But why do you need 6 platforms and terminating trains when you could have 2? That's a huge extra cost no real benefit.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Sadiq Khan says future of Heathrow Express should be ‘reconsidered’ due to Elizabeth line success
- Thread starter thenorthern
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It can’t. Or not easily. The box for the south west extension is already built under T5. They’re not going to go off tunnelling more than that.
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 997
There is an article in the latest edition of RailWatch written by Steve Costello which offers a new twist on his company's plans. (Not yet shown on the Heathrow Southern Access website.) In addition to the original suggestions for Southern Access, the article suggests an alternative route to reading from Heathrow T5 with trains taking a new route via the existing tunnel. It suggests an additional service from Waterloo.
I don't know how practical this would be. It would require a new west-facing chord at Heathrow junction to allow trains to turn west onto the GWML.
My thought is that it might be better to incorporate any service like that into a new tunnel with a station at the new Terminal planned for the third runway.
What are the thoughts of others here?
Here is his diagram of the services proposed
I don't know how practical this would be. It would require a new west-facing chord at Heathrow junction to allow trains to turn west onto the GWML.
My thought is that it might be better to incorporate any service like that into a new tunnel with a station at the new Terminal planned for the third runway.
What are the thoughts of others here?
Farnborough
Member
That's some long grass you've just kicked the can into...
rmHawk765
Member
'Centre of the south-east rail network' is certainly a stretch... though perhaps if the overall aim is to integrate the SWR network with Heathrow this makes more sense. However I doubt there is capacity for an extra 4tph at Waterloo, through Clapham Junction, or at Reading.
Only a few hundred million for that. Pennies in the scheme of things, eh?
I think that opening up a direct route between Waterloo services and Slough could be useful
In what sense? You can probably get to Waterloo quicker than any hypothetical "direct service" via a fast GWR train to Paddington and the Bakerloo line. The only thing would be better connectivity to intermediate stations.
Of course Western / Southern link would be a good thing but not so sure this is a major reason.
RailWonderer
Established Member
Even if there was capacity isn't the whole area too built up to have a chord? Joining into Staines/Egham you'd surely have to dig underground.
It's more the reservoirs, wetlands/rivers and presumably floodplain in the way. You'd have to dig underground anyway as that's where the railway is of course.
That seems crazy. How would grade elevation be achieved into the Heathrow tunnels when there are already significant viaducts over the GWML there, a short distance to the tunnel portal and other things in the way? With the spur to Terminal 4 being on the flat, what else can get through Heathrow Central?
[Screenshot is a map of Heathrow Airport Junction west of Hayes & Harlington illustrating a lack of space for a grade separated junction from the west.]
I specifically said "Waterloo services" I.e. not necessarily between Waterloo and Slough.
Trying to get North/South between lines isn't easy and so whilst getting into London is fairly quick, getting from (say) Richmond to Slough isn't easy and so a direct service with a circa 40 minutes journey time for Slough/Richmond or circa 35 minutes Slough/Twickenham could be useful.
The Western rail link project considered and rejected this. It was judged difficult and expensive, and would put further capacity pressure on the Heathrow tunnel section, and the junction area, with all trains terminating at T5.
Mattplans
Member
Why is Acton West an unsuitable place for a fast Elizabeth Line service from Paddington to Heathrow to crossover?
One thing the western route definitely needs is to be a bit clearer to customers about calling patterns. As if it isn't confusing enough already knowing what train goes to your stop unless you travel to/from Ealing
One thing the western route definitely needs is to be a bit clearer to customers about calling patterns. As if it isn't confusing enough already knowing what train goes to your stop unless you travel to/from Ealing
Because they would conflict with other services whilst doing so. Moreover the junction is 'single lead' so only one train can do that movement and a time.o
You can timetable it so that trains in opposite directions use the crossover at different times but during disruption, trains bunch up and so it would inevitably add to delays. That's what happens on the Midland MaIn Line where Thameslink services are booked to weave to and from the Fast lines on single lead crossovers.
Acton West and other locations are used to cross services between the Mains and Reliefs when there's a two track timetable in operation (which is happening increasingly frequently for HS2/Old Oak Common station works). But because the junction is single lead, the train frequency has to be significantly reduced to make the timetable work: HEx and Elizabeth line T4 services get reduced to half hourly and Maidenhead services are cancelled.
