Western Rail Link to Heathrow

[The Pilotman]

1 hour ago, Morello Cherry said:

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

Indeed. I travelled on a Hamburg to Munich ICE today. Like many other long distance trains in Germany, it stopped at the airport station in Frankfurt but gave the city station (Frankfurt Hbf) a miss…

[Siberian Snooper]

I have just been on the HEX site to look at purchasing a single from T5 to PAD on the 19 April and they want the full £25 for that! I hope they know how to whistle Dixie.

 

 

[KingEdwardII]

2 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

Schiphol, Vienna and Frankfurt on the other hand all show how it can be done

Yes, indeed.

 

I've travelled from Schiphol to many parts of the Netherlands and never had to change trains more than once - and even that, rarely. A properly thought-out system that works well.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Ron Ron Ron]

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

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....................

 

OK I already understand all that, but the same Relief lines handle another 4 EL trains per hour (soon to be 6 tph) on the Heathrow services, east of Airport Junction.

 

 

.

[phil-b259]

 

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

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..

 

 

The same could be said for lots of rail services - Southampton to London Victoria via Barnham is obviously a very poor choice for a person wishing to ravel to the capital quickly  while even with the proposed upgrades in Cornwall hardy anyone is going to do an end to end Newquay to Falmouth trip. If going from Birmingham to Stansted its a lot quicker to go via London (plus has more choice in timings that way than the direct service). The fact that these direct services might well be slow does not mean they are in themselves a bad thing  when you consider things holistically.

 

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

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.

 

 

 

However, with the greatest of respect, what you may want simply wasn't an option the Government were prepared to provide. Its very easy to look back at transport pretty much provision and find faults with schemes (Thameslink for example goes far to far away from London in my view* but St Pancras, Kings Cross and to a lesser extent the rebuilt London Bridge lack a capacity to terminate longer distance services which are now routed through the core)  - but in many cases its not a case of a deliberate decision to build something with shortcomings , rather thats all the politicians were willing to fund.

 

Thus given all that the politicians were willing to fund is the current setup - the alternative was simply to have cancelled Crossrail completely!

 

So I repeat - which would you have preferred** ? the current situation (as imperfect as it might be) or no Crossrail (including the section which crosses central London that you praise) at all? Merley saying you want something different is no answer at all and completely ignores a question about the real world.

 

* Logically Luton, Stevenage, Gravesend and Gatwick are as far as it should ideally get.

 

* Granted that might well be 'nothing at all' when looking at things from a strictly personal point of view - but given your background I imagine that your considerations would extend beyond that sort of thinking.

 

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

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.

 

 

However would such a swap not mess up the regular service interval (potentially GWR as well as EL)?  Its proven that passengers much prefer standard times and standard service intervals (i.e. a train every 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes throughout the day -  not 2 trains 10 minutes apart then nothing for the next  50mins. There have been grumbles for some time that all  EL trains do not stop at all stations within west London (like they do out on the Shenfield branch) precisely because passengers don't care about railway practicalities. 

 

If the extended layover at Reading is needed to provide an attractive service paten for passengers (something I gather SNCF is not known for doing) the  so be it .

 

Ultimately if the politicians won't fund things properly its unwise to expect the railway industry / planners to work miracles with what infrastructure they do actually get.

[KingEdwardII]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Southampton to London Victoria via Barnham is obviously a very poor choice for a person wishing to ravel to the capital quickly

 

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

these direct services might well be slow

The question is whether it has to be like this?

 

Services from the South Coast to Victoria via the Arundel route (ie. places like Littlehampton, Chichester, Bognor) are seriously slow, simply because they stop everywhere - there are no expresses that stop only at the principal settlements. The contrast with the line via Basingstoke to Southampton is very clear - there are some expresses that don't stop between Waterloo and Winchester - and a whole host of trains that make two or three stops only. Result: Winchester is an ideal spot for commuting, in a way that Chichester is not.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Mike_Walker]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

The same could be said for lots of rail services - Southampton to London Victoria via Barnham is obviously a very poor choice for a person wishing to ravel to the capital quickly  while even with the proposed upgrades in Cornwall hardy anyone is going to do an end to end Newquay to Falmouth trip. If going from Birmingham to Stansted its a lot quicker to go via London (plus has more choice in timings that way than the direct service). The fact that these direct services might well be slow does not mean they are in themselves a bad thing  when you consider things holistically.

