Farnborough
Member
And is this before, or after, you've resolved World Peace?
Just where are you planning to put this extra pair of tracks?
-
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
Just where are you planning to put this extra pair of tracks?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
zwk500
Veteran Member
The case for stopping the Maidenhead trains and forcing interchange for Heathrow will be galactically weaker than stopping Heathrow trains and forcing interchange for Maidenhead/Reading. Although in this instance I'm also assuming that HEx isn't going anywhere as the idea that you can re-use the Main Line paths for anything has already been debunked so a fast service will continue.
If HEx was just withdrawn and everybody told to lump it, then I think the case for switching the stops to the Maidenhead would be more equal.
30 seconds is based on plenty of existing examples around the network (and is actually quite generous, given that the difference in turnout speeds will likely require approach control and the need for full-length passenger overlaps). The main penalty for the loops is from standing waiting for the overtake.
"Sense" is being used in quite broad terms here. Although my analysis suggests you'd "only" need the extra tracks from Acton Main Line to Hanwell. Still going to cost multiple Billions, though.
Snow1964
Established Member
The volume of freight does not need pair of tracks, one single reversible track over the 9 miles would be more than enough.
Clearly there is no need for station platforms on any extra track, in reality would probably need to bore a tunnel from Acton to West Ealing, and could probably squeeze in one extra track for much of the rest of the distance, although would need to widen Hanwell viaduct, so would probably be easier to build tunnel to Boston Manor then use the formerly double track Brentford branch to Southall with a short dive under tunnel west of Southall.
Although if Heathrow western spur is built some trains might be diverted via airport so section of route near M25 would be less busy
Oh right, I see where you're coming from. I've been assuming in my head that the Heathrow Express is going to be removed and replaced with some form of express commuter service to Reading or beyond.
Several billions is what something like this is just going to cost. Any alternative to get more EL trains out onto the GWML would be just as, if not more, expensive.
I'd fix the planning system so that it's a lot easier to demolish and rebuild residential buildings to widen nationally significant transport corridors. Pretty much everywhere along the GWML between Acton Main Line and Hanwell could do with being significantly densified anyway.
Only needing a single extra track would make things a lot easier tbh
And how are you fixing the cost of doing so? Since the Elizabeth Line a ton of flat blocks have been build and house costs in the area have skyrocketed. Short of just declaring you can seize land at will with no compensation how are you affording the land purchase?
London Trains
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,209
Whilst it would still be incredibly expensive (particularly putting a 5th track on Hanwell viaduct), I'm fairly sure a 5th track could be built without much, if any demolition of residental buildings - the only potentially problematic stretch I can see is just east of West Ealing station, between Drayton Green Road and St Leonard's Road.
How well is the existing 5th track used through Iver etc?
It gets to the point in these conversations of growth on that corridor, where a Royal Oak ish fast tunnel to west of Slough, become a more viable discussion. And give over the 4 lines to Heathrow, Elizabeth line, freight and outer semi/slow services, eg the Didcots, maybe the Newbury.
And then some trackwork to enable Elizabeth to Fast line crossings better.
And the 2 Oxford, 1 Cheltenham, 2 Bristol, 2 Wales, 2 West (should be) - and maybe more, run fast in tunnel (to the joy of many who hate the OOC stop idea) ... no more peak fasts to Twyford/Maidenhead either.
enabling a mass expansion of Elizabeth line west of OOC frequency, fast line services (e.g. Ealing and Hayes only?) - more fast to Slough and beyond, and the end of HEx. Slough station might need work as more of an outer terminal, before other services rejoin and things shift from fasts to slows to accommodate the tunnelled services back on the fasts.
It gets to the point in these conversations of growth on that corridor, where a Royal Oak ish fast tunnel to west of Slough, become a more viable discussion. And give over the 4 lines to Heathrow, Elizabeth line, freight and outer semi/slow services, eg the Didcots, maybe the Newbury.
And then some trackwork to enable Elizabeth to Fast line crossings better.
And the 2 Oxford, 1 Cheltenham, 2 Bristol, 2 Wales, 2 West (should be) - and maybe more, run fast in tunnel (to the joy of many who hate the OOC stop idea) ... no more peak fasts to Twyford/Maidenhead either.
enabling a mass expansion of Elizabeth line west of OOC frequency, fast line services (e.g. Ealing and Hayes only?) - more fast to Slough and beyond, and the end of HEx. Slough station might need work as more of an outer terminal, before other services rejoin and things shift from fasts to slows to accommodate the tunnelled services back on the fasts.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
If you could have a fifth freight dedicated track you can turn the reliefs over to Elizabeth line full time and then run the mains 15+tph running Paddington, Old Oak Common, Reading and onwards.
