HS1 to HS2 link - possible in the future?

[najaB]

The HS1/HS2 link in Camden was in/out/maybe for ages before being dropped. Does anyone know if any provision has been made in the HS2 design to make it easier to implement the link in a future where it's seen as a good thing?

(Wasn't sure if this should go in the speculative ideas sub-forum since it concerns an project that's under construction...)

 

[swt_passenger]

The HS1/HS2 link in Camden was in/out/maybe for ages before being dropped. Does anyone know if any provision has been made in the HS2 design to make it easier to implement the link in a future where it's seen as a good thing?

(Wasn't sure if this should go in the speculative ideas sub-forum since it concerns an project that's under construction...)

I think the only significant issue is whether the design of the east end of the Old Oak Common station box retains the space between the two tunnel portals for the additional single track tunnel portal for the HS 1 Link. Last time I looked for this (a couple of years ago) it wasn’t that clear from the online drawings if the space was still there. I think if it actually is allowed for at that position that’s possibly all that is needed for future proofing.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

I don't recall the "main" OOC-Euston tunnel alignments changing when the HS1/HS2 link got deleted (IIRC the link tunnel ran inbetween the mains until roughly Primrose Hill,) though this was the plans for the Act of Parliament rather than the detailed design.

I suspect of greater significance is that once OOC is operating, there won't be anywhere there to put a TBM in the ground at OOC, service the spoil coming out, the ring segments going it, etc. etc. so one suspects there's no passive provision for an OOC-Camden link at all.

I think it's safe to say a "short" HS1/2 link from OOC-Camden is gone for a generation (or at least, what remains of my lifetime.)

Of course, the engineers mantra is that "give us enough time and money and we can do anything" so one can never say never, but it seems unlikely to be resurrected to me. (Also, LGV and HS2 also use different signalling, (TVM Vs ECTS) but that would seem a simpler "fix" in the trainsets and driver training.)

 

[najaB]

I suspect of greater significance is that once OOC is operating, there won't be anywhere there to put a TBM in the ground at OOC, service the spoil coming out, the ring segments going it, etc. etc. so one suspects there's no passive provision for an OOC-Camden link at all.

Would the tunnel drive necessarily have to start at the Old Oak Common end? In theory it could start from anywhere there was room to sink a shaft.

 

[edwin_m]

Would the tunnel drive necessarily have to start at the Old Oak Common end? In theory it could start from anywhere there was room to sink a shaft.

There needs to be enough space to assemble the TBM, unless an alternative tunneling method was used which would cost a lot more for anything other than a very short tunnel. Crossrail did this underground at the Limmo Peninsula but I think they needed a big shaft to lower the TBM in pieces and to excavate a cavern for the assembly process. There's a picture at the link below that gives some idea of the shaft size - note also that the peninsula wasn't built on at the time so there was space for site activity.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construc...eastern-tunnels-limmo-peninsula-to-farringdon

 

[quantinghome]

I suspect any HS1 link, if done at all, would be done in conjunction with a future North-South line from the East Midlands to London.

 

[Ianno87]

I suspect any HS1 link, if done at all, would be done in conjunction with a future North-South line from the East Midlands to London.

I think, if it was going to be done, it would be something big an 'strategic'; a Paris-style interconnection line looping in Airports along the way.

But yes, very costly, and very very far in the future if it ever were to happen. And would probably need a second London>North High Speed line to free up the necessary paths for services on HS2 itself.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, LGV and HS2 also use different signalling, (TVM Vs ECTS) but that would seem a simpler "fix" in the trainsets and driver training.)

HS1 and LGV Nord both have TVM430.

More recent LGVs, starting with LGV EST-Européenne, are equipped with ETCS level 2. LGV Sud-EST is about to be resignalled with it.

I suspect of greater significance is that once OOC is operating, there won't be anywhere there to put a TBM in the ground at OOC, service the spoil coming out, the ring segments going it, etc. etc. so one suspects there's no passive provision for an OOC-Camden link at all.

Spot on. How you build things is a key component of where you build it.

I think, if it was going to be done, it would be something big an 'strategic'; a Paris-style interconnection line looping in Airports along the way.

Agreed. But it’s a very very long way away, and would rely on a need for much closer links between the U.K. and near Europe.

 

[najaB]

Agreed. But it’s a very very long way away, and would rely on a need for much closer links between the U.K. and near Europe.

