The Windsor Link Railway

[swt_passenger]

I wonder how the property development aspect, overlooking the Thames, prime riverside site etc, etc will get on now...

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe it is a Heathrow connection solution promoted by the Borough of Spelthorne.

The Windsor link ‘team’ also put forward something about autonomous pods and taking over the Colnbrook branch. I’m afraid I lost interest after the opening paragraph when I saw who was behind it. There’s a report in NCE...

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ooted-for-heathrow-expansion/10035416.article

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Deeply confused .. didn't this open in 1988?

 

[swt_passenger]

Deeply confused .. didn't this open in 1988?

I think that might be a second hand comment...

 

[yorksrob]

Deeply confused .. didn't this open in 1988?

Quite

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

https://www.windsorobserver.co.uk/news/17443644.windsor-rail-link-rail-plan-gets-a-surprise-boost/

THE businessman behind the controversial Windsor Link rail planbelieves it could be back on track - two months after a seemingly fatal rejection by the Government.

George Bathurst's £125million plan involves the creation of a new 'all in one station' in the town to replace Windsor's existing Riverside and Central stations.

It would create a direct line from Slough through Windsor via a tunnel towards Staines and Waterloo, the route eventually being linked directly to Heathrow.

After eight years of planning he presented it to the Government before Christmas to tie in with its call for 'market led' proposals, only to have it rejected by the Department of Transport.

Last Friday though Mr Bathurst received a letter from the Department which lifted his spirits, saying the first phase of his scheme had been assessed again. This is the part that would link Slough to Staines and Waterloo through Windsor and the letter described it as a 'scheme which creates the potential for town development by removing the rail corridor from the surface', adding that 'this could generate significant local benefit'.

Mr Bathurst says he believes the Government could be softening its attitude. He said: "They are feeling their way - their attitude is evolving as they start to get used to market led proposals.

"For 100 years only government have taken on major plans like this - this is something new."

Mr Bathurst says he may resubmit the scheme.

Back at Christmas Mr Bathurst, who lives in Trinity Place, Windsor, admitted he was 'really disappointed' with the Government's initial rejection.

The former Royal Borough councillor said: "It obviously was not helpful and some people like to kick you when you are down. It was a myth that former colleagues supported me because I was on the council with them.

"But with long term projects like this you have to accept setbacks."

He believes Windsor has transport problems not experienced by surrounding towns, saying: "People who attend public meetings to protest new plans are not the ones you actually see on 6am train."

He said hoped the plan could be up and running within 5 years

What do you think?

 

[yorksrob]

I say build a line whare one is needed, for example to Tavistock.

Also, what problems do the people on the 6am train from Wondsor have, that will be solved by this plan ?

 

[Aictos]

I think it could be useful as it would open direct links between stations on London Waterloo to Windsor line with stations on the London Paddington and Windsor line avoiding Central London for example those living in West and South West London would benefit in much the same way that users of the London Bridge to London Victoria services do.

It would just mean the rolling stock would need to be AC/DC capable and ensure Slough to this new station was wired up with OHL and then 3rd rail onto Staines so use the new station to changeover between the two in much the same way that Farringdon has done for decades.

So yes I am very much in support of it and hope it does become a reality.

 

[Ianno87]

The problem with the original plan was that it was trying to solve life, the universe and everything by way of this tunnel under Windsor.

Something more pared back and realistic (as is suggested) might fly a little better.

This is essentially now involving extending the Windsor-Waterloo through to Slough, saving the cost of the GWR branch unit/crew and providing more Slough-Windsor capacity through longer trains (the branch is very, very busy at times), with the added benefit of new direct rail links from Slough to Staines etc.

If most/all the cost can be funded through development (rather than HM Treasury, thus not detrimental to schemes elsewhere), and is palatable locally in Windsor, go for it.

 

[Aictos]

However that said would they electrify the new link as 3rd rail which means existing SWT trains can head to Slough or would they changeover at the new Windsor station between 3rd rail and OHL bearing in mind the costs involved.

This is a good idea but I would hope the GW path is used wisely ie could it be used for Crossrail?

