Ideas and predictions for trains serving Old Oak Common station

[HSTEd]

It'll be a railway that operates to seconds of accuracy, not minutes. People will need to adapt.

And big security types will block people from going onto the platform whilst the train sits their taunting them for 45 or 60 more seconds.
A few metres away.

This will go down well.

Compulsory reservations is such a totally different experience to any the British railway has seen that people will struggle to accept it.
And because people will be required to reserve people who the security types block will lose all their money.......

This railway does not have to operate in this manner, it is just being suggested as a way to wring revenue out of people by selling them tickets twice.

EDIT:

7tph is far less intense than the reliable service on the through platforms at Picadilly managed.
And yet we cannot manage it here without insane draconian restrictions?

It's just an excuse to seize revenue.


EDIT #2:

Is a 3+3 platform split even the best way to do this?
Wouldn't 4 Northbound and 2 Southbound be better.

After all the people getting off the trains know precisely when the train is arriving at OOC and all just want to get off the platform as fast as possible....

Also anyone got a link to where this idea of only allowing one train between ventilation shafts comes from?
It's not on the Tunnel Safety TSIs - and it would obviously make some tunnels like the Chunnel essentially unusable.

EDIT #3:

Come to think of it, has compulsory reservation actually been mentioned in any official documentation?

 

[Ianno87]

And big security types will block people from going onto the platform whilst the train sits their taunting them for 45 or 60 more seconds.
A few metres away.

This will go down well.

Compulsory reservations is such a totally different experience to any the British railway has seen that people will struggle to accept it.
And because people will be required to reserve people who the security types block will lose all their money.......

This railway does not have to operate in this manner, it is just being suggested as a way to wring revenue out of people by selling them tickets twice.

You are letting your imagination run away with itself somewhat.

"Big security types" = Ticket gates that simply reject tickets after a well-advertised cut off point. You could even get phone notifications in the minutes leadimg up to your booked departure. Arguably far more customer friendly than the current Euston ramps. Remember again, we now live in the future.

And who said anything about selling tickets twice? Just get re-allocated to a later train. Or turn up in good time, which already well-understood for Advance tickets

EDIT:

7tph is far less intense than the reliable service on the through platforms at Picadilly managed.
And yet we cannot manage it here without insane draconian restrictions?

It's just an excuse to seize revenue.

Nope. Look at TGVs and Shinkansens. It's what HS2 needs to do to be in that league.

EDIT #2:

Is a 3+3 platform split even the best way to do this?
Wouldn't 4 Northbound and 2 Southbound be better.

After all the people getting off the trains know precisely when the train is arriving at OOC and all just want to get off the platform as fast as possible....

Also anyone got a link to where this idea of only allowing one train between ventilation shafts comes from?
It's not on the Tunnel Safety TSIs - and it would obviously make some tunnels like the Chunnel essentially unusable.

London Fire Brigade. Crossrail has the same restriction, as does HS1's tunnels.

The Channel Tunnel gets around this with the service tunnel, two on-site dedicated fire brigades (one at each end) and the complex ventilation systems within the tunnel to control the flow of smoke, the fire safety regulations trains need to meet, etc.

Remembering the Chunnel is basically 6 sections - 3 per tunnel, split by the crossovers. 20 minutes transit and 3 minute headway means maximum 6-7 trains in the tunnel in each direction, or basically 2 (maybe 3) in each section, so in a fire smoke from a train on fire can generally always be ventiled away from the train that is not on fire within the same section.

 

[London Trains]

Now that I think about it, what is the particular need for 3 platforms each way at Old Oak Common? Isn't 2 platforms each way enough?

With 2-3 minute dwells, and trains roughly every 3 minutes, one train can use one platform, and as it leaves, the next train uses the other platform, and then trains alternate between the two.

 

[Ianno87]

Now that I think about it, what is the particular need for 3 platforms each way at Old Oak Common? Isn't 2 platforms each way enough?

With 2-3 minute dwells, and trains roughly every 3 minutes, one train can use one platform, and as it leaves, the next train uses the other platform, and then trains alternate between the two.