Oh, I don't doubt that it's a long way off. I was just curious if it had been actively designed out of the project.

 

[adamedwards]

A travelator from Euston to St Pancras is probably the easiest fix for now.

 

[Bald Rick]

A travelator from Euston to St Pancras is probably the easiest fix for now.

It isn’t. There stuff in the way, lots. The only place we’re a subterreanean link can go is along the route of the safeguarded Crossrail 2 route, which squeezes between the (very deep) basements of the library and the Francis Crick institute.

 

[ptreanor]

HS2 and LGV Nord both have TVM430.

More recent LGVs, starting with LGV EST-Européenne, are equipped with ETCS level 2. LGV Sud-EST is about to be resignalled with it.



Spot on. How you build things is a key component of where you build it.



Agreed. But it’s a very very long way away, and would rely on a need for much closer links between the U.K. and near Europe.

HS2 and LGV Nord both have TVM430.

More recent LGVs, starting with LGV EST-Européenne, are equipped with ETCS level 2. LGV Sud-EST is about to be resignalled with it.



Spot on. How you build things is a key component of where you build it.



Agreed. But it’s a very very long way away, and would rely on a need for much closer links between the U.K. and near Europe.

I presume your reference to HS2 being equipped with TVM43O meant to say HS1. HS2 will be equipped with ETCS L2.

 

[najaB]

It isn’t. There stuff in the way, lots. The only place we’re a subterreanean link can go...

There's nothing which mandates that a travelator has to be underground...

 

[adamedwards]

I was imagining a bridge type structure along the alignment of Brill Place (which is where the Livingstone tram would have gone), linking the first floor of the new Euston into St Pancras at the Midland concourse, with lifts and stairs down to Thameslink and the Eurostar entrance. That would be cheaper than a tunnel. But I suspect this need filing under speculative projects.

 

[Bald Rick]

I presume your reference to HS2 being equipped with TVM43O meant to say HS1. HS2 will be equipped with ETCS L2.

Oops yes, HS1. Autocorrect, honest Now corrected manually.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's nothing which mandates that a travelator has to be underground...

I was imagining a bridge type structure along the alignment of Brill Place (which is where the Livingstone tram would have gone), linking the first floor of the new Euston into St Pancras at the Midland concourse, with lifts and stairs down to Thameslink and the Eurostar entrance. That would be cheaper than a tunnel. But I suspect this need filing under speculative projects.

No chance of an elevated structure. Lots of residential down there.

 

[najaB]

No chance of an elevated structure. Lots of residential down there.

Where there's a will (and some £££) there's a way.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where there's a will (and some £££) there's a way.

But, as ever, to gain consent for such a scheme, you have to demonstrate you have properly considered alternatives, and taken into account the views of people affected. And then demonstrate, that if the views of people affected are contrary to the proposal, that the public benefit of that proposal outweighs the extra cost etc of the alternatives that would mitigate the objections.

I’d suggest that as an alternative is to dig a tunnel, the cost of which wouldn’t be that much more than an elevated structure capable of carrying two travelators, that a tunnel would win every time.

 

[MarkyT]

No chance of an elevated structure. Lots of residential down there.

I think you're right. An elevated link, travelator or APM, would be overlooking 2nd floor residential windows most of the way and blocking much light from the streets below. One solution might be to incorporate something WITHIN the Crossrail 2 station construction, but an alternative would be a dramatically improved surface pedestrian link. That might need some demolition to create a wide attractive pedestrian walkway between the existing buildings. High pedestrian priority at road crossings would also be desirable. the busiest Eversholt Street and Midland Road might be crossed in short subway links built as part of the twin Crossrail2 station entrances, with 'shared space' techniques at the intermediate minor roads to avoid interchanging travellers on foot having to wait for traffic signals.

 

[Ianno87]

I think you're right. An elevated link, travelator or APM, would be overlooking 2nd floor residential windows most of the way and blocking much light from the streets below. One solution might be to incorporate something WITHIN the Crossrail 2 station construction, but an alternative would be a dramatically improved surface pedestrian link. That might need some demolition to create a wide attractive pedestrian walkway between the existing buildings. High pedestrian priority at road crossings would also be desirable. the busiest Eversholt Street and Midland Road might be crossed in short subway links built as part of the twin Crossrail2 station entrances, with 'shared space' techniques at the intermediate minor roads to avoid interchanging travellers on foot having to wait for traffic signals.

