How would it even be possible with the need to serve Old Oak Common as well? There would surely be too much in its way for a junction west of there. Presumably any Crossrail to WCML plans involved a junction nearer to Ladbroke Grove.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Would a single London terminus be feasible?
- Thread starter USRailFan
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
anything is possible within the laws of physics! As I say it would be very disruptive, both to the line and to, ahem, neighbours.
mike57
Established Member
Farringdon Grand Central in 1842 was the first proposal of this kind, the excellent Jago Hazzard has done a short video about it here:
One of those big what ifs, how would the current rail network in London look now if it had been built? If you Google 'Farringdon Grand Central' you will get one or two other snippets about the proposals
One of those big what ifs, how would the current rail network in London look now if it had been built? If you Google 'Farringdon Grand Central' you will get one or two other snippets about the proposals
You'd surely have to rearrange every service to pass straight through, or just the logistics of stabling & turning everything around would be a monumental task! where would everything go? presumably you'd end up with Bristol-Ipswich & Edinburgh-Brighton, which leads on to compatibility of the routes out of the place too...
Can you imagine working the place as a signaller? and where's all the power going to come from!
Can you imagine working the place as a signaller? and where's all the power going to come from!
Not only is the city much smaller, but it has a much less developed hinterland ( for historical reasons). Berlin’s position in the 1990s was unique - a sudden return to “normality” with 50 years to catch up on, inadequate infrastructure for outer suburban and intercity rail and the money and political will to do something about it. Even so, it wasn’t universally popular - as the return of limited IC services to Zoo testifies!
Mike Machin
Member
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 257
I think London is simply too big - it dwarfs all other European capitals, the population being a little bigger than Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels combined. The GaWC rates London and New York as the two most important cities in the world, only these two cities attain an Alpha ++ rating, and even cities such as Shanghai, Beijing and Paris for example are merely rated Alpha +.
London is simply too big, too diverse, too busy and too important to have one central terminus!
London is simply too big, too diverse, too busy and too important to have one central terminus!
Four miles from Zoo and you're at Ostbahnhof though, which is a fairer comparison - though your other points about Berlin are fair.
Apart from perhaps the OP, I don't think anyone shares that mood.
Not only is London too big and too developed to do this now, it was the same story when the current terminals were built. There's multiple examples all over the place of the railway companies being unable to afford to put their terminus where they wanted, either resulting in sub-optimal locations today (Fenchurch Street, Marylebone) or waiting until they'd earnt enough cash to build another half a mile closer to the centre (Liverpool Street, Paddington).
If there was little acceptance of demolishing a huge chunk of London for through routes in the early 1800s, there's going to be far less today. A more modern example was the London ringways - they would have required clearing vast swathes of the London suburbs, not even touching the city centre - but was too expensive and too unpopular to build more than the odd little bit which didn't link to anything else.
If there was little acceptance of demolishing a huge chunk of London for through routes in the early 1800s, there's going to be far less today. A more modern example was the London ringways - they would have required clearing vast swathes of the London suburbs, not even touching the city centre - but was too expensive and too unpopular to build more than the odd little bit which didn't link to anything else.
WideRanger
Member
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 345
As well as having to have an enormous station with a ridiculous number of platforms, the spaghetti of lines that would be required to get everything into a single station without conflicts would present some interesting engineering challenges and take up rather a lot of land. There might not be a lot of London left to serve.
Paul Jones 88
Member
London is a big city, time to think big.
Londons's layout hasn't changed much for centuries apart from it's size.
I'd like to see a new London with a massive modern London Central Station, multi level platforming with lifts and travalators whisking passengers from one platform to the next in speed and comfort.
London could have a new parliament and central hall, both bigger than anything ever built anywhere in the world.
Or just keep what is familiar.
Londons's layout hasn't changed much for centuries apart from it's size.
I'd like to see a new London with a massive modern London Central Station, multi level platforming with lifts and travalators whisking passengers from one platform to the next in speed and comfort.
London could have a new parliament and central hall, both bigger than anything ever built anywhere in the world.
Or just keep what is familiar.
It would not only be a truly enormous building, it would require massive land purchase and wholesale remodelling of nearly all the approaching railway lines into London to complete.
Conservation, restoration and making do with what we have absolutely has to be the watchword of the current age. Construction for construction's sake isn't the way forward (although neither is having to maintain energy inefficient buildings). A reasonable balance has to be reached.
Not only that, but several companies built more than one terminal, or negotiated to share such with other companies. They recognised that different passengers were heading for different parts of London. Hence Holborn Viaduct and Victoria for the LC&DR; London Bridge and Victoria for the LB&SCR; Charing Cross and Cannon Street for the SECR; Kings Cross and Moorgate for the GNR. These were deliberate diversifications.
