On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Peter Masson wrote:

Incidentally, Euston Square station was originally named, more
appropriately, Gower Street. It was only renamed in 1909 as a late
reaction to the opening of tube stations at Euston on both the Hampstead
Tube and the City & South London Railway (now the Charing Cross and Bank
branches of the Northern Line).

The story i heard is that it was a Windscale job, renamed after a series
of gruesome murders in the area, which had rather tarnished the name of
Gower Street. Tarnished it more than the presence of the Godless
Institution already had, that is!

tom

--
At Forkmeeter in 12478, the Wracket Dispersal had reached the first
limit of its bounding eastward rush.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Mizter T wrote:

Adrian wrote:

On Feb 19, 2:25pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 19 Feb, 21:10, Adrian Auer-Hudson
wrote:

On Feb 19, 9:20 am, Mizter T wrote:

On 19 Feb, 16:38, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"John B" wrote

Euston is the only sensible destination for a north/south HSL, in
simple geography and engineering terms. A link to HS1 to allow NoL
trains (which might be viable at 350km/h) would be sensible. Maybe a
travelator to KXSP...

Exactly. A branch from Heathrow to the HSL (in the Denham area, if the
Chiltern corridor is used) would make sense (as suggested by Greengauge),
but running the HSL from Euston/St Pancras to Birmingham via Heathrow is
likely to be too slow, and certain to be too expensive, to be worthwhile.

Additionally, if space is tight at Euston then the whole station could
be rebuilt with longer platforms at the current level stretching to
buffer stops just north of Euston Road (or at least north of the
course of the Met & Circle lines) and with the station concourse being
on the next level up above the platforms. A mighty expensive project
of course, plus the main Underground concourse might well be in the
way of all this subsurface shenanigans, but that's not an insuperable
problem.

How might the underground concourse be a problem? It's below the level of
the platforms you'd be extending, no?

The bus station, though, is right in the way. You could move it
underground, but that would mean getting rid of the extant underground car
park and taxi rank. You might be able to integrate the bus station and
taxi rank, though, and i'd be happy to see the car park go: all that does
is enable behaviours involving driving a car in central London, something
which should be strongly discouraged.

Euston appears to be the most realistic suggestion, if a new HSL ever
actually got built (and that is a very big if!).

I used to think this. However, i now think that the main consideration is
the provision of a link to HS1 - it would be absolute madness, and a
shafting of future generations, if HS2 was built in such a way that
through services to HS1 were not well catered for. Whilst
London-terminating services could go anywhere, you have to have a solution
for large numbers of trains just passing through. I see three options
he

- have HS2 run into St Pancras, via some combination of tunnel and the
Midland main line route; use that as the terminus, and run through
services by reversing

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill link to the
NLL, and thus HS1, building a new station for through services at the
north end of the KX railway lands

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through services going to an underground station lying along Euston Road,
linked to Euston and KXSP at either end, with more tunnel at the end
linking to HS1

The second option involves a really annoyingly placed new station, with
crap local transport links; the third option would be astronomically
expensive. The first option is probably the only practical one, and cuts
Euston out altogether.

And of course a significant part of the logic behind the 'new' Euston of
the 60's was that it should handle parcels traffic effortlessly, hence
the expansive parcels deck high above the platforms. The parcels
handling function of Euston is now totally dead (at least I'm pretty
sure it is!).

It is this large parcels deck, floating above the platforms, that made
me think a new two level passenger railway station at Euston would be
possible - the site would appear to lend itself to such a proposition.

I have a rival suggestion - reuse the vertical space for a huge office
block, and use the money from that to compensate for getting rid of the
horrible buildings between the current station front and the street. Move
the bus station to where the underground carpark is now, as above. Thus,
having freed up all the space between the station and the road, turn
Euston Square into a genuinely useful and wonderful part of the public
realm, without buildings, railings and roads crucifying it.

