South Western division connection to Heathrow

[Olaf]

There have been lots of threads and comments in threads about this kind of proposal before, but I think this one really deserves to succeed:

https://heathrowrail.com/

It's the logical route which has been staring us in the face for years, it includes a link to Old Oak for HS2 and Crossrail as well as to Heathrow. What's not to like?

I think that is going to run into trouble, given that it makes no reference to the review of the entire south-west corridor of the M25 which is, as I understand it, is looking for options to address constraints. Anything falling within that corridor may get held-up for nearly a decade.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some strong rumours floating around about this and a private sector investment...

 

[The Ham]

Some strong rumours floating around about this and a private sector investment...

I wouldn't be surprised, even as an open access operator running trains between Basingstoke/Guildford and Woking there's plenty of passengers. Serve Heathrow, including from Waterloo, and it's going to take lots of money.

Admittedly not enough to repay construction costs any time soon, but if there was some other benefit in doing so (say such as wanting to have an extra runway at your airport, just as a for instance) and I could see that the numbers may add up.

Even if the money was coming from elsewhere, then of you assume that 5% of Heathrow's passengers use such a link then that's 3 to 4 million passengers.

Assuming that your running costs for 16 trains with 5 coaches at £250,000 per coach is £20 million a year. If you charge £10 each way to get to Heathrow then there's potential for £10 million a year to repay loans, based on 3 million people.

The likelihood is that you couldn't charge that much, but then there would be a lot of staff that could use the trains and the passengers who are using the services but aren't going to Heathrow which could make up for a lower ticket price.

Even at £10 million a year that's still going to take 150 years (assuming £1.5 billion cost) to repay the construction costs (without interest), but unless flying ceases then it would still have a lot of value. Even if flying does stop, it could provide a link to HS2 at Old Oak Common so would still be very useful (and therefore potential profitable).

 

[matt_world2004]

I wouldn't be surprised, even as an open access operator running trains between Basingstoke/Guildford and Woking there's plenty of passengers. Serve Heathrow, including from Waterloo, and it's going to take lots of money.

Admittedly not enough to repay construction costs any time soon, but if there was some other benefit in doing so (say such as wanting to have an extra runway at your airport, just as a for instance) and I could see that the numbers may add up.

Even if the money was coming from elsewhere, then of you assume that 5% of Heathrow's passengers use such a link then that's 3 to 4 million passengers.

Assuming that your running costs for 16 trains with 5 coaches at £250,000 per coach is £20 million a year. If you charge £10 each way to get to Heathrow then there's potential for £10 million a year to repay loans, based on 3 million people.

The likelihood is that you couldn't charge that much, but then there would be a lot of staff that could use the trains and the passengers who are using the services but aren't going to Heathrow which could make up for a lower ticket price.

Even at £10 million a year that's still going to take 150 years (assuming £1.5 billion cost) to repay the construction costs (without interest), but unless flying ceases then it would still have a lot of value. Even if flying does stop, it could provide a link to HS2 at Old Oak Common so would still be very useful (and therefore potential profitable).

Dobt forget though that £10 ticket price will rise with inflation as well all the ticket needs to recruperate is the operatibg costs and the loan interest to make it worth while.

 

[Bald Rick]

Don't forget loan interest! To pay back £1bn over 30 years (the typical length of loan for this sort of work) you need to pay back around £50m a year at current rates of finance in the private sector.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wouldn't be surprised, even as an open access operator running trains between Basingstoke/Guildford and Woking there's plenty of passengers. Serve Heathrow, including from Waterloo, and it's going to take lots of money.

Building such new infrastructure with private investment doesn't make it a certainty that services would have to be an open access operation though. There's surely two fairly separate issues.

 

[Bald Rick]

Building such new infrastructure with private investment doesn't make it a certainty that services would have to be an open access operation though. There's surely two fairly separate issues.

Agreed. But in this case, to get someone to lend you over a billion quid you are going to have to have cast iron guarantees that you will have an income stream to pay it back. That means track access charges (or similar) agreed for 30 years. And that means an operator has to take a view over 30 years. DfT unlikely to be interested in providing the guarantee, so an OA operator may well answer. No idea if that is the case though.

 

[CdBrux]

it could provide a link to HS2 at Old Oak Common so would still be very useful (and therefore potential profitable).

Could the link to OOC (and even somewhere beyond that is not Paddington) be accommodated by the existing or planned infrastructure?

