HS2 construction updates

[swt_passenger]

There’s another court case reported in the Times this morning, apparently someone believes the boring of the Euston tunnels will cause damage to expensive houses near the massive retaining wall alongside Park Village East:
”The tunnel is due to run as little as 1.5m below a 15m retaining wall.”
I guess this is clutching at straws?

(article behind paywall)

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

I guess this is clutching at straws?

Or someone has more money than sense. I just hope it is their own money they are using. If any damage is caused, I am sure they will be adequately compensated for the inconvenience.

 

[swt_passenger]

Or someone has more money than sense. I just hope it is their own money they are using. If any damage is caused, I am sure they will be adequately compensated for the inconvenience.

...if there were problems anticipated, wasn’t the Hybrid Bill process the time to bring them up anyway? Packhams case seems to have failed mostly on the basis that he had already had his opportunities to object during the Parliamentary procedures...

 

[NotATrainspott]

It wouldn’t make any difference to development opportunities there, which are all very much limited by protected sight lines.

And, as stated previously, digging down several metres is ok on a brownfield site - but it’s altogether different when you are trying to run trains.

It would. The station is currently a big barrier to development in the area since it blocks people travelling east-west or north-south, and its frontages onto the streets are all pretty dead. That pulls down the value of the entire area and not just the station site. The new HS2 side will be much better even without massive multi-storey development on top since it will provide something like a pedestrianised street grid for shops and other facilities to locate in. Modern developments in dense urban areas are all about mixed-use and it being possible for shops, restaurants, bars and the like inside Euston to appeal to not only travellers but locals is a vital part of the regeneration plans for Camden.

I believe the current NR station will be left pretty much as-is under the current HS2 plans. It'll be able to benefit from the new HS2 facilities and concourse but nothing new is being built just for the NR side, because we want to leave our options open for developing it properly.

The NR side is going to need some drastic changes to handle future passenger demands and expectations. I think a halfway house outcome where we go through a lot of pain of redeveloping it, just to leave it blocking off routes through Camden, is less likely than either leaving it fester or going all the way and doing it properly. The main benefit of doing it properly is that you're unlikely then to ever need to fundamentally change it again. NR seem to be in the mood of getting major stations sorted 'for good' now (e.g. the plans for a complete reconstruction/re-roofing of Edinburgh Waverley rather than a few extra passenger bridges), rather than applying sticking plasters.

I was having an idea recently about this. The current situation is obviously encouraging lots of people to work from home and so not take up commuter demand. Once normality is allowed to return, I expect commuting demand will go back up again, but I think it will be different. Instead of having no choice but to commute 5 days a week, I think people will start doing a mix of office and WFH days. Different people will do different balances of working from home vs commuting. The key novelty is that employers, workers and the rail network will be able to handle more flexibility than before. Once you have a carnet system to allow efficient partial-week commuting, it seems plausible we could tweak that carnet system to flexibly increase or decrease commuting demand as appropriate. We could do this on a per-route level too. The idea would be to gently nudge someone working 4 days in the office, 1 day at home to go to 3:2; or for someone doing 3:2 to go to 2:3. Obviously there will be some people who have no choice but to commute every day, but I think a large number of commuters will have at least some flexibility to change. That flexibility could make it much more viable than in the past for there to be reduced commuter services into Euston for the durations of any works.

 

[hwl]

There’s another court case reported in the Times this morning, apparently someone believes the boring of the Euston tunnels will cause damage to expensive houses near the massive retaining wall alongside Park Village East:
”The tunnel is due to run as little as 1.5m below a 15m retaining wall.”
I guess this is clutching at straws?

(article behind paywall)

Just Lord B's friends having one last attempt (they tried in petitions and many other routes) hence Lord B's OOC terminus proposals...
Most of the houses there have poor foundations and the geology is poor and they have a disused canal in their back gardens (between them and the Barracks to the West) that is collapsing (no owner to sue and many have appropriated it for extra garden) so this could be the final straw for subsidence problems as the houses are at the top of a ridge between the ex-canal and railway cutting. The retaining wall on the railway side had to be sorted out ~110-115 years ago (1908? BaldRick or Planner will know better than I) when they played with the Euston throat last time in a very very big way.
Asking in court about the condition of the ex-canal and its impacts on subsidence would be "entertaining".

