Should trains from the South West of England call at Old Oak Common?

[Class15]

Nobody is saying you would get off at OOC if you were coming in on a GWR service unless you wanted to go to the local area around that station. My original reply related to a post discussing what people would do when they get off HS2 when it initially terminates at OOC for a few years, and whether GWR services should carry those passengers between OOC and Paddington, to which my answer was that even if they do hardly anyone will choose that option because getting straight on the Liz at OOC will be preferable over the additional change and possibly quicker too because that change wastes time.

Of course a passenger coming in on GWR will change to the Liz at Paddington instead, that wasn't what I was disputing.

Oh ok, that makes far more sense. Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding what you said.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh ok, that makes far more sense. Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding what you said.

No worries, there are a lot of sub-discussions on this thread!

 

[CW2]

It is always tempting to think that traffic flows are symmetrical, but in practice they aren't. For example, If I was travelling from Bristol to Tottenham Court Road and return, on my outward journey I would change at Old Oak Common in order to board an Elizabeth Line train starting from there, and thus get a better chance of a seat. In the return direction, I would alight from the Elizabeth Line at Paddington, in order to get on my GWR train there, thus waiting for departure in the comfort of my train rather than on the platform at OOC.
I realise that doesn't help the issue much, but when people speak in broad generalisations about how "everybody" would "always" do such and such, a little pragmatism does no harm.

 

[class397tpe]

Nobody is saying you would get off at OOC if you were coming in on a GWR service unless you wanted to go to the local area around that station. My original reply related to a post discussing what people would do when they get off HS2 when it initially terminates at OOC for a few years, and whether GWR services should carry those passengers between OOC and Paddington, to which my answer was that even if they do hardly anyone will choose that option because getting straight on the Liz at OOC will be preferable over the additional change and possibly quicker too because that change wastes time.

Of course a passenger coming in on GWR will change to the Liz at Paddington instead, that wasn't what I was disputing.

Edit: Reading is different because it's a much longer distance to London than OOC is, so taking the fast and changing rather than taking a through Liz does save a fair bit of time.

Would a passenger coming in on GWR change to the Liz at Paddington though? The changeover at OOC would be a much quicker cross platform change, rather than walking to the end of the platform, exiting the station, and going down two sets of escalators to the Elizabeth line platform.
Plus, if all Paddington terminators are extended to OOC like I believe is intended, then you will get a less crowded train.

 

[MarkyT]

It is always tempting to think that traffic flows are symmetrical, but in practice they aren't. For example, If I was travelling from Bristol to Tottenham Court Road and return, on my outward journey I would change at Old Oak Common in order to board an Elizabeth Line train starting from there, and thus get a better chance of a seat. In the return direction, I would alight from the Elizabeth Line at Paddington, in order to get on my GWR train there, thus waiting for departure in the comfort of my train rather than on the platform at OOC.
I realise that doesn't help the issue much, but when people speak in broad generalisations about how "everybody" would "always" do such and such, a little pragmatism does no harm.

Not cross-platform, but rather a short walk over a transfer bridge from up main island to up relief island. Still probably shorter and quicker than Paddington, though may depend on which terminal platform you arrive at. If you're on #1 its actually a fairly short walk.

And regular travellers will likely adjust according to experience so if in the first instance you went into Padd and found EL platforms and trains very crowded there, you might try changing at OOC instead on subsequent occasions (assuming many ELs are extended to turn back there instead of Paddington). Similar behaviour probably occurs over on the GE for trains that stop at Stratford.

 

[The Planner]

Quite simply it doesn't. At Didcot on the Up the driver is always checked down due to a red signal on the end of the platform and thus braking begins at the double yellow signal at Milton, just after Steventon. Takes about 3 minutes to come in I reckon, and I hasten to add I'm one of the old school who drive a little harder, ATP warbling, doesn't phase me in a way it does newer drivers, so I suspect they take a little longer.

Nothing is losing time this morning, and if it was such as issue it would be fixed at GWRs request.

