Broadening the GW near London

[coppercapped]

In my post #222 in the thread 'Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News' in the 'Infrastructure & Stations' sub-Forum I suggested that the Crossrail/Elizabeth line needed its own segregated tracks.

I knew my suggestion that TfL should broaden the GW route out of Paddington (see what I did there…!) would provoke some reaction… But my analysis of the situation shows that the GW is not wide enough. This discussion more properly belongs in Speculative Discussions so I have added some background explaining more fully why I reached the conclusion that I did.


I originally wrote about this concept some six years ago, but then it didn’t cause even a ripple because Crossrail had still not been completed and so it was purely theoretical issue. Elizabeth line trains are now running and this time people noticed!

Firstly, to all those who say that the existing traffic does not require the extra tracks and ask ‘why add more?’. You are, of course, quite right; the current infrastructure can just about handle the current train service so there is clearly no need. But…

…now there are many, many more trains running than during my childhood in Reading seventy years ago: they are all longer and faster and the freight trains are much heavier and there are still only four sets of rails between Paddington and Didcot. This has had four effects:

1. if any disturbance occurs now it delays many more trains and affects many more people than it used to do
2. the limitations in the infrastructure mean that it is more difficult to recover the service quickly
3. adding extra trains to intensify existing services is nearly impossible
4. adding extra trains for new routes and stations is impossible.

My point is that time moves on and one ought to be be thinking now about what will be needed in the future in terms of capacity and reliability. One thing is clear, TfL wants to add more services and various studies by Network Rail and others have identified routes, towns and flows which are underserved but would generate useful income if they were better served. These have the potential to add yet more trains to the Newbury/Swindon/Oxford — Reading — Paddington stretch.

It is instructive to compare the GW and WCML routes out of London. Both have fast long distance trains as well as semi-fast and more local trains serving a similar mix of dormitory, market and industrial towns. By repute the WCML services are now more reliable than those on the GW.

On the West Coast slow lines there are three stations at which passenger trains can call between Watford and Euston: Harrow and Wealdstone; Wembley Central and Queens Park although as far as I know the outer suburban/semi-fast trains call only at Harrow. It also has the DC Electric line as far as Watford Junction with a dozen intermediate stops supporting a metro frequency train service.

Between Paddington and Slough (chosen because it is about the same distance from Paddington as Watford Junction is from Euston and because both towns have similar hinterland) there are nine stations (Langley to Acton Main Line inclusive) on the Reliefs. This will increase to ten when Old Oak Common opens.

TfL is talking about running metro-frequencies on the GW Relief lines — 10 tph to West Drayton has been mentioned quite apart from the Heathrow services. At these frequencies Crossrail becomes essentially the Central Line on steroids. To work properly it needs a separate set of tracks so its timekeeping through the central section is not affected by the late departure of a Cross Country train at Oxford causing knock-on delays to a outer-suburban service from Didcot which in turn causes a Crossrail train from Maidenhead to miss its path so creating a gap in the service at Tottenham Court Road. The western end of Crossrail is the modern equivalent of the Bakerloo and the DC electric service from Euston to Harrow and Watford and ideally the GW track arrangements should reflect this state of affairs.

Various documents have been published by Network Rail and other interested parties on infrastructure enhancements needed if some long proposed additional stations were finally built. For example two or three new stations have been suggested on the stretch between Didcot and Swindon: Grove/Wantage and one or two stations at either or both of Shrivenham, on the busy A420 Swindon-Oxford road, and near Stratton on the A419 by-pass running from the M4 round the eastern and northern sides of Swindon, The latter would be near to or at the point the A419 crosses the A420. Further west towards Bristol stations at Wootton Bassett and Corsham have also been proposed which would feed in to the concept of a semi-fast service between London and Bristol.

The trouble is that there is no capacity on the line into Paddington for the extra two trains per hour in each direction that would be needed. So the stations remain unbuilt and the inhabitants continue to drive.

