The Badly Thought Out Plan to Close London's Termini
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2024
- Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/jagohazzard
Patreon: / jagohazzard
Just Watching Trains (2nd channel): / @justwatchingtrains-ji4ps
Threads: www.threads.net/@jagohazzard
Instagram: jagohazzard?igs... - Zábava
"We would now be lamenting that some idiot decided to shut down all the old stations" - The rest of the country outside London.
Done by the bent criminals Marples and Beeching. And people thought the UK was uncorrupt.
Warning: This video is a Yerkes Free Zone
The Southern station would need about 50 platforms and likely end up at Clapham.
It always strikes me as odd that there are so many more rail lines to the south of London given that most of the actual land is to the North.
Although it equally amuses me that the grouping had all the companies running to London rather than the current franchise system with Northern,TPE, sortable, etc.
@@quintuscrinis8032 The south of England is more densley populated than other regions and there are few underground lines in South London. London has, since Roman times, been the biggest, most important and the effective center of Britain, even when it had no status as a capital. That is the reason for transportation routes having their hubs there, even though it is frequently annoying and ineffecient.
I'm sure Yerkes would have claimed he was one of the most forward-thinking railway barons of his time and that the Metropolitan District Railway Company was an earlier and better version of Thameslink or Crossrail.
Earl's Court is probably the biggest and most complex District Line station, and it's in Zone 1, so it does the same thing that Paddington does. But unlike Paddington, the trains all come in and go straight out, so Earl's Court is able to do what it does with just four platforms.
I'm sure more passengers leave Paddington than Earl's Court, but Yerkes was sending passengers beyond Earl's Court and managing demand that way. If Yerkes had not actually been dodgy and had not inconveniently died on us, I'm sure he would have solved the problems in West London, not by passing two branches of the District Line over to the Picadilly Line, but by instead building an "Express District Line" with full-size trains, and he would have used the "Express District Line" to keep up the long-distance services to Windsor and Southend.
Bah, beat me to the "no mention of Yerkes" punch
@@quintuscrinis8032 The lines to the north were interested in coal and, to a lesser extent, liong distance passenger services (100 miles plus). The south of england had none of either (the coast is 70 miles or less away, and there was no coal). So they concentrated on suburban traffic. Which in turn is why the tube is more prevalent in the north - the main line railways got to the south first.
“More bombed than an 18yo on their first trip to Amsterdam. “. LOL. I am taking an 18yo for their first trip to Amsterdam in 3 months…..
That one got my Wife chuckling. Classic line.
Lucky guy, I had to wait until I was 45 before I sampled Amsterdam..I didn't like the coffee, though...
You do realise there’s more to The Netherlands than just Amsterdam. Try a different part of the country next time, like Friesland, Zeeland or one of the Wadden Islands.
@@kellydalstok8900 Shut up
@@kellydalstok8900 indeed, there are parts around eg Maastricht that are very different. My 18yo however has the trip planned to include the Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Rembrandt Huis, a modern art Museum, and the Anne Frank House.
And though I am 50 yo older than my 18yo, I am the one more likely to get bombed…..
“Like an elderly backbencher…” - brilliant
Planners and the Treasury get two things wrong. Firstly they seem to miss the increase in UK population over time. Secondly they treat duplication as a waste rather than something that adds necessary resilience.
And then are thankful when a supposedly wasteful duplicate ends up saving the day
Also areas of population growth, industrial and other development and 'places of interest' tend not to go where the planners think.
To be fair to the planners, I think they know exactly how overloaded their new design is going to be from day one, but when they tell the bean counters ( I married one ... ). nobody will approve anything realistic.
Of course, on the subject of close-together stations, let's not forget that Victoria is two different stations joined together and sharing a name.
Two kids in a trenchcoat springs to mind.
This is the quintessential Jago video. Informative, well-researched, thoughtful, shedding light on our current situation -- we are at the mercy of planners who will inevitably be taking a punt on what future provision needs to be.
Also some good gags
Imagine a short notice platform alteration at one of those jumbo sized stations. You would need 15 minutes to walk from platform 1 to platform 53
The out-of-town railways currently terminating at Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, Charing Cross, Waterloo and Victoria would form 5 mainline core routes with 4 platforms each at the central station totalling 20 platforms (less than Waterloo), probably on 2 levels. A terminus on a busy core route requires more platforms per line than a through station.
Long distance passengers with all their luggage would no longer have to use the already congested buses and tube. Berlin completed a similar project in 2006 with 12 platforms for 3 mainlines and a further 2 platforms for the S Bahn. London is twice the size of Berlin so its central station would also be.
The local/suburban railways to places within the M25, which currently take up the majority of platforms at the termini could be plugged into the underground, overground, the DLR Victoria extension, crossrail 2, etc. forming new cross London services with a better variety of interchanges with the rest of the local rail network.
Shinjuku has 53 platforms, but they aren't all accessible from all routes, so you are not going to be walking from one end of the station to the other.
Get a taxi to the new platform.
Thats how it feels at Edinburgh Waverley
@@lazrseagull54 This sounds a serious underestimate. London and its hinterland are a lot more than twice the size of Berlin and carry vastly more traffic. Are you planning a lot of through EW and NS services? That would certainly cut down on number of platforms. But the Underground and Overground are already full with current trains for existing destinations and can't take any more, especially as tube/DLR trains have less seating capacity than National Rail trains.