 

[stuu]

Of course a passenger coming in on GWR will change to the Liz at Paddington instead, that wasn't what I was disputing.

I bet they won't. I expect a lot of people will chance at OOC going into London, it will be a worthwhile amount quicker, there should be an EL train waiting a lot of the time. For departures I would expect the vast majority to change at Paddington instead, because of the facilities and the chance of a seat/sitting on the train waiting to depart rather than on a platform

 

[irish_rail]

Nothing is losing time this morning, and if it was such as issue it would be fixed at GWRs request.

Nothing loses time because the one minute quoted is swallowed up by additional time between Swindon and Didcot, disguising the fact that it doesn't take one minute to approach Didcot from 125mph under caution signals!!

 

[MarkyT]

I bet they won't. I expect a lot of people will chance at OOC going into London, it will be a worthwhile amount quicker, there should be an EL train waiting a lot of the time. For departures I would expect the vast majority to change at Paddington instead, because of the facilities and the chance of a seat/sitting on the train waiting to depart rather than on a platform

With no EL stations between OOC and Paddington, the start-stop journey time will be very similar to GWR services, so assuming the same service frequency with all EL terminators extended west to OOC, it matters little where you change even if the distance/time/crowds were equivalent at each. Clearly those who have destinations more conveniently on the tube network will continue to use Paddington.

 

[The Planner]

Nothing loses time because the one minute quoted is swallowed up by additional time between Swindon and Didcot, disguising the fact that it doesn't take one minute to approach Didcot from 125mph under caution signals!!

Nope, the one minute engineering time is still allowing trains to arrive early. Even if it was masking anything then its a 5 minute overall penalty for a 125mph stop.

 

[WelshBluebird]

This really isn't true. The best way from OOC to most of central London is to take the Liz to an appropriate interchange and then the Tube from there, because the Liz is so fast and the shallow Tube is so excruciatingly slow. The only exception to that is areas around Paddington.

For some parts of London yes. But for other places that isnt true. And even for some places where it is true, for lots of people the additional change is going to be a negative that means the tube from Paddington without having to change is a better option.

This isn't the same issue as whether HS2 should go to Euston - it should, because an extra change is a faff if you were going onward from Euston on foot or by bicycle, e-scooter, bus or taxi.

I'm not talking about HS2.

you're going to the City by Tube, OOC is likely to be far better because of the Liz.

Lots of people arent going to the city though.

Taking a GWR train from OOC to Paddington then connecting onwards from there is something an enthusiast would do because they want a ride on the big train, not something a normal passenger would do.

Im talking about a person who is already on a GWR train from the west country or Wales not someone who would get on at OOC.

 

[coppercapped]

Where to begin to add my tuppenny’s worth? There are so many aspects under discussion in this thread that I didn’t know where to start. But I’ve procrastinated for long enough…!

Regarding the reasons for building the Old Oak Common station (OOC) it seems to me that the arguments have now come full circle. The station started out as a connection between Crossrail and HS2 and, if the report quoted by @Gwr12345 (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nd-call-at-old-oak-common.283249/post-7206227) is correct, it now seems to be returning to its original function as described in Command Paper 7827 High Speed Rail dated March 2010.
The importance of an interchange between HS2 and Crossrail is explained under the heading Integration with urban and international networks on page 19:

HS2 Ltd’s modelling indicates that by far the largest market for High Speed Two would be for travellers to and from London, who would comprise more than 80 per cent of High Speed Two’s passengers. As a result, the most important interchanges must be with London’s current and planned urban transport networks, in particular the Underground and the new Crossrail line to be opened from 2017. Whilst the proposed terminus at Euston would allow convenient transfer for passengers to the Victoria and Northern Lines, as well as access to other lines at Euston Square, it would not provide any connection with Crossrail. Furthermore, the large numbers of additional passengers generated by a new high speed line could cause significant operational problems on Euston’s increasingly crowded Underground platforms.

