Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link

[HowardGWR]

Very good point, Le Shuttle gets ferry style security (or lack of) and Eurostar gets airport style security. Some very long tunnels in the alps too, which don't have all the security hassle.
I suppose the problem with relaxing E* security would be that you'd need English & French political agreement and the unions would make lots of noise about safety as a cover story for job loss worries. Furthermore I wonder to what degree current arrangements are about making customers 'feel' safe & secure. My personal impression is that Eurostar security are often quite pragmatic about what goes through.

But as the chunnel increasingly becomes just another tunnel section in the middle of a large fast train network with multiple operators (E*, DB, others?) wanting to operate routes to more destinations, there will be more pressure on regulators to relax things. After all we've already seen the rolling stock spec downgraded to suit DB running their shorter ICE variant.

Just announced DB can run their trains through the tunnel from Germany (and Netherlands). This is hopefully the beginning of the end for the Little Englander tendency and we can look forward to Birmingham to Amsterdam. If you think about it, even the ludicrous channel tunnel baggage checks could be carried out on the way from Brum to Dollands Moor (doing them while going through the Chilterns AONB long tunnel would expose the hypocrisy nicely would it not?).

 

[DW54]

{snip}


If that was a practical proposition why does HS2 Ltd assume a tunnelled link having to stretch to Barking? I really can't see that being cost effective, not just because of the construction but the disruption too.

Chris

Simple - they want to stick to their city-block destroying terminal vision, with its ongoing complications for through operations and lack of vision of cross London HS domestic traffic. Never mind any International traffic that might be facilitated by smarter handling of Border Security issues. Even as I write, the airlines are working with Border Security on a proposed three-tier security checking system - so the concerns expressed above may be moot.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but HS2 have never looked at and analysed any east-west alignment that involves joining HS1 near Dalston with an underground junction. Their analysis was based on needing a portal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As far as I'm aware the plan was and remains to reinstate the quadruple track viaduct with 4 tracks - three for the use of the NLL east of Camden Road Jct through the station, allowing for a turnback facility, with the fourth a dedicated HS2 link line.

{snip}
Chris

Actually 3 tracks, one to GC gauge, so requiring more space than a W6a or W12 cleared track.

 

[HSTEd]

There would never be sufficient demand to support cross london high speed operations on a scale sufficient to overstretch the single track line being provided.
3tph per direction is ample for domestic services and in the current security-biased climate international services are a pipedream.

 

[DW54]

There would never be sufficient demand to support cross london high speed operations on a scale sufficient to overstretch the single track line being provided.
3tph per direction is ample for domestic services and in the current security-biased climate international services are a pipedream.

Yikes, do YOU have tunnel vision. You are only thinking of traffic FROM the north.

Now let's get your wide angled lenses on: the Kent Javelin 395 services - imagine they run through to OOC and switch to the GWML there. They can then go to Reading via Heathrow T5. So now we have fast Heathrow-Kent services .... tell me again about lack of demand for cross-London "fast" services - not necessarily "TGV-style" services.

It's only as lacking as your lack of vision. Equally, when the Davies commission reports on the airport capacity/London Hub question, what seems most likely is an estuary solution with a major landside terminal connected by very fast trains to the airside terminals. Ebbsfleet has already been mentioned. Now if the new Hub ONLY serves international traffic, and UK domestic traffic continues at Heathrow, etc - then a Heathrow - Ebbsfleet HS link is going to be very busy, yes? Not to mention Birminham - Ebbsfleet, and so on.

So, is it stupid to design out the opportunity to service this traffic NOW? Or is it better to design it in with some provision (eg, not all platform tunnels excavated at day # 1, or not all platform spaces fitted out @ day # 1) to add the capacity when it's needed. The twin track tunnels could readily handle 24tph, and 32tph in recovery mode - assuming trains between 200m and 300m long and all stops in tunnel being at least bifurcated (ie at least 2 platforms faces available to approaching stopping trains).

Finally, if you read the aviation side of things, the airlines are progressing well with co-operative work with the Border Agency to streamline the whole security business. By the time anything gets done with construction, a much better pre-screening system will be in use and the whole security "charade" we now have will be consigned to the bin marked "nightmares from history."

 

[swt_passenger]

Such a scheme would constrict capacity too, removing the potential turnback facility for the NLL at Camden Road and the freight loops east of the station, while exposing the ELL to a higher risk of delays from other services.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the current LO/NLL peak through services that have now been achieved (ie the 8 tph between Stratford and Willesden Jn) have caused the original idea for Camden Rd - Stratford short services in the peaks to lapse.

