Could a re-cast of services between Reading and Paddington provide more capacity?

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rded-national-rail-contract-until-2025.233096

I find that on most if not all of the Intercity trains either into or out to of Paddington are full and standing after about mid-afternoon.

Mostly only as far as Reading. Really, Reading needs 4tph of 12 car fast EMUs to take passengers off the ICs. It can't be pathed at present, but if HEx ends up binned when people switch to Crossrail in droves, it might be time to consider a recast.

 

[swt_passenger]

Mostly only as far as Reading. Really, Reading needs 4tph of 12 car fast EMUs to take passengers off the ICs. It can't be pathed at present, but if HEx ends up binned when people switch to Crossrail in droves, it might be time to consider a recast.

I thought it had been established that idea just doesn’t work, ie removal of HEX does not automatically provide 4 tph of fast paths to Reading?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought it had been established that idea just doesn’t work, ie removal of HEX does not automatically provide 4 tph of fast paths to Reading?

It doesn't, which is why I suggested a recast.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It doesn't, which is why I suggested a recast.

If nothing else, the challenge would be finding a robust way to turn around 4tph 12-car EMUs at Reading on the ML side of the station. Crossing to the RL would mean cutting across Up traffic every 15 mins which isn’t too robust.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If nothing else, the challenge would be finding a robust way to turn around 4tph 12-car EMUs at Reading on the ML side of the station. Crossing to the RL would mean cutting across Up traffic every 15 mins which isn’t too robust.

To be fair, if you got the wires up to Oxford you could send them all there.

 

[Watershed]

To be fair, if you got the wires up to Oxford you could send them all there.

Then you get yourself an extra 8 conflicting moves an hour at Didcot East (or 4 if you time opposite direction services to cross at the same time)...

There's a conflict-free route from the Down Main to the Down Relief thanks to the flyover at Reading, but the same doesn't exist in the opposite direction (it's a signalled move as it's all bi-di, but would involve "wrong-direction" running until Kennet Bridge Jn).

 

[JN114]

It’s all also predicated on the basis of passengers switching from HEx to Elizabeth Line in droves.

That simply isn’t going to happen - HEx is frequently full and standing despite much higher fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s all also predicated on the basis of passengers switching from HEx to Elizabeth Line in droves.

That simply isn’t going to happen - HEx is frequently full and standing despite much higher fares.

I bet it will once the EL becomes established and known about, simply because it will provide a quicker journey to places people want to go (rather than Paddington, out in the sticks) and at a vastly cheaper price. We shall see.

 

[Jimini]

I bet it will once the EL becomes established and known about, simply because it will provide a quicker journey to places people want to go (rather than Paddington, out in the sticks) and at a vastly cheaper price. We shall see.

It'll be interesting to see what the airlines offer as part of their business / upper class service. VA for example provide a cab to / from within 60 miles of LHR, or a Heathrow Express ticket.

 

[JonathanH]

So, what is being asked here is how many 110mph paths could run out of Paddington to Reading in between trains running at 125mph if nothing went to Heathrow and whether Slough trains could still be accommodated.

One option could be to run all the trains at 110mph.

 

[Sonik]

I bet it will once the EL becomes established and known about, simply because it will provide a quicker journey to places people want to go (rather than Paddington, out in the sticks) and at a vastly cheaper price. We shall see.

Hex is still faster even with Liz running through, but there's only about a minute in it once you account for the connection at Paddington.

But at the moment there is a 10min difference due to the split Liz service. So I suspect the only reason Hex is still full is because most travelers use apps (e.g. google maps) and these list fastest services first; once Liz starts running through Paddington these trains will appear higher in search results and are more appealing as a direct service.

I would be surprised if Hex is still running by the time OOC opens.

 

[Anvil1984]

It'll be interesting to see what the airlines offer as part of their business / upper class service. VA for example provide a cab to / from within 60 miles of LHR, or a Heathrow Express ticket.

That service was axed during Covid

Virgin Atlantic Ends Free Upper Class Ground Transfers – London Air Travel

Virgin Atlantic is to withdraw complimentary ground transfers for all Upper Class passengers from 1 July 2020.

londonairtravel.com

 

[HSTEd]

I think with Crossrail going to Old Oak Common at probably relatively high intensity, a recast is almost inevitable.

