What happens if HS2 Euston proves to be unbuildable?

[Trainbike46]

It's an infinitely preferable option over what was floated before, namely building a 6 or 7 platform station in a way that it can't easily be expanded to 10/11 platforms

now if they reuse the original 11 platform design, so that they can get started, rather than creating further delays by doing a new design from scratch, that'd be even better

 

[ABB125]

Lewisham flyover

Out of interest, what is the detail behind this? It's not something I've come across before (but I'm not from London!)

 

[chris2]

now if they reuse the original 11 platform design, so that they can get started, rather than creating further delays by doing a new design from scratch, that'd be even better

Well that would be something…knock 4 platforms off stage 1, stick em into stage 2. Job done.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, what is the detail behind this? It's not something I've come across before (but I'm not from London!)

original bridge collapsed following a nasty collision there (SPAD) in 1957 which took out the bridge itself. Temporary bridge installed to get services moving. Still there nearly 66 years later.

 

[ABB125]

T

original bridge collapsed following a nasty collision there (SPAD) in 1957 which took out the bridge itself. Temporary bridge installed to get services moving. Still there nearly 66 years later.

Thanks

 

[JSBark]

Do whats needed for it to use Crossrail as a through London service, put a spur southbound at Farringdon.

Make all services run “beyond” London, to Norwich, Dover, Brighton, Southampton etc.

It could replace GA long haul for instance, and some Thameslink routes.

reduces the need to change and cross London for passengers, and spreads the changes across multiple existing stations, rather than one central

Reinstating the link from OOC to HS1 could surely provide part of an answer and help with both international and cross London connectivity? If say 6 of the 18tph went OOC - Stratford - Ebbsfleet - Ashford, it would be possible to reduce Euston’s footprint (could be combined with outer suburban WCML being diverted to Elizabeth Line etc).

This would make the case for reintroducing an Ashford stop on international services, allowing Ashford to become the interchange for most non-London international passengers. It could also help address the constraint on growth at St Pancras that increased post -Brexit processing time has caused, while at the same time building the demand needed for an expanded range of Continental destinations through the CT.

I think plenty of London bound passengers on HS2 would be happy with OOC and Stratford (provided an improved connection to the Regional station is incorporated). Also Kent folk would surely appreciate better links to Heathrow and points north and west?

 

[zwk500]

Reinstating the link from OOC to HS1 could surely provide part of an answer and help with both international and cross London connectivity?

There's nothing to reinstate. The link was dropped early on and the design doesn't accomodate it.

If say 6 of the 18tph went OOC - Stratford - Ebbsfleet - Ashford, it would be possible to reduce Euston’s footprint (could be combined with outer suburban WCML being diverted to Elizabeth Line etc).

How do you divert outer suburban WCML trains to the Elizabeth Line? Ashford would need rebuilding the platforms to take HS2 trains (either lengthening existing domestic platforms or rebuild the international ones to the right height). It'd also not serve central London, which is where people tend to want to go.

This would make the case for reintroducing an Ashford stop on international services, allowing Ashford to become the interchange for most non-London international passengers. It could also help address the constraint on growth at St Pancras that increased post -Brexit processing time has caused, while at the same time building the demand needed for an expanded range of Continental destinations through the CT.

If you're turning 6tph at Ashford you don't have much space for international calls, even if you could manage the security dimension.

I think plenty of London bound passengers on HS2 would be happy with OOC and Stratford (provided an improved connection to the Regional station is incorporated). Also Kent folk would surely appreciate better links to Heathrow and points north and west?

'plenty' might but plenty more would be very miffed to have no option but to use the Elizabeth line to access Central London. Kent folk already have access to the Elizabeth line at Stratford and Abbey Wood, while the connectivity from Euston to St Pancras will be far more beneficial than whatever you might be able to jam through Ebbsfleet.

 

[Chester1]

I think plenty of London bound passengers on HS2 would be happy with OOC and Stratford (provided an improved connection to the Regional station is incorporated). Also Kent folk would surely appreciate better links to Heathrow and points north and west?

The official estimate for OOC is that on completion of line to Euston, only one third of passengers would use OOC. Statford would be useful for some people but a huge chunk of people would be disadvantaged by a lack of a central London terminal. There are also significant capacity issues with Crossrail if a huge proportion of HS2 passengers use it.