 

 

 

However, with the greatest of respect, what you may want simply wasn't an option the Government were prepared to provide. Its very easy to look back at transport pretty much provision and find faults with schemes (Thameslink for example goes far to far away from London in my view* but St Pancras, Kings Cross and to a lesser extent the rebuilt London Bridge lack a capacity to terminate longer distance services which are now routed through the core)  - but in many cases its not a case of a deliberate decision to build something with shortcomings , rather thats all the politicians were willing to fund.

 

Thus given all that the politicians were willing to fund is the current setup - the alternative was simply to have cancelled Crossrail completely!

 

So I repeat - which would you have preferred** ? the current situation (as imperfect as it might be) or no Crossrail (including the section which crosses central London that you praise) at all? Merley saying you want something different is no answer at all and completely ignores a question about the real world.

 

* Logically Luton, Stevenage, Gravesend and Gatwick are as far as it should ideally get.

 

* Granted that might well be 'nothing at all' when looking at things from a strictly personal point of view - but given your background I imagine that your considerations would extend beyond that sort of thinking.

 

 

However would such a swap not mess up the regular service interval (potentially GWR as well as EL)?  Its proven that passengers much prefer standard times and standard service intervals (i.e. a train every 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes throughout the day -  not 2 trains 10 minutes apart then nothing for the next  50mins. There have been grumbles for some time that all  EL trains do not stop at all stations within west London (like they do out on the Shenfield branch) precisely because passengers don't care about railway practicalities. 

 

If the extended layover at Reading is needed to provide an attractive service paten for passengers (something I gather SNCF is not known for doing) the  so be it .

 

Ultimately if the politicians won't fund things properly its unwise to expect the railway industry / planners to work miracles with what infrastructure they do actually get.

As I've said before, the problem with Crossrail on the west side is that it delivers a poorer service than that which existed previously - there are those within the company who think it's not a good idea to operate on the main line west of Hayes.  Heathrow to Abbey Wood and Shenfield would be better.

 

Part of the problem is that, like HS2, it was badly sold to the public.  Here in the Thames Valley we were constantly being told how much quicker journeys to the City and Docklands would be overlooking the fact that those using Thames Valley local services and heading for those destinations are in the minority.  The majority head for destinations such as the West End and areas such as that around Victoria or along the Thames.  For these, their travel options and now poorer.

 

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

OK I already understand all that, but the same Relief lines handle another 4 EL trains per hour (soon to be 6 tph) on the Heathrow services, east of Airport Junction.

 

 

.

Exactly so Ron - which is why the off-peak GWR semi-fasts  will run on the Mains instead and no longer make any station calls between Slough and Paddington.

 

In many respects that is a win for users of the GWR trains (like me) because journey times will be reduced.  But we will lose the interchange facility at Ealing Broadway to the Central and District Lines (which I have only used very occasionally) and  I think there are still some regular users of that connection from the further out Thames Valley stations.  Certainly one locally expressed alarm when I mentioned the timetable change on the Branch Users website.  The alternative will obviously be available for anyone to either take a Liz Line train or change to one at Slough if they need the UndergrounD connection at the Broadway.

 

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

As I've said before, the problem with Crossrail on the west side is that it delivers a poorer service than that which existed previously - there are those within the company who think it's not a good idea to operate on the main line west of Hayes.  Heathrow to Abbey Wood and Shenfield would be better.

 

Part of the problem is that, like HS2, it was badly sold to the public.  Here in the Thames Valley we were constantly being told how much quicker journeys to the City and Docklands would be overlooking the fact that those using Thames Valley local services and heading for those destinations are in the minority.  The majority head for destinations such as the West End and areas such as that around Victoria or along the Thames.  For these, their travel options and now poorer.

 

This is a pertinent point.  When Crossrail was originally trying to push itself to the various local commuter groups a member of our local group carried out a detailed survey among season ticket holders and found that the majority of those travelling on from Paddington by UndergrounD used (Inner Rail) Circle or District Line trains.  It is still noticeable that the Inner Rail platform at Paddington remains very busy after the arrival of main line trains   Second biggest use was the Bakerloo Line (although from my past daily commuting on that line the vast majority of those joining at Paddington got off at either Oxford Circus or Piccadilly Circus).   However overall I reckon that total numbers joining the Bakerloo well exceeded the other lines.