If HEx was out of the picture and you rationalised the stopping pattern to non-stop Reading-OOC on the fast lines and freight and stopping trains on the relief, what sort of path counts would you have?

 

[Sonik]

I think with Crossrail going to Old Oak Common at probably relatively high intensity, a recast is almost inevitable.

If HEx was out of the picture and you rationalised the stopping pattern to non-stop Reading-OOC on the fast lines and freight and stopping trains on the relief, what sort of path counts would you have?

I see your point but what about Slough?

Heathrow is a cumbersome journey from the west on the EL stopper via Hayes & Harlington (or the fast via OOC). Change at Slough and it's only a couple of stops to H&H, albeit two changes.

Unless the Heathrow western link actually gets built, which I suspect it won't.

 

[Snow1964]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rded-national-rail-contract-until-2025.233096


Mostly only as far as Reading. Really, Reading needs 4tph of 12 car fast EMUs to take passengers off the ICs. It can't be pathed at present, but if HEx ends up binned when people switch to Crossrail in droves, it might be time to consider a recast.

So do these Reading passengers finish their journey at Reading, or do they use the IC train as a fast hop and then change and go 2 or 3 stations on a local service.

This makes a significant difference to if you should be trying to add extra fasts Paddington - Reading, or run a train to somewhere like Aldermaston or Culham (Abingdon).

If you compare the number of seats Paddington-Reading (peak, off-peak and weekend) with say Waterloo-Basingstoke or Liverpool Street-Colchester (similar distances) then does seem the GWR route is quite inefficiently timetabled.

 

[cactustwirly]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rded-national-rail-contract-until-2025.233096


Mostly only as far as Reading. Really, Reading needs 4tph of 12 car fast EMUs to take passengers off the ICs. It can't be pathed at present, but if HEx ends up binned when people switch to Crossrail in droves, it might be time to consider a recast.

Completely wrong, GWR intercity services are busy throughout!

Had services arrive from the West arrive at Reading full and standing....

 

[Irascible]

Completely wrong, GWR intercity services are busy throughout!

Had services arrive from the West arrive at Reading full and standing....

Been like that since ... probably IC sector. I can remember leaning on a door the entire trip from Exeter back when I was a teenager, when apparently no-one used the railways. When I was travelling more frequently there was a fair turnover of passengers at Reading, but usually the Pad-Reading crowd ( or SW-Reading ) was more or less equally replaced by new joiners.

 

[BayPaul]

It doesn't, which is why I suggested a recast.

I don't think even a recast would help. As I understand it, the main line pattern is pretty much optimal, with every path being used, and no extra space. The HEX paths allow for the semi fasts to drop back a path, which in turn also allows for a Slough call on an 80x path. Removing the HEX paths would only help if you were also to remove these stops.

I guess 395s could be an option - full 125 operation matching the 80xs,but with commuter layout, but it would probably also need ETCS to squeeze in another 125 non stop path.

 

[Jimini]

That service was axed during Covid

Virgin Atlantic Ends Free Upper Class Ground Transfers – London Air Travel

Virgin Atlantic is to withdraw complimentary ground transfers for all Upper Class passengers from 1 July 2020.

londonairtravel.com

Didn’t realise that — thanks for the update.

 

[Sonik]

I don't think even a recast would help. As I understand it, the main line pattern is pretty much optimal, with every path being used, and no extra space. The HEX paths allow for the semi fasts to drop back a path, which in turn also allows for a Slough call on an 80x path. Removing the HEX paths would only help if you were also to remove these stops.

I guess 395s could be an option - full 125 operation matching the 80xs,but with commuter layout, but it would probably also need ETCS to squeeze in another 125 non stop path.

In which case the Heathrow western link could serve more than just Heathrow?

 

[JamesRowden]

Going back to the pre-covid off-peak timetable would produce 3tph (that I know of) extra fast services into Paddington, so there is definitely line capacity. The services which I know are missing are the 2tph fast Bristol services and the Bedwyn service.