Even having an exit from Euston that pointed towards St Pancras would be an inprovement in itself on the current arrangement.

Should the flats around the Somers Town Coffee House ever come up for redevelopment (they look badly in need of it to my eyes), there'd a be a decent opportunity to stick in a pedestrian through route at the same time.

 

[najaB]

I’d suggest that as an alternative is to dig a tunnel, the cost of which wouldn’t be that much more than an elevated structure capable of carrying two travelators, that a tunnel would win every time.

I agree, if not for the fact that there's no room for a tunnel that isn't prohibitively expensive.

I think you're right. An elevated link, travelator or APM, would be overlooking 2nd floor residential windows most of the way and blocking much light from the streets below

By the straight line route, yes. But why does it have to go by the straight line route? What about a covered elevated walkway/travelator that goes over the existing pedestrian route?

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree, if not for the fact that there's no room for a tunnel that isn't prohibitively expensive.By the straight line route, yes. But why does it have to go by the straight line route? What about a covered elevated walkway/travelator that goes over the existing pedestrian route?

A structure that could accommodate twin travelators and a central walkway, like you get at airports, needs a cross section with a minimum width of about 7 metres and a height of 5 metres. That’s almost the width of a whole street, and a two storey building high, on top of the clearance needed above street level.

 

[najaB]

A structure that could accommodate twin travelators and a central walkway, like you get at airports, needs a cross section with a minimum width of about 7 metres and a height of 5 metres. That’s almost the width of a whole street, and a two storey building high, on top of the clearance needed above street level.

Again, just pointing out that there's a difference between impossible and very difficult. If there's enough money...

 

[Ianno87]

Again, just pointing out that there's a difference between impossible and very difficult. If there's enough money...

Also a bit of an assumption that people will actually want to use an elevated structure (as it involves conciously going 'Up' to join it). And an elevated structure risks creating a stagnant/unpleasant environment underneath it, which does the local area no favours.

 

[najaB]

Also a bit of an assumption that people will actually want to use an elevated structure (as it involves conciously going 'Up' to join it).

If it's accessed via ramps that start and end in the concourse of the main station it would be a natural path to take.

And an elevated structure risks creating a stagnant/unpleasant environment underneath it, which does the local area no favours.

Again, nothing that sufficient application of money can't fix:

(Images show pilot project to light and landscape the space underneath the New York elevated railway and Toronto's plan to construct an urban park underneath their elevated highway)

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

Maybe what's needed is a bunch if self driving electric pods that can shuttle along the bus lanes on the Euston road.

Or perhaps some very clear signs in the stations on where to catch the bus between them - I guess that wouldn't bust the bank!

 

[Bald Rick]

Again, just pointing out that there's a difference between impossible and very difficult. If there's enough money...

I understand that, all I’m saying is that building a tunnel would be less very difficult.

Unless the whole area is redeveloped, but then some of the residential properties on Phoenix Road and Chalton St are listed.

 

[MarkyT]

Also a bit of an assumption that people will actually want to use an elevated structure (as it involves conciously going 'Up' to join it). And an elevated structure risks creating a stagnant/unpleasant environment underneath it, which does the local area no favours.

If the facility was tied in well with the stations at both ends, the level difference need not be a major impediment to its use. There a walkway at Gatwick Airport between the North Terminal and Pier 6 that has clearance for a taxiway beneath, although to be fair there's no ground level alternative (for the public at least) in that case!

https://www.macegroup.com/projects/gatwick-bridge

In an urban environment, any kind of link must be politically acceptable to the local and wider community as well as economically viable.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the facility was tied in well with the stations at both ends, the level difference need not be a major impediment to its use. There a walkway at Gatwick Airport between the North Terminal and Pier 6 that has clearance for a taxiway beneath, although to be fair there's no ground level alternative (for the public at least) in that case!

https://www.macegroup.com/projects/gatwick-bridge

In an urban environment, any kind of link must be politically acceptable to the local and wider community as well as economically viable.

There’s some big escalators up to that bridge at Gatwick, and it’s a long walk! But as you say, if you are on a plane going to or from one of those gates, you have to go that way.

Realistically, the only chance of a covered link between Euston and St Pancras is if the Somers Town area is rebuilt. The link via Crossrail 2 will be a long way, and no doubt on the paid side of the barriers.

 

[najaB]

I understand that, all I’m saying is that building a tunnel would be less very difficult.

Thanks for my new favourite saying: "Doing x would be less very difficult."