Lords Bradshaw and Berkeley
Initial commentary on implications of Sir David Higgins’ HS2 review,
for the London end of HS2
17 March 2014
Sir David Higgins’ Review had some very sensible suggestions, including extending the line to Crewe at an early stage to avoid the traffic jam that would be caused by all those trains from HS2 and WCML converging onto the WCML there. We also welcome the removing the HS1-2 link; it was never fit for purpose, neither for passengers nor freight.
From a railway operating point of view, we have demonstrated that the existing Euston station and approaches can cater for all the HS2 as well as WCML trains, except the suburban ones to be diverted straight into Crossrail via a link to Old Oak Common. (Which Sir David also agrees is necessary.) So why go to the massive expense and disruption of lowering the level of the Euston platforms and building new ones just in order to have a deck above which is level with the adjacent roads? We propose a deck above the existing station, along with lengthened platforms at the south end. Either way, the deck can provide excellent new passenger facilities as well as unlimited developer opportunities above; all it will need to be passenger-friendly are some escalators, which are much cheaper than lowering an operating station by 5m or so !
There is no need to demolish hundreds of properties to the West of Euston and its approaches for railway reasons. By all means re-erect the Euston Arch, but to widen the development beyond the footprint of what is required for the railway seems more of an ego trip than a necessity !
The Euston approaches are well designed for efficient operation. All that is required is to divert the HS2 tunnels from Old Oak Common to join the West Coast Main Line near Queens Park station, all within the railway boundary, and use the existing approaches to Euston or to the North London Line for the international trains to HS1. The tracks are there, pity they sold the Regional Eurostar trains to SNCF.
There are many questions to be asked, and we shall now seek to meet Sir David to discuss these issues. It is certainly good he recognises that more work needs to be done to find a suitable solution to the Euston station issue and the link to HS1. And that he intends to approach it in an inclusive manner.
Bill Bradshaw and Tony Berkeley
Some people have grander designs than others!
Who actually wants to go to Euston? Terminating trains at the underused Stratford International station, via a “Euston Cross” station if needed, would provide better connectivity for less disruption. It would be difficult threading through underground, but a viaduct linking up with HS1 outside St.Pancras should be feasible.
I have always felt uncomfortable on the HS2. There have been a fair amount of voices that claim that the HS2 will bring the cost, but in the end not the ROI. I am a pragmatist in this, if it clearly brings the economy and a ROI, then it should be done, yet the other voices have brought a decent amount of doubt. The Dutch Fyra is another element of danger, too many captains, not enough actual decision makers and no one is in charge. The costs are well over 1 billion, with in the end not a functioning train. The latter is not the risk for the HS2, yet the costs, which are already claimed to be growing are another matter. I understand that the Honourable David Cameron is intent to cut the costs, yet the costs will remain massive in the UK’s current low economy. In an age of cutting the deficit, an upcoming costs exceeding 40 billion remains a question mark, especially as the Return On Investment is not a given.
I am not saying that extending the line is a bad thought, but will there be a cost, or is this already a saving?