There are similar suggestions for intensifying services on the Berks and Hants line and that to Oxford both requiring through running to and from London. Again — not possible.

If Crossrail/Elizabeth line used segregated tracks in the same way as the Bakerloo and DC Electric lines on the WCML then it would be much easier to path the GW outer-suburban trains — essentially the services to Newbury, Didcot and Oxford — and speed them up by reducing waiting times as well as an increase in frequency. A semi-fast service at least as far as Swindon, would make using the train a viable alternative for the first time for two generations.

Getting the all-stations Crossrail trains off the Reliefs east of Slough would also:

(a) make it possible to path some or all of the non-stop HEx trains from the airport to Paddington - either terminating there or, more likely, continuing through the central Crossrail tunnels - on the Relief lines. Taking HEx off the Mains would make space for additional long distance trains to Devon and Cornwall, the Bristol area and the Cotswolds.
(b) open up space for additional freight paths. It is not true that there is little freight on the GW, it is in fact one of the busiest freight corridors in the country
(c) ease the pathing of the increase in trains needed for the putative Western Rail Access to Heathrow. This proposal is still on the back burner (although currently not funded) as Heathrow’s passenger numbers have returned to pre-COVID levels.

In my original post I didn’t go into detail on how the additional tracks would be built. Although I gave an example of the German railways adding a pair of tracks alongside the Munich - Augsburg line it is clear that this approach would not work well for the GW route because of the very built-up nature of the area. It may well be that much will have to be in tunnel and if this is the case there is no reason why the route should not deviate from the GW alignment and serve areas which are not so well rail connected.

Alternatively adding (tunnelled) Main Lines may be feasible with the current Main Lines taking over the rôle of the current Reliefs. Whatever — the current infrastructure is not future-proof and, one could argue, it is not even present-proof.

 

[stuu]

It is a regular suggestion on various fora, but isn't the 12 platforms at Paddington an equally or even more significant limit?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

In the site's glory days, London Reconnections predicted by 2050, each trunk route into London would need to be mirrored by a totally new main line (high speed) railway. Off-topic, but a London to Norwich high-speed line was proposed by someone in the comments section running via Haverhill, leading to the hilarious suggestion of an "Ongar Shinkansen" station.

But it certainly seems that a number of lines could do with new corridors. The GW for one, probably the Great Eastern too and the South Western.

Alternatively adding (tunnelled) Main Lines may be feasible with the current Main Lines taking over the rôle of the current Reliefs.

 

[Trainguy34]

In my post #222 in the thread 'Elizabeth Line Platform Gaps - BBC News' in the 'Infrastructure & Stations' sub-Forum I suggested that the Crossrail/Elizabeth line needed its own segregated tracks.

I knew my suggestion that TfL should broaden the GW route out of Paddington (see what I did there…!) would provoke some reaction… But my analysis of the situation shows that the GW is not wide enough. This discussion more properly belongs in Speculative Discussions so I have added some background explaining more fully why I reached the conclusion that I did.


I originally wrote about this concept some six years ago, but then it didn’t cause even a ripple because Crossrail had still not been completed and so it was purely theoretical issue. Elizabeth line trains are now running and this time people noticed!

Firstly, to all those who say that the existing traffic does not require the extra tracks and ask ‘why add more?’. You are, of course, quite right; the current infrastructure can just about handle the current train service so there is clearly no need. But…

…now there are many, many more trains running than during my childhood in Reading seventy years ago: they are all longer and faster and the freight trains are much heavier and there are still only four sets of rails between Paddington and Didcot. This has had four effects:

1. if any disturbance occurs now it delays many more trains and affects many more people than it used to do
2. the limitations in the infrastructure mean that it is more difficult to recover the service quickly
3. adding extra trains to intensify existing services is nearly impossible
4. adding extra trains for new routes and stations is impossible.

