Elizabeth Line - future routes

[Uncle Buck]

In which case it's not worth doing the Chilterns at all!

Not sure what you mean by “doing”?

The only way I can think of integrating the two would be to run the Paddington terminators up the Acton to Northolt Line (which would need electrified), build a new platform at South Ruislip and have them terminate there, with all Chiltern services calling there. Whether this would be in any way useful or cost-effective feels rather doubtful to me.

 

[cle]

The Chiltern route is best served as a shuttle / second terminus at OOC, feeding Crossrail, GWML and HS2. But only if a ton of housing is built along the route.

West side - I think the best thing is to gradually increase Heathrow and then see if any extras (Hayes has a bay, West Drayton a turnback, all Maidenheads to Reading etc) could be added at peaks or other times. If needed. Very incremental and tricky with all the freight.

Staines - I always preferred this for HEx due to speed but again if it came with a lot of development, could be worth it. I’m not sure it would beat a Waterloo connection to Canary Wharf from Staines but might be competitive on West End and City.

East - nothing further via Stratford unless frequency adds.

South East - this is really where investment should go. Quad to Dartford (all stations have platforms but some semi fast patterns) - and take over the fast routes east of there to Gravesend. All SE services are loopers or Dartford terminators. East of Gravesend to Medway becomes HS1 only. Rainham paths redeployed as it leaves TL. That would be a huge improvement.

 

[Farnborough]

The fact that it traverses a Site of Special Scientific Interest also needs to be overcome - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...beth-line-upgrades.291217/page-2#post-7449324

Add that this arrives from the wrong direction, if onward paths to Woking are desirous...

It needs to approach westward from the east of the station... unless it reverses in Staines!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

Extend a few of the Reading services to basingstoke, the existing Waterloo service takes an age

I'll bite...

The stations on the line between Reading and Basingstoke nearly accommodates three-coach 165s, so would struggle with a Lizzie 345

 

[JonathanH]

Add that this arrives from the wrong direction, if onward paths to Woking are desirous...

It needs to approach westward from the east of the station... unless it reverses in Staines!

There has long been the suggestion of a tight radius curve for Staines on the third side of the triangle to deal with that issue.

 

[alf]

There WAS a curve from the Windsor branch to the down Reading line which it joined immediately before the Thames bridge, useful for Queen Victoria going to L&SWR territory.
But it bypassed Staines Station. The earthworks were fully intact in the late 1960’s.

 

[MP33]

The trains are cleared to operate to Southend Victoria. At Wickford, there are two short platforms and track that could be extended. These are facing the right way, and are used for stabling permanent way stock.

 

[The exile]

I thought there was an abandoned track formation that could be used for some of it but looking at google maps it looks pretty much obliterated. Of all the pie in the sky proposals though, this seems one of the more achievable. (Not totally convinced Staines would be a massive traffic generator though, and its off the main swr route to Woking)

Using it as WRATH (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) would make a bit of sense, though.

 

[stevieinselby]

Using it as WRATH (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) would make a bit of sense, though.

If Sadiq ever gets that line built, please let its official name be the WRATH of Khan

 

[cle]

Crossrail is probably most likely WRATH candidate - assuming little cross-Heathrow travel. HEx was always going to Staines (cheaper fare than to T5?) - but maybe overlaid also with the SWT/Southern access plan.

Windsor funnily enough, to me, is the one that got away. Not the Riverside branch, but Crossrail having a dive-under right after Slough and connecting to the Windsor Central. Could have comfortably terminated 2tph there and it would be a game changer for the town (lots of suppressed demand), for tourists, Lego... and direct one seat rides to so many places. It might enable the Waterloo service to become another stopper.

 

[JonathanH]

Windsor funnily enough, to me, is the one that got away. Not the Riverside branch, but Crossrail having a dive-under right after Slough and connecting to the Windsor Central.

It doesn't help that such a connection is physically impossible.

It might enable the Waterloo service to become another stopper.

Slowing down Waterloo services has the impact of causing more people to use the Elizabeth Line, where that is an option.

 

[MP33]

All the talk of extending. Reminds me of a joke David Frost told. A new airport is being built in the Falkland Islands. £1bn for the airport and £500bn to extend the Piccadilly line.

