Euston Express

[Blamethrower]

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ss-hs2-alternative-would-save-37bn-lords-told

Euston Express HS2 alternative would save £3.7bn, Lords told
A scheme designed to put all HS2 and West Coast Main Line trains into one new integrated station at Euston, would be £3.7bn cheaper than HS2’s current plans for the station, the House of Lords HS2 Bill committee was told last week.
The Euston Express team said their scheme would be completed in nine years, instead of the 19 proposed by HS2, and reduce the disruption to the local area in Camden.
Research from Michael Byng, eminent Quantity Surveyor, who has written the Rail Method of Measurement, said that the route from Old Oak Common to Euston would cost £3.7bn less than HS2’s proposals. Even if changes to the WMCL part of the station were required, it would be £1.9bn cheaper.
Lord Tony Berkeley, chair of the Rail Freight Group, who supports the proposals, said: “Interestingly, HS2 did not challenge these figures at the Select Committee hearings. Perhaps they do not have any costings themselves.”
HS2 has been criticised for potentially missing its phase 1 start date, and is conducting a financial review to try to ensure it stays within its £55bn budget.
The Euston Express scheme involves working on the station in stages, with platforms extended southwards towards Euston Gardens to enable longer trains to be accommodated.
It would also include a new deck over the area to allow increased passenger circulation and pedestrian connections to the roads on either side. In addition, there would be an enlarged Underground ticket hall, two subways under all platforms, and escalators and lift connections to the underground and Crossrail 2.

There is a link to the pdf plan on the page.

I really like the proposal. Seems to make so much more sense than the original, yet I believe the points about loading gauge are misguided.
Overall, the proposal commits to classic compatible train limitations solely due to the one tunnel north of Euston. On the map, it says that the dc lines tunnel will be rebored. Rebore the fast line tunnels as well/instead and you've got captive stock capability from day 1. Eventually captive trains will not just go to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds from London, they'll work in between as well.

By limiting loading gauge you forgo the future proofing of double decking the trains through demand scalability. I think all stock will be single deck to start, then you can add a deck as demand increases.

So rebore the fasts and everyone is a winner

Thoughts?

 

[DerekC]

Looks great to me - but no doubt "Not Invented Here" will kick in and HS2 will reject it.

 

[HSTEd]

So it cuts the capacity of the line by something approaching 30% thanks to ensuring that no double deck trains will ever be operable into Euston?

And since putting this right later would be astonishingly expensive then you might as well respec all of HS2 to permanent classic gauge and abandon the entire idea of larger, higher capacity, trains.

All to save a paltry £3.7bn

 

[J-2739]

I bet these people didn't have a think about how the loading gauge could be affected before coming up with this.

Are they trying to make another slimline railway?!

 

[DerekC]

So it cuts the capacity of the line by something approaching 30% thanks to ensuring that no double deck trains will ever be operable into Euston?

And since putting this right later would be astonishingly expensive then you might as well respec all of HS2 to permanent classic gauge and abandon the entire idea of larger, higher capacity, trains.

All to save a paltry £3.7bn

So bore the fast line Primrose Hill tunnels out as well as suggested. It seems to me that it's HS2 who are putting forward the idea of creating a railway to UIC loading gauge yet buying "classic" trains for it.

 

[dggar]

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ss-hs2-alternative-would-save-37bn-lords-told





?

Can't see the link to the PDF plan,

 

[Martin222002]

It seems one of their assumptions is that Network Rail are planning to do nothing with the WCML half of Euston station.

Beyond the very first of HS2 Ltd plans for Euston have concentrated on only the part of the station they plan to use, which I think was a tactic to save money by deferring any costs of changes to the WCML / classic side of Euston to Network Rail.

 

[Gazimo]

The main thing which concerns me is how fast they think they can rebuild each bit of the station, at only 1.5 years to rebuild each section after the first and the first 3 sections to have to be done before 2026 would be a real pain.

The point I think is most hilarious though is the less disruption to WCML services when they are pulling the station apart around the services for stages 3 and 4

 

[NotATrainspott]

IIRC HS2 Ltd have already dismissed this proposal as fantasy by getting one of their engineering consultancies to look over it. I can't find the link but I seem to recall that one of the biggest issues that the promoters have glossed over is the transition between the rebored Primrose Hill tunnels and the deep bored tunnel to the OOC box. That transition has to happen somewhere, and just moving it along doesn't make it any cheaper or easier as the same difficulty is required in providing a portal, albeit now with the additional complexity of having to interface with the WCML infrastructure. Just as it was cheaper in some areas to extend and join together tunnels for the sake of not building two extra portals and having surface remediation work, it's easier for the Euston end of the tunnel to be as close as possible to the platforms at the station. Once you accept that the tunnel portal has to be south of Gloucester Avenue the HS2 proposal for Euston follows completely naturally.