 

[JSBark]

My suggestion was that Euston’s footprint and therefore cost might be reduced by sending say a third of HS2’s 18tph on to HS1. Anyone wanting Euston on those trains could hop out at OOC and board the next Euston bound service - likely to be less than a 5 min wait - with capacity on train from alighting passengers. Of course, this could only work if there is enough spare capacity on HS1, which I understand can go to 16tph.

I think perhaps the bigger point is that there’s room to improve HS2 to align it with changing strategic priorities as well as manage its cost. Greatly improved international rail connectivity seems to me to be a near certain long term requirement as part of a serious climate plan.

 

[Trainbike46]

My suggestion was that Euston’s footprint and therefore cost might be reduced by sending say a third of HS2’s 18tph on to HS1. Anyone wanting Euston on those trains could hop out at OOC and board the next Euston bound service - likely to be less than a 5 min wait - with capacity on train from alighting passengers. Of course, this could only work if there is enough spare capacity on HS1, which I understand can go to 16tph.

I think perhaps the bigger point is that there’s room to improve HS2 to align it with changing strategic priorities as well as manage its cost. Greatly improved international rail connectivity seems to me to be a near certain long term requirement as part of a serious climate plan.

Just to check, are you thinking of the HS2 services as extra services on HS1, or to replace the existing HS1 domestic services?

 

[JSBark]

There's nothing to reinstate. The link was dropped early on and the design doesn't accomodate it.

How do you divert outer suburban WCML trains to the Elizabeth Line? Ashford would need rebuilding the platforms to take HS2 trains (either lengthening existing domestic platforms or rebuild the international ones to the right height). It'd also not serve central London, which is where people tend to want to go.

If you're turning 6tph at Ashford you don't have much space for international calls, even if you could manage the security dimension.

'plenty' might but plenty more would be very miffed to have no option but to use the Elizabeth line to access Central London. Kent folk already have access to the Elizabeth line at Stratford and Abbey Wood, while the connectivity from Euston to St Pancras will be far more beneficial than whatever you might be able to jam through

 

[zwk500]

My suggestion was that Euston’s footprint and therefore cost might be reduced by sending say a third of HS2’s 18tph on to HS1. Anyone wanting Euston on those trains could hop out at OOC and board the next Euston bound service - likely to be less than a 5 min wait - with capacity on train from alighting passengers. Of course, this could only work if there is enough spare capacity on HS1, which I understand can go to 16tph.

It can also only work if there's a physical set of rails between HS1 and HS2, which there isn't. A train leaving Birmingham Curzon Street heading south has no junction to exit HS2.

I think perhaps the bigger point is that there’s room to improve HS2 to align it with changing strategic priorities as well as manage its cost. Greatly improved international rail connectivity seems to me to be a near certain long term requirement as part of a serious climate plan.

In the scheme of things international rail is a very small part of the pie. HS2 is well aligned to the strategic priority of relieving the M1 and M6 by essentially adding a set of extra-fast lines to the WCML. Serious ICE stuff goes to HS2, IC Regional stuff goes to the fast lines, leaving stopping commuter and freight to share the slows. Lorries and cars removed from the motorway network, maybe a few internal flights removed from the air so that Airport capacity can focus on international connectivity which is a better trade off for climate vs economy.

Regearing HS2 to trying to run Birmingham/Manchester to Paris would be a total waste of the opportunity afforded by HS2 as that carbon is tiny.

 

[JSBark]

There's nothing to reinstate. The link was dropped early on and the design doesn't accomodate it.

How do you divert outer suburban WCML trains to the Elizabeth Line? Ashford would need rebuilding the platforms to take HS2 trains (either lengthening existing domestic platforms or rebuild the international ones to the right height). It'd also not serve central London, which is where people tend to want to go.

I wasn’t suggesting any of this could be accomplished without significant investment. The question is surely whether this could be achieved within a smaller overall HS2 budget. Also,

If you're turning 6tph at Ashford you don't have much space for international calls, even if you could manage the security dimension.

'plenty' might but plenty more would be very miffed to have no option but to use the Elizabeth line to access Central London. Kent folk already have access to the Elizabeth line at Stratford and Abbey Wood, while the connectivity from Euston to St Pancras will be far more beneficial than whatever you might be able to jam through Ebbsfleet.

I’m not suggesting Ashford loses its existing services to central London. My point is really that there may be an opportunity to address the Euston problem in a way that addresses some other priorities, namely improving international rail connectivity for the mass of the population north and west of London. It could also allow more international trains to start from St Pancras without having to rebuild the constrained facilities there. Of course, making Ashford into a national interchange facility would require investment but it’s a much easier / cheaper site to work with than a central London terminus.

