Elizabeth line to Reading. Really?

[leytongabriel]

Posts in infrastructure indicate that the GWR main line is suffering from all sorts of problems and reliablity has gone right down. Disruption to Elizabeth line services is often
caused by problems there too.

So doesn't this pose the question: Would the Elizabeth line work better, at least in the short term, if trains didn't run beyond Maidenhead, as was originally planned?

 

[stuu]

Posts in infrastructure indicate that the GWR main line is suffering from all sorts of problems and reliablity has gone right down. Disruption to Elizabeth line services is often
caused by problems there too.

So doesn't this pose the question: Would the Elizabeth line work better, at least in the short term, if trains didn't run beyond Maidenhead, as was originally planned?

Are most problems between Maidenhead and Reading?

 

[JonathanH]

So doesn't this pose the question: Would the Elizabeth line work better, at least in the short term, if trains didn't run beyond Maidenhead, as was originally planned?

Even if they only went to Hayes & Harlington, West Drayton and Heathrow Airport, they would be affected by disruption. In particular, there would still need to be stopping trains from west of London to Paddington which would affect the Elizabeth Line services.

However, the observation could be made that if the Elizabeth Line services all ran solely within the London boundaries on the west, they could potentially then call all stations within West London, which may help.

The question would be which long distance services would be cut if stopping services for the stations between West Drayton and Reading had to run on the fast lines non stop from Stockley Junction to Paddington. Six lines from Airport Junction to Paddington might have helped.

 

[Purple Train]

Are most problems between Maidenhead and Reading?

Not in my experience.

Maidenhead is a rather operationally awkward place to terminate lots of trains, especially if there were no cuts to the service out west. 4tph terminating in two through platforms and one branch while working around a not-infrequent branch service and not-infrequent through trains would be rather difficult, I think.

 

[mangyiscute]

Posts in infrastructure indicate that the GWR main line is suffering from all sorts of problems and reliablity has gone right down. Disruption to Elizabeth line services is often
caused by problems there too.

So doesn't this pose the question: Would the Elizabeth line work better, at least in the short term, if trains didn't run beyond Maidenhead, as was originally planned?

I'd love you to actually take one of those trains and see the number of people who are travelling to Twyford and Reading, and then suggest that all of those people should change at Maidenhead. Reading is the main interchange on that line, there are 5/6 lines branching off there not to mention a large town that will be a lot of people's destination, so terminating before there is just daft - personally I think the Maidenhead terminators should be extended to Reading to bring back the 15 minute frequency of this service.
If you want to avoid disruption on the GWML affecting core services, you'd have to stop every train at Paddington imo, which then massively reduces the benefits - once you're running the trains on the GWML you may as well keep them going.

 

[JonathanH]

Maidenhead is a rather operationally awkward place to terminate lots of trains, especially if there were no cuts to the service out west. 4tph terminating in two through platforms and one branch while working around a not-infrequent branch service and not-infrequent through trains would be rather difficult, I think.

There is a reversing siding for Elizabeth Line services between the up and down relief line so it is not operationally impossible to run the services only that far. It wouldn't really help with reliability though, at 4tph, because it would require services to have relatively short turnarounds.

 

[Purple Train]

There is a reversing siding for Elizabeth Line services between the up and down relief line so it is not operationally impossible to run the services only that far. It wouldn't really help with reliability though, at 4tph, because it would require services to have relatively short turnarounds.

There is a reversing siding, and that is used for all Maidenhead terminators if I remember correctly, but there is of course just one and I believe it is the standard 10/15mph grind out, so short turnarounds would be difficult unless/until ETCS and thence a Westbourne Park-style auto-reverse were implemented. Though it helps that platform 5 is wired, sorting out 4tph, plus the 2tph Didcot GWR services, plus the extra Bourne End train (so 2tph) would be "interesting".

 

[cle]

Reading is a very important counter-London commuting destination, supposedly more in than out. It is a major jobs centre (one of the most dynamic in the UK) plus shopping, uni, general regional hub - and of course huge rail interchange with dedicated platform and line capacity for this purpose.

