaves Waterloo, now, you can extend the HS2/3/4/5 platforms into the current waterloo station, and send some of the services that currently terminate there to Victoria, Over Thameslink, anything, If you's spending £6bn on a line, you can afford to send inter-reigonal services elsewhere, Victoria being the ovious choice, not much to change to the junctions, and you can take pressure off victoria by using thameslink, or build more plaforms in the shopping centre. Isn't too much effort to make some small changes in clapham for that to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How long did it take empty stock to get from Waterloo to North Pole depot?
Apparently there's a headroom problem at Stratford that prevents that sort of connection. a crossing drain or somesuch, although I think possibly there are ways around it. That's why Ebbs is touted as the nearest connection to HS1 and so out on cost....
Agreed though. Who needs another London terminus? Through running gives nearly double value for money.

Hence why the HS2/HS1 conncetion prfered by HS2 Ltd. is at St Pancras using some empty space on the NLL to emmerge from a tunnel and connect onto both the ST Pancras Throught and HS1
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Paddington then. Much more space there than Waterloo, which is obviously a complete non-starter.

How the hell is there more space at Paddington than Waterloo?

Waterloo: 4 or 5 430m long idle platforms, diversions for inter-reigonals available to Victoria, send victoria services over thameslink.
Paddington: Many slow turnaround services, mostly with 200m long HSTs or Heathrow Express services, and a 60deg curve in the station throught that is less than 30m wide, so not only will trains not be able to turn the corner, if you flattened the rest of paddington theres only space for 2 platforms.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you have the money for tunneling, and if our electricty mix becomes much more renewable to get me to support HighSpeed rail in the UK, I'd say have a station underground between Euston and Kings Cross / St Pancras with all the platforms being through platforms. Northwards the line would go through a railway triangle with one directection heading to HS2 and the other to HS1. South of the underground London station, the line would swing round underground to pass just south of Paddington to Heathrow (where you might put a station, if so this would initally be a terminus but later become a through station with the tracks leading to HS3).

HS2 would go through Birmingham and Manchester (THROUGH, not a branch with a terminus to each) then on to Glasgow. A branch to Liverpool would be included too.

HS3 would emerge from the long tunnel under London after Heathrow and pass just south of Reading (with connections to the classic lines allowing slower services to go via Reading). It would then continue just north of the line to Westbury and Taunton for a bit before cutting across to join the GWML just before Bath. Some services would then use the existing route into Bristol, while others would contiune onto a seperate High Speed line starting soon after Bath which would head straight down to Taunton, and maybe beyond.

 

[Geezertronic]

If you have the money for tunneling, and if our electricty mix becomes much more renewable to get me to support HighSpeed rail in the UK, I'd say have a station underground between Euston and Kings Cross / St Pancras with all the platforms being through platforms.

Wouldn't the various tube lines get in the way?

HS2 would go through Birmingham and Manchester (THROUGH, not a branch with a terminus to each) then on to Glasgow. A branch to Liverpool would be included too.

Whilst another through station in Birmingham city centre would be a welcome addition to New Street/Moor Street (forget Snow Hill ), I doubt it can be done (but would love to be proved wrong)

 

[LE Greys]

HS3 would emerge from the long tunnel under London after Heathrow and pass just south of Reading (with connections to the classic lines allowing slower services to go via Reading). It would then continue just north of the line to Westbury and Taunton for a bit before cutting across to join the GWML just before Bath. Some services would then use the existing route into Bristol, while others would contiune onto a seperate High Speed line starting soon after Bath which would head straight down to Taunton, and maybe beyond.

I think that there is probably just about enough room to fit the line in south of the GWML from Ealing to Southall, so it should be possible to run it on the surface for that section. The best way through Heathrow would be east-west from Hatton Cross to Sunnymeads, so that there would be no need to pass under any runways. The alternative would be to upgrade Iver to "Heathrow Airport Parkway" status, with a connection to the ULTRA system that runs around the car park. A link following the M25 is possible, but it's a long way and classic line trains can stop there as well. Slough presents a problem with the exact parallel route, since grade-separation to clear the Windsor line would be necessary (not to mention the built-up area on the south side). Maidenhead isn't so bad, there seems to be more room to the south of the line, but it might mess up the view of the bridge. Sheering off for Reading would probably result in a route following the M4 via Winnersh and Theale, with potential "slip roads" at Theale and Tilehurst.

