Heathrow Southern Link proposals

[kevin_roche]

There are two unused platforms at T5 where Western Access could terminate, although I think the current option for Western Rail Link doesn't allow that. Or there might be space for a turnback siding just before the junction to the GWML towarsd Paddington, if capacity was available through T123.

The Paddington-Woking and Crossrail services would both use a new double track from Heathrow to the vicinity of Staines station where Crossrail would terminate (preferably on tracks with no conflict with the existing ones). The Wokings would continue southwards on whatever alignment was adopted - perhaps without platforms at Staines as Crossrail would provide enough service there. Waterloo trains would be a lower priority as diverting existing (faster) ones would deprive Reading or Windsor, and there's probably no capacity to run more via Barnes, so if anything it would be rejigging the "rounders" to provide an extra train via Staines. It would also require dual-voltage on a proportion of the South West fleet.

The unused platforms are currently set aside for the southern access. I think the original plan was they would have third rail power so as to be compatible with SWML. Existing HEX and Crossrail platforms at T5 have overhead power.

My thought is that the Heathrow Southern Railway proposals would, most likely have overhead power to Staines for the Crossrail trains and dual voltage trains would switch somewhere nearby. Trains to Heathrow from Waterloo are mentioned in their proposal but might need improved signalling. ETCS is planned by Network Rail. Would that allow more trains? Maybe would have to wait for Crossrail 2 to take trains off the existing tracks.

 

[matt_world2004]

The unused platforms are currently set aside for the southern access. I think the original plan was they would have third rail power so as to be compatible with SWML. Existing HEX and Crossrail platforms at T5 have overhead power.

My thought is that the Heathrow Southern Railway proposals would, most likely have overhead power to Staines for the Crossrail trains and dual voltage trains would switch somewhere nearby. Trains to Heathrow from Waterloo are mentioned in their proposal but might need improved signalling. ETCS is planned by Network Rail. Would that allow more trains? Maybe would have to wait for Crossrail 2 to take trains off the existing tracks.

I believe crossrail has third rail shoe gear so there doesn't need to be a refit for a future extension to gravesend

 

[hwl]

I believe crossrail has third rail shoe gear so there doesn't need to be a refit for a future extension to gravesend

The 345s don't but it is easily retro-fitable (as required in the specification)

 

[matt_world2004]

The 345s don't but it is easily retro-fitable (as required in the specification)

Not the most reliable source but wiki says they do

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_345

 

[swt_passenger]

Not the most reliable source but wiki says they do

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_345

I sent the Crossrail project an email query about this a good few years ago, because people were suggesting back then that a possible extension to Gravesend would need to have OHLE, but they confirmed that an if extension was ever progressed they’d retro-fit DC shoegear.

 

[Mike395]

Not the most reliable source but wiki says they do

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_345

The article agrees with hwl - they don't have shoegear fitted currently but it's possible as a retrofit.

 

[Ianno87]

The article agrees with hwl - they don't have shoegear fitted currently but it's possible as a retrofit.

I thinl they also require some other electrical gubbins too, as well as the shoes.

 

[Dougal2345]

Judging by an automated announcement I keep hearing at Bournemouth:

"Change at Woking for a connecting rail service to Guildford, Surbiton and Heathrow Central"

...they think the link's already been built

 

[kevin_roche]

Judging by an automated announcement I keep hearing at Bournemouth:

"Change at Woking for a connecting rail service to Guildford, Surbiton and Heathrow Central"

...they think the link's already been built

Ahh the bus!

 

[edwin_m]

I thinl they also require some other electrical gubbins too, as well as the shoes.

But if it's specified to be retrofittable then it should be easy to fit all the necessary components.

 

[The Ham]

What would people think would be a better calling pattern for the services:

- semi fast between Woking and Basingstoke (so probably just Farnborough Main) and fast between Woking and Guildford

- stopping all stations between Woking and Guildford / Basingstoke

I would suggest the stopping all stations option as anyone from further away would be changing anyway so would be better changing at Woking (as they'll have 4tph to Heathrow target than 2tph).