 

[The Ham]

Building such new infrastructure with private investment doesn't make it a certainty that services would have to be an open access operation though. There's surely two fairly separate issues.

i wasn't saying that it would be an open access operator, rather that IF there were one running between those places it would generate a significant amount of income (you just need to look at the number of people who join/leave a Basingstoke stopper at Woking and the number that join/leave trains at Woking and Guildford who are only travelling between the two).

Of course it could be part of a franchise, but even then increasing the number of trains between Basingstoke at Woking (ideally calling at most if not all stations between) and between Guildford and Woking would then make rail travel more attractive and so encourage more people to use the trains.

The stations between Basingstoke and Woking, although not always overly significant in terms of passenger flows all add up to quite a significant number of passengers:
- Hook 0.823 million (2tph)
- Winchfield 0.369 million (2tph)
- Fleet 1.896 million (3tph)
- Farnborough Main 2.990 million (4tph)
- Brookwood 0.995 million (4tph)

- Total 7 million

You are unlikely to loose too many passengers form a Heathrow service by calling at all those stations (and they may just skip ahead to Woking from Basingstoke or wherever they are travelling from anyway so they have 4tph to Heathrow rather than the 2tph if they change at Basingstoke), but there is plenty of scope for additional passengers by calling at those more minor stations.

Between Guildford and Woking, there would be less demand for trains to stop at Worplesdon (0.21 million on 1tph).

 

[MarkyT]

Could the link to OOC (and even somewhere beyond that is not Paddington) be accommodated by the existing or planned infrastructure?

I think on the GWML the idea would be to use the fast HEX paths into Paddington, with an additional stop at OOC when it is built. The paths have to be maintained according to the original open access agreement until 2023.

 

[Matt Taylor]

I have to be sceptical about this as it's dependent on a new platform at Woking and the construction of the flyover at Woking Junction which has been the subject of discussion for almost forty years.

 

[The Ham]

I have to be sceptical about this as it's dependent on a new platform at Woking and the construction of the flyover at Woking Junction which has been the subject of discussion for almost forty years.

It's also subject to, although to a lesser extent, changes at Basingstoke's junction as well, that and/or electrification to (or at least towards) Salisbury to remove the need to turn so many trains around at Basingstoke (electrification to Salisbury would allow the Basingstoke stoppers to continue to Salisbury, or whichever station it reached, to turn around rather than at the flat junction at Basingstoke).

The pressure could be removed a bit at Basingstoke off peak if one of the Basingstoke stoppers an hour switched to serve Farnham. It would mean that passengers West of Farnborough for Waterloo would need to swap at Farnborough or Woking.

Given how busy the trains are leaving Fleet in morning and arriving into Fleet in the evening a reduction of service in the peaks to/from London probably wouldn't go down very well, even if the total number of trains had increased.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Some of the problems at Basingstoke could be resolved by putting a dive under from where the current long valley siding is to pass under the mainline to emerge at the London end of Barton Mill sidings on the up side to join the US line there.

Just as the current bay platform for Reading line trains could be extended to Winklebury before either doing a flyover/dive under or via a set of fast crossovers to join the mainline there.

This would help remove the conflicting and congesting moves at the station.

 

[The Ham]

Some of the problems at Basingstoke could be resolved by putting a dive under from where the current long valley siding is to pass under the mainline to emerge at the London end of Barton Mill sidings on the up side to join the US line there.

Just as the current bay platform for Reading line trains could be extended to Winklebury before either doing a flyover/dive under or via a set of fast crossovers to join the mainline there.

This would help remove the conflicting and congesting moves at the station.

The potential problem with dive unders is that there are a number of roads and footways which pass under the railway line. Even looping a line through and or behind platform 5 could be difficult because of the already fairly low road bridge at the western end of the platforms which will only get lower if the bridge is extended North as the road is going up at this point. Which would mean that you would probably need to raise the level of the track.

Although electrification to Salisbury wouldn't be cheap it could be cheaper and/or easier and/or less disruptive than changing the junction at Basingstoke. Although personally I think that it would be best to do that, so as to remove the Basingstoke stoppers from crossing at Basingstoke on the flat, and then do the junction works almost straight after/as the latter part of the save project.

Just so that if you have limitations at Basingstoke due to the junction works you've freed up platform capacity in advance.