If TfL still have plans for a turnback platform they seem to have gone a bit quiet on the subject, there was quite a bit of correspondence about it a few years ago at the time that the NLL improvements were de-scoped to remove the third platform at Camden Rd. It would be interesting to know what TfL's current position is?

I agree with your raising the matter of the freight loops. Suggestions about extending the ELL through the NLL nearly always seem to discount that the present 4 track section of the route is paired by direction, and making it paired by use would lead to massive conflicts as freight services switched from side to side, without the current recessing facility.

 

[JohnB57]

Finally, if you read the aviation side of things, the airlines are progressing well with co-operative work with the Border Agency to streamline the whole security business. By the time anything gets done with construction, a much better pre-screening system will be in use and the whole security "charade" we now have will be consigned to the bin marked "nightmares from history."

Eurostar security may be based on airport systems, but as long as all baggage is carried on, as opposed to checked in, the pre-screening that you refer to is unlikely to work as transparently.

The other issue with Eurostar, or future international services from the UK, will be similar agreement with the French border authorities. "Lineside" at St Pancras is effectively French soil, as it would presumably have to be at any other UK international terminal. However, this is one area where Schengen would facilitate such services as it would avoid the need for French staff to be present to perform passport checks, clearly more of a problem in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds than in London.

 

[mr_jrt]

I agree with your raising the matter of the freight loops. Suggestions about extending the ELL through the NLL nearly always seem to discount that the present 4 track section of the route is paired by direction, and making it paired by use would lead to massive conflicts as freight services switched from side to side, without the current recessing facility.

I discount them by virtue of the fact they have no business being there.

Upgrading the Goblin and a new chord giving access to it from the eastern GEML would enable all of the freight to travel over the Goblin route, which via Hampstead Heath gives access to Willesden. Not so great for the Goblin's passenger aspirations, but it is further out from central London, so arguably the more suitable of the two. If you did want more loops, there are places along the Goblin that could have loops built by re-profiling embankments etc.

Even if you stick with the NLL, TfL are arguing that loops aren't needed on the WLL as they don't work well for freight as it needs to keep moving. If a given freight train has a NLL path at Hackey then given it's essentially a two track railway (Primrose Hill aside), it surely will have said path all the way to Willesden?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm simply saying that if the NLL had the northern pair of the four track section, extended through a reopened four track Camden Rd station, and the ELL was extended over the southern pair and then via Primrose Hill, (and thence up the DC as is so often proposed), then the existing freight services would need to cross from one pair to the other with all the resulting conflicts.

If you start from the position that there's no freight because its been moved elsewhere then it's a whole new ball game.

 

[OxtedL]

It's only as lacking as your lack of vision.

"Vision" is not sufficient justification to spend millions upon millions of pounds building something. We cannot simply assume that because we build a link then thousands of people a day will then immediately want to travel from Kent to destinations beyond London on trains that bypass central London and in the process ignore where we already know people want to go.

 

[Chris125]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but HS2 have never looked at and analysed any east-west alignment that involves joining HS1 near Dalston with an underground junction. Their analysis was based on needing a portal.

They don't need to analyse every possibility to get an idea of what is and isn't viable - as underground stations and higher capacity link lines have both been ruled out in the past I see no reason why combining them in a massively expensive, disruptive and possibly impractical scheme to serve a relatively small market for through traffic is going produce a different conclusion, and certainly not within the current budget and timescale for HS2.

Even if extra money were made available, spending it on London's infrastructure (such as on Crossrail 2) would almost certainly produce far greater benefits to the Capital and the country as a whole than allowing a relative few to travel through without changing.

Actually 3 tracks, one to GC gauge, so requiring more space than a W6a or W12 cleared track.

Having just checked I can confirm it is four, 3 for the NLL - as the ES document says "construction of the Proposed Scheme in this section of the route would involve the reinstatement of two existing disused railway tracks to create a total of four serviceable tracks...At Camden Road station, Platform One would be removed from service and the canopy and platform coping would be trimmed back. Platforms Three and Four would be reinstated to service the NLL and there would be new access to Platform Four. Platform Two would remain in service with the retention of the existing NLL track"

Even if you stick with the NLL, TfL are arguing that loops aren't needed on the WLL as they don't work well for freight as it needs to keep moving. If a given freight train has a NLL path at Hackey then given it's essentially a two track railway (Primrose Hill aside), it surely will have said path all the way to Willesden?