I think the extra two platforms were originally intended ti be "International" for HS1 link services, so the station was sized accordingly.

But I'd imagine they've been kept as they add useful extra flexibiliity. Design them out and you'd be stuck with 4 platforms forever.

 

[si404]

Leeds is now Norwich

London-Norwich is Intercity too. And isn't 'Norwich in 90' the recent milestone? Leeds in 78 is quite a bit better!

Manchester is now Winchester is another comparison

Crewe is a similar time (55m) from Euston as Chesham (51m on a fast train!)

 

[HSTEd]

You are letting your imagination run away with itself somewhat.

"Big security types" = Ticket gates that simply reject tickets after a well-advertised cut off point. You could even get phone notifications in the minutes leadimg up to your booked departure. Arguably far more customer friendly than the current Euston ramps. Remember again, we now live in the future.

So now we have people stuck at the gate line repeatedly trying their ticket, blocking up everyone else coming behind them for their later trains?
Or trying to move backwards against the flow of people?

And who said anything about selling tickets twice? Just get re-allocated to a later train. Or turn up in good time, which already well-understood for Advance tickets

Compulsory reservations that can simply be duplicated onto numerous trains is just going to cause its own problems.
By functionally banning standees and allowing people to reallocate their tickets without penalty you are going to drive down operational capacity, and thus revenue.

Nope. Look at TGVs and Shinkansens. It's what HS2 needs to do to be in that league.

Shinkansen are almost all not compulsory reservation?
Only a handful of services are compulsory reservation.

And even those, if the train is fully booked, will permit you to purchase a standing-only ticket without reservation.
Indeed there is a whole set of ticket easements on the one part of the Shinkansen network that is fully reserved to compensate for the lack of unreserved seats.

 

[London Trains]

London-Norwich is Intercity too. And isn't 'Norwich in 90' the recent milestone? Leeds in 78 is quite a bit better!

Manchester is now Winchester is another comparison

Crewe is a similar time (55m) from Euston as Chesham (51m on a fast train!)

Technically Birmingham becomes Epsom

 

[Bletchleyite]

Compulsory reservations that can simply be duplicated onto numerous trains is just going to cause its own problems.
By functionally banning standees and allowing people to reallocate their tickets without penalty you are going to drive down operational capacity, and thus revenue.

The way TGVs do it is that normal tickets die with departure (so are basically Advances) but you can pay full price for a flexible ticket. An intermediate option is that you charge a "rescue fee" as some airlines do, basically a fixed sum to bump forwards because you missed the train but did still arrive within a reasonable time.

The other way TGVs handle it is that you have strapontins, basically vestibule tip-up seats, to allow for a small amount of overbooking.

 

[Ianno87]

So now we have people stuck at the gate line repeatedly trying their ticket, blocking up everyone else coming behind them for their later trains?
Or trying to move backwards against the flow of people?

1) HS2 stations are huge, so there wouldn't be much of a flow to go back against, being spread across a large number of gates.

2) Most people will have thought to pre-book their seat whilst waiting on the concourse (if not before) so won't be rejected.

Shinkansen are almost all not compulsory reservation?
Only a handful of services are compulsory reservation.

And even those, if the train is fully booked, will permit you to purchase a standing-only ticket without reservation.
Indeed there is a whole set of ticket easements on the one part of the Shinkansen network that is fully reserved to compensate for the lack of unreserved seats.

Passengers in Japan now how to behave. Turn up in good time, stand in the exact line on the platform, board quickly. The discipline of passengers is pretty much essential to its slick operation.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Two GWR fasts per hour stop at Slough vice non-stop to Reading. They could stop at OOC instead?

 

[JonathanH]

Two GWR fasts per hour stop at Slough vice non-stop to Reading. They could stop at OOC instead?

They both go to Oxford / Cotswolds and they stop in the timetable gap created by Heathrow Express using a path as far as Airport Junction. That means they can't just stop at Old Oak Common instead of Slough without a change in the timetable.

