Fantasy: Could GWR use Euston permanently?

[Falcon1200]

Its just a shame GWR never taught their drivers the route instead of choosing the option to have them conducted.

It would mean maintaining that route knowledge, and that would be a major issue, not to mention capacity at Euston.

 

[nw1]

It is really only the British who still have an obsession with getting trains to the centre of cities rather than simply connecting an effective terminal to the metro system. Look at the way China approaches its High Speed network (for example) despite the ability to bulldoze whatever they like. In the case of Beijing and Shanghai, the main central stations are continually downgraded as new out-of-town stations open.

Is it just the British? The Paris termini don't seem to be that far out, neither do the various Hbfs in Germany that I have visited.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Could Euston be used as a diversion during disruption,a derailment at Paddington for example. Even a limited service would be better than turning everything around at Reading. Its just a shame GWR never taught their drivers the route instead of choosing the option to have them conducted.

Are we talking about using the route from Acton Main Line up to join the WCML near Willesden Junction? I would imagine that, even aside from capacity at issue, you'd have huge problems finding paths for even a limited service, considering the conflicting moves when joining the WCML. And as far as I can make out by looking at Google maps, the link goes from the slow GWR lines so fast trains would have to cross to the slows, then a single bi-directional track to reach the WCML near Willesden Junction. I can't imagine it being very practical without some infrastructure works in grade separated junctions etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2024 ==

It is really only the British who still have an obsession with getting trains to the centre of cities rather than simply connecting an effective terminal to the metro system. Look at the way China approaches its High Speed network (for example) despite the ability to bulldoze whatever they like. In the case of Beijing and Shanghai, the main central stations are continually downgraded as new out-of-town stations open.

Most useful metro connections tend to be in the City Centre. Look how many tube lines are connected to - say - Euston, Kings Cross, Paddington or Liverpool Street. You'd find it hard to identify many places not in the centre of London (or any large city) with that connectivity.

 

[Krokodil]

Always amazed when people say a Zone 1 sation a short walking distance to Hyde Park or Oxford St is "in the middle of nowhere"!

Especially when the comparison is with Euston, a station which might be closer to the centre as the crow flies but is by some margin London's least well connected major terminus (Marylebone doesn't qualify as "major" in my book, before anyone pipes up). Paddington is on the Lizzie Line, all subsurface lines and the Bakerloo Line. Whereas from Euston you've got a route march if you want to use anything but the Northern Line.

It is really only the British who still have an obsession with getting trains to the centre of cities rather than simply connecting an effective terminal to the metro system.

Er - have you not heard of Berlin Hauptbahnhof? The equivalent in the UK would be extending all Intercity routes through the city and having a massive interchange at Farringdon.

 

[The Planner]

Could Euston be used as a diversion during disruption,a derailment at Paddington for example. Even a limited service would be better than turning everything around at Reading. Its just a shame GWR never taught their drivers the route instead of choosing the option to have them conducted.

You need to reduce the Avanti services to make this work on a planned basis. Off the cuff due to an iasue at Paddington it would cause issues at Euston.

 

[Krokodil]

You need to reduce the Avanti services to make this work on a planned basis.

Any Sunday will do then. Only issue is that GWR won't be running either.

 

[A S Leib]

Paddington is on the Lizzie Line, all subsurface lines and the Bakerloo Line. Whereas from Euston you've got a route march if you want to use anything but the Northern Line.

Paddington doesn't have the Met and east of Barking to Upminster needs a change; Euston has the Victoria (and Euston Square).

 

[Class15]

You need to reduce the Avanti services to make this work on a planned basis. Off the cuff due to an iasue at Paddington it would cause issues at Euston.

Would it make sense to divert some Avanti services onto the lesser-used slow lines at North Wembley, allowing GWR trains to come onto the fasts at Willesden?

 

[A S Leib]

Would a feasible service pattern during Paddington closures be

• 2 tph Reading – Oxford via all stations to Didcot
• 1 tph Oxford – via Moreton-in-Marsh (or linked to one of the Reading – Oxford services)
• 1 tph Swindon – Cheltenham
• 2 tph Euston – Reading – Bristol / Weston-super-Mare
• 1 tph Waterloo – Reading – Swansea / Carmarthen
• 1 tph Reading – Cardiff
• 1 tph Waterloo – Reading – via Exeter
• 1 tph Reading – via Exeter
• 1 tph Reading – Newbury / Bedwyn

I don't think anywhere west of Reading would have a lower frequency than without engineering works apart from the lack of Cheltenham services between Reading and Swindon. In total there'd be 6 tph between Reading and London (counting slow Wokingham services) and 5 tph terminating from the west at Reading in addition to the normal ones (2 tph Basingstoke, 1 tph Newbury, 1 tph York / Newcastle); would that be manageable?