While keeping freight trains moving is preferable on a congested line, you still need places in London to recess them during disruption or to await a path. Extra loops on the WLL are unnecessary given the various options already available for trains traversing South and West London to await a path, but that doesn't make the NLL loops unnecessary for those traversing North London especially with the Primrose Hill line singled.

Even if freight was removed from Camden Road at great expense, the capacity issue is simply being moved elsewhere where the effect on current or potential passenger services is likely to far outweigh the pretty minimal benefit of joining the DC and ELL that would still have to contend with the Camden Road Jct bottleneck.

Chris

 

[mr_jrt]

Even if freight was removed from Camden Road at great expense, the capacity issue is simply being moved elsewhere where the effect on current or potential passenger services is likely to far outweigh the pretty minimal benefit of joining the DC and ELL that would still have to contend with the Camden Road Jct bottleneck.

...but that bottleneck at Camden Road Junction is apparently ok to be removed, so isn't a factor. As for a minimal benefit...even the revised Euston proposals still involve the DC lines losing their access to Euston. Unless you plan on turning them back at South Hampstead with new crossovers, then it all seems incredibly logical to connect them to the NLL via Primrose Hill...

--EDIT--
Just reminded by a conversation on a similar topic elsewhere...

Crossrail is going to annihilate the freight paths on the GEML. All the NLL paths in the world aren't going to do much good if the traffic can't get to them from the ports. Hence the upgrades to the Hampstead Heath tunnel a few years back - a lot more freight is going to have to travel via the Goblin rather than the NLL regardless.

 

[HSTEd]

Yikes, do YOU have tunnel vision. You are only thinking of traffic FROM the north.

Now let's get your wide angled lenses on: the Kent Javelin 395 services - imagine they run through to OOC and switch to the GWML there. They can then go to Reading via Heathrow T5. So now we have fast Heathrow-Kent services .... tell me again about lack of demand for cross-London "fast" services - not necessarily "TGV-style" services.

Considering that Javelin 395 services are 2 short trains per hour, even running all Javelin trains through to HS2 would not saturate the link.
I am not entirely sure why a HS2-HS1 link would be used to transfer trains through to the GWML since that would be a gross missallocation of paths on the southern end of HS2 to permit this.

It's only as lacking as your lack of vision. Equally, when the Davies commission reports on the airport capacity/London Hub question, what seems most likely is an estuary solution with a major landside terminal connected by very fast trains to the airside terminals. Ebbsfleet has already been mentioned. Now if the new Hub ONLY serves international traffic, and UK domestic traffic continues at Heathrow, etc - then a Heathrow - Ebbsfleet HS link is going to be very busy, yes? Not to mention Birminham - Ebbsfleet, and so on.

UK Domestic travel is a rounding error, Heathrow and Gatwick can't both rely on it, if a Thames hub takes away the International flights then the likelyhood is that Heathrow will simply close.
It can't hope to support itself on such slim pickings as the domestic market.
And it is highly unlikely that the estuary airport will be picked, it is now almost certain that the Heathrow Expansion project will be the chosen option.

The £40bn pricetag kind of discouraged everyone from the Estuary option.

So, is it stupid to design out the opportunity to service this traffic NOW?

When we have no evidence that this traffic will ever exist.... yes.

Or is it better to design it in with some provision (eg, not all platform tunnels excavated at day # 1, or not all platform spaces fitted out @ day # 1) to add the capacity when it's needed. The twin track tunnels could readily handle 24tph, and 32tph in recovery mode - assuming trains between 200m and 300m long and all stops in tunnel being at least bifurcated (ie at least 2 platforms faces available to approaching stopping trains).

24tph?
You do realise how tiny the flow on HS1 is right now right?
More people do not want to travel to Heathrow from Kent than St Pancras, that is just a ludicrous assumption.

Who pays for this insanely expensive expansion?
The cost of all this would almost certainly cost the same as an extension of the high speed network to Newcastle or Liverpool and possibly even both.
Both of which have far greater political or economic benefits.

Finally, if you read the aviation side of things, the airlines are progressing well with co-operative work with the Border Agency to streamline the whole security business. By the time anything gets done with construction, a much better pre-screening system will be in use and the whole security "charade" we now have will be consigned to the bin marked "nightmares from history."

Pre-screening doesn't protect against smuggled-on munitions, it is just an excuse to harrass people that the security officers don't like the look of.
"Oh you have been randomly selected for additional screening".