If it wasn't Reading, it should have been Slough - and make it truly metro (I still regret Windsor not being integrated but ho-hum)

 

[miklcct]

I'd love you to actually take one of those trains and see the number of people who are travelling to Twyford and Reading, and then suggest that all of those people should change at Maidenhead. Reading is the main interchange on that line, there are 5/6 lines branching off there not to mention a large town that will be a lot of people's destination, so terminating before there is just daft - personally I think the Maidenhead terminators should be extended to Reading to bring back the 15 minute frequency of this service.
If you want to avoid disruption on the GWML affecting core services, you'd have to stop every train at Paddington imo, which then massively reduces the benefits - once you're running the trains on the GWML you may as well keep them going.

Before TfL, there were 8 trains per hours on the suburban lines west of Paddington: 2 to Greenford, 2 to Heathrow, 2 to Reading and 2 to Didcot. If you want to extend the Maidenhead terminator back to Reading, what should be done to the GWR service which runs fast to Slough? Run it fast to Reading instead? Or to take the matter to an extreme, axe it wholly and join it with the Oxford - Didcot stopper to become an Oxford - Reading stopper? Or reverse time and run Elizabeth line all the way to Didcot like the pre-TfL GWR service?

 

[JonathanH]

If you want to extend the Maidenhead terminator back to Reading, what should be done to the GWR service which runs fast to Slough? Run it fast to Reading instead?

Leave it as it is and run 6tph on the relief line from Slough to Reading.

 

[cle]

Before TfL, there were 8 trains per hours on the suburban lines west of Paddington: 2 to Greenford, 2 to Heathrow, 2 to Reading and 2 to Didcot. If you want to extend the Maidenhead terminator back to Reading, what should be done to the GWR service which runs fast to Slough? Run it fast to Reading instead? Or to take the matter to an extreme, axe it wholly and join it with the Oxford - Didcot stopper to become an Oxford - Reading stopper? Or reverse time and run Elizabeth line all the way to Didcot like the pre-TfL GWR service?

Isn't it moving to the fast lines (Slough-Maidenhead-Twyford-Reading and stations to Didcot) - with Didcot being added to fast Oxfords and Slough dropped - so EL will run all services east of Slough on the reliefs.

 

[mangyiscute]

Before TfL, there were 8 trains per hours on the suburban lines west of Paddington: 2 to Greenford, 2 to Heathrow, 2 to Reading and 2 to Didcot. If you want to extend the Maidenhead terminator back to Reading, what should be done to the GWR service which runs fast to Slough? Run it fast to Reading instead? Or to take the matter to an extreme, axe it wholly and join it with the Oxford - Didcot stopper to become an Oxford - Reading stopper? Or reverse time and run Elizabeth line all the way to Didcot like the pre-TfL GWR service?

In the peaks, they run 4tph to Reading alongside the Maidenhead terminator, so even more than I am suggesting to run off peak, and it operates fine - the paths are there to run the service to Reading, and the platform space at Reading is available too - these services use 13&14 in the peak so they can off peak too. It would require the use of one more train (and driver etc obviously), which is not much of a commitment imo.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Posts in infrastructure indicate that the GWR main line is suffering from all sorts of problems and reliablity has gone right down. Disruption to Elizabeth line services is often
caused by problems there too.

So doesn't this pose the question: Would the Elizabeth line work better, at least in the short term, if trains didn't run beyond Maidenhead, as was originally planned?

I notice that nobody's mentioned the OP posted this on the day London Paddington was shut for engineering works. Of course the GWML is going to be way off its usual timetable in such circumstances.

 

[JonathanH]

Isn't it moving to the fast lines (Slough-Maidenhead-Twyford-Reading and stations to Didcot) - with Didcot being added to fast Oxfords and Slough dropped - so EL will run all services east of Slough on the reliefs.

No, the GWR service crosses to the relief line at Dolphin Junction off peak so that the call at Slough is no longer on the main. This has enabled the main line platforms to be fenced off at Slough.