A Crossrail Interchange station a short distance west of Paddington, as recommended by HS2 Ltd, addresses these issues directly. An interchange station would provide a fast, direct link to Crossrail for passengers travelling onwards to the West End, the City and Canary Wharf, enhancing the connectivity of the high speed line and significantly reducing crowding and dispersal issues at Euston.

The Government therefore agrees with HS2 Ltd’s recommendation that a Crossrail interchange station is important for integration with London transport networks and should form part of the London-Birmingham line.

It then discusses the requirements for links to Heathrow:

The Government also considers that rail access to Heathrow is an important factor for High Speed Two, given the airport’s strategic importance for the UK economy. The Crossrail Interchange could provide a rapid (around 10-minute) and frequent service to Heathrow via the Heathrow Express and Crossrail.

In the interests of completeness I should mention that the possibility of connections to the wider area served by the Great Western is mentioned on p. 16 of the Executive Summary but is not explored further.

This argument was developed later, seemingly as the predicted costs of HS2 continued to rise making it necessary to find as many extra passengers as possible. These arguments are contained in the later documents prepared by HS2 Ltd. in the run up to the passing of the enabling legislation by adding a proportion of long distance passenger flows between towns and cities west of Reading such as Swindon, Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth to the London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (the ‘HS2 stations’) flows expected on the full ‘Y’ shaped route via the station at Old Oak Common. To me this is reminiscent of the way that the predicted flow of passengers through the Channel Tunnel kept growing as the construction costs kept rising until it was predicted that half the population of the country would use the Tunnel every year! And we all know how that ended.

In the meantime the ORR has released its ‘Origin and Destination Matrix’ giving actual numbers for existing flows which enables reasonably accurate estimates to be made of the potential flows in question, that is those from the West Country to the HS2 stations via Old Oak Common. I have used the user friendly version prepared by @RailAleFan to be found at https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/ which is limited to the top 100 flows from each station. These data refer to 2022-23 so the absolute numbers may be a bit off but it is unlikely that the ratios between the flows have changed much. I have used the figures for daily passenger flows but the matrix does not give figures if the daily flow is less than 10 so if no number is given I have assumed 5 people a day.

The two main questions
The questions to which answers are sought are whether the the number of passengers who could interchange at OOC for HS2 and for Heathrow is significant enough to justify stopping most or all of the GW’s long distance high speed (Main Line) services there.

Setting the scene
If I have interpreted the ODM numbers correctly, the total flow into and out of Paddington on Main Line services is in the order of 22,000 - 23,000 passengers per day. This is made up from:

• 7300 passengers from stations between Bristol (both Temple Meads and Parkway) as far as Didcot;
• 5600 passengers between Reading and Paddington mostly use the Main Line trains, the Elizabeth line trains being quite lightly used off-peak at Reading;
• 3300 passengers between the major stations between Penzance as far as Newbury;
• 3000 passengers from and to Oxford alone;
• 2000 passengers from and to South Wales;
• 1000 or so make up the Weston-super-Mare; ‘Golden Valley’; and Cotswolds flows.

Flows to the HS2 stations
Taking the HS2 stations together, between:

• Didcot and these stations there were 25 passengers per day;
• 37 to and from Swindon;
• 25 to and from Chippenham;
• 62 from Bath Spa; and
• 425 from both Bristol stations.

This is a total of some 575 passengers daily.

Between Exeter St. Davids and Birmingham New Street there are 33 passengers daily and 10 per day to and from Manchester Piccadilly; the Taunton totals are 20 and 5 per day respectively. From Penzance to Newbury the total to the HS2 stations is around 150 per day.
Some stations have flows to York and Newcastle in their ‘top 100’ but Scottish destinations are noticeable by their absence, only Edinburgh is listed once or twice.

If we assume that all these passengers decide to route via OOC the total comes to some 750 per day although I think it unlikely that the Bristol passengers for Birmingham would take the 215 mile long dogs-leg via OOC when there is a 75 mile long direct link so I think a more reasonable total might be 400 or so.

