Heathrow: Western Link to GWML.

[Envoy]

Does anyone know when we are likely to see the western link built/ operational between Heathrow and the GWML? (It would save a heck of a lot of time in getting to/from the Airport in the land of the GWR as well as the Midlands via the Banbury route).

Once open, will it be served by shuttle trains to/from Reading or will some other arrangement occur?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Enhancements-Delivery-Plan.pdf

On page 95 of the latest enhancements delivery plan update is says GRIP3 September 2018 so I think that is the best we are going to get.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Probably not until 2022. It's still at GRIP3 stage (Second time round now) and will seek a DCO next year some time.

It will most likely be a Cross Rail service from Reading to Paddington via Heathrow. The current design has a crossover to the west of Terminal 5 to allow services from the west to turn back. The need for this [expensive] box is being debated. There was speculation as to whether intercity trains from Bristol/South Wales would use the line and turn back. It's looking unlikely now so the crossover will have limited use.

The biggest headache is around the junction with the GWML. Not sure how they're going to build the box/bridge where the lines to T5 dive under the GWML. When it's being built, there will be Cross Rail services running meaning long possessions will be exceptionally rare.

 

[HowardGWR]

Until it's built, could it not be better to stop fastest inter-city trains (those not stopping at Reading) at Hayes and Harlington and then at a later stage, when all the new stations and west London connections with HS2 there, are made, at OOC instead?

 

[rebmcr]

those not stopping at Reading

Not really a thing that exists!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Until it's built, could it not be better to stop fastest inter-city trains (those not stopping at Reading) at Hayes and Harlington and then at a later stage, when all the new stations and west London connections with HS2 there, are made, at OOC instead?

For that to work, you need a station capable of handling lots of passenger interchanging between InterCity services. OOC will have 8 GWML platforms, 4 for the Main lines and 4 for the Reliefs/Elizabeth line, and enough escalators and lifts to get people on and off the platforms. When the Main lines are going to be totally full, these extra platforms and passenger moving capacity is essential. There's no point rebuilding Hayes and Harlington into a mega-interchange station for less than a decade of use.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably not until 2022. It's still at GRIP3 stage (Second time round now) and will seek a DCO next year some time.

It will most likely be a Cross Rail service from Reading to Paddington via Heathrow. The current design has a crossover to the west of Terminal 5 to allow services from the west to turn back. The need for this [expensive] box is being debated. There was speculation as to whether intercity trains from Bristol/South Wales would use the line and turn back. It's looking unlikely now so the crossover will have limited use.

The biggest headache is around the junction with the GWML. Not sure how they're going to build the box/bridge where the lines to T5 dive under the GWML. When it's being built, there will be Cross Rail services running meaning long possessions will be exceptionally rare.

If a southern link via Staines is built then it would be better for services off that to run through and for Reading services to terminate at Heathrow. Running Reading-Heathrow-Paddington has no benefit other than for Heathrow passengers since other stations are already linked by (probably faster) other services. Running through from Paddington to Staines and beyond creates significant extra opportunities, particularly linking the South Western rail network to HS2 at Old Oak.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Running Reading-Heathrow-Paddington has no benefit other than for Heathrow passengers since other stations are already linked by (probably faster) other services.

I agree a southern link with through services would open up a new London terminus destination for south west passengers. However isn't the whole point of the WRLTH to serve the airport and benefit Heathrow passengers?

The Paddington to Reading via T5 could be an extension of the HEx service with limited or no stops on the GWML.

 

[MarkyT]

I agree a southern link with through services would open up a new London terminus destination for south west passengers. However isn't the whole point of the WRLTH to serve the airport and benefit Heathrow passengers?

The Paddington to Reading via T5 could be an extension of the HEx service with limited or no stops on the GWML.

Possible, but I think Heathrow would rather the Hex paths were extended south to Woking and beyond via a new southern connection and there's a desire to serve at least principal stations between the airport and Reading frequently, particularly Slough and Maidenhead. I think the Heathrow-Reading services would be better joined with stopping services west of Reading to create a 'Thames Valley Metro' that could terminate somewhere around the airport complex. This could improve frequencies through the airport tunnels considerably. I suggest terminating at Hayes and Harlington as shown.

