Crossrail Gaps & Rolling Stock

[Noguidedbus]

Let's face it, the last major electrification programme was determined by accountants, not engineers. With the price of cable and the associated ironmongery, it will be the same this time. You need a ruthless dictatorship in power to do public transport properly, imho.

 

[Rational Plan]

I won't shoot you but they would serve different markets.

The locals and XC would be for local markets, whereas the HS2 link would be for passengers from Birmingham and Manchester, the latter removing domestic if the services are well implemented (with check in available at HS2 stations, and checked luggage carried on the trains in a goods wagon, and then taken by baggage handlers throughout the airport, and have it integrated fully with baggage systems at both ends)

So as a passenger would see it...

BA Check In at Rail Terminal at Manchester, checked all the way to their final destination, eg JFK.

Walk off the train an hour later at Heathrow Rail, on a few moving walkways though transfer security (that exists anyway) and into Terminal 5.

Baggage is loaded onto high speed luggage belts linked into T5 and the CTA, possibly onto T4 aswell, but it would need looking into, theres already plans for a high speed belt between T3 (For the CTA) and T5.

Personally, I'd also like to see HS2 continue and terminate at Gatwick, not nesseserally at HSRail speeds, but within 20 - 30mins journey time, and have services terminate at Gatwick rather than Heathrow, providing ?4tph between the two airports, again, linked in with baggage systems for flight transfers.

And in relation to bi-modes in T5, T4 and CTA stations, the engines will be off, not idle...

In town check in was ended with greater security to much of a risk of passenger checking in with luggage and not boarding.

I don't where all these XC trains are supposed to get paths between Reading and Heathrow or where they are supposed to terminate consdering the number of platforms at Heathrow. It's going to require the suspension of Heathrow Express to get the extra high speed paths needed between Reading and Paddington. The RUS sees a lot of skip stop services on the slow lines west of Slough. They forsee four of the Heathrow crossrail trains rejoining the slow lines westwards to Reading.

If they build a High speed spur to Heathrow, and if it is a through line maybe it could link into the Great Western, but that would mean even less reason for XC to call there.

Once High speed 2 is up and running it would be quicker for to get a train form Manchester or Leeds to Old Oak Common and change there than get a XC to Heathrow via Oxford and Reading.

 

[Nym]

In town check in was ended with greater security to much of a risk of passenger checking in with luggage and not boarding.

Clearly you missed the part where I mentioned they'd be treated as trasfer passengers, and this would only be on the HS2 heathrow connection, where passengers would pass through a checked security 'transfers' point, where boarding cards get scanned (as they do now) before their luggage is passed for loading (as it is now, following Lockerbie). There aren't any securtiy concerns with having checked luggage on connecting flights, if this where handled in the same way, there wouldn't be any problems either.

 

[starrymarkb]

It's my understanding that with a bi-mode unit the diesels would be left to idle all the time the unit is running to avoid the wear and reliability issues associated with frequently starting or stopping the engines. I may have got the wrong end of the stick of course!

If it were a problem then Oxford-Coventry could be wired and pure electric trains run Manchester-Heathrow, taking over from the XC Reading terminators.

Why idle? the French Bi-Bi AGCs shut their engines off when on AC/DC...

 

[swt_passenger]

I think diesel engine idling when under wires has crept in from the original proposal for the 10 car bi-mode, because it didn't have enough electrical power from it's single transformer, and DfT were caught out saying that was OK because the diesel would be able to cut in and out and top up the power when needed.

Roger Ford analysed this to death over a few months, but eventually reported that Hitachi had altered the 10 car bi-mode's electrical set up. As it turns out they aren't actually ordering any 10 (or even 8) car bi-modes, so this question became academic...

 

[NightatLaira]

*Sorry if these questions have already been answered elsewhere but*

1. What are the plans for the redundant platforms at Liv Street and Paddington when the Berkshire and Essex terminators get moved to Croassrail?
2. Will Freight / Railtours get to use the Crossrail tracks at night?
3. What are the maximum speed limits for trains to pass through the Crossrail underground stations if they are closed?
4. Will more Eurostars call at Stratford International once Crossrail is open?
5. Will Crossrail be 24hrs a day? Or will it shut down at night like the tube?

 

[Nym]

*Sorry if these questions have already been answered elsewhere but*

What are the plans for the redundant platforms at Liv Street and Paddington
when the Berkshire and Essex terminators get moved to Croassrail?

Additional standard services

Will Freight / Railtours get to use the Crossrail tracks at night?

