HS1-2 Link

[christopher125]

The Consultation on Route Design Refinements includes changes to the HS1-2 connection, with a third track at Camden Road Jct allowing the link to be segregated from the NLL and the Primrose Hill line being divided into separate tracks for High Speed services and freight.

The enhanced surface option would be the same as the January 2012
option but would provide an extra section of track for the NLL west of
Camden Road station to increase capacity. This would involve widening
a 200 metre long section of the NLL by up to 5 metres where it runs on
viaduct between Kentish Town Road and Hawley Road. It would enable
HS2 trains to use a dedicated single track along the south side of the
railway viaduct where the two routes converge at Camden West Junction
(just west of Camden Road Station), with NLL services using the two
tracks to the north. The revised design would provide the NLL with the
same capacity as now, but could limit future options for development of
the conventional rail infrastructure.

In addition, HS2 would have dedicated use of one of the two existing
freight tracks running east from the Primrose Hill area to Camden West
Junction leaving a single track for freight. This is assessed to be adequate
for existing freight volumes, but could affect the future capacity for freight
to and from the West Coast Main Line via this route. If necessary, it would
be possible to re-route some freight services via Gospel Oak, but this
could have impacts on the future use of this line.

In order to build the additional track on the north side of the NLL to
the west of Camden Road station, the Kentish Town Road bridge and
the viaduct towards Hawley Street would need to be widened. This
would necessitate demolition of two homes and a dental surgery, and
the temporary occupation of premises occupied by approximately ten
businesses. There would also be some noise disturbance to adjacent
residential properties during construction.

Chris

[Deleted]

The consultation includes the revised Euston layout, the HS1 connection and a string of "tidying up" changes.

I have responded to the first two items as follows:

RESPONSE TO: HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation

Item 2. EUSTON STATION and Item 3: HS1 – HS2 Link

It is my view that the proposed changes to Euston Station and the HS1-HS2 link miss a significant chance to rethink the underlying ethos of London station design.

In essence HS2 is building a tunnel from a major interchange at Old Oak Common to a point north of Euston. A means of accommodating a range of terminating trains is sought. The current proposal is to build 11 new platforms on land to the west of Euston, through demolition of existing buildings. In addition to that, 3 tph each way are assumed to use a link to HS1.
HS1 itself terminates in a dead-end station, nearby at St Pancras. That terminal serves both the Kent HS commuter services as well as the Euro* international trains. The MML services are constrained to four platforms with limited scope for expansion without major structural work.
Most passengers arriving at St Pancras, and indeed also at Euston, do not have a final destination within accepted pedsheds of these terminals. High concentrations of passengers create major stresses on the urban distributor networks: LU, LO and NR trains, buses and coaches, as well as generating good business for taxis.

A major reason for even considering the interchange at OOC is to provide stress relief by distributing the passenger load over a second London station.

Terminating trains have extended platform dwell times, in part due to the need to restock and service the passenger side facilities (catering, water, waste water, etc). To do so at a terminal station means that extremely expensive real estate is used for mundane, no-profit activities. These I submit are best done at locations on lower cost real estate – such as the maintenance depots at Temple Mills and in the vicinity of OOC/North Pole.

Current proposals for the HS1 – HS2 link are acknowledged as being substandard, with potential to create a future railway bottleneck near Camden Rd and Primrose Hill.

A COUNTER-PROPOSAL

In order to make much more efficient use of the land required for HS2 services in London, I propose (as have the “Railway Lords”) an east-west oriented through high-speed station for London. This station I have labelled “HS London Central”, but “Euston Cross” (as used by the Railway Lords) or “Euston St Pancras” (as used in the current Crossrail 2 consultation) would be equally applicable.

The station would be underground, and could be constructed by either bored station tunnels or other means. I propose that West/North bound trains are at a different level to East/South bound trains. Between the levels would be a connecting concourse, with interchange concourses at Euston, St Pancras International and Kings Cross – and connections to LU and Thameslink. The station is proposed to service HS1 traffic as well, replacing use of the platforms in the St Pancras train shed. However, all the International arrival and border protection facilities at St Pancras would continue to be used to service Euro* and other arriving International services.