 

[coppercapped]

So do these Reading passengers finish their journey at Reading, or do they use the IC train as a fast hop and then change and go 2 or 3 stations on a local service.

This makes a significant difference to if you should be trying to add extra fasts Paddington - Reading, or run a train to somewhere like Aldermaston or Culham (Abingdon).

If you compare the number of seats Paddington-Reading (peak, off-peak and weekend) with say Waterloo-Basingstoke or Liverpool Street-Colchester (similar distances) then does seem the GWR route is quite inefficiently timetabled.

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rded-national-rail-contract-until-2025.233096


Mostly only as far as Reading. Really, Reading needs 4tph of 12 car fast EMUs to take passengers off the ICs. It can't be pathed at present, but if HEx ends up binned when people switch to Crossrail in droves, it might be time to consider a recast.

So this hoary old chestnut has been revived yet again... and it's always the same old story:

• Paddington is out in the sticks
• Heathrow Express is an aberration and people will see the error of their ways when through running on the Elizabeth Line commences
• People only travelling to Reading should not occupy seats that go further and a specialised 'crowdbuster' service from Paddington should be offered instead.

These points have all been countered in earlier threads but to re-iterate:

• The Great Western is not a linear line such as the Great Eastern to Norwich, the East Coast to Edinburgh or the West Coast to Glasgow. Although these do split, to serve Birmingham or Leeds for example, the Great Western throws out many 'branches' once passed Reading.
• Six of these 'branches' split off in less than 50 miles from Reading: towards Newbury, Taunton, Exeter and Cornwall; the original road to Bath and Bristol; South Wales; the Golden Valley line to Gloucester; the Cotswold line to Evesham and Worcester and the Banbury and the West Midlands route through the Cherwell valley.
• Reading is a very busy and important commercial and business centre - more people travel to Reading to work than travel from it. Rail passenger flows reflect this fact as well as its importance as an interchange. There is no equivalent at a similar distance on any of the other lines radiating from London.
• Places such as Slough and Maidenhead are significant traffic centres in their own right and should be offered a faster service to London and other places than is possible by the Elizabeth Line stoppers. HEx makes these stops possible.

To serve the flows west of Reading for passengers from the town itself or for those interchanging, trains calling at Reading are needed. If the longer distance services from Paddington did not call at Reading then trains servicing these routes would have to start from and terminate at Reading. So, for example, Pershore or Chippenham would be served not only by the direct train from London, but also by one starting from Reading.

This does not seem to be an efficient way to run a railway - although it might mean that only 5 coach IETs are needed from Paddington in the peaks some equivalent train would then be needed to start from Reading.

One can also see what terminating services do to platform capacity: Cross-Country occupies platforms for about 10 minutes for each reversing train and in the peaks the Elizabeth Line essentially occupies one platform continuously. I find it hard to see how 4 trains per hour from Paddington could be terminated on the Mains at Reading while leaving capacity for all those - at least one per hour - starting their journey to serve the 'branches'. To suggest that these 'crowd-buster' trains could run through to, say, Oxford to avoid this issue is a lazy cop-out. Why run empty trains - they are after all only for the Reading punters so everybody will have disembarked - another 25 miles to turn them round when they have only run 36 miles full? This is quite apart from all the objections other posters have already raised.

But, never mind, the pundits will return to this topic in another six months...

 

[JonathanH]

To suggest that these 'crowd-buster' trains could run through to, say, Oxford to avoid this issue is a lazy cop-out. Why run empty trains - they are after all only for the Reading punters so everybody will have disembarked - another 25 miles to turn them round when they have only run 36 miles full?

Lets for arguments sake take this to its logical conclusion using the capacity.

I guess that in some idealised view there would be six trains run with high density stock in each hour, two each terminating at Swindon, Oxford and Newbury. These would be the only trains from Paddington open to Reading passengers.

There would then be 10tph of trains running fast to Bristol Parkway (2tph to Bristol), Swindon (4tph, 2tph to Bristol, 2tph to South Wales), Oxford (1tph for North Cotswolds), Didcot (1tph for Cheltenham), Taunton (1tph for Penzance), Newbury (1tph for Exeter)

That would segregate the market and allow faster, dedicated, services from London for the western destinations.

