Enginering firm's idea for Cross City Connect - HS2-HS1 link via Southwark

[BahrainLad]

Not sure if this proposed alteration to the OOC - Euston leg of HS2 has been discussed?

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...-plans-flawed-hs2-euston-terminus-19-11-2019/

Engineering firm Buro Happold has unveiled alternative plans for HS2’s London section which would see the “flawed” Euston terminus ditched in favour of new stops at Waterloo and Canary Wharf and a connection with High Speed 1 in Kent.

An updated version of the Cross City Connect (CCC) plans would see a 30km twin bored tunnel link Old Oak Common (OOC) in the west to a portal junction with HS1 at Rainham in the east of the city.

The project’s backers have said the new plan would save billions on the HS2 budget and would see a vast new underground station constructed at Waterloo and Southwark titled South Bank Central.

The proposers of the scheme seem to think it will cost £10bn, vs the £7bn cost of the Euston link and associated development.

 

[30907]

They also seem to think their route will have capacity for Javelins from Kent to Birmingham and NoL Eurostars as well as HS2 services terminating at Barking. The idea is intriguing, but I somehow suspect they haven't costed for quadruple track (among other things).

 

[Backroom_boy]

The proposers of the scheme seem to think it will cost £10bn, vs the £7bn cost of the Euston link and associated development.[/QUOTE]
Yes these seemed very far fetched until I read it was being proposed by the same consultant who got HS1 rerouted to KX-StP. But how more tunneling and more stations work out at only a third more is mysterious.

 

[mmh]

They also seem to think their route will have capacity for Javelins from Kent to Birmingham and NoL Eurostars as well as HS2 services terminating at Barking. The idea is intriguing, but I somehow suspect they haven't costed for quadruple track (among other things).

Why would it need to be quadruple track? HS1 isn't and HS2 won't be.

 

[Roast Veg]

This actually provides worse connections from Birmingham and Manchester to the continent. With no passport control at these stations a lot of associated works would be required, as opposed to the nice walking route that has been factored in to get from Euston to STP.

Ashford gets a nice connection to Toton though? I'm sure somebody would make use of it...

 

[BahrainLad]

Why would it need to be quadruple track? HS1 isn't and HS2 won't be.

Presumably the point being made is that once you fill the tunnel and Barking terminus with HS2's projected capacity, there isn't really much room to add any other services, unless you quad the track.

 

[mmh]

Presumably the point being made is that once you fill the tunnel and Barking terminus with HS2's projected capacity, there isn't really much room to add any other services, unless you quad the track.

But HS2 is already going to a new Birmingham terminus. Some Birmingham trains could just carry on to Kent, or wherever.

 

[swt_passenger]

This proposal was posted in the main HS2 discussion thread when it first appeared:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-hs2-discussion.177112/page-117#post-4301423

It doesn’t seem any more likely this time round...

 

[edwin_m]

They also seem to think their route will have capacity for Javelins from Kent to Birmingham and NoL Eurostars as well as HS2 services terminating at Barking. The idea is intriguing, but I somehow suspect they haven't costed for quadruple track (among other things).

The link in #1 makes it clear this is instead of rather than additional to the Euston terminus. For security reasons the through Continental trains can't just be linking of HS1 and HS2 services, and any of the underground London services they call at will need separate secure platforms or shared platforms that can be unused for however long it takes to do a security sweep before any Continental departure. It sounds like the Javelins will be extra too. So the total trains per hour will be around the same as the Victoria line...

 

[30907]

Presumably the point being made is that once you fill the tunnel and Barking terminus with HS2's projected capacity, there isn't really much room to add any other services, unless you quad the track.

Exactly. Not to mention that running Kent to Birmingham Javelins (even at HS2 speed) will require extra capacity west of OOC.

 

[sirdavid]

HS2 as proposed is pretty counter-intuitive. Why would people stay on a train into Euston when they could alight at Old Oak C and be whisked on a fast Elizabeth train into West End, Mid-Town or Canary Wharf almost before the train they had left arrives at Euston?

 

[30907]

HS2 as proposed is pretty counter-intuitive. Why would people stay on a train into Euston when they could alight at Old Oak C and be whisked on a fast Elizabeth train into West End, Mid-Town or Canary Wharf almost before the train they had left arrives at Euston?

Some - indeed many - will change at OOC (the plans rather depend on it!) but for much of the London suburbs, the SE generally and parts of Central London, Euston/Kings Cross will still work better. Not to mention that if everyone alighted at OOC the Elizabeth and West London lines wouldn't cope.

BTW is Mid-Town a new name for the City?

 

[PeterC]

Some - indeed many - will change at OOC (the plans rather depend on it!) but for much of the London suburbs, the SE generally and parts of Central London, Euston/Kings Cross will still work better. Not to mention that if everyone alighted at OOC the Elizabeth and West London lines wouldn't cope.

BTW is Mid-Town a new name for the City?

Mid Town is an invented name that some marketing wonk came up with for the Holborn area several years ago. The post above is the only time that I have come across anybody using it in real life.