 

[Nym]

Quite... Far too dependant on other things, and 1.5 years is far from realistic for each stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I bet these people didn't have a think about how the loading gauge could be affected before coming up with this.

Are they trying to make another slimline railway?!

I'm fully in support of the proposal having had a read. Making HS2 UIC gauge is fairly pointless, as only captive trains will be able to benefit, and the line may in practice never go past Birmingham, thus rendering them useful only for a shuttle service. Integrating it with the existing rail system, more like a Swiss or German NBS, is a far more sensible solution.

The one thing I'd change is that I wouldn't have "HS2 platforms" and "classic platforms" - a single integrated Euston would be a far better ideal even if operationally they were likely to end up used separately.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So it cuts the capacity of the line by something approaching 30% thanks to ensuring that no double deck trains will ever be operable into Euston?

Double-deck trains to UIC gauge are IMO pretty nasty anyway (only when you get to very large gauges like the USA are they any good). No great loss.

 

[HSTEd]

Double-deck trains to UIC gauge are IMO pretty nasty anyway (only when you get to very large gauges like the USA are they any good). No great loss.

I'm not so sure, it seems rather telling that SNCF has not ordered a single single-deck TGV trailer since the Duplex was first introduced.
The only reason the Japanese, the only other people with significant experience with double deck high speed trains, abandoned them is because the lines they were used on actually have problems with falling passenger numbers.

 

[Flying Snail]

I'm not so sure, it seems rather telling that SNCF has not ordered a single single-deck TGV trailer since the Duplex was first introduced.
The only reason the Japanese, the only other people with significant experience with double deck high speed trains, abandoned them is because the lines they were used on actually have problems with falling passenger numbers.

He didn't say they could weren't able to carry more people, just that they do not provide a pleasant place to be carried in.

The same goes for wider stock providing higher capacity, who the hell wants to be stuck in the middle of a 3 row bench?

 

[HSTEd]

The same goes for wider stock providing higher capacity, who the hell wants to be stuck in the middle of a 3 row bench?

Someone who would not be able to afford to travel otherwise?
The objective here, for economic and most importantly social reasons, should be to move as many people as possible so that the prices are as low as possible so that we generate as much additional demand as possible.

2+2 Double deck or 2+3 Single deck provide these opportunities.
This is a railway where the journey times on the captive trains is never longer than ~1hr25 and most will be much less. Even Manchester will only be ~1hr05.
We should not be looking at traditional intercity railways for inspiration on interiors or whatnot - because in journey time terms it is no longer one.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm not so sure, it seems rather telling that SNCF has not ordered a single single-deck TGV trailer since the Duplex was first introduced.

It is interesting that SNCF are the only major HS network with such a policy. Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan (now), China. All 100% single deck as far as I know.

The only reason the Japanese, the only other people with significant experience with double deck high speed trains, abandoned them is because the lines they were used on actually have problems with falling passenger numbers.

I understand mass long distance commuting on certain shorter Shinkansen route segments has reduced significantly due to long term property price stabilisation in the greater Tokyo area, meaning people can afford to live closer to their workplaces. The railway companies are also speeding up the network, and the double deckers were sluggish compared to the latest models. The network continues to expand at its extremities and they are concentrating on serving these longer distance markets.

 

[Trog]

Enlarging the fast lines tunnel at Primrose Hill might be a problem anyway, as any one who has walked through it will know that it is built with quite sharp reverse curves, and is basically an omega shape in plan. Allowance for end and centre throw on top of an enlarged structure gauge would make the required hole even larger. The curves appear to be so that the line of the tunnel runs down the line of one of the streets above rather than under the houses, you can at one point also feel and hear tube trains running below you. This may mean that there is not much room for a larger tunnel.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The one thing I'd change is that I wouldn't have "HS2 platforms" and "classic platforms" - a single integrated Euston would be a far better ideal even if operationally they were likely to end up used separately.

400m long high-capacity platforms are more important to HS2 than the loading gauge. It just so happens that the best way to provide said 400m long high-capacity platforms is to build them from scratch, whereupon there is no extra cost involved in building them to UIC GC gauge.

At Euston, the only way the predicted passenger numbers and flows could be accommodated is to build the new platforms as planned with three sets of escalators spaced evenly along them plus lifts and underground servicing. It's a similar story on the WCML side as the existing end-loaded platforms won't be able to cope with future passenger numbers, especially when they're going to be used for more suburban-style journeys with shorter turnaround times. In addition, there's no need for the WCML platforms to be 400m long as that's too long for the other stations on the line, while the curvature of the station site makes it impractical to add them anyway. As a consequence, the benefits of actually having a single unified station are slim to none. In the 2010 plans there were going to be two 400m UK-gauge platforms for shared use by classic-compatibles and the sleeper but these were dropped soon after.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am unconvinced that 400m platforms are actually needed. If we made all the Euston platforms the same length as, or a little longer than, the present longest ones, that would be more than adequate. I agree that mid-platform escalators would be the best way to serve them.