Flows to Heathrow
The flows from ‘GW land’ to Heathrow (Terminals 1-3 and 5 are included in the ODM) are around 150 per day. This excludes the Reading - Heathrow flow which ODM shows as 78 per day but I suspect many people use the Railair coach which may or may not show up in the ODM data. Certainly observation of the coaches show that the numbers using the coaches are much higher than 78 per day.

Transfers from GW Main Line trains to Crossrail at OOC instead of Paddington
Firstly this transfer is not ‘cross-platform’. Crossrail and GW Main Line trains use different platforms so passengers will have to use the overbridge. I cannot see that this is much simpler than making the change at Paddington. Secondly there will also be barriers on the bridge to separate TfL land from the greater outside world.

Conclusion
The biggest and most important interchange flows are those between the HS2 trains and Crossrail towards the Central Line axis through London, which was the original justification for the OOC station.

Based on the ODM data it would seem that potentially up to 450 people per day could use OOC to make connections between GW Main Line trains and HS2. These numbers however assume that HS2 is going to serve Manchester and Leeds as well as Birmingham but because the northern extensions have been delayed by a decade or more it is to be anticipated that the number of people transferring only for Birmingham will be smaller.

Even so, 450 transfers per day to HS2 make up less than 2% of the travellers going on to Paddington on the Main Line trains.

I am not convinced that it is worth while stopping some or all of these trains for 2% of the passengers. It is not as if there are no alternatives - these are already available as the ODM data show.

 

[CW2]

It is good to have the modelling data as provided by Coppercapped, but the timetabling assumptions still need to be resolved.
The idea that time will be saved by not calling at OOC only holds true if you have a clear path, and if you don't mind having one "non-stop" train effectively taking up two "stopping" paths. In actual fact, trains approaching Paddington would probably get held at or near OOC for other trains to proceed, so the Journey Time saving will be negligible.
I think this is a failure of NR and HS2 to properly explain the realities of capacity management and timetabling to the interested parties (MPs), and we will probably end up with a right mess unless somebody can come up with a novel timetabling solution.

 

[irish_rail]

Where to begin to add my tuppenny’s worth? There are so many aspects under discussion in this thread that I didn’t know where to start. But I’ve procrastinated for long enough…!

Regarding the reasons for building the Old Oak Common station (OOC) it seems to me that the arguments have now come full circle. The station started out as a connection between Crossrail and HS2 and, if the report quoted by @Gwr12345 (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nd-call-at-old-oak-common.283249/post-7206227) is correct, it now seems to be returning to its original function as described in Command Paper 7827 High Speed Rail dated March 2010.
The importance of an interchange between HS2 and Crossrail is explained under the heading Integration with urban and international networks on page 19:

It then discusses the requirements for links to Heathrow:

In the interests of completeness I should mention that the possibility of connections to the wider area served by the Great Western is mentioned on p. 16 of the Executive Summary but is not explored further.

This argument was developed later, seemingly as the predicted costs of HS2 continued to rise making it necessary to find as many extra passengers as possible. These arguments are contained in the later documents prepared by HS2 Ltd. in the run up to the passing of the enabling legislation by adding a proportion of long distance passenger flows between towns and cities west of Reading such as Swindon, Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth to the London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (the ‘HS2 stations’) flows expected on the full ‘Y’ shaped route via the station at Old Oak Common. To me this is reminiscent of the way that the predicted flow of passengers through the Channel Tunnel kept growing as the construction costs kept rising until it was predicted that half the population of the country would use the Tunnel every year! And we all know how that ended.

In the meantime the ORR has released its ‘Origin and Destination Matrix’ giving actual numbers for existing flows which enables reasonably accurate estimates to be made of the potential flows in question, that is those from the West Country to the HS2 stations via Old Oak Common. I have used the user friendly version prepared by @RailAleFan to be found at https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/ which is limited to the top 100 flows from each station. These data refer to 2022-23 so the absolute numbers may be a bit off but it is unlikely that the ratios between the flows have changed much. I have used the figures for daily passenger flows but the matrix does not give figures if the daily flow is less than 10 so if no number is given I have assumed 5 people a day.

