Will there ever be a new terminal in London?

[ijmad]

In one version of the Anglia Route study, Network Rail considered the option of building a new terminus at Bishopsgate Goods Yard. Probably won't ever happen, but it'd be interesting if it did!

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/london-could-get-whole-new-rail-terminal-569

 

[AM9]

It's been suggested the 12tph currently set to terminate at Paddington would terminate and reverse at Old Oak Common, which would mean some empty trains for those passengers would be available.

That's OK going eastwards, but westbound, all of those trains would only have any extra space west of Paddington. It could be worse than that as some passengers from the GEML might decide to change to a Heathrow train at OOC itself.

 

[edwin_m]

Tower Gateway is a new terminal at a completely new location.

To be pedentic it's pretty much on the site of the Minories station that Fenchurch Street replaced.

 

[Bald Rick]

I may be missing something, but a new terminus would need a new railway to run it. As there is essentially zero chance of building a new railway on a new corridor at or above ground level in London, then any such new line will have to be underground.

And if you are going to the trouble of building a new railway underground, it is always better to go from one side of central London to the other, to ease onward passenger distribution. It is also always a good idea to have new stations in central London at locations where there are good onward travel connections, ie existing stations.

So to answer the question:

No.

 

[InterCity:125]

I may be missing something, but a new terminus would need a new railway to run it.

What what about hyperloop or maglev?

 

[tbtc]

Do you include St. Pancras International as a "new" terminal when you include HS1..?

I don't know the OP's answer to this, but (AFAICS) any "new" terminus would be part of an existing station - there's no point in building a brand new terminus that doesn't interact with other services (National Rail, Underground etc).

Euston will get additional platforms for HS2 - maybe that qualifies as a "new station" but it'd be a real waste to build these new platforms somewhere other than slap bang next to an existing main line station - we already have complaints about how Euston is supposedly not great for connections (hence the need to build Crossrail2 to improve the number of options for people arriving on HS2) - you're not going to want to build another bunch of terminal platforms independent of an existing station - at which stage you might as well treat it as being the same (Waterloo International, St P International, Euston HS2 etc).

Maybe there's a need for new terminal platforms, maybe demand won't continue to increase, maybe Crossrail2/3/4/5 will remove demand at existing termini so that there's less pressure... maybe we should even be trying to remove "small" termini like Marylebone/ Fenchurch Street/ Canon Street in that case, if things can be done more efficiently with freed up platforms at Paddington/ Liverpool Street etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just as an add on to this, after Crossrail 2, there won’t be any more Crossrail type lines in the City / West End area. There is simply not the space underground at a reasonable depth to build them. There’s an awful lot underground that many people don’t know about!

Of course you can go deeper, but then there become issues with the time it takes passengers to get to/from ground level, (including in emergency scenarios) and also geothermal heat. And of course digging very deep holes gets a lot more expensive.

 

[Busaholic]

Wasn't there once talk of knocking down Olympia, a large building with a station (of sorts) attached? I'm quite fond of the building, as it happens, but if it were to go...

 

[InterCity:125]

From what I can see it already looks like a station roof wise.

 

[ijmad]

Just as an add on to this, after Crossrail 2, there won’t be any more Crossrail type lines in the City / West End area. There is simply not the space underground at a reasonable depth to build them. There’s an awful lot underground that many people don’t know about!

How about a nice new elevated S-bahn?

 

[The Ham]

How about a nice new elevated S-bahn?

That still requires land space, costs a lot and unless you are building it a long way from buildings (or over the top of them) is likely to cause you a lot of opposition.

That's not too say that it wouldn't happen (see Docklands Light Railway), just it's likely to be limited in geographic reach.

There's still probably enough space to have a cross London route which at one point or over a short distance connects with zone 1, whilst primarily serving areas of outer London. Such a route would be a bit like building a new terminal with services coming in from two geographic areas but with the advantage that those traveling between the two wouldn't need to change trains.

