South London rail link to Heathrow?

[HowardGWR]

WRAtH and East West Rail will deliver the bit from Heathrow to the WCML.

I suppose that's true, but it puts more pressure on capacity on the GWML. I think we are looking for a through route that really is new, as James Rowden suggests. Such a line needs grade separation to cross over the existing lines out of London, in the same way that the M25 does so with the A roads.

 

[edwin_m]

What about the people between London and Bletchley for which both East West Rail and Old Oak Common are quite indirect journeys to Heathrow?

The suggested linking of Tring services to Crossrail and connection at OOC ought to suffice for this. We can't have straight line services between everywhere and everywhere else!

 

[JamesRowden]

The suggested linking of Tring services to Crossrail and connection at OOC ought to suffice for this. We can't have straight line services between everywhere and everywhere else!

As rail use increases, new lines are part of efficient expansion (e.g. HS2).

Where do you suggest routing the additional Kent/France to West Midlands freight services that may well occur as the fuel cost of Road transport increases?

 

[edwin_m]

As rail use increases, new lines are part of efficient expansion (e.g. HS2).

Where do you suggest routing the additional Kent/France to West Midlands freight services that may well occur as the fuel cost of Road transport increases?

Not via Heathrow I think!

 

[MarkyT]

I don't think the Reading - Gatwick service needs diverting via Heathrow and I can't see an easy way of doing it anyway without taking up scarce capacity nearly all the way into London on the GWML before cutting across to the BML via the WLL and Clapham Junction. WRAtH will link Reading to Heathrow and may be tied in with either Crossrail or Heathrow Express in order to serve a wider range of airport terminals.

A big advantage of a Heathrow T5 - Waterloo link would be the interchange at Clapham Junction for fast trains to Gatwick. That should be quicker than, if not as frequent as Crossrail to Farringdon, then Thameslink.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think the Reading - Gatwick service needs diverting via Heathrow and I can't see an easy way of doing it anyway without taking up scarce capacity nearly all the way into London on the GWML before cutting across to the BML via the WLL and Clapham Junction. WRAtH will link Reading to Heathrow and may be tied in with either Crossrail or Heathrow Express in order to serve a wider range of airport terminals.

A big advantage of a Heathrow T5 - Waterloo link would be the interchange at Clapham Junction for fast trains to Gatwick. That should be quicker than, if not as frequent as Crossrail to Farringdon, then Thameslink.

I was thinking of Reading-Gatwick being diverted via WRAtH, Heathrow southern connection and some route to be determined from there to Gatwick. This makes more sense than extending a London-Heathrow service to Reading because that service would then be much slower and not worthwhile for end-to-end journeys. A Crossrail unit would also be grossly over capacity for the Heathrow-Reading link whereas WRAtH would most likely use shorter trains. Link it to East West Rail and you have a big chunk of a London Orbital route.

 

[infobleep]

Is their space at Woking to run more trains through it? Currently some trains from Guildford wait at the junction for other trains to clear platforms.

Also could Clapham Junction support an increase in service frequency?

 

[MarkyT]

I was thinking of Reading-Gatwick being diverted via WRAtH, Heathrow southern connection and some route to be determined from there to Gatwick. This makes more sense than extending a London-Heathrow service to Reading because that service would then be much slower and not worthwhile for end-to-end journeys. A Crossrail unit would also be grossly over capacity for the Heathrow-Reading link whereas WRAtH would most likely use shorter trains. Link it to East West Rail and you have a big chunk of a London Orbital route.

A Reading - (WRATH) - Heathrow - (Southern Connection) service could only serve T5 where it would have to reverse. Combining WRATH services with HEX allows the Reading link to serve T1-3 directly. It is true through journey time from Reading to Paddington would probably be no less than Crossrail via West Drayton, but that could help keep seats free for airport to London passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another thought. The Hex trains could split and divide at T5 with the front portion going on to Reading and the rear unit going on to Staines or perhaps alternating with Windsor if an additional connection was included in the southern connection. This would add local and interchange traffic at Staines, tourist traffic at Windsor and give four trains an hour to Reading with more sensibly sized trains, that could perhaps be more easily managed in the split platforms at Reading.

 

[HowardGWR]

A Reading - (WRATH) - Heathrow - (Southern Connection) service could only serve T5 where it would have to reverse. Combining WRATH services with HEX allows the Reading link to serve T1-3 directly. It is true through journey time from Reading to Paddington would probably be no less than Crossrail via West Drayton, but that could help keep seats free for airport to London passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another thought. The Hex trains could split and divide at T5 with the front portion going on to Reading and the rear unit going on to Staines or perhaps alternating with Windsor if an additional connection was included in the southern connection. This would add local and interchange traffic at Staines, tourist traffic at Windsor and give four trains an hour to Reading with more sensibly sized trains, that could perhaps be more easily managed in the split platforms at Reading.