My point is that time moves on and one ought to be be thinking now about what will be needed in the future in terms of capacity and reliability. One thing is clear, TfL wants to add more services and various studies by Network Rail and others have identified routes, towns and flows which are underserved but would generate useful income if they were better served. These have the potential to add yet more trains to the Newbury/Swindon/Oxford — Reading — Paddington stretch.

It is instructive to compare the GW and WCML routes out of London. Both have fast long distance trains as well as semi-fast and more local trains serving a similar mix of dormitory, market and industrial towns. By repute the WCML services are now more reliable than those on the GW.

On the West Coast slow lines there are three stations at which passenger trains can call between Watford and Euston: Harrow and Wealdstone; Wembley Central and Queens Park although as far as I know the outer suburban/semi-fast trains call only at Harrow. It also has the DC Electric line as far as Watford Junction with a dozen intermediate stops supporting a metro frequency train service.

Between Paddington and Slough (chosen because it is about the same distance from Paddington as Watford Junction is from Euston and because both towns have similar hinterland) there are nine stations (Langley to Acton Main Line inclusive) on the Reliefs. This will increase to ten when Old Oak Common opens.

TfL is talking about running metro-frequencies on the GW Relief lines — 10 tph to West Drayton has been mentioned quite apart from the Heathrow services. At these frequencies Crossrail becomes essentially the Central Line on steroids. To work properly it needs a separate set of tracks so its timekeeping through the central section is not affected by the late departure of a Cross Country train at Oxford causing knock-on delays to a outer-suburban service from Didcot which in turn causes a Crossrail train from Maidenhead to miss its path so creating a gap in the service at Tottenham Court Road. The western end of Crossrail is the modern equivalent of the Bakerloo and the DC electric service from Euston to Harrow and Watford and ideally the GW track arrangements should reflect this state of affairs.

Various documents have been published by Network Rail and other interested parties on infrastructure enhancements needed if some long proposed additional stations were finally built. For example two or three new stations have been suggested on the stretch between Didcot and Swindon: Grove/Wantage and one or two stations at either or both of Shrivenham, on the busy A420 Swindon-Oxford road, and near Stratton on the A419 by-pass running from the M4 round the eastern and northern sides of Swindon, The latter would be near to or at the point the A419 crosses the A420. Further west towards Bristol stations at Wootton Bassett and Corsham have also been proposed which would feed in to the concept of a semi-fast service between London and Bristol.

The trouble is that there is no capacity on the line into Paddington for the extra two trains per hour in each direction that would be needed. So the stations remain unbuilt and the inhabitants continue to drive.

There are similar suggestions for intensifying services on the Berks and Hants line and that to Oxford both requiring through running to and from London. Again — not possible.

If Crossrail/Elizabeth line used segregated tracks in the same way as the Bakerloo and DC Electric lines on the WCML then it would be much easier to path the GW outer-suburban trains — essentially the services to Newbury, Didcot and Oxford — and speed them up by reducing waiting times as well as an increase in frequency. A semi-fast service at least as far as Swindon, would make using the train a viable alternative for the first time for two generations.

Getting the all-stations Crossrail trains off the Reliefs east of Slough would also:

(a) make it possible to path some or all of the non-stop HEx trains from the airport to Paddington - either terminating there or, more likely, continuing through the central Crossrail tunnels - on the Relief lines. Taking HEx off the Mains would make space for additional long distance trains to Devon and Cornwall, the Bristol area and the Cotswolds.
(b) open up space for additional freight paths. It is not true that there is little freight on the GW, it is in fact one of the busiest freight corridors in the country
(c) ease the pathing of the increase in trains needed for the putative Western Rail Access to Heathrow. This proposal is still on the back burner (although currently not funded) as Heathrow’s passenger numbers have returned to pre-COVID levels.