 

[The Planner]

It would. The station is currently a big barrier to development in the area since it blocks people travelling east-west or north-south, and its frontages onto the streets are all pretty dead. That pulls down the value of the entire area and not just the station site. The new HS2 side will be much better even without massive multi-storey development on top since it will provide something like a pedestrianised street grid for shops and other facilities to locate in. Modern developments in dense urban areas are all about mixed-use and it being possible for shops, restaurants, bars and the like inside Euston to appeal to not only travellers but locals is a vital part of the regeneration plans for Camden.

I believe the current NR station will be left pretty much as-is under the current HS2 plans. It'll be able to benefit from the new HS2 facilities and concourse but nothing new is being built just for the NR side, because we want to leave our options open for developing it properly.

The NR side is going to need some drastic changes to handle future passenger demands and expectations. I think a halfway house outcome where we go through a lot of pain of redeveloping it, just to leave it blocking off routes through Camden, is less likely than either leaving it fester or going all the way and doing it properly. The main benefit of doing it properly is that you're unlikely then to ever need to fundamentally change it again. NR seem to be in the mood of getting major stations sorted 'for good' now (e.g. the plans for a complete reconstruction/re-roofing of Edinburgh Waverley rather than a few extra passenger bridges), rather than applying sticking plasters.

I was having an idea recently about this. The current situation is obviously encouraging lots of people to work from home and so not take up commuter demand. Once normality is allowed to return, I expect commuting demand will go back up again, but I think it will be different. Instead of having no choice but to commute 5 days a week, I think people will start doing a mix of office and WFH days. Different people will do different balances of working from home vs commuting. The key novelty is that employers, workers and the rail network will be able to handle more flexibility than before. Once you have a carnet system to allow efficient partial-week commuting, it seems plausible we could tweak that carnet system to flexibly increase or decrease commuting demand as appropriate. We could do this on a per-route level too. The idea would be to gently nudge someone working 4 days in the office, 1 day at home to go to 3:2; or for someone doing 3:2 to go to 2:3. Obviously there will be some people who have no choice but to commute every day, but I think a large number of commuters will have at least some flexibility to change. That flexibility could make it much more viable than in the past for there to be reduced commuter services into Euston for the durations of any works.

Except the duration would be significant, not a matter of weekends or a few weeks. Even if you could do it safely with two tracks open (unlikely) then the capacity is decimated. You couldnt carry the quantity of people during the week and the leisure market would be dead as you would want all line blocks at weekends.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

There’s another court case reported in the Times this morning, apparently someone believes the boring of the Euston tunnels will cause damage to expensive houses near the massive retaining wall alongside Park Village East:
”The tunnel is due to run as little as 1.5m below a 15m retaining wall.”
I guess this is clutching at straws?

(article behind paywall)

This has been rumbling on for a while. The lady bringing the case is crowd-funding the endeavour, though she hasn't attracted anything like the amount Mr Packham has. The engineer she relies on to report that the HS2 work is going to collapse the PVE retaining wall is 50% of the team behind the HSUK "much better option than HS2" scheme.

IIRC their court date is May 20th 2020.

Here's the applicants crowd funding page - there's a few images and some commentary in it... https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/hs2accountability/

 

[si404]

50% of the team behind the HSUK "much better option than HS2" scheme.

I would say "how is this still a thing - HSUK made its argument and lost the debate" but I know that dead horses must be flogged and stable doors must be closed even after the living horse has left - especially when you've spent years trying to get your horse out the stable to keep the other horse in.

Where is the common sense in moving demand from the WCML slow services to the potentially more congested services on the Chiltern line or Thameslink at St Albans?

As a temporary thing for long term engineering works, it makes some sense - though Chiltern would need to be provided with a lot more rolling stock!

I remember a decent amount of people used to drive from places near Berkhamsted and Tring to Amersham (now with 1000+ car park, rather than the 500+ one back then) during the 00s. Though I think that was more to do with fares, rather than the perennial disruption due to the WCML upgrade. Traffic congestion in Chesham meant that trend died down.