Indeed, any train that stops at Slough would be the worst train to stop at Old Oak Common because even without Heathrow Express, any train stopping at Old Oak Common would leave white space in the timetable ahead which allows a stop at Slough - ie you would want the train stopping at Slough to run immediately ahead of a train stopping at Old Oak Common, just like the xx20 from Euston stops at Milton Keynes and the xx23 from Euston stops at Watford Junction and there isn't a xx27.

 

[si404]

Slough stops are about Slough. OOC is not an alternative, but an addition (but relies on either an upgrade of the Paddington throat or everything to stop there).

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I think some GWR services should call there - changing trains at Old Oak Common for HS2 services will be miles better, quicker and easier than Paddington then the Underground.

 

[JonathanH]

Slough stops are about Slough. OOC is not an alternative, but an addition (but relies on either an upgrade of the Paddington throat or everything to stop there).

I think the OP was suggesting the sacrificing of Slough stops to enable stops at Old Oak Common - even though the circumstances of the operation doesn't facilitate this - clearly one isn't a substitute for the other in terms of passenger demand.

 

[coppercapped]

I think some GWR services should call there - changing trains at Old Oak Common for HS2 services will be miles better, quicker and easier than Paddington then the Underground.

I think we are going round in circles from where this thread started.

At the beginning of this thread in post #9 I queried the reasons for stopping all the GWR express trains at OOC on the grounds that it disadvantaged all those passengers for whom Paddington was a better interchange than OOC. It looks as if I slightly overstated the time penalty for a stop but I still stand by my basic argument made in that and subsequent posts. That is that trains originating at places that already have a good and direct service to Birmingham is pointless - that is all those trains from Bristol, South Wales, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Hereford and Worcester. There might be an argument for trains to and from the West Country via the Berks and Hants line to call at OOC - as others pointed out - but this assumes no improvement in running times over the next ten years from Exeter to Bristol and on to Birmingham. Any reductions in running times between Didcot and Birmingham over the next ten years will also reduce the attractiveness of changing at OOC for Birmingham.

Other posters have differing viewpoints.

On current plans there will still be two outer suburban GW services per hour running on the Reliefs - at the moment these terminate at Didcot as the wires go no further but in more enlightened times the natural terminus was Oxford. I expect the wires to be complete to Oxford before OOC is built. There is no disadvantage - and many advantages - that these trains call at OOC.

The other trains on the Reliefs will be the Crossrail trains and these will call anyway - it's part of their raison d'etre.

Changing to Crossrail will be hassle-free at both OOC and Paddington. At OOC passengers will need to go up to an overbridge and down to the Crossrail platforms. At Paddington passengers off Main Line arrivals will walk to the gateline, turn right, go down the escalators in the space where the old booking hall used to be alongside Platform 1 to the Crossrail platforms under Eastbourne Terrace. At Paddington one saves an escalator, lift or set of stairs.

On the Mains a stop at OOC will only be of net benefit to passengers if all the passengers changing to or from HS2 are newly generated, that is they are only using the GW main line services because of the connection to HS2. Slowing the journey for all of the passengers who would have travelled anyway - that is all those who currently make the journey - is a matter of the tail wagging the dog. I find it hard to believe that there is a large suppressed market for travel to Birmingham and towns and cities further north from the swathe of southern England and South Wales served by the GWR that will be unlocked by HS2. There might be an increase of a few per cent, but I cannot see it being much greater. These areas look to London for their business, employment, artistic, entertainment, social and financial needs and HS2 will not change that.

 

[CW2]

I quote from a report prepared by Atkins for HS2 / DfT:
Atkins Report

"5.4.11 While the majority of transport users would benefit from the introduction of HS2, some passengers could experience longer or less frequent services. For example, whilst travellers on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) would benefit from improved connectivity to HS2 at Old Oak Common, they would also see a slight increase in journey time to central London due to the additional stop. Also, depending on how released capacity is used on the WCML, some stations could see an increased journey time, or even a reduction in services, to London, and as more passengers use rail and underground services to access HS2 there could also be localised increases in crowding. These impacts and the disbenefits they generate have been included in the assessment of the costs and benefits of HS2, but are significantly outweighed by the larger benefits generated. They also might be minimised further through detailed development of the classic rail timetable and train service specification."

