Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• claydon william, Norwich Norfolk

  I can confirm that there were many lengthy debates at a senior DfT level when 'CrossRail' and the St.Pancras re-build were being planned to route 'CrossRail' via Kings Cross, with a HS2 station built on the York Way site between Kings Cross and St.Pancras; or to build the 'Eurostar' hub at York Way, with HS2 running in to St.Pancras. This plan included 'dropping' Regents Canal by 30 feet with up and down automated canal locks !!!
  
  Either way, this would have created a wonderful single London hub with hundreds of connections all over the place.
  
  Yet another opportunity lost as our 'short-termist' national transport planning continues to cost us taxpayers billions and billions.
  

• Bethany Williams, Reading

  Perhaps I am missing something but why is the opportunity not being taken to consolidate all services in an enlarged Kings Cross St Pancras hub and close Euston. Although the costs will be very high a lot of expenditure can be recovered from subsequent land sales.

• Nigel Adams, Luton, Beds

  So, at last here is a great opportunity during the rebuild or relayout (whichever is chosen) for HS2 to re-create a former icon into the plan which will restore a lost structure.
  
  I'm talking about the famous and much lamented Doric Arch from the original Euston station. It's reconstruction would make a fantastic monument and entrance facade in front of the main station.
  
  I believe the original pieces do still exist (somewhere) and were painstakingly numbered prior to demolition in the hope that one day it could be re-sited and rebuilt.
  
  For once let's do something that people want and is right.
  
  Here is that opportunity - let's not waste it.

• James Palma, London

  As a specialist in Underground Railways and their effect on land use, I have to say that a lot of the above comments fail to realise the multiple levels that exist under Euston Station. If you ever get chance to see a plan of the area, you will see why it is incredibly difficult to utilise the sub-soil. Not only for new platforms and tunnels, but for the foundations that will be required for the stations reconstruction. This would likely cause the suspension of London Underground services in this area for many years while the works are undertaken, even if they could be. And you will also need to bear in mind that the Underground is the busiest railway network in Britain and as such suspending several essential linesfor that long a period would be highly disruptive to the international economy, no that is not an exageration.
  
  With regard to converting the London Overground from DC to AC (sorry to disagree again, Melvyn (HS2 comments)) but the Overground shares its track with the Bakerloo line north of Willesden Junction and that line is DC. I concede, however, that the EMUs could have a Pan as they do on the North London line for use between Euston and Willesden Junction, from where they revert to DC.

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham

  "Building HS2 would involve extensive disruption to existing railway assets, e.g. at Old Oak Common, Manchester Piccadilly, Golborne, St Pancras, Meadowhall, Church Fenton, Preston, Carstairs, Lichfield, and Crewe."
  
  Go on then. Tell us what makes these so disrputive. Because none of these look any more complicated than the Hitchin flyover, which was completed with barely any disruption to anyone.

• david c smith, milton keynes

  Perhaps it is time there was a dedicated pedestrian link ( travelator / moving pavement, either underground or elevated ?) between Euston and St Pancras / KX , in order to facillitate interchange between WCML servces and "Eurostar" / "Javelins".

• Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

  Unlike other stations like St Pancras and now London Bridge, Euston was rebuilt in the 1960s and so is a fairly modern station already with its Concourse dating from that rebuild just 50 years old.
  
  Of course changes in station usage since then means there are areas which were designed for mail and parcels that are no longer handled meaning this space can be reused if the area beneath the concourse is opened up in a similar that happened at nearby St Pancras and is underway at London Bridge.
  
  However, surely the first move should be to convert the Overground from DC to AC thus eliminating 3rd rails and making all platforms AC?
  
  I notice on TV report this decision is being treated as a disaster and yet had the full plan gone ahead the same person from HS2AA would have used same words!
  
  The link to Euston Square is welcolm but that station and indeed Euston tube need FULL UPGRADE as per Kings Cross/St Pancras with full stair and step free access to all platforms and more space with the station upgraded to standards at TCR!
  
  There remains the question of whether the Overground should be moved into new Thameslink style underground station with Extenstions across London to form a new Crossrail link . Together , with recently announced Crossrail 2 plans which should be incorporated into any Euston upgrade.
  
  These new plans need to include upgrade to other bus and rail services in the area with plans to extend DLR to Euston also needed simply because these plans will still lead to a major increase in passenger numbers!

• Derek Rimington, Brighton

  What about the recent ‘Railway Lords’ proposal to link Euston to St Pancras and Kings Cross?
  Is that not being considered?

• Tony Pearce, Reading

  Where exactly does HS2 want to bring its new business travellers, - because that is the target market. Euston is not conveninet for either the City of London, or the City Airport or Heathrow, or HS1.

• John Band, Guildford

  Not bad, but they should be making active provision for Crossrail 2 and passive provision for a new North/South Crossrail/Thameslink line between Euston and South London - the Crossrail Route 3 which had a good business case in the 1980's and which Ken Livingstone thought was more urgent than the East/West route. When an extra 20,000 passengers an hour are arriving in the rush hour, existing links from Euston will be unable to cope.

• Bel Eben, GB

  "Camden Council didn't want the station expanded westwards. They managed to persuade HS2 ltd that they could achieve what they wanted to achieve without having to knock down the buildings they wanted to protect."
  
  The revised proposal does not involve creating a "double deck station". It does involve expanding the station westwards, and.exploiting air "rights".
  
  "Secondly, this shows that infrastructure upgrades are at their most unpredictable when you're rebuilding working infrastructure. This is the only bit of the HS2 network where this is a problem - the entire line is new build away from existing lines, and the HS2 stations in Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham don't involve rebuilding the existing stations."
  
  Again, that is incorrect. Building HS2 would involve extensive disruption to existing railway assets, e.g. at Old Oak Common, Manchester Piccadilly, Golborne, St Pancras, Meadowhall, Church Fenton, Preston, Carstairs, Lichfield, and Crewe. There would also be extensive disruption to the rolad network, especially in London.
  

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  Can someone clarify exactly what the new plan is? As far as I can tell, this means that Euston will be converted to a double-decker station. Is that correct? (Where is this suggested? See illustration.—Editor.)
  
  Anyway, that aside, this backs up two things I've believed for a long time:
  
  Firstly, Camden Council has shown that you get a lot further if both sides sit down and discuss what matters to them. HS2 ltd et al wanted more platforms for Euston station, Camden Council didn't want the station expanded westwards. They managed to persuade HS2 ltd that they could achieve what they wanted to achieve without having to knock down the buildings they wanted to protect.They would not have done this if they'd taken the line that overcrowding on London Midland services doesn't exist and even if it did it's not their problem, as most of the rest of the 51m councils are doing. The 51m line, on the other hand, is so blatantly anti-railway (i.e. a solution that vaguely looks like it solves the problem but doesn't, in the hope that the public support it for being supposedly cheaper) that it is impossible HS2 ltd to find a mutually acceptable solution - so they are doing the only thing they can do: ignore them.
  
  Secondly, this shows that infrastructure upgrades are at their most unpredictable when you're rebuilding working infrastructure. This is the only bit of the HS2 network where this is a problem - the entire line is new build away from existing lines, and the HS2 stations in Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham don't involve rebuilding the existing stations. The 51m alternative, on the other hand, is entirely aimed at rebuilding existing infrastructure, which means that the costs for the entire project is unreliable instead of just one of the stations. And yet 51m still want us to believe that their costings are gospel truth and will never escalate in the slightest and anyone who says otherwise (e.g. almost who has ever worked on the railways) is a government shill.