I think the problem with these connecting service suggestions, e.g. Clapham Jcn or elsewhere, is that we are dealing with pax with luggage. I am an example, as I change for Gatwick at CPJ already, and it is something of a nightmare, especially given that in one direction you are crammed in with Croydon destined pax and in the other you are also likely to be crammed in with Woking destined pax. Having spent considerable time in vestibules apologising to other pax about blocking them with our cases, I would hope for better for Gatwick to Heathrow transfer pax, who probably have far more luggage, being long distance. At present, let's be fair, a coach service is probably better for that transfer.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the problem with these connecting service suggestions, e.g. Clapham Jcn or elsewhere, is that we are dealing with pax with luggage. I am an example, as I change for Gatwick at CPJ already, and it is something of a nightmare, especially given that in one direction you are crammed in with Croydon destined pax and in the other you are also likely to be crammed in with Woking destined pax. Having spent considerable time in vestibules apologising to other pax about blocking them with our cases, I would hope for better for Gatwick to Heathrow transfer pax, who probably have far more luggage, being long distance. At present, let's be fair, a coach service is probably better for that transfer.

I wonder if there are really enough transfer passengers for a frequent rail shuttle. National Express seems to offer around four non-stop coaches an hour, sometimes more, taking between 1:15 and 1:30, although perhaps that may not be too reliable at some times of peak congestion. Capacity wise that's no more seats than a four car unit per hour, and it would be difficult to beat the quickest time by rail unless a largely new route was constructed. With a new route, rail might be able to stop once or twice en route to pick up extra business, maybe thereby justifying a greater frequency, but even with 4 an hour it may be difficult to justify significant new route construction.

 

[HowardGWR]

I wonder if there are really enough transfer passengers for a frequent rail shuttle. National Express seems to offer around four non-stop coaches an hour, sometimes more, taking between 1:15 and 1:30, although perhaps that may not be too reliable at some times of peak congestion. Capacity wise that's no more seats than a four car unit per hour, and it would be difficult to beat the quickest time by rail unless a largely new route was constructed. With a new route, rail might be able to stop once or twice en route to pick up extra business, maybe thereby justifying a greater frequency, but even with 4 an hour it may be difficult to justify significant new route construction.

I agree (see my last sentence). I think there may be more traffic if Davies recommends a joint hub solution (highly likely IMO).

 

[MarkyT]

I agree (see my last sentence). I think there may be more traffic if Davies recommends a joint hub solution (highly likely IMO).

I think there's a fair chance the outcome may be one extra runway at each site, but they'll still be owned and operated by separate organisations and coordinating air connections across both sites will require a measure of cooperation in creating and running a better link. As a completely segregated point to point system not passing through any historic urban areas, perhaps an inter airport link might just be a (rare) good application for a non convention transport technology like a medium speed elevated 'monorail' or similar that could use better hill climbing and curve following abilities than rail to closely follow the M25. To economise on construction costs through the hilly areas en route, the link needn't be super high speed simply because the journey length isn't too far, and around 200KPH would be sufficient to overtake motorway traffic comfortably.

 

[edwin_m]

That's an interesting thought. Integrating the two airports changes everything, as it increases the number of passengers drastically but requires (I would say) a service at least every 15min and a journey time of 30min or better.

This gives an average speed of around 80mph so do-able without getting into high speed technology. There is certainly no need for ultra high speed so I don't think Maglev and similar would be justifiable. If it's a conventional railway it might just about be able to take freights as well, providing an alternative to the congested West London Line (assuming it's linked in to suitable existing routes to the Midlands and the Tunnel). It might even be extended to provide a HS2-HS1 link, though this would involve quite a lot of new construction.

 

[MarkyT]

One option might be a higher speed light rail or metro, a kind of DLR on steroids, able to negotiate motorway curves and gradients, not really suitable for traditional heavy freight perhaps but airfreight transfers could be feasible. Lighter distribution loads to and from more widespread destinations on the mainline network might also be handled, in smaller cuts of vehicles hauled by autonomous electric tugs on the airport terminal railway network . . .

 

[edwin_m]

One option might be a higher speed light rail or metro, a kind of DLR on steroids, able to negotiate motorway curves and gradients, not really suitable for traditional heavy freight perhaps but airfreight transfers could be feasible. Lighter distribution loads to and from more widespread destinations on the mainline network might also be handled, in smaller cuts of vehicles hauled by autonomous electric tugs on the airport terminal railway network . . .

I think you'd need to be into traditional heavy rail rather than light rail for a maximum speed of 100mph plus that would be needed to deliver an 80mph average. It could perhaps be automatically driven.

