GWML Electification

[WCML100]

Neither Paddington nor Marylebone are that well placed in London. But direct trains onto crossrail might be a different story.

Not going to happen anytime soon, though I did read somewhere that Chiltern would like to get to West Ealing via Greenford at some point - though they'd prefer Ealing Broadway, to get a direct crossrail connection. Who knows if that will ever happen...

That would make sense and make use of thr line being very isolated if remained with gwr. It would be good to carry this on to west ruislip but would mean new platforms built (or reinstated) on the national rail through line(s) at greenford if they desired this to be a stop on the service....

[The Stationmaster]

Neither Paddington nor Marylebone are that well placed in London. But direct trains onto crossrail might be a different story.

Not going to happen anytime soon, though I did read somewhere that Chiltern would like to get to West Ealing via Greenford at some point - though they'd prefer Ealing Broadway, to get a direct crossrail connection. Who knows if that will ever happen...

 

They'll get a direct Crossrail connection at West Ealing - in fact that is all they will connect with at West Ealing as the GWR service (other than on the branch) will cease.

[Zomboid]

That's what I meant. Broadway for the tube.

[RJS1977]

I'd often wondered - why not extend the District Line over the Greenford branch and up to West Ruislip, taking over the paths on the Central Line left vacant by the Central's Ealing Broadway service, and providing better links to South London from West Ruislip?

[phil-b259]

I'd often wondered - why not extend the District Line over the Greenford branch and up to West Ruislip, taking over the paths on the Central Line left vacant by the Central's Ealing Broadway service, and providing better links to South London from West Ruislip?

 

The problem with all such ideas is the fact that the GWML  between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing is only 4 tracks wide and in a cutting hemmed in bu suburban development. There simply are not the spare paths to send anything more down there in the way of traffic (which is partially why the Greenford trains are being cut back to a shuttle from West Ealing and a significant proportion of Crossrail trains from the core will have to terminate at Paddington until Old Oak Common HS2 station / the link to the WCML is built.

 

If you want to run any more trains between West Ealing and Ealing Broadway then you will have to undertake lots of property demolition to widen the railway formation - which would never be tolerated these days. For your idea to work it would have needed the District Railway to have thought of it back around 1900 or so when building their own tracks parallel to the GWML was a feasible proposition

 

Also (Please don't take this as an insult), but before getting the Crayons out (so to speak) and proposing things simply because they sound good, have a little look at the online satellite imagery of the area concerned - it will very quickly show whether any idea is remotely feasible and saves your blushes when someone points out the obvious flaws in your scheme.

Edited June 10, 2016 by phil-b259

[Suzie]

I think that the only way to get District Line trains to Ruislip is a new chord between Park Royal and Hanger Lane.

[slilley]

Only some clot stealing part of the right-of-way (on the ideal route) to stick HS2 on because of the cock-eyed idea of giving it a station at Old Oak Common.

 

You mean the proposed Wormwood Scrubs Parkway

[Christopher125]

Only some clot stealing part of the right-of-way (on the ideal route) to stick HS2 on because of the cock-eyed idea of giving it a station at Old Oak Common.

I see nothing 'cock eyed' about a station at Old Oak Common - substantial development potential and a significant transport interchange between Crossrail, Thames Valley, Heathrow and Overground services.

 

As for Crossrail, TfL favour extra services operating up the WCML and have sought the necessary passive provision at Old Oak Common.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Christopher125

[RJS1977]

The problem with all such ideas is the fact that the GWML  between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing is only 4 tracks wide and in a cutting hemmed in bu suburban development. There simply are not the spare paths to send anything more down there in the way of traffic (which is partially why the Greenford trains are being cut back to a shuttle from West Ealing and a significant proportion of Crossrail trains from the core will have to terminate at Paddington until Old Oak Common HS2 station / the link to the WCML is built.

 

If you want to run any more trains between West Ealing and Ealing Broadway then you will have to undertake lots of property demolition to widen the railway formation - which would never be tolerated these days. For your idea to work it would have needed the District Railway to have thought of it back around 1900 or so when building their own tracks parallel to the GWML was a feasible proposition

 

Also (Please don't take this as an insult), but before getting the Crayons out (so to speak) and proposing things simply because they sound good, have a little look at the online satellite imagery of the area concerned - it will very quickly show whether any idea is remotely feasible and saves your blushes when someone points out the obvious flaws in your scheme.