In my original post I didn’t go into detail on how the additional tracks would be built. Although I gave an example of the German railways adding a pair of tracks alongside the Munich - Augsburg line it is clear that this approach would not work well for the GW route because of the very built-up nature of the area. It may well be that much will have to be in tunnel and if this is the case there is no reason why the route should not deviate from the GW alignment and serve areas which are not so well rail connected.

Alternatively adding (tunnelled) Main Lines may be feasible with the current Main Lines taking over the rôle of the current Reliefs. Whatever — the current infrastructure is not future-proof and, one could argue, it is not even present-proof.

Perhaps a line from Paddington, heading towards Notting Hill Gate and maybe an interchange at White City and then Acton Central before rejoining at Ealing Broadway?

 

[SynthD]

I imagine it would be cheaper to build a freight-only, ~80mph tunnel from a major freight depot/junction to the slow lines beyond the metro services. In GWR land this is Acton Yard/Acton Wells to Slough or Reading. On the other side it’s Bow/north London line to Shenfield and Purfleet.

This is cheaper than a 125mph tunnel capable of carrying, and evacuating, passengers. But it’s also a lot less worth the expense.

(a) HEx don’t want to be on the slows.
(b) Is there demand for this, could Acton Yard cope?
(c) Other than simply excess capacity, I don’t know how your suggestion is relevant to this issue that won’t come up.

 

[Bald Rick]

6 tracks to Airport Jn was looked at in some detail back in the late 90s. It got very expensive, very quickly.

Re Euston - Watford on the main line, many trains stop at Harrow / Bushey, the Southern services stop at Wembley Central, nothing main line stops at Queen’s Park under normal circumstances.

 

[Transilien]

Perhaps a new high speed line between London and west of Reading with branches to the lines to Exeter and Swindon. There could be a station at Heathrow and south of Reading. It could have a top speed of 140mph initially but built to full High speed speck.

 

[coppercapped]

6 tracks to Airport Jn was looked at in some detail back in the late 90s. It got very expensive, very quickly.

That I quite believe!

However that was twenty five years ago. The questions are now:

• will the effective loss of the Relief lines to Crossrail put an upper limit on the reliability and punctuality of the GW mainline services?
• Is this upper limit acceptable considering that lack of punctuality and reliability will negatively affect passenger numbers and therefore income?
• how much revenue is forgone given that the additional services, for example those along the Vale of the White Horse, cannot be operated?
• if freight can only operate through the area at off-peak times, how will this affect the FOCs' traffic and costs?
• at what point is it worth spending money to maximise revenue?

Re Euston - Watford on the main line, many trains stop at Harrow / Bushey, the Southern services stop at Wembley Central, nothing main line stops at Queen’s Park under normal circumstances.

Thank you for the clarification. That's not my home stretch but my point stands!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2024 ==

I imagine it would be cheaper to build a freight-only, ~80mph tunnel from a major freight depot/junction to the slow lines beyond the metro services. In GWR land this is Acton Yard/Acton Wells to Slough or Reading. On the other side it’s Bow/north London line to Shenfield and Purfleet.

This is cheaper than a 125mph tunnel capable of carrying, and evacuating, passengers. But it’s also a lot less worth the expense.

(a) HEx don’t want to be on the slows.

Not quite. HEx wants to run fast between Paddington and the Airport and that is not possible using the Relief lines at their current occupation so it uses the Mains.

(b) Is there demand for this, could Acton Yard cope?

Much freight is cross-London, for example to and from Purfleet, London Gateway and Felixstowe as well as routings such as Southampton to Leeds. These trains may pause at Acton Yard but do not serve it

(c) Other than simply excess capacity, I don’t know how your suggestion is relevant to this issue that won’t come up.

If I have parsed your response correctly, both the Western and Southern links to Heathrow are still on the table. These may not happen for another five or ten years but at some point there will need to be space for four trains an hour out to Reading and beyond.

 

[JonathanH]

If I have parsed your response correctly, both the Western and Southern links to Heathrow are still on the table.

