HS2 London Terminus

[najaB]

In another thread, this was posted:

So, in my view, the crazy things about HS2 are that it goes to Euston rather than the south of the river and for example it goes to to the south of Manchester than the north. These are the places that could be "opened up" by faster services.

In a 'money is no object' world, would there be merit in running HS2 through London to a south terminus rather that Euston? I can't see the benefit, but that could just be a Scottish view that 'London is London'.

 

[Jordeh]

Quite simply no.

I'm fairly confident there's more people living and working north of the river.

 

[edwin_m]

Somewhere on the HS2 website should be an exhaustive study of options for locating the London terminus. I don't recall if any were south of the river but it's pretty obvious that those would have cost more with difficult tunnelling under central London. The only two possible sites would probably have been around Stewarts Lane and Bricklayers Arms, eiher of which is anywhere near any major London destination or even a tube station.

And difficult though rebuilding Euston is going to be, doing something similar to one of the southern termini would be far worse. As well as facing the wrong direction they are more cramped and probably more busy, and HS2 won't itself reduce the demand for classic service at a southern terminus as it does at Euston.

 

[najaB]

I'm fairly confident there's more people living and working north of the river.

Thanks. That's what I thought as well but I'm not really that au fait with The Smoke.

 

[deltic]

HS2 looked at 27 possible London locations for a station - interestingly only 3 were south of the Thames - Clapham Junc, Waterloo and Battersea Power Station as well as a location under the Thames itself.

 

[Phil.]

Make the whole of St. Pancras the HS2 terminal and move the present domestic trains to Euston. There. All high-speed connections in one place and minimal knocking down/building at Euston.
Well he did say money no object.

 

[najaB]

Make the whole of St. Pancras the HS2 terminal and move the present domestic trains to Euston. There. All high-speed connections in one place and minimal knocking down/building at Euston.
Well he did say money no object.

True. Though, still north of the river.

 

[Class 170101]

I wouldn't have bothered with a terminus. I think running underground from Old Oak through to HS1 at Stratford with an Underground Station(s) somewhere in Central London would have been better.

 

[najaB]

I wouldn't have bothered with a terminus. I think running underground from Old Oak through to HS1 at Stratford with an Underground Station(s) somewhere in Central London would have been better.

The trains need to turn around somewhere...

 

[swt_passenger]

I wouldn't have bothered with a terminus. I think running underground from Old Oak through to HS1 at Stratford with an Underground Station(s) somewhere in Central London would have been better.

That was pretty much the basis of the Euston Cross proposal, which was discounted on cost grounds, one of the many DfT 'alternatives' reports analyses it.

 

[dviner]

True. Though, still north of the river.

Then again, all the proposed destinations are also north of the river, so why add in the complication of an extra river crossing?

 

[najaB]

Then again, all the proposed destinations are also north of the river, so why add in the complication of an extra river crossing?

That's what I thought as well but billio seems convinced that it was crazy to terminate north of the river so wondered what I was missing.

 

[edwin_m]

The trains need to turn around somewhere...

The idea for Euston Cross was to build some sidings somewhere on a more rural part of HS1 where it would be relatively cheap and easy (at least compared with central London) where the trains could be serviced and wait for departure time, then swoop in to pick up passengers during a short dwell time at one of a small number of platforms in central London.

 

[gordonthemoron]

The idea for Euston Cross was to build some sidings somewhere on a more rural part of HS1 where it would be relatively cheap and easy (at least compared with central London) where the trains could be serviced and wait for departure time, then swoop in to pick up passengers during a short dwell time at one of a small number of platforms in central London.

They could have terminated them at Ashford

 

[billio]

That's what I thought as well but billio seems convinced that it was crazy to terminate north of the river so wondered what I was missing.

"Crazy" was a little excessive. To me, cost-benefit analyses just seem to end up enhancing an existing service/location rather than considering what might, in the long-term, be more beneficial development of services. Places south of the Thames and more generally in the South East are still "cut-off" from these high speed services. Running from Old Oak Common to Waterloo, London Bridge etc. would help prevent this. The same applies in North Manchester.

 

[Chester1]

"Crazy" was a little excessive. To me, cost-benefit analyses just seem to end up enhancing an existing service/location rather than considering what might, in the long-term, be more beneficial development of services. Places south of the Thames and more generally in the South East are still "cut-off" from these high speed services. Running from Old Oak Common to Waterloo, London Bridge etc. would help prevent this. The same applies in North Manchester.

