Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[HSTEd]

Where would this gigantic 'London Central' be? Maybe Farringdon, or City Thameslink, or Strand, where KCL is rn? Maybe between Moorgate and Bank. We could do consolidations, too. Euston-Kings's Cross-St Pancras Int'l? Maybe just a gigantic Waterloo that swallows Waterloo East. Marylebone/Baker Street? Ok, probably not that one.

Well, the British Library is rather annoying but I think the obvious location for consolidation is probably the Euston Road complex.
Wouldn't allow total elimination of terminating tracks, but a Euston redevelopment for maximum capacity and a new station on the Library/surrounding site would probably be the "least work" way of doing it.

Might want to be further sotuh though.

If you are willing to have a fully underground station you could probably put it under a royal park, dig a huge pit, build the station and put the park back on top - although you'd need to bore at least one tunnel first for the spoil conveyer!

Also interesting to consider what this station would need to have - lots and lots of (presumably underground) feeder lines from the old termini, some 25kV OHLE, some 750V DC. Some at UK loading gauge, and some at European - unless they go all European for tunnels and then have dedicated EU loading gauge platforms for HS1 and HS2. You'd need international platforms and facilities, and a LOT of shops.

Well I assume you just tell HS2 they are going to use 915mm platforms. Then build everything to the largest loading gauge you can and 915mm platforms, with a handful of 760mm platforms for HS1 international compatibility. How big would the platform gap to a Class 374 be if a suitably gauged 915mm platform was installed? Too big to step across? HS1 would need separte platforms for international trains whatever you do though.

The availability of 19m diameter tunnel boring machines probably makes it quite a bit easier by allowing more running lines to be stacked in each tunnel bore.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Hate to be repetitive but I’m on a roll with google maps. Bell Street (Bakerloo) and Edgeware Road (SSL)

You do realise don't you that means you've renamed the station that is actually on Edgware Road, and left an Edgware Road station that isn't....

 

[Taunton]

Edgware Road as well.

We had an office visitor from the USA who was given instructions to meet others at a restaurant next to Edgware Road underground station. I envisaged maybe some confusion, but nothing like what actually happened ...

The went to Edgware .

 

[generalnerd]

You do realise don't you that means you've renamed the station that is actually on Edgware Road, and left an Edgware Road station that isn't....

It’s be harder to change the signs on 3 separate lines and more in station signs would have to be changed, making the Bakerloo option much cheaper.

 

[vuzzeho]

If you are willing to have a fully underground station you could probably put it under a royal park, dig a huge pit, build the station and put the park back on top - although you'd need to bore at least one tunnel first for the spoil conveyer!

I don't think it's a royal park, but Lincoln's Inn Fields (by Holborn) seems like a nice place for it - served by Piccadilly line, Central line, Elizabeth line runs by it, and you're close to Farringdon for the sub-surfaces. Thameslink would have to be excluded from this megastation, but that would be the case for most sites.

This London Holborn Central would be a pretty straight shot from Kings Cross St Pancras and Euston. Marylebone trains would probably have to continue on and then follow the H&C, Met, and Circle until the hypothetical Euston->Central tunnel, and then continue along that. Paddington trains could probably just follow the path of the Elizabeth line, with separate tunnels that don't call at any of the intermediate stops. Same with Liverpool Street. Moorgate NR might be a bit messy, though - either a very sharp turn or a completely separate tunnel - maybe joining the tunnel from Fenchurch Street. This would almost be a straight shot as well (might as well take the DLR with you while you're at it) and the line from Cannon Street could join (with a sharp turn just before Bank). With a 180 degree curve under Soho, you could get Charing Cross trains, and Victoria trains could run pretty straight onwards, turning to join the Charing Cross tunnel on the home stretch. Waterloo would require a notable 90 degree turn to the north in a tunnel under South Bank, then could run under the river, giving a southern approach.

I'm having too much fun with this.

Edit: drew it quickly on my iPad.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think it's a royal park, but Lincoln's Inn Fields (by Holborn) seems like a nice place for it - served by Piccadilly line, Central line, Elizabeth line runs by it, and you're close to Farringdon for the sub-surfaces. Thameslink would have to be excluded from this megastation, but that would be the case for most sites.