I'd like to send the route via Didcot, allowing a link from the mains at Didcot directly onto the high speed lines (effectively quadrupling Didcot-Swindon-Wooton Bassett). More likely would be to continue to track the M4 until south of Swindon, quadruple Didcot-Swindon anyway so that it would be possible to reinstate the local stations, and have slip-roads leading on from Swindon. The line would then run north of Wooton Bassett to avoid the new station, then have more slip roads off to the Badminton line for Welsh services. This would be a good point to terminate the line for the moment, with Bristol services running via Parkway, but I would plan to continue north of Chippenham, and ideally finding the GWML again near Thingley Junction for another potential connection to Bristol via Bath. The terrain west of there (the Mendips) makes Taunton difficult to reach, and there is no plan from then on.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

OK... why not think outside the box a bit and bring all these prospective HS lines in via the Old Oak / Willesden area and run them elevated into a new top passenger platforms deck at Euston where the parcels deck currently is? Double the size of Euston within the same land footprint as the present station; there is nowhere else you can do this really. Well, not unless you destroy Waterloo's rather nice roof anyway...

Yes, I know there are a small number of road overbridges between Camden and Euston which are rather inconveniently just at the height required, and there is also the matter of getting past where the Primrose Hill tunnels are ( extra bores parallel to the existing tunnels could do the job ) , but think about it for a moment.

Creating a "superstation" at this location would provide incredible connection opportunities both nationally and internationally with St Pancras nearby - that is certainly close enough that an elevated, enclosed, travolator could be used to connect them without the need to relocate the British Library again.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't the various tube lines get in the way?

Not to mention the British Library storage basements. From the BBC:

With the exception of the open access science material and some humanities reference books [...], almost all of the library's resources are stored underground in basement areas that are kept at a constant temperature and humidity. There are four levels to the underground basement area, each of which, according to the architect Wilson, takes up a space approximately equivalent to the size of Wembley football pitch.

 

[Nym]

The problem we'd have then is track capacity into Euston, it would need to be 2 track to each 'deck'. But since we're tunneling anyway, all you'd need to find space for is another tunnel portal but if we get to the point of needing that much capacity, finding another tunnel portal isn't going to be that much of an issue. I'd be blocking the space north of Kings X and St P from being developed, that could make a good station area if needed later, can have access to the NLL to take things away from Euston, can also take stuff from the ECML or HS1...

Anyway, double decking isn't as stupid as I'm sure somone's going to say. The problem is one of the plans for Euston is to sell off the air space for retail... Nothing to stop there being a floor of station, floor of retail, then another floor of station, would take it over the roads to the North West of Euston, before it could find somwhere to dive underground to get out of London...

 

[Striker]

Now, eventually HS3 and HS4 will come, if there is a line to Bristol and beyond, proberbly, London - Swindon - Bristol - Cardiff or somthing similar.

You see, all this talk is irrelevant because I don't see the economic benefit of building a HS line to Bristol and Cardiff. It just doesn't offer the same benefits as the longer journeys and bigger populations that HS2 will serve. It simply will not happen, in which case debating where an unlikely West Country HS line's terminus is going to be is pretty pointless.

I've spotted a nice big space in central london where a terminus could be put, theres space for 5 platforms, should be enough if it's only for the west country, and since most of the current route to old oak for HS2 is in a tunnel anyway, can't be that much different to tunnel from here to Old Oak, and have a surface juntion to change between HS2 and HS3/4 (for access to HS1 via HS2, or diversions closing one of the termini), Waterloo International anyone?

Do you realise how much it costs to tunnel just 1km? Justifying the cost for HS2 is proving difficult enough, and that's with all the potential benefits of linking a high speed line between London and the likes of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds and to the north. How could anybody justify the cost if it's "only for the west country".

