Heathrow Southern Link proposals

[edwin_m]

A substantial proportion of people who work at ‘Heathrow’ don’t work anywhere near one of the 4 stations.

So the airport could pay for some shuttle buses at shift change times, which tend to be off-peak when operators have buses spare. And guarantee a free taxi to the station if anyone has to unexpectedly go home at a time the shuttle isn't running.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the airport could pay for some shuttle buses at shift change times, which tend to be off-peak when operators have buses spare. And guarantee a free taxi to the station if anyone has to unexpectedly go home at a time the shuttle isn't running.

They could... but if you live in, say, Uxbridge, or Greenford, or Sunbury, and work in the cargo area, or hotels, you’re still going to drive. And eve if you lived next to a station with a Heathrow service, it would still be a significant extension of journey time to get out of the relevant Heathrow station, get to / wait for the bus, and then get round the perimeter.

 

[kevin_roche]

There was a mention of Heathrow Access at the Future of Rail conference.

Heathrow surface access director Tony Caccavone has dismissed calls for a joined up rail network between London’s main airports.

Speaking at New Civil Engineer’s Future of Rail conference, Caccavone said that there was “no real demand” from passengers for a rail system between Heathrow and any other airport.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/heathrow-boss-rules-rail-link-london-airports-28-06-2019/

Caccavone did stress the importance of improving rail access to Heathrow, especially from the south and the west and urged the government to “make a decision” on Heathrow Southern Rail and Western Rail Link to Heathrow schemes “as soon as possible”.

 

[kevin_roche]

The western link forges ahead while the southern access seems to have been forgotten.

Network Rail is to host a meeting for construction firms interested in a £900 million contract to build a new railway tunnel to Heathrow Airport.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/06/27/bidders-invited-for-new-railway-tunnel-to-heathrow/

 

[swt_passenger]

The western link forges ahead while the southern access seems to have been forgotten.

Western Link has always been much further ahead of Southern Link to be fair.

The former was actually in the 2012 HLOS for progression of design in CP5 and has therefore had a regular progress report in the CP5 enhancement plans.

I don’t think you should ever think of them as some way intended to be happening in parallel...

 

[Bald Rick]

There was a mention of Heathrow Access at the Future of Rail conference.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/heathrow-boss-rules-rail-link-london-airports-28-06-2019/

Sense breaking out.

The western link forges ahead while the southern access seems to have been forgotten.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/06/27/bidders-invited-for-new-railway-tunnel-to-heathrow/

Western Link has always been much further ahead of Southern Link to be fair.

The former was actually in the 2012 HLOS for progression of design in CP5 and has therefore had a regular progress report in the CP5 enhancement plans.

I don’t think you should ever think of them as some way intended to be happening in parallel...

Indeed.

The Western link is the the process of submitting an application for a Development Consent Order. All the consultation has been done, the design is just about ready (for a DCO), and the logistics worked out etc. All that is missing is Heathrow saying they will pay for some of it. With a fair wind it will be open in 2027.

The Southern Link, meanwhile, hasn’t got past first base. It is at least two years away from submitting a DCO. And before that, Government needs to decide if it wants a Southern Link, and if so which of the several proposals (if any) it wants to proceed with, and how it is to be paid for.

 

[The Ham]

And before that, Government needs to decide if it wants a Southern Link, and if so which of the several proposals (if any) it wants to proceed with, and how it is to be paid for.

https://heathrowrail.com/funding/

A new company – Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd (HSRL) – will build and own the infrastructure, the capital cost of which is estimated to be between £1.3billion and £1.6billion, depending on which route option is chosen. The scheme will be privately financed, and will be licensed by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). HSRL will be at risk for the costs of development, construction and availability of the new railway, in return for contractual commitments from the Department for Transport to under-write a defined quantum of train paths.

That sounds like the big risk is willing to be taken by the company subject to a minimum number of paths.

That could well be the problem, in that those paths are likely to be reliant on other works (grade separated junction at Woking) which will cost the DfT money.

 

[Bald Rick]

That could well be the problem, in that those paths are likely to be reliant on other works (grade separated junction at Woking) which will cost the DfT money.

The risk would be taken by the company’s lenders, who would want to make very very sure about estimates etc, particularly given recent experience of ‘cost pressure’ on other railway tunnelling jobs in the London area.

The path ‘guarantee’ would also be taking revenue off the SWR franchise, which is a direct loss of cash from DfT. Pure guess, but I should think the National Audit Office might have a view in that respect regarding state funding of private infrastructure, and whether it then becomes part of National Debt or not.

