Would a single London terminus be feasible?

[MarkyT]

It is interesting to consider Tokyo station in Japan. There, at the heart of a huge interchange complex, the two separate Shinkansen networks meet and both terminate right next to each other from opposite directions. Despite both being standard gauge there is no physical track connection whatsoever between them, not even an emergency or engineering link. There's a lot of history behind that separation, and it persists today partly because of different ownership and a different frequency of AC power supply. The arrangement completely prevents delays from one network propagating into the other clearly, and recognises that the majority of travellers on both are heading for the greater Tokyo area, so either interchange with other services at Tokyo station itself or at one of the other major satellite hubs called at further out. That the two networks share a central station however means connections between them are still very easy, and with Tokyo being roughly around the midpoint of the long thin archipelago, that offers some attractive long-distance journey opportunities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is interesting to consider Tokyo station in Japan. There, at the heart of a huge interchange complex, the two separate Shinkansen networks meet and both terminate right next to each other from opposite directions. Despite both being standard gauge there is no physical track connection whatsoever between them, not even an emergency or engineering link. There's a lot of history behind that separation, and it persists today partly because of different ownership and a different frequency of AC power supply. The arrangement completely prevents delays from one network propagating into the other clearly, and recognises that the majority of travellers on both are heading for the greater Tokyo area, so either interchange with other services at Tokyo station itself or at one of the other major satellite hubs called at further out. That the two networks share a central station however means connections between them are still very easy, and with Tokyo being roughly around the midpoint of the long thin archipelago, that offers some attractive long-distance journey opportunities.

Isn't that essentially how Euston will look post HS2? Nominally one station, but on two separate, totally unconnected railways.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't that essentially how Euston will look post HS2? Nominally one station, but on two separate, totally unconnected railways.

In concept, the Shinkansen at Tokyo Central is more like Ormskirk

(I bet that sentence has never been written before).

 

[miklcct]

Changing trains once is preferable to changing trains 2-3 times, which is the status quo with crossing London.

Sill I agree the mega-station is wildly impractical,

In such case, running all trains through Crossrail and Thameslink to the other part of London will be enough - in which case Farringdon will become the mega-station, with local commuter trains every minute as part of long-distance working.

However, Crossrail and Thameslink would need to be built with 8 lines for such operation.

 

[plugwash]

Isn't that essentially how Euston will look post HS2? Nominally one station, but on two separate, totally unconnected railways.

Not connected anywhere in the vicinity of Euston, but unlike the Japanese case of two railways heading in opposite directions, the classic and HS2 lines from Euston will be heading in broadly the same direction and there will be an interconnection at crewe (my googling is finding contradictory information on what form exactly this interconnection will take).

 

[MarkyT]

In concept, the Shinkansen at Tokyo Central is more like Ormskirk

(I bet that sentence has never been written before).

Although in Tokyo the HS platforms are side by side rather than buffer to buffer!

Perhaps an opportunity to make a suggestion to the local chamber of commerce to sponsor a strapline on the station signs 'Ormskirk, just like Tokyo'!

 

[MattRat]

The key to making such a station viable, in so much as it would ever be viable, would be it being a through station, not a terminus.

The problem, though, is that with London being in the bottom right hand corner there is a limit to the number of places that exist that you could usefully send InterCity services south to.

Along the South Coast, if you had a new line connecting them all (and at faster speeds). Then you could have a HS2 through service connecting the North and the South Coast, so instead of going abroad, they could more easily holiday in the UK.

 

[stuu]

Along the South Coast, if you had a new line connecting them all (and at faster speeds). Then you could have a HS2 through service connecting the North and the South Coast, so instead of going abroad, they could more easily holiday in the UK.

How many people do you think that is? I suspect it is a very tiny number

 

[MattRat]

How many people do you think that is? I suspect it is a very tiny number

Currently, you'd probably be right, but this is about enticing people to make the journey.

 

[43096]

Kings Cross/St. Pancras to Waterloo is a bit of a pain, as there are several options with different pros/cons such as cross-platform changes, crowding etc.

Victoria line to Oxford Circus, cross platform to the Bakerloo. I've never had a problem with it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Thinking a bit more out of the box in relation to this idea, perhaps a parkway terminus station built in the open space somewhere between Kings Langley and St Albans and close to the M1 would be better, to cater for all trains from the WCML, MML and GNR? A new faster and higher frequency tube line dug in conjunction with the new station would then either run into central London, or if there's not enough space then it could join existing the existing Northern, Piccadilly and Metropolitan tube lines at various junctions across North London.

New lines feeding into the new parkway station to branch off from WCML west of Hemel Hempstead/Boxmoor; MML between St Albans and Harpenden and from GNR near Welwyn...

