Ideas for potential Heathrow Southern link services, including Gatwick link.

4-SUB 4732 · 5 Jul 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
I suspect that's unlikely. I realise that there aren't any really definite plans for the Ebbsfleet extension, but everything I've read on it suggests that if it was built, it would be dedicated Crossrail tracks East of Abbey Wood - not sharing the SouthEastern tracks. That would imply the new tracks would be OHLE-powered. Certainly, Abbey Wood at least as far as Belvedere would be relatively easy to 4-track, and I doubt there's any way the flat junctions between Slade Green and Dartford would cope with having Crossrail trains added to the traffic on the existing tracks.

I would expect CR to remain OHLE-only no matter what happens about Ebbsfleet.

As a local, it would be relatively easy. Four tracks right through to Crayford Creek and Dartford Junction is not impossible (Thames Road, near the waste dump is the bridge that would need big work).

The Crossrail tracks would be on the 'north pair' anyway, so through running to Dartford would be easy. Convert the track layout from Dartford Junction to a "Down Up Down Up" rather than "Down Rev Up", meaning Crossrail through traffic goes straight on down towards Gravesend. Up to 12 trains per hour from Abbey Wood all running to Dartford; 4 to Gravesend and 4 to Ebbsfleet with 4 terminating at Dartford and using the single reversing siding if needed; and the other two platforms being used to terminate 4 trains per hour from each of the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines.

Use the remaining 8 trains per hour on each of the Sidcup and Bexleyheath lines to go round the Loop to run rounders; with any trains from the Greenwich line terminating at Slade Green (people changing trains at Abbey Wood for the Dartford and beyond traffic of Crossrail.

RailUK Forums

Taunton · 5 Jul 2019

Good luck then with tripling all-day service over the crossing at Addlestone station.

It's also a shame that the service skirts Staines and Egham, two towns with a high proportion of airport working daily commuters.

hwl · 5 Jul 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
As a local, it would be relatively easy. Four tracks right through to Crayford Creek and Dartford Junction is not impossible (Thames Road, near the waste dump is the bridge that would need big work).

The Crossrail tracks would be on the 'north pair' anyway, so through running to Dartford would be easy. Convert the track layout from Dartford Junction to a "Down Up Down Up" rather than "Down Rev Up", meaning Crossrail through traffic goes straight on down towards Gravesend. Up to 12 trains per hour from Abbey Wood all running to Dartford; 4 to Gravesend and 4 to Ebbsfleet with 4 terminating at Dartford and using the single reversing siding if needed; and the other two platforms being used to terminate 4 trains per hour from each of the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines.

Use the remaining 8 trains per hour on each of the Sidcup and Bexleyheath lines to go round the Loop to run rounders; with any trains from the Greenwich line terminating at Slade Green (people changing trains at Abbey Wood for the Dartford and beyond traffic of Crossrail.

Exactly, the £1.5bn cheque needed being the hard part.

Edders23 · 5 Jul 2019

Taunton said:
We also, yet again, have the Heathrow-Gatwick passenger link brought up. Hardly any passengers change flights between Heathrow and Gatwick, the handful that might do in no way constitute a trainload for a regular passenger service.

There are regular timetabled buses between the two so there must be a bit of traffic and I can remember once dropping off at Gatwick and getting asked to go to Heathrow (which I declined as that would have been illegal) and for that matter you see plenty of buses between Stansted and Heathrow and I have done passenger transfer myself between Heathrow and Stansted (en route to elsewhere) so there is a lot of interchange between all the London Airports

There are probably some stats somewhere

edwin_m · 5 Jul 2019

Edders23 said:
I can remember once dropping off at Gatwick and getting asked to go to Heathrow (which I declined as that would have been illegal) and for that matter you see plenty of buses between Stansted and Heathrow and I have done passenger transfer myself between Heathrow and Stansted (en route to elsewhere) so there is a lot of interchange between all the London Airports

There are probably some stats somewhere

Are these scheduled services or hires arranged by airlines etc to cope with flight disruption?

Bald Rick · 5 Jul 2019

Edders23 said:
There are regular timetabled buses between the two so there must be a bit of traffic and I can remember once dropping off at Gatwick and getting asked to go to Heathrow (which I declined as that would have been illegal) and for that matter you see plenty of buses between Stansted and Heathrow and I have done passenger transfer myself between Heathrow and Stansted (en route to elsewhere) so there is a lot of interchange between all the London Airports

There are probably some stats somewhere

edwin_m said:
Are these scheduled services or hires arranged by airlines etc to cope with flight disruption?