I think that covers it.

 

[edwin_m]

I quote from a report prepared by Atkins for HS2 / DfT:
Atkins Report

"5.4.11 While the majority of transport users would benefit from the introduction of HS2, some passengers could experience longer or less frequent services. For example, whilst travellers on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) would benefit from improved connectivity to HS2 at Old Oak Common, they would also see a slight increase in journey time to central London due to the additional stop. Also, depending on how released capacity is used on the WCML, some stations could see an increased journey time, or even a reduction in services, to London, and as more passengers use rail and underground services to access HS2 there could also be localised increases in crowding. These impacts and the disbenefits they generate have been included in the assessment of the costs and benefits of HS2, but are significantly outweighed by the larger benefits generated. They also might be minimised further through detailed development of the classic rail timetable and train service specification."

I think that covers it.

I think the devil is in the detail here. GWML refers to the route not the service group, so the statement would be equally true if any or all of the services on that route stopped at OOC.

 

[coppercapped]

I quote from a report prepared by Atkins for HS2 / DfT:
Atkins Report

"5.4.11 While the majority of transport users would benefit from the introduction of HS2, some passengers could experience longer or less frequent services. For example, whilst travellers on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) would benefit from improved connectivity to HS2 at Old Oak Common, they would also see a slight increase in journey time to central London due to the additional stop. Also, depending on how released capacity is used on the WCML, some stations could see an increased journey time, or even a reduction in services, to London, and as more passengers use rail and underground services to access HS2 there could also be localised increases in crowding. These impacts and the disbenefits they generate have been included in the assessment of the costs and benefits of HS2, but are significantly outweighed by the larger benefits generated. They also might be minimised further through detailed development of the classic rail timetable and train service specification."

I think that covers it.

No it doesn't - quite the contrary.

In 2012, at the time of Atkins Demand and Appraisal Report you mention, those promoting HS2 had a vested interest in showing that passenger numbers would be high in order to better justify the construction of the line. All projections and models made at such a point in a project's life cycle should be taken with a whole bowlful of salt.

Some of us are old enough to remember the projections made for rail passenger traffic through the Channel Tunnel - they were hopelessly optimistic. In Hansard in a statement concerning the Channel Tunnel Rail Link made on 28 January 1998 John Prescott MP, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, made the following observation:

LCR has recently explained that it has reassessed projections for Eurostar passenger traffic, and has concluded that its original forecasts were far too optimistic. As a result, LCR has now informed me that it would not be able to attract project finance from the debt and equity markets, as planned.
LCR said that it needed a further contribution worth £1.2 billion from the taxpayer over the next 10 years. That was in addition to the £1.8 billion already committed, making a total of £3 billion of taxpayers' money. I have told the board tonight that that was not acceptable.

The Hansard report may be found here.

Even today Eurostar traffic has only reached 10 million per year, still way down on the original projections.

A better justification than an eight year old promotional document needs to be found to convince me that there is a net benefit to be gained for the railway industry and its passengers by slowing the journeys of the 36,000,000 people who use Paddington every year.

Edit: LCR = London and Continental Railway

 

[CW2]

A better justification than an eight year old promotional document needs to be found to convince me that there is a net benefit to be gained for the railway industry and its passengers by slowing the journeys of the 36,000,000 people who use Paddington every year.

I agree that demand modelling is a bit of a black art, which seems to involve a mixture of wishful thinking and witchcraft. I wouldn't smear the modellers who did the work for HS2 with the mess of HS1. There the government had backed itelf into an ideological cul-de-sac with wanting HS1 to be built with private capital as much as possible, and also could not stand being shown up by the French, with their superior LGV direct to Paris. The work done for HS2 does bear examination, and does feel right (which the HS1 figures never did to me).
As stated previously, precious few of the journeys made via Paddington actually originate / terminate in the Paddington area itself. You need to measure the throughout origin - destination journey times to get a fair comparison, including walking time between trains, waiting times (service frequency), and crowding penalties (have to wait for the next train becuse this one is too full). Taking all of that into account, stopping everything at OOC is a nett overall benefit to GWML users. Yes, some will experience slightly longer journey times, but they are outweighed by those who benefit.

