GWML Electification

[Zomboid]

If unlimited money were available then extending the Waterloo service to Slough would be a nice thing to do to give better connectivity all around. But it's not going to happen any time soon.

[corneliuslundie]

But anyone want an idea for a model railway with lots of potential traffic - third rail, diesel and OH, and a "modern" station they can design themselves, all with the castle on the backscene?

Much cheaper than building the real thing.

Jonathan

[jonny777]

 

Of course, perhaps that is the secret plan and that is why the wires turn the corner! Charles would approve.

 

 

Given the amounts of money sloshing around the Duchy Of Lancaster's balance sheets, Charles could probably afford to pay for wiring to Central himself. 

[Edwin_m]

Some combination of the various ideal for extra links via Heathrow would provide much better through connectivity than linking the stations at Windsor, as well as improving services to the airport. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Some combination of the various ideal for extra links via Heathrow would provide much better through connectivity than linking the stations at Windsor, as well as improving services to the airport. 

 

 

Indeed and this is a real possibility and subject of several "serious" proposals.

The Western Rail Link to Heathrow, (now being simply referred to as Heathrow Rail Link and formerly known as WRAtH )  is already an active, ongoing NR programme, which is fairly advanced in its development. 

It has been delayed by 2 years due to the lack of funding in CP5 and the backlog of NR projects, in addition to the political decision to repeat the previous public consultation processes, not once, but now a second time, before the planning application is submitted in spring/summer next year.

The original preliminary construction start date should have been April 2017 (6 months ago), but it was put back to spring 2019.

 

The Western Rail Link design, opens up the possibility of further rail access to Heathrow T5 via a link to "southern rails", in the Staines area.

New proposals for this have been floated around over the last 18 months or so, following the demise of the previous Airtrack proposals several years ago.

 

The other proposals revolve around what sort of rail services will run over these new rail routes.

All sorts of possibilities are being aired, but how practical some may be is a long way from being decided.

 

There is nothing that a mega expensive and unnecessary Windsor link could provide, that can't be covered by the far more useful Western Rail Link and the proposed southern access.

 

 

Getting back on topic (GWML Electrification), the Western Rail Link will have a temporary impact on the newly electrified relief lines, in the vicinity of Langley station.

At the very least, the Up Relief will have to be diverted to the north of the current track formation, to allow for the construction of the junction with the new link.

The relief side of Langley station will also need to be realigned and remodelled.

Add to that the proposal for a new Heathrow Express depot, to be located adjacent to these new works; although whether that will be needed is yet to be seen.

If all this gets the final go ahead, the new OHLE over the affected tracks will be have to be taken down and replaced.

 

 

.

.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[Northroader]

There’s already a branch dipping under the mainline and heading off in the general direction of - , from West Drayton, why mess around at Langley?

[St. Simon]

There is no official proposal.

That scheme is the product of a couple of people with a set of crayons and a warped sense of reality.

Unfortunately, they managed to dupe a couple of interested parties, but the whole idea remains a fantasy.

 

There is an official proposal which crops up in our office most years, but we just send the same feasibility report back....

 

Indeed and this is a real possibility and subject of several "serious" proposals.

The Western Rail Link to Heathrow, (now being simply referred to as Heathrow Rail Link and formerly known as WRAtH )  is already an active, ongoing NR programme, which is fairly advanced in its development. 

It has been delayed by 2 years due to the lack of funding in CP5 and the backlog of NR projects, in addition to the political decision to repeat the previous public consultation processes, not once, but now a second time, before the planning application is submitted in spring/summer next year.

The original preliminary construction start date should have been April 2017 (6 months ago), but it was put back to spring 2019.

 

WRLtH wasn't delayed due to lack of funding, it was delayed for a different reason which I can't reveal.

 

 

There’s already a branch dipping under the mainline and heading off in the general direction of - , from West Drayton, why mess around at Langley?

 

Because that comes out at the 'wrong' end of Heathrow to be any good, and the branch line is totally unsuitable for a fast passenger service, it would need straightening out and rebuilding first, so you may as well build something new!