It makes a refreshing change to hear a plan dreamt up by theroticians defeated by the practicalities.
I feel like that's a jab at some other project that went ahead despite 'practicality' issues. Curious what that would be
@@mattevans4377 With some thought I could come up with a list but off the cuff, the manner in which the railways were privatised. It was intended to maximise the amount of money the Treasury would make from the sale with no thought for the effects on the maintenance and running of the railway. The result was that for several years after the railways needed more subsidy than under BR. The money spent on feasibility studies, consultant's fees and the like would have allowed BR to make some significant improvements. Don't ask for details as I don't have them to hand and am uninclined to go searching for them.
@@mattevans4377 The closure of Broad Street?
@@paulsengupta971 I don't know, that why I said I'd be curious to know what it was
@@mattevans4377 I suppose you could count a whole load of Beeching cuts in the 1960s.
Ironically, had King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston been combined into 1 station, at least we would not have the ridiculous situation where there is no connection between HS1 and HS2, and travellers from Birmingham to Europe will have to drag their luggage onto the underground (for 1 stop only) or along the streets.
Regrettably the fact that travellers between Birmingham and Europe usually get off at Birmingham International , and take one of those flappy plane things , is the reason there are no links to HS1 - no matter how they tried they could not find the passenger numbers to make a business case. Nowadays - even if there were passengers - such a scheme would probably fall because of the Immigration and Customs costs associated with International Rail travel. Even now Eurostar are predicting delays and capacity reductions at St Pancras and the likelihood of Stratford International and Ashford International ever being open to International travel is a pipe dream.. 😒
They could build a high level pedway between the two that features a massive conveyor belt/travelator for their luggage.
They can also take the bus...
@@barrieshepherd7694 It never really occured to me that neither Stratford nor Ashford International stations are not actually international stations (and I never heard of Birmingham International till you mentioned it - never took a train there always coach or drove).
@@adamcetinkent Most people who take trains don't like buses.
"a little less radical but still a bit crazy - like an elderly backbench politician"
This sort of deadpan is one part of why we love you, Jago.
The other parts of course being the excellent research, great footage, good maps, and having a voice that's nice to listen to.
I took a train trip from upstate New York to Washington DC. I had to walk across the street to connect to my second of two trains. The loss of Pennsylvania station is one of the worst mistakes New York ever made. Preserve your stations. Otherwise you end up having to rebuild them.
Paris, too, has a ton of stations. From my ancient memories while living there I can mention: Gare Saint-Lazare, Gare du Nord, Gare de l'Est, Gare Montparnasse, Gare de Lyon. The Métro near where I then lived (ligne 13) went to Gare Saint-Lazare (and later opened up a new section and reached Gare Montparnasse). At least Est and Nord are next to each other. PS I forgot Gare d'Austerlitz!
Making connections between the railways, or worse onto a bus, is such a pain in NYC!!
@@kaitlyn__L Three locations, widely separated. It can be a headache.
‘..a little less radical but still a bit crazy, like an elderly backbench politician’ is an all-time classic! (and quite British)
"more bombed than an 18-year old on their first trip to Amsterdam"... That's it, guys! We've got it! Best Comparison by Jago! Headlines in the news! (lol)
I always felt that the post-war period was a lost opportunity in terms of London infrastructure, but we were broke at the time, so I suppose it always would be. Long-term planning has never been a British thing. Like selling of railway real estate, rather than keep it for when things started expanding again. Still, if your wife has a road haulage company in her portfolio…
Oh, and I was that 18 year-old in Amsterdam.
This is why we don't appear to have an integrated transport policy..if so called "experts" can dream up rubbish like this, its a miracle that any London termini are still standing!! ..another good one, Jago, keep em coming!
There is nothing more dangerous than consultants who are not bound by realities like money and practicality!
There are some excellent rail sector consultants - Jim Steer (Greengauge 21) for example.
Great to hear about unworkable plans being dropped. Sadly, it's the ones that weren't dropped that have caused all our problems.
In the same way anyone seeking political office should automatically be considered unfit for it, anyone pursuing a career in town planning or worse yet, architecture, should never be let near a building. Each will attempt to shape reality in their own image.
Outside of London, didn't Dr. Beeching close down most of the old stations, and so many of us regret that now.
Indeed, but not just the stations, also the lines that connected them. A corrupt and short-sighted decision
There was another problem with this proposal. It's all very well getting everybody to the new 'megaterminals', but how do you get them to where they want to be? The changes required to the Underground would probably cost more that the original scheme.
Definitely 'nice try but no cigar'.
Absolutely right, Kings Cross St Pancras is a good Underground hub now but as a result is very crowded and walkway routes have had to be made longer and more convoluted to reduce congestion. That would be experienced in spades for the megastations. The benefits of distributing traffic between locations.
I only know Euston since the rebuild in the 60's , I was minus two when the Doric Arch was demolished, so my journey up there to hopefully have a last look at it in the early 70's was a waste of time!! I do remember St Pancras as it was before the massive transformation into the Eurostar terminal, with only a tiny wing on the front deducated to its original function as terninus of the Midland Main Line. Combining the remains of the old with the new at St Pancras was far more aesthetically pleasing thsn than completely wiping the old away, as at Euston.
"the southern terminus would have been insane", Lmao. One of the best videos from Jago.
The cardinal rule of Railways is: Better overprepare
I remember catching a train up to Sheffield from st. Pancras around 2000. it was pretty rundown at that stage with not a huge amount of train services and in general looked tired and rundown. Incredible how different that station is today.