North Manchester will be connected to HS2 through electrifying Manchester to Salford/Bolton/Wigan and Bury through the Metrolink. Rochdale and Oldham would currently require changing at Victoria but services into Piccadilly could introduced. Piccadilly is by far the best location for Manchesters HS2 station.

 

[edwin_m]

"Crazy" was a little excessive. To me, cost-benefit analyses just seem to end up enhancing an existing service/location rather than considering what might, in the long-term, be more beneficial development of services. Places south of the Thames and more generally in the South East are still "cut-off" from these high speed services. Running from Old Oak Common to Waterloo, London Bridge etc. would help prevent this. The same applies in North Manchester.

In a large city like London (or even Manchester) the station can never be within walking distance of everybody is going to or from. So the best choice is to put it somewhere as many people as possible can reach it easily - with the important constraint that it has to be buildable without excessive cost or disruption.

Euston has Underground lines radiating in six directions and the proposed integration of Euston Square adds three more (depending exactly how you count the junctions). Crossrail 2 if built will effectively put Euston on the Waterloo suburban network and other Southern services are accessible by a single Underground journey to London Bridge or Victoria. A travelator-type link to Kings Cross would add even more connectivity including Thameslink.

Running to Waterloo or London Bridge might give better connections southwards but only at the expense of those for other areas. The Tube links at either station are worse than Euston.

 

[ABB125]

Perhaps Old Oak Common station could be enlarged so there is space for high speed trains to reverse to Heathrow, or continue straight on to London and beyond.
HS2 could then go under London, and connect to HS1.

See the attached diagrams.

 

[deltic]

Perhaps Old Oak Common station could be enlarged so there is space for high speed trains to reverse to Heathrow, or continue straight on to London and beyond.
HS2 could then go under London, and connect to HS1.

See the attached diagrams.

Why do you want to go to Heathrow or connect with HS1? There is not a big enough market for either.

 

[Busaholic]

HS2 looked at 27 possible London locations for a station - interestingly only 3 were south of the Thames - Clapham Junc, Waterloo and Battersea Power Station as well as a location under the Thames itself.

I believe there's a rather obscure law that was rushed through Parliament 'on the nod' a few years ago, hours before a recess, whereby it's mandatory whenever a large project is mooted that Battersea Power Station must be named as a possible site - the only exception allowed is when there's talk of a new power station, as everyone agrees it would be a ridiculous idea to consider siting one in Battersea

 

[swt_passenger]

Why do you want to go to Heathrow or connect with HS1? There is not a big enough market for either.

Because that's the precise line taken by DfT and HS2 Ltd, so any random amateur transport planner will just know it is 100% wrong.

We do live in a time when everyone is an expert, after all...

 

[deltic]

Because that's the precise line taken by DfT and HS2 Ltd, so any random amateur transport planner will just know it is 100% wrong.

We do live in a time when everyone is an expert, after all...

It was the line taken by SofS for Transport based on no analysis and dropped as rapidly as possible by HS2 Ltd when it demonstrated that there was no market for either connection.

The HS1 link would have worked if domestic passengers were allowed to travel on international services.

 

[Deerfold]

The HS1 link would have worked if domestic passengers were allowed to travel on international services.

Probably, but we seem to be further from joining Schengen than ever...unless we agree to it as part of the Brexit negotiations.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably, but we seem to be further from joining Schengen than ever...unless we agree to it as part of the Brexit negotiations.

That's about as likely as a frequent service of pigs between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle.

 

[HowardGWR]

That's about as likely as a frequent service of pigs between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle.

I am sure we will join Schengen at some point, especially if we leave the EU first and then have to rejoin later, so the through connection possibility should be future-proofed, ready for the day we do.

 

[miami]

Money no object, so leave the terminus where it is, but redirect the river through a new drainage ditch 20 miles north. Think of the extra land freed in the middle of London!

 

[najaB]

Money no object, so leave the terminus where it is, but redirect the river through a new drainage ditch 20 miles north. Think of the extra land freed in the middle of London!

I like the way you think! Though, think of all the tourists who come to see Tower Bridge so you'd have to move that too.

 

[edwin_m]

I like the way you think! Though, think of all the tourists who come to see Tower Bridge so you'd have to move that too.

Wouldn't all the Londoners who don't want to live south of the river have to move to Luton?

 

[HSTEd]

Money no object, so leave the terminus where it is, but redirect the river through a new drainage ditch 20 miles north. Think of the extra land freed in the middle of London!

Nah, just pump it through the tideway.
And giant polders in the Estuary.
Double the size of London without touching anyone's precious gardens.

 

[tsangpogorge]

How will Euston Square be integrated with the mainline station?