It can also only work if there's a physical set of rails between HS1 and HS2, which there isn't. A train leaving Birmingham Curzon Street heading south has no junction to exit HS2.

In the scheme of things international rail is a very small part of the pie. HS2 is well aligned to the strategic priority of relieving the M1 and M6 by essentially adding a set of extra-fast lines to the WCML. Serious ICE stuff goes to HS2, IC Regional stuff goes to the fast lines, leaving stopping commuter and freight to share the slows. Lorries and cars removed from the motorway network, maybe a few internal flights removed from the air so that Airport capacity can focus on international connectivity which is a better trade off for climate vs economy.

Regearing HS2 to trying to run Birmingham/Manchester to Paris would be a total waste of the opportunity afforded by HS2 as that carbon is tiny.

I agree with your summary of the strategic rationale of HS2. However I’m suggesting a very partial / minor ‘regearing’. 12 tph would serve OOC and Euston and 6tph would serve OOC, Stratford, Ebbsfleet , Ashford etc. HS2 would surely still be effective in meeting those strategically important domestic priorities you mention?

 

[zwk500]

I wasn’t suggesting any of this could be accomplished without significant investment. The question is surely whether this could be achieved within a smaller overall HS2 budget.

The answer to that is a very resounding no. You're talking about tearing up a plan that's already been half-built and then redesigning a totally new scheme from scratch.

I’m not suggesting Ashford loses its existing services to central London. My point is really that there may be an opportunity to address the Euston problem in a way that addresses some other priorities, namely improving international rail connectivity for the mass of the population north and west of London. It could also allow more international trains to start from St Pancras without having to rebuild the constrained facilities there. Of course, making Ashford into a national interchange facility would require investment but it’s a much easier / cheaper site to work with than a central London terminus.

International Rail connectivity for the population North and West of London is far, far better served by giving them the easiest access to St Pancras. Which is by running trains as close as possible. Given the British Library's on one side and King's Cross on the Other, Euston is about as close to St Pancras as is physically possible to build a new station.

I agree with your summary of the strategic rationale of HS2. However I’m suggesting a very partial / minor ‘regearing’. 12 tph would serve OOC and Euston and 6tph would serve OOC, Stratford, Ebbsfleet , Ashford etc.

No, you're suggesting a complete reconfiguration of the line. There's no provision for a link from HS2 to HS1, nor is there any design or permission for it. Whereas at Euston there are already some very large holes ready for the new station.

HS2 would surely still be effective in meeting those strategically important domestic priorities you mention?

I fail to see how making HS2 more susceptible to delay is beneficial to either international or domestic passengers when running everything into Euston delivers more capacity with less risk of delay for both.

Remember a vast amount of the cost to build Euston is committed. You cannot simply walk away from it, or even half of it, now to build a completely new and undesigned line. I would be astonished if the all-in cost (investigative, legal, planning, design, procurement and building/installation) of a HS1-HS2 link now was any less than even the fanciest Euston design.

I apologise if some of this is fairly direct and brutal but you are presenting a HS1-HS2 link as something rather simple in the scheme of things, and it really, really isn't.

 

[JSBark]

Just to check, are you thinking of the HS2 services as extra services on HS1, or to replace the existing HS1 domestic services?

I’m conscious that HS1 has its capacity limits so I might look at running fewer domestic trains into St Pancras outside the peak (but ensuring plenty of capacity by lengthening them if necessary). It might involve some people from onward Kent locations having to make a same /cross platform interchange at one of the intermediate stations for St Pancras. Not ideal but I think the overall benefit of utilising otherwise wasted HS1 / CT capacity makes it a compromise worth considering?

The answer to that is a very resounding no. You're talking about tearing up a plan that's already been half-built and then redesigning a totally new scheme from scratch.

International Rail connectivity for the population North and West of London is far, far better served by giving them the easiest access to St Pancras. Which is by running trains as close as possible. Given the British Library's on one side and King's Cross on the Other, Euston is about as close to St Pancras as is physically possible to build a new station.

No, you're suggesting a complete reconfiguration of the line. There's no provision for a link from HS2 to HS1, nor is there any design or permission for it. Whereas at Euston there are already some very large holes ready for the new station.

I fail to see how making HS2 more susceptible to delay is beneficial to either international or domestic passengers when running everything into Euston delivers more capacity with less risk of delay for both.