 

Simon

[Ron Ron Ron]

There’s already a branch dipping under the mainline and heading off in the general direction of - , from West Drayton, why mess around at Langley?

 

 

A number of reasons.

 

The branch links to the east on the GWML, not the west.

There's insufficient room to build a western connection from the branch to the GWML (M25, Iver North Water Treatment Works, deep flooded disused gravel pits all in the way).

The branch is only single track.

The bridges and route through the very centre of the M4/M25 junction are single track and cannot be widened.

Large industrial complexes alongside the branch line get in the way, including existing rail terminals.

Crossing the Bath Rd. in Poyle.

 

The link requires twin tracks and a flying junction to the relief lines, to allow for a very minimum of 4 tph, each way.

So a new line is inevitable.

 

 

.

[jonny777]

That branch went to Staines, but the southern end has vanished under an industrial estate and a very large reservoir. 

 

What would be more convenient is a west facing spur from Heathrow, in order to save travellers going into Paddington, only to come back out again. That probably could have been achieved a few years ago with a bit of forward planning and some judicious tunnelling, but Drayton Garden Village has now been completed on that site. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

....What would be more convenient is a west facing spur from Heathrow, in order to save travellers going into Paddington, only to come back out again. ....

 

 

Which is exactly what is being worked on and currently delayed, with the WRLtH.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....WRLtH wasn't delayed due to lack of funding, it was delayed for a different reason which I can't reveal....

 

I'm aware of a number of issues that I didn't mention earlier.

 

 

.

[jonny777]

Which is exactly what is being worked on and currently delayed, with the WRLtH.

 

 

Yes, sorry. I spent so much time typing my reply due to various distractions from SWMBO giving me instructions for the weekend, that by the time I pressed send most of what I posted became irrelevant. 

[jonny777]

However, the point I was trying to make is that rather than concentrate on some ridiculously expensive vanity project, if the planners had actually used a bit of long term forward thinking they could have put a western spur across this site (which is still visible on an old Bing map, or at least it is on my laptop) 

https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3  before any further construction took place, and joined up to the current route in the tunnel.; but I forget that this is England and that kind of sensible co-operation between several organisations has been virtually non-existent for decades. 

 

And just in case folk still cannot see what I am rabbiting about, here is a screenshot. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by jonny777

[Ron Ron Ron]

That land under construction, shown in that Bing photo, was not and would never have been available.

It's the site of the former RAF West Drayton, that was home to the London air Traffic Control Centre and its disposal was conditional on several factors,

Also, very importantly, there would have been no space to provide the necessary link to the relief lines between there and West Drayton station. Especially as the Grand Union Canal runs alongside the railway at that point.

 

In addition. There would not be sufficient capacity in the Heathrow owned tunnel, nor platform capacity at the airport, to run the trains from the west on top of the number of trains that will be running from the London direction.

Note that when full Crossrail (Elizebeth Line) services commence in December 2019, there will be 10 tph (inc. HEX), for the initial service level.

Proposals for the Western link, are for an initial 4 tph to Reading.

If trains originating from west/south of Reading are added this figure could increase.

 

.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[The Stationmaster]

The most critical question about 4 tph to/from Reading for any western link to LHR is where the line capacity to run them will come from.  thus far in the Thames Valley area they have been spoken off very much as 'limited stop' calling at no more than 2 or 3 intermediate stations between Reading and the junction east of Langley. (which incidentally might also require realignment of the Main Lines as well as at least one of the Reliefs).   So quite how these 4 trains will mix in with Crossrail services, including 2 tph calling at all stations, and any possible residual GWR/successor service plus at least one freight path per hour never seems to have been answered.

 

Equally quite where they would be platformed at Reading is another interesting question, particularly if everyone is looking for an even interval clock face timetable - with a possible 4 tph Crossrail trains also turning round there although at least the LHR trains might be short enough to use only half a platform.  Maybe someone is planning an extension for Reading with a couple more platforms?

