Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Euston may not be the ideal choice (though the onward connections available from there and KXSP make it a pretty good place to have a station).

OOC as well as Euston is probably the best solution as combined they give loads of connections, in the same way that the Tohoku Shinkansen has stations at Tokyo, Ueno and Omiya within a very short distance, all of which offer a bunch of different connections around the wider conurbation.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

How can fourteen trains an hour be justified  ,just a thought?

The present London to Birmingham (3tph), Manchester (3tph) and Leeds (2tph) is 8tph, plus the East Midlands to Nottingham/ Derby & Sheffield and that's before you get to the ones which will run off the HS2 line to Scotland, Liverpool and wherever else they'll go.

And then you need some headroom for increasing the service as things develop.

14tph is probably not enough, really.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Unless the final destination is KXSP or somewhere else within walking distance of Euston, I don't see how the Northern Line or Victoria Line are going to be any more comfortable than Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) especially if there are a significant number of Crossrail trains starting at OOC.

 

If you want the Northern or Victoria Lines staying in your seat and avoiding Crossrail will likely be preferable.

 

But the reverse is even more true - if starting out on the Northern or Victoria lines why would you want to transfer to Crossrail to get to OOC when you could simply use Euston and get on your "proper" train and eliminate the entire Crossrail portion?

 

And a reasonable number of people using HS2 will likely simply take a cab to get to Euston.

 

26 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

It still seems to me that the only reason for Euston was woolly thinking. We have gone to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool from Euston for such a long time that it must be the right place to go from. It could have been if HS2 had been routed into London alongside the WCML or even alongside the M1. But coming into London via the GW/GC Joint, Euston is not the right answer. 

 

But there likely was no "right" answer given the property situation in London.  Euston is as good as any given a requirement to be within the (by now) accepted ring of mainline London stations.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Assuming Crossrail opens, by the time HS2 opens Crossrail will likely be quite busy / standing room maybe during parts of a Crossrail journey.  So while someone arriving on HS2 at OOC will be able to get a seat on Crossrail, the seat won't be as comfortable (*) as the train they could take to Euston and the HS2 won't be crammed with people near the centre London portion like Crossrail likely will be.

 

So taking HS2 to Euston will likely lead to a better travel experience depending on ultimate destination.

 

*- yes, given seats on newer trains a dangerous assumption.

 

You are making the assumption that Euston is the final destination for passengers arriving there by HS2 and by implication, on current  ICWC services.

Most of them will be transferring to other modes of transport to get to their ultimate destination, either elsewhere in London, or to places further afield.

I wouldn't consider the Tube or buses to be any more comfortable than a cross rail train.

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

How can fourteen trains an hour be justified  ,just a thought?

Well, there are already 6, or is it 8, tph on the WCML south of Rugby at the moment. Avanti have plans to increase services to/from Liverpool to haf-hourly asap; then we get the trains from the Northern part of the MML and ECML, which are planned to use HS2 once complete. It soon adds up!

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

You are making the assumption that Euston is the final destination for passengers arriving there by HS2 and by implication, on current  ICWC services.

Most of them will be transferring to other modes of transport to get to their ultimate destination, either elsewhere in London, or to places further afield.

I wouldn't consider the Tube or buses to be any more comfortable than a cross rail train..

 

Actually, I am not making that assumption.

 

What I am saying is why, for the percentage of passengers who could use Euston to connect to those further modes of transport directly, would they add an unnecessary segment using Crossrail?

 

Why would a passenger choose HS2 -> Crossrail -> Northern Line when they instead could do HS2 -> Northern Line?

 

And more importantly, the reverse.  Northern Line -> HS2 instead of Northern Line -> Crossrail -> HS2 when in this direction they could be unlikely to get a seat on Crossrail.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

If you want the Northern or Victoria Lines staying in your seat and avoiding Crossrail will likely be preferable.

 

But the reverse is even more true - if starting out on the Northern or Victoria lines why would you want to transfer to Crossrail to get to OOC when you could simply use Euston and get on your "proper" train and eliminate the entire Crossrail portion?

 

 

You are completely missing the point.

It isn't an either or situation.

That's why there are two London stations on the line.

Euston will be the best point of arrival or departure on HS2 for some journeys and OOC will be the most convenient and easily reached for others.

Crossrail has been designed so that all the central core stations have connections with the LU and NR services. Most of those central stations are also in, or very close to the West End, the City and Canary Wharf, all of which are popular originating points and destinations.

 

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

You are completely missing the point.

It isn't an either or situation.

.

I got the impression that some were arguing that it was either one or the other.

If this was the case, then the problem with OOC is that it relies heavily on the GW & Crossrail. If an issue blocks these, then travel to the city & other termini will be severely impacted.