An example (for illustration purposes only) of this could be to come in from the SWML direction until Vauxhall before then looping almost back on itself, whilst serving areas of South London with little tube access, to then heading out before linking to the BML south of Croydon.

 

[Eddd]

I read a report on the choice of Euston for HS2 when the plans were announced. It seemed like an exercise in justifying what had already been decided but it concluded (IIRC) that the only other options would have been under the Thames or under a Royal Park.

I did wonder if there would be space for some 400m platforms on the North side of Paddington if Heathrow Express was scrapped and the H&C line was put in a deeper tunnel. Probably not now the Paddington Cube is going up.

Agree that the best prospect for new long distance platforms is to run existing commuter services through new Crossrails or Thameslinks.

 

[quantinghome]

The HS2 route from Old Oak Common to Euston is likely to be awfully expensive. Would it be so bad with Crossrail/Elizabeth to terminate HS2 at OOC? But perhaps the line to Euston is needed as an excuse to redevelop the area round Euston station.

Terminating HS2 at OOC has been rejected for a very good reason: it's not where most people want to go. The same is true the world over; the vast majority of countries with high speed rail networks serve their capital cities with a city centre station. In fact I can't think of a country with a high speed network that doesn't do this.

OOC is a great location for a connecting station to improve journeys from the rest of the country to west London, Thames valley and Heathrow, and of course it links directly to Crossrail and will be better for some central London locations, but ultimately most people will use the direct link to central London.

 

[Western Lord]

How about double decking, a la New York's Grand Central? I would have thought fairly easy (if expensive) to achieve at Euston, though elsewhere would involve destroying some nice (and listed) overall roofs!

 

[swt_passenger]

How about double decking, a la New York's Grand Central? I would have thought fairly easy (if expensive) to achieve at Euston, though elsewhere would involve destroying some nice (and listed) overall roofs!

Far more platform capacity doesn’t necessarily increase the number of services pro-rata, because usually the approach tracks are also capacity constrained. So ultimately you need more approach tracks, and then more interchange space, bigger concourses, and more capacity for onward transfer to underground.

It’s easy to see why through lines are probably better all round...

 

[ijmad]

That still requires land space, costs a lot and unless you are building it a long way from buildings (or over the top of them) is likely to cause you a lot of opposition.

That's not too say that it wouldn't happen (see Docklands Light Railway), just it's likely to be limited in geographic reach.

There's still probably enough space to have a cross London route which at one point or over a short distance connects with zone 1, whilst primarily serving areas of outer London. Such a route would be a bit like building a new terminal with services coming in from two geographic areas but with the advantage that those traveling between the two wouldn't need to change trains.

An example (for illustration purposes only) of this could be to come in from the SWML direction until Vauxhall before then looping almost back on itself, whilst serving areas of South London with little tube access, to then heading out before linking to the BML south of Croydon.

There was a (fairly insane) private proposal called Southern Crossrail that would link services from Waterloo to the Charing Cross lines and out through London Bridge. I say 'fairly insane' because part of their proposal involves shutting Charing Cross and making people walk the last half mile.

 

[paul1609]

There was a (fairly insane) private proposal called Southern Crossrail that would link services from Waterloo to the Charing Cross lines and out through London Bridge. I say 'fairly insane' because part of their proposal involves shutting Charing Cross and making people walk the last half mile.

Waterloo East was originally Waterloo Junction and services did serve both lines. The current walkway between the two stations is built over the old trackway.

 

[Eddd]

making people walk the last half mile

Would be a nice walk though, presumably across a gardened Hungerford Bridge.

The thing I most liked about it was the potential to demolish the Terry Farrell monstrosity over CHX.

 

[swt_passenger]

Waterloo East was originally Waterloo Junction and services did serve both lines...

However don’t most sources record that it was nothing like what we would call a regular service nowadays.

 

[theageofthetra]

However don’t most sources record that it was nothing like what we would call a regular service nowadays.