 

[rebmcr]

The Paddington to Reading via T5 could be an extension of the HEx service with limited or no stops on the GWML.

Indeed. Crossrail could also be permanently diverted. This is what I would like to see eventually:

 

[MarkyT]

My Thames Valley Metro alternative.

 

[Non Multi]

I've considered the Elizabeth Line west of West Drayton as a de-facto Thames Valley Metro since it was extended to Reading.

 

[HowardGWR]

Not really a thing that exists!

They will in the near future, from Bristol (both TM and Parkway) two an hour.

 

[coppercapped]

Does anyone know when we are likely to see the western link built/ operational between Heathrow and the GWML? (It would save a heck of a lot of time in getting to/from the Airport in the land of the GWR as well as the Midlands via the Banbury route).

Once open, will it be served by shuttle trains to/from Reading or will some other arrangement occur?

People responsible for the re-opened section of the East-West Rail route between Bicester and Bedford are seriously talking about Heathrow being one terminal, and possibly Paddington for trains using this route. See this Youtube video, from about 8mins 50 secs.

In a few years time there will not be the platform capacity at Reading for shuttle trains to Heathrow to wait for 10 or 15 minutes or so during turnround so I would bet that trains using the western route to Terminal 5 will have to come from further afield. Oxford, Milton Keynes or Bedford are all possibilities as well as trains from other routes.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's a link to my combined sketch for Hayes & Harlington showing the layout and service schematic:
http://www.townend.me/files/H&H.pdf

 

[Chris125]

People responsible for the re-opened section of the East-West Rail route between Bicester and Bedford are seriously talking about Heathrow being one terminal, and possibly Paddington for trains using this route. See this Youtube video, from about 8mins 50 secs.

I'd be surprised if those ideas have survived the loss of electrification, and the need to use diesel or bi-modes on EWR services - aside from the extra cost of such trains, wouldn't they be banned from the Heathrow tunnels?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'd be surprised if those ideas have survived the loss of electrification, and the need to use diesel or bi-modes on EWR services - aside from the extra cost of such trains, wouldn't they be banned from the Heathrow tunnels?

Why would bi-modes running electrically be banned from Heathrow's tunnels? All those departing aircraft with full loads of aviation fuel pose a much greater risk!

 

[coppercapped]

I'd be surprised if those ideas have survived the loss of electrification, and the need to use diesel or bi-modes on EWR services - aside from the extra cost of such trains, wouldn't they be banned from the Heathrow tunnels?

By the time the East-West route is open from Oxford to at least Bedford in 2024 or thereabouts the GW electrification work will have been completed, including Oxford, Bath Spa and Bristol.

There are essentially two groups of services foreseen for East-West. One is interconnecting towns on the route with each other and also further to High Wycombe and Marylebone. As the Chiltern main line is not electrified these will stay diesel operated by 2024 for flexibility and to avoid having a mixed fleet. The other service group extends to the south (Reading, Heathrow) and to the West (Swindon, Bristol, Cardiff). These are candidates for electric operation as they will eventually reach Cambridge and points east.

The rebuilt section has been constructed to modern standards - no significant infrastructure works are expected to be needed for the next 35 years and all the bridges have been built for W12 loading gauge and are suitable for electrification. There is only one level crossing, and that is in Bicester. Electrification will be easy - nothing has to be rebuilt first. Supply and switching compounds will obviously be needed but they can be constructed away from the live railway.

If the money doesn't stretch to electrification then bi-modes would be a good alternative. I can see no reason why they should not be permitted to operate through the Heathrow tunnels as the diesel engines won't be running. It's not as if operating diesel engines are not permitted in current operation through long tunnels such as the Severn and Standedge which also have limited ventilation.

