Heathrow: Western Link to GWML.

[edwin_m]

Assuming both links are built, it wouldn't make sense to run both to Basingstoke as it would just split the demand. Looking for alternative destinations for either, running the Western one to Oxford might be a good idea.

 

[The Ham]

Assuming both links are built, it wouldn't make sense to run both to Basingstoke as it would just split the demand. Looking for alternative destinations for either, running the Western one to Oxford might be a good idea.

Basingstoke would be easier, in that services could be run to there without any additional works (by switching with the Basingstoke-Reading services and/or the southern part of the XC services) add to that the Western Approach trains would be faster to get to Heathrow than going via the Southern Approach and that the Western Approach would likely be open before the Southern. As such it would be a hard case to remove the Basingstoke (and/or beyond) services.

However it could well be that there are other services to places like Oxford as well as to Basingstoke.

 

[The Ham]

Given some of the above discussions, I think that the following would probably result in a good level of service:
- either divert some Oxford services via Heathrow and/or extend a Heathrow service to Oxford (1.5 tph)
- extend the Crossrail services (2tph) which serve T5 to Basingstoke and use it to replace the current Basingstoke-Reading services
- limit so XC services from Newcastle so that they finish at Reading and use that path for a new Southampton, Winchester, Reading, Slough, Heathrow service (0.5tph)

On the Southern Approach then have:
- 4 tph to Waterloo
- 2 tph to Guildford (skip/stop to all stations, i.e. Woking and Guildford 2tph whilst Chertsey, Addlestone, Byfleet &New Haw, West Byfleet and Worplesdon stations have 1tph split between the two services an hour)
- 2 tph to Basingstoke (calling Woking, Brookwood, Farnborough, Fleet, Winchfield, Hook and Basingstoke).

I would suggest that 1 tph (existing SWR service) is swapped from being a Basingstoke Stopper to call Brookwood, Aldershot and Farnham to bring wider benefits. As the North East Hampshire stations probably don't justify an extra 2tph and although they wouldn't have so many direct services to Waterloo (1tph Vs the current 2tph) they could still change at Farnborough or Woking and still get to Waterloo faster. As well as gaining 1tph between each of them. When Crossrail 2 comes along then there could be am extra service added if it were needed (as with circa 9 extra services an hour possible everywhere that currently has 2tph could gain an extra 1tph, subject to capacity).

I'd also, once the line was electrified or bimodal trains were, extend the Basingstoke stopping services to Romsey via Salisbury and Southampton (calling at all stations, to replace the current Salisbury 6 services), with that being 2tph post Crossrail 2. It would allow the current DMU services on the WofE line to skip the minor stations between Basingstoke and Salisbury.

I'd also look at if there were stations that could be (re)opened (Porton, Oakley, Southwood) as it wouldn't matter if these services were slowed down as most people would be changing to faster services to London and most places would see a more frequent service so the time penalty would be offset by a more frequent service making rail more attractive. It would also provide better connections between places which, although not a big traffic flow, are currently difficult to do (and so inhibit people from doing so even if they wanted to).

As such the new Heathrow links could enable quite a large area to see improvements to their services and/or connectivity. Making rail travel even more attractive.

 

[Requeststop]

To be quite honest, on arrival at Heathrow, and wishing to travel to the far south west, I'd rather go to Heathrow than Reading to catch my connection.

My reasoning is that I'd stand a much better chance of getting a decent seat for my ride down the way to Exeter and beyond. Too often, I see the platform at Reading chock a block full of humanity wanting to get on the train to the South West. The thought of fighting my way onto the train with all my luggage with everyone else is too much to be honest.

The other option of running through Heathrow to Slough and then to reading an onwards will lengthen the journey too much. In the South West, we have been screaming for yonks for a faster service to London. Yes it may be nice to stop at Heathrow travelling up to London from the South West but the other way.......Ok I'm a old lazy one. Also as an after thought, there is still something pleasing about travelling from Paddington all the way down to St Erth and Penzance, even though I've done it countless times over my 64 years.

 

[The Ham]

To be quite honest, on arrival at Heathrow, and wishing to travel to the far south west, I'd rather go to Heathrow than Reading to catch my connection.

My reasoning is that I'd stand a much better chance of getting a decent seat for my ride down the way to Exeter and beyond. Too often, I see the platform at Reading chock a block full of humanity wanting to get on the train to the South West. The thought of fighting my way onto the train with all my luggage with everyone else is too much to be honest.