There are more options when travelling on from Euston, so the loss of 1 route has a less major impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not good that we are able to discuss the need for extra capacity? I can remember serious proposals to close the Midland Mainline north of Bedford, and send traffic from the East Midlands and South Yorkshire across to the West Coast line. It was suggested that Euston could deal with the traffic from both lines.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

......Why would a passenger choose HS2 -> Crossrail -> Northern Line when they instead could do HS2 -> Northern Line?

 

 

Of course they wouldn't.

That's why there's a HS2 station at Euston.

 

If everybody arriving by HS2 chose to disembark at Euston, the modelling (and common sense) shows that with the increase in capacity the line brings, not only on HS2, but on the classic lines into Euston, that the underground system would be swamped.

Hence OOC providing a connection onto Crossrail.

If routing to or from Heathrow , interchanging at OOC will be a no brainer.

 

 

.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

You are completely missing the point.

It isn't an either or situation.

That's why there are two London stations on the line.

 

Sorry, but it is you who has entirely missed the point/thread I was responding to.

 

This (*) post by Joseph Pestell, which is what my comments were refuting, has the following statement:

 

Quote

Euston is a big part of the cost of HS2 and totally unnecessary. I can't see that many people using it when better connections to most of London will be available at Old Oak Common.

 

To which I was pointing out that was not true (which you seem to be agreeing with me).

 

* - https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/151162-hs2/&do=findComment&comment=3837838

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I take your point about the TBMs. The land would not be such an issue. It could be sold for other development although I expect that there would be some legal repercussions after compulsory purchase.

 

But I have to agree, probably too late to shift from Euston as any alternative would require a lot of design time, "consultations", etc. Euston is a big part of the cost of HS2 and totally unnecessary. I can't see that many people using it when better connections to most of London will be available at Old Oak Common.

I take it that you are not a regular user of Euston.

If you were you would soon realize the desperate need for an upgrade. Even without HS2.

 

Bernard

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

How can fourteen trains an hour be justified  ,just a thought?

HS2 relieves the WCML, ECML and MML so it's not too surprising that its service is similar to the total of long-distance trains on all three.  There's little point In building it unless it can be used intensively. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I take it that you are not a regular user of Euston.

If you were you would soon realize the desperate need for an upgrade. Even without HS2.

 

Bernard

 
Wholeheartedly agree.Overcrowding on the concourse can be dangerous,with passengers practically spilling over each other in the rush as each departure is released for boarding.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a town planner (that had most expertise in rail) I would always argue for high density multi-use renewal in urban centres (cf Urban Splash in Manchester or Brindley Place in Brum) for a 40/50 year lower energy consumption future. The ready cleared HS2 terminal sites would be far more cost effectively redeveloped for medium/high rise mixed use and much cheaper shed-style OOC and Brum International stations used instead which would also be subsidised by the yields from the terminus sites.

Euston could get a decent Euston Square and a re-ected/recreated Arch.

West Midlands could then get its much desired integrated intra conurbation system.

 

I’d do the same flanking alignment around Great Manchester, use the old route around to Staleybridge and on into Yorks, avoiding huge amounts of Piccadilly and M Vic reconstruction.

Evergreen tree shield planting would lessen environmental impact (true also around many existing intrusive urban rail line 

e.g. in S London)

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember (many years ago see OOC photos above) adverts on the Tube trains stating "If you want to go to Glasgow go to Euston" - "If you want to go to York go to Kings Cross" etc etc. There will never be enough railways in / around London !!. Manchester is a mess also, always has been, always will be, like London an accident of British history & early railway development. The Manchester Oxford Rd corridor being a case in point, the recent Castlefield curve has made things worse !!. Germany steals a march on us when they built their railways with most cities having a large HBF (Haupt Bahn Hoff) - Main railway Station - Frankfurt, Munich etc. Far too late for this for London. As mentioned previously the new Bangkok station will do the lot - including their HS lines which are being planned.

 

We will make do with what we have, improve it & add to it - not ideal but perhaps nothing radical (mega expensive) will ever be done in these two cities.

 

Brit15

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
Wholeheartedly agree.Overcrowding on the concourse can be dangerous,with passengers practically spilling over each other in the rush as each departure is released for boarding.

Euston is IMHO the worst of the major London Termini, where the width of the platform area is much wider than the "holding" area concourse in front of the departure boards.