If you think of a switch from the Down Relief to Down Main, both the Up and Down Main need to be clear for it to happen. And that means for the timetable to work that any train on either of those lines has to be far enough away for them not to be checked (ie three signals away). That in itself is going to be exceedingly difficult with the volume of traffic.
Then add the move the other direction, and the Up and Down Reliefs need to be clear. And then, even if you can find slots for all those, you have to find ones where the moves in each direction don't conflict with each other.
So well nigh impossible to do such a move across single lead junctions until you get west of Airport Junction when suddenly you have 10 less services an hour in each direction. But even then it's a move that is like threading a needle through a haystack, and exposes the railway to more chance of delays as soon as any service is running late.
zwk500
Veteran Member
That would require completely reconstructing every station and junction between Paddington and Didcot (except Airport Junction, possibly). Not going to happen when keeping the Elizabeth line on the slows is the preferable traffic separation operationally anyway to move the greatest volume of people on the line.
Would it be more feasible to introduce a series of passing loops at different stations along the relief lines? Would it be possible to deliver, say, 8 TPH to Heathrow and 8 TPH all stops to Maidenhead by having the Heathrow services pass the stoppers around Hanwell?
Which stations would lose direct access to Heathrow under that proposal? Remember that Heathrow is a huge centre of employment, over 80k people work at the airport itself or associated businesses. Many of them live in west London and commute by train now that there's a frequent and fast service (6tph) on the Elizabeth line. I hardly imagine that severing this or forcing them to change would be popular....
This proposal would only provide good value for money if flighting the Heathrow and GWML services could massively increase the frequency of Elizabeth Line trains west of OOC without impacting freight traffic. West Ealing, Hanwell, and Southall would be skipped, and the Heathrow-bound trains would probably need an extra pair of dedicated platforms at Hayes & Harlington to avoid conflicts.
The frequency of service to the skipped stations would stay the same, if not increase, and a wait of at most a couple of minutes for cross-platform interchange at H&H to Heathrow doesn't sound particularly harsh to me. Alternatively, you could 6-track the GWML all the way from Acton Wells to Airport Junction...
zwk500
Veteran Member
It can't, freight can barely get slots as it is.
The optimum setup would surely be to have the Maidenhead run fast from Hayes to Paddington (OOC when it opens) and the Heathrows all-stops. Then there is no loss of connectivity to Heathrow, better journey times for the outer EL services, and still have consistent calling patterns? The GJT would reduce by increasing the service (under your plans).
As an approximate value, a station call costs about 2 minutes journey time in a commuter train. If we assume all trains are stopping Paddington and Hayes & Harlington, and that OOC will have platform capacity for both services to call as well, then you are looking at up to 5 stations being skipped for a maximum of 10 minutes Journey time difference (8 if you keep Ealing Broadway call in for the Underground interchange).
On the GWML the headway is 2 mins if the first train is non-stop and 2.5 if the first trains stops at any intermediate station (generally*). ETCS ins unlikely to bring this down below 2. That means your overtaking trains must make up at least 5 minutes to overtake trains. However, the train in front is likely going to incur and additional 0.5 minutes going into the loop and getting out of the loop (1 min total) against if the platform were just by the side of the running line, due to turnout speeds etc.
