Fantasy: If there was only one London terminal/mainline station

[Mikey C]

Good shout. Problem of course with a "super station" in that particular location is that it's still some distance from there to other key areas in London, such as the Square Mile (business area), the shopping and various tourist locations, Westminster and Whitehall, the River Thames, etc.; although I suppose that some businesses and shops could always have relocated had it been essential to be in near proximity to Euston Road.

If 150 years ago London's sole rail terminus had been on the Euston Road, I suspect that London would look very different now, with far more economic activity centred around the station, rather than the Square Mile or River

 

[Purple Orange]

Is Leeds now the biggest place with one station for the city centre? (Please don't @ me with "Westminster isn't in the City of London" etc)

There are only a few large cities that don’t have more than one station in the centre. It’s only Leeds & Bristol (and Sheffield & Nottingham if you count the tram networks).

 

[geordieblue]

There are only a few large cities that don’t have more than one station in the centre. It’s only Leeds & Bristol (and Sheffield & Nottingham if you count the tram networks).

And arguably Bristol's isn't really in the centre anyway! The other one worth mentioning is Newcastle, although that has the Metro (which is used for most local journeys).

 

[telstarbox]

And Sheffield's city centre is small enough for one station really - even though it's off to one side.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The opportunity to create a single London terminus passed many years ago.

Probably around the time Brunel built a terminus at Paddington rather than extend to Euston. The nearest thing is now the Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras complex which has connections to Kent with HS1 and on paper to the west if the HS2 Old Oak Common link allowed trains onto the line to Reading and beyond. Thameslink gives connections to South London and destinations south of the Thames. There used to be St Pancras - Tilbury boat trains, so there used to be a link to Essex and presumably East Anglia.

 

[Purple Orange]

And arguably Bristol's isn't really in the centre anyway! The other one worth mentioning is Newcastle, although that has the Metro (which is used for most local journeys).

I suppose if Newcastle is being included by not considering the Metro, Liverpool would be included too. I know Merseyrail is technically a part of the national rail network, but it is as separate as the London Underground, the T&W Metro or even the tram networks.

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

I have always thought it would be far better if all the mainlines to London joined in one big hub. People say it would be too complicated and take too long to navigate, but it would be less complicated and be far quicker than the current situation of travelling between various stations on the underground. It is just that we are used to that.

Rather than combining it into one station though, I would have about 10 stations along the same street neighbouring each other, perhaps even under the same roof. These could be called “London West”, “London Northwest“, ”London North”, etc, depending on where the trains went. Each would have its own entrance and exit to keep passenger flows simpler. Essentially it would be one station, but considered separate operationally and from a signage/passenger flow point of view. Good signage and a fast way to travel into, out of, and around the station would obviously be key, but you’d expect it to be state of the art, being the main London station.

It would make travelling within and across London so much easier for both long distance and commuting travel. All of London’s transport would be designed around it, so almost all journeys would need only one change, and no underground etc.

If it were designed from scratch (not that London was ever really “designed”) then I suppose it would be in a central location, with the lines heading directly towards it. If it had to be built now, the easiest way would probably be for HS2 to pick up the GWML and WCML at Old Oak Common, the MML to pick up the Chiltern around West Hampstead, and HS1 to pick up the GEML around Stratford, and take them all to Kings Cross St Pancras area. Then the SWML to pick up the BML at Clapham Junction, and run them on to join Thameslink somewhere around Waterloo. Dig a big tunnel and follow the Thameslink route to join it all up. The station could either be around the current St Pancras area, or by the Thames.

But by this point, it might be easier to build a station somewhere in the countryside, and move London around it instead.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I suppose if Newcastle is being included by not considering the Metro, Liverpool would be included too.

That's the fault of Beeching inspired rationalisation. In the Victorian era having a single station was the exception rather than the rule with many towns and cities having competing companies. Bristol had both the GWR and Midland, but they shared Temple Meads. The smaller city of Bath had two stations.

 

[PeterC]

Thinking a little more about this a central station would, as I previously said, have required government invervention at the very start of the railway boom. This would probably have provided capacity for 20 or 30 years but as traffic, and London, expanded the various companies would probably have stopped their longer distance services short at new platforms on the Euston Road or South Bank.

Any idea of imposing a central station after about 1870, if not earlier, would have been a total non starter.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What was/were the key historic reason(s) for the Victorian terminus stations, to the most part, not reaching further into Central London?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The station could either be around the current St Pancras area, or by the Thames.

if you had a major station in the Euston area, the size of Central London would suggest that stations at Kensington, City of London and Victoria/West End would also be desirable. How well this worked might be function of whether the mega station was a terminus or had through services.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

if you had a major station in the Euston area, the size of Central London would suggest that stations at Kensington, City of London and Victoria/West End would also be desirable.