 

[mr_jrt]

Possible, but I think Heathrow would rather the Hex paths were extended south to Woking and beyond via a new southern connection and there's a desire to serve at least principal stations between the airport and Reading frequently, particularly Slough and Maidenhead. I think the Heathrow-Reading services would be better joined with stopping services west of Reading to create a 'Thames Valley Metro' that could terminate somewhere around the airport complex. This could improve frequencies through the airport tunnels considerably. I suggest terminating at Hayes and Harlington as shown.

Mark, would it not make more sense to have the TVM terminal platforms in between the Elizabeth Line ones? There's going to be little need for EL passengers to interchange from one direction to the other, but a lot more for your TVM passengers to do so. If you were to remove the eastern tracks as shown then you could have a single 'U' shaped platform, giving level access between all four platforms. The main concern would be access to the required flyover routes, but they look to be available?

 

[MarkyT]

Mark, would it not make more sense to have the TVM terminal platforms in between the Elizabeth Line ones? There's going to be little need for EL passengers to interchange from one direction to the other, but a lot more for your TVM passengers to do so. If you were to remove the eastern tracks as shown then you could have a single 'U' shaped platform, giving level access between all four platforms. The main concern would be access to the required flyover routes, but they look to be available?

I agree your suggestion would be ideal but I was trying to avoid any further changes to the flyover junctions as they have all just been expensively rebuilt, while also minimising conflict between the TVM terminators and other movements. The layout as I suggest achieves that but at the expense of cross platform interchange with the Elizabeth line.

 

[BananaRepublic]

....

Mark, would it not make more sense to have the TVM terminal platforms in between the Elizabeth Line ones? There's going to be little need for EL passengers to interchange from one direction to the other, but a lot more for your TVM passengers to do so. If you were to remove the eastern tracks as shown then you could have a single 'U' shaped platform, giving level access between all four platforms. ......

The layout as I suggest achieves that but at the expense of cross platform interchange with the Elizabeth line.

In your proposal, there would be absolutely no need for any passengers, EL or your proposed TVM, to interchange at H&H.
All routes and interchange possibilities are covered on the GWML fast and relief lines, or by people accessing Heathrow by the appropriate rail service.

In any event, this is just pie in the sky, as are some of the other suggestions.

The Heathrow rail tunnels are not part of the national rail network.
They are privately owned and their sole purpose is to provide passenger rail access to/from the airport.
From day 1 of the full EL service, there will be 10 trains per hour, each way, serving Heathrow via the tunnels.
6x EL plus 4x HEX.
Those 10 tph include 4 tph accessing T4 via the junction under the airport, with the associated junction conflicts.
TfL have an ambition to increase the frequency of the EL service in the future, if extra capacity can be squeezed out of the GW relief lines.
The aim is to increase the proportion of passengers using rail to access Heathrow, to help in reducing the increasing level of road traffic.
This will inevitably reduce the scope for any through access to/from the west.

If through services were allowed, every rail passenger passing through Heathrow and not joining or leaving the train there, would be taking away much need capacity for the carriage of airport passengers.
If the new Heathrow runway (R3) is approved, which is looking increasingly less likely, that would place a significant burden on the currently anticipated level of rail services (EL, HEX, Underground & the Western rail link).
Even without R3, the steady growth in airport passenger numbers, along with the desire to increase the degree of modal shift to the improved rail services, will leave little scope for accommodating "passers by".

As already mentioned, there would be no benefit to passengers travelling on the GWML to detour via Heathrow, as this would provide a slower and less convenient journey than remaining on the main line.

Something else to consider.
HEX has only 5 years left on its licence to operate on the GWML.
This expires in 2023.
What happens after that date is presently an unknown.
NR and the incumbent franchise holder (GWR), would very much like the 4 paths (each way), that HEX occupies on the fast lines, to be made available to allow an increase in the number of fast services to Reading and beyond.
Following the service frequency increases provided by the electrification programme and the introduction of the IET's, the HEX paths are an obstacle to any further increase in the number of trains running on the fast lines.

What is also unknown, is the effect that the EL will have on HEX's financial viability.
As we approach 2023, Heathrow Airport Ltd. (HAL) may end up either fighting to retain their HEX service, or deciding to pull out.
Anything could happen.