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 as proposed is pretty counter-intuitive. Why would people stay on a train into Euston when they could alight at Old Oak C and be whisked on a fast Elizabeth train into West End, Mid-Town or Canary Wharf almost before the train they had left arrives at Euston?

Elizabeth Line will have two intermediate stops to Tottenham Court Road, three to Farringdon and six to Canary Wharf. So while it will no doubt be the best route to some parts of central London (one of the main reasons to build OOC) the text I've bolded is a severe exaggeration.

The suggested route via Southwark and Canary Wharf duplicates bits of the Elizabeth Line anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

Some - indeed many - will change at OOC (the plans rather depend on it!) but for much of the London suburbs, the SE generally and parts of Central London, Euston/Kings Cross will still work better. Not to mention that if everyone alighted at OOC the Elizabeth and West London lines wouldn't cope.

BTW is Mid-Town a new name for the City?

Mid-Town is an irritating name bestowed upon the Holborn/Bloomsbury sort of area.

 

[si404]

HS2 as proposed is pretty counter-intuitive. Why would people stay on a train into Euston when they could alight at Old Oak C and be whisked on a fast Elizabeth train into West End, Mid-Town or Canary Wharf almost before the train they had left arrives at Euston?

Because it's only a couple of minutes difference between changing at Euston and changing at OOC for the Central London stations: Bond Street/Oxford Circus, TCR, Farringdon and Moorgate/Liverpool Street.

But there's more to the West End than Oxford Street, more to The City than that northern bit. Euston would be slightly better for Leicester Square and Bank. And significantly better for Victoria! OOC is better for Docklands, West London, Heathrow, etc and so about a third of HS2 passengers will use it. Which means that Euston is better sited for twice the number of passengers.

I wonder what the split would be with South Bank - especially as it can't deal with more than half (and probably less) of HS2 passengers using it due to dwell time issues of a through station and people boarding southbound trains. Obviously Docklands (one of OOC's big selling points) would stay on to the Docklands HS2 station, as will others, but you'd just throw on a load of London Commuters going to Docklands, making passenger flows more annoying.

An underground through station can only really be OOC sized (3 platforms per direction) as even that is massive (think 6 Crossrail stations - 3 wide, 2 long). It provides a lot less space for passenger circulation than a terminus, but carries the passengers of 2 (minus however many stay on trains) termini. It works alright for Thameslink as there's multiple central stations to distribute passengers (5 in zone 1). Will it work with 3 London stations, 2 of which are in zone 2, putting a load of strain on the very well sited zone 1 one?

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s a completely bonkers proposal, which has been discussed before. Had it been proposed 10 years ago it might have been a useful point of discussion. But now that the land at Euston has been bought, and the bulldozers have demolished most of what’s in the way, it is largely irrelevant. The Euston link may well be costing £7bn, but I’d wager that a quarter of that has already been spent.

£10bn for an underground railway with at least one enormous underground station seems rather cheap. I for one would like to see the geological reports that suggest it is remotely feasible to build a 4-6 platform station for 400 metre trains given what else is in the area (various deep tubes, some rather deep foundations, a larger sewer or two, a not insubstantial river) along with the assessment of land costs that enable the station to be built and function, the transport planning that demonstrates how the local transport network can deal with an extra 40,000+ passengers an hour, etc.

 

[Backroom_boy]

The Euston link may well be costing £7bn, but I’d wager that a quarter of that has already been spent.

Agreed. I wonder how much of the Hs2 budget, especially the increases, has likewise already been spent or committed to.

 

[si404]

the transport planning that demonstrates how the local transport network can deal with an extra 40,000+ passengers an hour, etc.

I think the onward transport should be OK. AFAICS, a lot of people would simply walk across the Hungerford, Waterloo or Blackfriars bridges, and there's spare capacity on the N-S lines through Waterloo (well, more than N-S lines through Euston). Hopefully City-bound people changed at OOC as the W&C won't have room.

The bigger issue is the stations themselves - Waterloo and Southwark tubes, whether a load of people will walk through Blackfriars station to get to the District and Circle/Northbank, and most obviously the HS2 station itself.

 

[hwl]

It’s a completely bonkers proposal, which has been discussed before. Had it been proposed 10 years ago it might have been a useful point of discussion. But now that the land at Euston has been bought, and the bulldozers have demolished most of what’s in the way, it is largely irrelevant. The Euston link may well be costing £7bn, but I’d wager that a quarter of that has already been spent.

Several very similar options were looked at and dismissed in favour of Euston. It wasn't a particularly practical /useful strawman then either.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agreed. I wonder how much of the Hs2 budget, especially the increases, has likewise already been spent or committed to.

About £8bn spent already, and I’d be surprised if they were spending less than £20m/week at present. (I don’t have the numbers, but can see what’s happening on the ground, and how many people are employed).

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the onward transport should be OK. AFAICS, a lot of people would simply walk across the Hungerford, Waterloo or Blackfriars bridges, and there's spare capacity on the N-S lines through Waterloo (well, more than N-S lines through Euston). Hopefully City-bound people changed at OOC as the W&C won't have room.

Onward transport really wouldn’t be ok from the southbank. There is nowhere near enough capacity - especially given the increases planned into Waterloo in the next few years that have yet to happen. Even Waterloo Bridge is at capacity for pedestrians, as anyone who walks across it each morning will tell you.