Interesting - in the 1980s there was a proposal to divert Marylebone trains into either Paddington or Baker Street. After Thameslink opened St Pancras was almost a ghost station with only a few intercity trains using it! Then railways were reborn!
Surely pre Thameslink suburban trains went to Moorgate anyway but I know what you mean. In my train spotting days St Pancras was always dead. A waste of time when you were right next to Kings Cross. I think Jago did say the Marylebone was used to take the excess capacity from Paddington. But the proposal to close Marylebone is just an example of not giving things to consultants just because the consultants don't have enough to do. Look how much was spent on the Garden Bridge with absolutely nothing to show for it.
@@kevinrayner5812 I am not sure but believe when diesel DMUs operated the Bedford St Pancras service they went into the main station. I can’t imagine DMUs going to Moorgate. It was electrified in the early 80s so I guess trains started going to Moorgate then!
When the BedPlan electrics came into operation in 1983 (after the trade union opposition to DOO had delayed their introduction for a year), they went to both Moorgate and St Pancras. For about 6 years St P was busy with the electric trains and the HSTs transferred onto the MML by Cyril Bleasdale in 1983. When Thameslink, original version, was inaugurated in c.1990, some EMUs still went into St P; but mainly St P was handling MML fast trains. So there were platforms enough for the HSTs and very punctual operation. St Pancras was chosen as the new CTRL international train terminal in 1993 but not brought into use for that purpose until Dec 2007 (works started in @2001). The MML main-line trains were before Dec 2007 then pushed out to the 4 platforms at the N end of the main trainshed, where they remain today - sadly thewy are no longer HSTs.
@@marc21091 thanks
@@sr6424 Why wouldn't Midland DMUs have gone to Moorgate. They went from Kings Cross on the Widened Lines.
I love the old style railway stations and that is what most people like me see traveling. Looking back a station was so much more in dimension in the middle of a town. All the sidings, tracks for goods and mail, a nearbuy goodsyard and postoffice, resources to hold and service trains, additional locomotives to pull trains in and out of the station and all the resources to keep these running like coaling and watering. Actually I love termini and they are an opportunity for planners to make enormous fields available to town development. Usually they say it is for the sake of making more lofts available to overcrouded cities, a political and social well accepted argument. Well we all know that in the end they are making more unnessesary office blocks available to anyone who can effort renting it which are not the people working in the town, who are needed to keep the town alive. I'm talking of people we all need in the town and do neither pay them as well as they can pay for a place to live in town nor offer them housing at fair conditions, i.e. cleaners, services in shops and restaurants or coffeshops, all the people keeping security up in a crowded area, on stations or streets, not to speak of craftsmen and -women.
The terminus at Hamburg-Altona is just in the phase of "conversion". The historic trainstation building was gone in the seventies, and cannot be saved anymore. On the railmap one can see how vast the area is the transition is making space for. There will be a runthrough station of the same name replacing the terminus but it will not feature the same entertainment. At the moment the terminus is still the endpoint of overnight car-on-train travel from austria and the cars and motorbikes drive through the hall at loading and unloading. Anyway, thanks for your video, it's always fun for me to watch your little films and listen to your comments. Best Albrecht.
Just imagine all the chaos of one station to serve all the railways south of London! Glad that didn’t happen
During my recent stay in London I witnessed the very creative way South Western Railway makes trains run on time; the severely delayed train was turned into the next one so it was able to leave on time. Luckily I had planned my journey so as to arrive much earlier than I had to.
0:22 the view from Mrs Wilberforce's front door, but no sign of the Professor or his gang😊
Ah yes and beware of the old semaphore signal may cause a significant headache and an unexpected journey. (A good film).
She will always be Mrs Lopsided to me.
@@CyclingSteve "And who, pray tell, is "Mrs Lopsided"?"
@@phaasch It was the name given to the landlady by Arthur Mullard's character.
Happy memories, I still love watching that film
Amazing how quickly the bots manage to watch your videos and comment first. And they all have ill-fitting underwear.
i didnt think the kind of people that fall for those traps watched these videos 😭😭😭😭😭😭
Frequently click like just after play.
Have you ever been disappointed by Sir J H?
As Jago never said: "You are the thong to my Peter Stringfellow."
Bots don't have underwear
Referring to the porn bot/sex pest commentators 😠 = reported as “pornographic or sexually explicit material”. I have looked at the full length of the comments feed and haven’t seen any 😉✅, so they must have already been reported and deleted
Your excellent reporting represents a subset of the almost continuous failure of sucessive British governments since the Romans departed to properly assess the importance of having any kind of transport plan, with just the occassional spark of realisation of the benefits. The London - Holyhead turnpike engineered by Telford being one such flash.
When it came to canals, railways and ports there were still only a few flashes (the introduction of a "standard gauge", being a belated example).
Many of your videos demostrate this lack of an overview of the global benefits of some form of plan/coordination that has resulted in a mish mash network. Further lack of vision has never really addressed the problems, again with some notable flashes such as Crossrail & the Elizabeth line. However, these flashes are dimished by such events as HS2 and the proper connection of the channel tunnel to mainland UK from the start.