As for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.
This has already been put back 2 years (construction should originally have started this coming spring).
Having re-run the public consultation stages; the proposal has now been batted back out again for a further round of stakeholder consultation.
There are still outstanding issues to address, such as the proposed relocation of the HEX depot to Langley, which if given the go ahead, would directly impinge on the WRLTH project.
Also, the WRLTH detailed plans did not take into account HAL's proposal to build a new terminal (T6), as part of their R3 plans, to the immediate west of T5, right on top of the proposed new rail line and crossover box.

Already mentioned by others, there is serious consideration being given to the issue of platform capacity at Reading, as a result of running 4 tph to/from Heathrow.
NR have suggested that it may be possible to continue the Heathrow western link services on to further out destinations, such as Oxford and Basingstoke, to not only provide improved connectivity, but also to alleviate the potential platform capacity issues at Reading.
Any such extensions beyond Reading, would preclude the Heathrow western rail link service from being operated by TfL (EL), or by HEX (if that service was to survive beyond 2023).

The WRLTH is an interesting project.
It provides a much needed and some would say, overdue rail link.
The proposal that is being progressed could be considered a "no brainer" and has widespread support from almost, if not all, stakeholders.
It is hoped that the formal planning application will be submitted by late 2018; however, there are enough remaining infrastructure issues to be resolved, before the type of rail service that will be provided is addressed.

 

[MarkyT]

In your proposal, there would be absolutely no need for any passengers, EL or your proposed TVM, to interchange at H&H.
All routes and interchange possibilities are covered on the GWML fast and relief lines, or by people accessing Heathrow by the appropriate rail service.

In any event, this is just pie in the sky, as are some of the other suggestions.

The Heathrow rail tunnels are not part of the national rail network.
They are privately owned and their sole purpose is to provide passenger rail access to/from the airport.
From day 1 of the full EL service, there will be 10 trains per hour, each way, serving Heathrow via the tunnels.
6x EL plus 4x HEX.
Those 10 tph include 4 tph accessing T4 via the junction under the airport, with the associated junction conflicts.
TfL have an ambition to increase the frequency of the EL service in the future, if extra capacity can be squeezed out of the GW relief lines.
The aim is to increase the proportion of passengers using rail to access Heathrow, to help in reducing the increasing level of road traffic.
This will inevitably reduce the scope for any through access to/from the west.

If through services were allowed, every rail passenger passing through Heathrow and not joining or leaving the train there, would be taking away much need capacity for the carriage of airport passengers.
If the new Heathrow runway (R3) is approved, which is looking increasingly less likely, that would place a significant burden on the currently anticipated level of rail services (EL, HEX, Underground & the Western rail link).
Even without R3, the steady growth in airport passenger numbers, along with the desire to increase the degree of modal shift to the improved rail services, will leave little scope for accommodating "passers by".

As already mentioned, there would be no benefit to passengers travelling on the GWML to detour via Heathrow, as this would provide a slower and less convenient journey than remaining on the main line.

Something else to consider.
HEX has only 5 years left on its licence to operate on the GWML.
This expires in 2023.
What happens after that date is presently an unknown.
NR and the incumbent franchise holder (GWR), would very much like the 4 paths (each way), that HEX occupies on the fast lines, to be made available to allow an increase in the number of fast services to Reading and beyond.
Following the service frequency increases provided by the electrification programme and the introduction of the IET's, the HEX paths are an obstacle to any further increase in the number of trains running on the fast lines.

What is also unknown, is the effect that the EL will have on HEX's financial viability.
As we approach 2023, Heathrow Airport Ltd. (HAL) may end up either fighting to retain their HEX service, or deciding to pull out.
Anything could happen.

As for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.
This has already been put back 2 years (construction should originally have started this coming spring).
Having re-run the public consultation stages; the proposal has now been batted back out again for a further round of stakeholder consultation.
There are still outstanding issues to address, such as the proposed relocation of the HEX depot to Langley, which if given the go ahead, would directly impinge on the WRLTH project.
Also, the WRLTH detailed plans did not take into account HAL's proposal to build a new terminal (T6), as part of their R3 plans, to the immediate west of T5, right on top of the proposed new rail line and crossover box.

