No new Euston

At last though, a link to Euston Square.

Not a whiff of the Railway Lords' proposal!!

Here's my take, if anyone's listening  .....   ??

1) Build the Phase 1 terminal at Old Oak Common, with the full gamut of interchanges, including Bakerloo, WLL, Crossrail, GWML, WCML suburbans. Terminate all Birmingham HS2 trains (full gauge) there. "Classic Compatible" services to call there then continue through to Waterloo International. The HS2 - HS1 through services via the Channel Tunnel should probably use the original Euro* stock as the new gen Euro* trains will be in service by then. These would be infrequent and run via the WLL and old route to Ashford International and on - with a call and reverse at Waterloo International if scheduled.

2) Phase 2 would involve the new underground route via HS London Central (Euston Cross) connecting with HS1 near Dalston, combining my ideas with those of the Railway Lords. Some regeneration at the north end of Euston might result, but would not be essential for the project - but opportunistic.

This approach saves a whole heap of dough in the early stages, so that the service can be got up and running. Once the benfits of cash flow are in hand, it becomes easier to predict and scope the works needed to meet the longer term aspirations.

No more London Overground services with the loss of platforms 9 and 10

A cynic would suggest that was never part of the plan anyway...

If this is whats causing the problems, then perhaps the trans-midlands section should be built first to enable some return. Without comprehensive redevelopment of Euston Station one of the best situations of potential is ignored.

The station still seems to be being extended west, but the current area of platforms 1-15 will be retained, with the loss of platforms 9 and 10. Much of the change appears to be regarding the rebuild of the existing section of the station.

If you look at the plan here:

www.hs2.org.uk/press/euston-station-become-vibrant-destination-part-plans-hs2

you can see that it appears that there will still be some land taken to the west, with railway under the Hampstead Road bridge being widened.



If that's the Bree Louise, then it is unclear if it will be in the area to be taken. However, as the rebuild isn't likely to start for a while, I can't see that buying new carpet is much of an indication!!

I suspect people have been misled by some of the media coverage - despite the HS2 platforms now being constructed separately alongside, the existing station is not being left untouched.

A new larger concourse integrated with the adjacent HS2 station will still be built, but by refurbishing the existing platforms rather than closing and lowering them a very disruptive, risky and expensive phased rebuild has been avoided. From a passenger perspective this should produce the benefits of a new station without the years of disruption to the WCML.

While a development over the existing platforms should still be possible, it makes sense to at least wait until HS2 is open while one can be built over the new HS2 platforms in the meantime.



It's been suggested that the previous plan for Euston was 40% over budget - not the entire HS2 project. This shouldn't come as a surprise given the considerable disruption and risk to both HS2 and the operational railway of a phased rebuilding.



If anything the new plan could allow the first phase to open earlier as the phased rebuilding of the existing platforms was one of the projects dictating the construction timeline for phase 1. As capacity on the WCML, especially south of Rugby, is expected to be a major issue come the 2020's it really wouldn't make sense to delay the first phase especially with it being years ahead in the parliamentary process.

Chris

I don't think that the interchange to St. Pancras will be much worse than before (or currently), as the best route between the two is along Brill Place and Phoenix Road. The entrance from the Euston Road, at St. Pancras, isn't very well laid out for access to the mainline station.

The aim of the change was to remove the need to close, lower and rebuild the existing platforms so yes, such redevelopment can still take place as confirmed in the HS2 Ltd statement :-

The revised proposal features:

- Potential opportunities for over-station development – with the possibility of being used for future homes, open space and businesses.
- The capacity needed for high speed and conventional trains
- New platforms and facilities for the high-speed trains
- New, improved facilities for all passengers in a redeveloped, integrated station with a new, combined concourse and façade
- Better connections with the Underground, including a new Underground ticket hall
- A sub-surface pedestrian link between Euston and Euston Square Tube
- East-west pedestrian routes across the station, helping to link communities on either side of the station.

As for the interchange with St Pancras there's no change - while options for such a link have been considered, none has been confirmed and it's questionable whether one will with Crossrail 2 on the horizon.

Chris

I am firmly of the opinion that HS2's plans for a dead-end terminal should be opposed.

The Railway Lords' proposal is eminently superior in providing a through service station able to have domestic concourses co-located with Euston and KX/StP, and an international concourse co-located with StPanInt. The Kent HS commuter ex-Javelins could then provide a cross-city service rather than deposit their full load at one location. Through International trains could take on pax from StPan for Europe, and vv. Some space at StPan could then be relinquished for other domestic services.

