How could rail capacity to Gatwick Airport be increased?

[Djgr]

I think the obvious thing (that will probably never happen) is to increase the Gatwick Express to 4pth as proposed BUT to remove the premium fares for using it. It seems crazy to me we have the existing Gatwick Express trains running mostly empty

Indeed. Perhaps it's me but I can't see the point of doubling the number of trains carrying hot air?

 

[JonathanH]

Recently MP Laura Trott was promoting a handful of additional services coming in the December timetable change that serve her constituency. If she thinks this is worthwhile, then an entirely new service pattern improving links to an airport will be worth promoting.

Indeed, and Tom Tugendhat MP has a whole section of his website devoted to Tonbridge to Gatwick services, but it isn't going to buy him a lot of votes if the train services actually changes.

I’m campaigning for a rail connection to Gatwick and I hope you will join me. For too long we have suffered much of the downside but little of the advantages of being near one of the UK’s major airports. That should now change.

The connection from Tonbridge to Gatwick was removed in 2008 when the then-Labour Government made changes to the rail network across the south of England which led to direct rail services between Kent and Gatwick being stopped. This was despite 11% of Gatwick’s passengers coming from Kent, around 3 million trips per year at the time.

Over the past 16 years Gatwick has continued to grow, there has been no new infrastructure to help with journeys between Kent and the Airport, and increasing rail competitiveness. With population growth in Kent the market is only getting bigger for a direct rail link.

For all this time, including all the time I have been MP for Tonbridge, Edenbridge and the surrounding villages, we have been campaigning to reinstate this direct train link. It’s been difficult though, especially as the service on the Tonbridge-Redhill line has declined over recent years – first with the loss of the direct trains to London Victoria before the pandemic, and the removal of the third unit since.

My point is not that it isn't worthy of some nice words, but that in reality has a miniscule impact on voter intentions. Likewise what he is saying about a bigger Sainsburys for Tonbridge.

 

[cle]

Or we could withdraw Gatwick Express and make them into Southern Services.

Don’t tempt me with a good time.

I’d sacrifice a TPH if the spread was more even and to enable all trains to call at CJ and EC. Imagine a simple “every 5-6 minutes” type campaign - even if not pure clockface intervals. Basically the tube or a bus timetable.

Turn one at Gatwick and another at Three Bridges/Crawley if no space south of there.

Utilization overall would still be better than the empty Gat Ex terminators even with a path lost… and maybe it could be partially used for something else, eg out of Victoria towards Sutton.

Might help congestion at East Croydon and relieve the other services which go much further on the Coastway.

Does anyone really take notice of these sorts of things to the extent that it changes their vote. Railway access from Kent to Gatwick is not at the top of voter concerns.

How many votes have been lost because the Redhill to Tonbridge service was cut back?

“Normal” people don’t vote over rail services, they vote on what they’re scaremongered into.

 

[JonathanH]

I’d sacrifice a TPH if the spread was more even and to enable all trains to call at CJ and EC. Imagine a simple “every 5-6 minutes” type campaign - even if not pure clockface intervals. Basically the tube or a bus timetable.

Southbound, Clapham Junction does have a train roughly every ten minutes to Gatwick Airport (xx01 / xx12 / xx23 / xx31 / xx42 / xx53), although this frequency doesn't start until 0731, and the service is quite poor until then with a gap between two four-car trains at 0601 and 0642. Northbound, the gaps aren't so good (xx02 / xx13 / xx26 / xx32 / xx43 / xx56)

 

[Snow1964]

I heard this too. It was on PM on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon.

It wasn't a plan for a train every 3 minutes, the Gatwick spokesperson being interviewed claimed it was a train every 3 minutes before the pandemic, is that right?

The implication was that it was for the government and the railway to get back to the train every 3 minutes pre pandemic timetable.

Although most of those trains will go to Victoria (not exactly central part of London) due to a mid 19th century piece of history.

Actually there are 2 super hubs (Stratford and under Construction Old Oak Common) which would allow many people in South East, South West and Anglia to travel to Gatwick. But there is no plan to serve Gatwick from either of these.

Which means from the 1000 or so stations within 2 hours of Gatwick, two changes of train (or train + tube + train) will be needed. Not making it very convenient.

 

[Minstral25]

Although most of those trains will go to Victoria (not exactly central part of London) due to a mid 19th century piece of history.

