[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]

On 31 Jan, 23:52, Martin Petrov wrote:
The new stuff that's being built outside of Euston at the moment - is
that preparation work for rebuilding the main station? Or not related
at all?


It's not preparation work for the big rebuild, instead it's more
immediate improvements, although Network Rail say they will
"complement" the proposed future redevelopment. The big rebuilding of
the station, being led by the property company British Land, won't
begin until at least 2011, so says Building magazine - though I
wouldn't be amazingly surprised if this got put back, and I suppose
it's possible this particular scheme may never happen. Note that I
don't have any inside info though, just speculating.

Also, aside from considerations about the economy, I dare say it might
not be considered ideal for one of the main London termini to be in
the process of being rebuilt whilst the Olympics are on. Plus, in the
hard to imagine situation that the Tories get moving on their high
speed rail plans (assuming they get elected in 2010, which is what I
and pretty much everyone else is assuming), then Euston is regarded as
the obvious choice of the London end of it as it has enough space to
accommodate it. The planned arrival of a high-speed line and
subsequent requirement to rebuild Euston in a different way could I
suppose put the brakes on the present redevelopment plan - unless the
current plan would be compatible?

Anyway, here's some more information - first Network Rail on what they
call the "Euston Station upgrade":
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4771.aspx

And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:55 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money

They're probably not given that it'll turn into a shopping mall with a
station attached (as has happened at Manchester Piccadilly)! It's
definitely a vast improvement over the old station concourse, though.

"Mizter T" wrote...
... then Euston is regarded as
the obvious choice of the London end of it as it has enough space to
accommodate it.

Whuh?

The assumption that Euston will host HS2 is way off; I don't think *anybody*
regards it as the obvious choice.

Indeed, all my reading suggests there's zero likelihood.

HS2 will be tacked onto HS1, allowing for Eurostar to (eventually) fulfill
my Dad's ambition of traveling from Edinburgh to Amsterdam without changing
trains (My grandchildren might just make it!).

But in practical terms, that means New Build starting from a junction on the
Stratford-StP link, heading off to Heathrow and Watford Gap.

As many of the trains *will* go HS1HS2 without terminating, the terminating
facilities at St.P can shared between HS1 & HS2 trains that do need it.

Effectively, HS1-HS2 will be a continuous line from the North (or at least
the W Midlands) to Europe, with a spur for St P, accessed from both the
North and South. Some trains will go into StP and reverse out, most will use
the Stratford/Ebbsfleet/Heathrow interchanges.

If Eurostar (or its successor) gives in to the pressure to terminate all in
central London, then you can bet that an open access operator will choose
not to, and cream off all the through traffic.

Such a scheme does several things:

1. It saves the cost of 'new' International Terminus half a mile form the
current International Terminus
2. It saves passenger confusion and movement
3. It takes advantage of StP's interchange facilities (MUCH better than
Euston's)
4. It (finally) provides a raison d'etre for Stratford-I
5. Euston does NOT have 'space' to spare to give away 4-5 segregated
platforms for a 'new' service
6. The central London requirement is the junction for N-bound HS1 trains to
bypass St.P, and the spur for Europe-bound HS2 trains to access StP. Much of
that already exists!

The days of jigsaw railways have gone; to compete effectively with domestic
airlines, a little join-up thinking will be required by DfT
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

"Andrew Heenan" wrote

The assumption that Euston will host HS2 is way off; I don't think
*anybody*
regards it as the obvious choice.

Most of the trains and passengers using HS2 will be travelling to/from
London - the trains will in effect be diverted to HS2 from the WCML (leaving
space on the WCML for commuters and freight). Diversion of these trains to
HS2 will vacate space at Euston, which can be used for the HS2 terminus. St
Pancras could not accommodate an extra 12-15 InterCity trains each hour.

Most of the trains on HS2 will not be running through from HS1 - the few
that may will be able to use the Camden Road - Primrose Hill link. Not
ideal, but can a business case be made for a high speed link between HS1 in
the St Pancras throat and HS2?