The stations on the northern half of the circle may have made sense in
the 1860s. They are inconvenient today. And, said side of the Circle
misses interchange possibilities at almost every opportunity. The
biggest omission IMHO is not having a station in front of Euston. It
would be an expensive mistake to rectify.

Apart from at Euston and Marylebone I don't really see what's missing
with regards to interchange opportunities on the northern (Met) half of
the circle.

Since we're in pie-in-the-sky land ...

Circle line platforms at Warren Street, allowing interchange to Northern
and Victoria without congesting Euston or King's Cross, and at Regent's
Park, allowing interchange to the Bakerloo without congesting Baker
Street. A proper link between the Circle and Bakerloo platforms at Edgware
Road, ditto. While i'm at it, a proper Bayswater / Queensway link, and
disposition of the platforms at Baker Street so that all eastboun trains
call at the same platforms, so you don't have to choose between the Circle
and Met platforms, and risk missing a train. Oh, and a station at Mount
Pleasant!

tom

--
At Forkmeeter in 12478, the Wracket Dispersal had reached the first
limit of its bounding eastward rush.

On 20 Feb, 12:27, Tom Anderson wrote:
Whilst
London-terminating services could go anywhere, you have to have a solution
for large numbers of trains just passing through. I see three options
he

- have HS2 run into St Pancras, via some combination of tunnel and the
Midland main line route; use that as the terminus, and run through
services by reversing

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill link to the
NLL, and thus HS1, building a new station for through services at the
north end of the KX railway lands

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through services going to an underground station lying along Euston Road,
linked to Euston and KXSP at either end, with more tunnel at the end
linking to HS1

The second option involves a really annoyingly placed new station, with
crap local transport links; the third option would be astronomically
expensive. The first option is probably the only practical one, and cuts
Euston out altogether.

Or 4) have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston,
and through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill
link to the NLL, and thus HS1, with a Watford - Stratford -
Ebbsfleet stopping pattern.

It's cheaper, uses Euston space rather than scarcer St Pancras space,
provides useful suburban connections, and means that through trains
from the North to HS1 aren't delayed by a reversal combined with most
of a trainload of HS2 passengers getting on and most of a trainload of
HS1 passengers getting off.

And if capacity on HS1 and HS2 becomes so scarce by 2040 that it's
inefficient to use separate paths for through and terminating trains,
then there's still scope to build the Primrose Hill station and link
it to the Euston road with trams, maglevs, travelators, human
trebuchets, etc.

[we're also assuming here that either the insane rules on NoL trains
to Europe will be repealed, or that there's a sizeable market for high-
speed rail from Manchester to Chatham, Folkestone and Dover]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Tom Anderson writes:

While i'm at it, a proper Bayswater / Queensway link, and disposition
of the platforms at Baker Street so that all eastboun trains call at
the same platforms, so you don't have to choose between the Circle and
Met platforms, and risk missing a train. Oh, and a station at Mount
Pleasant!

What about the combining the Eastbound H&C and Circle/District platforms
at Paddington?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, John B wrote:

On 20 Feb, 12:27, Tom Anderson wrote:

Whilst London-terminating services could go anywhere, you have to have
a solution for large numbers of trains just passing through. I see
three options he

- have HS2 run into St Pancras, via some combination of tunnel and the
Midland main line route; use that as the terminus, and run through
services by reversing

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill link to the
NLL, and thus HS1, building a new station for through services at the
north end of the KX railway lands

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through services going to an underground station lying along Euston Road,
linked to Euston and KXSP at either end, with more tunnel at the end
linking to HS1

The second option involves a really annoyingly placed new station, with
crap local transport links; the third option would be astronomically
expensive. The first option is probably the only practical one, and cuts
Euston out altogether.

Or 4) have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston,
and through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill
link to the NLL, and thus HS1, with a Watford - Stratford -
Ebbsfleet stopping pattern.

So no stop in central London for Scotland - France trains? I'd say that
was a complete non-starter, myself.