 

[w1bbl3]

Maybe I'm missing something but HSRL aren't proposing to be a TOC like HEX but rather want a guarantee over the number of TOC services that will use the new link basically a modification of the SWR Hounslow and Richmond services to see two of each rerouted to Heathrow. This shouldn't see the TOC loose out in revenue terms and would possibly be revenue positive.

The Woking, Guildford, Basingstoke's services all require option 3 to be taken forward and would ultimately continue on to Paddington, its not obvious to me if HSRL see these as being GWR or SWR services or paths would be available on GWML for these services.

 

[edwin_m]

The SWR franchise only runs to 2024 and GWR until 2022. Heathrow Southern wouldn't be completed by 2024 even if approved tomorrow (3 years minimum for construction and has to go through the TWA process first). Simple enough (even assuming the present system of franchising continues) to specify that the next franchise has to start running service to Heathrow on a date to be determined.

 

[The Ham]

In terms of who runs it I could see that SWR would almost certainly be running the Waterloo portion of service.

The Guildford/Basingstoke services could sit with either, however there could be some distinct advantages of having GWR encroaching into more of the SWR area, whilst I'm less convinced of it the other way (in that it would mean SWR taking over the existing Heathrow Express services as well as the Western Approach services, which would have to happen a lot sooner) as it would add an element of competition (not that the railway needs it) which should then ensure that the services are run better than I'd it was just all one franchise and they'd be getting the money regardless.

There's a third option which is that the three lots of services (Express, Western Approach & Southern Approach, but not Waterloo, services are formed into a new franchise. Which could also see the Reading/Gatwick and Reading/Basingstoke (as a continuation of the Western Approach services) services included (although that would be better if they were able to be run by EMU's). That could make quite a nice franchise which was focused on airport travel, with trains designed accordingly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe I'm missing something but HSRL aren't proposing to be a TOC like HEX but rather want a guarantee over the number of TOC services that will use the new link basically a modification of the SWR Hounslow and Richmond services to see two of each rerouted to Heathrow. This shouldn't see the TOC loose out in revenue terms and would possibly be revenue positive.

The Woking, Guildford, Basingstoke's services all require option 3 to be taken forward and would ultimately continue on to Paddington, its not obvious to me if HSRL see these as being GWR or SWR services or paths would be available on GWML for these services.

The main revenue is in Guildford / Basingstoke etc to Heathrow. This then opens up the possibility of Guildford / Basingstoke Vito London via Heathrow, which although a long way round in time terms may well still attract some through custom. That will be a direct take off SWR, and a very valuable revenue stream of SWR (indeed just about the most valuable).

 

[kevin_roche]

The Woking, Guildford, Basingstoke's services all require option 3 to be taken forward and would ultimately continue on to Paddington, its not obvious to me if HSRL see these as being GWR or SWR services or paths would be available on GWML for these services.

Looking at available paths it seems to me that the through service to Paddington could only work if it replaced the current HX service. Of course, things might be different if the ETCS ever gets installed all the way to Paddington.

 

[edwin_m]

The main revenue is in Guildford / Basingstoke etc to Heathrow. This then opens up the possibility of Guildford / Basingstoke Vito London via Heathrow, which although a long way round in time terms may well still attract some through custom. That will be a direct take off SWR, and a very valuable revenue stream of SWR (indeed just about the most valuable).

Not to mention Guildford/Basingstoke to Old Oak and all the places that will be reachable by connecting there.

Looking at available paths it seems to me that the through service to Paddington could only work if it replaced the current HX service. Of course, things might be different if the ETCS ever gets installed all the way to Paddington.

Pretty sure that's the idea. It would still be a fast path into Paddington, probably stopping at Old Oak but if it continued as Hex it would most likely do that too. It would be a "normal" train not an ultra-luxurious shuttle, but the extra passengers going through Heathrow would offset those likely to be lost to Crossrail once it starts providing through service to the centre of London.

The main determinant of capacity on the GWML Main lines out of Paddington is the speed difference between the 100mph Hex and the 125mph GWR services. ETCS and using 110mph units on the replacement service could make a bit of difference, but unlikely to be enough to allow a Hex shuttle to continue alongside a through service at a reasonable frequency. There is also the question of how many trains Heathrow T123 could take with only one platform in each direction.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The main revenue is in Guildford / Basingstoke etc to Heathrow. This then opens up the possibility of Guildford / Basingstoke Vito London via Heathrow, which although a long way round in time terms may well still attract some through custom. That will be a direct take off SWR, and a very valuable revenue stream of SWR (indeed just about the most valuable).