Redevelopment of Euston and its environs is not ruled out. It simply becomes disentangled from HS2 and could proceed at its own pace based on economic and political circumstances.

Meanwhile, I note that plans to remove the WJ DC platforms remain, but nothing seems to have been resolved/declared about what happens to the service they currently provide.

I've been told off by the Mods for mentioning stuff that is thought to be rightfully on the RIPAS Board. So please look there for my E-W ideas.

I suggest an ultimate design for 2 track levels with 7 platform tunnels each - not all of which need to be either excavated and/or fitted out at the outset. Two concourses. International traffic handled through a secure link via the East Concourse to the existing facilties at StP. HS2 services to run through and terminate at one of the HS1 stations (Stratford, Ebbsfleet or Ashford International), rather than have extended dwell time in a tunnel station.

The Kent 395 services to run through to London Midland WCML destinations, such as Central Milton Keynes or Northampton; or GWML destinations via OOC, including Maidenhead via Heathrow, and Reading direct. (This little bit is new and I apologise for not putting it on RIPAS first.) Such services are comparable to those currently served by the 395s.

The link to the HS London Central ~ Euston Cross station diverges in the vicinity of Dalston, and does not require additional tunnels to Stratford International. It also uses the existing plan for approach tunnels to Euston, but simply continues in an ESE direction, rather than turn south into the mooted demolition zone. 

Euro* services could go through to OOC; and HS1 and HS2 could make cross-arrangements for maintenance to minimise empty running.

Classic Compatible trains can only be as long as the Classical stations they serve, which are also in general stations currently served by Euston. Any Classic Compatible train (in phase 1) that exceeds platform length at Euston would terminate at OOC. In Phase 2 apart from those terminating in Euston Main line, Classic Compatible trains would also run through HS London Central ~ Euston Cross and terminate at an HS1 station or possibly elsewhere in Kent; or even possibly Stanstead/Cambridge via Temple Mills. (Again, this is new detail, not on the RIPAS Board).

Likewise (on RIPAS) I propose a Crossrail 3 which I call the "Kingsway line" - with provision for four 275m underground platforms under Eversholt St. This station is connected by full-gauge tunnels through to Holborn Kingsway, where the line takes over the Aldwych branch tube gauge tunnels. The line is extended (using full-gauge tunnels) to the W&C Waterloo terminal. It runs with tube gauge vehicles at the outset. More details and justification on RIPAS.

Others have suggested (it's an old idea) that some LO traffic from Watford may be abstracted towards Stratford or the ELL. While I have proposed the tube cars run all the way to Watford Jct, there are many alternative combinations of Bakerloo, Kingsway and LO via NLL available to be evaluated.

Crossrail 2 would run on a course to the south, nearly parallel to HS London Central ~ Euston Cross. Its western concourse would co-incide with the southern concourse of Crossrail 3 at Euston, connecting to the Main Line and LU concourses. Its eastern Concourse would co-incide with the Western Concourse of KX, the International and General concourse of StP, and be linked to the Eastern Concourse of HS London Central ~ Euston Cross.

As for cost neutrality - my proposal doesn't aim for that - it aims for more network and community benefit at higher cost. I appreciate that the Railway Lords' proposal was predicated on cost-neutrality against the earlier plan to remodel ALL of Euston. Perhaps because of the Railway Lords' proposal, wiser heads at HS2 have prevailed, and a less grandioise plan devised.

I was not aware that HS1 was approaching a capacity challenge. Nonetheless, the idea of allowing for up to seven platform tunnels for the proposed station is to allow terminating trains sufficient dwell time. Personally, I think it an inefficient use of a tunnel platform. If the dwell time is needed primarily for restocking catering, recharging water and so on, the trains could call at HS London Central ~ Euston Cross, then Stratford, then go to a depot line for victualling, before returning to form a passenger service. Passenger turn out would be done at Stratford.

The thing to do would seem to be to allow as much passive provision for through services as possible at this time. That leaves the options open for when there is the time/money available to do something about introducing them.

I think you are correct with your assumption and the Bearded Knight already wants run his Coke Candolinos at 135 mph on the WCML so why bother with Huff & Splutter 2?

XF

Not only is the idea of 135mph Pendolino's dead in the water until the WCML receives cab signalling, but it does nothing to address the capacity crunch coming to the WCML. If HS2 was going to be scrapped or deferred it would've already happened, if anything completion will be brought forward.

Chris