So, if we take you're 16tph figure, we're looking for trains to be 3.75mins apart Arriving at Paddington, but the railway currently works in half minutes so the 2nd train will be 3.5mins behind. For the purposes of this example it is not relevant which group goes to which branch
| Station | 1st train (Stops) | 2nd train (Fast) | 3rd train (Stops) | 4th train |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paddington | xx.00 | xx.03½ | xx.07½ | xx.11 |
| Acton ML | xx.06½ | xx/09 | xx.14 | xx/16½ |
| Ealing Broadway | xx.09½ (xx.09a-xx.13½d) | xx/11 (xx/11½) | xx.17 (xx.16½a-xx.21d) | xx/18½ (xx/19) |
| West Ealing | xx.12 (xx.16½) | xx/12 (xx/12½) | xx.19½ (xx.24) | xx/19½ (xx.20) |
| Hanwell | xx.14 (xx.18½) [xx.19a-xx.24½d.] | xx/13 (xx/13½) [xx/14] | xx.21½ (xx.26) [xx.26½a.-xx.32d.] | xx/20½ (xx.21) [xx.21½] |
| Southall | xx.17 (xx.21½) [xx.28] | xx/14 (xx/14½) [xx/15] | xx.24½ (xx.29) [xx.35½] | xx/21½ (xx.22) [xx.22½] |
| Hayes and Harlington | xx.20½ (xx.25) [xx.31½] | xx.16 (xx.16½) [xx.17] | xx.28 (xx.32½) [xx.39] | xx.23½ (xx.24) [xx.24½] |
| Airport Jn | xx/21½ (xx.26) [xx/32½] | xx/17 (xx/17½) [xx/18] | xx/29 (xx.33½) [xx/40] | xx/24½ (xx.25) [xx.25½] |
Bold areas indicate where trains are overtaking. Note the following:
- 6-tracking dynamic loop would need to begin at Acton ML and run to Southall.
- Putting in a static loop at Ealing Broadway (Times in Parentheses) adds ½ a minute in to the fast train, and delays the slow train sufficiently that it would need to be overtaken again
- Adding in the 2nd loop at Hanwell (times in Square Brackets) delays the fast trains by an additional ½ minute, and note that the Stopping train 7.5 mins ahead of the 1st train would need to loop at Southall, or the fast trains be held back by 2.5 mins (missing the immediate interchange, BTW).
I believe @The Planner says the going rate for this analysis is north of £100/hr, so I'll be sure to send you my invoice at a competitive rate
CAVEAT: All of this is done on the back of an envelope, so a proper exercise with access to a proper planning system would be required to verify the conclusions. You might need a loop moving to a different station, or potentially only need 2 rather than 3 loops, etc...
* - before the pedants come in, yes the headways are *very* particular on this section.
Last edited:
coppercapped
Established Member
Snow1964
Established Member
Seems DfT have awarded a £1.5m tender, for legal opinion on future of Heathrow Express.
I was under impression the contract was extended to a specific date, and unless extended ends on that date. (Can't remember date, but think it was during 2028). So wonder what is going on if deciding on the future needs lots of legal advice, presume their is some variation of what happens now (it doesn't cost £1.5m in legal fees just to extend expiry without changing anything else)
I was under impression the contract was extended to a specific date, and unless extended ends on that date. (Can't remember date, but think it was during 2028). So wonder what is going on if deciding on the future needs lots of legal advice, presume their is some variation of what happens now (it doesn't cost £1.5m in legal fees just to extend expiry without changing anything else)
Last edited:
I would have thought DfT would want to clarify the situation by early 2027, so planning for the 2028 timetables can be done with some certainty.
GWR don't need to keep operating the service on behalf of the Airport if they choose not to after the contract expires, yes, that's absolutely right.
I suspect this has a lot more to do with the rights over Network Rail's tracks which the Airport holds, rather than anything to do with the GWR contract. The rights stem from the agreement the Airport made with BR, rather than being decided by the ORR as they might be today.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,262
The Heathrow Express track access contract is an unregulated Track Access Contract that ends in 2028. They don’t have a standard template TAA - the basis of their track access contract is the contract they made with the BRB.
In the situation where DfT ensures GBR jacks up the base track access charges in 2029 (and drives most of OA off the network) Heathrow Express would be able to pay long run incremental costs and would probably survive, so this is a very bad sign for OA generally if the DfT is now looking at their options on Heathrow Express.
The 387 units will be leased GBR assets so redeployment would be relatively easy if they wanted to kill Heathrow Express off completely.
In the situation where DfT ensures GBR jacks up the base track access charges in 2029 (and drives most of OA off the network) Heathrow Express would be able to pay long run incremental costs and would probably survive, so this is a very bad sign for OA generally if the DfT is now looking at their options on Heathrow Express.
The 387 units will be leased GBR assets so redeployment would be relatively easy if they wanted to kill Heathrow Express off completely.
Thanks for this detailed analysis! This is all very interesting, and it's going to take me a while to digest in full.It can't, freight can barely get slots as it is.
The optimum setup would surely be to have the Maidenhead run fast from Hayes to Paddington (OOC when it opens) and the Heathrows all-stops. Then there is no loss of connectivity to Heathrow, better journey times for the outer EL services, and still have consistent calling patterns? The GJT would reduce by increasing the service (under your plans).