A single track freight tunnel is probably cheaper than a twin track high speed tunnel that carries trains with hundreds of passengers aboard and thus needs far more sophisticated safety arrangements.
I dont think a new passenger tunnel makes sense unless we are actually going for a west-facing high speed railway.
A single track freight tunnel is probably cheaper than a twin track high speed tunnel that carries trains with hundreds of passengers aboard and thus needs far more sophisticated safety arrangements.
I dont think a new passenger tunnel makes sense unless we are actually going for a west-facing high speed railway.
It is an interesting discussion but are any of the ideas about grandiose capacity enhancement on the lines out of Paddington genuinely a better spend from a very finite funding source than infrastructure improvements elsewhere in London?
It seems that none of those big projects (eg Bakerloo Line extension, Crossrail 2, Croydon remodelling, Euston rebuild etc) are likely to happen, so what chance building anything to make space for more passenger trains on the west side of London.
Even a more minor intervention to move some of the passenger demand at Twyford and Maidenhead back to Wokingham and Bracknell is unlikely.
Where does Elizabeth Line westbound capacity enhancement sit? Moreover, is it actually desirable to have Shenfield trains going further west than Old Oak Common, noting that 15 years from now they will have a larger customer base with HS2 connections.
It seems that none of those big projects (eg Bakerloo Line extension, Crossrail 2, Croydon remodelling, Euston rebuild etc) are likely to happen, so what chance building anything to make space for more passenger trains on the west side of London.
Even a more minor intervention to move some of the passenger demand at Twyford and Maidenhead back to Wokingham and Bracknell is unlikely.
Where does Elizabeth Line westbound capacity enhancement sit? Moreover, is it actually desirable to have Shenfield trains going further west than Old Oak Common, noting that 15 years from now they will have a larger customer base with HS2 connections.
At Paddington the Heathrow express seems to do pretty well and is punctual and reliable compared to the lizzie line . Until the Elizabeth line is actually reliable the express should stay.
I work with lots of people infuriated by the unreliable service, even tonight I heard at Paddington that anyone for Heathrow should take this service as there wasn’t another one for 40 minutes!!!!!
I work with lots of people infuriated by the unreliable service, even tonight I heard at Paddington that anyone for Heathrow should take this service as there wasn’t another one for 40 minutes!!!!!
dk1
Veteran Member
Ironically it’s still quite well used. I can’t see it ending any time soon.
RUK
Member
If the Elizabeth Line does replace Heathrow Express, will TfL need an extra order of Class 345s for the extra services to replace the units currently used for Heathrow Express? Would that be more than the 3 options in their original contract which haven’t yet been taken up, since they’d be replacing the 12 units currently used for Heathrow Express, which couldn’t be used, since they wouldn’t have door spacing compatible with the platform edge doors used in the core?
Heathrow Express' current units are only ~80m long, while 1 Clss 345 is 200m long, so they won't be a 1-for-1 replacement anyway.
There are currently 10 extra 345s under construction, intended for more trains through the core + extending the current Paddington-terminators to OOC when it opens, but there might be slack in there to extend some of those Pad/OOC-terminators to Heathrow.
There are currently 10 extra 345s under construction, intended for more trains through the core + extending the current Paddington-terminators to OOC when it opens, but there might be slack in there to extend some of those Pad/OOC-terminators to Heathrow.
OOC to Heathrow T4 or T5 is 30 mins. So ignoring the turnround time (which would likely be similar whether the train terminates at Heathrow or OOC) each additional unit would allow for roughly one additional train per hour. So doubling the T5 service to 4tph would require an additional two units.
Very roughly speaking, extending all the current Paddington terminators to OOC would take an additional 3 units in the high peak (where 12tph terminate there). That's based on a journey time of around 7 minutes, using the interpolated timings on RTT for Old Oak Common West.
So all else being equal, that would still leave 4 of the additional 10 units left to increase the core frequency, if we assume 1 is needed to cover for maintenance on the additional 10 based on a typical EMU availability rate of 90%.
If EL takes over HEX wouldn't that be on the fast lines and therefore OOC to Heathrow should be less than the 15 minutes current paddington to Heathrow HEX service?
Ok yes, I wasn't sure exactly what @Korot was referring to. If it was running the Hex services, that is currently done with 5 (pairs of) units most of the time, with short turnarounds at Paddington reducing that to 4 units at certain times of day to allow for unit swaps to/from Reading depot.