One of the options for HS2 was to put it next to Kings Cross and St Pancras but it wasn't the most cost effective option and it was deemed that the damage to local heritage would have been too great. The area has been heavily redeveloped since therefore its too late to significantly expand or merge the two stations. Even a Kings cross - St Pancras station with HS1 and HS2 would not be a London Hbf!
Berlin is more comparable with Birmingham and Manchester than London. I am a fan of Berlin but if you look at the size of metro areas (rather than official city populations) you will realise its not very big for the capital of a major country.
Berlin is more comparable with Birmingham and Manchester than London. I am a fan of Berlin but if you look at the size of metro areas (rather than official city populations) you will realise its not very big for the capital of a major country.
I don't think Berlin is great for comparisons anyway, given iGermany hasn't been Germany for very long so it's got several would-be capital cities.
I'm trying to imagine what the Tube would have to look like with a single central rail station to deliver people to and from....
mike57
Established Member
This was discussed in another thread, my view is that HS2 should have been terminated at St Pancras, at the time HS2 was first mooted the Kings Cross area was pretty grim, anyone who passed through it in the 80s or early 90s will no doubt remember it well. Crossrail should have served it as well. That would have given connectivity to a lot of significant places with just a change at Kings Cross, with Crossrail as well you would have a fast link to Heathrow, rather than the interminable journey on the Piccadilly line or a further change, Gatwick is served by Brighton bound Thameslink services, HS1 gives access to the near continent. Not a London Central, but a good interchange for people whose journeys start and terminate outside London. I think in years to come it will be seen as a missed opportunity.
and as said in the other thread - whereabouts at St Pancras? Would you demolish the Francis Crick Institute and the British Library, a whole load of residential property, Grade 1 listed buildings, or something else?
I might not be remembering accurately but I think the HS2 option was in the land between St Pancras and Kings Cross i.e. where Google's UK HQ is now located. The scale of demolition would have been politically unacceptable but it would have been more practical than extending St Pancas westwards. I think the same report considered and quickly rejected the option of building under a royal park. Its obvious why extending Euston was the only option worth developing.
Even if we had a blank slate I can't see how a city the size of London could have fewer than four terminals i.e North, South, East and West. The city centre is too big for one station.
Birmingham could have had one station if space had been left for multiple platforms on WCML between Curzon Street and Moor Street stations, forming one mega station. While it would have looked good on a map, I doubt relocating New Street would be cost effective!
mike57
Established Member
I would have extended Kings Cross eastwards, put HS1 in to the east of Kings Cross and HS2 where the current HS1 is, closed York Way as far as Goods Way and protected the land between Kings Cross and St Pancras from development for future expansion of the station complex, but this would have to occured before the redevelopment of the area.
...and leave no room to improve the commercial value of the area. The fact that a load of very valuable business has occupied the spare land at Kings Cross is of much better commercial value than trying to cover it all with stations.
Threads about Castlefield and Manchester city centre tend to include annoyance about development next to the railway limiting options. Many rail enthusiasts seem to think that swathes of city centres should be ring fenced for years or decades! It may not be the tidiest but the redevelopment of the area around Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross seems to being done well.
Western Sunset
Established Member
A single terminus for London. Why?
Last edited:
Gloster
Established Member
There was a thread last year under the title: What would a “London Central” have looked like? (Sorry, I can’t do a link.)
mike57
Established Member
I agree that the development has improved the area, I have been travelling through Kings Cross for probably 55 years, early memories are hazy but certainly during the 70s - 90s the area was grim, even standing at the station entrance exposed you to sights for which to use modern parlance 'There is no unsee button'. My thoughts were more along the lines of what could have happened had the development around the area been less disjointed. It didnt happen, and it will not happen now, but there was an opportunity to make a single station with a large range of journey opportunities. Keeping areas protected doesnt mean they cant be made pleasent, open spaces when done right add to ambience of an area.
It really depends on the size of the land and its location. Trying to reserve land would not have been realistic for a massive plot in the an area where land is incredibly valuable.
Philip
On Moderation
Perhaps Euston could merge with Kings Cross and St Pancras; there'd still be plenty of disruption and buildings having to be bulldozed, but from a geographic perspective it seems more feasible than having all the stations merging into one, with only half a mile distance between Euston and St Pancras. This would be a new super station for most of the northern destinations, without interfering with the lines and services to the east, west and south.
Deepgreen
Established Member
In a single line - possible; yes, feasible; no.
Class800
Established Member
No - just not possible - lines coming from different directions, too expensive to tunnel under the city centre, would be too crowded, not a sensible idea really
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
That’s an AWFUL idea. Just keep them as they are. There is no need to merge any of the stations.
Philip
On Moderation
The point of the thread is discussing a potential single London terminus station. Just merging Euston with the two down the road would surely be less complex than merging them all?!
- Status