Reading commuters filling long distance GWR services

[JamesRowden]

Extending North Downs services to Bristol Temple Meads and Swansea using 125mph stock would mean that an hourly intercity service from each wouldn't need to stop at Reading.

 

[Richard_B]

the pick up set down restrictions are not really a big issue. If the emus were running half empty while all the hst/800s are packed to the rafters then making some of them not for Reading passengers is sensible, but if the passengers were sufficiently enticed by the likely hood of a seat then it may not be necessary.

 

[coppercapped]

This isn't quite as long as 'War and Peace' - I'll have another attempt writing a longer post later!

There seem to be three themes which have emerged from this thread. These are

1. the passenger flows between Reading and London are a problem
2. Reading - Paddington is similar to Euston - Milton Keynes
3. there is a degree of dislike that fast trains serve Heathrow.

All these things are intertwined, but I'll try to address them separately.

To the first point. Any other business would give its eye-teeth to have the flows that GWR has between Reading and Paddington. Putting restrictions on the type and number of trains that travellers are allowed to use smacks of Gosplan's Five Year Plans - you are only allowed to do what I allow you to do.

This attitude, this remnant of central planning should be buried with the remains of the Berlin Wall.

The second point is partially correct - but there are significant differences which explain the differences in the train services offered. While the GW is a four track main line all the way from Didcot to London, the WCML has six tracks inwards from Watford Junction meaning that the local services are segregated from the outer suburban ones. In GW terms this would mean that the stopping services inwards from Slough would have their own dedicated tracks. As the GW does not have this luxury this means that the high speed outer suburban services which are possible on the WCML on the slows are not possible on the GW Reliefs. In future these latter will also have to carry a more intensive Crossrail service.

To the third point. Because of the characteristics of air travel - it is fast - the requirement for a fast service to Heathrow will not go away after Crossrail opens. Even if the stopping Crossrail trains do run through London to Canary Wharf it is by no means certain that all the air passengers currently using HEx will transfer. What is wrong with slow access to airports is that planes are so quick. I speak from experience. A few years ago I lived and worked in Munich and flew back and forth once or twice a month. It takes 1 hour to get from Heathrow to Munich. There is an hour time shift between the UK and Germany and my work started at 7.30 on Monday morning. The last thing I wanted to do is to sit in Neufahrn station at 22.50, having left home at about 16.00, knowing that I still had the best part of an hour to go before I reached Pasing and could get to bed. Getting from Munich Airport to my bed took just as long, if not longer, than the flight from Heathrow to Munich. One leg was 35 km long and the other 950km. Although Heathrow is closer to London than Munich Airport is to Munich the same argument applies.

The other factor that is often forgotten is - the money! I would suggest that the income generated by HEx is out of proportion to its passenger numbers. An annual season from Reading to Zones 1-6 costs £5,024.00. Assuming it is used on 200 days in the year this equates to a ticket price of £12.50 a day each way for a journey of about 40 miles. People using Hex are unlikely to be using season tickets for obvious reasons and the standard single fare is £22 for a distance of about 15 miles. This equates to just over 30p per mile for the Reading commuter and 145p per mile for the traveller to Heathrow.

So, very approximately, HEx earns four times as much per passenger per mile as the Reading commuter trains. One should think very, very carefully before putting this income at risk.

What should not be forgotten is that the railway infrastructure from Airport Junction to the terminals at Heathrow was funded by, and belongs to, HAL. Unless HAL had built the tunnel to the airport there would be no question of running Crossrail trains along it - Crossrail would only have gone to Maidenhead. HAL has to recover the costs of construction, financing and maintenance and pay the access fees for the main line from its ticket sales and any attempt to reallocate train paths which may affect its income will be strenuously resisted. HAL has not been responsible for the general growth in rail travel - adding capacity to cope with this growth is the responsibility of those that benefit from this growth. An organisation which has invested heavily in rail should not be disadvantaged - it sends all the wrong messages to others who have invested or are considering investing in rail transport. This is not just about the ‘hard done by’ commuters and train paths but all about wilfully damaging somebody’s business because one can’t be arsed to find a proper solution to one’s own problems.