 

[swt_passenger]

This bloke has an impressive track record of completely misinterpreting or misrepresenting any other organisation’s point of view. IIRC at one stage he basically announced that Network Rail “supported” the plan, but this was found to be complete exaggeration.

Who’s to say this isn’t a highly distorted view of whatever DfT have said?

PS could this not have been posted in the recent thread on this topic, I think we have about half a dozen discussions about the Windsor - Slough scheme now...

 

[DarloRich]

If most/all the cost can be funded through development (rather than HM Treasury, thus not detrimental to schemes elsewhere), and is palatable locally in Windsor, go for it.

agreed

 

[tbtc]

This is essentially now involving extending the Windsor-Waterloo through to Slough, saving the cost of the GWR branch unit/crew and providing more Slough-Windsor capacity through longer trains (the branch is very, very busy at times), with the added benefit of new direct rail links from Slough to Staines etc.

If most/all the cost can be funded through development (rather than HM Treasury, thus not detrimental to schemes elsewhere), and is palatable locally in Windsor, go for it.

I've no skin in the game (and despair at a lot of the "link two adjacent places with a bit of Crayola" ideas) but I can at least see the logic in this idea - linking areas around south west London to the GWML at Slough, removing a stand-alone "shuttle", giving another "orbital" link rather than forcing everything through existing interchanges.

I'm not saying I'd pay for it, but if there are schemes like this where other people feel the investment is warranted enough to dip their own fingers into their own pockets then I'm happy for it to go ahead - that's the kind of privately funded scheme that we should be encouraging.

That said, I don't claim to know the logistics on the ground (there's a vague memory of a height difference or some other logistical problem in linking the two current stations?), I'm just suggesting that if there's sufficient local demand and sufficient local investment then I've no problem in it (despite the obvious temptation to moan about lack of investment in t'OopNorth - if the good people of the Thames Valley are paying for this then I don't begrudge them - it's not like it comes at the opportunity cost of a scheme closer to my back yard).

could this not have been posted in the recent thread on this topic, I think we have about half a dozen discussions about the Windsor - Slough scheme now...

Agreed - and this on the same day that there's yet another renaissance for "Aberystwyth - Carmarthen" idea (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ay-between-aberystwyth-and-carmarthen.178508/)... it seems like every potential re-opening is being discussed at the same time these days >>

Tavistock

Bingo!

 

[yorksrob]

I've no skin in the game (and despair at a lot of the "link two adjacent places with a bit of Crayola" ideas) but I can at least see the logic in this idea - linking areas around south west London to the GWML at Slough, removing a stand-alone "shuttle", giving another "orbital" link rather than forcing everything through existing interchanges.

I'm not saying I'd pay for it, but if there are schemes like this where other people feel the investment is warranted enough to dip their own fingers into their own pockets then I'm happy for it to go ahead - that's the kind of privately funded scheme that we should be encouraging.

That said, I don't claim to know the logistics on the ground (there's a vague memory of a height difference or some other logistical problem in linking the two current stations?), I'm just suggesting that if there's sufficient local demand and sufficient local investment then I've no problem in it (despite the obvious temptation to moan about lack of investment in t'OopNorth - if the good people of the Thames Valley are paying for this then I don't begrudge them - it's not like it comes at the opportunity cost of a scheme closer to my back yard).



Agreed - and this on the same day that there's yet another renaissance for "Aberystwyth - Carmarthen" idea (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ay-between-aberystwyth-and-carmarthen.178508/)... it seems like every potential re-opening is being discussed at the same time these days >>



Bingo!

It's whether the locals actually want it though. A recent letter in Modern Railways suggested that there are at least some arguments from the local area against.

Anyway, I'd rather transport investment were decided on the basis of where actually needed it, rather than who's got the a handy millionnaire. Take another much derided scheme, Skipton - Colne. There you have a reasonably deprived area that could be threaded into the more prosperous areas of the Aire valley. Would there be as much of a potential advantage in terms of employment opportunities etc in enabling through trains from Feltham to Slough - particularly as that opportunity already exists, albeit with an extremely short cross-town transfer.

I'm not sure from an operational point of view that it would be that easy to thread Southern Region trains from Waterloo into the Great Western mainline either. Alternatively, would it be worth major infrastructure costs just to extend the terminus of the Southern Windsor branch to the Slough bay platform.