There will be overnight posessions and strict axle weight limits so proberbly not

What are the maximum speed limits for trains to pass through the Crossrail underground stations if they are closed?

I'd imagine linespeed at 100km/h or 60mph

Will more Eurostars call at Stratford International once Crossrail is open?

unknown, commercial decision of Eurostar, crossrail will give a better commercial case.

Will Crossrail be 24hrs a day? Or will it shut down at night like the tube?

It will shut down for possessions, probably at the same time as the tube and thameslink

 

[Rational Plan]

Clearly you missed the part where I mentioned they'd be treated as trasfer passengers, and this would only be on the HS2 heathrow connection, where passengers would pass through a checked security 'transfers' point, where boarding cards get scanned (as they do now) before their luggage is passed for loading (as it is now, following Lockerbie). There aren't any securtiy concerns with having checked luggage on connecting , if this where handled in the same way, there wouldn't be any problems either.

Connecting passengers are still inside airport security. Whatever the reason in town check in is no longer permitted by the CAA. There was a very swish check in at Paddington built at great expense, long closed and was vacant for a couple of years until they but shops in.

They could not be treated as transfer passengers as they are not inside the airport security system.
Until that changes your idea is dead in the water.

 

[Nym]

Or unless the train is classed as airside...?

Since the train will only be going to Heathrow, it could be classed as airside...

 

[Rational Plan]

Or unless the train is classed as airside...?

Since the train will only be going to Heathrow, it could be classed as airside...

No it won't, Airside, is once passengers have gone through check in, passport control and the security pat down and scan.

 

[Nym]

Rational, it isn't actually defined as that...

You can have a definition of 'secure landside' and non-secure airside (Arrivals and Baggage Reclaim).

It is easy and entirely possible, if you want me to go through how all of the systems and authorisations would work and how it would be able to comply with CAA, EU, IATA and ICAO regulations then I'd be more than happy to go through it with you. But you can define a train as being airside provided it is segrigated, like E*, and if E* or reigonal international services are provided for, then this can be provided on the same platform, and be within all of the regs. So long as passengers 'transfer' at Heathrow.

It is also possible to run a segrigation within the same unit to allow non-airside passengers to travel. Or even create an easment with the CAA to have it run as non-secure but baggage only be checked onto the aircraft once the passenger scans through the 'transfer' channel, as they currently are anyway!

 

[LE Greys]

Rational, it isn't actually defined as that...

You can have a definition of 'secure landside' and non-secure airside (Arrivals and Baggage Reclaim).

It is easy and entirely possible, if you want me to go through how all of the systems and authorisations would work and how it would be able to comply with CAA, EU, IATA and ICAO regulations then I'd be more than happy to go through it with you. But you can define a train as being airside provided it is segrigated, like E*, and if E* or reigonal international services are provided for, then this can be provided on the same platform, and be within all of the regs. So long as passengers 'transfer' at Heathrow.

It is also possible to run a segrigation within the same unit to allow non-airside passengers to travel. Or even create an easment with the CAA to have it run as non-secure but baggage only be checked onto the aircraft once the passenger scans through the 'transfer' channel, as they currently are anyway!

This would not be unprecedented. Transit passengers, usually European emigrants, used to pass through between Hull and Liverpool on locked trains which would load at Paragon on a special platform (effectively "portside") and unload at Liverpool docks alongside a liner destined for New York. They would not be allowed to interact with British people if possible, and certainly could not abscond - although most generally wanted to settle in America rather than Britain anyway. Various railways, but especially the LNER, made quite a lot of money from it. It was even inclusive in the ticket price.

 

[Rational Plan]

It does not change the fact that in town check in was pulled shortly after September 11 as a security risk. So it is not happening anytime soon. Until airlines and the authorities are happy for that to be relaxed it's not going to change

Also check in facilities require a large number of passengers to cover their costs so it might work at airport express train station where there is a train every 15 minutes. It's doubtful there would be the money for a check in facility at every station going to Heathrow on the HS2 spur. Combine that with most passengers preferring to keep their luggage in sight until they get to the airport, for example 20% of passengers to Hong Kong airport express used in town check in, and that's considered a big success. So I just don't see it happening.

 

[LE Greys]

It does not change the fact that in town check in was pulled shortly after September 11 as a security risk. So it is not happening anytime soon. Until airlines and the authorities are happy for that to be relaxed it's not going to change

Also check in facilities require a large number of passengers to cover their costs so it might work at airport express train station where there is a train every 15 minutes. It's doubtful there would be the money for a check in facility at every station going to Heathrow on the HS2 spur. Combine that with most passengers preferring to keep their luggage in sight until they get to the airport, for example 20% of passengers to Hong Kong airport express used in town check in, and that's considered a big success. So I just don't see it happening.