Actually there are 2 super hubs (Stratford and under Construction Old Oak Common) which would allow many people in South East, South West and Anglia to travel to Gatwick. But there is no plan to serve Gatwick from either of these.

Which means from the 1000 or so stations within 2 hours of Gatwick, two changes of train (or train + tube + train) will be needed. Not making it very convenient.

From Stratford and Old Oak to Gatwick will be just one change - at Farringdon. Easy peasy!

 

[brad465]

Indeed, and Tom Tugendhat MP has a whole section of his website devoted to Tonbridge to Gatwick services, but it isn't going to buy him a lot of votes if the train services actually changes.

My point is not that it isn't worthy of some nice words, but that in reality has a miniscule impact on voter intentions. Likewise what he is saying about a bigger Sainsburys for Tonbridge.

It doesn't have to buy a lot of votes, all it has to do is make MPs think it will by them a lot of votes. In politics, perception matters a lot more than reality, not just from the point of view of voters, but from MPs too (and this issue would be far from the only issue where the two perceptions differ).

 

[321362]

I’m inclined to agree with you, although it is probably the cheapest option.

As to increasing capacity on the London to Gatwick run, there’s a fleet of 350/2s going spare that could take up the slack of a return to a 4tph Gatwick Express operation. That could deliver 48 extra cars ph and utilise over half that fleet.

Is there any thread on this subforum that doesn't suggest the 350/2s?

 

[JonathanH]

Is there any thread on this subforum that doesn't suggest the 350/2s?

They are the currently spare rolling stock so they are bound to be mentioned since people want to find a home for them.

 

[John R]

Is there any thread on this subforum that doesn't suggest the 350/2s?

Why wouldn’t they be appropriate rolling stock for the route?

 

[Class 317]

So not passenger demand then.

The contrast between magnificent 12 car fixed formation trains at Gatwick and the present and possible future NDL trains appalls me.


WAO

Bur BEMU'S could be as long as required by demand assuming enough investment in extending platforms and SDO. The same would apply to 3rd rail emu.

They could be 4, 5, 6 cars long etc offering far more capacity than now likely with faster journey times.

 

[Brubulus]

From Stratford and Old Oak to Gatwick will be just one change - at Farringdon. Easy peasy!

Old Oak and Stratford generally aren't people's final destinations, people are interchanging from HS2/GWML and the GEML. Personally, I've never been able to take the train to Gatwick, despite using it quite frequently, simply because it's always too early/late for the railway.

 

[Farnborough]

{deleted}

 

[Bald Rick]

Old Oak and Stratford generally aren't people's final destinations, people are interchanging from HS2/GWML and the GEML. Personally, I've never been able to take the train to Gatwick, despite using it quite frequently, simply because it's always too early/late for the railway.

I find that unusual, unless you are exclusively booking flights that depart early in the morning, and exclusively arrive back late in the evening, and have never used a hotel to make things easier.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Southbound, Clapham Junction does have a train roughly every ten minutes to Gatwick Airport (xx01 / xx12 / xx23 / xx31 / xx42 / xx53), although this frequency doesn't start until 0731, and the service is quite poor until then with a gap between two four-car trains at 0601 and 0642. Northbound, the gaps aren't so good (xx02 / xx13 / xx26 / xx32 / xx43 / xx56)

However they are almost exclusively 8 cars all day along as are Gatwick Express when in the past most were 12 cars. The simplest way to capacity enhancement is bolstering everything to 12 cars from Victoria during core operating hours. The traction system was enhanced to high current for Thameslink.

 

[izvor]

Looking at the Network Rail documentation on station platform lengths it appears that of the stations regularly served by the two trains an hour GWR service between Reading and Gatwick Airport only Reading, Wokingham, Guildford, Redhill and Gatwick Airport definitely at present have platforms in both directions long enough for 8 car trains without selective door opening so without some platform extensions the service could be operated by BEMU trains but only 4 cars long.

Interesting point, so in theory you could have 1 x 8-car tph calling at those stations only (to shift the RDG-GTW market swiftly), closely followed by 1 x 4-car tph all stations. As with an earlier timetable the fast would catch up the previous slow to give a roughly 30-30 headway at Guildford in each direction. Not ideal, but then tweak this with selective SDO and/or platform lengthening at a couple of stations, to cope with, say, peak movements and you could increase overall capacity considerably within the 2tph limit, assuming that this would even be required over 2tph 4-car bemus on roughly the present service pattern.

