What happens if HS2 Euston proves to be unbuildable?

[chris2]

https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/3951/e925ed1f-e4b5-4d12-ad1c-e95e0b5b3307/1335

Thanks.

 

[mike57]

Yes it would add 2 changes (for example OOC and Stratford),

The problem is if you have more changes then people with luggage and/or (small) children are put off.

To be honest HS2 looks to be less and less useful. If the HS1 HS2 link and the original HS2 concept had happened then I could see that a Midlands/North cross channel link terminal might have worked, with maybe half the services starting from lets say Birmingham (but other places could also work) and calling at Stratford to pick up before going through the tunnel, and the other half starting at St Pancras as they do now, which would relieve pressure on St Pancras, but it looks like that bird has well and truly flown.

HS2 just feels like a lot of missed chances to make a step change improvement in the UK rail infrastructure, and to be honest the more its cut back and/or delayed the more it feels like a white elephant. It does beg the question of what could have been acheived with the same money applied to the 'classic' infrastructure.

 

[AM9]

The problem is if you have more changes then people with luggage and/or (small) children are put off.

To be honest HS2 looks to be less and less useful. If the HS1 HS2 link and the original HS2 concept had happened then I could see that a Midlands/North cross channel link terminal might have worked, with maybe half the services starting from lets say Birmingham (but other places could also work) and calling at Stratford to pick up before going through the tunnel, and the other half starting at St Pancras as they do now, which would relieve pressure on St Pancras, but it looks like that bird has well and truly flown.

HS2 just feels like a lot of missed chances to make a step change improvement in the UK rail infrastructure, and to be honest the more its cut back and/or delayed the more it feels like a white elephant. It does beg the question of what could have been acheived with the same money applied to the 'classic' infrastructure.

That's the way its detractors, (having lost the argument when the project was debated and the bill approved/given royal assent, have since wanted to delay and ultimately stop it happening. Luckily this goverment actually pressed on, pushing these distrations aside. When it is operational, and the detractors start whingeing about it not doing everything the original approved project claimed, they will be reminded that their continual attacking it has devalued it, reduced it's scope, yet increased the cost for no gain even on their part.

 

[Bald Rick]

To be honest HS2 looks to be less and less useful. If the HS1 HS2 link and the original HS2 concept had happened then I could see that a Midlands/North cross channel link terminal might have worked, with maybe half the services starting from lets say Birmingham (but other places could also work) and calling at Stratford to pick up before going through the tunnel, and the other half starting at St Pancras as they do now, which would relieve pressure on St Pancras, but it looks like that bird has well and truly flown.

But that could only happen with a complete change in border control arrangements. Which, sadly, isn’t going to happen.

The only circumstances where there would be a case for through services (and therefore an HS2 to HS1 link) is if the U.K. joined Schengen and border controls were removed. In those circumstances I would have expected at least an hourly service from Manchester or Birmingham to Paris or Brussels and beyond, with calls at OOC and Stratford, and open calls throughout, ie able to be used for domestic purposes either side of the channel.

But no Government of any colour is going to spend a couple of billion quid now on infrastructure that has no real prospect of use for at least a generation. Let alone the Government of the colour that approved HS2.

I don’t know how the absence of this link makes HS2 “less and less useful”.

 

[The Ham]

The problem is if you have more changes then people with luggage and/or (small) children are put off.

To be honest HS2 looks to be less and less useful. If the HS1 HS2 link and the original HS2 concept had happened then I could see that a Midlands/North cross channel link terminal might have worked, with maybe half the services starting from lets say Birmingham (but other places could also work) and calling at Stratford to pick up before going through the tunnel, and the other half starting at St Pancras as they do now, which would relieve pressure on St Pancras, but it looks like that bird has well and truly flown.

HS2 just feels like a lot of missed chances to make a step change improvement in the UK rail infrastructure, and to be honest the more its cut back and/or delayed the more it feels like a white elephant. It does beg the question of what could have been acheived with the same money applied to the 'classic' infrastructure.

As highlighted there's only ever going to be a few trains a day from the busiest pairings - even if 100% switched to rail.

As it's unlikely to be 100% swapping anyway you'd probably be looking at 1 in each direction morning/evening. The question then becomes would a direct train at those frequencies would be better/worse at attracting people than a row which required 2 changes of train?

Well that depends on the frequency of the service and how easy the change is.

If it's a change to a service every 2 hours then a connection is a major barrier, conversely if it's every 20 minutes (such as Manchester to OOC) and it's not too bad.

It is also worth remembering that it's not like getting a flight is without it's difficulties. For example, if you're flight it's delayed by nearly two hours you just have to lump it.

Ultimately the benefits of a direct link to allow direct services are often overstated. Whilst the their sounds good, the operation limitations make it is attractive than it would at first glance appear to be.

Now, even if there had been a better case for the HS1/HS2 link (and no problems with boarder control), the far bigger market is domestic travel.