This London Holborn Central would be a pretty straight shot from Kings Cross St Pancras and Euston. Marylebone trains would probably have to continue on and then follow the H&C, Met, and Circle until the hypothetical Euston->Central tunnel, and then continue along that. Paddington trains could probably just follow the path of the Elizabeth line, with separate tunnels that don't call at any of the intermediate stops. Same with Liverpool Street. Moorgate NR might be a bit messy, though - either a very sharp turn or a completely separate tunnel - maybe joining the tunnel from Fenchurch Street. This would almost be a straight shot as well (might as well take the DLR with you while you're at it) and the line from Cannon Street could join (with a sharp turn just before Bank). With a 180 degree curve under Soho, you could get Charing Cross trains, and Victoria trains could run pretty straight onwards, turning to join the Charing Cross tunnel on the home stretch. Waterloo would require a notable 90 degree turn to the north in a tunnel under South Bank, then could run under the river, giving a southern approach.

I'm having too much fun with this.

Edit: drew it quickly on my iPad.

I would think some sort of multiple track tunnel solution would be the best bet from Clapham Junction, passing under one of Waterloo or Victoria for a secondary stop. Consolidation of the south eastern terminals wouldl likely be the way to go too.

Personally I think Marylebone would probably get a short section of tunnel out towards OOC that allows the Chiltern Main Line to connect to the GWMl fast lines via the New North Main Line. The trains would then proceed from Paddington to the new station. Probably only need two tracks given the service density isn't that high on the fast lines. With the track changes near Paddington Crossrail could be given unobstructed acces to both the fast and slow lines.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think it's a royal park, but Lincoln's Inn Fields (by Holborn) seems like a nice place for it - served by Piccadilly line, Central line, Elizabeth line runs by it, and you're close to Farringdon for the sub-surfaces. Thameslink would have to be excluded from this megastation, but that would be the case for most sites.

This London Holborn Central would be a pretty straight shot from Kings Cross St Pancras and Euston. Marylebone trains would probably have to continue on and then follow the H&C, Met, and Circle until the hypothetical Euston->Central tunnel, and then continue along that. Paddington trains could probably just follow the path of the Elizabeth line, with separate tunnels that don't call at any of the intermediate stops. Same with Liverpool Street. Moorgate NR might be a bit messy, though - either a very sharp turn or a completely separate tunnel - maybe joining the tunnel from Fenchurch Street. This would almost be a straight shot as well (might as well take the DLR with you while you're at it) and the line from Cannon Street could join (with a sharp turn just before Bank). With a 180 degree curve under Soho, you could get Charing Cross trains, and Victoria trains could run pretty straight onwards, turning to join the Charing Cross tunnel on the home stretch. Waterloo would require a notable 90 degree turn to the north in a tunnel under South Bank, then could run under the river, giving a southern approach.

I'm having too much fun with this.

Edit: drew it quickly on my iPad.

Alternatively, given how tricky it was in places to thread the Elizabeth Line, build Crossrail 2 (CR2) and be able to interchange between Thameslink, Elizabeth Line and CR2 at one one of three stations (Thameslink/CR2 at Euston Station Pancras, Thameslink/Elizabeth Line at Farringdon and Elizabeth Line/CR2 at Tottenham Court Road).

That means that anywhere in any of those three lines is still only one change away form any other location on another of those three lines, just as it would be worth a single mega station. Only without the significant pricetag (yes it would be big, just not as big).

A single mega station would be so complex that chances are lots of people would avoid using it because the change would take a long time and/or they were scared of getting lost.

The other advantage of CR2 (and this is potentially controversial with no basis of logic) is that there would likely be a significant uplift in rail use across the SWR network, potentially so that Waterloo (even though it loses a lot of metro services) ends up being almost as busy as it currently is (maybe even busier).

 

[AlastairFraser]

Indeed. The parliament buildings are falling apart and unfit for purpose, but the plans to renovate are put off again and again due to cost and disruption. A new "administrative capital" should be created in the midlands/north, perhaps not by actually building a new city but by picking an existing one, somewhere with excellent high speed rail connections to London (at present that would be Birmingham I guess, although Leeds and Manchester might have something to say) and parliament and much of the civil service moved there over time. The parliament buildings, emptied, could be stripped of all their asbestos, leaky pipes, and faulty electrics, office partitions etc. and turned into a grade-A tourist attraction, possibly part hotel.

This could even benefit London, which would still be the "economic capital", by taking some pressure off its housing and infrastructure, whilst helping to spread some jobs and wealth around at least a little bit.

It doesn't even have to be a city with a residential population, you could pick a brownfield site somewhere in the Midlands and build your whole complex on top. Proximity to an existing rail line would be a plus, but a spur no longer than 5 miles could be built from a nearby rail line in most of the Midlands.

 

[Zomboid]

We had an office visitor from the USA who was given instructions to meet others at a restaurant next to Edgware Road underground station. I envisaged maybe some confusion, but nothing like what actually happened ...