Which is perhaps the 'reductio ad absurdum' of the initial premise of this thread.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

What was/were the key historic reason(s) for the Victorian terminus stations, to the most part, not reaching further into Central London?

Victorian Nimbys were a factor. There was also a partial ban on tram lines, so there were only a limited number of routes crossing Central London from north to south or east to west.

It occurs to me that quadrupling the Circle could have given scope for lots of cross London services given the number of connections between the sub surface lines and the main line Companies. Connections to the south are limited though. It's not going to work from a pollution viewpoint unless all the services are electrified.

 

[MotCO]

It occurs to me that quadrupling the Circle could have given scope for lots of cross London services given the number of connections between the sub surface lines and the main line Companies. Connections to the south are limited though. It's not going to work from a pollution viewpoint unless all the services are electrified.

An alternative would be to let all trains coming into London join the circle, do a lap, then go back out on the lines they entered London on. Thus trains would go Dover to Victoria, loop round via Paddington, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc., and back out to Dover via Victoria. Or Leeds to Kings Cross, round the circle via Liverpool Street, Victoria and Paddington, and back out to Leeds via Kings Cross. It may need more than four lines, and you would possibly need two-way working as well.

 

[Scotrail314209]

If we were going to be consolidating everything into one station, wouldn't it be a contender to get rid of services to Cannon Street first, and maybe terminate them at London Bridge or Charing Cross, wasn't Cannon Street previously closed on Sundays?

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

An alternative would be to let all trains coming into London join the circle, do a lap, then go back out on the lines they entered London on. Thus trains would go Dover to Victoria, loop round via Paddington, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc., and back out to Dover via Victoria. Or Leeds to Kings Cross, round the circle via Liverpool Street, Victoria and Paddington, and back out to Leeds via Kings Cross. It may need more than four lines, and you would possibly need two-way working as well.

That’s an interesting idea! Totally impractical, and even if all the infrastructure was designed for it, it would still be an operational nightmare, but an interesting idea nonetheless and not without its merits. Imagine going from Sloane Square to Gloucester Road and your train could be going to any of Bristol, Inverness, Ipswich or Shepperton.

 

[Bald Rick]

What was/were the key historic reason(s) for the Victorian terminus stations, to the most part, not reaching further into Central London?

Because there were buildings in the way. Where they terminated was typically the edge of the built up area.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Because there were buildings in the way. Where they terminated was typically the edge of the built up area.

Probably relatively expensive ones, unlike, presumably, those in the Camden area.

 

[coppercapped]

Obviously the reason we have so many terminals today is a result of history, when the Victorian railway companies attempted to compete against each other and make interchanging between lines as difficult as possible.

The railways radiating from London served different parts of the country and so did not — except at the margins — compete with each other.

If I remember my railway history correctly the Government of the day did not want the railway companies to build separate stations in the centre of London (as it was around 1835) to avoid the confusion of demolition and building works and to avoid large numbers of smoking steam locomotives congregating in a small area. In any event purchasing largish areas of already built up central London was outside the budget of the fledgling railways.

Then in 1846 a Royal Commission investigation into Metropolitan Railway Termini banned construction of new lines or stations in the built-up central area, essentially inside a line defined by the New Road — now the Euston Road — the City and the Thames. There were obviously some exceptions such as the two stations at Victoria, but the London and Southampton Railway built its first terminus at Nine Elms, south of the river.

The intention was to come up with plans for all the railways to share a central London station — but as we all know this never happened. Then in 1863 the steam operated Metropolitan Railway was built under the Euston Road right along the edge of the forbidden zone and by the time it was electrified its extensions eventually connected most of the termini together.

In any event the need for one central station in London is questionable. London is so very much bigger than many of the cities in Europe[1] that the problems of getting the flows of people to one central destination outweigh any theoretical advantages of easy interconnection. Dispersal is by far the best solution.

So the answer to your question is unknown - and has been for some 180 years. It is unlikely to be answered now!

[1] Paris has a population of some 2 million within the Boulevard Péripherique and some 10 million in 'Greater Paris' and has 6 major termini. Berlin has a population of 3.7 million - roughly a third of London's.

 

[MotCO]

That’s an interesting idea! Totally impractical, and even if all the infrastructure was designed for it, it would still be an operational nightmare, but an interesting idea nonetheless and not without its merits. Imagine going from Sloane Square to Gloucester Road and your train could be going to any of Bristol, Inverness, Ipswich or Shepperton.

I wouldn't fancy being a signaller on the circle!

 

[Mikey C]

That's the fault of Beeching inspired rationalisation. In the Victorian era having a single station was the exception rather than the rule with many towns and cities having competing companies. Bristol had both the GWR and Midland, but they shared Temple Meads. The smaller city of Bath had two stations.

It was hardly a plus point for the consumer having duplicated stations. For example, while you can make a case for keeping more of the Great Central open, the likes of Leicester and Nottingham etc hardly benefited by having 2 separate stations rather than one better one.