Already mentioned by others, there is serious consideration being given to the issue of platform capacity at Reading, as a result of running 4 tph to/from Heathrow.
NR have suggested that it may be possible to continue the Heathrow western link services on to further out destinations, such as Oxford and Basingstoke, to not only provide improved connectivity, but also to alleviate the potential platform capacity issues at Reading.
Any such extensions beyond Reading, would preclude the Heathrow western rail link service from being operated by TfL (EL), or by HEX (if that service was to survive beyond 2023).

The WRLTH is an interesting project.
It provides a much needed and some would say, overdue rail link.
The proposal that is being progressed could be considered a "no brainer" and has widespread support from almost, if not all, stakeholders.
It is hoped that the formal planning application will be submitted by late 2018; however, there are enough remaining infrastructure issues to be resolved, before the type of rail service that will be provided is addressed.

I don't think I ever suggested the likelyhood of significant interchange at H&H or through journeys along the GWML going via the airport. The purpose of my SUGGESTION was to provide a (potentially) cost effective reversing point that might be worth looking at for trains coming from the west via the proposed WRLTH scheme, rather than creating new turnback sidings or platfroms at T2,3 itself which would have to be underground. The idea of TVM is just as a means of rolling up all the local services remaining after TfL have taken over the main line stoppers along GWML. Perhaps creating such a local operator could be an element of the DfTs proposed splitting up of the GWR franchise, or be a separate service group operating within any successor franchise, in whatever future form that takes. Extending the WRLTH trains through to H&H would at least provide a greater frequency through the airport itself, not for the purposes of travelling through it but with the aim of more frequent links within the airport and into it from both east and west. The type of service to be provided and the infrastructure interventions required to achieve it are intimately related clearly.

Heathrow airport has expressed strong support for the proposed southern link and the favoured service concept is to extend the Hex paths through the airport to Woking and South Western destinations beyond. This suggests that they will be fighting to retain those fast paths into Paddington and looking for further business such as HS2 interchange traffic from Surrey/ Hampshire to underpin the economics of that operation.

 

[BananaRepublic]

....The purpose of my SUGGESTION was to provide a (potentially) cost effective reversing point that might be worth looking at for trains coming from the west via the proposed WRLTH scheme, rather than creating new turnback sidings or platfroms at T2,3 itself which would have to be underground.

The plan is to terminate and reverse the WRLTH trains at T5, not at T2 & 3, where there are already dedicated platforms for them.
These platforms were provided when T5 and the station were originally constructed and are currently sealed off behind temporary walls.

....Extending the WRLTH trains through to H&H would at least provide a greater frequency through the airport itself, not for the purposes of travelling through it but with the aim of more frequent links within the airport and into it from both east and west.....

You have put your finger one one of the problems with the WRLTH, in that it requires a change of train at T5, in order to reach T2 & 3. Two changes to reach T4.
However, HAL's development plan involves a wholesale redevelopment of the Central Area, doubling the size of T2 and removing T3.
Part of that plan includes the option of building a dedicated high speed underground passenger link between the enlarged T2 (Heathrow East) and T5 (Heathrow West), which should help address some of the inter-terminal connectivity issues.

Heathrow airport has expressed strong support for the proposed southern link and the favoured service concept is to extend the Hex paths through the airport to Woking and South Western destinations beyond. This suggests that they will be fighting to retain those fast paths into Paddington and looking for further business such as HS2 interchange traffic from Surrey/ Hampshire to underpin the economics of that operation.

HAL have certainly given their support to the recently proposed southern rail link, but the rest of that is more speculation, both from certain "genuine sources" and more noisily, from the Crayonista fraternity.

 

[MarkyT]

The plan is to terminate and reverse the WRLTH trains at T5, not at T2 & 3, where there are already dedicated platforms for them.
These platforms were provided when T5 and the station were originally constructed and are currently sealed off behind temporary walls.

As I remember these terminal platforms were originally intended for Airtrack services that would have entered T5 from the west.