 

The small, but numerically steady number who walked round to Lancaster Gate for the Central Line are probably the biggest winners along with those wishing to head for Canary wharf etc.  On the other hand the biggest losers are the small number who regularly changed to the H&C Westbound at Paddington who have lost out in transfer time apart from those travelling from Reading and further west.  Those who head east on the H&C/Circle have also lost out to some extent because of the more inconvenient change at either Paddington or Edgware Road.  The patten will begun to change to some extent now that the Lix zLin eis operational and it may well develop a new matrket off the GWML to the Canary Wharf area

 

One thing we haven't really looked at is what the LIz Line trains actually do west of West Drayton and the Greater London boundary,  There they clearly turn into a mainly local train service for (most of the day) the majority of their passenger numbers.   Thus they are carrying people making (local(ish) journeys into/from Slough, Maidenhead, and Reading plus the very few people from Burnham and Taplow making onward long distance connections at Reading.  Some of this market is shared with GWR from the stations it also serves thus making  a 4 trains per hour service however this is unevenly spaced and so does not offer the number of branch connections the previous GWR service offered.   Personal observation suggests that the arrival of LizLine has not increased the number of local passengers west of Maidenhead but has simply spread them over two operators instead of one.

 

What seems clear from personal observation is that passengers travelling into London beyond Paddington are not changing from GWR long distance services to Liz Line at Reading.   And I have seen only a handful of people with luggage joining Liz Line trains Reading - none of them apparently travelling beyond Slough from what they said when asking where the train called.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

However would such a swap not mess up the regular service interval (potentially GWR as well as EL)?  Its proven that passengers much prefer standard times and standard service intervals (i.e. a train every 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes throughout the day -  not 2 trains 10 minutes apart then nothing for the next  50mins. There have been grumbles for some time that all  EL trains do not stop at all stations within west London (like they do out on the Shenfield branch) precisely because passengers don't care about railway practicalities. 

 

If the extended layover at Reading is needed to provide an attractive service paten for passengers (something I gather SNCF is not known for doing) the  so be it .

 

Ultimately if the politicians won't fund things properly its unwise to expect the railway industry / planners to work miracles with what infrastructure they do actually get.

But that, Phil, is exactly what it does not do. (unlike the previous GWR service of 4 trains per hour which did run at fairly even intervals).  So in fact reducing the extended Liz Line dwell time at Reading might not only improve the efficiency of stock utilisation but could also be a way to create an even interval off-peak service between Reading and Slough.

 

Clearly TfL timetabling thinking does not work in that way because, not surprisingly, it revolves very much around the central section of the Liz Line with Reading being very much an afterthought.   I also suspect that they have, again not surprisingly, a relatively limited understandng of timetabling on a mixed traffic railway with speed differentials and stopping pattern differences beyond the patterns applicable to their own trains (but they have it would seem found out that more frequent stops at west ealing and Acton Mainline might not be quite as simple as they once thought.

 

The GWR semi-fasts run basically a half-hourly pattern off-peak, varying by a minute. or two here and there; the Liz Line trains do the same, again varying by a minute or two here and there.  But that is where the 4 tph ends - there are simply 4 trains in every hour and not at an evenly spaced interval..  the GWR trains have to be timed round various constraints such as branch connections and available paths further east so can't really be moved without a majot r timetable re-write which will also extend  a long way west of Reading.

 

From a practical viewpoint I think the UIC timetabling priority system still has a lot to commend it!

[Ron Ron Ron]

32 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so Ron - which is why the off-peak GWR semi-fasts  will run on the Mains instead and no longer make any station calls between Slough and Paddington.........

 

 

Thanks for the reply Mike, but you still haven't answered my question and explained why you said there wasn't the capacity to accept the proposed 4 tph Heathrow western links service, on the Reliefs, west of Langley.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Thanks for the reply Mike, but you still haven't answered my question and explained why you said there wasn't the capacity to accept the proposed 4 tph Heathrow western links service, on the Reliefs, west of Langley.

 

 

.

Sorry Ron - if GWR semi-fasts aren't moved to the Mains there would be 4 Liz Line, 2 GWR Semi-fasts, and 2 freights per hour.  The Liz Line trains will mostly call at Iver and the Up freights could use the upgraded Goods Line from Iver eastwards. But that still leaves 8 tph on the Reliefs at Langley - a theoretical interval of just over 7 minutes on a line signalled for 3 minute headways at, probably 60mph or 75mph (originally it was 3 minutes at 60mph and I don't thin the signal positions have changed all that much except through Slough itself (and then not very much on the Reliefs).