Hasn't the western link been formally dropped now?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/western-rail-access-to-heathrow-wrath-cancelled.268349/

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it will not return...!

In the August 2024 issue of Modern Railways there is the report of an interview/discussion with Mark Hopwood, the MD of GWR. On page 53 it states:

If little has been heard recently of the western and southern access routes into Heathrow, key elements in the plan a decade ago to drive modal shift at the airport as part of the preparations for the advent of the third runway (another infrastructure project that has fallen off the radar). At the time it was considered that a southern route from Staines to Terminal 5 was likely to precede building a loop off the Great Western main line but thinking is changing on this.
'It is being recognised that there could be considerable construction efficiencies from doing both projects together' reports Mr Hopwood, adding that Tan Dhesi, the Slough MP and former Shadow Rail Minister, remains a strong advocate of them both.
While the third runway might never come to fruition, the case remains solid for the rail links. 'There's very strong market potential: Heathrow is getting close to being back to 2019 passenger levels now, plus there is a massive opportunity for airport employee model shift' avers the GWR MD

So, who knows? But as I wrote, this link is not off the table.

 

[HSTEd]

If you want more capacity on the GWML without axing anything, you could probably build a single track railway designated solely for freight (almost all aggregate) services.
That would allow you to turn the reliefs purely over to Crossrail - at which point you have a vast increase in capacity west of Paddington.

THe fast lines would run ~18+ trains per hour non-stop to Reading.

The other alternative would be a two track high speed line, but that might be more challenging.
If freight trains ran unattended they could be put in a tunnel that did not comply with the safety requirements for passenger service in terms of access.

 

[Bald Rick]

That I quite believe!

However that was twenty five years ago.

Whilst it was 25 years ago, it was done in the context of Crossrail being on the horizon, and the service spec that went with it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2024 ==

So, who knows? But as I wrote, this link is not off the table.

Not off the table, but the table concerned is the small LACK from IKEA, and it’s in the cupboard under the stairs with some old boots on it.

THe fast lines would run ~18+ trains per hour non-stop to Reading.

There was a plan for 24…. (to Airport Jn)

 

[HSTEd]

There was a plan for 24…. (to Airport Jn)

Well yes, I used the 18tph from HS2 because I'm not on my home machine and can't dig out the speed vs capacity curve from the Bombardier ETCS scoping study for HS2.

 

[coppercapped]

Whilst it was 25 years ago, it was done in the context of Crossrail being on the horizon, and the service spec that went with it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2024 ==



Not off the table, but the table concerned is the small LACK from IKEA, and it’s in the cupboard under the stairs with some old boots on it.

Got you! So not a Ligne Roset table then? (Ligne Roset's website is here).

There was a plan for 24…. (to Airport Jn)

 

[HSTEd]

I imagine it would be cheaper to build a freight-only, ~80mph tunnel from a major freight depot/junction to the slow lines beyond the metro services. In GWR land this is Acton Yard/Acton Wells to Slough or Reading. On the other side it’s Bow/north London line to Shenfield and Purfleet.

This is cheaper than a 125mph tunnel capable of carrying, and evacuating, passengers. But it’s also a lot less worth the expense.

(a) HEx don’t want to be on the slows.
(b) Is there demand for this, could Acton Yard cope?
(c) Other than simply excess capacity, I don’t know how your suggestion is relevant to this issue that won’t come up.

If HEx survives the forced stop at Old Oak Common, a 100mph EMU can lose an absolute maximum of 54 seconds between Airport Junction and the point near Acton Main Line where the speed limit exceeds 100mph.
It's probably more likely to be more like 20-30 seconds a few times an hour. It's probably not a big deal given the signalling headway that ERTMS/ETCS can achieve at 200km/h is (according to Bombardier when using short sections) around 75 seconds.