Although there's some services which call at Basingstoke / Guildford but not Woking, I don't believe there a lot. Whilst the time penalty wouldn't be that great from Guildford, so no real impact for those changing from non London via Woking services.

There's not many other services at Basingstoke, and I think all of those also serve Reading so would be able to use the Western Approach services (which I think would also be a quicker route anyway).

As such the loss from running the services slower would be very low, but the gain from calling at Brookwood, Fleet, Winchfield, Hook and Worplesdon (with a combined passenger number of ~5 million) could be quite significant.

It would also significantly improve local journeys, especially during times of distribution further afield.

However what to others great think?

 

[kevin_roche]

What would people think would be a better calling pattern for the services:

- semi fast between Woking and Basingstoke (so probably just Farnborough Main) and fast between Woking and Guildford

- stopping all stations between Woking and Guildford / Basingstoke

I would suggest the stopping all stations option as anyone from further away would be changing anyway so would be better changing at Woking (as they'll have 4tph to Heathrow target than 2tph).

Although there's some services which call at Basingstoke / Guildford but not Woking, I don't believe there a lot. Whilst the time penalty wouldn't be that great from Guildford, so no real impact for those changing from non London via Woking services.

There's not many other services at Basingstoke, and I think all of those also serve Reading so would be able to use the Western Approach services (which I think would also be a quicker route anyway).

As such the loss from running the services slower would be very low, but the gain from calling at Brookwood, Fleet, Winchfield, Hook and Worplesdon (with a combined passenger number of ~5 million) could be quite significant.

It would also significantly improve local journeys, especially during times of distribution further afield.

However what to others great think?

I'm based in Basingstoke so would prefer not to stop very often on my way to Heathrow or Paddington. Too many stops would push the choice away from Paddington and back towards Waterloo.

The suggestions on the Heathrow Southern Railway (HSR) website assume stops at Farnborough and Woking.

If I compare the suggested journey times given by HSR with the current times taken to travel Basingstoke - Reading and Crossrail Reading to West Drayton or GWR Reading - Paddington I see that:

Basingstoke - Heathrow via HSR 40 mins
Basingtsoke - Paddington via HSR 63 mins

Basingstoke - Reading - West Drayton via GWR/Crossrail 24 + 29 = 53 Mins (plus time to change)
Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington via GWR - between 54 and 65 Mins (incuding time to change trains)

So its not much different but overall I would be most likely to choose a trip that would not require a change of train.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thinl they also require some other electrical gubbins too, as well as the shoes.

Cabling, fuses and shoe gear is basically all they'll need. It's not complex at all, and shouldn't be considered an issue.

 

[hwl]

Cabling, fuses and shoe gear is basically all they'll need. It's not complex at all, and shouldn't be considered an issue.

Agreed all very simple. (It would be a MCB rather than fuse these days)

 

[swt_passenger]

Agreed all very simple. (It would be a MCB rather than fuse these days)

Yes to MCB, of course - I'm showing my age...

 

[Class 170101]

What would people think would be a better calling pattern for the services:

- semi fast between Woking and Basingstoke (so probably just Farnborough Main) and fast between Woking and Guildford

- stopping all stations between Woking and Guildford / Basingstoke

I would suggest the stopping all stations option as anyone from further away would be changing anyway so would be better changing at Woking (as they'll have 4tph to Heathrow target than 2tph).

Although there's some services which call at Basingstoke / Guildford but not Woking, I don't believe there a lot. Whilst the time penalty wouldn't be that great from Guildford, so no real impact for those changing from non London via Woking services.

There's not many other services at Basingstoke, and I think all of those also serve Reading so would be able to use the Western Approach services (which I think would also be a quicker route anyway).

As such the loss from running the services slower would be very low, but the gain from calling at Brookwood, Fleet, Winchfield, Hook and Worplesdon (with a combined passenger number of ~5 million) could be quite significant.

It would also significantly improve local journeys, especially during times of distribution further afield.

However what to others great think?