As has been explained several times previously, the coaches between London airports are almost exclusively going somewhere - airport1 - airport 2, sometimes with a somewhere2 tagged on. For example, all the NatEx Heathrow and Stansted are from Norwich or Ipswich via Stansted to Heathrow and sometimes Gatwick.

Clearly there will be some people who use the services to transfer between airports, but it will be a rather small fraction, and the number of those that are air passengers arriving at one airport and departing the other will be smaller still.

Rational Plan · 6 Jul 2019

In a land of easy infrastructure money, there could be a way of making a link between Heathrow and Gatwick work. The current Hs2 link to Heathrow was dropped to the low number of passenger journeys compared to services to Central London, But if a propper high speed line linked at least Hs2 to Heathrow at T5 and then to Gatwick with a high speed as far as possible to Brighton, then linking 3 strong destinations together to cities further North and possibly West, would mean the trains would have decent passenger loads. Plus the line to Brighton could boost the Brighton main line at the same time.

Taunton · 6 Jul 2019

Rational Plan said:
In a land of easy infrastructure money, there could be a way of making a link between Heathrow and Gatwick work.

But why? I'm sure we've lots of people here who have travelled to Heathrow. And Gatwick. But hands up anybody here who ever needed to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.

matt_world2004 · 6 Jul 2019

Taunton said:
But why? I'm sure we've lots of people here who have travelled to Heathrow. And Gatwick. But hands up anybody here who ever needed to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.

I have, I live in Harlington just outside heathrow and needed to get to gatwick

The Ham · 6 Jul 2019

Taunton said:
But why? I'm sure we've lots of people here who have travelled to Heathrow. And Gatwick. But hands up anybody here who ever needed to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.

I read it more as providing a link from HS2 to Gatwick and from Brighton to Heathrow.

USBT · 8 Jul 2019

Taunton said:
But why? I'm sure we've lots of people here who have travelled to Heathrow. And Gatwick. But hands up anybody here who ever needed to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.

And the small number that do need to will get smaller still when Heathrow capacity increases with Runway 3 and new terminal capacity. There are currently some key routes (especially BA) that fly ex-Gatwick because of slot restrictions at Heathrow and so there is a small number that need to connect (some of them could connect elsewhere but they have airline loyalty and/or use miles tickets). Once Heathrow capacity is upped those flights will be switched. BA’s Gatwick operation will become leisure/tourist markets only serving overwhelmingly UK originating traffic, with maybe a few more domestic feeders to serve those flights (especially the Disney flights to Orlando). Some big airlines (Emirates, Cathay) will continue to serve Gatwick for origin-destination traffic if it’s economically viable to do so.

Sure, there will be some “self connecters” looking for the cheapest fare and seeing a flight into LHR and another (separate ticket) low cost carrier flight ex-LGW. And some may buy a ticket inadvertently with an airport change because it’s cheap. But you don’t build a direct rail link just for the cheapskates wanting to save £50 on air travel.

Name another city in the world with multiple airports that has purposefully built a heavy rail connection between the airports for the purpose of connecting passengers. If it was that important they’d have added Silvertown station (for London City) to Crossrail.

In other words, I agree. No need for a Heathrow-Gatwick direct rail link.

cle · 9 Jul 2019

If we're trying to compete with the likes of Schiphol, and to lessen kiss & fly/taxi drops - we need to have integrated, same-mode connections from more non-Paddington places.

The southern network is ripe for this (and western may well be coming, directly or via OOC) - not least including South London which is Gatwick territory.

Crossrail from Staines is also a good option to help various connections. Might keep a few West End people off the tube at Vauxhall/Waterloo and Victoria trains via Clapham. I'd bet a TCR, Bond St or Farringdon journey would be quicker with Crossrail, even with airport routing and a few mins dwell.