As for a freight line or tunnel, I doubt it would ever need to operate at 80mph given the vast majority of the freight trains using it would likely be very heavy aggregates trains. I would expect a single track operating "jumbo" type trains like those seen on the WCML in recent years would be the objective.

EDIT:
I forgot HEx now operates 110mph units, so the absolute minimum time is ~25 seconds. In reality I doubt it would be truly noticeable.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

If you want more capacity on the GWML without axing anything, you could probably build a single track railway designated solely for freight (almost all aggregate) services.

There are a series of loops between Slough and Acton adjacent to the up relief. I imagine they are already in use to park freight trains waiting for a gap in the passenger service. With the possible exception of the platformed line through West Drayton, I don't thimk they are electrified.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Perhaps a new high speed line between London and west of Reading with branches to the lines to Exeter and Swindon. There could be a station at Heathrow and south of Reading. It could have a top speed of 140mph initially but built to full High speed speck.

I asked this question a few years ago on here. I can't remember the answers but it was something along the lines of "yeah kinda, I guess, but no".

 

[mangyiscute]

It's obvious to me that the current issue is the bottleneck at Paddington of both platform space and the flat junction just outside that all trains have to cross.
If we look at departures from London, heathrow express leaves at xx:10, xx:25, xx:40, xx:55. GWR have departures within 2/3 mins on either side of these trains, and also within 2/3 mins of each other.
At Reading, there are three platforms for trains heading west, so there isn't really any capacity issues there.
Therefore, GWR would in theory be able to run at least 16tph fast from London to Reading which they don't come close to, mainly because getting so many trains into and out of Paddington is practically impossible.
If there could be a way to run a track perhaps from the high numbered platforms under most of the lines to the fast lines this could reduce a lot of conflicts and potentially give more capacity.

Obviously, there is the issue of 387s only going 110mph compared to 125, but this makes only up to 1 min difference so it isn't really an issue.

The other issue the trains crossing Dolphin Junction onto the slows at Slough (or crossing just after Maidenhead during peaks) which is disruptive especially because of how common 1/2 min delays are in this area.
I'd love to see a grade-separated junction somewhere for these, which is unfeasible but still way more cost-effective than building more lines, or perhaps just remove these trains all-together.
The other idea I have is to change the order of the lines to how the ECML runs with fasts as the middle two lines and reliefs as the outer two lines, as this would allow these trains to cross to the reliefs much more easily, although this does bring up other issues since the reliefs obviously have to go onto the north side by somewhere around Acton, so there would need to be grade separated crossovers somewhere.

In an ideal world, a new high speed line is built, but there are options for cheaper half-solutions which while I would not prefer them to do, that's the way infrastructure in this country tends to go.

 

[Crithylum]

Would building a new 2 track railway roughly parallel be a better option?
It would mean that new areas are nearby to a railway, increasing the potential returns. My suggestion would be to use the now unused Chiltern branch to OOC for a little while then run ~2km north of the current line before rejoining roughly around Slough (or Iver/Langley to reduce cost). A large amount of potential and existing housing would now be within ‘optimistic’ walking distance of a fast railway to central London (~half hour). The Chiltern branch appears to have the width for 4 tracks (inc. Central) along most of its necessary length, so that could save a few km of tunnels.

How would the cost of this compare to 6 tracking?

 

[JonathanH]

Would building a new 2 track railway roughly parallel be a better option?

Given what has happened with HS2, there is no chance that a new railway alignment could be built, even if it is seen as a good option.

The thing about 'bypass lines' is that they aren't seen as a bypass line, but instead something new. Is an extra pair of tracks in the line to Reading the most pressing issue on the west side of London, given conversations about local stops on the Chiltern line in another thread, and the woeful journey times to London from places like Bracknell and Wokingham?

It would mean that new areas are nearby to a railway, increasing the potential returns.

If there were stations on the new line it would somewhat defy the point of building it. Why not build West London Tram instead?