And if airline security becomes more streamlined, it is likely to reduce the demand for rail travel rather than accelerate it, why would they bother getting the train to this new hub you want to build or Heathrow when they can fly direct to their destination from Gatwick or Manston on a regional jet?

 

[Oswyntail]

What I find depressing about this whole discussion is that no British company has even hinted at emerging to consider in public flows from British cities to the further continent. We leave it up to DB to expand our connectivity. Instead we talk about Brighton or Kent as if they were attractive destinations that required new links. Get real - there is nothing to go there for to justify extra long distance flows, and if the folk from there really wanted to be connected with the rest of the UK, they would be north of London anyway. One of the great blights on transport planning in the UK is our fixation on London, and we should not make the mistake of perpetuating that blight.

 

[Chris125]

...but that bottleneck at Camden Road Junction is apparently ok to be removed, so isn't a factor.

There were/will be two pairs of lines either side of Camden Road Jct, but where they meet has only ever been double track - adding a third track through this junction may allow the HS2 link to operate independently of the NLL, but it doesn't remove the fundamental bottleneck.

This shouldn't be a major issue for the limited freight traffic using a single track line via Primrose Hill, helped by 3 tracks through Camden Road and a pair of freight loops to the east, but channelling both the ELL and NLL through the junction would be a different matter.

As for a minimal benefit...even the revised Euston proposals still involve the DC lines losing their access to Euston. Unless you plan on turning them back at South Hampstead with new crossovers, then it all seems incredibly logical to connect them to the NLL via Primrose Hill...

It's a neat solution on the surface, but that doesn't make it cost effective given the cost of reinstating the full NLL formation through Camden, increasing capacity through Camden Road Jct, diverting/curtailing freight traffic via Primrose Hill and providing an alternative tunnelled HS2 link line.

While retaining services to Kilburn and South Hampstead may be superficially attractive, how useful to most passengers would a service to Highbury and East London be compared to Euston? IMHO it's more logical to try and provide some sort of service using slow line WCML services, though even that may not be warranted given the nearby Bakerloo and Jubilee stations.

a lot more freight is going to have to travel via the Goblin rather than the NLL regardless.

...which is why sending at least some freight via the NLL will continue to be necessary to avoid overloading the Goblin and NLL through Hampstead Heath.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

And is space so tight at Euston that they can't squeeze in a pair of ~120m platforms for Overground to use?
I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no way they can be fitted in.

 

[DW54]

1) London is about 25% of the UK economy. Like it or not. The London Commuter area holds roughly the same % of Britain's population. HS1 and HS2 point towards London. And the issue is connecting HS1 and HS2. How daft to complain about the focus of discussion being on London.

2) The reason the 395s are not well supported is simple. They DON'T go where the traffic wants to go, yet. Partly because residential choices were made on the basis of place of employment and available transport, and these take longer to respond to new opportunities. And partly because St Pancras Kent Domestic is not an ideal terminal location for the service. If the service had a wider range of destinations available THROUGH a Euston-KingsX central station, you'd see demand rise appreciably. Even adding OOC would strengthen the market considerably. But this is all 10 years or so in the future. Looking at today's situation leads to myopia - which contributors here have in droves.

2a) There may arise a need to implement a Barking "International" station to provide connections to/from the Kent Javelins; likewise, a travelator link is likely to be needed to connect Stratford International to Stratford (City) to strengthen the effectiveness of this connection. You may well argue that this is NOT what HS1 is for. I argue that HS1 is another railway - a fast one - but just another railway, and its infrastructure should be optimised for Britain.

3) My HS London Central proposal, given the advances in tunnelling technology, probably no more expensive overall than the current HS2 plan to destroy a whole city block.

4) Overloading the OOC - HC London Central section? Unlikely before 2045-ish. But even so, if this approach was adopted, provision would be made to add a third running tunnel and possibly a fourth. OOC - Euston is a very short leg of a tunnelling-intensive new railway. Indeed, the cost of fitting out a station greatly exceeds the cost of providing the space for the tracks and platforms. Because a through station won't need as many platforms as a dead-end terminus, the fit out costs will be less - neutralising most cost differences.

5) The Davies Commission report will be significant in determining just how traffic demand pans out. In many ways, the ideal would have been to have this finalised before detailed HS2 planning was undertaken. I personally still don't think anything is set in concrete, especially not the London end of HS2. Just because Heathrow loses it Hub function, doesn't mean that there won't be charters, freight and non-interlining traffic. Perhaps I was being too restrictive when I mentioned only domestic traffic, sorry.