 

But the sectional running times are very different for the different types of train and adding 4tph LHR fasts will exacerbate that situation although in effect the would be little different from the GWR semi fasts.  The shorter freights need a margin from Slough West to Iver, the longer freights need a margin form Reading to Iver as they are too long to put inside at Farnham Road (Slough) and many of them are restricted (all if the linepseed is the same as immediately of Reading) to 45mph - half the maximum speed of a 345.

 

A stopping 345 takes 9 mins Slough to West Drayton,  6 minutes after departing Slough a GWR 387 would be passing Airport Jcn - in other words it will rapidly overtake a stopping 345 and will catch it well before West Drayton unless time is added (which is what happens in practice); an example freight takes 10 minutes from Slough Loop to pass Airport Jcn (and even then has to have time added to stop it overtaking a stopping 345).

 

Thus what happens is that everything is slowed to the overall times of the slowest train - which is generally a stopping 345.  I don't have any timing detail to wind to LHR West Jcn or whatever it will be called but if I had the time I could graph it on nett running time and then see what time needed to be added to achieve the necessary pathing margins,   But adding to running time will reduce the number of paths per hour. and if thereis room for the 4tph to Heathrow they will also have to have time added to stop them overtaking other trains which have had the time added to keep them the right distance apart at or beyond West Drayton (probably in reality from Airport Jcn where the number of trains further  increases).  

 

So what happen west of West Drayton/Airport West jcn will impact on times, and line capacity back to Slough, if not even further west because, remember a long freight needs a margin from Reading.   And that is the problem that hits capacity, and slows down trains.   If we go back a few decades the stoppers always  left Slough immediately behind the semi-fasts. 

[jonhall]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

'

This is a pertinent point.  When Crossrail was originally trying to push itself to the various local commuter groups a member of our local group carried out a detailed survey among season ticket holders and found that the majority of those travelling on from Paddington by UndergrounD used (Inner Rail) Circle or District Line trains.  It is still noticeable that the Inner Rail platform at Paddington remains very busy after the arrival of main line trains   Second biggest use was the Bakerloo Line (although from my past daily commuting on that line the vast majority of those joining at Paddington got off at either Oxford Circus or Piccadilly Circus).   However overall I reckon that total numbers joining the Bakerloo well exceeded the other lines.

 

Of course this is slightly a chicken and egg situation, those who live in the Thames Valley will have chosen to do so, at least in part, because of the available transport links to the office they already worked in, and therefore any pre-opening survey, will reflect the existing customers travel axis. It will take years for those who work near the Lizzy Line to start to move out West, as they get new jobs, or decide to move house (of course this has all been thrown in the air post-Covid). The same was true for the commuters of the Kent coast when the Javelins started using HS2, its all very well getting to StPancras faster, but if your office is nearer London Bridge or Charring Cross, loosing those services was terrible!

 

I have always perceived that the relatively poor connection from Paddington into 'the City' has rather restricted the GW suburban, and therefore the residents of Southall or Slough will tend to look to the airport as the employment draw, and that this traffic is well served by bus.

 

Jon

Edited March 26, 2023 by jonhall

[jjb1970]

22 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Part of the problem is that, like HS2, it was badly sold to the public.  

 

Very true. We regularly see people derided by HS2 supporters (of which I am one) when they question the need for high speeds because HS2 is about capacity, relieving the WCML etc. True, but if something is marketed on the basis of high speeds, shorter journeys, called 'HS2' as an abbreviation of high speed 2 etc then we really can't blame 'normals' for thinking it's about speed.

[jjb1970]

On Heathrow, rail connectivity to London is excellent and it is far from the worst airport I use for public transport service. If anything I'd rank it as one of the better ones in many ways. Even if it was plugged into the GWML for services to the West it would still be of limited utility for most people who use Heathrow. The issue is less the rail link to Heathrow than that the national rail network is very much focused on London as a hub with routes radiating out. British people are accustomed to the idea that many rail journeys from North to Southwest or Southeast mean going into London and switching termini. I suspect most foreign visitors leaving the airport want to get into London.