 

[Class15]

Would a feasible service pattern during Paddington closures be

• 2 tph Reading – Oxford via all stations to Didcot
• 1 tph Oxford – via Moreton-in-Marsh (or linked to one of the Reading – Oxford services)
• 1 tph Swindon – Cheltenham
• 2 tph Euston – Reading – Bristol / Weston-super-Mare
• 1 tph Waterloo – Reading – Swansea / Carmarthen
• 1 tph Reading – Cardiff
• 1 tph Waterloo – Reading – via Exeter
• 1 tph Reading – via Exeter
• 1 tph Reading – Newbury / Bedwyn

I don't think anywhere west of Reading would have a lower frequency than without engineering works apart from the lack of Cheltenham services between Reading and Swindon. In total there'd be 6 tph between Reading and London (counting slow Wokingham services) and 5 tph terminating from the west at Reading in addition to the normal ones (2 tph Basingstoke, 1 tph Newbury, 1 tph York / Newcastle); would that be manageable?

That seems reasonable. I am puzzled as to why they have not used Waterloo so far.

 

[JonathanH]

I am puzzled as to why they have not used Waterloo so far.

Waterloo to Reading via Staines is a very slow route, even non stop. Euston can be reached quicker than Waterloo, so given where the obstruction is, it makes more sense to go to Euston. Moreover, Euston only needs a route conductor between Ealing and Euston.

 

[A S Leib]

Waterloo to Reading via Staines is a very slow route, even non stop. Euston can be reached quicker than Waterloo, so given where the obstruction is, it makes more sense to go to Euston.

Around an hour slower than via Slough to Paddington for stopping services, although I suspect that might not be much slower than rail replacement buses* to Paddington would be at times of the day with much more capacity, especially if all services could be nine or ten carriages with the slightly reduced service.

*I'm fairly sure there haven't been any RRBs to Paddington for this closure; fear of them being overwhelmed?

 

[JonathanH]

Around an hour slower than via Slough to Paddington for stopping services, although I suspect that might not be much slower than rail replacement buses* to Paddington would be at times of the day with much more capacity.

So, looking at SWR diversions on 18 January, Virginia Water is reached from Waterloo for most of the day in a little over 40 minutes, with only a stop at Clapham Junction.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Virginia Water between 0200 and 0159 on 18/01/2025

Train information at Virginia Water between 0200 and 0159 on 18/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

It is then about 20 miles from Virginia Water to Reading, with no part of the route over 70mph, so overall Waterloo to Reading can't be done in less than an hour. The issue is that there is no clear path that allows the trains to run quicker than the stopping trains.

In contrast Euston to Reading was about 40 minutes over the last few days.

 

[Topological]

Most useful metro connections tend to be in the City Centre. Look how many tube lines are connected to - say - Euston, Kings Cross, Paddington or Liverpool Street. You'd find it hard to identify many places not in the centre of London (or any large city) with that connectivity.

Mostly a chicken and egg thing.

However, OOC is developing a strong set of connectivity. Stratford on the East side has similar connectivity.

Either way, if we need land to build a station then building at a non-City Centre location will be cheaper, whilst a metro-type line is easier to bore than continuing the HS line. IF there has to be another tunnel built to get to the central location then the connectivity challenge can be sovled for a lower price than the extension of the HS line.

We see a similar issue in Manchester as well, though there it would be a new metro tunnel as there isn't anything of the capacity needed to transport the last mile from a terminal yet.

As I said upthread, OOC will surprise people with how many use it.

 

[A S Leib]

, so overall Waterloo to Reading can't be done in less than an hour.

I said an hour slower than Reading to Paddington, so under 85 minutes, and I suspect being able to get to London without changing (apart from possibly more tube journeys than would otherwise be the case) would make the additional time worth it, even if it puts off some less date-dependent travel.

 

[JonathanH]

I said an hour slower than Reading to Paddington, so under 85 minutes, and I suspect being able to get to London without changing (apart from possibly more tube journeys than would otherwise be the case) would make the additional time worth it, even if it puts off some less date-dependent travel.

Yes, but Euston is clearly better if it is available.

 

[A S Leib]

Yes, but Euston is clearly better if it is available.

Agreed; is 2 tph the most Euston could take from Reading without cutting other services?

 

[Class15]

Waterloo to Reading via Staines is a very slow route, even non stop. Euston can be reached quicker than Waterloo, so given where the obstruction is, it makes more sense to go to Euston. Moreover, Euston only needs a route conductor between Ealing and Euston.