By using a set of tunnel platforms for both HS1 and HS2, significant economies can be obtained. The proposed modus operandi for terminating trains has International trains from HS1 terminate and be turned out at HS London Central, then proceed via HS2 to servicing facilities at/near OOC/North Pole. Services from Kent would call at Stratford International, HS London Central and OOC, then proceed via one of the GWML, Chiltern or WCML routes to appropriate termini N & W of London. (Examples may include Reading, High Wycombe and Central Milton Keynes.)

HS2 services would call at OOC, HS London Central and Stratford International. At the latter, remaining passengers would be turned out, and the train then proceeds to Temple Mills for servicing and reversing. Trains towards the north would commence at Stratford International, proceed via HS London Central and OOC, thence towards the Midlands.
Now, turning to routes to the station. The tidiest way to achieve access to/from the east would be for an underground flying junction to be provided in the vicinity of Dalston Junction, with the line following towards and under Pentonville Rd, and thus being oriented ESE-WNW across Kings Cross, St Pancras and the Northern end of Euston Stations. While current plans envisage two single track bored tunnels between OOC and Euston, passive provision for 3rd and 4th tunnels could profitably be made.
The concept is for up to seven (7) platform tunnels in each direction to be accommodated. The initial stage could be as little as three in each direction. From the east, two platforms with segregation capabilities such that Border Protection formalities can be observed. One would be dedicated, and the other configurable as required. The second platform would be for HS2 departures. The third would be for domestic services from Kent and northbound HS2.

From the west, one platform would be dedicated to domestic services including any HS2 through operations to Kent. The other two equally for arriving HS2 trains, and departing HS1 International trains. Border Protection formalities would be provided for.
With regard to Border Protection, a secured route through the concourse to the facilities at St Pancras International is proposed.
All the junction work for additional tunnels should be undertaken at the initial stage, although excavation and/or fitting out could be deferred until required by traffic growth. Rail access from HS1 to St Pancras high level would continue to be available.
As MML traffic growth reaches the point of needing more platforms, St Pancras High Level would be reconfigured.
The main retailing and waiting passenger services (refreshments, etc) would be provided by existing facilities at Kings Cross and St Pancras, as well as existing and possibly upgraded facilities at Euston.

EUSTON LOCAL SERVICES

The revised plan notes that platforms 9 and 10 would be removed. Under the HS London Central concept there is no immediate need for this. However, growth in “Classic” traffic may necessitate the proposed changes to the existing Euston. In that case, I propose that the Watford local service become part of Crossrail 3 – which in essence extends the Aldwych Branch north and south to provide a Waterloo – Holborn Kingsway – Euston connection. There are discussions afoot which suggest that tube trains are inappropriate to a run trips as long as Watford Junction. There are also proposals afoot to divert the WJ local service onto the North London line either at Willesden Jct or at Primrose Hill. Quite clearly, the current proposals for HS1-HS2 connection would rule the latter out.

My suggestion here is that for the early period of Crossrail 3 (which I have dubbed the “Kingsway Line”), through tube services be provided, and tracks through suburban platforms be raised to allow level entry to tube cars. At Euston, I propose that Crossrail 3 diverge near Primrose Hill and align beneath Eversholt St. It would have double-length platforms (2 x 135m) with provision for four platform tunnels. It would be constructed to main line gauge to permit current LO trains to terminate in the new underground station. All new construction would likewise be to main line gauge. Concourses would be provided at the Northern end to link into HS London Central’s Euston Concourse; and at the Southern end to link in with Euston main line and LU concourses.

CR3’s first stage would be Waterloo – Aldwych. It would enable W&C trains to be serviced at a mainstream LU depot, releasing the current depot for a platform extension/expansion project. At the Bank end, sufficient changes are made within a modest budget to enable longer trains. Whether these are 5 x 16m or longer remains to be seen. Once the extended station with 4 platforms becomes operational, shuttle services between Holborn Kingsway and Waterloo can begin. (more details can be provided on request – this scheme is seen as complementary to HS2 and CR2).

Tube trains could:
a) Run through to Watford Jct;
b) Run through to Willesden Jct, to connect with LO services to Watford Jct;
c) Run through to Harrow & Wealdstone, with LO services terminating in the Euston Underground station, for interchange.
d) Shuttle between Waterloo and Euston – with LO services terminating in the Euston Underground station for interchange.