Of course the fact that it improves capacity and frequency of services to Salisbury, makes getting bimodal trains for the WofE line more likely and brings other benefits is all an added bonus.

I'm not sure if the £1.7 million cost per km on the GWML was single line costs or route km costs. However at about 64km between Basingstoke and Salisbury that would be £110 to £220 million based on those costs.

In reality it should be a lot lower than that as there would be fewer junctions, (if route miles) always only two tracks rather than sections of four tracks, less trains to cancel (and therefore less compensation to pay SWR) and many of the signals have been replaced fairly recently so the location of the equipment is much better known (so less likely to break signal cables).

That may sound a lot to remove just two junction movements an hour, but it is more the fact that the Basingstoke stoppers block platform 1 for about 5-10 minutes on the way in (arriving, making sure everyone is off before running to the siding) and about 10-15 minutes on the way back through. By running to Salisbury they would only block a platform for 3 minutes (arrive, standard station stop, leave).

Although you could gain something similar by building a new station at Oakley, electrifying between the junction and there, installing points to allow a train to turn back and maybe a siding to shunt the unit or if the way of WofE services. Although cheaper it wouldn't bring the same level of benefits (i.e. 4tph between Basingstoke and Salisbury with the potential to skip some of the minor stations from the existing WofE services)

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How far west of Salisbury do the main commuter flows extend? Could Salisbury if it were electrified handle 3xclass 450s (length without fouling stuff)?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

The potential problem with dive unders is that there are a number of roads and footways which pass under the railway line. Even looping a line through and or behind platform 5 could be difficult because of the already fairly low road bridge at the western end of the platforms which will only get lower if the bridge is extended North as the road is going up at this point. Which would mean that you would probably need to raise the level of the track.

Although electrification to Salisbury wouldn't be cheap it could be cheaper and/or easier and/or less disruptive than changing the junction at Basingstoke. Although personally I think that it would be best to do that, so as to remove the Basingstoke stoppers from crossing at Basingstoke on the flat, and then do the junction works almost straight after/as the latter part of the save project.

Just so that if you have limitations at Basingstoke due to the junction works you've freed up platform capacity in advance.

Of course the fact that it improves capacity and frequency of services to Salisbury, makes getting bimodal trains for the WofE line more likely and brings other benefits is all an added bonus.

I'm not sure if the £1.7 million cost per km on the GWML was single line costs or route km costs. However at about 64km between Basingstoke and Salisbury that would be £110 to £220 million based on those costs.

In reality it should be a lot lower than that as there would be fewer junctions, (if route miles) always only two tracks rather than sections of four tracks, less trains to cancel (and therefore less compensation to pay SWR) and many of the signals have been replaced fairly recently so the location of the equipment is much better known (so less likely to break signal cables).

That may sound a lot to remove just two junction movements an hour, but it is more the fact that the Basingstoke stoppers block platform 1 for about 5-10 minutes on the way in (arriving, making sure everyone is off before running to the siding) and about 10-15 minutes on the way back through. By running to Salisbury they would only block a platform for 3 minutes (arrive, standard station stop, leave).

Although you could gain something similar by building a new station at Oakley, electrifying between the junction and there, installing points to allow a train to turn back and maybe a siding to shunt the unit or if the way of WofE services. Although cheaper it wouldn't bring the same level of benefits (i.e. 4tph between Basingstoke and Salisbury with the potential to skip some of the minor stations from the existing WofE services)

You don't know Basingstoke layout that well then as access to Long Valley starts after the road bridge over Bunnian Place and could quite easily do the dive under the mainline and I don't see any need to lower the bridge to re-enable the through route to platform 5 (bay).

And if they can do it at Reading (Cow Lane) then they can do it here.

As for the Basingstoke stoppers you could create Micheldever Parkway which is right next to the busy A303 and install a platform there or send them down to Eastleigh and restart the service from there and remove Shawford and Micheldever stops from the 1Txx & 2Bxx services.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could Salisbury if it were electrified handle 3xclass 450s (length without fouling stuff)?

Yes, quite straightforward really. They'd need a couple of platforms extending by around 10m, they are set up for 10x 23m 158/159s already. They could probably win most of that 10m by squaring off the island platform London end ramp.

 

[The Ham]

How far west of Salisbury do the main commuter flows extend? Could Salisbury if it were electrified handle 3xclass 450s (length without fouling stuff)?