It's cheaper, uses Euston space rather than scarcer St Pancras space,

Is St Pancras space scarce? There are about a million Eurostar platforms
now. Many aren't in use, as they're for domestic services, but even so,
there really are a good number.

provides useful suburban connections,

Yes, but no more so than if there was a central London stop too.

and means that through trains from the North to HS1 aren't delayed by a
reversal combined with most of a trainload of HS2 passengers getting on
and most of a trainload of HS1 passengers getting off.

I don't see that the reversal per se would take much time: it's not like
they have to run a loco around, and drivers could step back - London would
be a natural place for a crew change anyway. The other elements of the
stop would of course take time, but it's a fairly small addition to what
is already quite a long journey, and doing it makes more seats available
between the North and London, and London and Kent/France
(Kent-Outre-Mer?), which are the corridors with the most demand.

And if capacity on HS1 and HS2 becomes so scarce by 2040 that it's
inefficient to use separate paths for through and terminating trains,
then there's still scope to build the Primrose Hill station

Just to clarify, i wasn't suggesting building a station in the vicinity of
Primrose Hill; that's where the link from WCML to NLL is. I'm sure you
knew that. If we were to build a station round there, though, i'm sure it
would help relieve the congestion at Camden Town!

The 'central' London station would be at the end of the King's Cross
Railway Lands. The name Maiden Lane could be resurrected, but you know
they'd call it St Pancras North or something asinine like that.

and link it to the Euston road with trams, maglevs, travelators, human
trebuchets, etc.

True. Or, indeed, to build the underground station, or to run trains along
the NLL and then down into St Pancras - there is a curve which allows
this.

Anyway, i doubt that paths will run out, but trains themselves are not
cheap; i doubt the cross-London traffic will be enough to justify more
than a couple a day, whereas if they stopped in London too, they could be
a lot more frequent, and so offer a more convenient service to
cross-London passengers.

[we're also assuming here that either the insane rules on NoL trains to
Europe will be repealed,

Yes.

or that there's a sizeable market for high- speed rail from Manchester
to Chatham, Folkestone and Dover]

That (even for a definition of 'Manchester' which includes Birmingham,
Liverpool, Scotland, etc), not so much. Although if HS2 goes via Heathrow,
there might be a lot of people travelling there from Kent.

tom

--
At Forkmeeter in 12478, the Wracket Dispersal had reached the first
limit of its bounding eastward rush.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Graham Murray wrote:

Tom Anderson writes:

While i'm at it, a proper Bayswater / Queensway link, and disposition
of the platforms at Baker Street so that all eastboun trains call at
the same platforms, so you don't have to choose between the Circle and
Met platforms, and risk missing a train. Oh, and a station at Mount
Pleasant!

What about the combining the Eastbound H&C and Circle/District platforms
at Paddington?

I'm assuming the entire H&C will be transferred to Crossrail, as it so
manifestly should be!

tom

--
At Forkmeeter in 12478, the Wracket Dispersal had reached the first
limit of its bounding eastward rush.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:08:38 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, John B wrote:

On 20 Feb, 12:27, Tom Anderson wrote:

Whilst London-terminating services could go anywhere, you have to have
a solution for large numbers of trains just passing through. I see
three options he

- have HS2 run into St Pancras, via some combination of tunnel and the
Midland main line route; use that as the terminus, and run through
services by reversing

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill link to the
NLL, and thus HS1, building a new station for through services at the
north end of the KX railway lands

- have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston, and
through services going to an underground station lying along Euston Road,
linked to Euston and KXSP at either end, with more tunnel at the end
linking to HS1

The second option involves a really annoyingly placed new station, with
crap local transport links; the third option would be astronomically
expensive. The first option is probably the only practical one, and cuts
Euston out altogether.

Or 4) have HS2 run down the WCML, with terminators going to Euston,
and through trains running over new tracks along the Primrose Hill
link to the NLL, and thus HS1, with a Watford - Stratford -
Ebbsfleet stopping pattern.

So no stop in central London for Scotland - France trains? I'd say that
was a complete non-starter, myself.