This sounds very much like what you would call a solution looking for a solution.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't think it would release very much usable ex railway surface land for development, but as a simple extension of the SWR Windsor trains to Slough I could see it being a useful transport connection though. Well segregated, with no level crossings, it might be justifiable as a short local 3rd rail extension too, solving the long term electrification and empty stock transfer problems of the current GWR branch, which is a fairly busy branch. With the Heathrow Western Access project though, all the extended aims of through running to the airport, to the west etc are pie in the sky.

 

[pdeaves]

With the Heathrow Western Access project though, all the extended aims of through running to the airport, to the west etc are pie in the sky

Quite. We already have Western access (as far as choice of route, development, etc. is concerned). The promoters also appeared to try to attach this local scheme to Southern access, when it doesn't really fulfill that aim. It might be better to scale back the claims and concentrate on local benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is essentially now involving extending the Windsor-Waterloo through to Slough, saving the cost of the GWR branch unit/crew and providing more Slough-Windsor capacity through longer trains (the branch is very, very busy at times), with the added benefit of new direct rail links from Slough to Staines etc.

I can see the benefits there, but it's DOO (so by crew you mean driver, so you could possibly increase the costs unless the Riverside unit could do Slough and back in the layover), and you could probably provide that capacity by extending the platforms a bit and getting a pair of 3-car Class 230s in, with an all-longitudinal layout for maximum standing capacity. You could even get an environmental gain by having them as battery ones charged at the Slough end.

 

[Ianno87]

I can see the benefits there, but it's DOO (so by crew you mean driver, so you could possibly increase the costs unless the Riverside unit could do Slough and back in the layover), and you could probably provide that capacity by extending the platforms a bit and getting a pair of 3-car Class 230s in, with an all-longitudinal layout for maximum standing capacity. You could even get an environmental gain by having them as battery ones charged at the Slough end.

Standard SWR layover at Riverside is currently 32 minutes. So you could have up to 1 minute dwell at Riverside plus as much as 11 minutes running time each way (its currently about 6 each way between Slough and W&E Central) and still make an 8 minute turnround at Slough without requiring an extra SWR diagram.

All in all, a long term ops cost saving for "the railway".

 

[Bald Rick]

No doubt a carefully worded letter from Sir Humphrey.

The original rejection was in the context of Southern links into Heathrow, where there are far better schemes, that cost less, and with reasonably well thought out proposals. And at least one has serious money behind it.

I suspect (but don’t know) that the letter from the DfT was simply to say that the original Windsor Link scheme is a different proposition, which if it generates the benefits claimed, might be worth pursuing as a privately funded project. However, the benefits claimed are almost entirely property based; there would be very little in terms of transport benefits. Cost savings would be minimal: what you save on resources by combining the two services would almost certainly be offset by the running costs for the equipment in the tunnels and a sub surface station.

And let us not forget the proposal is to dig a cut and cover tunnel right through the middle of Windsor, in very close proximity to the River Thames, and across one of Windsor’s busiest roads.

Let us also not forget that to generate the sort of property value necessary to get close to paying for such a project would require significant scale and height, again right in the middle of Windsor. And even if the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead took complete leave of their senses and agreed to such a property development, any developer worth his or her salt would surely point out that most of the development proposed is on land unaffected by the railway proposal, and therefore could be done without incurring the rather significant cost of the railway works (which will be, conservatively, at least half a billion quid).

If it ever happens, we’re into hat eating territory again.

Incidentally, I think the thread title should be changed. I’d be astonished if this proposal was ‘revived by the DfT’.

 

[swt_passenger]

No doubt a carefully worded letter from Sir Humphrey.

The original rejection was in the context of Southern links into Heathrow, where there are far better schemes, that cost less, and with reasonably well thought out proposals. And at least one has serious money behind it.

I suspect (but don’t know) that the letter from the DfT was simply to say that the original Windsor Link scheme is a different proposition, which if it generates the benefits claimed, might be worth pursuing as a privately funded project. However, the benefits claimed are almost entirely property based; there would be very little in terms of transport benefits. Cost savings would be minimal: what you save on resources by combining the two services would almost certainly be offset by the running costs for the equipment in the tunnels and a sub surface station.

