How could rail capacity to Gatwick Airport be increased?

[biggerisbetter]

I would like to see, and feel the following would potentially be realistic and offer a material boost in capacity and connectivity at the airport:

• Increase in Gatwick Express services to 12-car, 4tph calling at Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Preston Park and Brighton and removing price differential in these services*.
• Increase in North Downs line services to 3tph 6-car (with SDO and selected platform lengthening) or 4tph if infrastructure capacity allows.
• Transfer of North Downs service to Southern and ordering of new 3-car battery EMUs for North Downs, Uckfield and Marshlink services.
• Extension of Watford Junction to East Croydon service to Gatwick or further south if infrastructure capacity allows*.
• Extension of Redhill to Tonbridge service to Ashford*.

The above would offer a material boost in capacity and increase in the number of people who can access the airport with just one change.

*increases in capacity and extended services secured through either a new order of stock combined with the 3-car battery EMUs or cascade of electrostars from southeastern following a new order for that area.

 

[JonathanH]

Increase in Gatwick Express services to 12-car, 4tph calling at Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Preston Park and Brighton and removing price differential in these services*.

Is the suggestion that Brighton's service to Gatwick and London slowed down significantly as a result?

• Increase in North Downs line services to 3tph 6-car (with SDO and selected platform lengthening) or 4tph if infrastructure capacity allows.
• Transfer of North Downs service to Southern and ordering of new 3-car battery EMUs for North Downs, Uckfield and Marshlink services.

Probably need 2tph with 69m trains to prove itself first. Where are Southern going to service this fleet? How are the early trains from Reading going to be resourced?

Extension of Watford Junction to East Croydon service to Gatwick or further south if infrastructure capacity allows*.

Is this in lieu of some of the existing trains on the Redhill corridor?

Extension of Redhill to Tonbridge service to Ashford*.

Fast or stopping east of Tonbridge? The problem is that there is limited demand between Tonbridge and Ashford that isn't catered for by the London services that already run. This would basically be an empty train not justifying its existence between Tonbridge and Ashford other than by virtue of some limited demand to Gatwick, and consequently need a funding source.

With regard to Gatwick, my view is that Redhill to Tonbridge is effectively too far South East to really make a difference. The M25 / M26 by running north of the North Downs simply tracks the population more effectively.

 

[Harpo]

Looking at a sample off-peak hour at Gatwick today, other than north downs services, nearly half are formed of 8 cars. My rough maths suggests that making everything 12 cars gives a capacity uplift of nearly 20% but it would need far fewer additional units in traffic if concentrated on Gatwick -London shuttles.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Looking at a sample off-peak hour at Gatwick today, other than north downs services, nearly half are formed of 8 cars.

I'm pretty sure this is me being slow, but what are the other ones formed of - are they 12 car already?

 

[PGAT]

I'm pretty sure this is me being slow, but what are the other ones formed of - are they 12 car already?

Pretty much all the Thameslink trains are 12 cars, Southern ans Gatwick Express are almost exclusively 8 cars outside of weekends and rush hour

 

[JonathanH]

Pretty much all the Thameslink trains are 12 cars, Southern ans Gatwick Express are almost exclusively 8 cars outside of weekends and rush hour

Passengers boarding trains at Gatwick Airport aren't very good at distributing themselves along the length of the train. They can end up somewhat bunched in the middle coaches.

 

[cle]

I would like to see, and feel the following would potentially be realistic and offer a material boost in capacity and connectivity at the airport:

• Increase in Gatwick Express services to 12-car, 4tph calling at Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Preston Park and Brighton and removing price differential in these services*.
• Increase in North Downs line services to 3tph 6-car (with SDO and selected platform lengthening) or 4tph if infrastructure capacity allows.
• Transfer of North Downs service to Southern and ordering of new 3-car battery EMUs for North Downs, Uckfield and Marshlink services.
• Extension of Watford Junction to East Croydon service to Gatwick or further south if infrastructure capacity allows*.
• Extension of Redhill to Tonbridge service to Ashford*.

