Euston - how could services be re-routed if it were to be rebuilt?

[The Planner]

What timeline are people taking into consideration here? Would not the most obvious thing to do be getting new HS2 platforms to operational stage before taking any other platforms out of service?

In the beginning classic services could surely use at least part of the HS2 platforms during reconstruction given full HS2 capacity won't be needed until HS2 reaches at least manchester.

That would be far enough in future that other, smaller infrastructure enhancements could be done elsewhere to alleviate pressure. I don't know what those enhancements could be, but it seems some posts are ruling out the possibility of anything other than timetable changes.

Clearly you need HS2 open before trying to do anything, but classic services cannot use HS2 platforms, they are several metres below the conventional station.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

classic services cannot use HS2 platforms, they are several metres below the conventional station.

This gives me an idea... double deck the station - you could then have the full ideal of 11 platforms for HS2, at the lower level, and have as many classic platforms as you need on the higher level and at the same time be able to reduce the overall land take by releasing land from the eastern side once it's all rebuilt... and use the £££ from releasing that land to offset the bill...

 

[cle]

For those mentioning Queen's Park it looks to me like the mainline platforms here are being dug up at the moment, so probably no longer an option.

Does anyone have more information about this? I didn’t know it was planned. Replacement or full removal?

Could you feasibly run some trains through to Waterloo via the WLL? Maybe even throw in a Vauxhall stop for the Victoria Line. Of course only 350/1s and 805s would be able to do this.

The WLL is an interesting one. These days you have plenty of London dispersal options.

Running 2tph (more if you could, and cut LO / Stratford a little) - of 8 cars from Watford or beyond to Clapham Junction would be a good help.

Maybe this is the LNWR service and is 2-4tph from MKC.

Central line at Shepherds Bush would feel it most (it has capacity esp on Ealing trains!) - but other options like West Brompton and Clapham would help spread people out. Wembley for Bakerloo too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe this is the LNWR service and is 2-4tph from MKC.

One useful thing here is that the 350/1s are third rail capable - they have been used on the Southern service in the past.

 

[Mgameing123]

We need to first build a cord on EWR to allow trains from Bletchley to head towards Wycombe. Then we divert Avanti trains down that line into Marylebone. An IET shuttle will operate between Milton Keynes and Marylebone to take all the Avanti customers. North Wales services would be suspended and TFW would provide a replacement services.

London Northwestern would terminate at Watford Junction and from there Southern would provide a shuttle to Victoria or Waterloo via Clapham Junction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need to first build a cord on EWR to allow trains from Bletchley to head towards Wycombe. Then we divert Avanti trains down that line into Marylebone. An IET shuttle will operate between Milton Keynes and Marylebone to take all the Avanti customers. North Wales services would be suspended and TFW would provide a replacement services.

A slightly less far fetched version of that is to run 10 car "blockade buster" 805s from Birmingham International via the Chiltern, assuming there's a platform at Marylebone long enough. Something similar to that has been done before.

 

[The Planner]

We need to first build a cord on EWR to allow trains from Bletchley to head towards Wycombe. Then we divert Avanti trains down that line into Marylebone. An IET shuttle will operate between Milton Keynes and Marylebone to take all the Avanti customers. North Wales services would be suspended and TFW would provide a replacement services.

That will exist and is part of East West anyway. You cannot conceivably carry the amount of people with a shuttle. A 10 car 805 is 260m long, too long for any of Marylebone platforms. As I asked earlier, how are TfW providing a replacement service on top of what they are doing?

London Northwestern would terminate at Watford Junction and from there Southern would provide a shuttle to Victoria or Waterloo via Clapham Junction.

You still cannot carry the volume of passengers, you also have to consider how you deal with them at Watford too.

 

[cle]

That will exist and is part of East West anyway. You cannot conceivably carry the amount of people with a shuttle. A 10 car 805 is 260m long, too long for any of Marylebone platforms. As I asked earlier, how are TfW providing a replacement service on top of what they are doing?

You still cannot carry the volume of passengers, you also have to consider how you deal with them at Watford too.

I think they mean just before Bicester and onto the mainline, vs the Aylesbury route.

Watford - I think the Southern to Clapham, the DC and maybe some shuttles to Queens Park (platforms, TBD!) could handle it. Birmingham would not have a Watford service, to discourage users and send them into Marylebone. Birmingham folks have good alternatives, those trains will need to be as long as they can be, and remove some calls / add more semi-fasts back in to cover smaller stops. Banbury should be first stop. 1tph via Coventry.