And let us not forget the proposal is to dig a cut and cover tunnel right through the middle of Windsor, in very close proximity to the River Thames, and across one of Windsor’s busiest roads.

Let us also not forget that to generate the sort of property value necessary to get close to paying for such a project would require significant scale and height, again right in the middle of Windsor. And even if the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead took complete leave of their senses and agreed to such a property development, any developer worth his or her salt would surely point out that most of the development proposed is on land unaffected by the railway proposal, and therefore could be done without incurring the rather significant cost of the railway works (which will be, conservatively, at least half a billion quid).

If it ever happens, we’re into hat eating territory again.

Incidentally, I think the thread title should be changed. I’d be astonished if this proposal was ‘revived by the DfT’.

The voice of reason as always. I expect your hats will be safe...

 

[Clip]

If it ever happens, we’re into hat eating territory again.

The hat makers of Luton are really hoping you spark some life back into their lives

 

[Bald Rick]

The voice of reason as always. I expect your hats will be safe...

I’ve done a bit of thinking about this project, and I owe the forum an apology for not spotting this earlier, but the project is in my view almost certainly a trojan horse for property development.

What little engineering that has been done is rather suspect - gradients much steeper than the maximum permitted, no vertical transitions into the portals, bored tunnels with insufficient ground cover and a station box below the water table being some of the most obvious examples. This suggests it hasn’t been looked at in anything more than a cursory level of detail, and certainly not the GRIP 2 level claimed by the promoter in his past presentations.

Given the proposed shallowness of the tunnel, it would be impossible to construct buildings of any height above them (at least not without a very expensive raft) which rather defeats the whole object of the scheme. But the proposal also includes much property development on land adjacent to the newly buried railway. Of course, there is nothing to stop that development happening without burying the railway, apart from planning policy.

Therefore, to me, this looks like a proposal to deliver a large property development on the premise of a transport proposal (that very few people actually need or want, but sounds exciting), such that planning policy has to change. The transport elements of which would then be found to be too expensive / physics-law-breaking to deliver in the later stages of development. But by that point the principle of the property element of the proposal would have been accepted by the planning authority. And the rather profitable development adjacent to the railway then happens without any new railway, and the developer gets a nice fat cheque instead.

Perhaps I’m being too cynical. Or perhaps the promoter(s) really don’t have a clue.

 

[MarkyT]

If the aim is just to extend the SWR Windsor trains to Slough, another way to achieve that would be via reversal at Riverside and using a new 1.5km link away from the built up area crossing the river to the GWR alignment as illustrated. This would allow what remains of Central to be closed and the viaduct route into Windsor converted into a high quality cycle route. The new junction would be about 400m from the platform ends at Riverside. I've also shown a possible new station at Chalvey. The GWR line could be redoubled and it looks like there's room for twin 200m platforms at Slough. The new curves shown are approximately 300m near Windsor and 250m radius near Slough. The alignment would have to cross part of Eton College golf course.

 

[edwin_m]

The alignment would have to cross part of Eton College golf course.

I guess that would rule it out in about four microseconds.

 

[tbtc]

It's whether the locals actually want it though. A recent letter in Modern Railways suggested that there are at least some arguments from the local area against.

Anyway, I'd rather transport investment were decided on the basis of where actually needed it, rather than who's got the a handy millionnaire. Take another much derided scheme, Skipton - Colne. There you have a reasonably deprived area that could be threaded into the more prosperous areas of the Aire valley. Would there be as much of a potential advantage in terms of employment opportunities etc in enabling through trains from Feltham to Slough - particularly as that opportunity already exists, albeit with an extremely short cross-town transfer.

I'm not sure from an operational point of view that it would be that easy to thread Southern Region trains from Waterloo into the Great Western mainline either. Alternatively, would it be worth major infrastructure costs just to extend the terminus of the Southern Windsor branch to the Slough bay platform.

This sounds very much like what you would call a solution looking for a solution.

I don't think the suggestion was about "threading Southern Region trains from Waterloo into the Great Western mainline", just extending the current Waterloo services so that they terminate at Slough (where the current GWR shuttles terminate after their two mile journey from Windsor & Eton Central). Replace the current (twenty minute) 165 with a (thirty minute) 701.