 

I am well aware of what's between EB and West Ealing, as I travel in and out of Paddington fairly frequently.

 

In order from the EB end:

 

- a park (which could be reinstated once the line had been built underneath it (cut and cover).

- the single-storey office of an energy broker/ access to the multi-storey car park.

- a row of back gardens (which could be reinstated above the railway once it had been built, provided nobody grew anything with deep roots).

- a row of lock-up garages (which again could be reinstated over the railway).

- beyond that a Network Rail access road runs parallel to and some distance from the main lines for a distance - if the access point could be discarded, there would be room to get two tracks in.

- beyond that there is mostly two-track width between the main lines and the adjacent buildings/back gardens, especially if the cutting side could be changed from a slope to a retaining wall, although some of the catenary gantries may need to be altered to have a support in the 10 foot and be cantilevered over the Reliefs.

- there is just one 'tight spot' east of West Ealing where two new blocks of flats have gone in where it may only be possible to get an extra single line in. If that is the case, it may be possible to route the eastbound District in a cut & cover tunnel round the north side of the flats.

 

Not saying it might not be controversial,  but I think at least in theory it could be done.

 

And yes, the point of doing it would be to free up the paths used by the Greenford stoppers on the relief lines whilst at the same time increasing the frequency of trains from West Ruislip.

[The Stationmaster]

I am well aware of what's between EB and West Ealing, as I travel in and out of Paddington fairly frequently.

 

In order from the EB end:

 

- a park (which could be reinstated once the line had been built underneath it (cut and cover).

- the single-storey office of an energy broker/ access to the multi-storey car park.

- a row of back gardens (which could be reinstated above the railway once it had been built, provided nobody grew anything with deep roots).

- a row of lock-up garages (which again could be reinstated over the railway).

- beyond that a Network Rail access road runs parallel to and some distance from the main lines for a distance - if the access point could be discarded, there would be room to get two tracks in.

- beyond that there is mostly two-track width between the main lines and the adjacent buildings/back gardens, especially if the cutting side could be changed from a slope to a retaining wall, although some of the catenary gantries may need to be altered to have a support in the 10 foot and be cantilevered over the Reliefs.

- there is just one 'tight spot' east of West Ealing where two new blocks of flats have gone in where it may only be possible to get an extra single line in. If that is the case, it may be possible to route the eastbound District in a cut & cover tunnel round the north side of the flats.

 

Not saying it might not be controversial,  but I think at least in theory it could be done.

 

And yes, the point of doing it would be to free up the paths used by the Greenford stoppers on the relief lines whilst at the same time increasing the frequency of trains from West Ruislip.

 

Yes. and except near the West Ealing end plus some tunnelling at the Broadway/Haven Green it really only amounts to pinching a bit off back gardens and having a retaining wall instead of sloped cutting on the Up side.  Oddly enough it isn't much different from various solutions to increase GWML capacity which have been mooted in the past 20 years or so where the basic idea has been to expand to a six track formation between Acton Mainline and Airport Jcn.

 

The first idea was driven by increased capacity to LHR and then when the stopping service from St Pancras was thrown into the mix in the late '90s the idea was examined again including a flying junction at Acton, a possible bottleneck through Ealing Broadway (which could be resolved but expensively) and then 6 tracks starting in the cutting west of Ealing Broadway.  The only difference form your idea was that the extra capacity would be for the GWML services/Heathrow Connect (ex St Pancras)/Heathrow Express and not to extend the UndergrounD (although that too has been proposed at various times over the years) and that in some places the expansion outwards to reach a total of six tracks would involve additions on both sides rather than just the north side.

 

To be honest - and with more than a little experience of the GWML as both an operator and planner - I have a nasty feeling that the frequency planned for Crossrail without any increase in running line infrastructure might hit punctuality performance quite hard especially if any tiny thing happens to go wrong.  It will be interesting to see if the past 'guaranteed' one freight path per hour will continue and there is also the interesting question of what happens when Southampton container trains are diverted eastwards from Reading for any reason - presumably Crossrail will be as much subject to 'thinning' as any other operator?