 

[cle]

It doesn't help that such a connection is physically impossible.

I know now it isn't, but I think it could have been planned and built - maybe using the old p6 as a bi-di, or for the dive portal.

 

[JonathanH]

I know now it isn't, but I think it could have been planned and built - maybe using the old p6 as a bi-di, or for the dive portal.

Surely easier to have a diveunder east of Slough, use platform 2 as the up and down through Windsor, have the fasts on platforms 3 and 4, then the slows on platforms 5 and 6. However, I am not convinced the station buildings can be demolished to allow that. It would also mean that not all the London trains depart from the same platform.

Double track on the Windsor Line (for reliability) and a longer platform at Windsor needed as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you suggesting electrification of the route from Old Oak Common to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury for two trains an hour using 9-car 345s?

Yes I guess so. But it’s probably worth doing anyway.

How have you reached the conclusion ot is worth doing? On what measure?

It doesn't help that such a connection is physically impossible.

I know now it isn't, but I think it could have been planned and built

How can you plan and build somethign that isn’t physically possible?

 

[cle]

Well I think he meant today (longer platforms, less roads, wires up... all the things since GWML went electric and Crossrail went live) - vs never in history. There was a moment when the branches were a consideration!

Surely easier to have a diveunder east of Slough, use platform 2 as the up and down through Windsor, have the fasts on platforms 3 and 4, then the slows on platforms 5 and 6. However, I am not convinced the station buildings can be demolished to allow that. It would also mean that not all the London trains depart from the same platform.

Double track on the Windsor Line (for reliability) and a longer platform at Windsor needed as well.

I think double track would be handy but it's so short, maybe just at the beginning (and in Windsor, use two platforms) - a Crossrail unit would be halfway back to Slough in a platform anyway!

 

[Mikey C]

Personally, way before any Liz Line extensions towards Dartford are considered, the far cheaper option of increasing Southeastern frequencies (e.g. restoring the 10 minute frequency on the Greenwich Line) AND harmonising fares between the NR and TfL services should be implemented.

It's daft that taking a TfL to Woolwich or North Greenwich is cheaper than taking a NR service to nearby stations.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I thought there was an abandoned track formation that could be used for some of it but looking at google maps it looks pretty much obliterated. Of all the pie in the sky proposals though, this seems one of the more achievable. (Not totally convinced Staines would be a massive traffic generator though, and its off the main swr route to Woking)

Actually on closer examination, the goods line is still there but looks like south of junction 14 the M25 has covered it over.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

More resiliance could have been added by building four platforms at Whitechapel, so that either one of the two eastern branches could be operated seperately with a cross platform interchange to the remaining branch. This is a feature of the Northern Line junction at Kennington, although it would be hard to terminate Bank branch trains there and run Charing Cross line trains through because of the layout. Presumably it wasn't built like that because it would have cost a lot more.

Yes I thought they should have two Westbound platforms at Paddington.

It’s hard to say where they should extend Crossrail. Other than Paddington to Liverpool Street it can’t really physically get anywhere useful. The only place I can think of other than the Chiltern route would be to serve Barking and the LTS corridor

 

[Farnborough]

I still think they made an error not putting a Lizzie Line stop at London City Airport...

Even if at the site of the old Silvertown station, with an underground tunnel with a travellator...

 

[SynthD]

I still think they made an error not putting a Lizzie Line stop at London City Airport...

They will, as soon as it (edit: the land of the airport) becomes housing. Woolwich was paid for by the home builders.

 

[Acton1991]

Before extending to other destinations, there needs to be an increase in the west beyond Paddington / Old Oak Common. More trains to Heathrow calling at all stations. I also wonder whether the Hayes bay platform could be utilised more for all-stations shuttle into town.

 

[SeanM1997]

Elizabeth Line appears to have applied to increase its Paddington - Whitechapel core section from 24 trains per hour to 28tph from May 2027 at peak times (07:30hrs – 09:30hrs and 16:30hrs–18:30hrs):

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/15.04.2026%20-%20GTS%20Rail%20Operations%20Limited%20-%20Section%2022A%20-%2043rd%20SA%20-%20Closes%2015.05.2026/43rd%20SA%20Section%2022A%20submission%20-%20%20%20Form%20P.pdf