• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Heathrow Southern Link proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
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.

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

I knew I had seen something else on the southern access plan that mentioned the third rail.

This pdf of some plans on the hounslow website has a possible new station at Bedfont where it has a Note:
Limit of DC Electrification
https://democraticservices.hounslow...Rail Access - potential Bedfont alignment.pdf
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,437
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.
The Airtrack plans that were published (no longer available online) explicitly said that AC/DC changeover would take place away from the airport, between the tunnel portal and the junction west of Staines.

Crossrail 2 doesn’t affect the Windsor side at all, it will have no effect whatsoever on capacity through Staines.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
For those that don't have a subscription to Construction News.

They have an article published 19th June titled: "Aecom CEO urges support for Heathrow rail link"

Aecom chief executive David Barwell has urged the Department for Transport (DfT) and Heathrow to move forward with the Heathrow Southern Rail Link so that it could be built in time for the airport’s proposed expansion.

...

A DfT spokesperson said the department supported the Southern Rail Link to Heathrow, and that it was “working closely with interested parties to progress this project”.

A Heathrow spokesperson stated the airport’s support for the link, but also emphasised that it had no control over whether it went ahead.

They said: “A direct rail link to the south will deliver lasting economic benefit, driving opportunities for regional growth and jobs while also reducing emissions from car journeys.

“Heathrow is keen that that this project is moved forward at the earliest opportunity, and we will pay our fair share towards the cost.”

Everyone seems to be blaming the DfT for the delay in reviewing the proposal.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,251
Location
Torbay
I was involved in liaising with the old Airtrack project on behalf of the RT Regional Signal Engineer when I was at Waterloo. With all the trains planned to terminate in the spare platforms at T5, it struck me as odd to have to equip all the new trains with pantographs just for the last mile or so into the airport, especially as the Airtrack part of the station would have been entirely separate operationally from the HEX/Crossrail part (except perhaps for an engineering connection). That might have been a rigid interpretation of the ORR 3rd rail extension ban, although as a completely segregated new railway with no level crossings, and special isolation arrangements possible to protect track workers, I would have thought a good case could have been made for an exemption, as with East London Line. However, there were also options discussed to use the new link to run some or all HEX services on to the new Staines High Street station with unmodified 332s, which would have complicated matters as the wires would have had to stretch all the way to Staines in that case.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,924
Location
Nottingham
Current plans seem to include running Crossrail through to Staines. The Crossrail trains have provision for third rail but are not currently compatible, but might become so if the service was extended from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,150
Location
SE London
Current plans seem to include running Crossrail through to Staines. The Crossrail trains have provision for third rail but are not currently compatible, but might become so if the service was extended from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet.

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.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
A report on the New Civil Engineer website mentions Tony Caccavone, Heathrow Surface Director, speaking at New Civil Engineer’s Future of Rail conference.
"...it is far more important to link airports better with their catchment areas than it is to create links between airports. And that applies to Luton Airport or Bristol or any other UK airport.”

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”.

Backers of both schemes have previously accused the Department for Transport (DfT) of stalling on making a decision.
The finger is being pointed at DfT again.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,089
"...it is far more important to link airports better with their catchment areas than it is to create links between airports. And that applies to Luton Airport or Bristol or any other UK airport.”
Indeed, this is just one of those things that complete amateurs (= senior politicians) somehow have a fixation about, people who have no idea about Origin & Destination analysis, traffic flow per hour, project costs, revenue streams, etc.

The same approach leads to timewasting proposals for circular railways, monorails, maglevs, hovertrains, railways to a different gauge, and a range of other inappropriate suggestions. For the avoidance of doubt, there is very little ground traffic between two airports in a region.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,437
A report on the New Civil Engineer website mentions Tony Caccavone, Heathrow Surface Director, speaking at New Civil Engineer’s Future of Rail conference...
Didn’t this point come up a few days ago Kevin, when you quoted the same bloke in #123? Personally I think he’s preaching to the converted, the idea of airport transfer by rail doesn’t stand up, so I doubt DfT or NR have it on their agenda anyway.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Didn’t this point come up a few days ago Kevin
Yes, you are right. I was just highlighting the article. Hopefully at some point the DfT will get their finger out. A recent letter to my MP on the subject of Southern Access to Heathrow produced a very disappointing response.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,924
Location
Nottingham
Indeed, this is just one of those things that complete amateurs (= senior politicians) somehow have a fixation about, people who have no idea about Origin & Destination analysis, traffic flow per hour, project costs, revenue streams, etc.