Even if any Central London station could be set up for North of England -
European Mainland trains to call (allowing for any necessary security and
border formalities) it is likely that in practice most trains would continue
to terminate in London.

Peter

It's not preparation work for the big rebuild, instead it's more
immediate improvements, although Network Rail say they will
"complement" the proposed future redevelopment. The big rebuilding of
the station, being led by the property company British Land, won't
begin until at least 2011, so says Building magazine - though I
wouldn't be amazingly surprised if this got put back, and I suppose
it's possible this particular scheme may never happen. Note that I
don't have any inside info though, just speculating.

Cheers, cheers, cheers!

We had been speculating yesterday that it might be the start of a
temporary ticket office, which made a bit of sense, except I didn't
recall seeing anything on here (or elsewhere) about a definite start
to the work.

"Peter Masson" wrote
Most of the trains on HS2 will not be running through from HS1 - the few
that may will be able to use the Camden Road - Primrose Hill link.

I don't think so!

The justification for HS1 - especially the 'via Heathrow' imperative,
suggests slightly less parochial thinking.

It would be frankly stupid NOT to have the possibility of fast HS1-HS2
transit - way beyond any stupidity displayed so far by DfT (yes, THAT
stupid), and I see no justification for building any 'new' station.

With the model I've proposed, there is the facilty for plain 'ole intercity
trains piggybacking, joining north of Euston somewhere, and then peeling off
oop North to cities not served directly by HS2 (?Liverpool, eg), just as
395s will join at Ebbsfleet, and then go to separate platforms at St. P.

Euston needs no rebuilding (beyond the current plans), and HS1, HS2 (etc)
would be a coherent high speed railway - a trick the motorways learned back
in 1961 (ish).

There is a stated aspiration for HS1 to reach Heathrow, which can only be
via HS2 (surely), so there is already a case made (and understood by DfT),
for the two to connect. And I find it really hard to visualize trains from
Heathrow going to Euston OR St Pancras OR Stratford for Europe.

HS2 is not simply an intercity-bypass. Bet you a pound that St Pancras is
designated THE HS station for London.
--

Andrew

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
lonelytraveller gently
breathed:
On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:

And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

But that'd cost money, and no-one in the DfT (who at the end of the day
pay for such things) seems to believe that it's important for the
capital city terminus of one of our most prestigious routes should be
anything other than dull and utilitarian.

We just have to trust that the Grade-1 listings of the beautiful
Victorian termini we still have will prevent them from ever being
reduced to the concrete horror of Euston (and perhaps Euston itself as
an on-going warning to future generations that once you allow someone to
demolish the good stuff, it can never be replaced).

Writing in The Times, Richard Morrison stated that "even by the bleak
standards of Sixties architecture, Euston is one of the nastiest
concrete boxes in London: devoid of any decorative merit; seemingly
concocted to induce maximum angst among passengers; and a blight on
surrounding streets. The design should never have left the drawing-board
- if, indeed, it was ever on a drawing-board. It gives the impression of
having been scribbled on the back of a soiled paper bag by a thuggish
android with a grudge against humanity and a vampiric loathing of
sunlight".

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

On 1 Feb, 13:31, Pyromancer
wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
lonelytraveller gently
breathed:

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568
I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. *The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. *And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

But that'd cost money
Or they could just rebuild it as it used to look, but scaled and re-
oriented appropriately for the modern size and location of the
station.

On 1 Feb, 13:20, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
There is a stated aspiration for HS1 to reach Heathrow, which can only be
via HS2 (surely), so there is already a case made (and understood by DfT),
for the two to connect. And I find it really hard to visualize trains from
Heathrow going to Euston OR St Pancras OR Stratford for Europe.

The suggested service patterns in the Heathrow hub scheme a
- The North -- Heathrow Hub -- Euston
- The North -- Heathrow Hub -- Stratford -- Europe
- St Pancras -- Europe

In other words, there are no Heathrow/HS2-St Pancras services, and no
international services at Euston.

(also, I'd expect most if not all HS2-HS1 services to start at
Heathrow, with passengers from the north expected to change)

U