5a) Apples vs Apples please on airport issues. A 3rd runway at Heathrow is a patch-and-mend approach which will cost less than a new Hub, but only meet needs for a few years before further steps will become necessary. The estuarine Hub proposals combine a vast array of elements, and the total price tag would not be presented to the Treasury for payment. An awful lot of commercial investment would be needed, and it's the sort of utility infrastructure that pension funds prefer. Any on-land runways now have major complexities in terms of regional amenity as well as cost of acquisition. Any new Hub site (not enhancing an existing airport) would be at least as far from London as the estuarine proposals. London access would trigger similar issues to HS2, with similar compensation funding requirements. And the estuarine proposals have the advantage of being in some proximity to HS1.

The estuarine proposals have NO road access for the general public or passengers. An inland Hub would not be able to quarantine access, so would require substantial adaptation of the road network to suit.

That's all in the Davies boat at the moment. None of us (at least not on a railway discussion board) should presume to solve it or pre-empt its outcomes - though I'm sure aviation discussion boards are very lively with the issues even as I type.

6) This thread is about the link between HS1 and HS2, not about HS2 itself. The link is a section of railway in London, and my approach is to make that work for London as much as to see it work for HS2. Most of those posting have a clear Northern perspective on the matter.

6a) I stand corrected on the issue of 3 tracks vs 4 on the section of NLL affected. As a long-term proposition, this section will be a bottleneck for local passenger trains, through freight trains and HS trains. What is lacking is a coherent Freight rail strategy for London; and without that it's incumbent on those responsible to ensure that no steps are taken now that become an impediment to London's productivity in 10-15-20 years' time - a source of regret to the next generation.

6b) With a long-term Freight Rail Strategy for London, it will be known where traffic increases from Thamesmead will be routed, how and when the necessary infrastructure will be funded, the maximum freight traffic which will be allocated to the NLL, WLL, SLL and GOBLIN, provisions on the main lines outward from these orbitals to carry the freight and what strategic alternative routes will be built to absorb the overflow.

6c) Any freight strategy for London must also take into account the N-S electric spine and the E-W link projects.

 

[HSTEd]

I apologise, the Heathrow option now being proposed is not just to build a third runway.
It involves moving the runways a few kilometres west away from london and constructing four new runways, with the M25 dropped into a cut and cover tunnel.

 

[Chris125]

And is space so tight at Euston that they can't squeeze in a pair of ~120m platforms for Overground to use?
I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no way they can be fitted in.

I think the stumbling block issue is track capacity - the pair of lines used by DC services are needed to compensate for the loss of two on the western side of the cutting where the HS2 tunnel portals will be.

Chris

 

[Oswyntail]

1) London is about 25% of the UK economy. Like it or not. The London Commuter area holds roughly the same % of Britain's population. HS1 and HS2 point towards London. And the issue is connecting HS1 and HS2. How daft to complain about the focus of discussion being on London.....

If you were referring to my post, of course I disagree. The predominance of London is a problem for the rest of the UK, and the discussion of the HS2-1 link is, at least in part, a discussion of one way of easing that problem. The London commuter area is, in itself, not a major destination for business travel because it is mainly servicing commuting to London; suggesting journeys to and from Kent as being a justification for a link will get nowhere. To provide a major benefit for 75% of the economy, the link would have to provide better access between non-London and the markets on the continent. We should be getting away from the idea that an hours break in a journey spent pootling around London is acceptable.

 

[Chris125]

2) The reason the 395s are not well supported is simple. They DON'T go where the traffic wants to go, yet. Partly because residential choices were made on the basis of place of employment and available transport, and these take longer to respond to new opportunities. And partly because St Pancras Kent Domestic is not an ideal terminal location for the service.

If I recall correctly the main criticism levelled at St Pancras by Kent commuters was the greater distance from the City - moving the station a few hundred yards would not make any appreciable difference.

3) My HS London Central proposal, given the advances in tunnelling technology, probably no more expensive overall than the current HS2 plan to destroy a whole city block.

The common consensus is that surface stations are generally cheaper than those in station boxes like Stratford International and the new Woolwich station, which themselves are far cheaper than stations excavated below ground - this is why Crossrail only uses the latter where a station box isn't a viable option, though a trip to Tottenham Court Road for example will show that large-scale demolition can still be necessary.