The focus for London on SWT should still be at London Waterloo rather than via Heathrow for Paddington. However there should be services from Paddington to Southampton / Bournemouth and Portsmouth on an hourly basis probably calling at Old Oak Common, Heathrow Central, Heathrow Terminal 5, (Staines if on the route) and then Woking. I would probably then run all stations to Portsmouth. As for Bournemouth I'd probably go for Farnborough (Main), Basingstoke and then all to Bournemouth and maybe Weymouth if the power supply and track capacity is up to it.

 

[edwin_m]

The focus for London on SWT should still be at London Waterloo rather than via Heathrow for Paddington. However there should be services from Paddington to Southampton / Bournemouth and Portsmouth on an hourly basis probably calling at Old Oak Common, Heathrow Central, Heathrow Terminal 5, (Staines if on the route) and then Woking. I would probably then run all stations to Portsmouth. As for Bournemouth I'd probably go for Farnborough (Main), Basingstoke and then all to Bournemouth and maybe Weymouth if the power supply and track capacity is up to it.

I doubt there is capacity for those without reducing Waterloo or XC services. Via Waterloo will still be quicker for most parts of central London which will still be the main destination, so taking those away would most likely be counterproductive. Journey such as Southampton-Birmingham might divert from XC to go via OOC and HS2 instead, but shorter journeys such as Southampton-Oxford would lose direct trains if XC was taken off the route.

 

[hwl]

Yes to MCB, of course - I'm showing my age...

One benefit of fuses is when they catch fire they fail safe unlike some MCBs!

 

[swt_passenger]

I doubt there is capacity for those without reducing Waterloo or XC services. Via Waterloo will still be quicker for most parts of central London which will still be the main destination, so taking those away would most likely be counterproductive. Journey such as Southampton-Birmingham might divert from XC to go via OOC and HS2 instead, but shorter journeys such as Southampton-Oxford would lose direct trains if XC was taken off the route.

I agree, and I don’t think there’s never been any realistic official proposals for “Southern Access” to extend that far into the SWR network. I’ve never yet seen any proposal for going beyond Guildford, and as you point out you’d probably only get beyond Basingstoke by re-routeing an existing service.

 

[hwl]

I agree, and I don’t think there’s never been any realistic official proposals for “Southern Access” to extend that far into the SWR network. I’ve never yet seen any proposal for going beyond Guildford, and as you point out you’d probably only get beyond Basingstoke by re-routeing an existing service.

It needs a revenue grab beyond Guildford to make the revenue numbers add up...

 

[The Ham]

I'm based in Basingstoke so would prefer not to stop very often on my way to Heathrow or Paddington. Too many stops would push the choice away from Paddington and back towards Waterloo.

The suggestions on the Heathrow Southern Railway (HSR) website assume stops at Farnborough and Woking.

If I compare the suggested journey times given by HSR with the current times taken to travel Basingstoke - Reading and Crossrail Reading to West Drayton or GWR Reading - Paddington I see that:

Basingstoke - Heathrow via HSR 40 mins
Basingtsoke - Paddington via HSR 63 mins

Basingstoke - Reading - West Drayton via GWR/Crossrail 24 + 29 = 53 Mins (plus time to change)
Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington via GWR - between 54 and 65 Mins (incuding time to change trains)

So its not much different but overall I would be most likely to choose a trip that would not require a change of train.

Fair enough, however I would suggest that the numbers going to Paddington are likely to relatively low and those who will be attracted to the rail network because of the direct service but would be put off by the 15 minutes of extra journey time would be fairly small, if not almost non existent.

With regards to getting to Heathrow again the ability to go direct or change both with a journey time of about 55 minutes again I would have thought isn't going to make a significant different to those who use rail bearing in mind the amount of time you need to allow for check-in.

 

[kevin_roche]

With regards to getting to Heathrow again the ability to go direct or change both with a journey time of about 55 minutes again I would have thought isn't going to make a significant different to those who use rail bearing in mind the amount of time you need to allow for check-in.

When you have some large bags, fewer changes are welcome.