Of course, the solution proposed in the early 00s was to extend Crossrail to Tring or MK to create the flexibility at Euston for the rebuild - but that died about when the plans for Euston rebuild were changed to be less radical on the existing station and the proposal's already weak case went.

 

[mr_jrt]

I mean in an ideal world the ideal opportunity to redevelop the WCML side of Euston would require a load of surplus terminal capacity. You'd probably have to build a new station the same size as Euston next to it and then reroute traffic temporarily into it whilst you rebuilt the old platforms. If only we had that...

Seriously though, if they push on getting the HS2 station at Euston ready ASAP then surely, even with the most horrible tempoary alignments possible it would be possible to route all the WCML traffic into the new HS2 platforms for a year or two whilst the old station was torn down and rebuilt, which would minimise WCML disruption massively.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I mean in an ideal world the ideal opportunity to redevelop the WCML side of Euston would require a load of surplus terminal capacity. You'd probably have to build a new station the same size as Euston next to it and then reroute traffic temporarily into it whilst you rebuilt the old platforms. If only we had that...

Seriously though, if they push on getting the HS2 station at Euston ready ASAP then surely, even with the most horrible tempoary alignments possible it would be possible to route all the WCML traffic into the new HS2 platforms for a year or two whilst the old station was torn down and rebuilt, which would minimise WCML disruption massively.

I don't think HS2 Ltd are willing to do that any more. I'm not entirely up to speed on the HS2 station throat design but I understand they're trying to push it as far underground as possible to reduce impacts on the NR side and the surrounding area. The lower the HS2 station, the more you would need to move the WCML side just to make use of a temporary set of platforms. Then you can't hand back the platforms to HS2 until the NR works are done, even though getting those HS2 services running might be a pre-requisite for some of the NR works! E.g. it might only be feasible to dump a load of normally WCML commuters on the MML once Phase 2b is open.

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s another court case reported in the Times this morning, apparently someone believes the boring of the Euston tunnels will cause damage to expensive houses near the massive retaining wall alongside Park Village East:
”The tunnel is due to run as little as 1.5m below a 15m retaining wall.”
I guess this is clutching at straws?

(article behind paywall)

The Euston remodelling done in late 90s / 2000 there was a load of trouble from the residents there as well. Some very well heeled people, including (back then) the country’s foremost planning law barrister. There were a couple of very testy public meetings, one of which was akin to a Stalinesque show trial.

It would. The station is currently a big barrier to development in the area since it blocks people travelling east-west or north-south, and its frontages onto the streets are all pretty dead. That pulls down the value of the entire area and not just the station site. The new HS2 side will be much better even without massive multi-storey development on top since it will provide something like a pedestrianised street grid for shops and other facilities to locate in. Modern developments in dense urban areas are all about mixed-use and it being possible for shops, restaurants, bars and the like inside Euston to appeal to not only travellers but locals is a vital part of the regeneration plans for Camden.

I believe the current NR station will be left pretty much as-is under the current HS2 plans. It'll be able to benefit from the new HS2 facilities and concourse but nothing new is being built just for the NR side, because we want to leave our options open for developing it properly.

The NR side is going to need some drastic changes to handle future passenger demands and expectations. I think a halfway house outcome where we go through a lot of pain of redeveloping it, just to leave it blocking off routes through Camden, is less likely than either leaving it fester or going all the way and doing it properly. The main benefit of doing it properly is that you're unlikely then to ever need to fundamentally change it again. NR seem to be in the mood of getting major stations sorted 'for good' now (e.g. the plans for a complete reconstruction/re-roofing of Edinburgh Waverley rather than a few extra passenger bridges), rather than applying sticking plasters.