The 15x's are busy as they approach Basingstoke if that is the question.

I wouldn't expect many people would use the Basingstoke stoppers all the way to London, but it would allow people going to Basingstoke (or to a lesser extent Woking) a choice of trains to use. I would also make travel between places either side of Basingstoke (i.e. Fleet/Farnborough to Andover/Salisbury) a lot easier than it is at present, which could attract more people.

With regards to accommodating the length of the trains, as long as they don't block pointwork then the 450's already call at Hook and Winchfield that only allow 8 or 9 coaches worth of doors to open, so shouldn't be a problem. Especially as (IIRC) Alton (also a terminating point for some 12 coach trains) has the London 4 coaches worth of doors locked out of service due to platform lengths.

 

[The Ham]

You don't know Basingstoke layout that well then as access to Long Valley starts after the road bridge over Bunnian Place and could quite easily do the dive under the mainline and I don't see any need to lower the bridge to re-enable the through route to platform 5 (bay).

And if they can do it at Reading (Cow Lane) then they can do it here.

As for the Basingstoke stoppers you could create Micheldever Parkway which is right next to the busy A303 and install a platform there or send them down to Eastleigh and restart the service from there and remove Shawford and Micheldever stops from the 1Txx & 2Bxx services.

I don't know the names of sidings that well, what I do know is that there is a bridge (Vyne Road) with a current 10"9' (circa 3.25m) height restriction about two thirds of the way along platform 4 where the road is rising as it comes out from the north side. It can be seen on this link:
https://goo.gl/maps/R8VaPGZjVUz

The next bridge to the west (Chapel Hill) is less of a problem at 14" 9' and with less of a gradient. However, the existing bridge to the east (Bunnian Place) which platform 5 passes over has a height restriction of 8" 6' and if that bridge needed to get any wider would further reduce that headroom.

Could you lower the existing roads to accommodate a greater headroom, possibly. However, unlike Cow Lane, the land around the road is higher and the roads already have a noticeable gradient to them.

It did lead me to think, could platform 5 be raised to facilitate the extra tracks to pass through at a higher level to mitigate against the ground level issues. That would lead to problems with not having level transfers between platforms 4 and 5, but that could be got around with steps where the two platforms join and a ramp/ramps where there is buildings between.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Honestly you don't have to do much at all and if you wanted to be safe rather than sorry with the reinstatement of the loop aka platform 5, then all it would mean is that they'd need to slightly reprofile the footpath and road there (take it back up the grade a bit) to ensure that the existing clearance is maintained even if the bridge was widened slightly.

 

[3141]

It's also subject to, although to a lesser extent, changes at Basingstoke's junction as well, that and/or electrification to (or at least towards) Salisbury to remove the need to turn so many trains around at Basingstoke (electrification to Salisbury would allow the Basingstoke stoppers to continue to Salisbury, or whichever station it reached, to turn around rather than at the flat junction at Basingstoke)./QUOTE]

A simpler solution would be would to extend the third rail a short way down the West of England line just west of Battledown flyover, and widen it so as to make room for two sidings between the running lines. The Basingstoke stoppers could then continue there to reverse. it would mean a few miles of ECS running, but it would eliminate flat junction conflicts.

 

[swt_passenger]

A simpler solution would be would to extend the third rail a short way down the West of England line just west of Battledown flyover, and widen it so as to make room for two sidings between the running lines. The Basingstoke stoppers could then continue there to reverse. it would mean a few miles of ECS running, but it would eliminate flat junction conflicts.

Or maybe straighten out the kink in the down lines country end of Basingstoke station, and spread the up and down pairs further apart. Then swap the existing pair of reversing/stabling sidings into the middle, Bournemouth style, either side of a maintenance access platform.

 

[The Ham]

Honestly you don't have to do much at all and if you wanted to be safe rather than sorry with the reinstatement of the loop aka platform 5, then all it would mean is that they'd need to slightly reprofile the footpath and road there (take it back up the grade a bit) to ensure that the existing clearance is maintained even if the bridge was widened slightly.

Which is fine until you find a web of cables and pipes under the road which all need lowering to enable the reprofiling. Lowering roads are expensive, often much more so than building a new road (most roads are only about half a metre thick with little scope to just scrape a bit off the top and still be suitable), utility diversions are costly as is traffic management for the road works.

You are also limited on what gradients that you can set the road to, potentially making getting back to existing access along side the road difficult for quite some way along the road.