It needs a much bigger concourse area.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, APOLLO said:

I remember (many years ago see OOC photos above) adverts on the Tube trains stating "If you want to go to Glasgow go to Euston" - "If you want to go to York go to Kings Cross" etc etc. There will never be enough railways in / around London !!. Manchester is a mess also, always has been, always will be, like London an accident of British history & early railway development. The Manchester Oxford Rd corridor being a case in point, the recent Castlefield curve has made things worse !!. Germany steals a march on us when they built their railways with most cities having a large HBF (Haupt Bahn Hoff) - Main railway Station - Frankfurt, Munich etc. Far too late for this for London. As mentioned previously the new Bangkok station will do the lot - including their HS lines which are being planned.

 

We will make do with what we have, improve it & add to it - not ideal but perhaps nothing radical (mega expensive) will ever be done in these two cities.

 

Brit15

 

 

One of the problems in the UK and not in some countries, is the acquisition of required land.

In Hong Kong they just appropriated the land for the new High Speed Station & associated railway, with AFAIK little in the way of compensation.

The same probably applies in other countries such as Thailand where there is likely less recompense for those displaced.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Sorry, but it is you who has entirely missed the point/thread I was responding to.

 

This (*) post by Joseph Pestell, which is what my comments were refuting, has the following statement:......

 

 

Well you did start by refuting Joseph's comments by suggesting it would be more comfortable to stay on the HS2 train than change onto a busy or crammed Crossrail train, without initially mentioning the alternative of rammed Tube trains from Euston.

 

However, on your point about agreement, I do agree with you that Euston would be the most convenient point for connecting to many Underground routes, but you appear to have been dismissing the value of OOC in providing more convenient and quicker connections to other parts of the capital, not to mention the effect this station will have on easing the load on the local transport systems serving Euston.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

.....the problem with OOC is that it relies heavily on the GW & Crossrail. If an issue blocks these, then travel to the city & other termini will be severely impacted.

There are more options when travelling on from Euston, so the loss of 1 route has a less major impact.

 

From the early days of this project, once a station at OOC had been firmly included in the plan, I have always thought that a long term strategic error had been made by not aiming from the outset to incorporate the other local rail links into the OOC design.

 

OOC is a classic British case of no joined up thinking between the various interested parties in both transport and local development.

The GLA and local Boroughs wanted the railway land at OOC for major local development schemes, but somebody else plonked a very large, brand new railway depot there first.

Then HS2 also put a stake in the ground, by planning to route their new line under the site and building a new station there as well.

That necessitated that a brand new station should be built on the GWML, initially for a Crossrail connection: but TfL (and DfT) and their Crossrail project weren't going to pay for it.

DfT, TfL, Crossrail and HS2 all looked at the possibility of additional connections to the other local rail lines passing nearby, but the cost and difficulties scared them away and they hoped nobody would notice.

At no point early on, was there an overarching authority looking at this and setting out a grand plan that would encompass all the competing and complimentary ambitions for reusing the OOC site.

 

It's a reasonable bet, that within a decade or so, the area surrounding OOC will become a sea of new development and the railway sites (HS2 & GWML station, Crossrail and North Pole depots) will be completely boxed in by new housing and commercial projects; limiting the ability to integrate nearby, existing local rail lines, or provide new ones.

That also suggests Crossrail is going to be very busy indeed, as if it wasn't going to be in the first place.

 

 

.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I got the impression that some were arguing that it was either one or the other.

If this was the case, then the problem with OOC is that it relies heavily on the GW & Crossrail. If an issue blocks these, then travel to the city & other termini will be severely impacted.

There are more options when travelling on from Euston, so the loss of 1 route has a less major impact.

 

I would not suggest OOC as a terminus with only Crossrail to disperse passengers. But not that difficult to create additional LUL interchange facilities there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

 

HS2 relieves the WCML, ECML and MML so it's not too surprising that its service is similar to the total of long-distance trains on all three.  There's little point In building it unless it can be used intensively. 

 

That usefully brings up another question that I have about HS2. The trains on the route itself are supposed to conform to the European norm: 20 coaches, about 500 metres long. So, apart from other gauge issues, trains that are compatible with the rest of the railway system are going to need to be shorter, 10 coaches. So if capacity is going to be used fully on the Birmingham Interchange to Euston section, there is going to be a need for portion working. Where would the trains be joined/separated and how are the timetablers going to deal with the unreliability that portion working always introduces? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I take your point about the TBMs. The land would not be such an issue. It could be sold for other development although I expect that there would be some legal repercussions after compulsory purchase.

 

But I have to agree, probably too late to shift from Euston as any alternative would require a lot of design time, "consultations", etc. Euston is a big part of the cost of HS2 and totally unnecessary. I can't see that many people using it when better connections to most of London will be available at Old Oak Common.

 

Look, it has been explained that putting all your eggs in one basket is a VERY BAD IDEA!