It's a good, fun idea to hypothesise about where a west country HS line terminus would be, don't get me wrong, but if we're going to start going into detail as to why a particular solution is not possible, then why not just say, "look, it's not going to happen anyway, so all this irrelevant".

How the hell is there more space at Paddington than Waterloo?

Lots of room between the lines into Paddington and the A40 Westway, around the bus depot and just to the east before the lines curve right into the terminus. Why people thought the HS lines would have to go right into the Paddington shed is beyond me. :roll:

Yes, new buildings will have to be demolished, but they're new now. They won't be in 50 years which is the earliest a HS3 could be built. And demolishing these buildings is going to be far, far cheaper due to not having to build a single tunnel, than boreing a huge one for several miles under central London.

 

[LE Greys]

No particular reason why not. Grand Central in New York is effectively five-level, if you count the shopping centre on the ground floor. I'm almost certain that there used to be a station for the elevated railways somewhere above street level as well, although I might be thinking of somewhere else.

Also, remember Camden Bank is fairly steep. Gradually elevating the line from Camden southwards would put it effectively level, even if it was running underneath the current tunnels at South Hampstead.

 

[Invincibles]

An even stupider question, how would the journey time between London - Birmingham - Bristol compare?

Just thinking if HS2 is built with a reasonable amount of futureproofing that there is nothing to stop a 200 mph train being run along a route to just south of Birmingham then heading down to Bristol and creating the base of a Scotland/South West link which would definitely have some merit.

I know the route is a funny shape, but it is not completely stupid I do not think. It offers the possibility of linking Cardiff in to the national network much better than it currently is.

 

[Nym]

Would proberbly be about the same as a well pathed 125mph out of Paddington

 

[Striker]

An even stupider question, how would the journey time between London - Birmingham - Bristol compare?

Just thinking if HS2 is built with a reasonable amount of futureproofing that there is nothing to stop a 200 mph train being run along a route to just south of Birmingham then heading down to Bristol and creating the base of a Scotland/South West link which would definitely have some merit.

I know the route is a funny shape, but it is not completely stupid I do not think. It offers the possibility of linking Cardiff in to the national network much better than it currently is.

All this talk of building new HS lines yet it's going to take years and years to build HS2 on what is the only really justified route in the country. :roll:

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The problem we'd have then is track capacity into Euston, it would need to be 2 track to each 'deck'.

I am suggesting double decking the entire approach; ie the hypothetical HS3 / HS4 would curve in from the Old Oak / Willesden area to the west of the existing WCML then rise up and run above the WCML for the entire approach after Primrose Hill tunnels.

Thus not reducing track capacity into Euston WCML at all, nor the other way round.

 

[Striker]

Kensington Olympia is the only real alternative to Paddington.

 

[jopsuk]

How on earth would you tunnel down out of Waterloo Int? The line is on a very constrained elevated way for several miles.

 

[Striker]

How on earth would you tunnel down out of Waterloo Int? The line is on a very constrained elevated way for several miles.

Are you asking me?

 

[jopsuk]

No, the guy that suggested it earlier on. Though if you want to have a go at answering the improbable!

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

Can't think of a better place to put the terminus than HERE

 

[swt_passenger]

Lots of room between the lines into Paddington and the A40 Westway, around the bus depot and just to the east before the lines curve right into the terminus. Why people thought the HS lines would have to go right into the Paddington shed is beyond me. :roll:

You seem to have accurately described the location of the present day building site for the Crossrail incline and tunnel portals. The up relief line will be slewed to the north of that as well, to separate any conflicting moves.

I suppose you could build an HS3 station above it all maybe?

 

[Striker]

No, the guy that suggested it earlier on. Though if you want to have a go at answering the improbable!

Not really. I don't think there's any call for a high speed line to the west at all. Just not enough high population centres. But if there was one built, I consider a terminus at Waterloo a ridiculous solution and virtually impossible to accomplish.