 

As for the cock-eyed idea of Old Oak Common interchange I remain very sceptical.  Clearly it will be of little or no use to GWR/its successor passengers as they can get to reading and northwards from there just as easily as they could get to Old Oak.  Equally putting in Old Oak stops, and potentially even the revised track geometry need for platforms will reduce linespeeds and increase journey times on what is already a journey time sensitive route - usual sort of 'unintended consequences' that comes out of muddled thinking.  It might well work for shorter distance travellers off Crossrail onto HS2 and it might also work for some from the airport who think they will be avoiding the heart of London - again muddled thinking as the Western access to Heathrow with a very limited stop service from Reading will enable many airline passengers heading elsewhere/from elsewhere in much of England and South Wales to avoid London completely.  People aren't going to travel to anywhere in London to change trains if they can avoid it unless HS2 delivers a very significant time saving and for folk maidenhead and west thereof it won't - even at present proposed speeds.

[phil-b259]

Yes. and except near the West Ealing end plus some tunnelling at the Broadway/Haven Green it really only amounts to pinching a bit off back gardens and having a retaining wall instead of sloped cutting on the Up side.  Oddly enough it isn't much different from various solutions to increase GWML capacity which have been mooted in the past 20 years or so where the basic idea has been to expand to a six track formation between Acton Mainline and Airport Jcn.

 

The first idea was driven by increased capacity to LHR and then when the stopping service from St Pancras was thrown into the mix in the late '90s the idea was examined again including a flying junction at Acton, a possible bottleneck through Ealing Broadway (which could be resolved but expensively) and then 6 tracks starting in the cutting west of Ealing Broadway.  The only difference form your idea was that the extra capacity would be for the GWML services/Heathrow Connect (ex St Pancras)/Heathrow Express and not to extend the UndergrounD (although that too has been proposed at various times over the years) and that in some places the expansion outwards to reach a total of six tracks would involve additions on both sides rather than just the north side.

 

To be honest - and with more than a little experience of the GWML as both an operator and planner - I have a nasty feeling that the frequency planned for Crossrail without any increase in running line infrastructure might hit punctuality performance quite hard especially if any tiny thing happens to go wrong.  It will be interesting to see if the past 'guaranteed' one freight path per hour will continue and there is also the interesting question of what happens when Southampton container trains are diverted eastwards from Reading for any reason - presumably Crossrail will be as much subject to 'thinning' as any other operator?

 

As for the cock-eyed idea of Old Oak Common interchange I remain very sceptical.  Clearly it will be of little or no use to GWR/its successor passengers as they can get to reading and northwards from there just as easily as they could get to Old Oak.  Equally putting in Old Oak stops, and potentially even the revised track geometry need for platforms will reduce linespeeds and increase journey times on what is already a journey time sensitive route - usual sort of 'unintended consequences' that comes out of muddled thinking.  It might well work for shorter distance travellers off Crossrail onto HS2 and it might also work for some from the airport who think they will be avoiding the heart of London - again muddled thinking as the Western access to Heathrow with a very limited stop service from Reading will enable many airline passengers heading elsewhere/from elsewhere in much of England and South Wales to avoid London completely.  People aren't going to travel to anywhere in London to change trains if they can avoid it unless HS2 delivers a very significant time saving and for folk maidenhead and west thereof it won't - even at present proposed speeds.

 

I'm not so sure that your scepticism is justified. The GWML at present has very poor connectivity to radial rail services - namely  the North London and west London Lines. As such an interchange at Old Oak with both of these lines (as TfL are pushing for) has lots of potential - Just look how rammed current WLL services get from Clapham Junction / South Croydon with people wanting to avoid going into central London or how popular getting off GEML services at Stratford is.

 

Similarly the current Southern service along the WLL to Watford / Milton Keynes is very popular with those heading to the NW, who wish to avoid using the tube. Being able to connect with HS2 at Old Oak would be just as attractive.

 

The other big reason for having interchange between HS2 and the GWML is I imagine a significant number of HS2 passengers will find Crossrail a more attractive way of getting to where they want to go in London than taking the Tube from Euston.