However, we should not be surprised, as vested interests have often scuppered attempts to rationalise transport, the landed gentry in Victorian days to Ernest Marples, (the owner of a Civil contruction company that built roads) who commissioning the Beeching Report (before fleeing to Monaco after being charged with tax avoidance !) and the "honest" Alexander dePiffle Johnson who stated that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers if a new London Airport runway was built & who thought that a pedestrian only bridge accross the Thames would help Londoners !!
an interesting topic to research would be why Victorian-era architecture was viewed with such disfavour during the post-war period, given that their prettiness is quite plain to see
In that era the buildings were very grimy with accumulated soot from London's coal-burning fires. The air, and the buildings, were subsequently cleaned up.
I like the use of the word ‘Termini’.
It's not as cumbersome as terminuses.
Well, it is the original Latin plural form.
@@quintuscrinis8032 "Romanus Eunt Domus!!!" 😂😂😂
@TheDriller-Killer the locative is such a weird concept.
@@quintuscrinis8032 There are examples in most languages that make no sense to me, such as giving genders to objects that don't have them.
Really all lines should be high speed lines to Birmingham with a massive ring loop line connecting compass points for easy interchange , so South Wales-Birmingham-Kings Lynn for example
A big THANKYOU JAGGERZZZZ, another very informative video for a person like me who really didn't care who Tottenham and Arsenal are playing and also what horse to bet on at Towcester races.
When I consider how big Waterloo is plus all the other ex Southern region terminals the single southern terminal would have been HUGE.
Keep these none sport , none Britain's got talent videos coming, you are the life line to my boring life.
Please pray for my wife as I build brass 0 gauge locos..
I had an uncle who worked at what is now, TfL. I remember looking through his back issues of work magazines about all this. I'm a reader, if I run out of stuff to read, I'll read corn flakes boxes.
marvelous! you did it again Jago!
Great video as always jago.
Love the subtle swipe at beeching in the end (at least that's what i took out of it)!
Watching your videos I'm always amazed at how much the industrial and modest residential sections of London look like Northern New Jersey. Forgetaboutit !
It's an interesting concept which may have been trying to align with what many major European cities have ended up with, in that there's mostly just one or two massive central stations, but most importantly they're usually through stations.
Part of the reason the London termini are all relatively huge is likely because they're termini instead of through stations. I do wonder how the railways across Europe managed it. Through routes are much better for everyone I think.
The huge through-stations suck, actually. The train side of things works fine, but the people side often is far from optimal. The stations usually are listed historical buildings as well and can't be easily modified to allow for more efficient people flows.
The most obvious comparison to London is Paris - and Paris has 7 major terminus stations. Yes Paris has the RER, which sort of makes some of them through stations, but London has Thameslink and the Elizabeth Line. London was a pretty big place before the railways (as was Paris) and, in London's case, I believe the railway companies were prevented by Act of Parliament from getting any closer to the centre of the city than they did. The Brussels and Berlin solution to a through line, putting it on a huge viaduct, would have been a non-starter due to the cost of land and what could best be described as aesthetic and heritage concerns and putting lines in tunnels in the steam era probably impractical (and that's before we get to the difficulties in getting under the river). In addition London's position in the South East of the country means that through inter-city traffic, as opposed to local and commuter traffic across the city, is limited. If you're smack in the middle of the country, like Madrid, then a through line makes sense (though I'm pretty sure Chamartin to Atocha is relatively new and both effectively act as terminus stations most of the time). In short a giant underground through station my now be possible but would be of limited utility and, if Stuttgart 21 is anything to go by, would face considerable cost and environmental problems.
One problem with making the termini tghrough ststaions is balancing demand. Because London is so far into the south east of the country, there simply aren't the destinations beyond London to take the number of inter city services arriving from the north and north west. Suburban services are a different matter. and Thameslink and Crossrail are a start in this direction, but Crossrail 2 seems to be as far away as ever.
Europe is pretty patchy actually. Brussels, Amsterdam and Koln are good through stations. Frankfurt, Milan and Rome are reversing termini. All are smaller cities than London. Paris and Madrid have multiple termini.
@@rjs_698 I live South-west of Paris near to the end of RER B. Passenger traffic in Paris itself has of course become more and more dense over the years, so they have created a new line (Ligne 14) to take the pressure off lines such as the RER A and they are busy with constructing new lines such Ligne 18 or the one running under the RER B at Cachan. They have also added several new suburban tramlines that connect with métro lines which have themselves been lengthened to go further out from Paris itself. New lines tend to be driverless and they now have screens along the edges of platforms with doorways that slide open when the train stops, which is a useful and important safety feature. Joining up Châtelet-les-Halles to Luxembourg was a major undertaking at the time, not least because they added on the station at Saint Michel more or less as an afterthought, which means that there are still problems of seepage from the Seine next door. At Châtelet, which has become the major hub, the SNCF working with the RATP have added on a couple of lines going northwards to the Gare du Nord and beyond which weren't catered for in the original plan. They joined up Gare d'Orsay with Austerlitz (RER C) , but again it's along side the Seine with the problems of possible flooding. The big project that seems to taking a long time at the moment is putting a second line from Roissy Airport to Paris side by side with the RER B. If you ever have the time to go up to Saint-Ouen on Ligne 14 (a completely new métro line) it's well worth visiting the Fabrique du Métro where they show the future of local transport in Paris and the Région Ile de France. I can recommend it, perhaps Jago might be interested in going to see it as well.
Fascinating.
Had they followed through with the proposals think of the content this would have provided!! 😊
Maybe this wld be a True Crime channel then.😉
@@tamara3984 Earnest Marpleples, in the shadows with a bulging brown envelope? 🤔 What more of a Cludo do you need?