I was having an idea recently about this. The current situation is obviously encouraging lots of people to work from home and so not take up commuter demand. Once normality is allowed to return, I expect commuting demand will go back up again, but I think it will be different. Instead of having no choice but to commute 5 days a week, I think people will start doing a mix of office and WFH days. Different people will do different balances of working from home vs commuting. The key novelty is that employers, workers and the rail network will be able to handle more flexibility than before. Once you have a carnet system to allow efficient partial-week commuting, it seems plausible we could tweak that carnet system to flexibly increase or decrease commuting demand as appropriate. We could do this on a per-route level too. The idea would be to gently nudge someone working 4 days in the office, 1 day at home to go to 3:2; or for someone doing 3:2 to go to 2:3. Obviously there will be some people who have no choice but to commute every day, but I think a large number of commuters will have at least some flexibility to change. That flexibility could make it much more viable than in the past for there to be reduced commuter services into Euston for the durations of any works.

Simply, this is all conjecture. The redevelopment of the classic side of Euston will allow permeability from east to west. Simply because it isn’t all at one level doesn’t make it impossible (or even difficult) to create through routes for people to conduct their business. There’s plenty of examples of mixed level development in London where this has been done, not least Liverpool Street.

Except the duration would be significant, not a matter of weekends or a few weeks. Even if you could do it safely with two tracks open (unlikely) then the capacity is decimated. You couldnt carry the quantity of people during the week and the leisure market would be dead as you would want all line blocks at weekends.

Exactly. If the existing Euston was to be ‘dug out’ - even if that were possible (the Northern line and future Crossrail 2 ticket hall are in the way) - it would need need the whole lot shut for about 2 or 3 years, or possibly done in two halves over 3-5 years.

 

[Chester1]

Is the plan to open HS2 from Old Oak Common in 2028 and the HS2 part of Euston in 2031? Which services are likely to start from Old Oak Common in 2028? If its 6tph maximum then I would guess that would be 2tph Birmingham, 2tph Manchester, 1tph Liverpool and 1tph Glasgow? That would give everyone who uses Avanti services now the choice of HS2 to Old Oak Common or a conventional service to Euston.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Simply, this is all conjecture. The redevelopment of the classic side of Euston will allow permeability from east to west. Simply because it isn’t all at one level doesn’t make it impossible (or even difficult) to create through routes for people to conduct their business. There’s plenty of examples of mixed level development in London where this has been done, not least Liverpool Street.

The fact that we have rolled back from even a minimal upgrade of the NR side, even along the lines of the one in the 2014 Hybrid Bill with a new frontage across the entire width of the station, suggests to me that the government doesn't want to do a small development. It's been years since it was announced that the NR side would be left completely untouched without us hearing a peep about the sort of smaller-scale development you think is likely. Such a redevelopment might be cheaper but with the property value uplift suggestion in the Oakervee report it might also not lead to as much money coming in. Indeed, it seems the Oakervee conclusions on Euston revolve around the need to get Euston done properly with a single project management across HS2 and NR sides. I don't think it'd talk as much about value uplift if a larger and more value-uplifting development weren't intended.

If you leave the tracks where they are, then you leave the area compromised forever. You can try to hide it but you can't help but notice a minimum half-storey level difference on Eversholt Street. It's the sort of thing which wouldn't matter so much if the station were going to have a massive over-site development deck but if an architectural roof and more traditional development heights are planned, then it'll look a bit odd.

Exactly. If the existing Euston was to be ‘dug out’ - even if that were possible (the Northern line and future Crossrail 2 ticket hall are in the way) - it would need need the whole lot shut for about 2 or 3 years, or possibly done in two halves over 3-5 years.

We're only talking about getting to an end state similar to the one proposed in the original 2010 planning docs for HS2. The Northern line ticket hall was considered at that point too, and CR2 will be far deeper. It's only about a 2-3 metre height difference.

5 years sounds about right for a rebuild in two halves. The more streamlined the service can become, the fewer platforms we will need, so the more that can be done at the same time.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the plan to open HS2 from Old Oak Common in 2028 and the HS2 part of Euston in 2031? Which services are likely to start from Old Oak Common in 2028? If its 6tph maximum then I would guess that would be 2tph Birmingham, 2tph Manchester, 1tph Liverpool and 1tph Glasgow? That would give everyone who uses Avanti services now the choice of HS2 to Old Oak Common or a conventional service to Euston.

Not sure it will be 2028, but the logical thing to do would be to have the first services captive to HS2, ie to / from Curzon St only, at least for the first year. Then perhaps extend on to Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland at a suitable timetable change date.