You have put your finger one one of the problems with the WRLTH, in that it requires a change of train at T5, in order to reach T2 & 3. Two changes to reach T4.However, HAL's development plan involves a wholesale redevelopment of the Central Area, doubling the size of T2 and removing T3. Part of that plan includes the option of building a dedicated high speed underground passenger link between the enlarged T2 (Heathrow East) and T5 (Heathrow West), which should help address some of the inter-terminal connectivity issues.

Running the WRLTH trains through to T2,3 and beyond to a reversal facility could avoid having to lay track into and fit out the T5 terminal platforms however as well as avoid the extra interchange onto that high-speed internal transit. I expect with the extra runway and terminal planned, the T5/T6 station will likely become the dominant rail facility for the whole complex.

HAL have certainly given their support to the recently proposed southern rail link, but the rest of that is more speculation, both from certain "genuine sources" and more noisily, from the Crayonista fraternity.

Clearly everything here is speculation to a degree but running the Hex paths through to the south seems fairly plausible, assuming the Hex path survive.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

The design for WRLTH as it stands ties into the currently operational platforms 3&4 at T5. The empty box wouldn't be fitted out as platforms until Southern rail link is proposed. So it wouldn't be the infrastructure which forces a change of trains for T2/T3

 

[edwin_m]

What's the future for T4? I got the impression it would disappear at some stage but not sure when. Removing it would simplify the rail and Tube links and remove the flat junction conflict.

 

[BananaRepublic]

What's the future for T4? I got the impression it would disappear at some stage but not sure when. Removing it would simplify the rail and Tube links and remove the flat junction conflict.

If R3 is approved and progressed, airport terminal development would be centred around the T5/T6 Heathrow West and the enlarged T2 Heathrow East complexes.
Although there are no specific plans for the future of T4 in this scenario, its role would be somewhat diminished and there is a likelihood that it will eventually be decommissioned.
Once T3 has been closed, T4 would be the oldest terminal at some 40 years old by then (it was opened in 1986).

There is talk of a cut-price version, as a means of reducing the huge cost of R3, which may result in alternative terminal development plans (e.g. no T6).

The more likely outcome, in the current climate is that R3 will not be built.
HAL intend to continue the redevelopment of the central area, with the second phase of T2 replacing T3 and with the extension of the T5 toast rack layout, along the full length of the central airport spine.
The scale of this redevelopment should allow some services to relocate from T4 to the T2 Heathrow East complex, however it is unclear if this will lead to the closure of T4 in the short term.
If Gatwick is given approval to build a new runway and substantially increase its passenger handling capabilities, this may have an impact on the future of T4, in light of the Heathrow central area development.

 

[Wirewiper]

Forgive me if I have missed it, but I don't see any reference to the proposal to move the Heathrow Express depot to a new site at Langley, it would be just north of the lines and just to the east of Langley Station. This would give further impetus to the construction of the spur as HEx trains would have direct access to and from Terminal 5 station without any need to take up capacity on the GWML.

EDIT: my apologies, it's in BananaRepublic's post #21

 

[BananaRepublic]

Forgive me if I have missed it, but I don't see any reference to the proposal to move the Heathrow Express depot to a new site at Langley, it would be just north of the lines and just to the east of Langley Station. This would give further impetus to the construction of the spur as HEx trains would have direct access to and from Terminal 5 station without any need to take up capacity on the GWML.

EDIT: my apologies, it's in BananaRepublic's post #21

Yes, I did mention it, as you have since spotted.
The relocation of the HEX depot from OOC to Langley is a curious conundrum.
HEX is only licensed to operate for another 5 years, until 2023.
If HAL no longer wish to continue operating the service, for e.g. as a result of the impact of the EL (Crossrail), or if the license is not extended by the DfT, then what of the requirement for a new depot?
When does HS2 require the OOC site to be made available?

 

[MarkyT]

If HAL no longer wish to continue operating the service, for e.g. as a result of the impact of the EL (Crossrail), or if the license is not extended by the DfT, then what of the requirement for a new depot

Perhaps the depot could be of some use to a Thames Valley Metro operator!