The Ham · 10 Jul 2019

From here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/heathrow-southern-link-proposals.159625/page-7#post-4099300

The Ham said:
There's also an argument that due to development proposals that the Basingstoke services should run as follows:

- Manydown (new station on the WofE line between Oakley and Basingstoke, development of 3,500 homes/8,400 people)

- Basingstoke

- Hook

- Winchfield for Shapley Heath (new garden village, was due early 2020's but due to local plan inspection more likely early 2030's. Due to add 5,000 homes/12,000 people)

- Elvetham Heath/Edenbrook (West of Fleet)

- Fleet

- Southwood (between Fleet and Farnborough, which has a lot of employment land near it)

- Farnborough

- Brookwood

- Woking & then onto Heathrow

That would pick up 2 new fairly large developments as well as two established developments which are some distance from their nearest train station, one of which has a significant amount of employment development nearby. All four stations (3 new and Winchfeild) would have the potential to add 1/2 million to 1 million extra people to the rail network in top of what already uses the network by bringing a lot more people within walking and cycling distances of train stations as well as freeing up car parking spaces at existing stations.

Yes it would slow down the services (the current proposal is for Basingstoke, Farnborough and Woking), however it's unlike to loose many people from:

- Basingstoke, as by changing at Woking you gain a choice of 4tph, whilst those for whom a change is unacceptable it would add about 18 minutes to their journey which isn't so much that that it would put many off. However would gain loads of local passengers.

- Farnborough would be almost unaffected as the delay would be 3 minutes, but would gain loads of local passengers.

- everywhere else would see loads now passengers

They would also be on the slow lines meaning patching them could be easier than on the fasts.

What are peoples thoughts?

si404 · 10 Jul 2019

I'd imagine the SW franchise would object that it should be their trains calling at intermediate stops.

The Ham · 10 Jul 2019

si404 said:
I'd imagine the SW franchise would object that it should be their trains calling at intermediate stops.

Ok then how does SW provide the extra capacity.

edwin_m · 10 Jul 2019

Extra stops need more capacity regardless of who runs the trains. Capacity locally is maximised if all the trains on the Slow lines have the same stopping pattern. But the real question is where these people want to go, and assuming they mostly want a fast train to Waterloo the supplementary question is how capacity is provided to do that. The answer to that is probably around Crossrail 2 freeing up capacity for trains from further out. Heathrow trains don't affect this question much - even if they run through to Paddington this will only be of use to a small proportion of commuters.

si404 · 10 Jul 2019

The Ham said:
Ok then how does SW provide the extra capacity.

by stopping the existing stoppers at the 4 new stations you propose...

How would HSR provide the capacity to run the service pattern you propose?

The Ham · 10 Jul 2019

si404 said:
by stopping the existing stoppers at the 4 new stations you propose...

How would HSR provide the capacity to run the service pattern you propose?

There's a few problems with that suggestion:
- in the morning peaks the trains (4tph mostly maximum length) are full and standing by or at Fleet, by adding the new stations chances are that would be the case further out.
- there's a lot of local passenger movements (as an example in the morning peak as many get off at Farnborough as get on)
- Woking to Farnborough in the evening peak is 2tph as the other 2tph which call at Farnborough (which are also full length) are full.

In comparison HSR would be able to remove some of the local passengers from the Waterloo services by providing a total of 6tph during the peaks and 4tph off peak (current services are 8 coaches off peak already). That would likely increase passenger numbers, in addition to those who would be generated by the new stations and the new destination of Heathrow.

Although the stoppers aren't overly full off peak at the outer edges some of the Farnborough services can be very busy (with people standing on some) even in the middle of the afternoon.

si404 · 10 Jul 2019

Surely a semi-fast HSR service to the main destinations would abstract passengers from the local service, avoiding the overcrowding?

By this timescale there would be something increasing capacity between Surbiton and Waterloo, and thus more trains to Woking and beyond.

There's no way an open access operator would be allowed to add stations that only it calls at. And if you are thinking 2tph to each London terminal, then 4tph to one would work better for the stoppers, whereas semi-fasts bonus services to another termini supplimenting the locals is common.

Or perhaps you want to kill TUAG at these new stations, as you don't want them to be successful?

The Ham · 10 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
Extra stops need more capacity regardless of who runs the trains. Capacity locally is maximised if all the trains on the Slow lines have the same stopping pattern. But the real question is where these people want to go, and assuming they mostly want a fast train to Waterloo the supplementary question is how capacity is provided to do that. The answer to that is probably around Crossrail 2 freeing up capacity for trains from further out. Heathrow trains don't affect this question much - even if they run through to Paddington this will only be of use to a small proportion of commuters.