The two main questions
The questions to which answers are sought are whether the the number of passengers who could interchange at OOC for HS2 and for Heathrow is significant enough to justify stopping most or all of the GW’s long distance high speed (Main Line) services there.

Setting the scene
If I have interpreted the ODM numbers correctly, the total flow into and out of Paddington on Main Line services is in the order of 22,000 - 23,000 passengers per day. This is made up from:

• 7300 passengers from stations between Bristol (both Temple Meads and Parkway) as far as Didcot;
• 5600 passengers between Reading and Paddington mostly use the Main Line trains, the Elizabeth line trains being quite lightly used off-peak at Reading;
• 3300 passengers between the major stations between Penzance as far as Newbury;
• 3000 passengers from and to Oxford alone;
• 2000 passengers from and to South Wales;
• 1000 or so make up the Weston-super-Mare; ‘Golden Valley’; and Cotswolds flows.

Flows to the HS2 stations
Taking the HS2 stations together, between:

• Didcot and these stations there were 25 passengers per day;
• 37 to and from Swindon;
• 25 to and from Chippenham;
• 62 from Bath Spa; and
• 425 from both Bristol stations.

This is a total of some 575 passengers daily.

Between Exeter St. Davids and Birmingham New Street there are 33 passengers daily and 10 per day to and from Manchester Piccadilly; the Taunton totals are 20 and 5 per day respectively. From Penzance to Newbury the total to the HS2 stations is around 150 per day.
Some stations have flows to York and Newcastle in their ‘top 100’ but Scottish destinations are noticeable by their absence, only Edinburgh is listed once or twice.

If we assume that all these passengers decide to route via OOC the total comes to some 750 per day although I think it unlikely that the Bristol passengers for Birmingham would take the 215 mile long dogs-leg via OOC when there is a 75 mile long direct link so I think a more reasonable total might be 400 or so.

Flows to Heathrow
The flows from ‘GW land’ to Heathrow (Terminals 1-3 and 5 are included in the ODM) are around 150 per day. This excludes the Reading - Heathrow flow which ODM shows as 78 per day but I suspect many people use the Railair coach which may or may not show up in the ODM data. Certainly observation of the coaches show that the numbers using the coaches are much higher than 78 per day.

Transfers from GW Main Line trains to Crossrail at OOC instead of Paddington
Firstly this transfer is not ‘cross-platform’. Crossrail and GW Main Line trains use different platforms so passengers will have to use the overbridge. I cannot see that this is much simpler than making the change at Paddington. Secondly there will also be barriers on the bridge to separate TfL land from the greater outside world.

Conclusion
The biggest and most important interchange flows are those between the HS2 trains and Crossrail towards the Central Line axis through London, which was the original justification for the OOC station.

Based on the ODM data it would seem that potentially up to 450 people per day could use OOC to make connections between GW Main Line trains and HS2. These numbers however assume that HS2 is going to serve Manchester and Leeds as well as Birmingham but because the northern extensions have been delayed by a decade or more it is to be anticipated that the number of people transferring only for Birmingham will be smaller.

Even so, 450 transfers per day to HS2 make up less than 2% of the travellers going on to Paddington on the Main Line trains.

I am not convinced that it is worth while stopping some or all of these trains for 2% of the passengers. It is not as if there are no alternatives - these are already available as the ODM data show.

Thank you for this figures based analysis which pretty much backs up what I have been arguing (perhaps badly due to not having statistics, only anecdotal evidence). Presumably whoever has decided GWR won't be forced to serve OOC has seen similar figures and realised it just isn't worth doing. And one very relevant point you make concerns that those likely to use OOC off GWR include a good number going to Manchester or Leeds, which is still many many years away, so it looks like the right descion has been reached. Here's hoping the descion makers stick to it and aren't swayed by those with vested interests.