Edited March 27, 2023 by jjb1970

[The Stationmaster]

On 27/03/2023 at 08:03, jjb1970 said:

On Heathrow, rail connectivity to London is excellent and it is far from the worst airport I use for public transport service. If anything I'd rank it as one of the better ones in many ways. Even if it was plugged into the GWML for services to the West it would still be of limited utility for most people who use Heathrow. The issue is less the rail link to Heathrow than that the national rail network is very much focused on London as a hub with routes radiating out. British people are accustomed to the idea that many rail journeys from North to Southwest or Southeast mean going into London and switching termini. I suspect most foreign visitors leaving the airport want to get into London.

In the past when travelling - as I occasionally did - between Reading and LHR the quickest route was GWR (or whatever it was called at the time) between Reading and Paddington then HEX to the airport.  Quicker than the Railair link coach - even during off-peak times on the M4 and in Reading - if you timed it right.  

 

Although it was the cheapest route for me that would not have been the case for most people but it was definitely the quickest which made it my route of choice.

[adb968008]

I think a HS2 routing via LHR was the real missed opportunity.

 

The oddity in all this, is the winner will be Birmingham International Airport, assuming they dont add a £5 passenger surcharge for a 1 mile tram ride.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

19 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I think a HS2 routing via LHR was the real missed opportunity.

 

The oddity in all this, is the winner will be Birmingham International Airport, assuming they dont add a £5 passenger surcharge for a 1 mile tram ride.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be too sure that Birmingham Airport will see any significant gains from the Interchange station, particularly now the eastern leg of Phase 2B has been largely cancelled.

 

Travellers from the London conurbation and the SE are hardly likely to be tempted to use BHX, as for most of them, it'll take just as long to get to OOC (or Euston), as it would to get to most of the London Airports, which have a far wider array of services and destinations served.

It would have been the East Midlands and Yorkshire, that would have benefitted most from the BHX station, the NW having a far superior and larger airport at Manchester, with much broader international connections.

The planned HS2 station at Manchester airport has more potential for attracting passengers from the Birmingham area, than BHX does from elsewhere on the route.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I wouldn't be too sure that Birmingham Airport will see any significant gains from the Interchange station, particularly now the eastern leg of Phase 2B has been largely cancelled.

 

Travellers from the London conurbation and the SE are hardly likely to be tempted to use BHX, as for most of them, it'll take just as long to get to OOC (or Euston), as it would to get to most of the London Airports, which have a far wider array of services and destinations served.

It would have been the East Midlands and Yorkshire, that would have benefitted most from the BHX station, the NW having a far superior and larger airport at Manchester, with much broader international connections.

The planned HS2 station at Manchester airport has more potential for attracting passengers from the Birmingham area, than BHX does from elsewhere on the route.

 

 

.

Amusingly on one occasion when my son was going to Germany BHX was the best airport in terms of destination in Germany and price for the air fare os he wqnet that way ;in the care of the Guard Stewardess.  And oddly the journey time from home wasn't massively greater than the journey time to LHR - which in comparison almost counts as being on our diooorstep.

 

But generally very few people from the London area are going to use BHX unless there are extremely attractive fares or destinations on offer which is unlikely when it would be competing with 4 London airports, various.  And although it involves a change to, and then on, the DLR the Liz Line has made London City more quickly accessible by rail.

[KingEdwardII]

On 27/03/2023 at 08:03, jjb1970 said:

if it was plugged into the GWML for services to the West it would still be of limited utility for most people who use Heathrow

It all comes down to time and convenience - there are lots of folk using Heathrow from the South and West who would welcome a rail link to the airport, if it is as fast and as straightforward as the road journey.

 

This requires a direct rail link from the West into Heathrow - and would also need some rethinking of the trains from Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth, etc. Current arrangements are simply too slow. Multiple changes are also v bad for those with luggage.

 

"Schiphol thinking" would involve more than just linking the GWML to Heathrow in both directions. There should be routes that get passengers to south west and north west London as well. Ironically, the south east and north east of London are fairly well served by Liz line now. The very high proportion of passengers using road to/from Heathrow clearly points to the problem. Going into the centre of London and back out again by train does not cut it - it is too slow compared with the alternatives.

 

Yours, Mike.

[The Stationmaster]

On 29/03/2023 at 13:28, KingEdwardII said:

It all comes down to time and convenience - there are lots of folk using Heathrow from the South and West who would welcome a rail link to the airport, if it is as fast and as straightforward as the road journey.

 

This requires a direct rail link from the West into Heathrow - and would also need some rethinking of the trains from Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth, etc. Current arrangements are simply too slow. Multiple changes are also v bad for those with luggage.