Passengers for Reading from the West would change at Swindon, Newbury or Oxford as appropriate. However, this introduces an inconvenience for passengers.

Presumably Slough and Maidenhead would lose fast services to London.

 

[HSTEd]

If you made all trains run non stop between Old Oak Common and Reading on the fast lines, potentially eighteen trains per hour are available based on HS2 signalling assumptions.

Indeed the modelling document used for that says it will be even more than that.

Traffic density could be so high that Maidenhead passengers could quite easily just double back via Reading if they don't want Crossrail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lets for arguments sake take this to its logical conclusion using the capacity.

I guess that in some idealised view there would be six trains run with high density stock in each hour, two each terminating at Swindon, Oxford and Newbury. These would be the only trains from Paddington open to Reading passengers.

I don't think I'd remove the Reading stops, rather just make them pick up/set down only. As demonstrated on the WCML at MKC you don't have to strictly enforce this - the vast majority of people will do what the planners/PIS say.

Traffic density could be so high that Maidenhead passengers could quite easily just double back via Reading if they don't want Crossrail.

Slough is the awkward one, but you could potentially get the slow-line service frequent and capacious enough that the "Merseyrail principle" might apply, i.e. who would wait for a half hourly fast service when there's say 6-8tph slow? Particularly as 4 of those will go onto the Elizabeth Line and thus potentially go much closer to where they are headed, so saving time from an interchange at Paddington.

Bedford/Luton/Luton Airport Parkway are probably slightly comparable - most people use Thameslink because it's frequent, capacious and goes near where they're going. They mostly don't use EMR, despite this having more comfortable and faster trains - the very high frequency of Thameslink wins.

 

[stuu]

Trains can be unpleasantly full until Reading, but passengers aren't regularly unable to board at Paddington. Therefore this would introduce a whole load of cost for very little increase in revenue. Running all trains at maximum length is the solution when more capacity is needed. Some passengers will chose to stay on Elizabeth Line services once they run through, as the hassle of changing and standing won't be worth it for everyone

 

[BayPaul]

I don't think I'd remove the Reading stops, rather just make them pick up/set down only. As demonstrated on the WCML at MKC you don't have to strictly enforce this - the vast majority of people will do what the planners/PIS say.

As many have said, this really isn't needed. If you did do this, then there would be no capacity at reading for people to get on trains heading west. If people have to stand for 30 mins heading west on a long journey, then get a seat after reading, is it really that much of an issue, especially as most long distance passengers have seat reservations anyway, or turn up early for the train (i.e. If they are on the 1706 service, they will likely be able to board it before 1700, and find a seat, when the 'next fast train to Reading' brigade will still be piling onto the 1700.)

It's much, much better how it is. This is a definite solution in search of a problem!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I feel like this isn’t about wanting a recast of the timetable as such, it seems just about a desire to turf Reading commuters off of the current HSS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I feel like this isn’t about wanting a recast of the timetable as such, it seems just about a desire to turf Reading commuters off of the current HSS.

It is, yes. Cramming InterCity trains full of commuters damages the quality of a long distance journey.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think the current situation is the best all round solution.
It serves the majority of passengers in the most efficient way possible.

I don't think I'd remove the Reading stops, rather just make them pick up/set down only. As demonstrated on the WCML at MKC you don't have to strictly enforce this - the vast majority of people will do what the planners/PIS say.



Slough is the awkward one, but you could potentially get the slow-line service frequent and capacious enough that the "Merseyrail principle" might apply, i.e. who would wait for a half hourly fast service when there's say 6-8tph slow? Particularly as 4 of those will go onto the Elizabeth Line and thus potentially go much closer to where they are headed, so saving time from an interchange at Paddington.

Bedford/Luton/Luton Airport Parkway are probably slightly comparable - most people use Thameslink because it's frequent, capacious and goes near where they're going. They mostly don't use EMR, despite this having more comfortable and faster trains - the very high frequency of Thameslink wins.

But Thameslink is fast from St Albans. Whereas Elizabeth line is significantly slower.

There is also the demand from Slough to Oxford to serve as well.