In the peak, it stops on the main at Maidenhead, then crosses at Ruscombe, thereby leaving room for the extra Elizabeth Line service to Maidenhead.

 

[cle]

I thought there was a call on the new one (off peak) at Slough, which moved the Didcot stopper onto the mains?

 

[JonathanH]

I thought there was a call on the new one (off peak) at Slough, which moved the Didcot stopper onto the mains?

Yes, but the Didcot stopper only runs main line from Paddington to Dolphin Junction between Langley and Slough, then stops on the relief at Slough.

All GW passenger calls at Slough are now booked on the relief lines except the remaining up fast from Oxford at 0652, and a Didcot stopper at 0554, unless otherwise required by two track railway.

 

[cle]

Ok - I think we're aligned. My "so EL will run all services east of Slough on the reliefs." was about calling pattern vs the crossing point/platform, more specifically.

 

[mangyiscute]

Yes, but the Didcot stopper only runs main line from Paddington to Dolphin Junction between Langley and Slough, then stops on the relief at Slough.

All GW passenger calls at Slough are now booked on the relief lines except the remaining up fast from Oxford at 0652, and a Didcot stopper at 0554, unless otherwise required by two track railway.

I think on Sundays there are hourly Slough calls on the Oxford terminators which are on the mains, since the Didcot only runs hourly, but otherwise yeah.

 

[coppercapped]

There are other users of the Great Western Relief Lines apart from Transport for London. The Great Western is the second busiest freight corridor into London after the West Coast Main Line. Commodities carried are containers, steel, cars for export via Purfleet docks, aggregates for the construction industry from the Mendips to terminals in London such as those at Southall/Acton, Brentford, Hayes, West Drayton, Thorney Mills and Colnbrook and as far away as Harlow.

Not all of this can be carried at night when the GW becomes a two track railway for maintenance purposes. Additionally night operation of terminals may not be permissible for noise abatement reasons and night time pay supplements can become expensive.

The intensity of the Elizabeth line services has also adversely affected the GW outer-suburban services to Didcot and Oxford by removing stops closer to London so making changes necessary.

If TfL wants to operate a more frequent service on the GW in the future then it should build its own tracks west of Paddington in the same way that the Munich S-Bahn has decoupled itself from DBAG's main lines.

The world does not revolve around the Elizabeth Line.

 

[JonathanH]

If TfL wants to operate a more frequent service on the GW in the future then it should build its own tracks west of Paddington in the same way that the Munich S-Bahn has decoupled itself from DBAG's main lines.

In a way that is fair, but six tracks would be a huge challenge to construct and pay for. It would be interesting to consider whether it is possible at any point west of Ladbroke Grove (other than on the site of Old Oak Common station where there will eventually be eight lines).

 

[EllieAquitrain]

In a way that is fair, but six tracks would be a huge challenge to construct and pay for. It would be interesting to consider whether it is possible at any point west of Ladbroke Grove (other than on the site of Old Oak Common station where there will eventually be eight lines).

Of course, at what point does it just become cheaper for the new pair of tracks to be fast, non-stop, and not necessarily following the current alignment precisely...? And oops, we've just designed a high-speed bypass out to Reading!

 

[JonathanH]

Of course, at what point does it just become cheaper for the new pair of tracks to be fast, non-stop, and not necessarily following the current alignment precisely...? And oops, we've just designed a high-speed bypass out to Reading!

Neither is likely to happen. Indeed, you would still need six tracks somewhere as Paddington would still be the terminal and I'd imagine that Southall is the first place a divergence is realistically possible.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Neither is likely to happen. Indeed, you would still need six tracks somewhere as Paddington would still be the terminal and I'd imagine that Southall is the first place a divergence is realistically possible.

Depends what happens to the Westway.
I'm not expecting such a plan to be even considered pre-2050, but a tunnel portal at Westbourne Park under the Westway to surface at Cranford, then a HSR line parallel to, or above the M4 with a spur to the classic GWML at Twyford and the main spur continuing onto the Berks and Hants at Theale would be a decent idea.