Add a few Lumo/GNER services to Glasgow (which is the lesser part of those - people will just fly more, let's be real)

Manchester and to a lesser degree Liverpool and Lancs, will be the volume issues for Watford to deal with. 1tph to each might be enough. All obviously call at MKC and Rugby which would offer Birmingham services too.

 

[The Planner]

I think they mean just before Bicester and onto the mainline, vs the Aylesbury route.

That is a huge expense for a temporary situation, we aren't in that world, especially if E-W can do it without it.

Watford - I think the Southern to Clapham, the DC and maybe some shuttles to Queens Park (platforms, TBD!) could handle it. Birmingham would not have a Watford service, to discourage users and send them into Marylebone. Birmingham folks have good alternatives, those trains will need to be as long as they can be, and remove some calls / add more semi-fasts back in to cover smaller stops. Banbury should be first stop. 1tph via Coventry.

The full WCML fast timetable is 2 x Birmingham, 2 x Liverpool, 3 x Manchester, 2 x Glasgow and 1 x North Wales. You are trying to move that amount of passengers on existing trains that have their own passengers to start with. Chiltern and XC can only strengthen to an extent, same with GTR, and they aren't going to overly disrupt their core markets to deal with others. Watford has 5tph LNWR off peak, as well as the two fasts that don't stop from Crewe and Birmingham, can 4tph DC and a GTR service cope with all that?

Add a few Lumo/GNER services to Glasgow (which is the lesser part of those - people will just fly more, let's be real)

Where is all the resource coming from and can they fit? As I said before it isn't "just do this"

Manchester and to a lesser degree Liverpool and Lancs, will be the volume issues for Watford to deal with. 1tph to each might be enough. All obviously call at MKC and Rugby which would offer Birmingham services too.

For Sundays maybe, over a sustained period? no.

 

[Mgameing123]

If we wanted to fully rebuild Euston. Wouldn't it be smarter by doing it in phases. So some platforms are closed meanwhile others are open. Or even build a temporary station?

 

[Bald Rick]

this is all fascinating….

 

[Mr. SW]

this is all fascinating….

Some of it is highly questionable, too...

On another angle: Would some minor track works help, such as a few crossovers here and there and a suitable siding for reversals, etc.?
After all you're spending a bazillion quizillion boorillion pounds on rebuilding the thing, an extra set of points and a signal alteration at Milton Keynes would be small fry.

 

[Bevan Price]

Can they do what used to happen in the 1960s, and divert some trains (805s) to Kensington Olympia ?

 

[12LDA28C]

Liverpool-Stafford-Banbury-Chiltern line-Marylebone using 805s?

Good in theory but Class 80x aren't passed for the Chilterns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good in theory but Class 80x aren't passed for the Chilterns.

I don't think getting them passed is a major piece of work compared to rebuilding Euston.

 

[cle]

That is a huge expense for a temporary situation, we aren't in that world, especially if E-W can do it without it.

The full WCML fast timetable is 2 x Birmingham, 2 x Liverpool, 3 x Manchester, 2 x Glasgow and 1 x North Wales. You are trying to move that amount of passengers on existing trains that have their own passengers to start with. Chiltern and XC can only strengthen to an extent, same with GTR, and they aren't going to overly disrupt their core markets to deal with others. Watford has 5tph LNWR off peak, as well as the two fasts that don't stop from Crewe and Birmingham, can 4tph DC and a GTR service cope with all that?

Where is all the resource coming from and can they fit? As I said before it isn't "just do this"

For Sundays maybe, over a sustained period? no.

There are a lot of holes of course. This is a more fun conundrum for this particular sub-forum as the permutations, credible or not, are many.

I would think that in addition to turning some trains at Watford (Manchester and Liverpool only, a few Preston/Carlisles) - you might have Rio services operating too.

My thinking is to split the main services out, so Marylebone handles Birmingham (maybe beyond, per Wolves service) and Kings Cross handles Scotland. Manc/Liv/Lancs are therefore via QP/Wembley/Watford/MKC solutions. 3tph could be workable.

The actual reality is that Scots will fly and others will drive, or discretionary trips will not happen. Overall, people will be deterred by all this so I don't think one can assume to move the same volumes as demand will soften for a spell.

 

[The Planner]

Overall, people will be deterred by all this so I don't think one can assume to move the same volumes as demand will soften for a spell.

This is another problem, sustained disruption puts people off permanently. You will lose a proportion of your revenue stream.

 

[cle]

Pre modernisation / Pendos, 1tph on each main route was standard, notably different for Bham and Manchester today.