Wasn't it's primary purpose to allow the Royal Train to get from Windsor to the channel ports?-though I believe it proved useful during the First World War for troop movements

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There was a (fairly insane) private proposal called Southern Crossrail that would link services from Waterloo to the Charing Cross lines and out through London Bridge. I say 'fairly insane' because part of their proposal involves shutting Charing Cross and making people walk the last half mile.

Not sure I'd describe it as insane. It would nicely solve a lot of conflicting moves as trains try to get to a platform at Charing Cross. Perhaps allow a more frequent service between Waterloo and London Bridge, removing a major constraint (although not the only constraint) to having more frequent trains in much of SE London. And it would be a lot more convenient for the vast numbers of people who alight at Waterloo East and walk to Waterloo (from experience, that seems to be almost everyone who alights at Waterloo East). But, as you say, it would give a headache about what to do for the people on SouthEastern trains for whom Charing Cross is their final destination.

 

[Ianno87]

Not sure I'd describe it as insane. It would nicely solve a lot of conflicting moves as trains try to get to a platform at Charing Cross. Perhaps allow a more frequent service between Waterloo and London Bridge, removing a major constraint (although not the only constraint) to having more frequent trains in much of SE London. And it would be a lot more convenient for the vast numbers of people who alight at Waterloo East and walk to Waterloo (from experience, that seems to be almost everyone who alights at Waterloo East). But, as you say, it would give a headache about what to do for the people on SouthEastern trains for whom Charing Cross is their final destination.

The way the infrastructure is designed for Charing Cross means that the crossing moves are no more a constraint to the achievable trains per hour than the two tracks through Borough Market are in any case.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The likeihood is that over time more tunnels will be built between lines on the opposite sides of London so that trains can run through without terminating in the inner city. We saw this with the original Thameslink in the 1980s, now enhanced with more capacity so it effectively replaces trains terminating at Kings Cross, St Pancras, Victoria and London Bridge with through trains. We will soon have Crossrail doing the same for Paddington and Liverpool Street and Crossrail 2 is being talked about to replace services at Waterloo and (again) Liverpool Street. All these through links release capacity at the existing termini for more terminating trains.

Yes, that would be my sense too, since that's the best way to increase capacity without requiring many extra platforms. And realistically, I can't think of anywhere in central London where there'd be space for a new terminus station. I'd also guess that, after Crossrail2 is built, we'll see a trend for new tunnels to be slightly outside of the traditional centre of London because of the problems threading round existing tunnels there.

The main question that needs to be asked is not "where to put it", but "where would it serve"?
What geographic region of the South East / wider GB doesn't already have a London terminus?
If the answer is none (and I strongly suspect this to be the case), then it's a lot cheaper to expand existing stations and lines to increase capacity than build a duplicate.

I think the most likely answer to that question is the Brighton line - since that's arguably the one that is most capacity-challenged without any obvious good enough long-term solutions along the existing lines: Even if you sort out Croydon, you'd still have the problem of trying to thread more trains into Victoria or London Bridge - I'm guessing both would be very difficult. So my guess is that the most plausible solution is going to come in the form of a tunnelled link from somewhere north of Croydon to the Stratford area - although I would expect that to provide through running to somewhere beyond London rather than building new terminus platforms - so still doesn't meet the OP's criteria for being a new terminus.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure I'd describe it as insane. It would nicely solve a lot of conflicting moves as trains try to get to a platform at Charing Cross. Perhaps allow a more frequent service between Waterloo and London Bridge, removing a major constraint (although not the only constraint) to having more frequent trains in much of SE London. And it would be a lot more convenient for the vast numbers of people who alight at Waterloo East and walk to Waterloo (from experience, that seems to be almost everyone who alights at Waterloo East). But, as you say, it would give a headache about what to do for the people on SouthEastern trains for whom Charing Cross is their final destination.

It would create a lot more problems than it solves. And would need grade separated junctions on the approaches to Waterloo, unless you want to reduce the service of either the SW side or the SE side.