 

As you correctly highlight however the whole HS2 - Heathrow flow is in many respects the weakest of the linkages Old Oak provides in justification terms. However when you consider all the other elements outlined above there is definitely a case for having a station on the GWML at Old Oak - though I accept that stopping express services to the likes of Bristol / South Wales or the West Country may not be worth doing and as such a better track layout may be possible.

[phil-b259]

I am well aware of what's between EB and West Ealing, as I travel in and out of Paddington fairly frequently.

 

In order from the EB end:

 

- a park (which could be reinstated once the line had been built underneath it (cut and cover).

- the single-storey office of an energy broker/ access to the multi-storey car park.

- a row of back gardens (which could be reinstated above the railway once it had been built, provided nobody grew anything with deep roots).

- a row of lock-up garages (which again could be reinstated over the railway).

- beyond that a Network Rail access road runs parallel to and some distance from the main lines for a distance - if the access point could be discarded, there would be room to get two tracks in.

- beyond that there is mostly two-track width between the main lines and the adjacent buildings/back gardens, especially if the cutting side could be changed from a slope to a retaining wall, although some of the catenary gantries may need to be altered to have a support in the 10 foot and be cantilevered over the Reliefs.

- there is just one 'tight spot' east of West Ealing where two new blocks of flats have gone in where it may only be possible to get an extra single line in. If that is the case, it may be possible to route the eastbound District in a cut & cover tunnel round the north side of the flats.

 

Not saying it might not be controversial,  but I think at least in theory it could be done.

 

And yes, the point of doing it would be to free up the paths used by the Greenford stoppers on the relief lines whilst at the same time increasing the frequency of trains from West Ruislip.

 

Hmm, so not as bad as it initially appears then - mind you even if the amount of permanent demolition is small, its still not exactly a cheap scheme and I cannot see anyone rushing to take on the challenge when there are more pressing matters to address.

[RJS1977]

A few months back I travelled from Reading to Willesden (starting point of my attempt to get the fastest time for visiting all the Underground stations in Zones 1 & 2). It was quite disconcerting to realise as I stood on the platform at Willesden that one of the buildings close to the station backed on to OOC and consequently I had passed it over half an hour earlier. An OOC stop would allow much easier transfer from the GWR to Willesden Junction than taking the Bakerloo.

 

 

As regards potential extensions to the Underground to relieve capacity on the GWML, the other option I've pondered for some time is - what about extending the Met/Piccadilly from Uxbridge to Langley or Slough? Potentially then even extending the Piccadilly to Windsor and then via the proposed Windsor Link Railway to Heathrow, providing better links between the Uxbridge area and the GWML and airport?

[WCML100]

A few months back I travelled from Reading to Willesden (starting point of my attempt to get the fastest time for visiting all the Underground stations in Zones 1 & 2). It was quite disconcerting to realise as I stood on the platform at Willesden that one of the buildings close to the station backed on to OOC and consequently I had passed it over half an hour earlier. An OOC stop would allow much easier transfer from the GWR to Willesden Junction than taking the Bakerloo.

 

 

As regards potential extensions to the Underground to relieve capacity on the GWML, the other option I've pondered for some time is - what about extending the Met/Piccadilly from Uxbridge to Langley or Slough? Potentially then even extending the Piccadilly to Windsor and then via the proposed Windsor Link Railway to Heathrow, providing better links between the Uxbridge area and the GWML and airport?

 

 

although your ideas are interesting ones, i cannot see this happening at all

[The Stationmaster]

A few months back I travelled from Reading to Willesden (starting point of my attempt to get the fastest time for visiting all the Underground stations in Zones 1 & 2). It was quite disconcerting to realise as I stood on the platform at Willesden that one of the buildings close to the station backed on to OOC and consequently I had passed it over half an hour earlier. An OOC stop would allow much easier transfer from the GWR to Willesden Junction than taking the Bakerloo.

 

 

As regards potential extensions to the Underground to relieve capacity on the GWML, the other option I've pondered for some time is - what about extending the Met/Piccadilly from Uxbridge to Langley or Slough? Potentially then even extending the Piccadilly to Windsor and then via the proposed Windsor Link Railway to Heathrow, providing better links between the Uxbridge area and the GWML and airport?