 

[si404]

Even today Eurostar traffic has only reached 10 million per year, still way down on the original projections.

I believe all cross-border High Speed services haven't done as well as they were expected. Even stuff like Paris-Brussels, where the border is just a line on a map with no linguistic, currency, etc differences, haven't done as well as hoped. Additionally, Eurostar's figures were based on not only assuming a big modal share (which pretty much happened), but also new people on an "if we build it, they will come" philosophy (which did, but to a lesser extent than assumed).

HS2 is serving already established rail market. HS2's numbers mostly just come from current flows plus the growth trajectory. The figures are large, but they are also rather conservative with not much assumed from modal shift or a step change in traffic flows due to the faster journey times.

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 is serving already established rail market. HS2's numbers mostly just come from current flows plus the growth trajectory. The figures are large, but they are also rather conservative with not much assumed from modal shift or a step change in traffic flows due to the faster journey times.

Indeed. If you look at the Phase 2b train service spec most of the trains per hour are similar to today's, so the growth on each route is catered for by some combination of longer trains, greater seating density than something like a Pendolino, and passengers for most of the intermediate stops not transferring to HS2. That doesn't actually seem very much to me considering the growth rates of recent years, especially if laws or economics make car use less attractive, so there's a good possibility HS2 will be full from Day 1!

 

[coppercapped]

I agree that demand modelling is a bit of a black art, which seems to involve a mixture of wishful thinking and witchcraft. I wouldn't smear the modellers who did the work for HS2 with the mess of HS1. There the government had backed itelf into an ideological cul-de-sac with wanting HS1 to be built with private capital as much as possible, and also could not stand being shown up by the French, with their superior LGV direct to Paris. The work done for HS2 does bear examination, and does feel right (which the HS1 figures never did to me).
As stated previously, precious few of the journeys made via Paddington actually originate / terminate in the Paddington area itself. You need to measure the throughout origin - destination journey times to get a fair comparison, including walking time between trains, waiting times (service frequency), and crowding penalties (have to wait for the next train becuse this one is too full). Taking all of that into account, stopping everything at OOC is a nett overall benefit to GWML users. Yes, some will experience slightly longer journey times, but they are outweighed by those who benefit.

You keep writing that - repetition doesn't make it true. Do you have any hard data other than that in an eight year old promotional document?

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not debating whether or not HS2 will attract the number of passengers that are predicted. I am doubting whether the number of passengers changing at OOC between HS2 to and from GW Main Line services, that is those trains that eastbound make their last call at Reading (or a station further west) or those trains westbound whose next stop is Reading (or a station further west), will be significant proportion of the trains' load.

These interchange passengers might be needed to make HS2's figures stack up - which is mostly what this is modelling is all about. There is no consideration at all of the disadvantage to the existing passengers on the GW.

The fact that most passengers change at Paddington for their onwards journeys is irrelevant, the percentage that do is similar for all the termini along the Euston Road. The only connections that might be better for local distribution at OOC are the routes to Richmond and the West London Line. That's going to be a lot. Passengers off the GW can equally well change at Paddington for Crossrail - OOC is not needed for that and there are no intermediate stations on Crossrail between these two points. The spectre of not being able to get a seat at Paddington in a Crossrail train which has previously called at OOC is just that - a classic case of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - an old Microsoft trick). Crossrail will offer high capacity: the trains are full size and long, will run at high frequency and anyway have fewer seats than one would expect in a train making a forty mile journey. In principle it is the Central Line on steroids so fewer seats are to be expected.

 

[PeterC]

I am note sure why people are so hung up about compulsory reservations, assuming that the rumours are correct. British Railways (yes Railways not Rail) managed this on peak holiday trains without the benefit of computers.

If you have an open ticket you simply obtain a "boarding card" (for want of a better term), which allocates you a seat, from a machine and use thast to pass through the gates onto the platform.

 

[Ianno87]

I am note sure why people are so hung up about compulsory reservations, assuming that the rumours are correct. British Railways (yes Railways not Rail) managed this on peak holiday trains without the benefit of computers.