For example the likely capacity from the 5 Leeds to near Europe flights it's going to be about 400,000 per year, North East to London is currently had over 2 million passengers traveling each year.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

or example the likely capacity from the 5 Leeds to near Europe flights it's going to be about 400,000 per year,

I think it would be unpopular to say but I think Regional Eurostars would stimulate extra demand. Railway projects like Crossrail have shown to generate new travel demand just by the line or route existing. I daresay that modelling can predict as much as it can do but not predict the inherent eccentricities of human nature. i.e "Oh we can go from Manchester to Paris by train now, lets find a reason to do it" - but that's a far more philosophical debate.

 

[zwk500]

I think it would be unpopular to say but I think Regional Eurostars would stimulate extra demand. Railway projects like Crossrail have shown to generate new travel demand just by the line or route existing. I daresay that modelling can predict as much as it can do but not predict the inherent eccentricities of human nature. i.e "Oh we can go from Manchester to Paris by train now, lets find a reason to do it" - but that's a far more philosophical debate.

The issue with the idea of induced demand is that any Eurostar fares would be too expensive to put off speculative travellers. The Elizabeth line was integrated into TfL's ticketing from the off, and Ryanair generate profit by deliberate running the lowest fares on new routes to advertise the 'European getaways for £5' type stuff. But you're not going to be impulsive about a trip from Manchester to Paris when the fare will be north of £100 more often than not. An 8hr return trip isn't exactly something you do on a whim.

 

[SynthD]

I think it would be unpopular to say but I think Regional Eurostars would stimulate extra demand.

Is that extra to the planefuls of people on cheap tickets?

Crossrail has lots of short journeys, turn up and go passengers. Not much in common there. That’s why we’ve lasted so long with these split journeys.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Something that I've wondered: wouldn't it have made more sense to simply put HS2 in a tunnel straight through London, with some new underground stations as appropriate, before terminating somewhere like Ebbsfleet for potential Eurostar connections?

The destruction that's taken place in Camden seems really unnecessary in the 21st century, and with changes in travel habits (everyone has online tickets, etc), you really don't need those large stations anymore. From what I can see, there's a large site next to Ebbsfleet International that would have made a perfect terminal station, and if I have my maths right, you'd need about a 40km tunnel with stations at Canary Wharf, Euston and Old Oak Common.

Am I missing something here, or is HS2 really quite poorly thought through, given the capacity constraints on the existing London rail/tube network?

 

[Bald Rick]

Am I missing something here

Yes you are.

Building such a line and its stations in tunnel underground (and it would be deep underground) would be extraordinarily expensive. It would also destroy whole swathes of wherever the stations were going, as they would need to have sufficient entrances at street level and all the relevant interchanges with LU etc. They would also need at least 4 and probably 6 platforms each for the High Speed services, and a deep mined station of that scale, that long, that deep and that busy has to my knowledge never been built anywhere.

I‘ve posted before that it is not possible to put a station deep under Euston, except where Crossrail 2 is reserved, without closing one of the existing tube lines, or demolishing several nearby buildings, or most likely both.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Building such a line and its stations in tunnel underground (and it would be deep underground) would be extraordinarily expensive. It would also destroy whole swathes of wherever the stations were going, as they would need to have sufficient entrances at street level and all the relevant interchanges with LU etc. They would also need at least 4 and probably 6 platforms each for the High Speed services, and a deep mined station of that scale, that long, that deep and that busy has to my knowledge never been built anywhere.

Wouldn't 4 platforms suffice, with a much larger station in Ebbsfleet as a terminal station?

I'm wondering if you couldn't divide the platforms into smaller platforms with access from street level, so for instance, if you wanted carriage #4 at platform 2, then you'd have your own dedicated entrance/exit. This way, you'd never have large numbers of people milling about: access would only be permitted 10 minutes before departure, for instance.

 

[zwk500]

Wouldn't 4 platforms suffice, with a much larger station in Ebbsfleet as a terminal station?

I'm wondering if you couldn't divide the platforms into smaller platforms with access from street level, so for instance, if you wanted carriage #4 at platform 2, then you'd have your own dedicated entrance/exit. This way, you'd never have large numbers of people milling about: access would only be permitted 10 minutes before departure, for instance.

The depth these platforms would be at means you'd need large departure lounges halfway between the street and the platform if you were doing something like this.

And that's before the London Fire Brigade were asked about the plans.

 

[Chester1]

Wouldn't 4 platforms suffice, with a much larger station in Ebbsfleet as a terminal station?

I'm wondering if you couldn't divide the platforms into smaller platforms with access from street level, so for instance, if you wanted carriage #4 at platform 2, then you'd have your own dedicated entrance/exit. This way, you'd never have large numbers of people milling about: access would only be permitted 10 minutes before departure, for instance.

Old Oak Common is being built as six platforms. Birmingham Interchange will be four but its not planned for every service to call at it. Stratford International was built as four but again was only designed for a limited number of services. Ebbsfleet has six platorms and Ashford has four platforms serving HS2. Four platforms under central London would significantly reduce the capacity of the whole line, even if the other issues that have been mentioned could be dealt with.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm wondering if you couldn't divide the platforms into smaller platforms with access from street level, so for instance, if you wanted carriage #4 at platform 2, then you'd have your own dedicated entrance/exit

Probably worth thinking that through a bit.
“This is a platform alteration….”