The other option of running through Heathrow to Slough and then to reading an onwards will lengthen the journey too much. In the South West, we have been screaming for yonks for a faster service to London. Yes it may be nice to stop at Heathrow travelling up to London from the South West but the other way.......Ok I'm a old lazy one. Also as an after thought, there is still something pleasing about travelling from Paddington all the way down to St Erth and Penzance, even though I've done it countless times over my 64 years.

Chances are services to/from Heathrow would be on a more metro type service than is currently the norm which runs to the far South West, so the journey would likely be less comfortable.

Also without electrification to the far South West, chances are there wouldn't be scope for direct services for quite some time yet. Especially given that most people would be heading to London or would be willing to change at Reading.

 

[cle]

The Ham - do any of your proposals run through Heathrow? I think Chertsey especially would benefit from the direct services to Paddington. I’m assuming any Crossrail continuations would be western here due to the AC, unless it was extended to Staines as mentioned in the past.

 

[The Ham]

The Ham - do any of your proposals run through Heathrow? I think Chertsey especially would benefit from the direct services to Paddington. I’m assuming any Crossrail continuations would be western here due to the AC, unless it was extended to Staines as mentioned in the past.

There would be a need for at least some of the services to run through. I would suggest all the services from Basingstoke and Guildford.

The Oxford and Southampton services probably wouldn't benefit as much, but could be extended if there was a need. However there would be little benefit from running Paddington-Heathrow-Waterloo. As that would have two very congested London stations at each end and so the risk of disruption would probably be too great.

 

[edwin_m]

I tend to think there's not much point in running Paddington-Heathrow-Reading as it wouldn't offer much benefit over the existing services for non-Heathrow passengers. Running services between (for example) Woking and Paddington links quite a lot of population into HS2 at Old Oak.

 

[The Ham]

I tend to think there's not much point in running Paddington-Heathrow-Reading as it wouldn't offer much benefit over the existing services for non-Heathrow passengers. Running services between (for example) Woking and Paddington links quite a lot of population into HS2 at Old Oak.

Which is why I didn't link many, the reason for linking Basingstoke to Paddington via Reading and Heathrow is that there's probably not enough space to turn back all the services and there's probably not that much time penalty for those from Basingstoke and the stations to Reading to get to places between Paddington and Heathrow (other than OOC) compared to now (not that there's likely to be that many).

As such it would mostly just be two services linked together in terms of passenger usage, but there would be the benefit for those that would opt to use it because it was a direct service.

However as Oxford already has frequent services to Paddington no one would use it for getting past Heathrow. Likewise, due to the limited numbers of services, the services from Southampton wouldn't likely see much through traffic. Especially given that the service would likely call at Southampton, Southampton Airport Parkway, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Slough and Heathrow, as such would be more focused on faster journey times and so passengers would probably switch to a fast service to another destination.

 

[edwin_m]

If both western and southern links are built then some turnback capacity will be needed at Heathrow from the west, as even if the HEX paths are taken over there wouldn't be enough capacity to send everything into Paddington. I suggest it would be more sensible to use this capacity to turn back Western Link services and let Southern Link services through, because the Southern Link is less duplicative of the existing route. This is pertinent as the consultation appears to be looking at deleting the turnback facility for Western Link.

 

[The Ham]

If both western and southern links are built then some turnback capacity will be needed at Heathrow from the west, as even if the HEX paths are taken over there wouldn't be enough capacity to send everything into Paddington. I suggest it would be more sensible to use this capacity to turn back Western Link services and let Southern Link services through, because the Southern Link is less duplicative of the existing route. This is pertinent as the consultation appears to be looking at deleting the turnback facility for Western Link.

If the turn back facilities aren't but as part of the Western Approach then one way around it could be to link the Western services with the Waterloo services from the south (both are due to be 4tph IIRC).

 

[hwl]

If both western and southern links are built then some turnback capacity will be needed at Heathrow from the west, as even if the HEX paths are taken over there wouldn't be enough capacity to send everything into Paddington. I suggest it would be more sensible to use this capacity to turn back Western Link services and let Southern Link services through, because the Southern Link is less duplicative of the existing route. This is pertinent as the consultation appears to be looking at deleting the turnback facility for Western Link.