 

I think the latter is what LUL increasingly view Crossrail as achieving - all the stations east of Maidenhead except Slough and Paddington (mainline) will become Crossrail managed (and presumably 'owned') so effectively LUL then extends to Taplow as an operator with trains going on to Maidenhead (also Crossrail managed) and Reading.  The footprint of the former West Drayton - Uxbridge branch has been extensively built over so could not be recovered although a new line could probably be built over green fields further west but it wouldn't reach the centre of Uxbridge without major demolitions so is highly unlikely to ever happen.

 

Incidentally the current fastest and cheapest link to LHR from the GWML Thames Valley stations east of Reading is to alight at West Drayton and take a 'bus and although the train journey times might increase when Crossrail opens there is no reason why it should cease to be a valid route.  However for many people, particularly if there are 2-4 of you taking a taxi is probably cheaper than the rail alternative - from here the taxi fare to Heathrow is £50 while returns on the Railair link from Reading are £25, and there is the cost of getting to Reading (ok, nil for me and my wife but there is also the time factor which makes a big difference).  The west rail link to the airport from Reading will undoubtedly be cheaper but it will never be as convenient for a door-to-door journey as a taxi ride although it will clearly benefit longer distance passengers.

[The Stationmaster]

BTW - getting back to the Goring Gap moaners their flavour of the month has moved away from electrification to the proposed Tesco mini-store which apparently is an even greater evil and threat to Goring-kind than either GWML ohle or archimedes tubes generating electricity near Goring Lock.

[alaneggleston]

BTW - getting back to the Goring Gap moaners their flavour of the month has moved away from electrification to the proposed Tesco mini-store which apparently is an even greater evil and threat to Goring-kind than either GWML ohle or archimedes tubes generating electricity near Goring Lock.

It gives them something else to moan about, clearly for them variety is the spice of life.

[The Pilotman]

Mike, that reminds me of the time that Tesco were looking at opening a big store in Henley-on-Thames. One indignant local wrote in to the Henley Standard questioning why it was necessary when, "there's a perfectly good Waitrose here already".

[The Stationmaster]

Mike, that reminds me of the time that Tesco were looking at opening a big store in Henley-on-Thames. One indignant local wrote in to the Henley Standard questioning why it was necessary when, "there's a perfectly good Waitrose here already".

 

And now there are both, plus a Sainsbury's Local.

 

Current indignation on the Henley branch is the likely withdrawal of the Wargrave stop in every second train if the branch goes to a 30 minute interval 'off peak'.  Reportedly electrification will make it possible to restore the Wargrave stops although quite how that miracle of physics will be achieved has not been disclosed as various linespeed restrictions will mean the electrics will be able to go no faster than the turbos and in several places there acceleration will be no better either due to the linespeed limits.

[Zomboid]

Maybe electrification will go with some other improvements to enable it. On the face of it you wouldn't need to find all that much to reinstate a brief halt at a (presumably) quiet station.

[Edwin_m]

To my mind HS2 at Old Oak provides three major connectional opportunities:

- Midlands and North to parts of London not convenient for Tube from Euston. 

- Midlands and North to Heathrow, avoiding the journey from Euston or Kings Cross which can take nearly an hour.  East West Rail in conjunction with the western link to Heathrow will provide this connectivity for Bucks/Beds but doesn't help for further north.

- Midlands and North to Thames Valley and Newbury line - many journeys will be quicker than via Banbury. 

 

For many journeys to/from further west the Bristol-Birmingham route will probably remain quicker, so I agree there may not be a case for stopping longer-distance GWR services. 

 

I wonder if the HS2 ventilation arrangements would allow for Chiltern to provide some service from Northolt to terminate close to Old Oak (pedestrian links proposed for a new Overground station would nearly reach North Action Central Line station). 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Edwin_m

[The Stationmaster]

Maybe electrification will go with some other improvements to enable it. On the face of it you wouldn't need to find all that much to reinstate a brief halt at a (presumably) quiet station.

 

The sensible improvements would be to increase linespeeds, especially the 30mph limit over the River Thames viaduct (which due for some major work anyway I understand).   Idid an interesting analysis of branch journey times and other information for a recent letter to a newspaper and the numbers were both fascinating and frightening.