 

All it takes is a fire alarm to go off and suddenly all your passengers heading for London have to be taken all the way back to Birmingham!

 

Having two stations in the London area provides essential resilience as well as spreading the load across multiple onward transport modes.

 

The ONLY onward transportation from Old Oak is Crossrail and bering in mind the eventual aim of HS2 is to run 400m double deck trains that can accommodate around 900 people it doesn’t take a genius to realise that Crossrail on its own simply couldn’t cope with the resulting influx of passengers.

 

Moreover not everyone wants to go to the city or Canary Wharf when they get to London. Euston is close enough to Central London that some will be able to walk or take a short bus ride to their intended destination.

 

Euston also adds considerable north south connectivity via the Northern and Victoria lines. It is also within easy walking distance of the St Pancras / Kings Cross hub giving further connections for onward travellers.

 

Finally regular travellers base their entire lives around having train services to specific places. If you don’t believe me do some research into what happened when NR proposed terminating the Wimbledon loop Thameslink service at Blackfriars to double the frequency and reduce the number of capacity sapping flat Junction moves at the likes of Herne Hill. At present passengers using the WCML from Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc all end up at Euston and as the whole point of HS2 is to replicate the WCML, it’s entirely logical that HS2 trains should terminate as close to the current termi (Euston, Birmingham NS, Manchester Piccadilly) as is physically possible to get.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I take it that you are not a regular user of Euston.

If you were you would soon realize the desperate need for an upgrade. Even without HS2.

 

Bernard

 

No, I have only used it once in recent years (plus a couple of visits). But I have seen numerous TV reports where the concourse is amazingly crowded, the price of success in attracting so many more passengers to rail in the last 20 years.

 

So yes, an extension to the concourse at Euston independently of HS2. And the long-awaited works to link to the H&C at Euston Square.

 

But indeed, if Euston is already overcrowded, how does it make sense to bring yet more passengers there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Look, it has been explained that putting all your eggs in one basket is a VERY BAD IDEA!

 

 

 

Finally regular travellers base their entire lives around having train services to specific places. If you don’t believe me do some research into what happened when NR proposed terminating the Wimbledon loop Thameslink service at Blackfriars to double the frequency and reduce the number of capacity sapping flat Junction moves at the likes of Herne Hill. At present passengers using the WCML from Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc all end up at Euston and as the whole point of HS2 is to replicate the WCML, it’s entirely logical that HS2 trains should terminate as close to the current termi (Euston, Birmingham NS, Manchester Piccadilly) as is physically possible to get.

 

 

 

But I have not suggested a single basket with regard to onward travel from OOC. Other baskets (extensions to the Bakerloo and H&C) could be provided more cheaply than the Euston deviation.

 

Nor do I believe that the resilience that you suggest is there. If there is a problem at Euston, OOC is not going to be able to keep the service running.

 

I am sorry to sound a bit ruthless but sometimes you need to force change through. I accept that there is some resistance but people do ultimately adapt. The Thameslink proposal about the Wimbledon services was entirely sensible. Why reduce capacity between Blackfriars and KXSP by running 8 car trains when they could all be 12 car? Not to mention the conflicting movements that you rightly identify. It's a luxury that the railway can not afford these days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

That usefully brings up another question that I have about HS2. The trains on the route itself are supposed to conform to the European norm: 20 coaches, about 500 metres long. So, apart from other gauge issues, trains that are compatible with the rest of the railway system are going to need to be shorter, 10 coaches. So if capacity is going to be used fully on the Birmingham Interchange to Euston section, there is going to be a need for portion working. Where would the trains be joined/separated and how are the timetablers going to deal with the unreliability that portion working always introduces? 

 

 

There is no plan for portion working*.

 

Under phase 1, the only two places which will be able to take advantage of HS2s  double deck 500m train length capacity (Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street) and building a tiny fleet of such super capacity trains is not economic. Therefore initially (please take note of that word) all services will be provided by the smaller, shorter trains that have to be used for services which transfer onto the classic UK network.

 

BUT.... when the HS network is COMPLETED you will have 500m double deck capability at Manchester and Leeds in addition to London and Birmingham. This means it becomes economic to order a fleet of long, high capacity double deck trains for the HS core and redeploy the shorter UK compatible trains to service other destinations off the HS2 network.

 

As ever the train plan makes perfect sense once you understand that HS2 is a railway NETWORK - not merely one line to get you to Birmingham a bit faster.

 

 

* Personally I think portion working along the lines of how some TGV services operate would be a good idea. In this scenario you could have a UK gauge train from Wolverhampton join up with a double deck train from Curzon Street at the Birmingham Interchange station for the run down to London.

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...