There are proposals which have been floating around for some time to extend the railway from Terminal 5 along the M25 to connect with the Virginia Water to Weybridge line near Chertsey. By using the existing grade separated junction at West Weybridge a train service to Heathrow from Basingstoke and Guildford can easily be offered. I suspect that this is the way HEx could evolve - it would use the Crossrail tunnels under London, run fast to Heathrow and then continue southwestwards. I suggest that this, or something similar, is HEx's future. Another solution will have to be found to expand capacity between Airport Junction - or preferably Slough - to London. A new, dedicated, set of tracks for Crossrail would seem to be in order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you noticed the slight difference in the way the London termini are set out - it's quite easy to enforce ticket restrictions at Euston, as the platforms are accessed in pairs by ramps - a rather different matter from Paddington

No, they aren't. The platforms at Euston are accessed in *threes or fours* with ramps. Paddington has four platforms inside the "main" barriers (2, 3, 4 and 5), then 10 and 11 inside another barrier, then finally 12, 13 and 14. IOW, exactly the same.

Furthermore, platform use is much more segregated at Paddington than Euston. At Paddington there are platforms mostly used by HSTs and platforms mostly used by Turbos. That segregation could be maintained, with odd exceptions I guess, for a fast local service. At Euston, LM and VT share use of all but 1, 2 and 3 (mainly VT) and 8-11 (LM and LO, no VT). The rest of the platforms can be, and are, used by either.

I'd love to know what your plan for platform 1 at Paddington is... ticket inspectors posted at every train door, perhaps? That'll be cheap.

No different from Euston when the barriers are not staffed. Sometimes they aren't. The train still don't fill up with MKC commuters then, because people know they can't use those services. The odd one might, but that sort-of doesn't matter - the crowding-out problem does not occur, and the long-distance passengers get their seats.

Why is it that people who don't live in the area or use these services are so obsessed with draconian measures against Reading commuters, who have no other option but to use HSTs at the moment, as that is the service on offer and the only high-capacity stock GWR possesses?

Whyever do Reading commuters get the umbrage at the idea of a better, dedicated service being provided for them? It's as if they think the world revolves around them as a short hop on one end of a large InterCity network. Well, it doesn't. Some MK commuters get the umbrage at similar things, as do the local Press, but they need to be told to stop whining - MK commuters have an excellent service with an extremely high chance of a seat in both directions - something GWR commuters should be envious of, and commuters in the Manchester area certainly would be. There are odd exceptions of certain very busy trains, but when I've commuted from MKC and BLY I have a near 100% record of obtaining a seat - on certain trains an entire bay of seats to myself.

Providing a dedicated fast Reading service is not a draconian measure, it is a targetted, fast, high capacity commuter service that would be provided for their precise needs.

Why do they - and you - have a problem with it? Is it about prestige? It certainly isn't about practicality.

Until the new GWR timetables are unveiled and the new rolling stock is in place we won't have a clear idea of what they propose to do anyway.

Indeed we won't, but there is no harm in discussing ideas on here any more than ideas on any other concept. Why do some on here take exception to such discussions?

I have posted here far too many times to remember every time that the supposed Reading commuter 'problem' comes up saying that I am quite sure GWR will attempt to segregate the flows between Reading and London and on the longer-distance services as best it can once electrification is in place - as it will then have the rolling stock available to do something, such as to offer fast/limited-stop 387s principally targeted at Reading passengers (but starting further west at Didcot and Newbury) with lots of seats available.

And I indeed hope it will.

So please don't try to make out this is somehow 'your' idea. Even someone at GWR might have thought of something similar...

I have had the idea, so it's my idea. It might also be your idea, and/or GWRs. Independent people are capable of coming up with the same idea, particularly if it's a good one!

But.

I simply do not see the need for all these pick up/set down restrictions to keep Reading passengers off expresses that you, and others, seem obsessed with.

Despite this demonstrably working well at MKC? FWIW, some VTs do carry London commuters in the peaks southbound - they are ones that leave the northern cities very early and so are not full - I'd anticipate a GWR concept being similar. In the other direction, there are very few, because unlike southbound the long-distance passengers need first pick on the seats.

