Western Rail Link to Heathrow

[KeithMacdonald]

I know the Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates thread has often mentioned Heathrow in passing, but I wondered if there a thread specifically on the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.

 

As mentioned by Network Rail here;

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/western/western-rail-link-to-heathrow/

 

Quote

As part of our Railway Upgrade Plan the Department for Transport asked us to develop plans to build a new 6.5km rail link between the Great Western Main Line and London Heathrow Airport. The proposed rail connection would speed up journeys to Britain’s busiest international airport, by allowing passengers to travel to the airport from the South Coast, South West, South Wales and West Midlands without going into London Paddington.The Western Rail Link to Heathrow would leave the Main Line between Langley and Iver. It would then descend underneath the main railway line into a cutting before entering a 5km tunnel. The tunnel would pass under Richings Park and Colnbrook and then merge with existing rail lines underground at Heathrow Terminal 5.

The proposed rail link would:

Reduce rail journey times between Reading and Heathrow by delivering a new, faster, frequent, more reliable direct train service to Heathrow with four trains per hour in each direction. All trains would call at Reading and Slough and alternate trains at Twyford and Maidenhead. Journey times could be as short as 26 minutes from Reading and 6 to 7 minutes from Slough.

 

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Western-Rail-Link-to-Heathrow-map-724x1024.jpg

 

Then they say:

 

Quote

All responses have been analysed and we will be holding public information events in November 2019.

 

So (presumably) we'll be hearing more from them quite soon?

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Yes there has already been a thread here on this topic, but it hasn’t seen any activity for a while.

The subject has also popped up in various discussions on HEX, GWML electrification, Heathrow rail connections, 3rd runway proposals, HS2, southern rail access etc.

 

As for the new route.
It’s more than just a proposal, being an actual fully designed, live project, which has been underway for a number of years.

The western rail link should have been under construction by now (construction was due to start in spring 2017),  but the project was delayed for 2 years and more public and stakeholder consultation carried out. That was followed by repeating and extending  the consultation exercise, further delaying the project.

Similary, the national infrastructure planning submission to the planning inspectorate has been pushed back, as more work has had to be done with regard to the detailed plans and coordination with other local major development projects.

The final government go-ahead will be considered once the application has gone through due process.
 

Opening is now predicted to be around 2026/27, rather than the original 2021/22.

 

Ron
 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

Reviving an old thread........

 

Delayed, then delayed again, followed by being frozen during Covid 19.......

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/mps-push-for-revival-of-900m-heathrow-western-rail-link-proposals-21-03-2023/

 

https://news.railbusinessdaily.com/mps-back-western-rail-link-to-heathrow/

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

[Mike_Walker]

Speaking to the Marlow & District Railway Society last week, Mark Hopwood (GWR MD) said that whilst it was highly desirable there was no funding currently available and none likely in the foreseeable future.

[Ron Ron Ron]

8 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Speaking to the Marlow & District Railway Society last week, Mark Hopwood (GWR MD) said that whilst it was highly desirable there was no funding currently available and none likely in the foreseeable future.

 

According to the report, NR also dispersed the project team to other tasks.

A great shame, as the project was already designed, consultation processes done (3 times) and almost at the point of putting together the formal application to the SoS.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

Another, new, problem is a large hole full of a water next to the GWML as a reult of recent gravel extraction which I think gets pretty close to teh line of part of the proposed junction.

 

And in any case the whole scheme begs the very simple question of where the line capacity will come from to run fast. limited stop (Twyford possibly, Maidenhead and Slough only) trains between Reading and LHR.   Something will have to go in order to provide that capacity and that means Liz Line trains (which would be the logical paths to use in any case as GWR will be mainly off the Reiiefs east of Dolhin Jcn for most of the time come the next timetable change.

 

Incidentally I wonder to what extent Heathrw Express is still valid  asa route to Heathrow from the London side.  I watched sec veral trains at paddington last Saturday and while loadinhgs were reasonable on trains arriving from LHE they were minimal going in the opposite direction.  I wonder how long it will last and could it's end - if it happens - see Heathrow Ltd selling its rail infrastructure to TfL who would then be the sole user? 