The plan is to leave the design as open as possible to allow TfL to adapt the service as traffic patterns evolve.

PRESSURE ON NORTHERN LINE CITY BRANCH

The CR2 consultation clearly shows that even with CR2 built, an unacceptably high level of overcrowding will continue on the Northern Line’s City Branch. Having a “dead-end” HS2 terminal only exacerbates this. By extending interchange over three London termini, with one giving specific access to Docklands (Stratford Int’l), these pressures can be somewhat mitigated.
I have submitted a response to the CR2 consultation which proposes two complementary aspects. Firstly, continuation of the northern arm of CR2 onto both branches of the GN suburban services (WGC and Hertford N) with the northern arm route diverted away from Angel to Highbury & Islington for City connections. The Second part is replacing those GN suburbans on the GN&C with a metro type service running East Finchley – Moorgate interchanging with CR2 at H&I to provide the link to the City. This would also be the interchange for LO Watford Jct services, giving City access. To fulfil this role, H&I would need to be brought up to standard for a high flow interchange station.

STRATFORD vs STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL

The current arrangements at Stratford International cause its potential as an interchange to be enormously underachieved. To strengthen its usefulness, a travelator link to Stratford City station is proposed.

CONCLUSION

A set of interrelated concepts is presented above. Taken together, these have potential to provide a better outcome for London and Britain than the present dead-end scheme. While more complex to build and operate, this is the price of flexibility. Artificial segregation of rail services can be justified for high intensity metros with efficient interchanges.
London needs a change of mindset about longer distance services. The whole rationale for Crossrail links is based on the failing to recognise that the ethos of dead-end termini was dead, and a paradigm shift was needed. HS1 and St Pancras was a sad lost opportunity to avoid perpetuating a redundant ethos.

Prepared by:

dw54

18 May 2013

[christopher125]

I believe HS2 Ltd have already ruled out the Euston Cross proposal - if i remember correctly on the grounds that it didn't reflect passenger demand, there was much higher construction risk, it would take longer to build and would cost significantly more than the current proposal, around £5bn i think.

Chris

[Deleted]

May 19, 2013 18:21:43 GMT christopher125 said:

I believe HS2 Ltd have already ruled out the Euston Cross proposal - if i remember correctly on the grounds that it didn't reflect passenger demand, there was much higher construction risk, it would take longer to build and would cost significantly more than the current proposal, around £5bn i think.

Chris

Would be nice to see a report which provided such details. Anyway, it's not HS2 Ltd but the government which will decide. If enough noise is made against perpetuating dead-end termini (through means such as this consultation), London might finally break free of an historic nonsense. To achieve a paradigm shift in thinking requires some noise to be made by the punters - that's us, folks.

As to cost, my proposal differs from the Railway Lords' inasmuch as I use the existing proposed approach from OOC to Euston. The trade offs are no costs expended on property acquisition at the SW corner of the Euston block, no costs on modifying the NLL, releasing capacity at St Pancras to satisfy future domestic demand (and provide a plan B when TL is out of service); offset by new tunnels between Kings Cross and Dalston. The actual station construction and fit out is an area I can't cost either way.

The bottom line is that HS1 and HS2 need to be integrated, and high speed (225km/h) regional services need to become de rigeur in the SE England London Commuter Belt area. These things need to happen while freight and inner suburban orbital services have room and scope to grow!!

If you guys think this SHOULD happen, then let the pollies know by responding to the Consultation.

[christopher125]

The government has shown no interest in Euston Cross, nor are they likely to given the added expense and delay it would cause to the project. As for dead-end termini being a historic nonsense that simply isn't true - they are perfectly justifiable for long distance services, especially if there is minimal through traffic and they avoid the need for massive below-ground excavation and extra tunnelling.

The 'bottom line' is that the cost of a HS1-2 link has to correspond to the demand predicted to use it, your perfectly entitled to respond to the consultation with a completely different arrangement for Euston but don't be surprised if they don't rip up their current plan for a variation of something already discounted on cost, practicality and construction risk in the original station study.

Chris