If you count all the services which stop at Farnborough and the freight there's 6tph, even allowing for 2tph for Heathrow services that's 8 services to fit in. One of the new stations is on the WofE line so doesn't impact on capacity. That leaves two extra stops (+6 minutes) to cater for. Given at Farnborough the trains are broadly equally distributed across the hour (15 minute gap to fit it into) if the new services left 3 minutes after the faster services they would arrive 5 minutes before the stopping service.

However it would be better if the new service left Basingstoke at the same time as (or just before) the fast services (which looks possible on real time trains) with the fast service overtaking at Hook, so that the spacing at Farnborough for the slower services was 9/21/9/21 which isn't ideal but is fairly close to the 20 minute gap between services which makes it a turn up and go service.

The Ham · 10 Jul 2019

si404 said:
Surely a semi-fast HSR service to the main destinations would abstract passengers from the local service, avoiding the overcrowding?

By this timescale there would be something increasing capacity between Surbiton and Waterloo, and thus more trains to Woking and beyond.

There's no way an open access operator would be allowed to add stations that only it calls at. And if you are thinking 2tph to each London terminal, then 4tph to one would work better for the stoppers, whereas semi-fasts bonus services to another termini supplimenting the locals is common.

Or perhaps you want to kill TUAG at these new stations, as you don't want them to be successful?

The trains arriving at Hook in the morning peaks have a LOT of empty seats often 50+ per coach for those getting on there to choose from. Meaning that the number of extra seats created by removing those passengers from Basingstoke to the new services wouldn't make a big difference, especially given that few services start at Basingstoke in the peaks. However once those from Hook (0.8 million pa) and Winchfeild (0.4 million pa) have joined there's few if any seats available for those joining at Fleet (1.8 million pa).

If the something is Crossrail 2, then there's still plenty of capacity between Woking and Basingstoke for extra services (it's a four track line with a lot less services than you see inwards of Woking). Anyway you'd need to still fit in the same number of services, however this puts at least 2 into the slow lines which may not happen otherwise.

Where did I say that it would only be the Heathrow services which would be aloud to call at the new stations, however it would slow down the SWR services to call there so unless there was a significant market I doubt that they would be interested in doing so.

The new stations would be 2tph (which is what the minor stations get at the moment and has worked well but with the level of development seen and in the pipeline is unlikely to continue to work well), so hardly TUAG (assuming that it means Turn Up And Go). Whilst providing Turn Up And Go services for more established stations which are likely to justify the service frequency, especially given the circa 800 new homes at Hook between 2017 & 2030 (prior to that circa 3,500 homes) and the potential for 5,000 at Winchfeild.

kevin_roche · 4 Nov 2019

This weekend there was engineering work taking place between Woking and Waterloo. Some trains from Woking were sent via Addlestone, Chertsey, Virginia Water, Egham and Staines then to Clapham Junction.

It was interesting to go that way to see what the Heathrow Southern Railway might be like in the future even if it was a bit slow.

I can understand why they are suggesting a tunnel to bypass all those Level Crossings near Egham.

It wasn't the first time I have been on that route. I remember taking an Anglia service which went that way in the past and getting off at Highbury and Islington.

4-SUB 4732 · 4 Nov 2019

kevin_roche said:
This weekend there was engineering work taking place between Woking and Waterloo. Some trains from Woking were sent via Addlestone, Chertsey, Virginia Water, Egham and Staines then to Clapham Junction.

It was interesting to go that way to see what the Heathrow Southern Railway might be like in the future even if it was a bit slow.

I can understand why they are suggesting a tunnel to bypass all those Level Crossings near Egham.

It wasn't the first time I have been on that route. I remember taking an Anglia service which went that way in the past and getting off at Highbury and Islington.

The other problem being just how much time the crossings will stay down - not much good for locals.

Dedicated infrastructure is needed, not least because they seem to be adamant about using 25kV overhead for it so that the trains can run from Guildford and Basingstoke to Paddington (even if I don't think that's massively sensible).

kevin_roche · 4 Nov 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
Dedicated infrastructure is needed, not least because they seem to be adamant about using 25kV overhead for it so that the trains can run from Guildford and Basingstoke to Paddington (even if I don't think that's massively sensible).