Remember a vast amount of the cost to build Euston is committed. You cannot simply walk away from it, or even half of it, now to build a completely new and undesigned line. I would be astonished if the all-in cost (investigative, legal, planning, design, procurement and building/installation) of a HS1-HS2 link now was any less than even the fanciest Euston design.

I apologise if some of this is fairly direct and brutal but you are presenting a HS1-HS2 link as something rather simple in the scheme of things, and it really, really isn't.

No problem with directness. I don’t mean to make an HS1-HS2 link sound simple. Clearly it isn’t. It’s obviously a highly speculative discussion. However I have always thought not linking the two lines is a major conceptual defect. On importing unreliability, yes, you have a point but HS1 is an extremely reliable railway.

I do understand that Euston - St Pancras - King’s Cross represents a uniquely well connected location - but I suggest that to unlock its full potential as a single high quality transport hub will require some airport style people moving capability between the west side of St Pancras and Euston.

 

[JSBark]

It can also only work if there's a physical set of rails between HS1 and HS2, which there isn't. A train leaving Birmingham Curzon Street heading south has no junction to exit HS2.

In the scheme of things international rail is a very small part of the pie. HS2 is well aligned to the strategic priority of relieving the M1 and M6 by essentially adding a set of extra-fast lines to the WCML. Serious ICE stuff goes to HS2, IC Regional stuff goes to the fast lines, leaving stopping commuter and freight to share the slows. Lorries and cars removed from the motorway network, maybe a few internal flights removed from the air so that Airport capacity can focus on international connectivity which is a better trade off for climate vs economy.

Regearing HS2 to trying to run Birmingham/Manchester to Paris would be a total waste of the opportunity afforded by HS2 as that carbon is tiny.

To be clear I wasn’t suggesting running through international trains on HS2. The thought was to rebalance the use of its capacity, while still serving London. Still, happy to concede it’s probably impracticable at this point in time - but perhaps something like this might come into play in the undesirable scenario that the politicians give in to the anti-HS2 populists and thwart the realisation of the existing project.

 

[zwk500]

To be clear I wasn’t suggesting running through international trains on HS2. The thought was to rebalance the use of its capacity, while still serving London.

The most efficient use of HS2's capacity is to send everything though to Euston and spend a 6-figure sum tarting up Phoenix Road (the road between Euston and St Pancras).

Still, happy to concede it’s probably impracticable at this point in time - but perhaps something like this might come into play in the undesirable scenario that the politicians give in to the anti-HS2 populists and thwart the realisation of the existing project.

If Anti-HS2 populists win the argument why on earth would the government start up a different HS Rail project? No, if anti-HS2 arguments win out it's OOC and that's that.

 

[AM9]

I wasn’t suggesting any of this could be accomplished without significant investment. The question is surely whether this could be achieved within a smaller overall HS2 budget. Also,

I’m not suggesting Ashford loses its existing services to central London. My point is really that there may be an opportunity to address the Euston problem in a way that addresses some other priorities, namely improving international rail connectivity for the mass of the population north and west of London. It could also allow more international trains to start from St Pancras without having to rebuild the constrained facilities there. Of course, making Ashford into a national interchange facility would require investment but it’s a much easier / cheaper site to work with than a central London terminus.


I agree with your summary of the strategic rationale of HS2. However I’m suggesting a very partial / minor ‘regearing’. 12 tph would serve OOC and Euston and 6tph would serve OOC, Stratford, Ebbsfleet , Ashford etc. HS2 would surely still be effective in meeting those strategically important domestic priorities you mention?

The additional cost of HS2 rolling stock alone would be considerable compared with the minimal benefit to passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue the best option if the programme was really truncated to OOC permanently would be to adopt a metro-style operating regime that could pack as many trains as possible into OOC, even if the "direct train" design concept had to be abandoned.

You'd still sell a lot of tickets if you offered tube-grade frequencies to Birmingham with onward connections.

 

[SynthD]

A metro style operating regime isn’t compatible with the tunnel evacuation limits that will be maintained by reservation only booking. What is direct trains in this context?

 

[HSTEd]

A metro style operating regime isn’t compatible with the tunnel evacuation limits that will be maintained by reservation only booking.

If the tunnel evacuation limits have been set to the seating capacity of the trains that would be hilariously short sighted even by the woeful standards of HS2. For one thing it would mean that train capacity can never climb, ever.