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I think it’s going to be like it is now for a very long time. Nobody is going to pay anything like what would be required.

I think the best we could hope for is some grade separated junctions to try and make sure trains present at Reading at the right time more often. Thinking the likes of Didcot East and Wootton Bassett. And that certainly won’t be anytime soon.

 

[coppercapped]

I think it’s going to be like it is now for a very long time. Nobody is going to pay anything like what would be required.

I think the best we could hope for is some grade separated junctions to try and make sure trains present at Reading at the right time more often. Thinking the likes of Didcot East and Wootton Bassett. And that certainly won’t be anytime soon.

I agree that this will be the most likely turn of events — unfortunately

A pity, there would appear to be a lot of potential for increased income by making it easier to get around the country by rail that is stymied by Transport for London's ambitions there being no equivalent heavyweight organisation pushing for improvements in places such as the Kennet Valley and the Vale of the White Horse, in other words that great swathe of towns and villages thirty miles and more west of London.

 

[JonathanH]

A pity, there would appear to be a lot of potential for increased income by making it easier to get around the country by rail that is stymied by Transport for London's ambitions there being no equivalent heavyweight organisation pushing for improvements in places such as the Kennet Valley and the Vale of the White Horse, in other words that great swathe of towns and villages thirty miles and more west of London.

But is that improvement in the Kennet Valley and the Vale of the White Horse more lucrative than development elsewhere? Why not improve the ability for passengers to travel from High Wycombe, Wokingham, or indeed other places?

 

[SynthD]

A pity, there would appear to be a lot of potential for increased income by making it easier to get around the country by rail that is stymied by Transport for London's ambitions there being no equivalent heavyweight organisation pushing for improvements in places such as the Kennet Valley and the Vale of the White Horse, in other words that great swathe of towns and villages thirty miles and more west of London.

You're heading towards finding the low value to the nation of the expensive changes proposed, and it would help your point to continue this. What exactly are these ambitions, to use the tracks that Berkshire, the national government, DfT and NR thought they should have non-exclusive use of, to serve the same stations as GWR did a decade earlier?

 

[coppercapped]

You're heading towards finding the low value to the nation of the expensive changes proposed, and it would help your point to continue this. What exactly are these ambitions, to use the tracks that Berkshire, the national government, DfT and NR thought they should have non-exclusive use of, to serve the same stations as GWR did a decade earlier?

I’m afraid I can’t work out quite what you are trying to say so I’ll try to précis my original post.

The 2008 Act of Parliament which created Crossrail effectively gave it control of two of the four lines between Maidenhead and Paddington. Since 2006/7 when the Crossrail Bill was being prepared and 2022/23 the number of rail passengers has increased by some 30% countrywide. Locally the Elizabeth line seems to have generated some 15% more business (the last number I saw) quite apart from those who have transfered from other routes. It is, undeniably, busy.

The intensification of the Crossrail service out to Airport Junction (and in the near future to West Drayton) means that GWR services are now confined to the Main Lines east of Slough and paths for freight trains using Hanwell and Acton sidings and the Poplar connecting lines are severely limited.

The ensuing lack of flexibility in operating the Reading to London stretch, essentially as two parallel two track railways during the day, means that not only are a large number of passengers affected when an incident occurs but also that it takes longer to restore normal service.

On the other hand there are aspirations and studies which demonstrate that there are potential markets further afield, such as extending the London outer-suburban service to Swindon, intensifying the offerings towards Oxford and the Kennet Valley and adding additional longer distance trains. These aspirations cannot now be addressed as there is no spare capacity. Freight is increasingly being limited to off-peak hours which will limit the growth in modal shift by making train timings less attractive for the end customer and adding to the FOCs’ costs.

With the present layout it is not possible to add more than one or two trains per hour to the GWR’s Main Line without exacerbating the punctuality and reliability issues which are currently present.