Given that HS2 Ltd's initial analysis of station options ruled out a tunnelled station on cost grounds, which no doubt informed their costing of 'Euston Cross' in the region of five times that of the current scheme, I see nothing to suggest it would be even remotely cost neutral.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

I found the link which DW54 has not given to the OP who asked for it (I think).

http://districtdave.proboards.com/thread/22055/hs1-2-link

Hope that is useful, the same two protagonists there as here!

 

[pablo]

Thanks H GWR

 

[mr_jrt]

I think the stumbling block issue is track capacity - the pair of lines used by DC services are needed to compensate for the loss of two on the western side of the cutting where the HS2 tunnel portals will be.

Doubt it - there are only 4 tracks into Euston - essentially the fast lines and the slow lines (but built as a pair for the London and Birmingham and a pair for the Great Western). The local DC services share the approaches with the regional AC services, and the lines are dual-electrified. I suspect aside from freeing up platform space, doing away with them means all the expense of dual-electrifying the post rebuild approaches can be avoided. When it was all put in during the 1960's rebuild the DC lines were a far more intensive service. The current 3tph service really doesn't justify the expensive of re-engineering all that complicated work. If a service was maintained, you're more likely to see a switchover at South Hampstead (if crossovers were fitted) or Kilburn High Street to AC...but then you hit the problem of the South Hampstead tunnels only having clearances for DC...

 

[pablo]

Where do you get Great Western from? And, I count five tracks, or even six, depending where you count. :-?

 

[mr_jrt]

Where do you get Great Western from? And, I count five tracks, or even six, depending where you count. :-?

Here you go:

The Company authorized the construction of the first terminus, at Chalk Farm, near the site of the present roundhouse (see p. 110) in 1833 and a siding there is still called "the Terminus siding." (ref. 99) Then, in August, 1834, Robert Stephenson suggested the extension to Euston. This had been contemplated in the first instance, but eliminated from the Bill in its second presentation. However, the extension was authorized by an Act (ref. 100) obtained on 3rd July, 1835, under which property was acquired as far as Euston Grove. Sufficient land was taken for four lines of railway because of tentative discussions with the Great Western Railway concerning a junction at Willesden and a joint terminus at Euston. But the discussions failed.

And something along the lines of:
http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalling/plans/Euston-a.gif

..it's why I used the word "essentially". Two fast, two slow, and various sidings.

 

[pablo]

..... - there are only 4 tracks into Euston - essentially the fast lines and the slow lines (but built as a pair for the London and Birmingham and a pair for the Great Western).....

You are confusing things. L&B applied for the land for four tracks in anticipation, because they were in discussion with the GWR about a joint terminus. But the GWR pulled out and preferred Paddington. Nothing physical was done for them but that left RS neatly with consent for a four track width into Euston Grove. Good ploy maybe?

Had agreement been reached, the present fasts (westerly) would have been GWR's and the slows L&B's. The mind boggles at the size Euston might have grown to as a joint terminus. Had there been some agreement with GWR, the MR and GNR might have been persuaded to come in also and we wouldn't be debating now the necessity for an HS2 - HS1 link! Ha, the sins of our fathers shall be visited on their children.

On the link you give I see six tracks. Wasn't the layout revamped again in 1990 or thereabouts because it doesn't look like that now?

 

[mr_jrt]

On the link you give I see six tracks. Wasn't the layout revamped again in 1990 or thereabouts because it doesn't look like that now?

If you read the line labels, you'll see the DC lines use the slow lines, and the other tracks are just sidings (one is a through siding, but still).

That was the 1960's changes. I've had a dig for an updated one, and the best I can find is this one.

That shows there are 5 tracks past the carriage sidings, but the southernmost doesn't look accessible from the slow lines, which correlates with what I remember, so just leaving the 4 lines.

 

[edwin_m]

The 2005 Quail map, which I think is pretty much unchanged today, shows six tracks (4 AC, 2 DC) as far as Camden Road, where the Primrose Hill line splits off and the DC lines merge in. Tyhere are then five tracks to Camden South and six or more into Euston. The remodelling about 10 years ago converted various sidings and empty stock lines into passenger running lines, recognising that during the day most trains run in and out in service so there are few empty workings.

 

[pablo]

Thanks Edwin, that's my recollection from weekly travel on the line.
And, I'm wondering what all this has to do with the adequacy of the HS2 to HS1 link, especially if regional cross-London services are considered like Greengauge21 Group is proposing. :?

 

[HSTEd]

You would only need one running line and two platforms to get Overground into the rebuilt Euston so I find it hard to believe it cannot be accommodated, more likely NR want rid of it and this is a convenient excuse.