Would your solution be some type of skeleton operation at Euston (4 platforms, 1/2 line working?) at 1tph levels?

I see sustained disruption with every option, until OOC / phase 1 opens.

 

[The Planner]

Pre modernisation / Pendos, 1tph on each main route was standard, notably different for Bham and Manchester today.

Would your solution be some type of skeleton operation at Euston (4 platforms, 1/2 line working?) at 1tph levels?

I see sustained disruption with every option, until OOC / phase 1 opens.

No, I would use the current two track timetable for engineering work and take out 3 or 4 platforms at a time.

 

[Nottingham59]

Whatever way you look at it, there isn't anywhere which can be used as a temporary terminus at short notice. As Finsbury Park proved a decade ago, there isn't anywhere with the physical capicity.

This whole question illustrates why the Railway Lands at Old Oak Common should have been used to create a proper interchange station with access from the Great Western, the Chiltern and the West Coast. As well as HS2, the EL, and the Overground routes. It could have acted as a temporary terminus for Euston, Marylebone and Paddington as required as each was upgraded.


As that land is no longer available, I would propose building a cheap four-platform open-air station on what used to be the Willesden Freightliner sidings and is now an HS2 logistics yard. With access from WCML fasts. Then build a high-level pedestrian walkway across the road to the DC line platforms at Willesden Junction.

Convert the DC lines to Bakerloo only, at least as far out as Harrow & Wealdstone, and ideally all the way to Watford. Upgrade the Bakerloo to 24 or 32 tph; whatever is needed to handle the passenger flow, with a second terminating platform between platforms 1 and 3 at Willesden, so that 12tph start from Willesden.

Keep an Overground Shuttle between Euston and Queens Park where possible but divert it onto the North London line during Euston redevelopment works. More than half the passengers on Overground services get off at Queens Park anyway, to change onto the Bakerloo, so making the DC lines Bakerloo only would reduce the total number who change there.

With 400m platforms at the new station at Willesden, you could use surplus HS2 stock already on order to carry 1100 passengers per path and fill them with the price-senstive customer segment who currently have to wait around at Euston until 7pm to get home. With 540m platforms, you could double up 11-car Pendolinos, splitting and joining at Crewe, or Rugby. Wherever you can extend platforms. Four platforms at Willesden could replace eight platforms at Euston.

Keep some Avanti services through to Euston, to serve the time-sensitive premium price market. But they could use just half the station while the rest was being rebuilt.

And build a 750 metre long overhead pedestrian walkway to Old Oak Common too, so there is a possible diversion route available if the Bakerloo line is ever closed. Or use the HS2 logistics tunnel if that is available.

 

[PeterC]

I have a vision of this being planned based on HS2 being there to absorb a lot of the long distance traffic and the two projects then getting out of sync

 

[Steve Harris]

This whole question illustrates why the Railway Lands at Old Oak Common should have been used to create a proper interchange station with access from the Great Western, the Chiltern and the West Coast. As well as HS2, the EL, and the Overground routes. It could have acted as a temporary terminus for Euston, Marylebone and Paddington as required as each was upgraded.




Convert the DC lines to Bakerloo only, at least as far out as Harrow & Wealdstone, and ideally all the way to Watford.

It's not a question, it's a statement.

As for converting the DC lines to Harrow & Wealdstone, for use by the Bakerloo line, how/what would you do to "convert" it ? (Considering the Bakerloo already run to H&W).

 

[Nottingham59]

how/what would you do to "convert" it ?

Run only Bakerloo trains on the DC tracks north of Queens Park. Restrict the Euston-Watford overground service to Euston/NLL-Queens Park. And increase Bakerloo line frequency to Victoria Line levels if necessary. You could adjust DC platform heights to LUL standards, too.

EDIT: To clarify, by "the whole question", I mean "Euston - how could services be re-routed if it were to be rebuilt?" which is the topic of this thread.

 

[cle]

I don't think Bakerloo frequencies will really go up until it is extended. Let's be honest, it is only well used Queens Park - Piccadilly Circus, and the largest infusion at Paddington is now largely on Crossrail.

But if extended to NXG/Lewisham, demand would be huge and the corresponding TPH would go up. Elephant would become a through station (re-aligned) and it would have new signalling.

At that point, something (two islands) should be done to extend more TPH on the northern end, as demand will be very imbalanced, and turn more at Willesden Junction. Doesn't help this Euston issue tons specifically, but QP would have a lot more trains, inc empty starters - but needs 12 car platforms to really help.... which sounds like the opposite is happening.