 

[AM9]

Probably worth thinking that through a bit.
“This is a platform alteration….”

Does remind me of the Chicago Red Line State St Subway, - one long platform with three (formerly four) stations along it's length. It's a bit strange seeing a train 1/4 mile away arrive see passengers dis/embarking and then meving a bit nearer.

 

[matacaster]

Could cross Country use HS2 for the Birmingham to Old Oak Common section of long distance trains, then go to south west destinations. Would that be quicker than existing lines?

 

[zwk500]

Could cross Country use HS2 for the Birmingham to Old Oak Common section of long distance trains, then go to south west destinations. Would that be quicker than existing lines?

No, there is no connection between the classic networks south of Handsacre, north of Lichfield (other than the engineering access at Calvert, where EWR crosses it).

 

[Chester1]

Could cross Country use HS2 for the Birmingham to Old Oak Common section of long distance trains, then go to south west destinations. Would that be quicker than existing lines?

There is no link between HS2 and the conventional network in Birmingham. CrossCountry could switch some services to Moor Street if the Bordesley chords are built. Moor Street and Curzon Street stations will be across a road from each other and linked by an elevated walkway.

 

[tomuk]

There is no link between HS2 and the conventional network in Birmingham. CrossCountry could switch some services to Moor Street if the Bordesley chords are built. Moor Street and Curzon Street stations will be across a road from each other and linked by an elevated walkway.

Moor Street and Curzon St won't be across the road from each other, they will be adjacent to each other, divided by the existing lines into New Street.

 

[snowball]

My impression is that @matacaster was implying a link at OOC, not Brum, but there isn't planned to be one there either.

 

[The Ham]

Could cross Country use HS2 for the Birmingham to Old Oak Common section of long distance trains, then go to south west destinations. Would that be quicker than existing lines?

Whilst it would be quicker (journey times Birmingham to Reading is broadly the same - with an allowance for changing on a 20 minute frequency, so no need to change would speed it up a little), it would be fairly expensive to build a connection - so would be reliant on people changing trains.

For further afield (Manchester, York, Newcastle, etc. if the full HS2 lines were built) changing at OOC could see journey times of about an hour.

 

[weeklycommuter]

It is going to Euston, end of.

And it is buildable - I watched the team building some of it today!

HS2 has to terminate at Euston and enough HS2 terminating platforms at Euston need to completed for HS2 Phase One to be usable when it is completed and opened. There is no point in discussing any alternatives to terminating HS2 services at Euston as there are no workable alternatives.
It is very useful to have Old Oak Common as a additional through station for interchanges to the Elizabeth Line and the Great Western Main Line but it can be no more than that, it cannot be the station where HS2 train services are terminated.
They clearly need to build the grade separated throat at HS2 Euston.
I do not know why the cost has increased so much, if it is a result of the DfT's insistence on oversite development they should just abandon the oversite development to keep the cost down. The benefit to the country of opening HS2 is to provide a big increase in capacity on the railway in general and the West Coast Main Line in particular by removing long distance passenger trains from the West Coast Main Line. The main purpose of building HS2 Euston is to enable HS2 to provide this benefit of a big increase in capacity on the railway which must be much more important that the value of any oversite development at Euston.
I do not know what the problem is with building 10 HS2 platforms on the site West of the current Euston Station to complete the building in one phase instead of building 11 platforms in two phases apart from the platforms being narrower and HS2 services being limited to 16 per hour instead of 18 per hour. Do these two issues mean it is not worth the benefit of completing the building of HS2 Euston in one phase?

 

[AM9]

HS2 has to terminate at Euston and enough HS2 terminating platforms at Euston need to completed for HS2 Phase One to be usable when it is completed and opened. There is no point in discussing any alternatives to terminating HS2 services at Euston as there are no workable alternatives.
It is very useful to have Old Oak Common as a additional through station for interchanges to the Elizabeth Line and the Great Western Main Line but it can be no more than that, it cannot be the station where HS2 train services are terminated.
They clearly need to build the grade separated throat at HS2 Euston.
I do not know why the cost has increased so much, if it is a result of the DfT's insistence on oversite development they should just abandon the oversite development to keep the cost down. The benefit to the country of opening HS2 is to provide a big increase in capacity on the railway in general and the West Coast Main Line in particular by removing long distance passenger trains from the West Coast Main Line. The main purpose of building HS2 Euston is to enable HS2 to provide this benefit of a big increase in capacity on the railway which must be much more important that the value of any oversite development at Euston.
I do not know what the problem is with building 10 HS2 platforms on the site West of the current Euston Station to complete the building in one phase instead of building 11 platforms in two phases apart from the platforms being narrower and HS2 services being limited to 16 per hour instead of 18 per hour. Do these two issues mean it is not worth the benefit of completing the building of HS2 Euston in one phase?

To be honest, I think there's an element of 'any delay in HS2 is a potential step towards cancellation' amongst some politicians. So far, the project has fortunately kept marching forward, - doggedly.