[jim.snowdon]

The most critical question about 4 tph to/from Reading for any western link to LHR is where the line capacity to run them will come from.  thus far in the Thames Valley area they have been spoken off very much as 'limited stop' calling at no more than 2 or 3 intermediate stations between Reading and the junction east of Langley. (which incidentally might also require realignment of the Main Lines as well as at least one of the Reliefs).   So quite how these 4 trains will mix in with Crossrail services, including 2 tph calling at all stations, and any possible residual GWR/successor service plus at least one freight path per hour never seems to have been answered.

 

Equally quite where they would be platformed at Reading is another interesting question, particularly if everyone is looking for an even interval clock face timetable - with a possible 4 tph Crossrail trains also turning round there although at least the LHR trains might be short enough to use only half a platform.  Maybe someone is planning an extension for Reading with a couple more platforms?

This seems to be assuming that the Reading - Heathrow service would be just that, and additional to the existing services.

 

My recollection is that the western connection would be able to form an end-on junction with the existing Airport Junction - T5 lines, which would permit through running Paddington - Heathrow - Reading. That would allow some of the fast Paddington - Maidenhead - Reading & beyond services to be rerouted via Heathrow. Essentially, no different to the way Schipol, for example, is connected into the ordinary NS network.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

This seems to be assuming that the Reading - Heathrow service would be just that, and additional to the existing services.

 

My recollection is that the western connection would be able to form an end-on junction with the existing Airport Junction - T5 lines, which would permit through running Paddington - Heathrow - Reading. That would allow some of the fast Paddington - Maidenhead - Reading & beyond services to be rerouted via Heathrow. Essentially, no different to the way Schipol, for example, is connected into the ordinary NS network.

 

Jim

 

I think a lot might depend on who operates it Jim

[jonny777]

That land under construction, shown in that Bing photo, was not and would never have been available.

It's the site of the former RAF West Drayton, that was home to the London air Traffic Control Centre and its disposal was conditional on several factors,

Also, very importantly, there would have been no space to provide the necessary link to the relief lines between there and West Drayton station. Especially as the Grand Union Canal runs alongside the railway at that point.

 

In addition. There would not be sufficient capacity in the Heathrow owned tunnel, nor platform capacity at the airport, to run the trains from the west on top of the number of trains that will be running from the London direction.

Note that when full Crossrail (Elizebeth Line) services commence, there will be 8 tph (inc. HEX), for the initial service level.

Proposals for the Western link, are for an initial 4 tph to Reading.

If trains originating from west/south of Reading are added this figure could increase.

 

.

 

 

 

But wouldn't the patronage of the west trains reduce the demand for those originating at Paddington? 

[Ron Ron Ron]

The most critical question about 4 tph to/from Reading for any western link to LHR is where the line capacity to run them will come from.  thus far in the Thames Valley area they have been spoken off very much as 'limited stop' calling at no more than 2 or 3 intermediate stations between Reading and the junction east of Langley. (which incidentally might also require realignment of the Main Lines as well as at least one of the Reliefs).   So quite how these 4 trains will mix in with Crossrail services, including 2 tph calling at all stations, and any possible residual GWR/successor service plus at least one freight path per hour never seems to have been answered.....

 

As far as I know, the plan they are putting out for the relief lines towards Paddington, is still for 4 tph from Reading and 6tph from Maidenhead.

That includes the residual GWR services, which only run off-peak.

 

With the Heathrow trains, that makes it 10 tph between Maidenhead and Langley junction (passenger services).

The same as east of Airport Junction.

 

As for realignment of the main line at Langley. That doesn't appear on the diagrams NR have put out.

There will be no connection between the mains and the new airport spur, which I believe will pass over the current formation and connect between the down relief and the realigned up relief and the proposed (new) up goods.

 

https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/westernraillinktoheathrow/supporting_documents/Intersection%20Bridge%20options.pdf

 

 

 

Equally quite where they would be platformed at Reading is another interesting question, particularly if everyone is looking for an even interval clock face timetable - with a possible 4 tph Crossrail trains also turning round there although at least the LHR trains might be short enough to use only half a platform.  Maybe someone is planning an extension for Reading with a couple more platforms?

 

The impact on Reading platform capacity was mentioned in the 2015 NR Western Route Study.

In it, they discuss various ideas to mitigate the impact, such as the Heathrow trains running on to destinations such as Basingstoke and Oxford.