@@baxtermarrison5361 I was more thinking of how easily someone cld be made to disappear (in all meanings of that word) in a three story 25 platforms each station... Imagine the Bond films alone
Dad went to his grave still worrying (but only mildly) that someone might come after him for the train he'd signed for as an Army captain in early 1944 but hadn't been able to sign off. But I suppose They knew there was a war on.
It fascinates to learn more of my ancestor's belief they knew best in all matters. Travel in former possessions illustrates this vanity. thank you.
If the planners had thought up through running trains rather than termini they may have been on a winner. Direct trains from Victoria to King's Cross or Waterloo to Euston might have resulted in a complete change in traffic patterns.
splendid lecture, Sir 😍
#jagohazzard #london #thetube
Not only did I have the pleasure of hearing about these abandoned plans, but I had the challenge to see which stations I recognised. I think I've been to all the current termini at one time or another.
Jago , I am so impressed with your video editing skills. You have a quality bit of video for almost every sentence which just adds to everything. I just love it. Adds to a fabulous weekend.
Btw great work on the B roll, you really capture the essence of each of these stations!
Jago, so few people understand the principles of efficient railway. Not surprised architects don't.
We can treat the island of Great Britain as a metropolitan area with parts of higher and lower density. For efficiency, we cover the area with a rail grid. For efficiency, we do not terminate trains in city centres. In London we link up railway lines underground - 2 to 8 underground platforms at each existing terminal station. No stations closed, but we get efficient and effective railway services.
Beeching got the whole thing wrong by focusing on costs - implementing his strategy greatly harmed the UK economy.
The railway needed rationalisation, but rationalised to an island wide grid.
The future should be all trains will be driverless and run by control centres. All trains will be electric, powered by continuous supply or battery - battery on lesser lines, if not all lines if battery tech becomes cheap enough. However, continuous supply reduces the max power supply.
Island wide grid, autonomous, electric/battery should be the future of railway.
Is the elderly backbencher crazy because of frustrated ambition and being a backbencher for so long, or have they been a backbencher for so long because they were already crazy?
As a well-retired "putter-togetherer" of railway videos, I like looking behind the screen, shall we say. I'd love to see Jago's computer desk and its monitors. Folders full of magnificently-organised files of stills, clips, etc. To see him assembling a video would be a treat. I'm guessing that he writes his script, then scours his multitudinous store to find the bits he wants. Something missing? Out with the camera and start shooting. We know and admire all the results of this busy process. Long may it continue. Thanks a heap, Jago, and greetings from Australia 🇦🇺
I would argue that the plan to build Waterloo International was a badly thought out plan, as it involved building a flyover from a line towards Victoria over to a line from Waterloo to Wandsworth Town and stole capacity from both of those lines. Logically, we should have had a new international through station for London, that would take Eurostar trains into the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Wales.
I would argue that the plan to shut down Waterloo International and turn it into a shopping centre was a badly thought out plan, as Waterloo is a very busy station and needed more capacity. Luckily that plan was defeated.
I would argue that the plan to build St Pancras International was a badly thought out plan, as it repeated the stupidity of terminating high speed rail coming into the UK at London. London is merely the first large city that you get to, when you arrive from Europe. It's the start of Great Britain - not the end of Great Britain.
I would argue that the plan to build HS2 to Euston, instead of building a new high speed through station for London, and bypassing St Pancras, so that our existing Javelin trains could travel to the Midlands, the North and Scotland, along with Eurostar trains, was yet again a badly thought out plan.
One of the big drivers that broke through 100 or so years of Central Government not wanting to pay for London to have Crossrail was the fact that passengers arrive at London Terminals, go onto the Zone 1 section of London Underground, and then bounce around like balls in a pinball machine, trying to get from one London Terminal to another London Terminal, so that they can leave London and get to the place that they actually want to get to.
None of those passengers going from London Terminal to London Terminal want to be on London Underground. They want to get where they are going. And those people chug up Zone 1 and make the whole system work less effectively.
The instant success of Crossrail passenger journeys shows that removing the stupidity of having to trek between Paddington and Liverpool Street is something that we should learn from.
Sometimes we can't do everything in one go, so obviously sometimes it is justified to build a temporary terminus, just so a railway can start to operate and start to provide a public service. But all of the termini in London cause large numbers of passengers to split out and flood onto other modes of transport.
We need to plan to send as many people through cities, without getting off trains, as possible.
And where people do need to change, we need to try to make sure all the modes of transport are as balanced as possible, so that we don't have 12 car trains dropping off passengers who all need to get onto 2 car railways or bus routes that only have one bus every half an hour.
We can never be perfect, but you are very good at uncovering all the mistakes of the past. We can learn from every one of those mistakes and make sure we do not repeat those mistakes.
Cheers Jago, I look forward to your videos each week along with the inevitable one liner.
As a younger Australian, I was surprised there was no “London” railway station.
There are - London Fenchurch Street, London Liverpool Street, London Kings Cross, London St Pancras, London Euston, London Marylebone, London poaddington, London Victoria, London Charin g Cross, London waterloo, Londion Blackfrairs, London City Thameslink, London Cannon Street and London Bridge. London is much larger than any Australian city, and much older so it was built up long before Sydney even existed.