 

[coppercapped]

It is good to have the modelling data as provided by Coppercapped, but the timetabling assumptions still need to be resolved.
The idea that time will be saved by not calling at OOC only holds true if you have a clear path, and if you don't mind having one "non-stop" train effectively taking up two "stopping" paths. In actual fact, trains approaching Paddington would probably get held at or near OOC for other trains to proceed, so the Journey Time saving will be negligible.
I think this is a failure of NR and HS2 to properly explain the realities of capacity management and timetabling to the interested parties (MPs), and we will probably end up with a right mess unless somebody can come up with a novel timetabling solution.

I'm afraid that I don't follow this argument. If the Main Line trains don't stop then there is no change to the current situation, any delays most likely occurring near Westbourne Park and Royal Oak at the Paddington throat. The GW Main Line is now effectively a two track railway out to Slough - there are no stopping trains on the Mains.

The current OOC station design calls for both the Up and Down Main and Relief lines to be split each side of an island platform as is now the case at Reading. With the turnouts a sufficient distance from the platform ends and suitable signalling trains can enter and leave without affecting the following one.

 

[cle]

There shouldn't be any type of pathing detriment to this (only the X minute time penalty) - due to the pairs of platforms. Do we know if HEx will call at OOC?

 

[The Planner]

There shouldn't be any type of pathing detriment to this (only the X minute time penalty) - due to the pairs of platforms. Do we know if HEx will call at OOC?

There will be if you are being overtaken, you dwell longer to wait for the path.

 

[kevin_roche]

Do we know if HEx will call at OOC?

Yes, I believe he plan is that HS2 passengers headed to Heathrow will be able to change to HEx or EL.

 

[cle]

There will be if you are being overtaken, you dwell longer to wait for the path.

I didn't think overtaking was planned. Just 'simultaneous' / swift platform entry and exit. But same order in dispatch is key, and there is only a single route west (vs Reading having branches off)

 

[Topological]

The ODM data neglects flows with split tickets?

Most journeys benefit from splits at Reading and often somewhere else on the Elizabeth Line.

I do not know how many will split to obtain cheaper journeys to Heathrow, but certainly some do.

 

[The Planner]

I didn't think overtaking was planned. Just 'simultaneous' / swift platform entry and exit. But same order in dispatch is key, and there is only a single route west (vs Reading having branches off)

But chances are that if a non stopper is relatively close to a stopper then the latter is going to have to wait.

 

[CW2]

If a non-stopper is to get a clear run, then either it has to overtake the previous train at OOC (which will prolong the station dwell of the stopping train, extending the journey time for passengers on that train), or the non-stopper has to have a vacant path in front of it west of OOC so that it can run through unchecked. That means each non-stopper consumes two paths.

Either way, a consistent stopping pattern is the key to a deliverable timetable. Running random trains through non-stop is madness.

Perhaps non-stop trains should be subject to higher track access charges to account for the increased path utilisation, with those increased charges being passed on as higher fares?

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps non-stop trains should be subject to higher track access charges to account for the increased path utilisation, with those increased charges being passed on as higher fares?

<<lights blue touchpaper and retires>>

 

[Snow1964]

Perhaps non-stop trains should be subject to higher track access charges to account for the increased path utilisation, with those increased charges being passed on as higher fares?

You can also reverse the argument, that the trains stopping take extra paths compared to current situation where nothing on fast line stops.

I see the Old Oak fast platforms rather like Gare Massy TGV which was built in SW Paris suburbs on the Atlantique TGV, a useful connection for some middle distance trains, but a time wasting distraction for longer distance services. Maybe it's something about going South West (leisure vs business travel)

 

[Benjwri]

I see the Old Oak fast platforms rather like Gare Massy TGV which was built in SW Paris suburbs on the Atlantique TGV, a useful connection for some middle distance trains, but a time wasting distraction for longer distance services. Maybe it's something about going South West (leisure vs business travel)

The reverse argument to this though is that OOC will be far more convenient than Paddington for the Elizabeth Line, which a significant amount of passengers connect to, and far less stressful than the Paddington platform game.