The same approach leads to timewasting proposals for circular railways, monorails, maglevs, hovertrains, railways to a different gauge, and a range of other inappropriate suggestions. For the avoidance of doubt, there is very little ground traffic between two airports in a region.
An example of Elite Projection. https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the-dangers-of-elite-projection.html
Elite projection is the belief, among relatively fortunate and influential people, that what those people find convenient or attractive is good for the society as a whole.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Elite Projection
There is a very similar situation when Transport planning is done by men who plan for their own needs and don't realise that most women might find that it doesn't suit them.

See: How to Design a City for Women

In 1999, officials in Vienna, Austria, asked residents of the city's ninth district how often and why they used public transportation. "Most of the men filled out the questionnaire in less than five minutes," says Ursula Bauer, one of the city administrators tasked with carrying out the survey. "But the women couldn't stop writing."
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,089
Back to Airtrack, what if anything has been done about the level crossing issue, which appears to have no ready solution. For those who don't know it the whole Windsor Lines set of routes are plagued with high-usage level crossings for both road and rail, with no apparent alternatives. Established urban development has crowded round all four corners of the very tight key crossings, and even the existing service density causes substantial traffic and pedestrian backups that often do not clear before the barriers come down again, From Staines, westwards the two main roads linking the two halves of Egham are like this, while towards London there are a string right through to Barnes which are absolutely saturated. It's a key issue for the substantial population on both sides of the line, with constant all-day traffic jams. The railway is certainly not going to get away with just saying "tough" to a service increase which takes away what capacity there is at the moment. Issues like ambulance/fire engine response times are the least of it. They must be the worst and most intractable group of urban crossings in the country.

Just in passing, I remember the situation in the days of individual crossing boxes, before Feltham power box, and the signallers then were past masters at maximising the capacity of everything and keeping a close eye on things. It seems that every generation of "modernisation" that has come along since increases the sterile barrier-down time.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,924
Location
Nottingham
Back to Airtrack, what if anything has been done about the level crossing issue, which appears to have no ready solution. For those who don't know it the whole Windsor Lines set of routes are plagued with high-usage level crossings for both road and rail, with no apparent alternatives. Established urban development has crowded round all four corners of the very tight key crossings, and even the existing service density causes substantial traffic and pedestrian backups that often do not clear before the barriers come down again, From Staines, westwards the two main roads linking the two halves of Egham are like this, while towards London there are a string right through to Barnes which are absolutely saturated. It's a key issue for the substantial population on both sides of the line, with constant all-day traffic jams. The railway is certainly not going to get away with just saying "tough" to a service increase which takes away what capacity there is at the moment. Issues like ambulance/fire engine response times are the least of it. They must be the worst and most intractable group of urban crossings in the country.

Just in passing, I remember the situation in the days of individual crossing boxes, before Feltham power box, and the signallers then were past masters at maximising the capacity of everything and keeping a close eye on things. It seems that every generation of "modernisation" that has come along since increases the sterile barrier-down time.
Heathrow Southern is talking about a new route so trains to/from Woking can bypass the Staines area where I believe the worst of the crossings are. If Heathrow-Waterloo trains are operated then I suspect they will replace other services on the Windsor lines, as there are multiple bottlenecks on this route, so the number of trains over those crossings shouldn't increase.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
The latest incarnation of the plans have Airport trains avoid the Egham area, with the line ending at either Virginia Water or near Chertsey. Staines would be a chord to the Windsor lines.

The 'level crossing problem' was usually about Waterloo services (I don't believe they are in the plan still) and the tracks further in, though certainly Egham would have been a problem.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,398
The latest incarnation of the plans have Airport trains avoid the Egham area, with the line ending at either Virginia Water or near Chertsey. Staines would be a chord to the Windsor lines.

The 'level crossing problem' was usually about Waterloo services (I don't believe they are in the plan still) and the tracks further in, though certainly Egham would have been a problem.
Feltham LC has now gone and extra services would go via Hounslow rather than Richmond.

The sensible option is probably initially to extend CR services from T5 to Staines to connect with SWR services.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
New Civil Engineer reports that the Heathrow southern rail link may miss the third runway opening.

New Civil Engineer understands that there are at least two schemes left in the running as part of the Department for Transport's (DfT) call for ideas; one tabled by the Heathrow Southern Rail consortium and another by Spelthorne Council.

Last month it was revealed that there was to be an update from the DfT on the scheme, setting out the “objectives and an approach to potential procurements or competitions”.

However, speaking at an airports conference in London, Heathrow Southern Rail (HSR) chief executive Graham Cross said he had received a letter from the DfT which stated that a commercial model “was not expected until the end of the year”.

Seems that Grayling got everyone to waste their time planning for something where he had not even thought what the rules might be.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,325
New Civil Engineer reports that the Heathrow southern rail link may miss the third runway opening.



Seems that Grayling got everyone to waste their time planning for something where he had not even thought what the rules might be.