 

Personally speaking, I'm surprised that the railway is still following antiquated operational practices, by turning trains in busy stations and thereby reducing much needed capacity.

Crossrail trains turning back at Paddington (from the east) and Maidenhead, will use reversing sidings beyond the station platforms.

Reading is an ideal candidate for similar procedures, in so far that terminating trains from Paddington "should" set down and then continue on to reverse west of the station. Where that can be accommodated I will not speculate, but large scale provision of sidings and depot roads have been constructed to the west of the station. If turn back arrangement haven't been factored in, or cannot be made available, I see this as a gross error in the planning of the new Reading layout.

 

 

This seems to be assuming that the Reading - Heathrow service would be just that, and additional to the existing services.

 

My recollection is that the western connection would be able to form an end-on junction with the existing Airport Junction - T5 lines, which would permit through running Paddington - Heathrow - Reading. That would allow some of the fast Paddington - Maidenhead - Reading & beyond services to be rerouted via Heathrow. ......

The extra Platforms for the new link already exist beneath T5, Jim.

They were put in with the rest of the station, when T5 was built.

There has been much speculation about running through trains, but a lot has to be decided before the service provision and routes served, is determined.

 

A number of factors need to be considered, not least the fact that from immediately west of the entrance to T5, until just short of Airport Junction at Hayes, the railway is privately owned by HAL. i.e. not part of the NR route structure.

 

Lots of talk on railway forums about what through services could be run, including if the link to Staines is also built.

However, what people don't seem to recognise, is if Heathrow R3 gets the go ahead (which is looking increasingly unlikely), then the expected passenger loadings for Crossrail, HEX (if it's still running after 2023), the western rail link and any additional link to Staines, will mean that there will be little to no capacity for through passengers bypassing Heathrow. The rail links are there primarily to service the airport.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[Coryton]

My recollection is that the western connection would be able to form an end-on junction with the existing Airport Junction - T5 lines, which would permit through running Paddington - Heathrow - Reading. That would allow some of the fast Paddington - Maidenhead - Reading & beyond services to be rerouted via Heathrow. Essentially, no different to the way Schipol, for example, is connected into the ordinary NS network.

 

 

Except that unlike Heathrow there isn't a huge premium charged to travel to Schiphol.

 

So either the cost to travel to Heathrow would have to be reduced significantly (who pays for that?) or the premium is charged for getting off at the airport, rather than using the trains themselves. (Barriers for everyone to go through with their luggage?)

[Ron Ron Ron]

Except that unlike Heathrow there isn't a huge premium charged to travel to Schiphol.

 

So either the cost to travel to Heathrow would have to be reduced significantly (who pays for that?) or the premium is charged for getting off at the airport, rather than using the trains themselves. (Barriers for everyone to go through with their luggage?)

 

 

That premium only applies to HEX and not Heathrow Connect (edit: ...well not between Paddington and Hayes), the latter of which is due to be taken over by TfL Rail in just over 6 months time (May 2018).

HEX has agreement and rights to run services until 2023 (just over 5 years time). What happens after that date is anybody's guess at this point in time.

Who provides services from the west, hasn't been decided yet.

 

.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[Coryton]

That premium only applies to HEX and not Heathrow Connect, the latter of which is due to be taken over by TfL Rail in just over 6 months time (May 2018).

HEX has agreement and rights to run services until 2023 (just over 5 years time). What happens after that date is anybody's guess at this point in time.

Who provides services from the west, hasn't been decided yet.

 

.

 

OK. Must have changed then.

 

Last time I looked (a few years ago), the last section on Heathrow Connect to the airport was still at a premium fare and not included in travelcards etc.

[Zomboid]

I caught a connect from Heathrow to Hayes in the summer, and it cost about £6. I'd consider that premium pricing myself considering the distance involved.

[phil-b259]

That premium only applies to HEX and not Heathrow Connect, the latter of which is due to be taken over by TfL Rail in just over 6 months time (May 2018).

HEX has agreement and rights to run services until 2023 (just over 5 years time). What happens after that date is anybody's guess at this point in time.

Who provides services from the west, hasn't been decided yet.