 

[fishwomp]

The reverse argument to this though is that OOC will be far more convenient than Paddington for the Elizabeth Line, which a significant amount of passengers connect to, and far less stressful than the Paddington platform game.

Is it less stressful though? Paddington lets you get on your train before it's ready to leave, move to your reserved seat, etc. At OOC, with only two platforms (?) you'll have 12 departures per hour - that's a lot of flow (if it were successful), lot of churn, people to get out of the way of, to get to your part of the train etc etc. plus a lot of 'is this my train' punters when things arrive a few mins late. It can be done, but I challenge the 'stress' angle.

 

[CW2]

Is it less stressful though? Paddington lets you get on your train before it's ready to leave, move to your reserved seat, etc. At OOC, with only two platforms (?) you'll have 12 departures per hour - that's a lot of flow (if it were successful), lot of churn, people to get out of the way of, to get to your part of the train etc etc. plus a lot of 'is this my train' punters when things arrive a few mins late. It can be done, but I challenge the 'stress' angle.

See my earlier post re asymmetric traffic flows. Westbound passengers are more likely to join the train at Paddington for the reasons you explained, but eastbound are more likely to change at OOC.

 

[brad465]

Been reported in Devon Live now:

Big U-turn on controversial railway plan

Rail passengers in the South West just won a major battle

www.devonlive.com

Liberal Democrat MPs from the South West are celebrating a transport victory after Great Western Railway (GWR) reversed its plans to introduce routine stops at Old Oak Common for trains heading to London Paddington. Following significant lobbying efforts, the railway operator has confirmed that services will now only stop at the new station when there is "good reason to do so."

The decision comes as GWR prepares to expand its fleet with 26 additional trains. Critics had argued that forcing express services to halt at Old Oak Common would have added unnecessary delays for passengers travelling from the South West.

In a joint statement, the group of MPs said: "This is a huge victory for families and commuters living across our region.

"We already face significant levels of disruption on the railway network, and adding an additional stop at Old Oak Common that benefits no one would only have compounded these issues.

"It is right that this decision has been reversed and trains will now only stop with good reason.

 

[stuu]

Very silly. How they can claim a victory when GWR have already made clear they have a watertight get-out clause

"A good reason to do so" will include making the timetable work. And that there is passenger demand to stop there anyway

 

[coppercapped]

There shouldn't be any type of pathing detriment to this (only the X minute time penalty) - due to the pairs of platforms. Do we know if HEx will call at OOC?

Yes, I believe he plan is that HS2 passengers headed to Heathrow will be able to change to HEx or EL.

To which the real answer is ‘Who knows?’ as HeX’s track access agreement expires in June 2028 before OOC opens. What happens after that is, at the moment, anyone’s guess.

The ODM data neglects flows with split tickets?

Most journeys benefit from splits at Reading and often somewhere else on the Elizabeth Line.

I do not know how many will split to obtain cheaper journeys to Heathrow, but certainly some do.

The ODM data are estimations from ticketing volumes from such tools as LENNON and are not, and are not claimed to be, accurate absolute numbers. Such estimations are especially apparent for stations ticketed as groups where various rules are used to estimate the flows through each station in the group. Similarly, things like day Travelcards, concessionary tickets and incomplete contactless journeys will affect the accuracy of the data to some degree. The same is true for split tickets but all these limitations to absolute accuracy don’t matter in practice - the whole point is to look for ratios of flow sizes and trends over time. Although split tickets may affect the volumes of some flows in one way or another the errors won’t be sufficient to hide the fact that the flow from A to B is half the size of flow C to D or ten times the size the flow between E and F. This level of accuracy is sufficient for the analysis I made in my post above.