For the trains from Heathrow to Waterloo I'm guessing that they have not planned to use the 25kV AC OH because they would turn around and head back at Heathrow.

At Abbey Wood where the Crossrail tracks have 25kV AC and the Kent line tracks have DC third rail there is a wooden fence which I believe is a safety feature so that should the OHL fall down it is less likely to short to the DC third rail which could cause all sorts of problems.

Does anyone how they deal with that possibility in other places where there is both systems. I would have thought that it would be both cheaper and safer to have as little overlap as possible. I know that makes the trains more expensive and maybe the HSR people are concerned that nobody would use their expensive tunnel if they have to have more expensive trains.

swt_passenger · 4 Nov 2019

All previous plans I’ve seen have had dual voltage stock running DC on the Wessex area. The Airtrack plans were going to have changeover while moving alongside the M25 between turning off the Windsor line and on the approach to T5. They explicitly didn’t want dual voltage supplies in the T5 station.

Even if HSR is AC on its own dedicated tracks, I expect it will be running on DC by the time it reaches Byfleet Junction.

Clip · 4 Nov 2019

kevin_roche said:
Does anyone how they deal with that possibility in other places where there is both systems

Wouldn't it just shut down both power supplies until the OHLE gets moved from the 3rd rail so that side can start up again if possible?

MarkyT · 4 Nov 2019

swt_passenger said:
All previous plans I’ve seen have had dual voltage stock running DC on the Wessex area. The Airtrack plans were going to have changeover while moving alongside the M25 between turning off the Windsor line and on the approach to T5. They explicitly didn’t want dual voltage supplies in the T5 station.

Even if HSR is AC on its own dedicated tracks, I expect it will be running on DC by the time it reaches Byfleet Junction.

This is essential, as large areas of dual electrification are highly undesirable. The problem is earthing strategy. 25kV overhead needs a lot of safety earthing of all metalwork near the railway including the traction return rail or rails. In 3rd rail only areas, there is no earthing of the rails, which ensures the much higher return current remains wholly in the rails. Dual areas must have the safety earthing however which risks the DC current partially returning through multiple paths in surrounding structures and inevitably causing damage through electrical erosion. It's no wonder Heathrow didn't want any DC in their shiny new terminal 5.

MarkyT · 4 Nov 2019

kevin_roche said:
At Abbey Wood where the Crossrail tracks have 25kV AC and the Kent line tracks have DC third rail there is a wooden fence which I believe is a safety feature so that should the OHL fall down it is less likely to short to the DC third rail which could cause all sorts of problems. Does anyone how they deal with that possibility in other places where there is both systems. I would have thought that it would be both cheaper and safer to have as little overlap as possible. I know that makes the trains more expensive and maybe the HSR people are concerned that nobody would use their expensive tunnel if they have to have more expensive trains.

A short changeover section of dual electrification in a station or plain line area is ideal. I'd have thought in the Abbey Wood example the fence would be there primarily to prevent accidental electrical contact between the rails of the two systems which could otherwise cause the high DC currents of Southeastern trains getting into the diversely earthed rails and other metalwork of the Elizabeth Line.

edwin_m · 4 Nov 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
Dedicated infrastructure is needed, not least because they seem to be adamant about using 25kV overhead for it so that the trains can run from Guildford and Basingstoke to Paddington (even if I don't think that's massively sensible).

Why don't you think that's massively sensible? Assuming HS2 gets built, those trains would provide much better access to it via Old Oak for a big swathe of the SW suburban area. Certainly a better idea than the alternative of through-routeing Paddington-Heathrow-Reading via Western Link, which just provides a slower alternative to the existing route so won't attract any through passengers at all.

MarkyT said:
I'd have thought in the Abbey Wood example the fence would be there primarily to prevent accidental electrical contact between the rails of the two systems which could otherwise cause the high DC currents of Southeastern trains getting into the diversely earthed rails and other metalwork of the Elizabeth Line.

It may also be so that maintenance staff working on one network don't need safety certification for the other electrification system.

Meerkat · 4 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
Assuming HS2 gets built, those trains would provide much better access to it via Old Oak for a big swathe of the SW suburban area

Would absolutely transform the car vs train dynamic. Currently you have to get across London. A train to Old Oak and in station switch to high speed north would give you leeway for connections etc at the other end and still be quicker than by car.

Ideas for potential Heathrow Southern link services, including Gatwick link.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member