But that wouldn't be a loss to the railway as a whole though would it? It would simply be revenue going to whichever TOC runs the London-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford trains instead of to SWR.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

https://heathrowrail.com/funding/



That sounds like the big risk is willing to be taken by the company subject to a minimum number of paths.

That could well be the problem, in that those paths are likely to be reliant on other works (grade separated junction at Woking) which will cost the DfT money.

I love the idea of this, but doing some quick estimates, I can't get the figures to add up:

On construction costs of 1.3-1.6bn, I would think they'll need to take somewhere between £50M and £100M a year in revenue to cover interest on the construction costs, some paying back some of the costs, and maintenance costs.

They are looking at running 4tph to Woking, 4tph to Waterloo, and an unspecified number of CR trains extended to Staines. Let's be generous and say all the Heathrow CR trains get extended (6tph). So you have 14tph, which makes about 200 trains per day in each direction. 400 trains per day * 360-ish days in a year makes about 150K trains per year running over HSR's track. So to make £100M a year, they'd need to take about £700 in track access charges for each train - to travel on 5-10 miles of their track.

I don't know how much track access charges typically are, but I can't believe they are anything like that high.

What am I missing?

 

[thelongestroad]

With western access into Heathrow off the GWML, I'd rather hope some of the GWR services from Bristol, Cardiff and the west country could go via LHR central.

 

[edwin_m]

But that wouldn't be a loss to the railway as a whole though would it? It would simply be revenue going to whichever TOC runs the London-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford trains instead of to SWR.

That is largely true for travel into central London - someone going from Basingstoke to an office near Paddington might otherwise have gone via Waterloo and the Underground or via Reading but probably wouldn't have driven to Paddington. It may offer some a small benefit in relieving capacity on the SW main line and the extra connectivity will generate a few more journeys (that person might not previously have considered taking a job near Paddington, so if they do so it benefits the economy).

That's why the link at Old Oak to HS2 (and to a lesser extent Chiltern) is important. Journeys like Guildford to Birmingham or Woking to Gerrards Cross are quite difficult by rail at the moment, so many people will choose to drive. A convenient service with one change ought to attract more people onto rail.

 

[AlbertBeale]

That is largely true for travel into central London - someone going from Basingstoke to an office near Paddington might otherwise have gone via Waterloo and the Underground or via Reading but probably wouldn't have driven to Paddington. It may offer some a small benefit in relieving capacity on the SW main line and the extra connectivity will generate a few more journeys (that person might not previously have considered taking a job near Paddington, so if they do so it benefits the economy).

That's why the link at Old Oak to HS2 (and to a lesser extent Chiltern) is important. Journeys like Guildford to Birmingham or Woking to Gerrards Cross are quite difficult by rail at the moment, so many people will choose to drive. A convenient service with one change ought to attract more people onto rail.

I don't understand where the Chiltern link would be...

 

[si404]

I don't understand where the Chiltern link would be...

from OOC, along the New North Mainline (Wycombe single in current official terminology?) to West Ruislip and beyond. Likely the semi-fast stops to Banbury and Aylesbury.

 

[Bald Rick]

But that wouldn't be a loss to the railway as a whole though would it? It would simply be revenue going to whichever TOC runs the London-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford trains instead of to SWR.

Quite correct it’s not a revenue loss to ‘GB Rail’, but it is a cost increase, and quite a significant one, both in terms of operational costs and the infrastructure.

It seems to me that what HSRL are saying, effectively, is “we can build this railway with private finance, but we need some of the profits you make on SWR to make it pay”

I love the idea of this, but doing some quick estimates, I can't get the figures to add up:

On construction costs of 1.3-1.6bn, I would think they'll need to take somewhere between £50M and £100M a year in revenue to cover interest on the construction costs, some paying back some of the costs, and maintenance costs.

They are looking at running 4tph to Woking, 4tph to Waterloo, and an unspecified number of CR trains extended to Staines. Let's be generous and say all the Heathrow CR trains get extended (6tph). So you have 14tph, which makes about 200 trains per day in each direction. 400 trains per day * 360-ish days in a year makes about 150K trains per year running over HSR's track. So to make £100M a year, they'd need to take about £700 in track access charges for each train - to travel on 5-10 miles of their track.

I don't know how much track access charges typically are, but I can't believe they are anything like that high.

What am I missing?

You’re not missing anything. I haven’t seen anything other than what’s been published, and I don’t know what the numbers are, but the logic and maths is right. Also bear in mind that some (prob 4tph) of either the Elizabeth Line or HEx trains (but probably not a mix of both) need to go through to the Western link, which means max 10tph on the southern link, and I’d be surprised if it was more than 10.

Which is why HSRL will want the guarantees of trains being routed that way.