I can see some benefits with that, I can see some flaws - maybe a twenty minute shuttle is more attractive than a half hourly service from Waterloo, maybe the number of people who would benefit from a through service from Slough to Feltham/ Richmond/ Clapham Junction are outweighed by those less likely to use a half hourly shuttle, maybe a 165 only managing a dozen miles each hour as it shuttles up and down the branch is a pretty poor use of resources, maybe a five/ten coach 701 is going to be overkill, who knows.

But at least it's an interesting idea with someone willing to put their fingers in their pocket (rather than just one of the long list of weak schemes that have feasibility studies and consultations done every couple of years and yet can never make the numbers look sufficient enough to justify).

I dunno, I'm just interested in where heavy rail would be put to best use, rather than starting from an answer and working backwards each time. Maybe there's an argument that the GWR branch line could be replaced by a guided busway, since it seems a waste of resources to have a 165 trundling along at twenty miles per hour?

Yes, there's a cross-town transfer available in Windsor (albeit, changing from a thirty minute frequency on one service to a twenty minute frequency means some journeys will mean you have around half an hour in Windsor despite the walk between the two stations being less than half a mile - not great for most members of the public).

I'm not saying the scheme would be top of my list (and @Bald Rick has poured enough cold water on the proposal to fill his ten-gallon hat, with his pesky facts! ), just that it's worth considering schemes that don't just involve bringing back something closed in the 1960s. We could have another "orbital" link, we could remove a "stub" branchline, we could taken some pressure off other routes... but it wasn't invented by the Victorians so it's not as well supported as some schemes!

As for Colne... we have the Aire Valley line where we are ordering EMUs specifically so that we can extend the four coach services to six coaches long because we cannot cope with capacity on existing services... where are these additional Colne passengers going to fit? Where are the paths for additional services? Are you planning on electrifying all the way from Skipton to Blackpool South (so EMUs can be extended beyond Skipton), or will this be unelectrified in the hope that you'll find some spare DMUs to run Leeds - Colne services? The whole thing is just a pipe dream.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the suggestion was about "threading Southern Region trains from Waterloo into the Great Western mainline", just extending the current Waterloo services so that they terminate at Slough (where the current GWR shuttles terminate after their two mile journey from Windsor & Eton Central). Replace the current (twenty minute) 165 with a (thirty minute) 701.

I can see some benefits with that, I can see some flaws - maybe a twenty minute shuttle is more attractive than a half hourly service from Waterloo, maybe the number of people who would benefit from a through service from Slough to Feltham/ Richmond/ Clapham Junction are outweighed by those less likely to use a half hourly shuttle, maybe a 165 only managing a dozen miles each hour as it shuttles up and down the branch is a pretty poor use of resources, maybe a five/ten coach 701 is going to be overkill, who knows.

But at least it's an interesting idea with someone willing to put their fingers in their pocket (rather than just one of the long list of weak schemes that have feasibility studies and consultations done every couple of years and yet can never make the numbers look sufficient enough to justify).

I dunno, I'm just interested in where heavy rail would be put to best use, rather than starting from an answer and working backwards each time. Maybe there's an argument that the GWR branch line could be replaced by a guided busway, since it seems a waste of resources to have a 165 trundling along at twenty miles per hour?

Yes, there's a cross-town transfer available in Windsor (albeit, changing from a thirty minute frequency on one service to a twenty minute frequency means some journeys will mean you have around half an hour in Windsor despite the walk between the two stations being less than half a mile - not great for most members of the public).

I'm not saying the scheme would be top of my list (and @Bald Rick has poured enough cold water on the proposal to fill his ten-gallon hat, with his pesky facts! ), just that it's worth considering schemes that don't just involve bringing back something closed in the 1960s. We could have another "orbital" link, we could remove a "stub" branchline, we could taken some pressure off other routes... but it wasn't invented by the Victorians so it's not as well supported as some schemes!