 

[telstarbox]

If we were going to be consolidating everything into one station, wouldn't it be a contender to get rid of services to Cannon Street first, and maybe terminate them at London Bridge or Charing Cross, wasn't Cannon Street previously closed on Sundays?

It was but then things got busy around Thameslink so the Greenwich and New Cross lines were diverted there permanently even at weekends.

Cannon Street has 7 platforms but only 3 platforms through London Bridge so you'd need a lot fewer services per hour.

 

[EastisECML]

If StP, KX, Euston land was available for a station - it makes more sense to change its axis to east-west for a through station. With 12 tracks to Old Oak/Willesden which split to connect to the GWML, WCML and HS2 and a couple of tracks connect pretty much from the station throat to the Chiltern line at Swiss Cottage with an additional link onto the MML at West Hampstead. Further connections link the GWML to the SWML via Heathrow.

On the Eastern end links to the ECML and West Anglia line with a new tunnel via Cannonbury, Stratford via the NLL (connecting to LTS as well) and HS1.

Waterloo could become a through station being 'knocked through' to connect the South Western lines to Bridge and back out to the South East.

 

[charley_17/7]

In a parallel universe where perhaps Thatcher hadn't won in 1983, the UK joined Schengen, NSE/BR hadn't been privatised....

CTRL/Thameslink 2000 would have been constructed as a joint scheme, far sooner.

Crossrail would be a regional scheme, rather than London centric.

Chel-ney/Crossrail 2 would be underway, rather than still waiting for the go-ahead.

Still find it hilarious that one of the former greatest cities in the world still has a railway system structured on its Victorian past, totally unfit for the future.

 

[EastisECML]

In a parallel universe where perhaps Thatcher hadn't won in 1983, the UK joined Schengen, NSE/BR hadn't been privatised....

CTRL/Thameslink 2000 would have been constructed as a joint scheme, far sooner.

Just reminded me of the original plans for the CTRL which would have roughly followed Thameslink? Useful for onward Eurostar journeys. HS1 as it is today perhaps could have been the route for a freight line connecting Wembley to Dagenham, the Channel Tunnel and various ports. As well as routing inter city services from Anglia into St Pancras if the CTRL trains were going into a lower level station.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know this is speculative ideas, but most comments seem to miss the sheer scale and distribution of economic activity in London.

The approach seems to be that having one station would in some way be better for passengers. I agree it would be better for those passengers who currently come in on one line, cross London by tube / bus / bike / foot / taxi and then leave from another - but what proportion of passengers arriving at a London terminus do that? I bet it’s not more than 5%.

The other 95% would therefore have to find their way from London Hbf to their central London destination. That implies ea very significant onward travel system (a lot of new tubes for example) and the resulting inconvenience for passengers who work walking distance from their current station. Alternatively, it implies a very different pattern of land use, with Manhattan / Hong Kong density of development for a mile or so around the Hbf. In this respect it is important to remember that the City of London was a major centre (the major centre) for international commerce, banking and insurance well over a century before the first steam railway opened in London, and hasn’t moved since.

 

[telstarbox]

Very true and it wouldn't do any favours to those who have built a life in Ilford or West Wickham and depend on getting into the City easily. What the future City looks like is another story...

Also the main trade unions have their offices around the Euston Road - is that because lots of them had traditional strength in the north and it was easy for reps to get the train down?

 

[Tester]

An alternative would be to let all trains coming into London join the circle, do a lap, then go back out on the lines they entered London on. Thus trains would go Dover to Victoria, loop round via Paddington, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc., and back out to Dover via Victoria. Or Leeds to Kings Cross, round the circle via Liverpool Street, Victoria and Paddington, and back out to Leeds via Kings Cross. It may need more than four lines, and you would possibly need two-way working as well.

I'm a bit late to the party, but this is exactly what happens in Melbourne, Australia. On a much smaller scale than London would be of course, but operationally quite fascinating and well worth studying. Four separate, bi-directional single line loops. See...

City Loop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The signalling plan is quite something!

 

[MotCO]

I'm a bit late to the party, but this is exactly what happens in Melbourne, Australia. On a much smaller scale than London would be of course, but operationally quite fascinating and well worth studying. Four separate, bi-directional single line loops. See...

City Loop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The signalling plan is quite something!

Thinking about it, it is a bit like the Croydon Tramlink system, where the line from New Addington circles the town centre and returns to New Addington.

 

[Bevan Price]

And arguably Bristol's isn't really in the centre anyway! The other one worth mentioning is Newcastle, although that has the Metro (which is used for most local journeys).

And the Midland had a separate terminal station at Bristol St. Phillips, built as an overflow as there was then insufficient room at Temple Meads.
See:

Bristol St Philip's railway station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org