As an approximate value, a station call costs about 2 minutes journey time in a commuter train. If we assume all trains are stopping Paddington and Hayes & Harlington, and that OOC will have platform capacity for both services to call as well, then you are looking at up to 5 stations being skipped for a maximum of 10 minutes Journey time difference (8 if you keep Ealing Broadway call in for the Underground interchange).
On the GWML the headway is 2 mins if the first train is non-stop and 2.5 if the first trains stops at any intermediate station (generally*). ETCS ins unlikely to bring this down below 2. That means your overtaking trains must make up at least 5 minutes to overtake trains. However, the train in front is likely going to incur and additional 0.5 minutes going into the loop and getting out of the loop (1 min total) against if the platform were just by the side of the running line, due to turnout speeds etc.
So, if we take you're 16tph figure, we're looking for trains to be 3.75mins apart Arriving at Paddington, but the railway currently works in half minutes so the 2nd train will be 3.5mins behind. For the purposes of this example it is not relevant which group goes to which branch
Station 1st train (Stops) 2nd train (Fast) 3rd train (Stops) 4th train Paddington xx.00 xx.03½ xx.07½ xx.11 Acton ML xx.06½ xx/09 xx.14 xx/16½ Ealing Broadway xx.09½ (xx.09a-xx.13½d) xx/11 (xx/11½) xx.17 (xx.16½a-xx.21d) xx/18½ (xx/19) West Ealing xx.12 (xx.16½) xx/12 (xx/12½) xx.19½ (xx.24) xx/19½ (xx.20) Hanwell xx.14 (xx.18½) [xx.19a-xx.24½d.] xx/13 (xx/13½) [xx/14] xx.21½ (xx.26) [xx.26½a.-xx.32d.] xx/20½ (xx.21) [xx.21½] Southall xx.17 (xx.21½) [xx.28] xx/14 (xx/14½) [xx/15] xx.24½ (xx.29) [xx.35½] xx/21½ (xx.22) [xx.22½] Hayes and Harlington xx.20½ (xx.25) [xx.31½] xx.16 (xx.16½) [xx.17] xx.28 (xx.32½) [xx.39] xx.23½ (xx.24) [xx.24½] Airport Jn xx/21½ (xx.26) [xx/32½] xx/17 (xx/17½) [xx/18] xx/29 (xx.33½) [xx/40] xx/24½ (xx.25) [xx.25½]
Bold areas indicate where trains are overtaking. Note the following:
- 6-tracking dynamic loop would need to begin at Acton ML and run to Southall.
- Putting in a static loop at Ealing Broadway (Times in Parentheses) adds ½ a minute in to the fast train, and delays the slow train sufficiently that it would need to be overtaken again
- Adding in the 2nd loop at Hanwell (times in Square Brackets) delays the fast trains by an additional ½ minute, and note that the Stopping train 7.5 mins ahead of the 1st train would need to loop at Southall, or the fast trains be held back by 2.5 mins (missing the immediate interchange, BTW).
I believe @The Planner says the going rate for this analysis is north of £100/hr, so I'll be sure to send you my invoice at a competitive rate
CAVEAT: All of this is done on the back of an envelope, so a proper exercise with access to a proper planning system would be required to verify the conclusions. You might need a loop moving to a different station, or potentially only need 2 rather than 3 loops, etc...
* - before the pedants come in, yes the headways are *very* particular on this section.
My reason for making the Heathrow services the express services and the Maidenhead services the stopping services between Ealing Broadway and Hayes & Harlington was that it prioritises traffic to and from the central core. I'm not sure why you would focus on traffic between the three skipped stations and Heathrow Airport when the majority of passengers are more likely to be concerned about getting into the city centre? On top of that, journeys to and from Heathrow Airport are mostly going to be from city centre stations, so there's more value to speeding up those journeys, even at the cost of making the Hanwell - Heathrow Airport journey require an interchange.
The time penalty for entering and exiting the turnouts looks harsh. I guess it really does just make sense to build an extra pair of tracks for freight from Acton Wells to Airport Junction, get them out of the way, and then run every Elizabeth Line trains all-stops.