I take it you are not familiar with the area . Let's leave it at that.

(live in St Albans and have had some management experience in the routes mentioned)

 

[Philip]

I take it you are not familiar with the area . Let's leave it at that.

(live in St Albans and have had some management experience in the routes mentioned)

I can see that there is a large amount of open space between Hemel and St Albans, also I've been to Berkhamsted a few times so not completely unfamiliar! The general idea of the thread is not going to happen, I was just offering an alternative hypothetical plan which wouldn't require as much (if any) building demolition to accommodate a super station; and also free up a lot of capacity on the lines into central London from the north.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I can see that there is a large amount of open space between Hemel and St Albans, also I've been to Berkhamsted a few times so not completely unfamiliar! The general idea of the thread is not going to happen, I was just offering an alternative hypothetical plan which wouldn't require as much (if any) building demolition to accommodate a super station; and also free up a lot of capacity on the lines into central London from the north.

Green belt and arable / forested land. There are huge issues locally on possible building on said area in all directions. The local roads , especially since Covid - but bad before - are horrendous. You are allowed to conjecture ...!!!

(some years ago , there was a developer with an idea for a super P&R near Kings Langley with a brand new station just for the WCML. Binned at no even the first hurdle)

 

[Bald Rick]

and also free up a lot of capacity on the lines into central London from the north.

how would it do that?

 

[Philip]

how would it do that?

Well again, hypothetically speaking, all intercity trains from West Midlands, North West, East Midlands, Yorkshire and the North East would go into the super station - so the London overground and regional local services from Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford, Stevenage and Cambridge wouldn't have to share the tracks with the intercity trains south of where this super station would be. I know there are fast and slow lines for intercity and local services, but it would still free up a lot of track capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well again, hypothetically speaking, all intercity trains from West Midlands, North West, East Midlands, Yorkshire and the North East would go into the super station - so the London overground and regional local services from Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford, Stevenage and Cambridge wouldn't have to share the tracks with the intercity trains south of where this super station would be. I know there are fast and slow lines for intercity and local services, but it would still free up a lot of track capacity.

so as well as building this super station on the site of Vince Jones’ boyhood village (good luck with that), you
will be building brand new lines to it from MK, Bedford and Hitchin?

with the ‘benefit’ that all journeys from beyond these places to London take an extra half hour?

 

[Philip]

so as well as building this super station on the site of Vince Jones’ boyhood village (good luck with that), you
will be building brand new lines to it from MK, Bedford and Hitchin?

with the ‘benefit’ that all journeys from beyond these places to London take an extra half hour?

Not all the way from Milton Keynes; a junction on the WCML between Berkhamsted and Bourne End was the place I was thinking, with the new feeder line arcing north east to south east around Hemel Hempstead, under the M1 and then into the super station near Childwickbury, just north of St Albans and between the M1 and A5183. But as stated above there are numerous reasons why it wouldn't get off the ground, like the initial idea of a super station in central London.

 

[Iskra]

I haven't read every single post, but my observation is this; if you were going to go to the trouble (and expense) to combine all the rail traffic into London into one station, I really don't see why you'd make it a terminus- a huge through-platform station would make much more sense and have the benefit of access from multiple directions as well as allowing through-working for efficiency.

 

[oldgoat]

The MARS plan for London, from the late 1930s, takes a serious stab at this. London rebuilt from scratch (hey, at the time, these things might have seemed a possibility), in a herringbone fashion of residential districts with a central commercial, cultural and administrative spine.
Rail would form the core of the new city's transport (roads were incidental), with a huge orbital railway feeding lines outwards to the provinces, and a central rail spine with principal passenger stations roughly along the paddington - KGX axis. Sort of Berlin on a grander scale. Other interesting features are are the extensive yard under the main shopping district, and the pattern of lines servicing the grid of residential and light industrial areas.
A piece of uber-crayoning by some otherwise distinguished architects, it was nevertheless feared that it might be seen by the public as some sort of planning proposal, so publication was suppressed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not all the way from Milton Keynes; a junction on the WCML between Berkhamsted and Bourne End was the place I was thinking, with the new feeder line arcing north east to south east around Hemel Hempstead, under the M1 and then into the super station near Childwickbury, just north of St Albans and between the M1 and A5183. But as stated above there are numerous reasons why it wouldn't get off the ground, like the initial idea of a super station in central London.

ok I’ll go easy on you …. That route would have to be tunnelled or on viaduct all the way until eats of Hemel (they are pretty stiff hills in the way, you should try cycling them like I do most weekends). And then it would go right through where the ‘East Hemel‘ housing development area - most of the land around there is owned by the Crown Estate. And then you have lots of trains terminating in a field 23 miles from central London.

and, of course, it wouldn’t release any track capacity on the WCML except south of Hemel.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

ok I’ll go easy on you …. That route would have to be tunnelled or on viaduct all the way until eats of Hemel (they are pretty stiff hills in the way, you should try cycling them like I do most weekends). And then it would go right through where the ‘East Hemel‘ housing development area - most of the land around there is owned by the Crown Estate. And then you have lots of trains terminating in a field 23 miles from central London.

and, of course, it wouldn’t release any track capacity on the WCML except south of Hemel.