 

[MarkyT]

About £8bn spent already, and I’d be surprised if they were spending less than £20m/week at present. (I don’t have the numbers, but can see what’s happening on the ground, and how many people are employed).

Presumably significant property acquisition payments are still going out too, although I'd guess that's now past its peak on the Phase 1 route.

 

[BluePenguin]

Considering the enormous opposition to HS2 on the basis that it will only benefit London, building a link to HS1 would significantly help to spread the benefits of it to people further afield. It would in addition create lots of new convenient journey opportunities and reduce concerns over a gaping North South divide.

Seeing as the construction costs of HS2 are spiralling out of control already, it would make little sense to cut corners at this stage and not to build what would be an essential and useful link for many passengers.

Not having to change trains in London would reduce congestion on the underground and save people a lot of time on overinflated and artificial connection times.

Addition, if the traffic to and from London is diverted off such services then that would free up capacity for CrossCountry style passengers travelling to and from Kent from the North who wish to avoid London.

 

[Domeyhead]

Consultants dipping into the sweetie jar of "good ideas" seems like an idle diversion but it leads to an endless cycle of debate and argument so beloved of politicians who prefer to keep talking rather than actually doing, and we have enough of those already to supply the whole of Europe. If this was 2010 not 2020 I'd happily prepare a spreadsheet of all the likely connections and journeys and compare the current and proposed routes to assess their potential utility, but it isn't and we should draw the line and start building. For me the decider is the need to separate domestic and international passengers at some point, requiring a stop and a detrain/entrain somewhere in London. Border Force say this cannot be done en-route for various reasons. but the facilities and ambience at St Pancras at least make this necessity less onerous. The idea of standing around in some drafty queue at OOC for passport checking does not seem so appealing, and in the end HS2 has to be a more pleasant journey experience than other methods or nobody will use it. We should ask the consultant why it wasn't seen as a good idea in 2010, because if it was it would have been proposed then, not now.

 

[swt_passenger]

Consultants dipping into the sweetie jar of "good ideas" seems like an idle diversion but it leads to an endless cycle of debate and argument so beloved of politicians who prefer to keep talking rather than actually doing, and we have enough of those already to supply the whole of Europe. If this was 2010 not 2020 I'd happily prepare a spreadsheet of all the likely connections and journeys and compare the current and proposed routes to assess their potential utility, but it isn't and we should draw the line and start building. For me the decider is the need to separate domestic and international passengers at some point, requiring a stop and a detrain/entrain somewhere in London. Border Force say this cannot be done en-route for various reasons. but the facilities and ambience at St Pancras at least make this necessity less onerous. The idea of standing around in some drafty queue at OOC for passport checking does not seem so appealing, and in the end HS2 has to be a more pleasant journey experience than other methods or nobody will use it. We should ask the consultant why it wasn't seen as a good idea in 2010, because if it was it would have been proposed then, not now.

Agree. When this came up in the other thread in November, (link in post #8), it hardly got discussed at all, so I suspect most realistic people think it’s about time New Civil Engineer stopped clutching at straws...

 

[hwl]

Agree. When this came up in the other thread in November, (link in post #8), it hardly got discussed at all, so I suspect most realistic people think it’s about time New Civil Engineer stopped clutching at straws...

NCE has very little to do with ICE these days and they are pretty desperate for easy to pubish content (that would never have got though in the olden days) so they can still do bigger workload stuff.
Regularly plenty of low quality crayonism coming out in NCE.

 

[edwin_m]

We should ask the consultant why it wasn't seen as a good idea in 2010, because if it was it would have been proposed then, not now.

Exactly that was done in 2009-2010. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=3140

Initially, we developed a long list of 27 possible sites in London, which are shown below in Figure 3.2a. The Figure shows in dark blue the sites that were sifted out at Stage One; sites shown in pale blue were considered further at the next stage.

The 27 options include Beneath the Thames and Waterloo, both discarded at the first sift. Unfortunately I can't trace any further details of these options.

 

[w1bbl3]

The 2010 options where all for a terminating not through station, which necessitated formation of a cavern. All these options appear to have been sifted out on the basis of size and complexity of cavern needed noting it to be the equivalent of four crossrail stations together.

The CCC option for the "south bank central" station is not to construct an uber cavern but a through station with turnaround facilities east of barking so the dwell time in the CCC tunnels and stations is no longer than through service. This is I suspect how the crayonista proposal comes out to a similar cost vs Euston.

TBH digging this proposal up now seems far to late considering the extent of clearance works already in progress at Euston, I do wonder what has triggered NCE to publish this (or who submitted the article concept to NCE). The trade journals these days are desperate for content so they have something to frame around the adverts, advertorials and copublishing...

 

[si404]

The CCC option for the "south bank central" station is not to construct an uber cavern

It sure won't be as big as a terminating station, but you are looking at a minimum of 4 400m-long platforms. It's still an uber cavern!

We constantly hear from Crossrail and those who've been down there about how big those stations are. This requires at least 4 times the footprint for platforms.