The went to Edgware .

Possibly a result of the American style of dropping the "road" or "avenue" etc. I've heard stories (no idea if they're true) of people asking for directions to "Oxford", and getting exactly what they asked for, rather than directions to Oxford Street.

 

[Falcon1200]

We already have one 'super terminal' at Kings Cross/St Pancras, and could have had another one if the GWR had only gone to Euston instead of Paddington. In fact the latter could still happen, and it could serve Chiltern's Oxford and Birmingham routes too! OK, it would need a few buildings demolished, and would cost a bit. But Paddington would make a good museum....

 

[Zomboid]

Maybe a more realistic (but still crayontastic) super terminal plan would be to have a few. Combine:
* KX, StP & Euston into a "London North" (not far from how it already is)
* Waterloo, Paddington & Marylebone into "London West"
* Liverpool St & Fenchurch St into "London East"
* Victoria, Charing Cross, Cannon St into "London South"

For suburban ops there would be Crossrail/ Thameslink services connecting East/ West and North/ South.

 

[Wolfie]

"This is a Circle line train to Hammersmith. This is Barbican-Farringdon. The next stop will be Barbican-Farringdon"

Alternatively, I'd reason that for Farringdon, the actual setup is that the Elizabeth line platforms are at Farringdon, and there's a long corridor linking them to Barbican station, as well as to an exit along Long Lane which is actually far, far closer to Barbican station than to the rest of Farringdon station. It would be much more logical and accurate to make that ticket hall part of Barbican station and explicitly show the corridor in signage as 'passageway to Barbican station'.

Ditto Liverpool Street: The Elizabeth line platforms are arguably physically much more a part of Moorgate station than of Liverpool Street (to which they are only connected by a very long passageway) and it would therefore be far more logical to name that stop 'Moorgate' but indicate that there is a passageway to Liverpool Street.

The Kings Cross - St Pancras underground station name is arguably correct as it is, since it has exits to both mainline stations, and God knows what you'd do with Bank-Monument, which has over time become a mess of platforms often miles away from each other but connected by numerous underground passageways.

The three Canary Wharf stations really ought to be given different names. Ditto the two Bethnal Green stations.

(Is that enough to start your proposed new thread @Recession? )

You left out the two Edgware Road stations...

I absolutely agree about Canary Wharf - my suspicion is that the owners/developers of that location through some cash in and demanded the name.

No need to change the Tube station names; you could have “Barbican-Farringdon” Thameslink and Elizabeth Line stations serving Barbican and Farringdon, two separate tube stations, just as you could have “Moorgate-Liverpool Street” serving the two stations of those names. I would add “Bond Street-Oxford Circus” as one.

And remember that what is now Charing Cross station used to comprise Charing Cross railway station, Strand tube station (on the Northern Line) and Trafalgar Square tube station (on the Bakerloo Line), while the next tube station along, on the Bakerloo, Circle, District and Northern Lines was then called Charing Cross (it is now Embankment)!

Sorry but that is the daftest logic-omitted first para that l've seen for a very long time. Deliberately having different station names within the same complex? See @DynamicSpirit's comments about Bank-Monument.

No potential for confusion there, particularly for non-locals or tourists.... NOT!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Maybe a more realistic (but still crayontastic) super terminal plan would be to have a few. Combine:
* KX, StP & Euston into a "London North" (not far from how it already is)
* Waterloo, Paddington & Marylebone into "London West"
* Liverpool St & Fenchurch St into "London East"
* Victoria, Charing Cross, Cannon St into "London South"

The problem is, that basically defeats the point of the super-terminals. If it's one single 'grand central' station in central London then you get (a) through trains, so need to deal with the land take and conflicting moves etc. caused by loads of trains terminating at the same place, and (b) much more convenient through journeys since you can basically get from anywhere to anywhere-else with a single change at the Grand Central station.

Your suggestion doesn't remove the issue of trains terminating, and also provides very few new useful connections, since your new stations largely serve trains coming from the same direction which means that the new interchanges they enable are on the whole interchanges that no-one will want to make (for example, no-one is going find it useful that they can come from Peterborough, and make one change at London North to head back out to Leicester ). So, loads of rebuilding but no benefit at the end!

 

[Recessio]

Sorry but that is the daftest logic-omitted first para that l've seen for a very long time. Deliberately having different station names within the same complex? See @DynamicSpirit's comments about Bank-Monument.

No potential for confusion there, particularly for non-locals or tourists.... NOT!

We already have different station names within the same complex, such as at Bank-Monument, Liverpool Street & Moorgate, Farringdon & Barbican.