You could even add a 3rd tph Reading to Guildford slow/semi-fast, this section almost level-crossing free (now Ash has gone) and with signalling capacity (I believe, as XC used to use it), as this is the busier end of the line if you subtract the Gatwick movement, and more likely to develop in its own right.

 

[John R]

Interesting point, so in theory you could have 1 x 8-car tph calling at those stations only (to shift the RDG-GTW market swiftly), closely followed by 1 x 4-car tph all stations. As with an earlier timetable the fast would catch up the previous slow to give a roughly 30-30 headway at Guildford in each direction. Not ideal, but then tweak this with selective SDO and/or platform lengthening at a couple of stations, to cope with, say, peak movements and you could increase overall capacity considerably within the 2tph limit, assuming that this would even be required over 2tph 4-car bemus on roughly the present service pattern.

You could even add a 3rd tph Reading to Guildford slow/semi-fast, this section almost level-crossing free (now Ash has gone) and with signalling capacity (I believe, as XC used to use it), as this is the busier end of the line if you subtract the Gatwick movement, and more likely to develop in its own right.

If I understand that correctly, it still effectively provides only one TPH from Reading to Gatwick. So if your connection at Reading is late or inconveniently timed you have a long wait for the next one or get to Gatwick the best past of an hour later than planned. Which isn’t great for airport traffic.

Coming from Bristol, for that reason I would much prefer, as now, to carry on to Paddington and use the Liz Line and Thameslink, with frequent connecting services every few minutes.

 

[jon0844]

There will be no funding from Gatwick for any rail infrastructure, with the possible exception of some minor changes at Gatwick station itself (if any are needed, which I doubt).

Gatwick’s view will be, I’m sure, like most airports are when it comes to rail expansion, and that is:
Rail expansion has the objective of more passengers being able to use rail to reach the airport. The rail industry takes the income. Why should the airport pay to provide infrastructure such that someone else gets the income?

That's very true, although I wonder if GTR/GBR can say it will axe the Gatwick Express services in favour of regular trains and then ask the Gatwick operator to fund the dedicated trains and branding - which the airport is very much going to want to retain for status reasons. It's unlikely you're going to get lots of new and profitable routes without an express train - and Gatwick needs to start offering more long-haul flights with lucrative business and first class fares (not all of them are going to come by car/taxi).

Hopefully things wouldn't work like that as once everyone wants money for this, that and the other, you end up with the poor passenger getting ripped off and you start to see price gouging etc.

 

[John R]

Interesting thread.

There will be no funding from Gatwick for any rail infrastructure, with the possible exception of some minor changes at Gatwick station itself (if any are needed, which I doubt).

Gatwick’s view will be, I’m sure, like most airports are when it comes to rail expansion, and that is:
Rail expansion has the objective of more passengers being able to use rail to reach the airport. The rail industry takes the income. Why should the airport pay to provide infrastructure such that someone else gets the income?

Gatwick is required to see the proportion of its passengers using rail increase considerably if it is to be allowed to use its second runway. That is a condition put on it.

It would be cutting its nose off to spite its face to refuse to fund some rail related infrastructure or other capacity improvement which would enable that increase to take place only to sit there and find it cannot use its new runway and associated terminal improvements because the rail industry (ie government) didn’t put its hand in its pocket to pay for it.

 

[Magdalia]

Which means from the 1000 or so stations within 2 hours of Gatwick, two changes of train (or train + tube + train) will be needed. Not making it very convenient.

Before Thameslink that's what everyone did.

It would be cutting its nose off to spite its face to refuse to fund some rail related infrastructure or other capacity improvement which would enable that increase to take place only to sit there and find it cannot use its new runway and associated terminal improvements because the rail industry (ie government) didn’t put its hand in its pocket to pay for it.

That's not how it works! The airport will take the view that the existing rail infrastructure can absorb the increased passenger numbers, and it is for the government/railway to deliver on that, by running more/longer trains. Stansted are taking a similar approach with their proposed expansion, claiming that all of the additional passengers can be carried on the existing services.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That's not how it works! The airport will take the view that the existing rail infrastructure can absorb the increased passenger numbers, and it is for the government/railway to deliver on that, by running more/longer trains. Stansted are taking a similar approach with their proposed expansion, claiming that all of the additional passengers can be carried on the existing services.