If you have an open ticket you simply obtain a "boarding card" (for want of a better term), which allocates you a seat, from a machine and use thast to pass through the gates onto the platform.

Not even that nowadays, with Smartphone Apps and increasingly universal tech-savvy-ness of the population.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not even that nowadays, with Smartphone Apps and increasingly universal tech-savvy-ness of the population.

Indeed. Compulsory reservations generally are not the bind they once were, indeed I'm starting (for something with huge amounts of capacity, so the chance of a given train being actually full is low - Eurostars don't book up fully that often, for instance) to warm to the idea slightly (and I am, as I've said on the COVID threads, very firmly in favour of it for that period of limited capacity). With a seat selector so you don't get stuck with a bad seat, they have quite a lot of benefits as well as their disadvantages. For instance, it would eliminate the Euston scrum - why rush to the train if you know you've got your preferred seat, and everyone else has theirs too so you're unlikely to have to evict someone?

There are issues with where UK IC trains are used as local services. There are some such places where they shouldn't be because there is a perfectly good local service - for instance Coventry-Brum, Stockport-Manchester, MKC-Euston, (on topic)OOC-Euston and the likes, though nearer the time of travel you could release a quota of those tickets for each train based on filling up seats where that segment is the only one that isn't occupied for a specific seat. There are places where there is no alternative service, such as Crewe-Wigan inclusive, and the way around that could be either to hold back some quota or have a specified unreserved coach or area (which is what Thalys used to do for domestic German journeys before they had a spat with DB). So there are options.

There are issues with an airline-style pricing system, but you can have that without compulsory reservations for all (we do now - Advance fares), and you can have compulsory reservations but charge everyone the same price on every train. They do go together fairly well, but they don't have to.

 

[London Trains]

There are issues with where UK IC trains are used as local services. There are some such places where they shouldn't be because there is a perfectly good local service - for instance Coventry-Brum, Stockport-Manchester, MKC-Euston, (on topic)OOC-Euston and the likes, though nearer the time of travel you could release a quota of those tickets for each train based on filling up seats where that segment is the only one that isn't occupied for a specific seat. There are places where there is no alternative service, such as Crewe-Wigan inclusive, and the way around that could be either to hold back some quota or have a specified unreserved coach or area (which is what Thalys used to do for domestic German journeys before they had a spat with DB). So there are options.

This has brought up a very good point. I've always absolutely hated the idea of HS2 being compulsory reservation. But throughout the North, it will form the local service among other services.

Examples of places include:

Crewe - Warrington - Wigan - Preston - Lancaster - Oxenholme - Penrith - Carlisle

Crewe - Runcorn - Liverpool

Crewe - Manchester Airport - Manchester

Chesterfield - Sheffield

York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle

making HS2 compulsory reservation will destroy these journeys and massively overcrowd the non HS2 services (Avanti / EMR / LNER / TPE / LNWR / Northern / XC)

 

[Ianno87]

This has brought up a very good point. I've always absolutely hated the idea of HS2 being compulsory reservation. But throughout the North, it will form the local service among other services.

Examples of places include:

Crewe - Warrington - Wigan - Preston - Lancaster - Oxenholme - Penrith - Carlisle

Crewe - Runcorn - Liverpool

Crewe - Manchester Airport - Manchester

Chesterfield - Sheffield

York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle

making HS2 compulsory reservation will destroy these journeys and massively overcrowd the non HS2 services (Avanti / EMR / LNER / TPE / LNWR / Northern / XC)

I mean, it wouldn't be completely ridiculous to only have compulsory reservations on the High Speed bits, but permit walk-ups for 'local' journeys.

Sort-of like how South Eastern HS services accept any regular ticket on the non-High Speed sections.

 

[CW2]

You keep writing that - repetition doesn't make it true. Do you have any hard data other than that in an eight year old promotional document?