The above would offer a material boost in capacity and increase in the number of people who can access the airport with just one change.

*increases in capacity and extended services secured through either a new order of stock combined with the 3-car battery EMUs or cascade of electrostars from southeastern following a new order for that area.

Redhill to Ashford surely starting back at Gatwick / Three Bridges? Unless this 'one change' piece is real. I don't think people with luggage are up for many changes. And anyone working there would surely drive vs change trains.

Watford would have to remain a stopper, and would anyone not jump onto one of many non-stop fasts at East Croydon?

 

[Harpo]

I'm pretty sure this is me being slow, but what are the other ones formed of - are they 12 car already?

Yes. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.

 

[Tester]

Redhill to Ashford surely starting back at Gatwick / Three Bridges? Unless this 'one change' piece is real. I don't think people with luggage are up for many changes. And anyone working there would surely drive vs change trains.

Watford would have to remain a stopper, and would anyone not jump onto one of many non-stop fasts at East Croydon?

Clapham Junction is the better change from Watford.

 

[trainmania100]

Maybe grand central could fit this in as an excuse to get their new Brighton service approved.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yes. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.

Thanks. And it doesn't seem to have caused anyone else any difficulty, so probably down to me being slow rather than you being unclear.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe grand central could fit this in as an excuse to get their new Brighton service approved.

More the opposite that any extra GBR services would make their plans even less likely to come to fruition.

 

[cle]

Clapham Junction is the better change from Watford.

True. In my head I was thinking about Balham and Selhurst folks (likely more traffic to Gatwick than north of river)

For my money, the Southern should join WLL and do Watford-Clapham (low number platforms) @ 2tph. Which doesn't help this Gatwick discussion especially, other than a few paths through South London and into East Croydon on the slows.

 

[John R]

I do wonder whether, given Old Oak Common's importance by the time the full effects of the 2nd runway are felt, a link from there to Gatwick could be viable. Either by construction of a station on the existing line near Mitre Bridge Junction to service the existing Watford to E Croydon (extended southbound), or being very much more Crayonistic, a Reading to Gatwick service that runs along the mainline to Acton (a small amount of new electrification would be required beyond that currently under way).

 

[JonathanH]

I do wonder whether, given Old Oak Common's importance by the time the full effects of the 2nd runway are felt, a link from there to Gatwick could be viable. Either by construction of a station on the existing line near Mitre Bridge Junction to service the existing Watford to E Croydon (extended southbound), or being very much more Crayonistic, a Reading to Gatwick service that runs along the mainline to Acton (a small amount of new electrification would be required beyond that currently under way).

I do wonder how you get past Clapham Junction and onto the fast line though. Rebuilding Clapham Junction and East Croydon for this kind of connection is in the realms of totally unaffordable construction, when there are other aspirations like Bakerloo extension and Crossrail 2 that are not only before that in the queue but also unfunded.

Old Oak Common to Gatwick Airport will be possible with one change at Farringdon with no infrastructure spending so justifying a direct link is very difficult.

What is the specific need for an Old Oak Common to Gatwick Airport direct link? Reading to Gatwick Airport would still be quicker via Guildford than a link at Acton.

 

[brad465]

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.

I looked at getting to Gatwick from Taunton and was surprised to see that some tickets, including Advances, were cheaper doing the Lizzy and Thameslink route vs North Downs Line, even though the latter has the "not London" aspect. That said if the latter was cheaper, that could easily overwhelm demand on the route, so would need longer and more frequent services.

 

[JonathanH]

I looked at getting to Gatwick from Taunton and was surprised to see that some tickets, including Advances, were cheaper doing the Lizzy and Thameslink route vs North Downs Line, even though the latter has the "not London" aspect. That said if the latter was cheaper, that could easily overwhelm demand on the route, so would need longer and more frequent services.