Could you divert at Acton Wells via the West London line? 2tph to Euston and 2tph to Waterloo would be better than 2tph to Euston only?

 

[signed]

It is really only the British who still have an obsession with getting trains to the centre of cities rather than simply connecting an effective terminal to the metro system.

Are those any popular in Europe? People mostly want a door-to-door experience with a train.

The outer Paris terminis (Massy, Marne-La-Vallée, CDG...) are seldom used, and mostly by locals, as they are an hour away from Paris.

 

[Topological]

Are those any popular in Europe? People mostly want a door-to-door experience with a train.

The outer Paris terminis (Massy, Marne-La-Vallée, CDG...) are seldom used, and mostly by locals, as they are an hour away from Paris.

An hour is a lot further than I was thinking of. OOC is about right in terms of distance. The Manchester equivalent would have been to have routed somewhere close to the Etihad or Salford Quays so the metro (not Metrolink) would take 10/20 minutes to get to the nearest part of the centre.

Stratford would give some indication of use, but the Greater Anglia fast trains do not stop at Stratford (I think) and so it is not quite the equivalent of OOC at the moment.

 

[The Planner]

Would it make sense to divert some Avanti services onto the lesser-used slow lines at North Wembley, allowing GWR trains to come onto the fasts at Willesden?

Still doesnt help as you need platforms.

 

[Class15]

Still doesnt help as you need platforms.

Ah, I understand. Maybe not such a good idea to remove 17 and 18 then…

 

[The Planner]

Would a feasible service pattern during Paddington closures be

• 2 tph Reading – Oxford via all stations to Didcot
• 1 tph Oxford – via Moreton-in-Marsh (or linked to one of the Reading – Oxford services)
• 1 tph Swindon – Cheltenham
• 2 tph Euston – Reading – Bristol / Weston-super-Mare
• 1 tph Waterloo – Reading – Swansea / Carmarthen
• 1 tph Reading – Cardiff
• 1 tph Waterloo – Reading – via Exeter
• 1 tph Reading – via Exeter
• 1 tph Reading – Newbury / Bedwyn

I don't think anywhere west of Reading would have a lower frequency than without engineering works apart from the lack of Cheltenham services between Reading and Swindon. In total there'd be 6 tph between Reading and London (counting slow Wokingham services) and 5 tph terminating from the west at Reading in addition to the normal ones (2 tph Basingstoke, 1 tph Newbury, 1 tph York / Newcastle); would that be manageable?

GWR werent interested in Waterloo.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2024 ==

Ah, I understand. Maybe not such a good idea to remove 17 and 18 then…

You arent building the HS2 station with them there.

 

[Krokodil]

Paddington doesn't have the Met and east of Barking to Upminster needs a change; Euston has the Victoria (and Euston Square).

I had forgotten the Met but the comments were about getting to Central London so Barking and Upminster aren't really relevant. I also forgot the Victoria. Euston Square was covered under "route march" - all right, it's a slight exaggeration but trying not to get lost when catching subsurface trains from Euston is a challenge for those not familiar with the place, whereas Paddington is less of a nightmare. Even if you're planning on walking into the centre, it may be shorter from Euston but I'd rather stroll through Hyde Park than play Frogger on Euston Road.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Paddington doesn't have the Met and east of Barking to Upminster needs a change; Euston has the Victoria (and Euston Square).

Paddington has the Hammersmith & City Line which provides a same platform change to the District Line at several stations in east London.

 

[MrEwy]

Why would they want to associate themselves with a place like that? We’ve all been to Euston haven’t we?

 

[Topological]

Why would they want to associate themselves with a place like that? We’ve all been to Euston haven’t we?

The Famous Five visit the Bree Louise (and enjoy an orange cordial responsibly)

 

[sprunt]

It is. Only something like 12% of passengers leave on foot, from memory of this discussion in the past

Do you (or anyone) know the figure for the other London terminals?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I was at Euston last weekend and there seemed to be an awful lot of dwell time for the GWR services. The service from Bristol Parkway i alighted off ended up there for over an hour before it left making up its next service after arriving 15 mins early and being timetabled for 45 mins dwell time. I assume they were being cautious with the timetabling but could that not be made tighter to add more services?

 

[superalbs]

I was at Euston last weekend and there seemed to be an awful lot of dwell time for the GWR services. The service from Bristol Parkway i alighted off ended up there for over an hour before it left making up its next service after arriving 15 mins early and being timetabled for 45 mins dwell time. I assume they were being cautious with the timetabling but could that not be made tighter to add more services?

My service came in 20 minutes late. Maybe it was a good idea.