 

[30907]

I don't know the names of sidings that well, what I do know is that there is a bridge (Vyne Road) with a current 10"9' (circa 3.25m) height restriction about two thirds of the way along platform 4 where the road is rising as it comes out from the north side. It can be seen on this link:
https://goo.gl/maps/R8VaPGZjVUz

The next bridge to the west (Chapel Hill) is less of a problem at 14" 9' and with less of a gradient.

I doubt even 1ft on Vyne Road would make much difference to the vehicles that could use it, and a new span on Chapel Hill would not be brick arch so could offer reasonable clearance.
However, there would be plenty of room for a gentle (say 1:200) gradient anyway.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Anyway, now we've discussed the rights & wrongs of Basingstoke, perhaps we should get back to topic.

At Woking what are they going to be doing because there is apparently a desire to see Platform 6 converted into a through road and things slewed a bit.

The idea of a flyover is flawed and would probably draw a lot of objections as it will mean the closure of a well used public footpath which goes over both the direct & BML, whereas a dive under allows that to stay in situ, but either way it will still tie up direct services to just platform 1 at Woking unless it drops down or comes up before Victoria Arch (A320) road bridge.

That means one failure and the direct is pretty much stuffed.

 

[MarkyT]

I doubt even 1ft on Vyne Road would make much difference to the vehicles that could use it, and a new span on Chapel Hill would not be brick arch so could offer reasonable clearance.
However, there would be plenty of room for a gentle (say 1:200) gradient anyway.

If any new tracks and platforms to the north of the existing station had to be a little higher than the existing platforms to clear Vyne Rd and Chapel Hill, that suggest to me that a new grade separation for the Reading line and also for reversing the stoppers might be built at the west end of the station. See attached for the concept.

 

[Rational Plan]

If I remember the lines shown are options for improving access to Heathrow. The line down the M25 obviates the need for a curve in Staines. With Western access to Slough, the link to Reading via Staines is not needed. I can't see the point for all that expensive and disruptive construction in Staines and the extra rail crossings for just two trains an hour.

Option one would be a link to Staines for 4 trains an hour to Waterloo. Use for connections across SW London and the extra trains to Waterloo.

Beyond that you are looking at either a line down to Chertsey or the Staines curve not both.

I'd go for a direct line for quicker jounrey times and less disruption to Staines town centre and the local roads. People west of Staines to Reading can change at Staines.

The promoters ideas of cross Heathrow services a nice but will only happen if they don't have to pay Heathrow an excessive access fee.

 

[The Ham]

The promoters ideas of cross Heathrow services a nice but will only happen if they don't have to pay Heathrow an excessive access fee.

It depends on who is operating the services, if you are accessing from one side then paying the extra to access the other side probably isn't worth it. However if you are running services from both directions anyway it doesn't make any cost difference to access if the service passes through.

In fact if you are serving two parts of the airport with both services then by joining then together the cost could be cheaper, as there would only be one train between the two stations rather than two.

The other thing is even if it were to cost more it could generate extra income due to people being able to travel more easily between Woking/Guildford and Hayes/Old Oak Common (especially post HS2).

 

[edwin_m]

It depends on who is operating the services, if you are accessing from one side then paying the extra to access the other side probably isn't worth it. However if you are running services from both directions anyway it doesn't make any cost difference to access if the service passes through.

In fact if you are serving two parts of the airport with both services then by joining then together the cost could be cheaper, as there would only be one train between the two stations rather than two.

The other thing is even if it were to cost more it could generate extra income due to people being able to travel more easily between Woking/Guildford and Hayes/Old Oak Common (especially post HS2).

All this is true but it's possible, as the previous post suggests, that Heathrow would try and slap a massive charge on each train as they attempted with Crossrail. This time round any scheme would have to be wary of this and agree the rate in writing beforehand (subject to inflation etc).

It isn't really in Heathrow's interests to be unreasonable about this, because the more trains they have the fewer people are accessing by car, which apparently contribute more pollution around the airport than the planes do. Even through passengers or rail-to-rail interchanges are of value to Heathrow, because both mean there are more trains than there would otherwise be, so more people can use them to access Heathrow itself.

 

[Rational Plan]

You'd think that but Heathrow was just trying to screw an extra £75 million out of the DFT over access charges. This got rejected at court and did not go down at the DFT.