[jonhall]

I did see this analysis of Heathrow Express' future https://www.londonreconnections.com/2023/the-slow-death-of-heathrow-express/ 

 

Jon

[The Pilotman]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I watched sec veral trains at paddington last Saturday and while loadinhgs were reasonable on trains arriving from LHE they were minimal going in the opposite direction. 

Lahore, Pakistan or Loch Eil Outward Bound? 😁

I don’t know what time you were there Mike but Saturday afternoons/evenings are generally the quietest time of the week at Heathrow. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

......And in any case the whole scheme begs the very simple question of where the line capacity will come from to run fast. limited stop (Twyford possibly, Maidenhead and Slough only) trains between Reading and LHR.   Something will have to go in order to provide that capacity and that means Liz Line trains (which would be the logical paths to use in any case as GWR will be mainly off the Reiiefs east of Dolhin Jcn for most of the time come the next timetable change.

 

 

The capacity is there.

There are 4 paths used by Elizabeth Line trains between airport junction and London.

The Western rail link trains would mirror that on the western side, between Langley and Reading.

 

Quite why they went for putting the full length of the new line between the GWML and T5 into a tunnel, I can't fathom.

Sure there was some local concern about a new line, but most of the route is over open land, largely former gravel extraction works and its associated overgrown wasteland.

There's a golf course in the way, so tunnel under that and use some short lengths of cut and cover (Oops! I mean "Green Tunnel") and the cost must surely be much reduced?

All the local authorities are 100% in favour of the line anyway.

 

 

.

 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Quite why they went for putting the full length of the new line between the GWML and T5 into a tunnel, I can't fathom.

 

.

 

Don't forget Heathrows plans for a 3rd runway etc - al that expansion is going to eat up lots of  'green' land. Putting the proposed railway in a tunnel  is one less thing carving up the landscape which is already blighted by motorways etc...

 

Besides, as HS2 has shown, tunnels are a great way of nullifying objections from environmentalists as regards surface damage.

[jjb1970]

On Heathrow Express, I'm surprised people still use it unless they're on business and claiming expenses. Even before the Elizabeth Line, the older Heathrow Connect didn't add much to the journey time and was an awful lot cheaper. And now the Elizabeth Line offers lower cost and much more connectivity. Yes the trains are metro style trains, but it's not an especially long journey and a more basic onboard experience will be more than offset by the advantages of travel beyond Paddington for many or much lower fares.

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

On Heathrow Express, I'm surprised people still use it unless they're on business and claiming expenses. ………..

Largely awareness.

HEX is what arriving tourists and business people are made aware of before and during travel….and when they arrive.

HEX is mentioned in tourist guide books and online travel sites, like TripAdvisor.

They used to have adverts placed in inflight magazines ( remember them?) and when you arrive at Heathrow, there are big adverts and sign posts throughout the terminal, as you make your way from the gates to passport control and baggage reclaim.

 

Until recently, the direction signage right up to the entrance to the T5 railway station, was heavily biased towards HEX, with smaller font and little mention of what was Heathrow Connect.

I’ve noticed that has changed with the opening of the Elizabeth Line.

 

Note that if you’re making your travel plans a few months ahead, you can purchase HEX tickets in advance for less than the EL or the Piccadilly line.
£5.50 one-way

Many tourists book their travel itineraries several months in advance.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, The Pilotman said:

Lahore, Pakistan or Loch Eil Outward Bound? 😁

I don’t know what time you were there Mike but Saturday afternoons/evenings are generally the quietest time of the week at Heathrow. 

Yes, I know it's quiet then - and it was.  But the imbalance of journeys in each direction was the interesting bit (although I realise that it depends on the pattern of flights).  HEX passenger figures are also well down although that no doubt also reflects the loss of Heathrow Connect from their carryings.

 

11 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

The capacity is there.

There are 4 paths used by Elizabeth Line trains between airport junction and London.

The Western rail link trains would mirror that on the western side, between Langley and Reading.

 

Quite why they went for putting the full length of the new line between the GWML and T5 into a tunnel, I can't fathom.

Sure there was some local concern about a new line, but most of the route is over open land, largely former gravel extraction works and its associated overgrown wasteland.

