Changes to the Windsor branch?

[cle]

The Crossrail trains would be very long at the Central station too - halfway to Slough! That grand station for 2 car turbo shuttles...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Fingers crossed they just build the two platforms for 10 coach trains and run through Waterloo stuff via the Windsor Link. That's the single best use of the Branch and best for the folk in Windsor, and enables redevelopment of Central.

 

[MarkyT]

Fingers crossed they just build the two platforms for 10 coach trains and run through Waterloo stuff via the Windsor Link. That's the single best use of the Branch and best for the folk in Windsor, and enables redevelopment of Central.

Another, much cheaper alternative would be to reverse SWR trains at Riverside and construct a new link between the lines across open fields instead, thus:

An alternative proposal for the Windsor area to extend SWR services to Slough without major town centre development. A new more rural link between Eton and Slough with trains reversing at Windsor and Eton Riverside station. Allows viaduct route into Windsor Central to be converted to high quality active transport corridor.

 

[Gloster]

Another, much cheaper alternative would be to reverse SWR trains at Riverside and construct a new link between the lines across open fields instead, thus:

I think that those ‘open fields’ are the playing fields of Eton. Are you willing to take that lot on?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I think that those ‘open fields’ are the playing fields of Eton. Are you willing to take that lot on?

It’s also very unrealistic.

It will be a one-bore through tunnel, no doubt; opening out to two track on the old two-track section and then potentially just terminating in one platform as the two-track section will act as a dynamic loop.

 

[MarkyT]

It’s also very unrealistic.

It will be a one-bore through tunnel, no doubt; opening out to two track on the old two-track section and then potentially just terminating in one platform as the two-track section will act as a dynamic loop.

Yes that might work. A steep descent from Riverside on my alignment dipping under the river and B3022 (Slough Road), then climbing back up to the GWR branch. Two long platforms at Slough would be nice but one and a refuge siding for emergencies would be adequate.

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't see that happening.
In the medium term it'll remain a 165 operated shuttle from Slough.
Maybe in 10 years time it'll be replaced with new build stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see that happening.
In the medium term it'll remain a 165 operated shuttle from Slough.
Maybe in 10 years time it'll be replaced with new build stock.

Electrifying it would be fairly cheap, and then an Electrostar could be used. Might even make sense to dedicate one and give it more of a standee type layout and a special livery.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Wouldn't opening a station with a passing loop at Chalvey Road be the cheapest way to do this?

 

[MarkyT]

Wouldn't opening a station with a passing loop at Chalvey Road be the cheapest way to do this?

I've often mused that a high capacity Chalvey park and ride station, just off the M4, for both Windsor and Slough could make some sense, especially with a high-frequency service, again favouring the automated shuttle concept. Could even provide a large coach park to help remove much of the tour traffic from central Windsor.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fingers crossed they just build the two platforms for 10 coach trains and run through Waterloo stuff via the Windsor Link. That's the single best use of the Branch and best for the folk in Windsor, and enables redevelopment of Central.

Haha!

There’s only three things wrong the Windsor link proposal - Planning law, economics, and the laws of physics. It’s absolutely bonkers, and not going to happen; the promoter (upon whom I do not express an opinion to remain compliant with forum rules) has been given a very clear and firm ‘do not darken our door again’ by the DfT.

 

[cactustwirly]

Electrifying it would be fairly cheap, and then an Electrostar could be used. Might even make sense to dedicate one and give it more of a standee type layout and a special livery.

But cheaper than a 165??
There's Didcot to Oxford and Swindon to Bristol to Electrify yet before you think about the branches

 

[Bletchleyite]

But cheaper than a 165??

No, but better. I suppose at the moment it's not really a diesel island because of the other branches, but at some point it will become one.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I don’t think beyond new stock there’s much you can do with the Windsor branch, in an ideal world it would be a CrossRail branch but this is not possible.

The 165s are thirty years old so they could go one for another ten years at least.

I’ve heard of a crazy scheme to build a tunnel under Windsor to link the two Windsor lines together as the Windsor link

 

[takno]

I don’t think beyond new stock there’s much you can do with the Windsor branch, in an ideal world it would be a CrossRail branch but this is not possible.

The 165s are thirty years old so they could go one for another ten years at least.