It's not a "promotional document", it is part of the business case evaluation for HS2. It was used in evidence for the select committee that examined the Bill in detail, and which was voted on and passed in Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not debating whether or not HS2 will attract the number of passengers that are predicted. I am doubting whether the number of passengers changing at OOC between HS2 to and from GW Main Line services, that is those trains that eastbound make their last call at Reading (or a station further west) or those trains westbound whose next stop is Reading (or a station further west), will be significant proportion of the trains' load. These interchange passengers might be needed to make HS2's figures stack up - which is mostly what this is modelling is all about. There is no consideration at all of the disadvantage to the existing passengers on the GW.

The logic for OOC station goes something like this:
With 18 tph running into Euston, the onward transport infrastructure would be utterly overwhelmed. It's necessary to split the HS2 load over two interchanges. Bearing in mind the possible routes out of Euston, and the locations where land is available to build a sizeable interchange station, OOC is the only sensible answer. Once the notion of HS2 running via Heathrow had been ditched, connecting at OOC for Heathrow Express was a must. Because of the density of trains on the GWML Fast Lines, once you stop one train you pretty much have to stop them all. As the demand modelling showed - even if you choose not to believe it - the disbenefit of a 3 - 4 minute journey time extension on the GWML services is outweighed by the overall connectional benefits.

The fact that most passengers change at Paddington for their onwards journeys is irrelevant, the percentage that do is similar for all the termini along the Euston Road.

Not true. The percentage is higher at Paddington because other than St Mary's Hospital there's very little employment in the vicinity of the station. Compare tht with the likes of Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, and Kings Cross, where there is significant employment nearby Sure, lots of people go forward deeper into London from each of those termini, but not as much as Paddington.

The only connections that might be better for local distribution at OOC are the routes to Richmond and the West London Line. That's going to be a lot. Passengers off the GW can equally well change at Paddington for Crossrail - OOC is not needed for that and there are no intermediate stations on Crossrail between these two points. The spectre of not being able to get a seat at Paddington in a Crossrail train which has previously called at OOC is just that - a classic case of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - an old Microsoft trick). Crossrail will offer high capacity: the trains are full size and long, will run at high frequency and anyway have fewer seats than one would expect in a train making a forty mile journey. In principle it is the Central Line on steroids so fewer seats are to be expected.

It depend what you are comparing. If OOC didn't exist then 12 of the 24 Crossrail train per hour would be starting at Paddington, so capacity would be no issue. If you turned up and were faced with a wedged Crossrail that had come from further down the GWML then you could wait a few minutes for an empty Paddington starter. That is no longer the case. With OOC those Paddington starters become OOC starters. So there's a good chance they will load up with HS2 interchanging passengers before they even get to Paddington. So the smart commuter from (say) Reading will soon suss out that it is better to make an interchange at OOC onto an empty train there than at Paddington onto a full(er) one.
As I stated in an earlier post, my view is that this is likely to be opposite in the evening peak, where passengers may prefer to board at Paddington to be sure of a seat on the GWML.
So yes, commuters from (say) Reading to central London may suffer a small disbenefit in terms of door-to-door journey times, depending on the exact destination. However this is outweighed by the overall benefits to a wider number of people afforded by the interchange possibilities at OOC. It's a good thing! Embrace it.

Edit: Typo corrected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I mean, it wouldn't be completely ridiculous to only have compulsory reservations on the High Speed bits, but permit walk-ups for 'local' journeys.

Sort-of like how South Eastern HS services accept any regular ticket on the non-High Speed sections.

There is an example of this elsewhere - SBB insists on the acceptance of walk-up SBB fares for any train with two stops within Switzerland. So for example the Milan EC Pendolinos are compulsory reservation past Domodossola but not on the Swiss side. (While Domodossola is in Italy, it's considered Swiss domestic for ticketing purposes).

Realistically, though, there is likely to be enough space for people to take a reservation in seats freed up by people getting off further south.

 

[HSTEd]

Most of the time people use intercity trains for short journeys, like Manchester-Stockport, its not particularly that the IC train is inherently more attractive.

It's often the journey time difference.

ICWC covers Manchester-Stockport in 7 minutes.
It takes Northern up to 12.

Even with only two stops.

Get higher performance units on the local services and this problem will be significantly reduced.