There’s also more than 4 times more people going to Charing Cross than changing between the Waterloos.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Maybe more likely that terminus capacity constraints could be eased by linking up lines with tunnels, like Crossrail, the various RER lines in Paris, and probably elsewhere.

Tried that with Thameslink a couple of months ago. Doesn't work!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It would create a lot more problems than it solves. And would need grade separated junctions on the approaches to Waterloo, unless you want to reduce the service of either the SW side or the SE side.

There’s also more than 4 times more people going to Charing Cross than changing between the Waterloos.

Interesting. Why would it need grade separated junctions on the approaches to Waterloo? If you - say - took the metro services via Wimbledon as the ones you run through: Those trains all happily coexist on one track each way west of Waterloo and wouldn't need to cross each other's paths if they were extended. (And I have a suspicion there will be fewer of those trains once Crossrail2 is built as well).

Fair point about more people going to Charing Cross. I would suspect however that a lot of those people are actually changing onto the Northern or Bakerloo lines, and are doing so at Charing Cross because that's a shorter walk than from Waterloo East. If, in this hypothetical project, the new platforms were in Waterloo Main (with Waterloo East being closed), then those people would simply head for the Underground at Waterloo with no inconvenience. (Though there would then be another question about capacity on those lines between Waterloo and Charing Cross, and of course you still have the problem of people going to Charing Cross because that's their final destination, or they want the District/Circle lines).

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting. Why would it need grade separated junctions on the approaches to Waterloo? If you - say - took the metro services via Wimbledon as the ones you run through: Those trains all happily coexist on one track each way west of Waterloo and wouldn't need to cross each other's paths if they were extended. (And I have a suspicion there will be fewer of those trains once Crossrail2 is built as well).

Fair point about more people going to Charing Cross. I would suspect however that a lot of those people are actually changing onto the Northern or Bakerloo lines, and are doing so at Charing Cross because that's a shorter walk than from Waterloo East. If, in this hypothetical project, the new platforms were in Waterloo Main (with Waterloo East being closed), then those people would simply head for the Underground at Waterloo with no inconvenience. (Though there would then be another question about capacity on those lines between Waterloo and Charing Cross, and of course you still have the problem of people going to Charing Cross because that's their final destination, or they want the District/Circle lines).

There was a thread on this a couple of years ago.

Count the number of trains per hour in each direction on the SW Main suburban in the peak. (Or any of the other two Waterloo service groups).

Then count the number of trains per hour in each direction Charing Cross to London Bridge in the peak.

Then work out how you make them equal. That’s your answer.

As for passengers at Charing Cross, it is actually a relatively small proportion heading for the Northern and Bakerloo. The numbers from 2010 are:

Walk 55%
Northern/Bakerloo 22%
Bus 11%
Rail 6% (!!!)
District / Circle 5%
Cycle / Taxi 2%

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf

Since then I suspect cycling and walking have gone up a couple of clicks at the expense of other modes. Particularly as a significant proportion of passengers going on by tube are destined for somewhere along Tottenham Court Rd, which is very walkable from Charing Cross.

 

[quantinghome]

Tried that with Thameslink a couple of months ago. Doesn't work!

Eh? Thameslink has been running since 1990, Paris RER since the 1970s, both reducing the pressure on city centre terminuses. The recent timetable cock-up doesn't invalidate the concept.

 

[Muzer]

In one version of the Anglia Route study, Network Rail considered the option of building a new terminus at Bishopsgate Goods Yard. Probably won't ever happen, but it'd be interesting if it did!

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/london-could-get-whole-new-rail-terminal-569

It appeared in the draft route study but (sadly?) was removed from the final one. I guess it proved unfeasible.

 

[gsnedders]

I suspect at some point we'll see some major work on what will effectively be a new station in London, simply because if population growth continues we're likely going to see increasing numbers of people heading into London, and therefore there will be the demand for it.

The more interesting question is how to deal with the approach tracks, which would probably end up being in tunnel for miles (like HS1 and HS2).