That is GWR playing stupid games with their advance quotas on the North Downs Line, which have been an issue ever since they became reservable trains.

 

[JKF]

Could they actually build a branch right into the airport like Heathrow? My memory of using Gatwick was of a massive walk from the station to where you actually got on a plane. Putting people in the terminals would make it more attractive.

 

[JonathanH]

Could they actually build a branch right into the airport like Heathrow? My memory of using Gatwick was of a massive walk from the station to where you actually got on a plane. Putting people in the terminals would make it more attractive.

I think your memory is mistaken. Gatwick Airport station is immediately adjacent to South Terminal. North Terminal is accessed via a people mover service. Some of the gates at both terminals do involve a ten minute walk from security but that is just the nature of a large airport.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Passengers boarding trains at Gatwick Airport aren't very good at distributing themselves along the length of the train. They can end up somewhat bunched in the middle coaches.

The recent rebuild did nothing to improve passenger distribution on P3 & 4 which remains cluttered around the escalators. The platforms are too narrow in the middle add in the yellow lines and space to move up the platform is restricted. Oh and if you do try you get platform staff barking orders to keep behind the yellow line.

 

[Bald Rick]

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 isn’t.

Gatwick is required to increase the proportion of non-transfer passengers using public transport to access the site increase from 45% (2024) to 54% (in the year prior to commencing dual runway operations and/or first use of the new Pier 7) “unless otherwise agreed by CBC” (Crawley Borough Council).

This does not imply any need for rail infrastructure works. A few things:

Crawley Borough Council will very much want the new Pier 7 (and other buildings connected with the expansion) completed and in service, as then they will receive additional business rates income directly from the airport, and indirectly from other businesses that increase their trading space through the need to serve a busier aiprort. (A good friend is responsible for calculating the annual business rates bill for Gatwick, and it is a non-trivial sum of money).

There are other methods of increasing public transport share to Gatwick, not least filling the trains that already serve it, which are far from full for much of the day. Even if all of that 9% increase - approx 4million additional passengers - were to switch to rail, that’s the equivalent of 20 people per train on average, or around 200 people on each extra Gatwick Express when it goes back to 4tph.

There are also bus options - for example if a link to the Medway towns is desirable, it would be considerably cheaper for Gatwick to lay on a subsidised / free coach service than pay for the rail infrastructure necessary to enable a frequent rail service.

There is no requirement to maintain public transport share at 54% beyond commencement of dual runway operations.

There is nothing to rule out Gatwick making an agreement with CBC to commence dual runway operations with a public transport share of lower than 54%, as long as CBC agreed of course. There are various scenarios where CBC may be persuaded to agree; Gatwick could for example agree to fund some urgently required public infrastructure unrelated to rail transport.

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.

There are no rail works authorised by the Development Consent Order, and I would be astonished if there is any budget in Gatwick’s plans to do so. There are no circumstances where the new aiprort infrastructure would be built and not used due to the absence of new rail infrastructure.

 

[cle]

Old Oak Common to Gatwick Airport will be possible with one change at Farringdon with no infrastructure spending so justifying a direct link is very difficult.

Best would be a WLL station in service of OOC - and a Clapham Junction change. That WLL station should exist regardless, but would make this connection easier.

I would say that accessing both the GWML and HS2 options from Gatwick (and South London / counties) will be very well used, and quicker than going via Farringdon, which is fairly sluggish in the core. And there is plenty before Reading, e.g. Ealing, Slough, Heathrow even! And yes, Birmingham via OOC which will be extremely fast, and better than TL to St P and walking to Euston.

 

[Trainlog]

There are also bus options - for example if a link to the Medway towns is desirable, it would be considerably cheaper for Gatwick to lay on a subsidised / free coach service than pay for the rail infrastructure necessary to enable a frequent rail service.

Agreed, If rail links from Kent to Gatwick airport cannot be achieved, this to me is the best alternative.