Furthermore, reservation only booking is highly unlikely to be sufficient to permit safety passenger counts to be set so low.
You would need an actual process to ensure noone without a booking is aboard the train, which with trains travelling from far beyond the core system will be almost impossible. Including a means to force surplus passengers to disembark the train.

By far the simplest way to meet the evacuation criteria is to design the system to cope with a train at crush loading. Which is how every other domestic rail tunnel in UK history has been designed.

What is direct trains in this context?

Anything beyond the actual high speed track

 

[chris2]

I’ve just done a two week family holiday using interrail to travel across Europe to Scandinavia and back. We chose rail because it felt more adventurous and to be more climate conscious in our travel.

Obviously there’s no direct train from my home city to Sweden, so we embraced the fact you have to have lots of connections and built a holiday around that, with mini breaks in different cities.

Had I just wanted to go to Sweden directly and not cared about my emissions so much, I would have chosen to fly. That’s not so much because of what happens in London, but more the fact you have to go Brussels, then Köln, then Hamburg, then Fredericia, then København, etc etc.

When we think of the UK high speed system and the lack of connection between HS1 and HS2 we imagine that this will be a fatal flaw in its ability to compete with flying.

My feeling is that if you’re comparing the two methods, then this lack of connection is perhaps less of a flaw than others further afield - even if you joined these two railways up, what about the next node in Paris? Or if the train terminates in Brussels, Amsterdam etc?

It might eventually make sense to create a physical connection, but the way it works right now is that you travel slowish to the main hub, then fast to the next hub, then continue going fast, until the final hub, then slow again to your destination.

As such, design measures to make Euston feel like part of the same hub as St Pancras (eg clear signage, a dedicated walking route / travelator etc) would be enough.

What I think we should focus on instead is the range of connectivity options available from St Pancras - it would be more impactful if there was a much greater diversity of destinations available from here, rather than trying to create direct links from other cities in the UK just to Paris / Brussels.

Imagine if from St Pancras you can travel to…
Paris
Brussels
Amsterdam
Hamburg
Berlin
Munich
Marseille
Barcelona
Madrid
(or further by sleeper)

With that list of destinations available from St Pancras, you’d probably be happy to arrive at Euston and then make a short hop, knowing that your main train is going to take you a long way.

Most foreign holidays tend to start with a long drive across the UK and then a few of hours waiting for your main transport whether it be ferry or flight. If St Pancras offered real direct connectivity to Europe then I would say that would really open up rail’s competitiveness with European flights.

 

[zwk500]

However I have always thought not linking the two lines is a major conceptual defect.

IIRC there was a study that suggested it should be built, as a 2-track classic speed option, and it was in early drafts but was dropped fairly quickly. The problem with it is that you couldn't leave the connection until a later point - because of how OOC will be built, it's either dig now or forever hold your peace. So, inevitably, when budgets started falling behind costs the HS1 link (which was always problematic from a 'what shall we use it for' POV due to the border requirements) was axed and OOC redesigned to optimise the route to Euston.

I do understand that Euston - St Pancras - King’s Cross represents a uniquely well connected location - but I suggest that to unlock its full potential as a single high quality transport hub will require some airport style people moving capability between the west side of St Pancras and Euston.

I don't think it does, just an actually attractive walking route and a decent side entrance to Euston. Euston to St Pancras is a shade over 500m. If you gave people a flat, well lit, pedestrianised route the overwhelming majority of people could do it quicker on foot than waiting for a shuttle. You could even arrange for the station golf buggies to assist anybody not able to do it - there wouldn't be that many.

With that list of destinations available from St Pancras, you’d probably be happy to arrive at Euston and then make a short hop, knowing that your main train is going to take you a long way.

The place Eurostar could really do with serving is Frankfurt, because from there you really can make good inroads into central and eastern Europe. Marseilles would be nice as well for Southern European connections, but we aren't going to see anything like your list of destinations without a major change of policy from the Home Office.


But we've gone monumentally off-track now. Apologies to the mods.

 

[JSBark]

I’ve just done a two week family holiday using interrail to travel across Europe to Scandinavia and back. We chose rail because it felt more adventurous and to be more climate conscious in our travel.

Obviously there’s no direct train from my home city to Sweden, so we embraced the fact you have to have lots of connections and built a holiday around that, with mini breaks in different cities.

Had I just wanted to go to Sweden directly and not cared about my emissions so much, I would have chosen to fly. That’s not so much because of what happens in London, but more the fact you have to go Brussels, then Köln, then Hamburg, then Fredericia, then København, etc etc.