The proposed western turnback facility is a hangover from the previous iteration when the scheme was lead by the airport, however they were proposing a normal turnback solution but a single track section with points at either end to effectively enable both P3&4 to remain bidirectional with turnback being done in the platforms.
So not particularly useful or high capacity given HAL's proposed service pattern now won't happen.
The future southern access will use the already constructed but hidden P1&2 to the south.
As you say the sensible solution is to send the through services mainly to the South and possibly also redirect all the T4 services to T5 through services and have T4 as shuttle to solve the pathing issues to Paddington. i.e. the future proposed 8tph Crossrail (4tph T4 and 2 later 4tph to T5) to Staines to provide Windsor line link. With the HEX service being extended and split 2tph to Woking / Basingstoke, 2tph Reading via Western Link which would then leave space in P4 for some Reading - T5 shuttles turning in the platforms with simple crossover (not the HAL proposal) from P4 to the down Western Access track

 

[HowardGWR]

I tend to think there's not much point in running Paddington-Heathrow-Reading as it wouldn't offer much benefit over the existing services for non-Heathrow passengers. Running services between (for example) Woking and Paddington links quite a lot of population into HS2 at Old Oak.

It's for a similar reason that the Mawhinney report on HS2 recommended against having a specific spur to Heathrow. This is because airport pax were estimated typically only 10% of total pax on HS2 and thus the link from OOC was considered adequate. Calling at airports is useful when the service doesn't have to make a detour, or go nearly empty down a branch line.

Edit: Will terminating trains from Reading be full enough?

 

[edwin_m]

If the turn back facilities aren't but as part of the Western Approach then one way around it could be to link the Western services with the Waterloo services from the south (both are due to be 4tph IIRC).

Not sure I'm understanding this. Wouldn't both these services enter Heathrow from the west, therefore requiring reversal to link them?

 

[edwin_m]

It's for a similar reason that the Mawhinney report on HS2 recommended against having a specific spur to Heathrow. This is because airport pax were estimated typically only 10% of total pax on HS2 and thus the link from OOC was considered adequate. Calling at airports is useful when the service doesn't have to make a detour, or go nearly empty down a branch line.

Edit: Will terminating trains from Reading be full enough?

I was thinking the HS2 stuff was relevant here. They reserved two paths for Heathrow out of the 18 per hour on HS2 but they would have had some difficulty serving all destinations with those. Whereas an easy change at Old Oak links Heathrow to all the HS2 services.

Interesting question about the Reading terminators. Since Basingstoke and onward connections there can be served by either Western or Southern routes that might be a reason to serve it by the Western and even out the loads.

 

[The Ham]

Not sure I'm understanding this. Wouldn't both these services enter Heathrow from the west, therefore requiring reversal to link them?

Yes they both come from the West, however there would need to be changes to the layout to facilitate the turn back for the Waterloo services and so there's going to be scope to do so. It would just mean a change in the through services once the Southern Approach is built.

 

[swt_passenger]

Todays announcement of 'cabinet approval' for the third runway, subject to parliamentary vote, ought to spur this all along a bit more:

Controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport have been approved by ministers.
The government's economic sub-committee, chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May, backed the plans which were then approved by her full cabinet.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said it was a "historic moment"... etc etc...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580

 

[The Ham]

Todays announcement of 'cabinet approval' for the third runway, subject to parliamentary vote, ought to spur this all along a bit more:

The building of both (Southern and Western Approaches) would be an easy political win for getting people (more) onboard. Especially those who are opposed due to air pollution.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The building of both (Southern and Western Approaches) would be an easy political win for getting people (more) onboard. Especially those who are opposed due to air pollution.

You read my mind I was about to post the same. Since opposition will come on air quality grounds, make the votes etc conditional on great electrified railway connections so both WRATH and the Southern rail route. Time for a win.

 

[cle]

Especially given that the beneficiaries are those impacted most by the noise (SW London/Middlesex and Surrey) - who would have much greater access to the airport itself but also Crossrail, GWR/OOC etc through the connectivity.

 

[rebmcr]

You read my mind I was about to post the same. Since opposition will come on air quality grounds, make the votes etc conditional on great electrified railway connections so both WRATH and the Southern rail route. Time for a win.

Nah, just use bimodes at the last minute.