 

[cle]

Depends what happens to the Westway.
I'm not expecting such a plan to be even considered pre-2050, but a tunnel portal at Westbourne Park under the Westway to surface at Cranford, then a HSR line parallel to, or above the M4 with a spur to the classic GWML at Twyford and the main spur continuing onto the Berks and Hants at Theale would be a decent idea.

If it's a capacity play, I would build platforms at Slough for ER and terminate it there.

I would use the tunnels to come out around Langley and take on the existing relief lines, with all service to Didcot, Oxford and Newbury along those. Maybe some Swindon service too.

That said, if people made their peace with slower but more semi-fast (and cheaper) service to LHR by extending some OOC terminators to get to 4tph on each branch, the HEx paths would likely serve existing fast line capacity for the foreseeable.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That said, if people made their peace with slower but more semi-fast (and cheaper) service to LHR by extending some OOC terminators to get to 4tph on each branch, the HEx paths would likely serve existing fast line capacity for the foreseeable.

This would be a significantly preferable option, tunnels to Langley would just move the problem further down the line. If you want to free up capacity for more intercity and Thames Valley services, you need a new line connecting to the Berks and Hants at least.

 

[HSTEd]

The world does not revolve around the Elizabeth Line.

Likewise, the world does not revolve around freight operations.

Given that in 2022/2023 financial year [page 198/228] the entire freight industry paid a total of £11m (down from £53m the previous year) to Network Rail for infrastructure access, compared to well over £2bn for passenger operations..... I'm not sure crippling the Elizabeth Line for the marginal benefit of freight operators is a good plan given the dire financial condition the railway is in.

It's hard to get good data but I'd be very surprised if Elizabeth Line didn't pay far more than the entire railfreight industry for the upkeep of the infrastructure.

However, even if you were going to require additional infrastructure to allow freight operators to avoid shifting to night operations etc, the obvious answer would be to build a single track freight railway which could easily handle the required traffic. That would have the major advantage of ensuring that low performance freight trains stop getting in the way of passenger operations (of any type).

 

[stuu]

This would be a significantly preferable option, tunnels to Langley would just move the problem further down the line. If you want to free up capacity for more intercity and Thames Valley services, you need a new line connecting to the Berks and Hants at least.

Two points:
8tph leave at Hayes for Heathrow, so the extra capacity is less needed past there

Reading is a very important destination from the SW, there is no point bypassing it

 

[AlastairFraser]

Two points:
8tph leave at Hayes for Heathrow, so the extra capacity is less needed past there

Reading is a very important destination from the SW, there is no point bypassing it

1) While that is a fair point, post-2050 you'll want more than 8tph extra for such a large investment.
2) That is why I'd send 2tph Bristols fast via Westbury and the SW services down the HSR line and branch onto the mainline at Twyford.

 

[cle]

This would be a significantly preferable option, tunnels to Langley would just move the problem further down the line. If you want to free up capacity for more intercity and Thames Valley services, you need a new line connecting to the Berks and Hants at least.

The Berks and Hants isn't very important in the grand scheme of things for its length and capacity. Freight of course is imporotant. From memory:

Reading-Newbury/Bedwyn slow (1tph)
London-Newbury (1tph)
London-Plymouth/Cornwall (1tph)
London-Exeter semi (1tp2h)


Maybe the Exeter going hourly (at least to Westbury) - and another hourly service would help - but it's not where the biggest gaps are.

After Reading itself, Oxford, Swindon and Bristol are the busiest flows. Bath too. All feel relatively well-served for now. Growth should be focused on EL and building housing along the route - as wel as intensifying job and housing development in Reading and Slough specifically. And modal shift at Heathrow of course.

 

[The Planner]

However, even if you were going to require additional infrastructure to allow freight operators to avoid shifting to night operations etc, the obvious answer would be to build a single track freight railway which could easily handle the required traffic. That would have the major advantage of ensuring that low performance freight trains stop getting in the way of passenger operations (of any type).

Except a Class 4 will keep ahead of the majority of stopping services on several lines but are pathed behind them. To say they get in the way when they are effectively last on the graph is nonsense.