I was thinking more of a Heathrow-Stratford shuttle (or Heathrow-Stansted if Crossrail ever expands to include HEX and StanstEx) allowing passenger landing at Heathrow to go right through to Paris without having to check in twice, so saving time and bother. This would also allow Eurostar to codeshare with airlines, making through booking possible. There might be a turndown on the London-Paris and London-Brussels routes (maybe Amsterdam as well), but I'm sure BA would not mind gaining one, two or even three slots per hour that they could use for something else. The other European route airlines might not like it so much, but this still gains slots for other routes.

 

[Nym]

Not to mention if BA codeshared on HS2 journeys between Manchester and Heathrow, with BMI onboard too that would save 20 slots in and out of Heathrow. But proper codesharing with check in would be much better to have

 

[SwindonPkwy]

IIRC the Arup report into linking LHR with HS2 considered 3 different approach paths and 3 different station locations.
With regard to the approach, I can only see the spur option getting the go ahead; the time penalty compared with a loop is not that great but the capital costs would be significantly lower.
For the station location, again IIRC, the options were at T5, a site to the north of the airfield or close to IVR on the GWML.

My question is this. How does all of this fit in with opening up the western access for Crossrail services, amongst others? How easy would it be to build additional platforms under T5? Surely the IVR location conflicts with the plans for Old Oak Common: another stop on the GWML!

Views and opinions appreciated.

 

[anthony263]

Not sure how difficult it would be to build another platform or 2 under T5, not heard anything about the western acess to Heathrow being built yet although i do think it is a good idea, especially since commuters from Twyford, Maidenhead slough etc either have to change at Hayes & Harlington or London Paddington but if they had a direct through service to heathrow from the west then there would be nore seats available between Hayes & Harlington & London

 

[paulravuslante]

Heathrow T5 station already has two unused platforms to the south of the current station. That's why the existing platforms are numbered 3 to 6. Platforms 1 and 2 were supposed to be used for Airtrack, but seeing as that has been shelved I don't think there are any plans to open them up. Western access to the GWML would be the next logical step for putting these assets to use in my view.

 

[Zoe]

Western access to the GWML would be the next logical step for putting these assets to use in my view.

I was told there are building restrictions on the land west of Airport Junction, if this is true then it would prevent a western link to the GWML there.

 

[paulravuslante]

I was told there are building restrictions on the land west of Airport Junction, if this is true then it would prevent a western link to the GWML there.

Well there's quite extensive development to the west of airport junction so I think that's a non starter. Plus the lines through Heathrow Central wouldn't be able to take a lot of extra traffic in my opinion.

So what I was imagining in my last post (which I failed to mention) would be a connection west from T5 in a tunnel with the portal emerging somewhere near to the east of Langley station. It would seem to be possible looking at maps as there is a section of fields south east of Langley station.

 

[anthony263]

Well there's quite extensive development to the west of airport junction so I think that's a non starter. Plus the lines through Heathrow Central wouldn't be able to take a lot of extra traffic in my opinion.

So what I was imagining in my last post (which I failed to mention) would be a connection west from T5 in a tunnel with the portal emerging somewhere near to the east of Langley station. It would seem to be possible looking at maps as there is a section of fields south east of Langley station.

I think that is the idea rather than building a western link at Airport junction as there are restrictions there (So i was told when i posted a question about it on another thread here back in 2010 )

I think also there would be a flyunder build under the mainline for heathrow trains, i suppose turnarounds at T5 would need to be looked at, is there 1 or 2 platforms there, besides it should be relatively easy for passengers to change trains to get to the other terminals

 

[paulravuslante]

I think that is the idea rather than building a western link at Airport junction as there are restrictions there (So i was told when i posted a question about it on another thread here back in 2010 )

I think also there would be a flyunder build under the mainline for heathrow trains, i suppose turnarounds at T5 would need to be looked at, is there 1 or 2 platforms there, besides it should be relatively easy for passengers to change trains to get to the other terminals

There should be two platforms down there (one on each side of an island, as per the other platforms).

If the new platforms are connected to the terminal in the same way the existing platforms are then it is not as easy as it seems to transfer between platforms especially if you have luggage. Passengers seem to have great difficulty in getting from one set of platforms to the other at present.

Some through working at T5 may be possible as space has been allowed for a connection to be inserted from the Down T5 tunnel into what would be platform 2.