Replacing terminal stations with through running is a great idea, but you do actually need to build the tunnels and stations to connect all the radial railways. That’s a lot of new railway. Especially if you ALSO pull in the intercity lines through and terminate them on the other side of London.
A 6 track tunnel from Waterloo to Euston/St. Pancras and a 4 track tunnel from Paddington to Liverpool street could do the trick. 5 mainline core routes, each with 4 double length platforms at a central station. Choosing where to squeeze in the portal for the trains from London Bridge might be an issue though.
@@lazrseagull54 And that is indeed a LOT of new railway, especially considering how long it has taken to build the 2 tracks of the Elizabeth Line. Luckily the Thameslink route was already there.
Long story short: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it
It is broke though. Long distance rail passengers travelling through London with all their luggage have to use the already congested local buses and tube because unlike most cities, London has no "central station" where you can change between the individual out-of-town rail lines.
@@lazrseagull54 Agreed, and I find this an even bigger problem in Paris, where the Metro is pretty hostile to packrats like myself. (Also, I have friends I can stay with in London.) But infrastructure like the Liz Line and RER make some transfers more practical, so hopefully there'll be more.
Just because something isn't broken, doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to improve things
@@nomadMik Liz and RER are definitely needed as well and this would do for regional and intercity trains what those do for local/suburban trains.
Short story, follow the money.
Some context here, I left London in 1969, commuted in to Liverpool Street until 1972 and left the UK in 1975.
What amazed me the first time I landed at Gatwick and took the Thames Link to Kings X, return journey I think we were dropped at St Albans and got off at Gatwick. Had there been a large through station in London from day one, a lot of changing termini to termini could had been avoided.
Great video as always, thank you!
There was an idea for a giant station under Hyde Park (tricky avoiding the Tyburn and the Westborne) and an Airport / Heliport on the land of Hyde Park
As I lived in West Midlands, lost main line Snowshill replaced local railway and metro ,looking out place with modern buildings surrounded, again enjoy the video and your history, lesson,when I visited London, like travelling on Chiltern line to Marylebone
The idea of a terminus for each cardinal direction makes me thing a little of Berlin, with its four similarly located interchange stations named for the compass points. (Ostkreuz, sudkreuz, etc)
Famous Last Words: “Call me a cynic if you like.”
Mt cynic sir, fantastic video, award yourself many, many, many, many points!
I would have thought one of the main problems (as well as the enormous number of platforms required at the termini) would be congestion on the tracks leading into the station. The already congested Southern suburban lines would need some bonkers rerouting, and would not be workable.
09:45 c2c mentioned wheyyyyy!
Very glad that the many termini weren't closed, i couldn't imagine trying to board trains with that much foot traffic
The only plausible way to reduce the number of London terminals is to convert all the suburban services into Thameslink/Crosslizpurp type services that don't _need_ terminals. If the stations had previously been under-used and inefficient then it might have been different ... but if you're going to replace 15 platforms at Euston, 6 platforms at San Pan and 11 platforms at Kings Cross with a 32-platform Somerstown behemoth then you aren't really saving anything!
If you compare station consolidations proposed in London with other station consolidations in Liverpool/Merseyside and Manchester, you can see the consistency in the thinking at that time. Post-industrialization was starting to hit many economic sectors, causing declines in freight receipts. The advent of high speed motorways was syphoning off passenger traffic. For newly formed British Railways, maintaining the portfolio of stations and termini across the network must have been a tremendous cost, especially post-war when so many facilities were either heavily damaged by bombing or just plain worn out from decades of minimal investment and upkeep. Certainly fortuitous that large scale consolidation didn’t happen in London given current and future demand, but 60 years ago it was a different reality.
I have to agree, lots of these 40's plans seem although they were purely dreamed up on a map, without any consultation with reality. Combining everything into 4 cardinal termini sounds lovely on paper, but as you say, I doubt anybody in the industry was consulted on it
Also, in the US rail companies created large central union stations they built and ran together
If we were to go back in time and redesign all of the UK's railways from scratch in a single unified project, I think four railway termini would be sufficient so long as it was possible to build enough platforms at each. This would allow better integration between the railways going into London. However, once the railways had already been built, trying to retroactively reduce the number of termini would have been way too impractical and would have been very expensive with limited reward. While it can be annoying to have to hop on the tube to get from one main line to another (something I had to do when I visited the UK in 2019), at least the tube exists and offers fast and frequent services making getting between railway termini fairly convenient all things considered.
But if you were going back in time and redesigning it all, why even have termini? Why not just have through stations in London?
The idea of consolidating the terminals just didn’t make sense because like Jago said it’s unrealistic to force all the services into one location unless you’re doing through running
Guangdong South is a good example of a monstrous badly designed 'super' terminal.
Curious that they arrived at 4 as the number of termini required. 8 feels instinctively more simple as you can line up the stations with compass points, although clearly some would clearly be larger than others.
A missed opportunity, perhaps, but I'm certainly glad that many of the old buildings are still standing, particularly St Pancras.
I suppose that would have only be 3 less stations than what we have now.
and Fenchurch St. not to mention Charing Cross
Did I miss the mention of New York City's "grand central station" . . . ?
I wonder if they were thinking about Paris, with the Gare du Nord, Gare du Sud etc
Good stuff 👍
Must keep in mind yhat not only were there (and are) gazillions of passenger trains to worry about, there were more goods trains, parcels/mail trains, newspaper trains, etc.