Unless there's been an change the other option is a light rail system which brings zero benefits to the wider trail network:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...g-the-south-to-the-expanding-heathrow-airport

Spelthorne Borough Council has submitted proposals for a light rail link from Staines-upon-Thames to Heathrow airport to provide “joined-up journeys” into the airport from the south.

The council is actively promoting the transport link which would be close to the existing railway station and offer “seamless and frequent connectivity,” running every six minutes and taking seven minutes to reach the airport.

The scheme has been submitted to the DfT and is expected to cost £375m, which will be funded by private backers.
 

USBT

Member
Joined
5 Nov 2017
Messages
121
New Civil Engineer reports that the Heathrow southern rail link may miss the third runway opening.

The terminal expansions at Heathrow are also going to miss the third runway opening. Which means flight (and hence passenger) capacity will only expand marginally in 2026 and beyond. The terminal expansions are slated IIRC for early to mid 2030s, which is when HSR is envisaged to open. So it may not matter that much that HSR is “delayed”. Though it will stifle pax from the southwest getting to the HS2 interchange at OOC.

The Network Rail site for Western Access has that opening in 2028, again after R3 but before significant air pax increase.

Source is the Heathrow Masterplan, which I can’t easily find and link to as I’m on mobile.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,325
The terminal expansions at Heathrow are also going to miss the third runway opening. Which means flight (and hence passenger) capacity will only expand marginally in 2026 and beyond. The terminal expansions are slated IIRC for early to mid 2030s, which is when HSR is envisaged to open. So it may not matter that much that HSR is “delayed”. Though it will stifle pax from the southwest getting to the HS2 interchange at OOC.

The Network Rail site for Western Access has that opening in 2028, again after R3 but before significant air pax increase.

Source is the Heathrow Masterplan, which I can’t easily find and link to as I’m on mobile.

Getting to OOC on current trains from South of Basingstoke would be easy enough, although the Southern Approach would improve the fastest journey time frequency and would significantly improve things for South Of Woking (i.e. Guildford, Petersfield, Portsmouth, etc.).

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.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
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)
...
- 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)
...
- Southwood (between Fleet and Farnborough, which has a lot of employment land near it)

I don't really want to divert the discussion from Heathrow, should we start a new thread? Who is taking these ideas forward? I haven't seen anyone else suggesting these new stations, though it sounds like a good idea to me.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,325
I don't really want to divert the discussion from Heathrow, should we start a new thread? Who is taking these ideas forward? I haven't seen anyone else suggesting these new stations, though it sounds like a good idea to me.

I've referenced my post in the correct thread.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...uding-gatwick-link.185385/page-2#post-4099710

As yet it's only a thought that I've had, although I have been making reference to it in some consultations about local transport for Basingstoke.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
The alternative western access via Windsor seems to have been dug out again according to this article in New Civil Engineer. The way things are going there will be two routes from the west before there is one from the south via Woking.

Plans to build a rail link to Heathrow via Windsor are to be revived after the scheme was turned down by the Department for Transport last year.

The Windsor Link Railway (WLR) scheme, which would provide a southern rail link to the airport in two phases, was rejected by the DfT when submitted as part of the government's call for ideas for private investment – market led proposals (MLPs).

After it was rejected, it emerged that because the scheme needed government backing to go forward it did not fit into the category 1 MLP which the DfT was looking for. Out of 30 schemes entered for the call for ideas only 10 are being taken forward on this basis.

But now the Windsor scheme is to be revived as part of Network Rail's enhancements pipeline process.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,437
I cannot really understand how such positive stories about the “Windsor Link alternative” get written. With Western access from Langley to T5 going through the normal procedures now, how can anyone believe that DfT will agree to a round the houses duplicate?
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
I cannot really understand how such positive stories about the “Windsor Link alternative” get written. With Western access from Langley to T5 going through the normal procedures now, how can anyone believe that DfT will agree to a round the houses duplicate?

It is quite exasperating!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,206
its Summer silly season, and it looks like NCE had to fill a page. It’s another example of one individual making a story out of something that the same individual has said previously, and agreeing with it. A bit like the far north sleeper.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Rail Technology Magazine have a similar article with a very misleading picture of the services to be offered.

A campaign for a rail link between Windsor and Heathrow Airport is to be revived, after the scheme was turned down by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2017.

The Windsor Link Railway (WLR), laid out in several phases, proposes a rail link connecting Heathrow Airport to the south and west of the country, as well as easing congestion between the M3 and M4 corridors.

One quote in the article which does need addressing is not really addressed by phase 1 of the solution:

“We still struggle being between two regions, politically, because the DfT have difficulty organising projects between two regions.

If this were to go ahead Phase 1 would likely be built and Phase 2 quietly forgotten as soon at the extra housing in Windsor was approved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top