Or even worse, different stations not in the same complex but with the same name! West Hampstead (jubilee vs mildmay), Edgware Road (Bakerloo vs Subsurface), Hammersmith (Picadilly District vs Circle H&C).

---

Re @DynamicSpirit comments, I would keep the existing underground stations the same name, but just rename the Elizabeth line stops to reflect that they are linked to both stations. So the Elizabeth line stop would be eg Moorgate-Liverpool Street, but the existing underground platforms would keep their name as either Liverpool Street or Moorgate.

Note that this is what is planned to happen at "Euston-St Pancras" for Crossrail 2. You could tap in at Euston Underground, walk along the CR2 platform and exit at King's Cross St Pancras underground. But note that they are not renaming the whole complex to "Euston King's Cross St Pancras", as that would rightly be absolutely daft!

 

[Bald Rick]

Note that this is what is planned to happen at "Euston-St Pancras" for Crossrail 2. You could tap in at Euston Underground, walk along the CR2 platform and exit at King's Cross St Pancras underground. But note that they are not renaming the whole complex to "Euston King's Cross St Pancras", as that would rightly be absolutely daft!

Actually, that is not the case. You could tap in at Euston Underground, walk along the CR2 platform, and exit at either the CR2 exit on the west side of St Pancras, or via the Thameslink barrier line. There is no planned paid side connection from the CR2 Euston St Pancras station to the LU KXSP station.

 

[HSTEd]

A single mega station would be so complex that chances are lots of people would avoid using it because the change would take a long time and/or they were scared of getting lost.

I don't think a mega station would necessarily be complex, if it was built from scratch.

If you just stacked twenty-thirty platforms side by side, you could have a single concourse hall above it. If it is above ground the space could be more or less open (with an arched or tent roof), whilst if below ground it would require roof supports. The onlyother thing in the space would be the escalators or lifts to the platforms.

It would be simple to navigate as in theory a passenger only has to move in a straight line (in one of two directions) from any escalator to reach any platform.

 

[The Planner]

I don't think a mega station would necessarily be complex, if it was built from scratch.

If you just stacked twenty-thirty platforms side by side, you could have a single concourse hall above it. If it is above ground the space could be more or less open (with an arched or tent roof), whilst if below ground it would require roof supports. The onlyother thing in the space would be the escalators or lifts to the platforms.

It would be simple to navigate as in theory a passenger only has to move in a straight line (in one of two directions) from any escalator to reach any platform.

How big would the throats have to be based on what flexibility? Presumably you aren't expecting a train to P1 being able to reach the higher numbers? Its not just the station box you need to think about.

 

[43096]

I don't think a mega station would necessarily be complex, if it was built from scratch.

If you just stacked twenty-thirty platforms side by side, you could have a single concourse hall above it. If it is above ground the space could be more or less open (with an arched or tent roof), whilst if below ground it would require roof supports. The onlyother thing in the space would be the escalators or lifts to the platforms.

It would be simple to navigate as in theory a passenger only has to move in a straight line (in one of two directions) from any escalator to reach any platform.

WHat are you doing with other public transport to allow arriving and departing passengers to get to other parts of London?

 

[HSTEd]

How big would the throats have to be based on what flexibility? Presumably you aren't expecting a train to P1 being able to reach the higher numbers? Its not just the station box you need to think about.

Well presumably the station would be, from a railway perspective, several stations stacked side by side.
Service groups that currently terminate in stations in London would be paired up and assigned a suitable group of platforms. The throats would be designed to provide the expected service patterns.

Just as Victoria is two stations that are next to each other.

I think trying to allow all possible movements would require rather a lot of pointwork!

 

[AndrewE]

We had an office visitor from the USA who was given instructions to meet others at a restaurant next to Edgware Road underground station. I envisaged maybe some confusion, but nothing like what actually happened ...

The went to Edgware .

Many years ago my parents (in the SE) were expecting a visitor from Russia... She wrote to them that she would arrive at Liverpool Station at some specific time, cue panic: Could I get there to meet her and escort her back to them?

After a bit of thought I realised that she was interpreting "Liverpool St" as [London] Liverpool Station, in the same way as theirs might be [Moscow] Kurskaya Stn!

 

[HSTEd]

WHat are you doing with other public transport to allow arriving and departing passengers to get to other parts of London?

Either they would be accessed from the concourse as if they were another platform, or they would have to be positioned around the outside of the concourse like the entrances to street level.
The specifics would obviously depend on the site.

Of course, if we assume that all London buses are electric by then you could more tightly integrate the buses with the station than traditionally done.