The other issue with the plan is that it was heavily predicated on the concept of termini stations, whereas the modern-day concept is to have through-running trains across the city to not only allow someone coming in from one side of the city to reach the other side without changing, but to also reduce the instantaneous load on each station by not having an entire train disembark in one go (St Pancras gets ridiculously busy if the Thameslink core is shut, even at weekends). St Pancras, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Paddington and Liverpool Street already through-run to varying degrees with Thameslink and the Elizabeth line, it would be great to make the others through-run with more Crossrail lines as well. I'm thinking something like Victoria-Euston as with the Crossrail 2 plan, or Waterloo-Liverpool Street would be massively beneficial. And of course HS2 really ought to through-run onto HS1.
The plan to build 4 stations at the 4 cardinal points made me think of Monopoly game board
As a train need I have to say a fun thing to do is read back the railway magazine for "this month and year in X decade" since they have their complete archive from 1897 available for a very reasonable fee. The war years were full of big "plans for peace".
On Marylebone I suspect there was thought the GCR would have its Western parts into Paddington. And northern into the northern terminus...unless they forgot about it which has been known to happen...poor old Watkin can't catch a break on this channel.
great indepth video ,
as ever JH
North America provides an interesting contrast. In a number of cities, but not all, the railways were basically forced to create a "Union Station" because government wouldn't let each railway build a downtown station since there would no longer be a downtown left !
Same with Los Angeless. Chicago has a Union station because it made it convenient to connect from one railway from New York to the railway going west to pacific. (but despite that, Chicago also has other stations).
Toronto has a Union station because it made business sense for both railways (CN and predecessor raiways) as well as CP (and subsidiaries) that both had tracks there to build a single station. Québec city also built a "Union Station" (Gare du Palais) though this station was more of a CP property which also gave access to CN (and predecessor) trains. Both railways had tracks to the port, so it wasn't a big construction problem.
But when you look at cities such as Paris or Moscow, t he lines going in make it very had to creaate a single central station as they all stop around downtown arriving from different directions.
Moscow does have a number of stations at Komsomolskaya square (Leningradsky, Yaroslavskiy and Kazansky). But as tracks come from different directions, would be a big deal to unify ito a single station.
If London stations are all at capacity, it makes no sense to try to combine 2 adjacent ones, ecept to jus facilitate transfers. In the end, you need as many tracks/platforms as you can get and there is no goal of consolidating. (and if you did consolidate, how would you do this withourt disrupting traven of 2 stations need to be demolished while you rebuild the new super mega station?)
Berlin is perhaps lucky in in that with re-unification, it was able to rethink and optimise its downtown serviecs and build one such mega station. But still doesn't mean all trains terminate there as lower cost options often terminate a station or two away to avoid the costs of operating into Berlin Haufbanhof (sp?)
Excellent video very interesting. I think the beaching cuts was the worst thing to happen to the railways.
I think the Beeching cuts had more impact.
@@rogerroger5255 Don't forget the bar-steward known as Ernest Marples...
1943 Plan? Yeah. That was a priority. 😂
America has 'Union' stations worked by different companies, so it can be done, although American rail passenger trains are not generally working at anything like UK levels of intensity.
I don't know how you manage to keep track of all the history of London railways. It just seems to go on forever.
Back there the week after next. Looking forward to the buses, Tube and Overground again plus this time the DLR as well. I imagine some Londoners must think I'm crazy - maybe they're right? (Still, they might check out the alternatives in other huge cities before being too judgemental).
Thanks Jago.
I think one of the biggest problems is just that these plans always revolved around replacing the termini with more termini, not acknowledging the problem that terminus stations are fundamentally inefficient uses of space and track capacity. If rather than replacing them with more termini, they had went with a through running concept with only some trains actually ending in the city, but most running across the city and ending somewhere on the other side (doesn't need to be far outside london), they would have been more able to accommodate higher frequencies and the central london stations would be less congested due to passengers being spread out over them rather than mostly concentrating on a single terminus.
It may have been possible to divert the midland mainline into Euston by redirecting the tunnel from West Hampstead to Kentish Town.
After leaving West Hampstead trains would enter the tunnel, but turn south and re-emerge at Primrose Hill
It is really odd to think that the reason St Pancras still exists is because it became a terminus for European trains (not to mention Kent - so I wont). A "Northern" terminus repurposed for Southern destinations. though there are still some northern services (Derby, Sheffield etc). Its quite handy if you want to go from Paris to Edinburgh as its a two minute walk to Kings Cross.
Sometime way back when, I seem to remember someone writing about a London Central station. Lower than current subsurface lines but able to cater for "through" trains. The idea I suspect was to have a station which would see trains from Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh (to name a few) have the possibility to go through London on their way to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Rome. Not so much a tube line, more a pipe dream.
Outside rush hours, St Pancras used to be a quiet sort of place. It had given up on the business of taking passengers to destinations of the stonework, like Glasgow St Enoch, and served the Bedpan line and East Midlands. Some trains rolled slowly towards Sheffield and one or two masochists took it as far as Leeds. I've never visited St P in international guise, and prefer to think of Green or latterly blue Peaks negotiating their namesakes.
There are other large cities with multiple stations, sometimes quite close by. E.g. in Paris Gare de l’Est is close enough to Gare du Nord to just walk between them, which I’ve done on the way from Frankfurt to St Pancras International. Then again, closer to home, there is Birmingham, with New St, Snow Hill, Moor St.
@@johnkeepin7527 Yes. Me too actually.