What’s clear is the current timetable with all GTR services strengthened to 12 cars provides an uplift in capacity. Add back in quarter hourly GXs and I’m sure that will cover demand into the 2030s. There’s no capacity on the fast/quarries for more trains but Redhill to Gatwick could easily absorb another 2 tph. The other sensible thing is surely to follow Stansted Ex model and have all trains to Gatwick calling at C.Jcn and E.Croydon then the timetable could be better optimised.

Long term the signalling is going to need replacing. It’s 40yrs old and other than Gatwick I believe it’s all still relay based interlocking. It’s a line that would benefit from ETCS to keep headway’s tight and then maybe a timetable revamp would be possible.

 

[JonathanH]

That's not how it works! The airport will take the view that the existing rail infrastructure can absorb the increased passenger numbers, and it is for the government/railway to deliver on that, by running more/longer trains. Stansted are taking a similar approach with their proposed expansion, claiming that all of the additional passengers can be carried on the existing services.

I would expect the government / railway to also take the view that the existing infrastructure can cope in this instance.

 

[camflyer]

Gatwick is required to see the proportion of its passengers using rail increase considerably if it is to be allowed to use its second runway. That is a condition put on it.

It would be cutting its nose off to spite its face to refuse to fund some rail related infrastructure or other capacity improvement which would enable that increase to take place only to sit there and find it cannot use its new runway and associated terminal improvements because the rail industry (ie government) didn’t put its hand in its pocket to pay for it.

I think it would be reasonable for Gatwick to make a contribution to rail infrastructure in the area but capacity increases would also benefit non-airport passengers on such a busy commuting and leisure route.

This is different to Heathrow where any additional rail links would predominantly benefit the airport and its users.

 

[Mgameing123]

Gatwick is required to see the proportion of its passengers using rail increase considerably if it is to be allowed to use its second runway. That is a condition put on it.

It would be cutting its nose off to spite its face to refuse to fund some rail related infrastructure or other capacity improvement which would enable that increase to take place only to sit there and find it cannot use its new runway and associated terminal improvements because the rail industry (ie government) didn’t put its hand in its pocket to pay for it.

What about buses?

 

[John R]

What about buses?

Good challenge, but realistically I can’t see buses delivering much of the step change needed to get passengers to the airport.

 

[The exile]

Good challenge, but realistically I can’t see buses delivering much of the step change needed to get passengers to the airport.

More useful for staff though (as they are likely to live locally)

 

[Brubulus]

I find that unusual, unless you are exclusively booking flights that depart early in the morning, and exclusively arrive back late in the evening, and have never used a hotel to make things easier.

Most LCC flights from Gatwick follow that model, and pretty much.

Good challenge, but realistically I can’t see buses delivering much of the step change needed to get passengers to the airport.

They can be used to cheat the numbers (people drive to car parks which require a bus trip)

 

[JonathanH]

What about buses?

I do wonder whether the 273 and 291 should extend to the airport, but the 400 already provides the link to East Grinstead, 200 to Horsham, and 100 / 420 / 460 from Redhill, Reigate and beyond.

 

[Minstral25]

What about buses?

They have been expanded and more regular night routes - gradual improvements

 

[WAO]

Interesting point, so in theory you could have 1 x 8-car tph calling at those stations only (to shift the RDG-GTW market swiftly), closely followed by 1 x 4-car tph all stations. As with an earlier timetable the fast would catch up the previous slow to give a roughly 30-30 headway at Guildford in each direction. Not ideal, but then tweak this with selective SDO and/or platform lengthening at a couple of stations, to cope with, say, peak movements and you could increase overall capacity considerably within the 2tph limit, assuming that this would even be required over 2tph 4-car bemus on roughly the present service pattern.

You could even add a 3rd tph Reading to Guildford slow/semi-fast, this section almost level-crossing free (now Ash has gone) and with signalling capacity (I believe, as XC used to use it), as this is the busier end of the line if you subtract the Gatwick movement, and more likely to develop in its own right.

That's the best idea (from my point of view) so far.

I don't care how the NDL train is hauled - ac/dc/battery/Diesel/steam/horse, as long as it can convey airline passengers and luggage in volume, comfortably, reliably and competitively.

I think Gatwick Express was originally conceived as a airline quality (Mark 2 a/c) experience of train travel, rather than the cosy 4VEP 5-a-side SR jog, and not a tourist rip-off.

Made my day.

WAO