I’ve heard of a crazy scheme to build a tunnel under Windsor to link the two Windsor lines together as the Windsor link

I'm not convinced the branch is broken at all tbh. Might just be best left as is

 

[NorthKent1989]

I'm not convinced the branch is broken at all tbh. Might just be best left as is

I agree it should be left as it is

 

[MarkyT]

I agree it should be left as it is

I don't think the branch shuttle is fundamentally broken, and I don't think it needs any significant change, but I do believe a change of rolling stock to something brighter and greener is worthwhile, as much for image as anything else in such a prominent, tourist facing role, and batteries would seem practical in this case, so perhaps D-Trainz, great for fast boarding with its multiplicity of doors as well as representing reuse/upcycling and as any other buzzwords that can be attached! The Elizabeth Line, once fully operational, will undoubtedly bring more traffic to the branch. It might also be worth considering adding a Chalvey Park and Ride scheme, which doesn't really change the operational concept.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I don't think the branch shuttle is fundamentally broken, and I don't think it needs any significant change, but I do believe a change of rolling stock to something brighter and greener is worthwhile, as much for image as anything else in such a prominent, tourist facing role, and batteries would seem practical in this case, so perhaps D-Trainz, great for fast boarding with its multiplicity of doors as well as representing reuse/upcycling and as any other buzzwords that can be attached! The Elizabeth Line, once fully operational, will undoubtedly bring more traffic to the branch. It might also be worth considering adding a Chalvey Park and Ride scheme, which doesn't really change the operational concept.

You know it’s strange how many people would rather go via Waterloo than Paddington then a change at Slough.

I’ve told a few people to use Paddington instead because it’s much quicker to Windsor than the Waterloo line is.

So your point on buzzwords made me think on really promoting the Windsor-Slough branch as the best link between London and Windsor.

A battery operated train would be most welcome, some lines don’t need electrification now and this line is one of them, hopefully we’ll see a replacement on the 165s in the next few years

 

[A0]

You know it’s strange how many people would rather go via Waterloo than Paddington then a change at Slough.

I’ve told a few people to use Paddington instead because it’s much quicker to Windsor than the Waterloo line is.

So your point on buzzwords made me think on really promoting the Windsor-Slough branch as the best link between London and Windsor.

A battery operated train would be most welcome, some lines don’t need electrification now and this line is one of them, hopefully we’ll see a replacement on the 165s in the next few years

Whilst the journey time London - Windsor is quicker from Paddington, surely it's also a question of how long it takes to get from your destination to Paddington instead of Waterloo ? If it takes another 15 mins to get to Paddington, then that gap is much reduced.

If you're coming into most of the Southern termini then Waterloo will be closer / quicker to get to, same for Fenchurch St and Liverpool St. Euston's probably 50/50 because it's a trek to Euston Sq, whereas the Northern Line is direct to Waterloo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A battery operated train would be most welcome, some lines don’t need electrification now and this line is one of them

It would be incredibly cheap to electrify it (cheaper than Windermere as it's much shorter) so I can't see any case not to, same with the other Thames Valley branches. The only one posing a real challenge is Marlow due to the layout of Bourne End, though I wonder if a 3-section electric-only FLIRT might fit the platform?

 

[BayPaul]

It would be incredibly cheap to electrify it (cheaper than Windermere as it's much shorter) so I can't see any case not to, same with the other Thames Valley branches. The only one posing a real challenge is Marlow due to the layout of Bourne End, though I wonder if a 3-section electric-only FLIRT might fit the platform?

It would seem the very worst kind of microfleet to have to have something so specific for Marlow. Measuring on Google Earth, it looks like there is about 75 metres from the buffers to the points. Would it really be impossible to make some track alignment changes sufficient to be able to fit a 4 car 387 in the bay? It looks to me that it would not be impossible, especially if you were to sacrifice the 2nd platform, which would not be useful after making these changes. Slightly off topic perhaps, but not really, as it would make complete sense to have a unified solution for all the branches, rather than bespoke for each.

 

[cactustwirly]

It would seem the very worst kind of microfleet to have to have something so specific for Marlow. Measuring on Google Earth, it looks like there is about 75 metres from the buffers to the points. Would it really be impossible to make some track alignment changes sufficient to be able to fit a 4 car 387 in the bay? It looks to me that it would not be impossible, especially if you were to sacrifice the 2nd platform, which would not be useful after making these changes. Slightly off topic perhaps, but not really, as it would make complete sense to have a unified solution for all the branches, rather than bespoke for each.

If you remove the second platform then the peak time service is cut in half

 

[NorthKent1989]

It would be incredibly cheap to electrify it (cheaper than Windermere as it's much shorter) so I can't see any case not to, same with the other Thames Valley branches. The only one posing a real challenge is Marlow due to the layout of Bourne End, though I wonder if a 3-section electric-only FLIRT might fit the platform?

I imagine all the Thames branches will eventually be all electrified in the next ten years I would say.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2021 ==

Whilst the journey time London - Windsor is quicker from Paddington, surely it's also a question of how long it takes to get from your destination to Paddington instead of Waterloo ? If it takes another 15 mins to get to Paddington, then that gap is much reduced.

If you're coming into most of the Southern termini then Waterloo will be closer / quicker to get to, same for Fenchurch St and Liverpool St. Euston's probably 50/50 because it's a trek to Euston Sq, whereas the Northern Line is direct to Waterloo.