Childwickbury is just a bit sensitive - one time home of Stanley Kubrick - an iconic estate , most of which is listed.

Agree - the topography is a little challenging and by no means as flat as a pancake.

Apart from the sensitivities of Hemel - consider the reaction from minor places such as Harpenden. (plus the city of st Albans......)

Not a good idea -

 

[tbtc]

I suppose the other option (seeing as this thread is crayonista anyway) is you don't look purely north-south, but instead it partly curves around under London, so you could run e.g. through ECML-GWML services via the City, the West End and Paddington, which might actually be useful through services given how much employment there is in Reading and the Thames Valley.

Having done that for the ICs, you could definitely connect commuter route to commuter route (e.g. LNR services connected to Southern services) - that's just Thameslink all over.

That of course isn't one London Hbf, but more like a better designed Castlefield.

So (from previous threads) we need to get "end doored" trains off Castlefield, but you want to run the end doored trains from Edinburgh to London via at least three stops in central London - so loading/unloading something like an 260m long 800 at a station like Oxford Circus in a high frequency line under central London that would require incredibly short dwells because there'll be another train nipping at it's heels...

 

[Bletchleyite]

So (from previous threads) we need to get "end doored" trains off Castlefield, but you want to run the end doored trains from Edinburgh to London via at least three stops in central London - so loading/unloading something like an 260m long 800 at a station like Oxford Circus in a high frequency line under central London that would require incredibly short dwells because there'll be another train nipping at it's heels...

Castlefield has two tracks and two platforms (at Picc). This would have six or eight of each at each station. Much more like Brussels or indeed Old Oak on HS2.

End doors would not be a problem on Castlefield if both Picc and Oxford Road had two islands with trains alternating sides.

 

[Bald Rick]

Childwickbury is just a bit sensitive - one time home of Stanley Kubrick - an iconic estate , most of which is listed.

Still occupied by Mrs Kubrick.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Still occupied by Mrs Kubrick.

Veering of topic . - I recall one winters evening at SAC , advising an American fan who had come to pay homage. Recommended a taxi (in the dark) , so he could pay homage. (taxi advised to wait)

Quite a special place to visit , even for non fans.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Victoria line to Oxford Circus, cross platform to the Bakerloo. I've never had a problem with it.

Yeah, my problem is that each time I make the journey I forget which option is the optimum one! Back when it was a regular journey I was usually heading to Kingston, Hampton Court or West Byfleet so mostly used the Victoria Line to Vauxhall.

 

[BayPaul]

Along the South Coast, if you had a new line connecting them all (and at faster speeds). Then you could have a HS2 through service connecting the North and the South Coast, so instead of going abroad, they could more easily holiday in the UK.

But then you are using completely unsuitable trains to serve the South Coast (which needs 12 coach 377s and similar, with wide doors at thirds, and good acceleration, to allow a fast, efficient service to the coast and various stops en-route}

 

[WideRanger]

It is interesting to consider Tokyo station in Japan. There, at the heart of a huge interchange complex, the two separate Shinkansen networks meet and both terminate right next to each other from opposite directions. Despite both being standard gauge there is no physical track connection whatsoever between them, not even an emergency or engineering link. There's a lot of history behind that separation, and it persists today partly because of different ownership and a different frequency of AC power supply. The arrangement completely prevents delays from one network propagating into the other clearly, and recognises that the majority of travellers on both are heading for the greater Tokyo area, so either interchange with other services at Tokyo station itself or at one of the other major satellite hubs called at further out. That the two networks share a central station however means connections between them are still very easy, and with Tokyo being roughly around the midpoint of the long thin archipelago, that offers some attractive long-distance journey opportunities.

But before people cite Tokyo as an example of how it can be done, it's worth remembering that 'Tokyo station' is one (and nowhere near the biggest) of quite a lot (I lost count at 15) of stations serving lines terminating in the central area bounded by the Yamanote Line, plus many dozens of other terminus stations in other parts of the Greater Tokyo Metropolis. Some of the stations are quite close to each other (like the 4 terminus stations, plus metro stations, run by different companies in Shinjuku). And others where the station links a single line to the Yamanote. A walk from Ikebukuro station to Shinagawa station (both of which are regarded as central termini) will take the best part of 3 hours.