There have been various proposals for new orbital railways to the south of London over the years - I think most of them roughly followed the M25.

 

[Tobbes]

That's an interesting thought. Integrating the two airports changes everything, as it increases the number of passengers drastically but requires (I would say) a service at least every 15min and a journey time of 30min or better.

This gives an average speed of around 80mph so do-able without getting into high speed technology. There is certainly no need for ultra high speed so I don't think Maglev and similar would be justifiable. If it's a conventional railway it might just about be able to take freights as well, providing an alternative to the congested West London Line (assuming it's linked in to suitable existing routes to the Midlands and the Tunnel). It might even be extended to provide a HS2-HS1 link, though this would involve quite a lot of new construction.

The reason that "Heathwick" doesn't work in practice is that proper hubs need a guaranteed 60 min connection time. This means that the journey time airside-airside needs to be 30 mins, and that it has to be airside of each terminal. So that means T5 - LGW(S) via T1/2/3 & LGW N in under 25 mins inclusive of two stops, and some automated method of getting the bags on and off.

Theoretically the best way to do this would be a many-many relationship with each terminal airside having direct service to all other terminals (airside) every 10 mins with a 20 min transit (so if you've just missed one, you'll still make the 30 min journey time). M23/M25 is c. 40 miles so call it a point to point average of 120mph.

Theoretically possible.... but would requires each LGW terminal to dispatch 3 trains every 10 mins on a new HSR with 36 TPH capacity. Good luck with the investment case.

 

[Busaholic]

I think there's a fair chance the outcome may be one extra runway at each site, but they'll still be owned and operated by separate organisations and coordinating air connections across both sites will require a measure of cooperation in creating and running a better link. As a completely segregated point to point system not passing through any historic urban areas, perhaps an inter airport link might just be a (rare) good application for a non convention transport technology like a medium speed elevated 'monorail' or similar that could use better hill climbing and curve following abilities than rail to closely follow the M25. To economise on construction costs through the hilly areas en route, the link needn't be super high speed simply because the journey length isn't too far, and around 200KPH would be sufficient to overtake motorway traffic comfortably.

A dedicated link between Heathrow and Gatwick with no other stops should surely be funded by the two airports' operators as their passengers would form the vast majority of beneficiaries. The recent track record of Heathrow's owners, the BAA, on funding of rail projects is not encouraging: £230 million promised as their contribution to the creation of a Heathrow branch of Crossrail in 2008 actually translates as £70 million now, a £160 million shortfall, so they'd need a watertight financial agreement before any construction work began.

 

[MarkyT]

A dedicated link between Heathrow and Gatwick with no other stops should surely be funded by the two airports' operators . . . a watertight financial agreement before any construction work began.

If the link was the price of each airport getting its additional runway perhaps they would be more committed . . .

 

[The Ham]

The reason that "Heathwick" doesn't work in practice is that proper hubs need a guaranteed 60 min connection time. This means that the journey time airside-airside needs to be 30 mins, and that it has to be airside of each terminal. So that means T5 - LGW(S) via T1/2/3 & LGW N in under 25 mins inclusive of two stops, and some automated method of getting the bags on and off.

Theoretically the best way to do this would be a many-many relationship with each terminal airside having direct service to all other terminals (airside) every 10 mins with a 20 min transit (so if you've just missed one, you'll still make the 30 min journey time). M23/M25 is c. 40 miles so call it a point to point average of 120mph.

Theoretically possible.... but would requires each LGW terminal to dispatch 3 trains every 10 mins on a new HSR with 36 TPH capacity. Good luck with the investment case.

There is a big differance between providing a rail link which can compeate with the coaches and providing a rail link which enables the two airports to run as one big hub. The latter can follow once the former exists.

Depending on how the hub worked there could be a case for extending the 60 minute connection time to say 75 minutes for connections, as depending on where the connections are between this could still be better than going to another hub.

For instance going from Inverness to New York via Gatwick and Heathrow with a connection time of 90 minutes could stil be quicker than going via Paris or Madrid with the extra flight times required to get there on top of the 60 minute connection time.

Of course, such a link could be used by people from other parts of the UK to get to Gatwick and from parts of the south east to get to Heathrow.

 

[edwin_m]

This starts getting tricky if you have to treat the link as "airside", since this requires segregation of passengers from any other group and probably all sorts of security precautions to prevent someone using the rail link to get some forbidden item past security. This is easy enough with airside peoplemovers within the airport boundary but I imagine could get tricky for a longer-distance service that travels over the national network or even a dedicated link once it gets beyond the airport.

If the link is "landside" then everyone using it would have to undergo the usual security checks on arriving at the other end, which would add a lot to the connection time.

 

[MarkyT]

If the link is "landside" then everyone using it would have to undergo the usual security checks on arriving at the other end, which would add a lot to the connection time.