 

[kevin_roche]

But that wouldn't be a loss to the railway as a whole though would it? It would simply be revenue going to whichever TOC runs the London-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford trains instead of to SWR.

In recent years I have driven to the Acton area quite regularly rather than catch a train to Waterloo and underground, or to Reading and change twice.

 

[Meerkat]

Do HEx trains need to go through to the western link? That would just duplicate journeys that are faster on the main line.
HEx paths going through Woking or Staines would open up loads of journey opportunities, bringing in lots of new traffic that currently gets the bus/coach/taxi or drives to the airport , connect Surrey and Hampshire to HS2, and make commuting to West London much easier.

 

[kevin_roche]

Also bear in mind that some (prob 4tph) of either the Elizabeth Line or HEx trains (but probably not a mix of both) need to go through to the Western link, which means max 10tph on the southern link, and I’d be surprised if it was more than 10.

I believe the plan for the western link is to run trains from Reading to link up with trains from Bristol and Oxford and Terminate them at Heathrow. There is space at T5 for 2 more platforms, but there is discussion on building a turnback so that they could serve Heathrow Central as well.

 

[AlbertBeale]

from OOC, along the New North Mainline (Wycombe single in current official terminology?) to West Ruislip and beyond. Likely the semi-fast stops to Banbury and Aylesbury.

Do you mean that some of the services currently going into Marylebone would - as they can now, to run Greenford, Ealing Broadway, Paddington - turn off at West Ruislip or South Ruislip, and use the planned HS2 tunnel under Northolt etc, via OOC ... to terminate at Euston?

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you mean that some of the services currently going into Marylebone would - as they can now, to run Greenford, Ealing Broadway, Paddington - turn off at West Ruislip or South Ruislip, and use the planned HS2 tunnel under Northolt etc, via OOC ... to terminate at Euston?

The plan is to build a terminating platform at OOC for some extra Chiltern services down the reinstated surface line (Wycombe single) on completion of HS2 tunnelling work. Passengers will basically be expected to change to/from Crossrail there. Chiltern no longer run to Paddington, and AIUI never will again.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The plan is to build a terminating platform at OOC for some extra Chiltern services down the reinstated surface line (Wycombe single) on completion of HS2 tunnelling work. Passengers will basically be expected to change to/from Crossrail there. Chiltern no longer run to Paddington, and AIUI never will again.

Aha - thanks for this - sorry about my ignorance here... I haven't been following all this properly, obviously.

I'm assuming the "Wycombe single" is the line parallel to the Central Line from West Ruislip to North Acton? (I've long been aware of that route, since I attended a school in Northolt which overlooked the line, back in steam days.) I realised the line in from Greenford had disappeared, but had noticed in the recent-ish past that there was still a (daily?) service (a parliamentary train? finally abolished by the HS2 Act?) from the main part of the Chiltern line that used the section as far as Greenford (which did still exist), then via the little back line to West Ealing, and into Paddington. (I'd meant to be in the right place at the right time to use it one day, but hadn't got round to it - and [as with many things in life] it seems I've left it too late and now never will.)

But I'd forgotten that the old route to North Acton itself feeds into OOC (and potentially into Paddington), so that's a nice direct route for some of the Chilterns trains to serve OOC. I had no idea there was a suggestion of some of the Chilterns being diverted to end at OOC. I guess that's a bit of the answer to those who say that the Chiltern line couldn't run more services because of terminal capacity at Marylebone.

Apologies again for not being as expert on all the old routes as some of you. and asking what must seem stupid questions. And, indeed, apologies for diverting this threat from Heathrow access to increasingly unrelated stuff.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe the plan for the western link is to run trains from Reading to link up with trains from Bristol and Oxford and Terminate them at Heathrow. There is space at T5 for 2 more platforms, but there is discussion on building a turnback so that they could serve Heathrow Central as well.

The turnback isn’t in any of the plans in the consultation, so assume it isn’t proposed. There is a strong ‘pull’ for services from the west (and south) to serve the central terminal area. Also worth bearing in mind available capacity on the GWML. I would be amazed if the Western link wasn’t an extension of either the Elizabeth line or Hex.

 

[si404]

I would be amazed if the Western link wasn’t an extension of either the Elizabeth line or Hex.

at least until the Southern access opens, as it can't easily serve both, and Southern would be more useful to take through to Paddington.

 

[yorkie]

Just to clarify that this thread is for the actual proposals.

If anyone wishes to discuss possible ideas for services or any other infrastructure improvement, such posts are very welcome but please ensure these are posted in the Speculative Ideas section.

I have split some posts to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-link-services-including-gatwick-link.185385/