My view is that a capacity-relieving Neubaustrecke on the Swiss model is needed - to run Pendolinos and their successors on bypassing the south WCML - basically a 6th pair of tracks on a new formation and a bit of expansion for Euston. Not a vanity project.

(I accept that Curzon St is needed because expanding New St is infeasible, but were it feasible I would also propose that)

The model we need is much closer to DB's and SBB's models than SNCF's rather flawed one that few others have copied.

 

[edwin_m]

I am unconvinced that 400m platforms are actually needed. If we made all the Euston platforms the same length as, or a little longer than, the present longest ones, that would be more than adequate. I agree that mid-platform escalators would be the best way to serve them.

My view is that a capacity-relieving Neubaustrecke on the Swiss model is needed - to run Pendolinos and their successors on bypassing the south WCML - basically a 6th pair of tracks on a new formation and a bit of expansion for Euston. Not a vanity project.

(I accept that Curzon St is needed because expanding New St is infeasible, but were it feasible I would also propose that)

The model we need is much closer to DB's and SBB's models than SNCF's rather flawed one that few others have copied.

Congratulations, you have just halved the maximum capacity of HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Congratulations, you have just halved the maximum capacity of HS2.

And made it more affordable.

 

[edwin_m]

And made it more affordable.

You've not halved the price though.

 

[Trog]

I am unconvinced that 400m platforms are actually needed. If we made all the Euston platforms the same length as, or a little longer than, the present longest ones, that would be more than adequate. I agree that mid-platform escalators would be the best way to serve them.

My view is that a capacity-relieving Neubaustrecke on the Swiss model is needed - to run Pendolinos and their successors on bypassing the south WCML - basically a 6th pair of tracks on a new formation.

I am sorry but I don't understand your point if you don't think 400m platforms are required why are you suggesting that the existing platforms be made longer than the existing longest platform which is about 405m long?

If the new HS2 replacement pair of tracks is to be the sixth pair where are the fourth and fifth pairs of tracks going to go to?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've not halved the price though.

That doesn't matter, as long as it is cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am sorry but I don't understand your point if you don't think 400m platforms are required why are you suggesting that the existing platforms be made longer than the existing longest platform which is about 405m long?

Which platform is 405m long?

The majority of platforms don't need to be more than say 13x23m / 14x20m for a bit of future proofing - so about 300m.

If the new HS2 replacement pair of tracks is to be the sixth pair where are the fourth and fifth pairs of tracks going to go to?

Sorry, being thick. Third (mainline) pair (tracks 5 and 6).

 

[HSTEd]

That doesn't matter, as long as it is cheaper.

Then clearly this scheme is worse than the glorious one of just painting "HS2" on the platform signs of various existing stations and calling it at a day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then clearly this scheme is worse than the glorious one of just painting "HS2" on the platform signs of various existing stations and calling it at a day.

Not really.

In my view the case for HS2 is solely relieving the south WCML. Therefore, the cheapest solution that does relieve the south WCML is the better one.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the rest of it other than as a vanity project. The WCML north of Birmingham is not even nearly full, nor is the Trent Valley (and if it is it's time to resolve it by removing joke 4- and 5-car trains from it entirely with nothing running with fewer than 11/12 coaches). It's south of MKC where there is a problem.

 

[hwl]

Can't see the link to the PDF plan,

First link in the document:
http://lordsoftheblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/rh161012-euston-express-overall-ppt.pdf

 

[The Planner]

So what is the plan for when all this is being built? Schedule 4 will be astronomical as well as reducing the value of the west coast franchise as people dont travel which the Dft would soon be wringing their hands over. As for things not being required now, thats not the point, prove to me that the WCML north of Rugby isnt going to be full by 2043 which is the NR timescales for route studies?

 

[dggar]

First link in the document:
http://lordsoftheblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/rh161012-euston-express-overall-ppt.pdf

Thanks

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what is the plan for when all this is being built? Schedule 4 will be astronomical as well as reducing the value of the west coast franchise as people dont travel which the Dft would soon be wringing their hands over. As for things not being required now, thats not the point, prove to me that the WCML north of Rugby isnt going to be full by 2043 which is the NR timescales for route studies?

Long term I would expect technology to allow travel to reduce, not increase.

 

[Ianno87]

Long term I would expect technology to allow travel to reduce, not increase.

25-odd years of the internet, and that hasn't happened yet.
All it does is make people/businesses further apart connect with each other more easily, and thus make people want to travel to meet each other personally.

And Britain's population (and thus amount of population demanding to travel) will grow irrespective of technology.