 

[Bald Rick]

The fact that we have rolled back from even a minimal upgrade of the NR side, even along the lines of the one in the 2014 Hybrid Bill with a new frontage across the entire width of the station, suggests to me that the government doesn't want to do a small development. It's been years since it was announced that the NR side would be left completely untouched without us hearing a peep about the sort of smaller-scale development you think is likely. Such a redevelopment might be cheaper but with the property value uplift suggestion in the Oakervee report it might also not lead to as much money coming in. Indeed, it seems the Oakervee conclusions on Euston revolve around the need to get Euston done properly with a single project management across HS2 and NR sides. I don't think it'd talk as much about value uplift if a larger and more value-uplifting development weren't intended.

If you leave the tracks where they are, then you leave the area compromised forever. You can try to hide it but you can't help but notice a minimum half-storey level difference on Eversholt Street. It's the sort of thing which wouldn't matter so much if the station were going to have a massive over-site development deck but if an architectural roof and more traditional development heights are planned, then it'll look a bit odd.



We're only talking about getting to an end state similar to the one proposed in the original 2010 planning docs for HS2. The Northern line ticket hall was considered at that point too, and CR2 will be far deeper. It's only about a 2-3 metre height difference.

5 years sounds about right for a rebuild in two halves. The more streamlined the service can become, the fewer platforms we will need, so the more that can be done at the same time.

I’m really sorry, but this simply doesn’t make sense. Disrupting existing Euston passengers for half a decade, and spending hundreds of millions (possibly billions) more, simply to avoid a level change in the property development above the station? It’s not going to happen.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder that this thread is about HS2 Construction.

While we welcome people posting their own ideas and suggestions on this forum, they do need to be in the correct forum section please.

@NotATrainspott - can you please post your idea as a new thread in the relevant forum section ( Speculative ideas ) so it can be discussed further as it is not on topic for this thread.

Thanks

 

[HowardGWR]

HS2 was supposed to go 'live' in 2026 originally. I am not aware of any particular delays encountered during initial design work, such as withholding funds to design teams, so why now the two year delay?

 

[Ianno87]

HS2 was supposed to go 'live' in 2026 originally. I am not aware of any particular delays encountered during initial design work, such as withholding funds to design teams, so why now the two year delay?

Recommended following the experience from Crossrail. Basically extra time being factored in now for commissioning and testing of railway systems, signalling, that sort of thing.

 

[edwin_m]

I think also there has been political dithering and the go-ahead has been later than originally assumed.

 

[The Planner]

Notice to proceed was alao meant to be a lot earlier than it was too, plus Oakavee etc.

 

[Starmill]

I'm really confused as to why there's any proposed benefit in having all of the platforms on the same level?

Surely there are serious, important things that will come out of the post-HS2 London Euston that do not have anything to do with that? My main concerns for example are around improved London Underground access, and off-street Euston Square connection.

 

[Roast Veg]

I think the panic among forum members is that there won't be any chance of a mainline connection if Euston is split level, but I'm not sure why that might be an issue.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

HS2 was supposed to go 'live' in 2026 originally. I am not aware of any particular delays encountered during initial design work, such as withholding funds to design teams, so why now the two year delay?

The main contracts for Phase 1 have only just been let after the recent financial go-ahead.
The government didn't like the way the contracts were negotiated (detailed in Okervee), and may still be subject to change, now that the project has formal approval.
The railway side of the contract (track, signalling, OHLE) is still to be let, also the contracts for station construction in Birmingham.
Now they have the get-go, the contractors might be able to optimise the timescale going forward, and Phase 2a can also be added to the mix.
But there's still construction disruption in the offing, not least the current Covid-19 impact.
Rolling stock is still up in the air too, with the Alstom-Bombardier proposed merger complicating things.
2028 was the date proposed by the project review by the HS2 Chairman (Allan Cook) in his Stocktake report last year.
It's 3 years since the Royal Assent to the HS2 bill (23 Feb 2017).

 

[Bald Rick]

HS2 was supposed to go 'live' in 2026 originally. I am not aware of any particular delays encountered during initial design work, such as withholding funds to design teams, so why now the two year delay?