 

.OK, there are two aspects here.

 

OK there are two aspects here.

 

Under the acts of parliament granted to authorise construction of the Heathrow link, BAA and their successors had the right to charge a fare supplement to help find construction of the link. BAA also took the decision to market the new train service as a 'premium product' for First Class / Business class airline passengers (in a similar vein to the Gatwick Express) effectively arguing that ordinary airline passengers had the Piccadilly line as an alternative. The luxurious train interiors and 'non stop' nature of the service allowed a further uplift in fares over and above the 'construction levy' Heathrow could charge for use of the link.

 

Heathrow Connect by contrast REPLACED an ordinary Thames Trains / FGW service as far as Hayes before heading to the airport. It was NOT designed for passengers to make end to end journeys (I don't know if Heathrow airport tried the trick BR did in the 1980s at Gatwick where all Non Gatwick Express services were described as terminating at Clapham Junction so as to divert passengers onto the 'premium' service). In fact the main reason it was introduced was for airport staff, many of whom lived in West London and who could obtain various discounts as part of the airports attempts to promote its environmental credentials. Fares for the Paddington - Hayes had (due to the takeover of previously franchised services) thus had to remain as they were (subject to the usual periodic increases over time), however in line with the original authorising act, fares for the final section between the airport and Hayes included a 'construction levy' within the ticket price (making it one of the most expensive train trips you could make in the UK I believe).  This is also why Travelcards are only valid on Heathrow Connect as far as Hayes.

 

Now moving on to Crossrail - there have been a number of legal disputes / challenges in the courts in the past year or two attempting to clarify the situation. Heathrow maintain that in accordance with the authorising act it has the right to demand that a 'construction levy' be charged on every single passenger journey using the link. TfL however are adamant that Crossrail will fit into the zonal fare structure with no extra surcharges being passed on to passengers (note Heathrow airport mainline station lies OUTSIDE the current Travelcard area but the tube station is classed as within it). To achieve TfLs aim, Heathow are saying that TfL must effectively pay that surcharge via a lump sum per train basis and naturally enough what each side considers a 'reasonable amount' is very different. hence the legal action.....

 

Of course all this could have been avoided had the Heathrow link been developed along the lines of the Stansted one with construction and operation basically being left up to BR.  That way the Heathrow branch would have been considered part of the national rail network and allowed the introduction of Travelcards / Oyster on mainline services. That however did not fit with the love of 'free market capitalism' in the conservative party and the need to deliberately throttle any attempt by BR to do things if there was any interest by the Party's private sector mates in doing it themselves. It didn't help of course that the Heathrow rail link project was entering the critical design phase when the Conservative Government decided to dismantle British Rail through Privatisation thus making the transfer of as much as was possible to the then owners of Heathrow (BAA) far more attractive. As such the spur to Heathrow airport remains a 'Private Railway' - ALL ASPECTS of its operation from rolling stock acceptance, to infrastructure maintenance and Fares policy are in the hands of Heathrow Airport with very little opportunity for the state bodies (TfL, DfT, NR etc) to say what goes on. We see this in the fact that the Heathrow Express service has guaranteed rights (under the original authorising acts) to use the main lines from Paddington to Hayes till at least 2023 while various studies by Network Rail show that such paths could far more usefully be employed in providing additional long distance Great Western services.

Edited November 24, 2017 by phil-b259

[Ron Ron Ron]

All as I understood it Phil.

However, wasn't the dispute between TfL and HAL finally settled back in late June, following the court ruling against HAL in May?

 

I should have been clearer in my previous post (now duly edited), as I was really talking about TfL shortly taking over the stopping services in 6 months time, leading on to full Crossrail to Heathrow in 2 years time.

Oyster cards can be used on both HEX and TfL rail, between Heathrow and London, from May next year.

They've said that online advance purchase HEX fares will be available from £5.50 upwards.

 

What happens to HEX post 2023 is anyones's guess at the moment...and yes, those paths are desperately needed for GWR services.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40059659

 

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/8615

 

http://www.cityam.com/267806/heathrow-rail-services-boosted-elizabeth-line-deal

 

 

.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron