New links for Heathrow from the South and West

[woodenhead]

Interesting article, Sadiq supports it so I guess he will be stumping up cash towards it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66716733

 

Meanwhile up north........

[jonhall]

40 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Interesting article, Sadiq supports it so I guess he will be stumping up cash towards it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66716733

 

 

1) Sadiq doesn't have any money

2) None* of the built infrastructure will be in London, and therefore is unlikely to be paid for by Sadiq, even if London voters/taxpayers are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries.

 

*depending on where the pre existing station tunnels actually stop under T5 there might be around 1km, but I think you see my point.

 

There are other examples of infrastructure that would benefit TfL customers/London voter/taxpayers, but which are entirely outside London, but these have always been a struggle to convince a Mayor to pay for, an example would be a bypass at Redhill and improvements in the Redhill-Guildford line to take cross-London freight off the West London line to give additional path capacity to passenger services.

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

There are other examples of infrastructure that would benefit TfL customers/London voter/taxpayers, but which are entirely outside London, but these have always been a struggle to convince a Mayor to pay for, an example would be a bypass at Redhill and improvements in the Redhill-Guildford line to take cross-London freight off the West London line to give additional path capacity to passenger services.

 

Not that old chestnut....

 

Lets be clear even if you did by-pass Redhill station (which won't come cheap) then your next big bottleneck is Reigate level crossing, with no easy way to put in a bridge without lots of demolition and the Conservative (in attitude as well as in the voting sense) inhabitants of Reigate being in uproar about it. Then there is the little matter that the bit of railway between Shalford Junction through Guildford station is already virtually at capacity with SWR / GWR services (and passes through two tunnels). Towards Reading you would also run into opposition in Wokingham (level crossing downtimes) and the probable need for more expensive bridge work.

 

So huge amounts of money needed for something which isn't actually a problem (channel tunnel freight being virtually non existent compared to the forecasts when the tunnel was authorised in 1987) and money which could be far better spent fixing other network bottlenecks within London (like the  Croydon / Norwwod / Selhurst junctions) 

Edited September 6, 2023 by phil-b259

[C126]

"... proposed by Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd (HSR) which has said it could open in 2027/28."

 

Have they learned nothing about British infrastructure projects?!?  😀

[Wickham Green too]

Gloster Oldspot - you're cleared for takeoff ........................ 

[Ron Ron Ron]

This is the same private proposal that’s been floated for years, in various forms.

If it ever got off the ground, it would most likely be well behind the Western rail link, which isn’t simply a draft proposal like this one, but a fully fledged and designed NR project, that has been through all the consultation process, but put on ice, for an indefinite period of time.

[Geep7]

As has already been commented on social media, there is still the questions around the level crossings between Staines and Egham, which is what, in part, led to the previous ideas being shelved.

[phil-b259]

21 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

As has already been commented on social media, there is still the questions around the level crossings between Staines and Egham, which is what, in part, led to the previous ideas being shelved.

 

In respects of a southwards link to the SWR network - yes, but for a northbound link back up to the GWML there are no level crossings to worry about!

 

Thats precisely why NR and Heathrow were working hard on bringing forward a fully detailed scheme and one that was all set to go for a TWA when the Pandemic hit and put the whole thing on ice.

 

If ANY scheme is going to get the go- ahead it will be that one.

[Geep7]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

In respects of a southwards link to the SWR network - yes, but for a northbound link back up to the GWML there are no level crossings to worry about!

 

Thats precisely why NR and Heathrow were working hard on bringing forward a fully detailed scheme and one that was all set to go for a TWA when the Pandemic hit and put the whole thing on ice.

 

If ANY scheme is going to get the go- ahead it will be that one.

Yes, I agree, the northbound link should be a no brainer..... At least it would make it easier to get to Heathrow from the south and west via Reading.

[roythebus1]

They've been talking about the Rickamansworth-Watford link since 1973 when I was a guard at Ricky. a couple of km of new track and a bridge, still not built 50 years later. and they expect a new line to the airport in 4 years?? 

[Downer]

Just what we need - something that makes flying easier.

[KingEdwardII]

1 hour ago, Downer said:

Just what we need - something that makes flying easier.

Misses the point - what these projects do is to enable getting to the airport by train easier. The vast majority of transport to/from Heathrow is by road. That's because for many folk, the train journey is pants. To/from central London is OK - as also the journey from Essex along the Elizabeth line now. From many other places, the journey takes forever. Result: people go by road, as I have done and still do for over 40 years.

 

The link to Reading and the south & west is the most obvious one to complete. It's relatively straightforward and will enable practical train journeys to Heathrow from a large swathe of south & west England.

 

The link to the south makes some sense, although I think the number of journeys potentially affected may not be as large as the Reading link. As others have pointed out, the southern link is much more involved than the link to Reading.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Construction of the “Western Rail Link to Heathrow” - WRLtH  (previously known until about 2015/16 ‘ish, as the “Western Rail Access to Heathrow” - WRAtH ) ….should have started in 2017, with opening penned in for 2022/23.

 

NR’s looming funding issues, particularly following the GWML electrification debacle, plus the then uncertainty about Heathrow R3 and the associated, significant M4 and M25 layout changes, pushed the project back.

Further rounds of consultation with local authorities and potential stakeholders were ordered.

Two years of delaying tactics down the line, this was followed by a further kicking of the can down the road, under the guise of not enough consultation, so the whole exercise was repeated, delaying a likely start on this link by 10 years after the original planned dates.

 

Meanwhile, the route and outline design had been developed close to the point of a decision on a formal application for funding, preparation for detailed design and planning applications.

A certain pandemic breaking out saw the whole thing being put on the shelf indefinitely, with (apparently) the NR project team dispersed to other posts.

 

If this rail link project is reactivated, then unless there’s a determined political push to get it going quickly, you can well imagine the Treasury and Dft slowing it down by insisting on repeating all the stages that have previously been completed.

Reinventing the wheel and ordering costly enquiries that’ll both delay and push the cost up astronomically.

What has happened to HS2 is a clear pointer to the prospects of large railway infrastructure projects for the next decade or more.

 

A southern / SW link stands no chance.

 

 

.

 

[Siberian Snooper]

Just thinking out loud, completing the LHR line to Reading and electrifying the line to Basingstoke, would allow a single change at Basingstoke.

I wonder what Sadiq would make of having to supply more trains to connect Basingstoke to Essex and Kent, via central London, but it would create capacity at Reading.

 

I have donned my flak jacket and tin hat and I'm heading for the hills.

[The Pilotman]

6 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Misses the point - what these projects do is to enable getting to the airport by train easier. The vast majority of transport to/from Heathrow is by road. That's because for many folk, the train journey is pants. To/from central London is OK - as also the journey from Essex along the Elizabeth line now. From many other places, the journey takes forever. Result: people go by road, as I have done and still do for over 40 years.

Exactly. Heathrow operates at close to 100% of its theoretical capacity most of the time, so without a third runway (can’t see that ever happening) this rail link would not increase air traffic or passenger numbers. What it would do is reduce the large car park that the M4/M25 interchange becomes for large parts of the day.

By the way, if the UK had a joined-up transport policy and had invested in domestic high speed rail links of the kind that exist in France and, to a lesser extent, Germany, air travel from London to places like Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh wouldn’t really be required. 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, The Pilotman said:

 

By the way, if the UK had a joined-up transport policy and had invested in domestic high speed rail links of the kind that exist in France and, to a lesser extent, Germany, air travel from London to places like Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh wouldn’t really be required. 

 

While that may be true in theory, the reality is that domestic aviation in the UK is miniscule in comparison to international aircraft travel! The vast majority of folk travelling to Heathrow and Manchester airports for example are NOT catching flights to other parts of the UK - they are going to places beyond the viable reach of rail (which experts agree is something like a 2-3hr radius) from your starting position.

 

France has an advantage of course in that the country is more spread out to start with and as such had more inherent demand for internal flights (as historically conventional rail / road had a much harder time against the  quickness of air travel) and thus grater prospects for modal transfer to the TGV network.

 

In the UK by contrast the target audience of HS2 is NOT air passengers (because there are very few of those) its about transfer from existing rail corridors (thus freeing up space for more local services) and motorists

[KingEdwardII]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The vast majority of folk travelling to Heathrow

The statistics for Heathrow for November 2022 show a total of 5,646,134 passengers of which 383,365 were "domestic" - i.e. to UK locations. Of these 54,214 were for the Manchester - Heathrow route.

 

So for Heathrow, domestic is less than 10% and the Manchester route is about 1%.

 

Yours, Mike.

[jonhall]

a quick google suggests that there are 76000 people directly employed on the airport, so probably add 2 million journeys to work each month, and at least some of those would benefit from a Southern rail approach.

 

I live barely 7.5 miles from the Central section of T1/2/3 as the crow flies and I can get there in around 1.5 hours with a 20 minute walk and 2 buses (and now Hatton Cross tube is in the zero fare area, I often do Hatton Cross to T123 or T5 as the last leg), and these days I usually get home that way, when I don't have the time pressure to catch a flight, but for an early morning flight a minicab will cost £55 including the £5 drop off fee. Sadly the Southern Access is unlikely to help me as I'm south of the river, and via Chertsey or Woking is still a long way around.

 

Jon

[The Stationmaster]

On 06/09/2023 at 17:24, Ron Ron Ron said:

This is the same private proposal that’s been floated for years, in various forms.

If it ever got off the ground, it would most likely be well behind the Western rail link, which isn’t simply a draft proposal like this one, but a fully fledged and designed NR project, that has been through all the consultation process, but put on ice, for an indefinite period of time.

However since being designed somebody has dug a large hole on part of its route which subsequently began to fill with water.  Thus some of the engineering costs will have changed.  However a major question has to be 'is there sufficient line capacity to handle trains for it?'   Especially in view of what had to be done in order to achieve a workable timetable on the GWML at the most recent major timetable change although it could work quite well if some Liz Lines trains were diverted to run that way.

[The Stationmaster]

On 08/09/2023 at 16:28, The Pilotman said:

Exactly. Heathrow operates at close to 100% of its theoretical capacity most of the time, so without a third runway (can’t see that ever happening) this rail link would not increase air traffic or passenger numbers. What it would do is reduce the large car park that the M4/M25 interchange becomes for large parts of the day.

By the way, if the UK had a joined-up transport policy and had invested in domestic high speed rail links of the kind that exist in France and, to a lesser extent, Germany, air travel from London to places like Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh wouldn’t really be required. 

Well maybe.  A large part of the current car traffic into LHR from the west is airport employees but particularly aircrew.  As they work a wide variety of times to take duty, and finish work, the big question is would they transfer to rail?  In addition they are very spread out at their home end so having got into their car would they be prepared to get out of it into a train and would there be a train to get them to the airport at 05.00 or home at 01.00 (not that many finish at the latter time)?    And of course in many cases on long haul they will be away for several days before returning to collect their car

 

The airpotrt employment situation on the western side is very different from the situation drawing people in from the Hayes/Southall etc area or from areas immediately south of the airport which will inevitably affect the numbers able to transfer to rail.   Plus they would also be adding station car parking charges to their travel costs - Reading station car park is now £21 for 9 hours or £25 for 24 hours. Twyford is £7.60 daily or £35 for a week, while Maidenhead is £7.20 daily.

 

Passengers are probably more likely but again the competition is considerable.  The cheapest way from here to the airport is train to West Drayton and then 'bus - that is probably transferable - if the trains run early enough.  But a taxi from here costs £50 which is not much to add on if you are going on an expensive holiday or long distance flight (or if your employer is picking up the bill).   However it might takeover from the Reading coach link which still seems quite busy.

Edited September 10, 2023 by The Stationmaster
typos

[roythebus1]

Having recently witnessed some of the very late night Watford-LHR buses running full to capacity, that may be another source of traffic. But then with the local bus fare at £2, it represents excellent value. Natex coach fare was £6.

[Hal Nail]

Just clarifying what the actual proposed routes are in this latest proposal as some of the headlines don't quite stack up (shock!) Eg one local one says Basingstoke to get new link etc.

 

One line would be to VIrginia Water so accessible from the LSWR main line at Weybridge/West Byfleet, so basically replacing the Woking Rail Air bus? Presume if there is any substance in that headline they would run to and from Basingstoke instead of starting at Woking?

 

Where is the 2nd connection to hounslow loop and Richmond trains or is that the same one and the 2nd branch mentioned is something different?

Edited September 12, 2023 by Hal Nail

[Geep7]

I think the intention is just for one link, joining the Waterloo - Reading line at Staines, as far as I understand it.

[Hal Nail]

Edited September 13, 2023 by Hal Nail

[Northmoor]

On 06/09/2023 at 15:10, phil-b259 said:

 

Not that old chestnut....

 

Lets be clear even if you did by-pass Redhill station (which won't come cheap) then your next big bottleneck is Reigate level crossing, with no easy way to put in a bridge without lots of demolition and the Conservative (in attitude as well as in the voting sense) inhabitants of Reigate being in uproar about it. Then there is the little matter that the bit of railway between Shalford Junction through Guildford station is already virtually at capacity with SWR / GWR services (and passes through two tunnels). Towards Reading you would also run into opposition in Wokingham (level crossing downtimes) and the probable need for more expensive bridge work.

 

So huge amounts of money needed for something which isn't actually a problem (channel tunnel freight being virtually non existent compared to the forecasts when the tunnel was authorised in 1987) and money which could be far better spent fixing other network bottlenecks within London (like the  Croydon / Norwwod / Selhurst junctions) 

Thanks for that explanation.  As enthusiasts we do tend to focus on planning rail improvements using a rail atlas, rather than looking, as we should do, at an Ordnance Survey map. 

 

I live locally to the North Downs Line - which for those that don't know it, is very busy at it's Western end for most of the day with lots of local commuter patterns - but wasn't aware of the crossings issue further East.