My suggestion about broadening the GWR main line using the same model that already exists for the West Coast Main Line as far as Watford was an attempt to square the circle. Do you have a better idea? Or should the current situation simply limit expansion for all time?

 

[JonathanH]

On the other hand there are aspirations and studies which demonstrate that there are potential markets further afield, such as extending the London outer-suburban service to Swindon, intensifying the offerings towards Oxford and the Kennet Valley and adding additional longer distance trains. These aspirations cannot now be addressed as there is no spare capacity.

Are these aspirations any greater than aspirations on other routes? There are unfulfilled aspirations on every route. Apart from its well publicised reliability issues, the GWML doesn't do too badly despite the additional Crossrail services.

There is going to be no money for large scale fulfilment of aspirations for quite a while now, particularly in the south east. In that context, it really is a case of making do.

 

[WAO]

When Paddington was re-modelled, its approaches comprised of six roads, numbered 1 - 6. This persisted up to Old Oak Common, where the lines 5 and six provided access to sidings and the washer. Since then Crossrail has intervened, intruding on lines five and six until mains and reliefs are established at North Pole. Now more parallel tracks are logically needed where trains are slower, a necessity on terminal approach. It has always struck me that there is actual or potential space on the North side of the Reliefs, where, ideally, lines 5 and 6 might continue.

Assuming Crossrail and HS2 have not irreversibly taken the space, then the main obstacles appear to be the North London Line bridge which would need another span and the Acton Wells goods line, where a large expensive excavation would be needed to move the freight lines over, with a revetted wall instead of a cutting. This would give six tracks out to Ealing Broadway, at least easing the London area.

As HS2 can't even get to Euston, I doubt if we shall see change for generations.

WAO

 

[SynthD]

The intensification of the Crossrail service out to Airport Junction (and in the near future to West Drayton) means that GWR services are now confined to the Main Lines east of Slough and paths for freight trains using Hanwell and Acton sidings and the Poplar connecting lines are severely limited.

The ensuing lack of flexibility in operating the Reading to London stretch, essentially as two parallel two track railways during the day, means that not only are a large number of passengers affected when an incident occurs but also that it takes longer to restore normal service.

GWR already largely ran the two parts as two separate operations until Slough, as now. What did GWR do when they had all four lines that doesn't happen now?

On the other hand there are aspirations and studies which demonstrate that there are potential markets further afield, such as extending the London outer-suburban service to Swindon, intensifying the offerings towards Oxford and the Kennet Valley and adding additional longer distance trains. These aspirations cannot now be addressed as there is no spare capacity. Freight is increasingly being limited to off-peak hours which will limit the growth in modal shift by making train timings less attractive for the end customer and adding to the FOCs’ costs.

With the present layout it is not possible to add more than one or two trains per hour to the GWR’s Main Line without exacerbating the punctuality and reliability issues which are currently present.

As GWR are the exclusive users of the main lines beyond Airport junction, what difference has the Elizabeth line made here? The outer surburban were limited stop until Reading, only Slough and Maidenhead? We could check with history timetable experts. If there was demand for services from Swindon or Oxford to stop east of Reading, they would still move to the main lines before West Drayton?

My suggestion about broadening the GWR main line using the same model that already exists for the West Coast Main Line as far as Watford was an attempt to square the circle. Do you have a better idea?

HS2 exists because NR worked out that trying to widen the WCML would cost more and deliver less.

This persisted up to Old Oak Common, where the lines 5 and six provided access to sidings and the washer. Since then Crossrail has intervened, intruding on lines five and six until mains and reliefs are established at North Pole.

This may be worth fixing. The third pair of lines (inside of the relief pair - mmrxxr), dedicated to OOC terminators, needs a name like Main and Relief. But I don’t think it needs to go beyond the reversing sidings.

 

[mangyiscute]

To be fair, when GWR operated it there was no off peak movement between the lines east of Reading, whereas now there is movement at Dolphin Junction