I reckon somewhere like Chatham bus station would be an ideal place to start a Medway-Gatwick coach service, provided the service was reliable and had an appropriate frequency.

 

[DelW]

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.

The main one west of Guildford is Wokingham, which also has the Waterloo trains, albeit those are only 2tph each way at present. More closures per hour probably wouldn't be popular though.

XC only regularly ran two trains a day, one northbound in the early morning and one southbound in the evening. However they do run weekend diversions via Havant and Guildford when Basingstoke to Southampton is closed, so there may be spare capacity.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Pretty much all the Thameslink trains are 12 cars, Southern ans Gatwick Express are almost exclusively 8 cars outside of weekends and rush hour

The only way to increase rail capacity to Gatwick Airport is to make all Southern and Gatwick Express trains on the Brighton Main Line 12 cars like all the Thameslink trains. This would almost certainly require an increase in the amount of rolling stock available for GTR Southern and Gatwick Express services and for GTR to acquire more rolling stock in total. It is probably not possible to greatly increase the total number of train services on the Brighton Main Line but the issue can be solved by operating the existing train services with longer trains with a lot more seats. The focus needs to be on the rolling stock used for these train services.

The same applies for GWR North Downs services, to add capacity they need 8 car trains. In that case there may also be a need for some platform extensions but the solution is increasing the length of the trains to greatly increase the number of seats. The 2tph service would be fine if it were operated with 8 car trains.

There are many other examples throughout the country, not the least Cross Country Trains services, where the solution to providing adequate rail capacity is to run the existing train services with longer trains that have a lot more seats than the rolling stock currently used.

The other issue is Sunday services. The Thameslink train services to Gatwick Airport are fine Monday to Saturday but the same level of service needs to run on Sundays.

 

[fandroid]

I would like to see, and feel the following would potentially be realistic and offer a material boost in capacity and connectivity at the airport:

• Increase in North Downs line services to 3tph 6-car (with SDO and selected platform lengthening) or 4tph if infrastructure capacity allows.
• Transfer of North Downs service to Southern and ordering of new 3-car battery EMUs for North Downs, Uckfield and Marshlink services.

Transfer to SWR would make just as much sense. SWR already run a lot of trains into Reading. They also run most trains through Guildford, which is an important interchange on the NDL. Add to that, there are also ageing diesel services on SWR that need replacement soon

If and when there is full confidence in BEMUs and their necessary charging infrastructure, there could be a combined order for 3rd rail compatible BEMUs covering all the ex-BR Southern Region lines where diesels still exist. GWR could then be left to deal with its Thames Valley branches and any others where it thinks BEMUs are the answer.

 

[JonathanH]

Transfer to SWR would make just as much sense. SWR already run a lot of trains into Reading. They also run most trains through Guildford, which is an important interchange on the NDL. Add to that, there are also ageing diesel services on SWR that need replacement soon

Leaving it with GWR makes sense as well given the depot and resourcing is at the right end of the route for the custom.

Dead running to Selhurst, Fratton or Salisbury isn't ideal, although I appreciate that battery operation changes the constraints a little.

 

[321362]

an increase in the amount of rolling stock available for GTR Southern and Gatwick Express services and for GTR to acquire more rolling stock in total.

Give the 350/2s to GWR and cascade their 387s to GTR? Means that GTR crews don't have to learn a whole new class, and they already have the facilities to maintain 387s at Alexandra Palace or Stewarts Lane

 

[Farnborough]

Give the 350/2s to ...

Is there a RailUKForums equivalent to Godwin's Law, whereby raising the topic of the 350/2s (other than within the dedicated thread) triggers a forfeit?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Is there a RailUKForums equivalent to Godwin's Law, whereby raising the topic of the 350/2s (other than within the dedicated thread) triggers a forfeit?

It will pass.

It used to be HSTs, and one day will be some other class of stock.