As for Colne... we have the Aire Valley line where we are ordering EMUs specifically so that we can extend the four coach services to six coaches long because we cannot cope with capacity on existing services... where are these additional Colne passengers going to fit? Where are the paths for additional services? Are you planning on electrifying all the way from Skipton to Blackpool South (so EMUs can be extended beyond Skipton), or will this be unelectrified in the hope that you'll find some spare DMUs to run Leeds - Colne services? The whole thing is just a pipe dream.

In terms of whether a proposed Skipton to Colne line was electrified or not, it's a non-argument. It would be powered in the same way as whatever Colne - Blackpool is.

I think that whereas you would achieve comparatively little by extending Waterloo to Slough (given it's already doable by rail with a short pedestrian transfer) it's much more difficult for passengers to transfer between Colne and Skipton, therefore extending the existing service to Skipton for passengers to transfer, would provide a much greater benefit.

 

[MarkyT]

An animation showing a proposed layout and how trains might reverse at Windsor and Eton Riverside station:

 

[Non Multi]

If the aim is just to extend the SWR Windsor trains to Slough, another way to achieve that would be via reversal at Riverside and using a new 1.5km link away from the built up area crossing the river to the GWR alignment as illustrated. This would allow what remains of Central to be closed and the viaduct route into Windsor converted into a high quality cycle route. The new junction would be about 400m from the platform ends at Riverside. I've also shown a possible new station at Chalvey. The GWR line could be redoubled and it looks like there's room for twin 200m platforms at Slough. The new curves shown are approximately 300m near Windsor and 250m radius near Slough. The alignment would have to cross part of Eton College golf course.
View attachment 59504

I funnily enough had basically the same idea yesterday. However the reversal link requires a bridge over the Thames, a mile+ of viaduct/embankment and the approval of the landowner, Eton College. I can't see Eton College agreeing with the plans considering the very significant disruption and massive earthworks through their sports grounds. Boathouse/warehouses on Romney island would also require demolition or relocation. I think electrification masts (for portals) are now on the trackbed of the extant disused Windsor bay at Slough.

White Bus operate their free P1 bus service that runs every 20 minutes from Barclays Bank/High St bus stop C outside Windsor & Eton Central Shopping centre. This bus route takes 2 minutes to travel to Riverside Station bus stop.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I really cannot see this happening. The inter-regional connectivity between the GWR and SWR networks can and will be provided far more effectively by western and southern rail accesses to Heathrow. You're a damn sight more likely to have a direct train to Heathrow on your line than one to Windsor, and it will presumably be made possible to interchange there without paying an airport fare. Interchanges not possible via the Airport may well be possible via Reading, or via any new GWR-to-SWR services set up when Old Oak Common opens.

 

[The Ham]

I’ve done a bit of thinking about this project, and I owe the forum an apology for not spotting this earlier, but the project is in my view almost certainly a trojan horse for property development.

What little engineering that has been done is rather suspect - gradients much steeper than the maximum permitted, no vertical transitions into the portals, bored tunnels with insufficient ground cover and a station box below the water table being some of the most obvious examples. This suggests it hasn’t been looked at in anything more than a cursory level of detail, and certainly not the GRIP 2 level claimed by the promoter in his past presentations.

Given the proposed shallowness of the tunnel, it would be impossible to construct buildings of any height above them (at least not without a very expensive raft) which rather defeats the whole object of the scheme. But the proposal also includes much property development on land adjacent to the newly buried railway. Of course, there is nothing to stop that development happening without burying the railway, apart from planning policy.

Therefore, to me, this looks like a proposal to deliver a large property development on the premise of a transport proposal (that very few people actually need or want, but sounds exciting), such that planning policy has to change. The transport elements of which would then be found to be too expensive / physics-law-breaking to deliver in the later stages of development. But by that point the principle of the property element of the proposal would have been accepted by the planning authority. And the rather profitable development adjacent to the railway then happens without any new railway, and the developer gets a nice fat cheque instead.

Perhaps I’m being too cynical. Or perhaps the promoter(s) really don’t have a clue.

Anything related to planning has to be demonstrated to be feasible before planning is granted.

Once planning is granted there will be legally binding planning conditions attached, if the planning authority are worth their salt there will be a time limit associated with any improvements (upon occupation of the 500th unit or within 10 years of the occupation of the 50th unit).

If there's no time limit then you will get developers building (if it's the 500th unit) 499 units and then walking away.