I think these old reports were "blue sky" thinking rather than anything very practical. You've pointed out in a short video several major issues as to why they would never get out of a siding. You didn't dwell on the number of train movements these hypothetical metastatic might have to cope with. I use Liv St and KX fairly regularly and it's not particularly uncommon to be held up "waiting for a platform" especially at peak times. Trivia corner: I noticed your clip of Liv St: have you noticed it has only a tiny little notice in a corner to identify it? I was recently waiting for a bus opposite the station, when a mystified stranger asked "where is it?" And she was looking at it !
megastations?
While Marylebone, just , could have passed away I am less sure about Fenchurch Street, I think the planners just forgot it was there when they walked around London.
It cannot be closed!
This will end of dispute how to pronounce name of this terminus.
;)
They say that Emperor Akbar established four offices that corresponded with four elements:
1. The office of land management and revenues (earth)
2. The office of military command (fire)
3. The office of the imperial household (water)
4. The office of faith and justice (air)
It’s remarkable that someone in 1943 would consider transport in such a philosophical manner.
Another way of removing termini is to make them through running stations. Where there such plans? Following the example of the RER in Paris?
I think the plan at the beginning and another JH video would answer the issue at least for the Southern.
The RER concept is relatively new but the S-Bahn concept existed from the 1882 and combined was based on the through stations connected to each other through the city center in tunnels or elevated with stations along the way.
In this case lines share tracks and include all kinds of services.
The RER took this and turned it into a combination of regional rail with metro like service where each service has mostly it's own dedicated tracks with high frequency, which is what the Elizabeth line does.
Gare du Nord is still the busiest station in Europe by number of passengers, and I don't think they are all wanting to visit the surrounding area.
The Northern and Southern termini would probably be something akin to Grand Central Station in New York. Also as well as Paddington some of Marylebone's traffic could have been diverted to Baker Street.
"The number of stations could be reduced to four..."
So, basically a Monopoly Board, then? :P
A long time ago, for unimportant reasons, I was doing the announcing at Cannon Street one evening. Towards the end of the rush hour there was a delay to an incoming train and the station inspector sitting beside me in the goldfish bowl above the barriers decided to change the platform. I duly announced the new platform and a crocodile of waiting passengers set off. No sooner had I spoken and before the inspector called the signal box, they came on to say they were switching the train to a different platform! I had to quickly call "stop" to the crocodile and reverse it to the new platform. I didn't hear of any complaints but had they been heading for Platform 1 and it was now to be Platform 53, the story might have been different. I wasn't asked back.
I'm pretty sure that I have seen proposals in the late 60's/early 70's to divert the Midland main line traffic into Euston via the Market Harborough to Northampton line which still existed until the. 70's The west coast line had been electrified and the new Euston built and at that point had spare capacity. No idea what would have happened to the Midland line between Market Harborough and Bedford -closed quite possibly. Fortunately John Betjeman intervened and that was that.
I suspect the WW2 ' remodeling ' probably also had a hand in the death of Broad Street station, as well as it being too close to Liverpool Street station, but closing it meant that the inside of Liverpool Street station had to be redeveloped.
Interestingly the Labour Party has plans to reintegrate the rail network, because of the now ludicrous plethora of tickets. I hope they win, because I would love to go back to that part of British Rail's ways. For example I was once at Hastings with my younger brother and the Charing Cross train was the semi fast service, leaving before the slow train to Victoria, so we took the Charing Cross train, something you can't do now, because they are run by different companies.
Likewise I was with my late father and both my brothers once at Victoria and the ticket barrier guard, told us that one of the trains on the other side of the barrier, was to be delayed and a slow service, so we got on the other train, that was going to our chosen destination. I doubt that the modern company staff, would bother to tell you stuff like that, because of the profit motives of their bosses. That's why the services are so bad now. An integrated ticket and network system is always more efficient. Further to that the rolling stock leasing companies will be able to be more efficient, without interference from the privatised companies obsessions with branding.
While I do like all the old stations, I've often thought that it would make sense to have a central station at St. Pancras, accessed via a 4 track tunnel from Paddington to Liverpool street via the formerly pondered Euston/St. Pancras HS through station, and a 6 track tunnel with southern portals somewhere near Waterloo to Euston/St. Pancras. This would create 5 mainline core routes for all out-of-town trains (except the Fenchurch Street services), offering one simple interchange for long distance passengers changing in London, who would no longer have to use the already congested local rail and buses to travel between the mainline termini with all their luggage, which adds a lot of time and stress to their already long journey.
Berlin completed a similar, although slightly smaller central through station in 2006, forming only 3 mainline core routes. London is twice the size of Berlin, so it would only be fitting that their central station would also be considerably bigger with 20 platforms (4 each) for the 5 mainlines and perhaps another 4 for HSR, compared to the 12 mainline platforms and 2 S Bahn platforms at Berlin HBF. The disappearance of mainline passengers having to use the tube and buses would surely be appreciated by locals and London tourists alike. Paris could also do with something similar. NYC are lucky that their 2 humongous central mainline stations are just a short walk from eachother.
my idea to, happy to go with yours
@@highpath4776 your's too? Nice! We must be onto something.
Great idea, but the cost of 4 and 6 track tunnels is something that no government seems likely to contemplate; look how long it's taken to get the 2 track Elizabeth line and at what cost. Even the Paris RER lines are 2 tracks and serve nothing beyond outer suburban routes.