So if they stuck with longer turnrounds it would account for 5 of the 10 units ordered. Personally speaking I'm not convinced that Khan's proposal is really for TfL to take over the Heathrow Express, but stranger things have happened.
I imagine it would be more likely that they recast the timetable to fit more EL paths on the relief lines. Crossing the EL trains onto the main lines would create a lot of conflicting moves, reducing capacity a lot.
Tbh any way you slice it, if the Elizabeth line takes over HEx then some form of infrastructure intervention will be needed.
Also trying to stick 90mph Class 345s on the fasts replacing the current 110mph 387s is going to make a mess.
In understand the Hex -> Crossrail replacement to be a bye-bye to the 'express' part: Heathrow express no longer runs, freeing up paths on the fasts/mains.
Instead, Crossrail trains are extended along the slow/relief lines to keep up capacity to Heathrow, even if at a slower journey time (because slower max speed, but also because more stops).
The questions is if there is capacity on those reliefs between Airport Junction & OOC for those extra paths.
Instead, Crossrail trains are extended along the slow/relief lines to keep up capacity to Heathrow, even if at a slower journey time (because slower max speed, but also because more stops).
The questions is if there is capacity on those reliefs between Airport Junction & OOC for those extra paths.
There isn't, something would need to be done. The best solution is probably a 5th track between Acton Yard and Airport Junction, which would require a significant widening of the GWML corridor.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
The 5th track would be something of the order of 13km long, looks like quite a bit of stuff in the way, especially the multi story car park west of Ealing Broadway.
I suppose if you could arrange a single track flyover at Old Oak onto the New North Main Line you could avoid some stuff by running freight around via Drayton Green, but thats still several kilometres from Airport Junction.
The potential gains are enormous though, it would allow the current reliefs to go over to Elizabeth Line full time (at least inside of the Airport), and the mains (and Paddington trainshed) to be dedicated to 125mph non stop trains from Old Oak to Reading.
I suppose if you could arrange a single track flyover at Old Oak onto the New North Main Line you could avoid some stuff by running freight around via Drayton Green, but thats still several kilometres from Airport Junction.
The potential gains are enormous though, it would allow the current reliefs to go over to Elizabeth Line full time (at least inside of the Airport), and the mains (and Paddington trainshed) to be dedicated to 125mph non stop trains from Old Oak to Reading.
What service would Maidenhead and Twyford be getting in that case?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
Most likely an enhanced Elizabeth Line service. As far as I can tell the bulk of trains calling at Twyford are on the same platforms whether they are Elizabeth line or Great Western, realtimetrains suggests only one train a day calls at the eastbound fast line platform.
Maidenhead is less extreme, but similar.
But that is rather peripheral to the topic of the thread, although it is probably the best way to enable a high frequency Heathrow service.
It would be good to build a grade-separated crossover between the relief and main lines between the eastern and (future) western heathrow airport junctions, so that outer commuter services to Twyford, Reading, and Didcot can use the main lines to Paddington at the same time as services from Reading go to Heathrow on the main lines.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you knock down the car park, and completely rebuild Ealing Broadway station, it looks to me like you'd just about get away with a 5th track all the way to Airport junction by taking commercial land or people's gardens. Sounds eminently reasonable to me.
Last edited:
Yes, and no. Dedicating the reliefs to the Elizabeth Line and running more trains to Heathrow would suggest having all services calling all stations east of Airport Junction. That would slow services for the outer stations towards Reading which would be detimental for Maidenhead and Twyford.
Which is why Maidenhead and Twyford should get express commuter services crossing over the to the main line into Paddington - there would be no need to do anything other than an all-stops pattern on the Elizabeth line.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
Somewhat detrimental, yes, although it could probably be mitigated through increased frequency. Assuming eight trains per hour go to the airport, you'd have eight trains per hour off-peak and 16 trains per hour peak-time to serve the stations outside the airport junction.
EDIT:
Impacts to Twyford could also be mitigated by allowing a double back via Reading; If a high intensity fast line service was implemented, you'd have 23-24 minute Reading-London Paddington trains running every three or so minutes, suggesting that someone from Twyford could:
8 minutes Twyford-Reading
5 minutes change platform time at Reading
3 minute waiting for at rain at Reading
23 minutes Reading-London
39 minutes journey time, only four minutes slower than today.
Last edited:
Already allowed if you use contactless.
Dstock7080
Established Member
And Wharncliffe viaduct?