Anyone Got Six Acres of Central London Spare for HS2?

By · January 1, 2010 at 14:15 pm · No comments · Latest News · Report an error ·

1231-london central-11.jpg A huge new ‘London Central’ station for High Speed 2 is reportedly going to be announced in the Government’s Rail Programme. Yes, we also have no idea where they plan to put it…

The proposed station would have eight platforms and be able to handle 16 trains per hour. At a rough estimate that’d be some 400m long by 64m wide — not including the WHSmiths or the bagel stand. The report in the Telegraph and the buzz on architecture forum SkyscraperCity is that it could be a redevelopment of Euston (not really new, that) but there are also comments that another location could be chosen. It could be put on the Kings Cross Railways Lands (now being turned into designer apartments, so seems unlikely); another option would be to obliterate Somers Town, no doubt unpopular with residents (and they have a film to rally their cause).

The line will apparently take a brave route in through the NIMBY territories of the Chilterns, so a north-westerly terminal would seem logical, but space along the Circle line (traditional termination point for inter-city rail) is very limited. We had a look at the area on Google Maps and we’re struggling to see more than a handful of the 35 locations apparently considered — there’s just not that many places to put a 400m-long railway station in central London. There is always underground, but building underground stations is the civil engineering equivalent of leaving your card behind the bar at a work party. Unfortunately our forebears built a magnificent Library on the most logical site, convinced as they were that in the 21st Century there would be helicopters for all. The practical options are going to involve a trade-off between cost and what you can demolish with the minimum of fuss. We look forward to seeing their conclusion in March.

Wherever it goes, the most urgent thing is to put a stop to this ‘London Central’ nonsense. This is not Amsterdam: British train stations should have lovely, preferably hard to pronounce or easily confused, names. ‘First Class Single to London Elizabeth’, perhaps? Maybe ‘London Stephenson’ or ‘London Brunel’ would be fitting? Although, in this age of austerity, perhaps we’ll flog of the name to the highest bidder… Let us know your ideas in the comments.

Tagged: , , , , , ,

Report an error

  • http://undefined Joe Dunckley

    There’s a nice straight and flat run down a vacant spot a few yards west of Gt Portland St….

  • http://undefined Hilary

    ‘London Central ‘sends absolutely the right message: it attracts. It says ‘come to London’. All (ALL) the other major continental cities have central locations for their rail stations, sometimes several, why not we?

    So with HS 1, 2, etc. you travel city centre to city centre.

    Underground civil engineering: depends which civil engineers: try the flemish, the dutch or the french. only saying.

  • http://undefined Hilary

    PS: kno what you’re saying Joe Dunckley.

    Might you care to backchannel me the projected route?

  • http://undefined James

    I think the answer may be a lot more prosaic and less like the artist’s impression. Look what sort of new 8-platform terminal they’re building in New York (albeit for the less glamorous Long Island Rail Road). It’s two four-track double-level mined caverns, which allows a much smaller surface area to be used where land is at such a premium.

    But I don’t think they’re being daring enough with the concept of yet another massive terminal — it’s just asking for the sorts of expensive solutions the Germans are going for in Stuttgart. It would be far better to have through stations, including tunnelled connectors (rather similar to Berlin and Barcelona). Of course, for London it would have to be on a slightly bigger scale, but a lot of capacity could be generated by a high-speed interconnector triangle under London. That could eventually connect all major urban areas in Britain, rather than treating London – Birmingham – Southern Lancashire as a self-contained one-off route.

  • http://undefined jamesu

    [googles stuttgart] Ah yes, I remember the lightwells – beautiful plan.

    Oh, but we’re broke, unambitious and short-sighted…

  • http://undefined DeanN

    Would I be laughed out of town for saying that I hope we get something like the new Liège-Guillemins station in Belgium?

  • http://undefined Lindsey

    That is stunning. I fear your dreams will be dashed though.

  • http://undefined Paul St Pancras

    I read somewhere that there is a desire to link to cross-rail at Tottenham Court Road! Therefore the old Middlesex Hospital Site is possible and/or land south of UCLH.

    The whole area between the two sites is riddled with underground corridors used 1939-45.

    Alternately, Earls Court Olympia?

  • http://undefined Hilary

    ‘building underground stations is the civil engineering equivalent of leaving your card behind the bar at a work party’

    Ahem, you mean cross-rail?

  • http://undefined Joe Dunckley

    middlesex hospital isn’t *that* convenient for TCR. if we’re going for an underground approach, want an interchange with TCR on the way, and want it “central”, how about that vacant plot just to the west of charing x and south of the national gallery?

    or surely they should celebrate the tradition of doing railways on the cheap and route it ’round the houses to the perfectly good ready prepared and waiting station at Waterloo International.

  • D1v1d

    Euston needs a total makeover – better yet, leveled to the ground and reconstructed new – there is nothing worth salvaging. What about more traffic at Kings Cross or St Pancras. There are existing interconnects to the East Coast Main Line north of St Pancras. A West Coast interconnect for high speed lines to St Pancras and redevelopment of Euston for Pendolino / commuter trains might be the most sensible.

  • http://undefined Bruce
←
→