When we think of the UK high speed system and the lack of connection between HS1 and HS2 we imagine that this will be a fatal flaw in its ability to compete with flying.

My feeling is that if you’re comparing the two methods, then this lack of connection is perhaps less of a flaw than others further afield - even if you joined these two railways up, what about the next node in Paris? Or if the train terminates in Brussels, Amsterdam etc?

It might eventually make sense to create a physical connection, but the way it works right now is that you travel slowish to the main hub, then fast to the next hub, then continue going fast, until the final hub, then slow again to your destination.

As such, design measures to make Euston feel like part of the same hub as St Pancras (eg clear signage, a dedicated walking route / travelator etc) would be enough.

What I think we should focus on instead is the range of connectivity options available from St Pancras - it would be more impactful if there was a much greater diversity of destinations available from here, rather than trying to create direct links from other cities in the UK just to Paris / Brussels.

Imagine if from St Pancras you can travel to…
Paris
Brussels
Amsterdam
Hamburg
Berlin
Munich
Marseille
Barcelona
Madrid
(or further by sleeper)

With that list of destinations available from St Pancras, you’d probably be happy to arrive at Euston and then make a short hop, knowing that your main train is going to take you a long way.

Most foreign holidays tend to start with a long drive across the UK and then a few of hours waiting for your main transport whether it be ferry or flight. If St Pancras offered real direct connectivity to Europe then I would say that would really open up rail’s competitiveness with European flights.

Absolutely agree that far more international destinations should be available directly from St Pancras. I also think that if we want more inbound tourism by rail we need to think carefully about how to make the experience as comfortable and straightforward as possible.

 

[geoffk]

My suggestion was that Euston’s footprint and therefore cost might be reduced by sending say a third of HS2’s 18tph on to HS1. Anyone wanting Euston on those trains could hop out at OOC and board the next Euston bound service - likely to be less than a 5 min wait - with capacity on train from alighting passengers. Of course, this could only work if there is enough spare capacity on HS1, which I understand can go to 16tph.

I think perhaps the bigger point is that there’s room to improve HS2 to align it with changing strategic priorities as well as manage its cost. Greatly improved international rail connectivity seems to me to be a near certain long term requirement as part of a serious climate plan.

There's a letter in the latest "Today's Railways UK" suggesting just this - a smaller Euston, and a proportion of HS2 trains diverted to Stratford/Ebbsfleet/Ashford. No doubt there will be some replies.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wasn’t suggesting any of this could be accomplished without significant investment. The question is surely whether this could be achieved within a smaller overall HS2 budget. Also,

There's a letter in the latest "Today's Railways UK" suggesting just this - a smaller Euston, and a proportion of HS2 trains diverted to Stratford/Ebbsfleet/Ashford. No doubt there will be some replies.

The cost of connecting HS2 and HS1 would be rather more than any resulting saving at Euston. Let’s not forget that a decent percentage of the Euston cost has already been spent - particularly the land purchase, site clearance etc.

 

[geoffk]

The cost of connecting HS2 and HS1 would be rather more than any resulting saving at Euston. Let’s not forget that a decent percentage of the Euston cost has already been spent - particularly the land purchase, site clearance etc.

True but it will probably be needed in the future if Britain is to meet its climate targets and shift more air journeys to rail, especially if some of the travel barriers put up by Brexit can be removed.

 

[Bald Rick]

True but it will probably be needed in the future if Britain is to meet its climate targets and shift more air journeys to rail, especially if some of the travel barriers put up by Brexit can be removed.

Multi billion pound investments are not made on probables.

 

[zwk500]

True but it will probably be needed in the future if Britain is to meet its climate targets and shift more air journeys to rail, especially if some of the travel barriers put up by Brexit can be removed.

Why can those climate goals not be met through utilising St Pancras as an international gateway?
If travel barriers are removed it then makes the interchange less penalising to journey times anyway as you can arrive for the train not the checkin.

 

[adamedwards]

Build Euston as per the original plan, not the later ones created by meddling ministers. Rebuild the domestic side of Euston with a footbridge across the whole new station level with Phoenix Road. Build a raised walkway from St Pancras to Euston with travelator (as in many airports). Far easier and cheaper than an HS2 to HS1 link that will be used by very few people. If in the very long distant future there is a need to run direct from HS2 to Paris, build a railway around London, like the French interconnecxion line.