Why should there be ? If the train is providing a Scotland (or bits of
England between SCT and London)-France service then London is merely
an intermediate stop which is already served by other trains for
shorter journeys along the same way. The mentality that insists
"everything must stop in London" is one of the impediments to a
properly-organised transport system which does not have parallels in
most other countries. Leaving out London is no different from the
omission of other "important" places on other journeys when made so
that a proper service is provided between other places along a route.

It's cheaper, uses Euston space rather than scarcer St Pancras space,

Is St Pancras space scarce? There are about a million Eurostar platforms
now. Many aren't in use, as they're for domestic services, but even so,
there really are a good number.

provides useful suburban connections,

Yes, but no more so than if there was a central London stop too.

and means that through trains from the North to HS1 aren't delayed by a
reversal combined with most of a trainload of HS2 passengers getting on
and most of a trainload of HS1 passengers getting off.

I don't see that the reversal per se would take much time: it's not like
they have to run a loco around, and drivers could step back - London would
be a natural place for a crew change anyway. The other elements of the
stop would of course take time, but it's a fairly small addition to what
is already quite a long journey, and doing it makes more seats available
between the North and London, and London and Kent/France
(Kent-Outre-Mer?), which are the corridors with the most demand.

And if capacity on HS1 and HS2 becomes so scarce by 2040 that it's
inefficient to use separate paths for through and terminating trains,
then there's still scope to build the Primrose Hill station

Just to clarify, i wasn't suggesting building a station in the vicinity of
Primrose Hill; that's where the link from WCML to NLL is. I'm sure you
knew that. If we were to build a station round there, though, i'm sure it
would help relieve the congestion at Camden Town!

The 'central' London station would be at the end of the King's Cross
Railway Lands. The name Maiden Lane could be resurrected, but you know
they'd call it St Pancras North or something asinine like that.

and link it to the Euston road with trams, maglevs, travelators, human
trebuchets, etc.

True. Or, indeed, to build the underground station, or to run trains along
the NLL and then down into St Pancras - there is a curve which allows
this.

Anyway, i doubt that paths will run out, but trains themselves are not
cheap; i doubt the cross-London traffic will be enough to justify more
than a couple a day, whereas if they stopped in London too, they could be
a lot more frequent, and so offer a more convenient service to
cross-London passengers.

[we're also assuming here that either the insane rules on NoL trains to
Europe will be repealed,

Yes.

or that there's a sizeable market for high- speed rail from Manchester
to Chatham, Folkestone and Dover]

That (even for a definition of 'Manchester' which includes Birmingham,
Liverpool, Scotland, etc), not so much. Although if HS2 goes via Heathrow,
there might be a lot of people travelling there from Kent.

tom

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:47:58 +0100, "L=?ISO-8859-1?B?/A==?=ko Willms"
wrote:

No, check it out in Berlin or Hamburg or Munich ... that can be very
costly.

Doesn't stop a lot of people doing it.

Ticket gates are to public transport what DRM (Digital Rights
Management) is to digital music and video.

Hardly. Ticket gates don't stop you using the transport in a
reasonable manner; DRM stops you using music in a reasonable (to the
average listener) manner.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:55:13 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

The story i heard is that it was a Windscale job, renamed after a series
of gruesome murders in the area, which had rather tarnished the name of
Gower Street. Tarnished it more than the presence of the Godless
Institution already had, that is!

TfL surveyors have been about Euston itself and Euston Square of late
trying to ascertain flows. Could it be that they're proposing a new
entrance, perhaps disabled-accessible, at the Euston station end?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:01:31 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

Why should there be ? If the train is providing a Scotland (or bits of
England between SCT and London)-France service then London is merely
an intermediate stop which is already served by other trains for
shorter journeys along the same way. The mentality that insists
"everything must stop in London" is one of the impediments to a
properly-organised transport system which does not have parallels in
most other countries.

Hardly. More like, if London were omitted any Scotland-France service
would be hopelessly uneconomic. That's largely what killed NoL E*.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.