 

[The Ham]

When you have some large bags, fewer changes are welcome.

Indeed, but there's still the option to use the direct service (stopping) or go to Woking and change, it's just it'll add a bit of time to the journey.

 

[3141]

With regards to getting to Heathrow again the ability to go direct or change both with a journey time of about 55 minutes again I would have thought isn't going to make a significant different to those who use rail bearing in mind the amount of time you need to allow for check-in.

Most people also come back home again. Instead of the check-in you have a variable amount of time going through passport control and waiting for baggage. After that you probably want to get home as quickly and easily as possible.

 

[The Ham]

Most people also come back home again. Instead of the check-in you have a variable amount of time going through passport control and waiting for baggage. After that you probably want to get home as quickly and easily as possible.

I agree, the point is that for most people (other than those who live in Basingstoke) changing at Woking would be preferable, in that they then can use any of 4tph to Woking rather than 2tph to Basingstoke to then change to their service to get to their local station. The only exception to this would be people who were going to use XC services to head south, however they would probably be better off using the Western Approach and making the change at Reading.

The journey time between Woking & Basingstoke is ~18 minutes for fast services and ~33 minutes for slow services.

As such by getting a fast service and changing with up to 15 minutes of time to change its no slower than a stopping direct service but could be a bit faster.

The question is would running the service fast result in enough extra passengers to justify missing out a few stations which combined have a similar number of passengers to Basingstoke. By having these services it gives those stations 4tph between these stops (and Basingstoke, Farnborough & Woking) rather than 2tph, which arguably would attract a lot of local passengers to the network as it could be a turn up and go service rather than looking at when the trains are running.

By improving connectivity chances are just as many from Basingstoke would benefit as would do so from having the faster journey time. Although this who would benefit are likely to be commuting and so over a year providing more income than people who are only using the trains to get to the airport a few times a year, maybe monthly. As anything more frequent than that and you'd probably consider living that bit closer to the airport (i.e Farnborough rather than Basingstoke).

 

[aleggatta]

Yes to MCB, of course - I'm showing my age...

You would still have a shoe fuse (to the main DC bus if fitted) a High speed circuit breaker (big fancy contactor with current sensing) would link the DC bus to the train equipment. Shoe fuses are still quite useful when degraded situations occur (I. E. Isolating one position where damaged shoe gear might exist. Additional equipment that may be fitted is a shore supply changeover switch and shore supply socket (for relevant depot requirements)

 

[moley]

It needs a revenue grab beyond Guildford to make the revenue numbers add up...

Connecting Portsmouth to HS2 via 1 change at OOC would be a very wise move - there is a lot of traffic. Heathrow too.

One suggestion had been that Guildford station should be rebuilt with a platform between the existing platforms 4 & 5 so that you have cross platform changes to Heathrow/OOC. When you have to start considering lifts for luggage at interchanges, the plan fails the ease of use test.

 

[kevin_roche]

I'm quite disappointed to see that in the Heathrow Expansion Consultation published today there is no promise that either the Southern or Western Access routes will be built. Just fine words about they want to support the plans. I would like to see the Southern and Western Access completed quickly to alleviate the problems that will be caused when they start work on the M25.

 

[hwl]

I'm quite disappointed to see that in the Heathrow Expansion Consultation published today there is no promise that either the Southern or Western Access routes will be built. Just fine words about they want to support the plans. I would like to see the Southern and Western Access completed quickly to alleviate the problems that will be caused when they start work on the M25.

If they were promising one or both they would end up paying for them and they don't want and can't afford to do that.

The extra debt for the runway and terminal will max them out so nothing spare.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

I'm quite disappointed to see that in the Heathrow Expansion Consultation published today there is no promise that either the Southern or Western Access routes will be built. Just fine words about they want to support the plans. I would like to see the Southern and Western Access completed quickly to alleviate the problems that will be caused when they start work on the M25.

Are they not led by two different organisations? Western Rail Link is DfT/Network rail and is planned regardless of whether Heathrow gets its third runway. But is the airport expansion not a predominantly private venture?