There have been delays, almost entirely political (including through the consents process). To meet 2026, Construction should have started in 2018.

 

[miami]

When will the TBMs start digging various tunnels?

 

[59CosG95]

When will the TBMs start digging various tunnels?

No idea yet, but believe me, the various railway and construction news sites will be shouting about it to the high heavens when they do begin.

 

[Elecman]

When will the TBMs start digging various tunnels?

I would have thought at least 12 months away as the TBMs have to be ordered and constructed, delivered and erected

 

[Ianno87]

I'm really confused as to why there's any proposed benefit in having all of the platforms on the same level?

Surely there are serious, important things that will come out of the post-HS2 London Euston that do not have anything to do with that? My main concerns for example are around improved London Underground access, and off-street Euston Square connection.

Most HS2 passengers won't be changing from HS2 to the classic WCML passengers to head back north. The vast majority will be street or tube-bound.

One thing a level station might solve is being able to walk directly towards St Pancras from the HS2 platforms (from a concourse above the platforms) rather than having to effectively walk around the WCML platform buffer stops. Very nice and speeds the interchange to Eurostar, Thameslink etc., but comes at quite a considerable financial and disruption cost.

I think the panic among forum members is that there won't be any chance of a mainline connection if Euston is split level, but I'm not sure why that might be an issue.

It's the sort of connection that might get used maybe 5 or 6 times over the entire course of its existence. Not worth designing the rest of infrastructure intended for something like 30/40-odd trains per hour around.

 

[The Ham]

There's still calls for the start of construction to be delayed:

Ministers urged to halt work on HS2 until financial impact of coronavirus revealed

Ministers have been urged to halt construction of HS2 until the full extent of the damage to the UK's economy caused by coronavirus is known.

www.expressandstar.com

The problem is some of the arguments are a bit weak:

It said that forecasts on the number of intercity rail passengers were now "lower than the historical growth" seen over the past 25 years, and also said that it was "not possible to say" whether coronavirus would have a lasting impact on travel patterns that would further devalue the project.

There's two problems with the complaint about growth rate. To understand this we need to look at how rail has grown over the last 10 years:


That puts annual growth at 4.3% per year, now this compares with the latest expected growth rate of 1.9%, so yes the expected growth rate is much lower than the historical level.

However that's only partly true.

If we look at where growth should have been if it been on target (which was based on 2.5% per year) then we'd be at +28%.

Therefore if we consider that passenger use in 2009 was a base figure of 100 then the expected passenger numbers in 2019 would have been 128 when they were actually recorded at being at 153. Therefore even at 1.9% growth (and actually the last year's worth of data showed that growth was better than the two years prior to that) then that's an extra 2.9 passengers, this compares with 3.2 passengers compared to what should have been achieved with 2.5% growth.

However even that's not quite the full story, add the works which have been given the go ahead are phases 1 & 2a. Compared to the baseline these have reached 175, therefore 1.9% growth is 3.3 extra passengers.

As such the actual numbers of passengers would rise faster if they achieved the 1.9% growth rate following the actual growth seen compared to if it had just achieved 2.5% growth.

The other thing to consider is that at the opening of Phase 1, phase 1 flows needed to grow to 150 when compared to the 2009 baseline of 100. Given that they've reached 175 that means that passenger numbers could fall by 15% from the 2019 numbers and still be on target.

Now whilst it's possible that we could see rail growth fall in the short term, it's also likely that (due to working from home) there would be fewer cars as it would be harder to justify their ownership when they are being used less. Therefore there's likely to be an increase in occasional rail travel, which is likely to benefit HS2 passenger numbers.

Therefore, in addition to the economic benefit of infrastructure spending has at such times, there's a fairly good case for HS2 to be built. If there isn't them passenger numbers isn't the thing to use, when the historic growth had been so high that we could see a fairly sizable fall and still be on target for the opening of Phase 1.

 

[swt_passenger]

That local rag article is a copy of one I read in the middle of last week, it even quotes Richard Wellings‘ usual rubbish - he’s been in a huff ever since Evergreen 3 was approved...