True, I always forget that Paddington much like Marylebone is on the fringes of Central London and I’m thinking ahead of myself in terms of assuming that one would use CrossRail when that opens to change at Paddington or Slough

 

[A0]

If you remove the second platform then the peak time service is cut in half

Yes - that's the problem. Though I wonder if reinstating the second platform at Cookham would work or a Penryn style loop ?

 

[30907]

It would seem the very worst kind of microfleet to have to have something so specific for Marlow. Measuring on Google Earth, it looks like there is about 75 metres from the buffers to the points. Would it really be impossible to make some track alignment changes sufficient to be able to fit a 4 car 387 in the bay? It looks to me that it would not be impossible, especially if you were to sacrifice the 2nd platform, which would not be useful after making these changes.

The second platform isn't the problem, it's the junction points for Marlow - the curve is already very tight.

Yes - that's the problem. Though I wonder if reinstating the second platform at Cookham would work or a Penryn style loop ?

Interesting thought - you'd have to cut a couple of minutes off the running time thence to Marlow to make it work.

 

[cle]

Paddington and Marylebone are not on the fringes of London! This narrative of Paddington being in like Acton is so stupid. There is so much 'CBD' activity in and around Paddington, it's a major district of Central London - yes, on the west of it. But 1000s of people walk to work from there, and more with each development.

London is actually just rather massive, is what's accurate. No terminus serves all journeys, which is one of the reasons why we have our tube system

Waterloo is equally 'fringe', but of course not either. They are a good pair of termini to have, covering different journeys with CJ and Vauxhall access thrown in. I suspect the Windsor to City crew may end up on Crossrail, but it depends. Windsor you get a seat and have a nap / work for an hour, and if you're at Bank, that's probably an easier life. If you work nearer Farringdon, Crossrail will be a game-changer.

 

[A0]

The second platform isn't the problem, it's the junction points for Marlow - the curve is already very tight.

Only one of Bourne End's two platforms has access to the Marlow branch - and it's the short one. Somebody suggested dropping it to one platform, but that won't work unless you want to drop the peak frequency to hourly (because B - End is the passing place) or you move the passing place to Cookham.

Looking at Google earth you *might just* be able to reconfigure it so there's one platform (the southern one) which accesses the Marlow branch *and* has enough platform for a 4 car EMU, but it's tight. And to maintain the 30 min off peak frequency you'd have to move the passing place to somewhere else.

 

[MarkyT]

SWR is also the more attractive route to many parts of South and West London and nearby counties via interchange at Twickenham, Richmond and Clapham Junction. While the Lizzie may abstract a small proportion of SWRs Windsor business, I suspect it will more likely grow the total rail share once we get over the pandemic slump.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2021 ==

Only one of Bourne End's two platforms has access to the Marlow branch - and it's the short one. Somebody suggested dropping it to one platform, but that won't work unless you want to drop the peak frequency to hourly (because B - End is the passing place) or you move the passing place to Cookham.

Looking at Google earth you *might just* be able to reconfigure it so there's one platform (the southern one) which accesses the Marlow branch *and* has enough platform for a 4 car EMU, but it's tight. And to maintain the 30 min off peak frequency you'd have to move the passing place to somewhere else.

A two car D-train would fit easily at Bourne End in either platform, possibly a 3-car with some realignment associated with replacing the crossover with a scissors for a two train 30 minute interval service. Although Bourne End is closer to the Marlow end trains can pass there by adjusting terminal layover between the extremities I think.
Running time is 23 minutes today in each direction, including 4 minutes at Bourne End for reversing. Layover is 3 minutes at Marlow with the remaining 11 at Maidenhead. Schedule the longer turnround at Marlow instead of Maidenhead, and I think a two train service would probably work reliably with Vivarail style battery fast charging taking place at Marlow. The alternative, keeping the longer layover and charging location at Maidenhead, would favour the Cookham Penryn-style loop. In either case, the previously mooted extra dedicated bay platform at Maidenhead would keep the line segregated, giving complete timetabling freedom and eliminating the possibility of performance pollution from the mainline.

A Penryn loop would work well with the level crossing at Cookham. The Down train could pull in from Maidenhead with the crossing still open to road. The crossing would then close for the up train to pass and arrive at the south end of the extended platform and the crossing would remain closed for the simultaneous departure of the down train, so road closure time would not be overly extended. Clearly, this would be a right hand running example of the genre, as at Penryn itself.

 

[Non Multi]

Wire up the Windsor bay at Slough (OLE gantries are already over the track), fit a pan up/down balise. A battery Electrostar (or other BEMU) could then recharge via the OLE during the 10 minute layover in the bay.

 

[Kite159]

Wire up the Windsor bay at Slough (OLE gantries are already over the track), fit a pan up/down balise. A battery Electrostar (or other BEMU) could then recharge via the OLE during the 10 minute layover in the bay.

Or just wire up the entire branch, saves creating a microfleet of 387s with batteries.