There's a golf course in the way, so tunnel under that and use some short lengths of cut and cover (Oops! I mean "Green Tunnel") and the cost must surely be much reduced?

All the local authorities are 100% in favour of the line anyway.

 

 

.

 

Agree absolutely re the ridiculous tunnelling nonsense.   Most (all?) of the tunnelling will be below the top of the water table just to add a touch of piquancy to the tunnellers task'- not so much 'underwater tunnelling' as 'in water tunnelling' as the water level in the latest gravel pit east of Langley clearly demonstrates. 

 

As far as line capaciity is concerned from the new timetabel there are two each GWR and Liz Line trains per off-peak hour from to/from Reading plus two freight paths (if the original Crossrail agreement is still honoured)  so there won't be room for four Heathrow trains per hour although two would probably fit.  So logically the Crossrail trains could run via LHR and the only stations potentially losing frequency would be Iver and West Drayton.   In view of the number of people living west of the airport who work there fast trains - as seems at times to be what is proposed - will in any case potentially miss out a good part of the likely market.

 

The new Liz Line timetable looks like a masterpiece of SNCF timetabling practice and resource under utilisation with off-peak Down trains arriving at rRading 2 to 3 minutes before the Up working departs and then occupying a platform line for 30 minutes.  Building in some perturbation tolerance very clearly makes sense but occupying a platform line at a busy station like Reading for just over 31 minutes is poor platform occupation planning.  It's also poor set utilisation as it will effectively cost TfL the loss of c. 8-10 hours of set running time daily.  It's in stark contrast to the much shorter turnrounds at Abbey Wood of c.12 -15 minutes at most..

[Mike_Walker]

Actually the plan, if it ever comes to fruition which looks unlikely, is that LHR would be served by the GWR semi-fast services  and possibly one or two inter-city services per hour.  This would add a few minutes to the overall journey time but would open up useful connections.

 

The current plan is also that all GWML services will call at the new Old Oak Common interchange station adding around 4 1/2 minutes to present journey times.

[jonhall]

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Agree absolutely re the ridiculous tunnelling nonsense.   Most (all?) of the tunnelling will be below the top of the water table just to add a touch of piquancy to the tunnellers task'- not so much 'underwater tunnelling' as 'in water tunnelling' as the water level in the latest gravel pit east of Langley clearly demonstrates. 

 

 

True, but th majority of that route would find itself under the new 3rd runway if its ever built in the proposed location, so it wouldn't at least need moving later. (although I think the location of the proposed 3rd runway is daft - put it immediately to the north of the existing two)

 

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

As far as line capaciity is concerned from the new timetabel there are two each GWR and Liz Line trains per off-peak hour from to/from Reading plus two freight paths (if the original Crossrail agreement is still honoured)  so there won't be room for four Heathrow trains per hour although two would probably fit.  So logically the Crossrail trains could run via LHR and the only stations potentially losing frequency would be Iver and West Drayton.   In view of the number of people living west of the airport who work there fast trains - as seems at times to be what is proposed - will in any case potentially miss out a good part of the likely market.

 

6 paths an hour (two of which won't be used every hour) going to 10 (again potentially minus 1 or 2) doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me, although I'll concede to being less familiar with the GW mainline than the SW one, and recognising those are very different lines. It seems to me that the capacity required could be achieved, although it might well need re-signaling. Has the capacity of the line been increased because of the better acceleration of electric trains over 'Thames Turbos', or is that already built in? 

 

Its also not obvious to me if some of the existing passengers on the Reading>Elizabeth Line trains aren't changing trains at Hayes&Harlington and backtracking to the airport, or that a Reading>Airport>Central London service that misses Iver and West Drayton, and at an extended journey time, wouldn't be useful to more people than a quicker, but less useful to most direct service?

 

I'm also not sure I agree with your implied assessment of who will be travelling to Heathrow from the West, its my opinion* that its quite likely that the majority of journeys would be from Reading and points West to join flights, rather than as employees commuting to the airport, and that a 'fast from Reading', or perhaps a limited stop at somewhere like Slough wouldn't give a more useful service to a greater number of people?

 

Jon

*which could be completely wrong!

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

........As far as line capaciity is concerned from the new timetabel there are two each GWR and Liz Line trains per off-peak hour from to/from Reading plus two freight paths (if the original Crossrail agreement is still honoured)  so there won't be room for four Heathrow trains per hour although two would probably fit.  ........

 

What am I missing here Mike?

On the same relief  lines, east of Hayes, those 4 paths (2x EL, 2x GWR, 2x Freight) are joined by 4x EL serving Heathrow.

i.e. 10 tph.

From May, the Heathrow EL service increases to 6 tph.

i.e. Relief lines = 12 tph

 

How do 4 tph routing between Heathrow and Reading, joining/leaving the GWML at Langley, not fit into the gap vacated by those EL trains running between Heathrow and London?

 

10 tph, soon to be 12 tph, east of Airport Junction on the Reliefs....versus.....6 tph on the same lines west of Airport Junction.

How will there be difficulty integrating the Western Link service (4 tph) between Langley and Reading ?

 

 

(Note to those who don't know: - The planned Western Rail Link to Heathrow, connects to the GWML Relief Lines, via a grade separated (flying) junction at Langley.)

 

 

.

[KingEdwardII]

There is a huge potential for train journeys to/from Heathrow - at present, a very large majority of passengers arrive and depart by road.

 

One of the reasons for this is the simple one: it takes too d*mn long to get to & from Heathrow by train. As a result, people travel by car or taxi. I did this for 36 years in my job that involved fairly frequent air travel, travelling from South Hampshire.

 

Today, even from Reading the quickest train journey to Heathrow T5 I could find was 54 minutes. It's almost quicker to catch the bus from Reading, which is pathetic...

 

As for places like Southampton or Winchester, just forget it - 1h 45m is the best time you can achieve (Winchester) and that involves going via Paddington. It is far quicker to drive.

 

The contrast with places like Amsterdam Schiphol is stark.

 

Yours, Mike.

Edited March 24, 2023 by KingEdwardII

[GordonC]

Is it really particularly surprising Heathrow Express trains are lightly loaded when you look at the ticket prices - £25 each way or £37 return - for a 21 minute journey or prices half that for a 35 minute journey on Elizabeth line services.

 

Is there really enough volume of passengers for both services bearing in mind both go to the same London terminal of Paddington. If HEX drops from 4tph it must start to lose any benefit of speed with longer wait times before the next 'fast' service.

[phil-b259]

17 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

The new Liz Line timetable looks like a masterpiece of SNCF timetabling practice and resource under utilisation with off-peak Down trains arriving at rRading 2 to 3 minutes before the Up working departs and then occupying a platform line for 30 minutes.  Building in some perturbation tolerance very clearly makes sense but occupying a platform line at a busy station like Reading for just over 31 minutes is poor platform occupation planning.  It's also poor set utilisation as it will effectively cost TfL the loss of c. 8-10 hours of set running time daily.  It's in stark contrast to the much shorter turnrounds at Abbey Wood of c.12 -15 minutes at most..

 

I'm surprised at this comment Mike - although your dislike of EL / TfL extending out to Reading is well known*, surely a railwayman like yourself appreciates that Abbey Wood has the luxury of up to 12 trains per hour (versus the 2  EL Reading gets) so the dwell time before a train starts its return journey but still keeping a uniform service interval throughout the day is correspondingly reduced.

 

As such I suspect there is no way the station dwell times for EL trains at Reading can be reduced without introducing variable  the service intervals or causing even grater problems with pathing closer to London.

 

 

* with some justification when you think what Crossrail could have been

 

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

Is there really enough volume of passengers for both services bearing in mind both go to the same London terminal of Paddington. If HEX drops from 4tph it must start to lose any benefit of speed with longer wait times before the next 'fast' service.

 

Thats a matter for Heathrow Airport Limited!

 

Please remember that as part of the deal the Conservatives did back in the 1990s that saw 90% of the costs of building the link and all of the operating costs funded by the airports owners, Heathrow Airport have a 4tphs on the main lines guaranteed up until 2028 - and they cannot be forced to give these up should they wish to use them.

 

Also, as a legacy of the 1990s deal, HEX is effectively an 'open access operator'  and as such whether they run the service or not is up to them

 

As others have indicated, by pushing HEX products via deals with airlines, flight booking agents, on plane promotions* / promotional advertising etc there is a steady stream of people who can easily be persuaded to spend their money with HEX (on the inbound leg at any rate).

 

The big crunch will come in 2028 when HEX track access agreements expire - but till then HEX will continue for as long as it brings a profit for Heathrow Airports owners.

 

 

*Easyjet used to be very good at trying to flog Gatwick Express tickets on their inbound services to Gatwick but never mentioned you could get much cheaper tickets from other operators after landing

[phil-b259]

This may be of interest

 

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2023/the-slow-death-of-heathrow-express/

[Ron Ron Ron]

That link to London Reconnections, has already been posted a little bit higher up this page.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

What am I missing here Mike?

On the same relief  lines, east of Hayes, those 4 paths (2x EL, 2x GWR, 2x Freight) are joined by 4x EL serving Heathrow.

i.e. 10 tph.

From May, the Heathrow EL service increases to 6 tph.

i.e. Relief lines = 12 tph

How do 4 tph routing between Heathrow and Reading, joining/leaving the GWML at Langley, not fit into the gap vacated by those EL trains running between Heathrow and London?

 

 

 

 

 

.

WHat you're missing, thus far, Ron is that with the new timetable GWR semi-fasts have been squeezed off the Reliefs  - in most cases eastwards from Dolphin Jxcn although one or two manage to stay there until just east of West Drayton so I understand.  

 

Further west the situation is different with what you could regard as a watershed at Maidenhead where the nature of the route and train running changes.  Thus the Liz Line off peak frequency doubles from 2 tph to 4 tph (in most hours) at Maidenhead and east thereof plus the 2 GWR semi-fasts plus two freight paths. That gives 8 paths per hour but with substantial differences in speeds but these cannot necessarily be exploited because effectively capacity is set by the trains making the most station stops.

 

Thus GWR trains are not necessarily able to achieve faster journey times from Maidenhead to Slough than Liz Line stoppers (although not all of those will call at Taplow) and even some freights are effectively chasing and catching Liz Line stoppers (as I observed on screen at Twyford a week or so back).   And it already happens east of Airport Jcn where GWR semi-fasts are often delayed by Liz Line stoppers if what I have experienced is any guide - not at all unusual for an Up GWR train to have to wait platform at Ealing Broadway having caught a stopper.

 

The Channel Tunnel is probably the ultimate example of the science of pathing because it has what is known as a Standard Path and that gives a capacity per hour in. terms of number of paths.  The maximum number of trains per hour can be run if they all run in standard path but if they don't run in a standard path the number of trains that can run in an hour is reduced.  If a train runs faster or slower than the speed that a train runs at in the standard path it will use more than one path.  Thus a single Eurostar running at its maximum permitted speed in the Tunnel would use two paths and this is why Eurostars were flighted - because a flighted pair use only three paths.

 

On a more traditionally trafficked railway with a mixture of train types and variation in acceleration and speed you don't really have, or need to bother, a standard path, although it will sometimes happen.  For example on the GWML there are technically 20 paths per hour on the Main Lines east of Reading if all services are formed by either =HST maximum speeds and services to LHR have bertter acceleration and can achieve 100/110mph where permitted  That will have changed slightly with the arrival of IETs because of their improved acceleration but in practice there'll be little difference in capacity (in practice east of Airport Jcn it was , and might still be, possible to use what amounted to 21 paths per hour but it was very tight and not reliable).

 

What has now changed on the Relief Lines and is increasingly the case the further east of Reading that you go is that differentials have had a third element added in the shape if frequent stopping trains.  That completely changes the capacity and introduces a further problem when it comes to signalling because the signalling you need for frequent stopping trains with high acceleration but constrained overall times is different from what you need for heavy freight trains or passenger trains making limited stops running otherwise at line speed.  In fact line speed will end up being reduced for some types of train if you signal for another type of train.

 

I was interested in Mike Walker's comments about th eh services which would go via LHR because I wonder to what extent the market from Reading, in particular, would tolerate an increased journey time to London of getting on for 25%?   The Thames Valley market is very journey time sensitive and long has been and it's still relatively easy to switch between modes if either price or journey time reduce the attractiveness of a user's current travel mode.  Reading passenger figures have grown, along with others in the Thames Valley, on the basis of improved journey times - witness the arrival of the HSTs - so how will they react to increases n journey time?

 

And don't underplay the number of airport people living out this way - most of them being cabin and flight deck crew plus various other jobs  almost all of whom currently use the M4 etc to get to work.  I doubt if many airline passemger bother to use the train and change at Hayes - it's just as easy, and can be quicker, to catch the 'bus from West Drayton if you're coming from many Thames Valley stations.  And for many  passengers it is cheaper, and much quicker, to take a taxi direct from home than it is to bother with the train, or Airlink 'bus from Reading, although some would no doubt use a reliable direct rail service if it existed.

 

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I'm surprised at this comment Mike - although your dislike of EL / TfL extending out to Reading is well known*, surely a railwayman like yourself appreciates that Abbey Wood has the luxury of up to 12 trains per hour (versus the 2  EL Reading gets) so the dwell time before a train starts its return journey but still keeping a uniform service interval throughout the day is correspondingly reduced.

 

As such I suspect there is no way the station dwell times for EL trains at Reading can be reduced without introducing variable  the service intervals or causing even grater problems with pathing closer to London.

 

 

* with some justification when you think what Crossrail could have been

 

Phil I can but paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson who posed the question some months back in his column in 'The Sund y Times'. -'just how many people want to get from Reading to Abbey in 30 seconds'.  Typical exaggeration on his part of course but the question remains valid - and using a through train is definitely not the quickest way of making that journey..

 

I don't deny that the central section of Crossrail is an excellent job and has the best - by a long way - Underground trains in London.  But the trains are not suitable for longer distances and in my view should have gone no further than West Drayton or, at a stretch  Slough.  And if someone wants a very frequent service east of West Drayton/Hayes the necessary infrastructure to accommodate it should have been built.

 

The dwell times at Reading are nonsensical but they are at the expense of dwell times elsewhere and on TFL property.  From a quick look  they probably be adjusted by swopping some paths east of Maidenhead with other Liz Line trains.  Incidentally back in the early '90s project it was intended that 4 Crossrail trains per hour would use a single (new) platform at Reading but that platform couldn't handle six per hour.  Using two platforms in order to run two trains per hour off-peak sounds very SNCF to me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Morello Cherry]

22 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

There is a huge potential for train journeys to/from Heathrow - at present, a very large majority of passengers arrive and depart by road.

 

One of the reasons for this is the simple one: it takes too d*mn long to get to & from Heathrow by train. As a result, people travel by car or taxi. I did this for 36 years in my job that involved fairly frequent air travel, travelling from South Hampshire.

 

Today, even from Reading the quickest train journey to Heathrow T5 I could find was 54 minutes. It's almost quicker to catch the bus from Reading, which is pathetic...

 

As for places like Southampton or Winchester, just forget it - 1h 45m is the best time you can achieve (Winchester) and that involves going via Paddington. It is far quicker to drive.

 

The contrast with places like Amsterdam Schiphol is stark.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

Paradoxically, Gatwick is probably better served than Heathrow ie change at Reading, Thameslink, and Southern. Heathrow is up there with Munich or JFK for badly served major airports.

 

Schiphol, Vienna and Frankfurt on the otherhand all show how it can be done. All connected into short and long distance networks.

 

Heathrow gives you three ways to arrive by train from central London or a bus from anywhere else.

[Kris]

21 hours ago, GordonC said:

Is it really particularly surprising Heathrow Express trains are lightly loaded when you look at the ticket prices - £25 each way or £37 return - for a 21 minute journey or prices half that for a 35 minute journey on Elizabeth line services.

 

Is there really enough volume of passengers for both services bearing in mind both go to the same London terminal of Paddington. If HEX drops from 4tph it must start to lose any benefit of speed with longer wait times before the next 'fast' service.

I purchased a ticket for the Heathrow express travelling next Thursday. This has cost me the princely sum of £10. I didn't feel that this was an onerous amount. Sadly I can't now use this ticket as the flight that I was taking has been cancelled. Into Gatwick it is then.