If it was a landside link presumably the passengers would also have had to pick up their luggage from an arrival carousel and take it with them for checking again at the other end. If nothing else a combined hub should perhaps allow the through checking of baggage, even if the passenger has to security clear and re-check at the other end. Importantly that suggests baggage must travel on the same fast link to keep up, and the system would need to be tied in intimately with the baggage handling at either end.

If all international cleared passengers are the same legally and can be mixed freely airside, then an airside link needn't be as complex as Tobbes suggested with discrete point to point shuttles between each terminal pair. Instead a service could pick up airside at each terminal or terminal group at one end then go non-stop to the other airport where again it would call at each terminal to drop off. Each sealed train serving all terminals would mean the total frequency on the trunk link would not need to be so high.

Airside and landside trains could be mixed on the same network as long as separate stations are used, and of course the landside trains could call elsewhere en route for interchange with other transport, parking etc.

 

[HowardGWR]

If it was a landside link presumably the passengers would also have had to pick up their luggage from an arrival carousel and take it with them for checking again at the other end. If nothing else a combined hub should perhaps allow the through checking of baggage, even if the passenger has to security clear and re-check at the other end. Importantly that suggests baggage must travel on the same fast link to keep up, and the system would need to be tied in intimately with the baggage handling at either end.

If all international cleared passengers are the same legally and can be mixed freely airside, then an airside link needn't be as complex as Tobbes suggested with discrete point to point shuttles between each terminal pair. Instead a service could pick up airside at each terminal or terminal group at one end then go non-stop to the other airport where again it would call at each terminal to drop off. Each sealed train serving all terminals would mean the total frequency on the trunk link would not need to be so high.

Airside and landside trains could be mixed on the same network as long as separate stations are used, and of course the landside trains could call elsewhere en route for interchange with other transport, parking etc.

Perhaps we should lock 'em in with TIR seals.

 

[edwin_m]

In principle baggage could still be transferred without re-checking even if the link is landside - the part of the train designated for checked baggage would have to be secure in any case.

 

[Olaf]

According to the London rail plan to 2050, in 2030 there will be a rail link on the SWML to heathrow. Given that crossrail and london underground already run into london, would it make sense for SW trains to follow suit, or serve other destinations from heathrow??

The proposals for the airlink project from the SWML was killed off - due, at least in part, to the difficulty with finding paths on the SSWT network and the the length of time in each hour that key level crossings would remain closed to road traffic.

I am not aware of a plan to re-launch this other than there being aspirations to do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As part of the review into airport capacity the Government announced a study for southern rail access to Heathrow last year. Network Rail's terms of reference for the study can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...cess-to-heathrow-terms-of-reference-for-study

The study will deliver to DfT an analysis of the market options by November 2014 and an engineering/options short list by June 2015.

Thanks, I was not aware of this being official, though I had heard of the Gatwick/Heathrow raillink idea that was floated not long back which this appears to be related to. I don't think it is interned to provided the same outcome as the previous project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the only way to get from WLL to SWML would be via Point Pleasant Junction, East Putney and the District Line. This would obviously be completely unfeasable, unless you took over the district line South of East Putney, which would anger no end of District Line commuters from Wimbledon/Southfields.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Wouldn't this be using the old Cross Country Brighton route, which went via Clapham Junction, Kensington Olympia and then via Mitre Bridge Junction, West London Junction and Acton Wells Junction. None of these are horribly sharp curves. (I'm not suggesting this is a good idea though, due to a lack of paths).

Route here.

I think the options for the southern link change once the western approach is formalised - i.e. there would be potential alternative to the previous Staines scheme for access into the airport

 

[Tobbes]

If all international cleared passengers are the same legally and can be mixed freely airside, then an airside link needn't be as complex as Tobbes suggested with discrete point to point shuttles between each terminal pair. Instead a service could pick up airside at each terminal or terminal group at one end then go non-stop to the other airport where again it would call at each terminal to drop off. Each sealed train serving all terminals would mean the total frequency on the trunk link would not need to be so high.

The driver for a many-many relationship is the connection time, Mark. If you extend connections to 75 mins, this would allow 45 mins airport-airport and a 10 min frequency (ie, a 30 min transit time with two 2 min stops, c 80 mph average speed) then the complexity comes down a little. As has been noted, there is also the question of baggage, which many-many simplifies a little.

TBH, there's also not a lot of evidence that that many passengers actually connect via the two airports now, or would want to in future. A four runway hub (preferably not at Heathrow, but instead SE of Luton) would make much more sense.

But failing this, a direct link over new (HSR?!) infrastructure would be very welcome, not least because it could also improve regional connectivity (eg Brighton-LHR; Oxford - LGW).