 

In 1866, with one intermediate stop, the journey time fora  passenger train was 15 minutes but by 1892, after earlier gauge narrowing it was down to 10/12 minutes and by 1901, with two intermediate stops it had clearly standardised at 12 minutes end-to-end in both directions.  Since 1901 the line has passed through several generations of steam traction and is currently on its third generation of diesel traction but the end-to-end WTT time is still 12 minutes with two intermediate stops.  However the current generation of diesels has seen linespeed reductions compared with their forebears and the age of steam.

 

In reality with relatively small numbers joining/alighting at the two intermediate station off-peak a sub 11 minute journey time is often achieved and I have seen it done in 10 minutes although that might have been accompanied by a slightly liberal interpretation of one of the sections restricted below linespeed.  Because of the position of the speed restrictions the better acceleration of electrics can't be fully exploited as one of them is quite close to a  station.  simple answer - raise the linespeeds but in BR terms that would shove the branch into the next higher maintenance category (I don't know if NR use the same system of categorisation for maintenance).

[The Stationmaster]

To my mind HS2 at Old Oak provides three major connectional opportunities:

- Midlands and North to parts of London not convenient for Tube from Euston. 

- Midlands and North to Heathrow, avoiding the journey from Euston or Kings Cross which can take nearly an hour.  East West Rail in conjunction with the western link to Heathrow will provide this connectivity for Bucks/Beds but doesn't help for further north.

- Midlands and North to Thames Valley and Newbury line - many journeys will be quicker than via Banbury. 

 

For many journeys to/from further west the Bristol-Birmingham route will probably remain quicker, so I agree there may not be a case for stopping longer-distance GWR services. 

 

I wonder if the HS2 ventilation arrangements would allow for Chiltern to provide some service from Northolt to terminate close to Old Oak (pedestrian links proposed for a new Overground station would nearly reach North Action Central Line station). 

I wonder if the Midlands and North to Thames Valley/Newbury would be faster than via Banbury?  At present the balancing point on the WCML is Crewe and it is basically virtually equal in time via London or using Cross Country with the advantage just lying with Cross Country.  If you have luggage via Cross Country is undoubtedly the more convenient route as it avoids the trek across London although direct interchange at Old Oak would obviously avoid that.  On the East Coast Cost it really depends currently on the exact time at which you travel but for Thames Valley stations west of Reading it is quicker via Cross Country, Reading varies, and east of Maidenhead it is quicker via London; York to Twyford is very finely balanced.

 

It then comes down to HS2 offering comparable services in terms of stops covered and the usual passenger trade-off between journey time and the benefit of a through train or whatever facilities happen to be available on-train.  i can't really see a passenger from Reading travelling to the West Midlands via Old Oak when he/she has a direct train from Reading, especially if that train offers immediate access to connections at New St should they be wanted.

 

Some Midlands, and north thereof, journeys to/from Heathrow might be quicker via Old Oak (and definitely quicker than via central London of course) but some will be quicker via Cross Country/Reading/western rail link to LHR.

 

The real benefit of the old Oak interchange will be beqwteen Crossrail and HS 2 for passengers travelling to/from some parts of central London and beyond to the east plus within a limited distance to the west.  What would be interesting to know is how many people travelling via LHR go to/from central London in order to make the next part of their journey by rail or who would transfer from domestic flights to rail (with the added inconvenience of humping their own luggage about).

[ess1uk]

A bit of extra practise with the ohle at Paddington this weekend then?

[Edwin_m]

I wonder if the Midlands and North to Thames Valley/Newbury would be faster than via Banbury?  

For Birmingham to Reading probably not: existing service is 1hr 36min and will probably reduce a bit with electrification.  HS2 will be about 45min to Old Oak so after allowing for connection time the Reading journey time won't be much less, and probably not worth the hassle of a change en route. 

 

For Nottingham to Reading certainly, assuming the passenger has access to Toton - it is less than 50min from there to Old Oak and the classic journey is a shade under 3hr via either London or Birmingham. 

 

Manchester to Reading very likely: just over 1hr to Old Oak on HS2, 3hr 15min for whole journey on existing route again similar for via London or via Birmingham.

 

I could go on, but I think this demonstrates that there is quite a large swathe of the country where changing at Old Oak will be the quickest route for Thames Valley destinations, more so east of Reading where the time via Old Oak will be less and that via Reading will be more.