 

"Schiphol thinking" would involve more than just linking the GWML to Heathrow in both directions. There should be routes that get passengers to south west and north west London as well. Ironically, the south east and north east of London are fairly well served by Liz line now. The very high proportion of passengers using road to/from Heathrow clearly points to the problem. Going into the centre of London and back out again by train does not cut it - it is too slow compared with the alternatives.

 

Yours, Mike.

The problem with LHR is that it lies between various rail routes instead of in a direct line between major population centres.  Schihpol is in a direct line  between Amsterdam and Den Haag and almost in a direct line between Amsterdam and Rotterdam.  So the time loss for any train between those important centres is either minimal or no more than the cost of the station call itself.

 

LHR is in a fairly direct line between 'London' and Reading (and almost Bristol as well - but not a line which any rail route follows hence trains will lose journey time by serving Heathrow.  The question then becomes one where whether adding a Heathrow stop would create more revenue than any lost due to increased journey time  (assuming the reduced journey time = increased revenue formula also works in the opposite case).  

 

In terms of providing  a rail link Gatwick, Luton, and Birmingham airports all make far more sense when it comes to serving through routes - which might explain why Gatwick has had an adjacent railway station for many years.   Doesn't work so well when either the railway or the airport is in the wrong place.

[jjb1970]

On 29/03/2023 at 20:28, KingEdwardII said:

Going into the centre of London and back out again by train does not cut it - it is too slow compared with the alternatives.

 

 

 

It's not ideal, but that's basically the nature of British railways, there are lots of journey's for which going into London and out again look crazy on a map but because of the nature of the rail network are the best option for rail users. I used to travel between Milton Keynes and East Midlands Parkway regularly and if I did if by rail found the best option was to go down to Euston, walk down to St Pancras and back out rather than messing about with the various WCML and XC options. And ultimately decided it was easier to just hire a car.

[icn]

On 24/03/2023 at 08:58, jjb1970 said:

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.

It's about the timetable and not the speed - every 15 vs 30 minutes can be quite a difference when you're arriving tired and just want to get home. But I suspect business travel will be their main moneymaker regardless - IME there's too little advance notice to be able to get the cheaper fares, so there are plenty of business travellers on it and most of them at full price.

[Ron Ron Ron]

10 hours ago, icn said:

It's about the timetable and not the speed - every 15 vs 30 minutes can be quite a difference when you're arriving tired and just want to get home………

 

In a couple of months time, the full EL service will be introduced.

There will be 6 EL services per hour from Heathrow.

4 tph starting at T4 and…

2 tph starting at T5

Therefore T2 & T3 get 6 tph.

 

In addition to the 30 minute spaced EL train services from T5, passengers from that terminal can catch one of the 4 tph HEX services to the central area ( T2 & 3) and connect onto a following EL train.

 

On the new timetable…..

Heathrow to Tottenham Court Rd is only a few minutes quicker by HEX and EL, as opposed to using EL all the way, without the change at Paddington.

Heathrow to Charing Cross takes about the same time on both HEX and the EL (inc.  the connecting tube service).

 

 

.

 

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

In a couple of months time, the full EL service will be introduced.

There will be 6 EL services per hour from Heathrow.

4 tph starting at T4 and…

2 tph starting at T5

Therefore T2 & T3 get 6 tph.

 

In addition to the 30 minute spaced EL train services from T5, passengers from that terminal can catch one of the 4 tph HEX services to the central area ( T2 & 3) and connect onto a following EL train.

 

On the new timetable…..

Heathrow to Tottenham Court Rd is only a few minutes quicker by HEX and EL, as opposed to using EL all the way, without the change at Paddington.

Heathrow to Charing Cross takes about the same time on both HEX and the EL (inc.  the connecting tube service).

 

 

.

 

Good stuff Ron and I, again, seriously wonder just how many folk will be left using HEX - with a change to 'something else' at Paddington - once it is up against a service frequency like that.  

 

I know it depends to some extent where people are coming from/going to beyond Paddington but I doubt that is it a destination for all that many of the people who use HEX although there is a cross section of hotels in the area which may have some positive impact on its use.  If I was still needing to get to the airport from Reading I would probably still be inclined to use train to Paddington then HEX to get to the airport as it definitely saved time compared with the Railair coach service, but some people prefer the convenience of the coach.  Or, far more likely, go by private car/taxi because of the perceived advantages - and it's usually cheaper for two people to go by taxi although some other coach services are very much cheaper still.