Reading passengers' key demand, for years, has been to have a seat. What type of train that seat is on is rather less of an issue - if it's a 387 doing the run reliably in 30 minutes, I suspect the overwhelming majority would be happy, but I don't see any need to get all heavy-handed and bar them from other services and tell them to wait for 15 minutes while two or three expresses with empty seats available set off towards London or towards Reading.

Fair point, hence why MKC hasn't lost all IC stops, just most of them (the 04xx and 05xx departures from Brum and Manc tend to be very quiet and so do stop). However, we mostly aren't talking about trains with spare seats. We are talking about trains which are crammed and standing, giving a very poor travel experience for long-distance passengers.

In any case, most commuters plan their travel around specific trains, so they won't be randomly turning up, they'll know when to turn up.

The DfT (and the local MPs) won't wear GWR barring passengers from IETs if this results in them running empty seats up and down between Paddington and Reading and produces overcrowded Class 387 services instead. The 800s have to be paid for and that is going to be done by filling as many of their seats for as much of the time as possible.

You don't "pay for" a seat on a Class 800 by moving a commuter onto it! Their season ticket income is taken whichever train they are on.

If there is room for 200 Maidenhead and Reading commuters to fit on the 17.49 to Worcester Shrub Hill, along with Oxford and Cotswold passengers, then what precisely is wrong with continuing to use those seats for that purpose once an IET replaces an HST?

None, if there are spare seats. If the train carries standing passengers, everything is wrong with it. The commuters can choose another train, those going to Worcester have a much more limited choice.

What's different between Reading and MK? Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that lots of Virgin's long-distance services already sail straight past MK going flat out, which is quite a good way of segregating traffic - as opposed to the need for pretty much everything GWR runs to call at Reading for reasons already outlined above - and even if there are some more non-stops in future, there won't be that many, largely the third Bristol service per hour as far as I understand it.

That is one difference, but the situation with those trains that *do* stop does not differ substantially.

 

[coppercapped]

You are spot on to say reducing throughput at Reading is not acceptable. And I'd have serious doubts about trying to use 9 or 10, or anywhere else for turning trains round, knowing how the signallers shuffle trains between the 8/9 and 10/11 pairs if there are slight delays, etc - parking 387s in there or anywhere else for 10 minutes would remove that ability to keep stuff moving in and out of the station smoothly, completely negating the point of the rebuilding. The last thing anyone wants to see is the return of something like the old platform 4 tailback.

I don't now why anyone would want to turn a train round at Theale, or Tilehurst, or anywhere else short of Didcot and Newbury - why make life difficult when you can send a 12-car train out to those places, or Swindon, and turn them round at locations set up for such purposes already? A lot of people commute into Reading from the stations to the west, so will make room for those joining at Reading, never mind that there are likely to be a fair few empty seats anyway on arrival at Reading on a service with 670-odd seats available. Unless, of course, someone else living nowhere near the Thames Valley is about to pop up proposing that all Didcot passengers should be forced onto 387s as well...

The Hanborough analogy isn't accurate - yes, there is an issue of platform capacity at Oxford, and even if the station gets rebuilt there still would be, due to the various extra services likely to be operating by then, but the Hanborough proposal's key aim is to remove the need for trains to shunt across the layout at Oxford from the down side carriage sidings to platform 3 to return to London, which eats up capacity on the main line every time it happens.

The GWML electrification scheme wiring plan for the Oxford area already includes track north of the station, including Oxford North junction and the Banbury route as far as Wolvercot junction, where the Cotswold Line diverges, so that's about 2.5 miles of the 7 or so to Hanborough taken care of already - it may well be the case that funding for improvements at Hanborough staton can be extracted from developers planning to built lots of new houses around the village. If this is possible and DfT backs the idea, then it could potentially be carried out as a an add-on to at the same time as the Oxford area is finally wired.

Thank you for your kind words!

Concerning turning trains - I agree with you absolutely, it makes much more sense to turn such trains at Newbury or Didcot rather than at Theale or Tilehurst. I was trying to make it clear that turning these trains at Reading itself was a bad idea! However there is then the issue of 100/110mph trains sharing the tracks with 125mph trains over longer distances which may affect track capacity knowing that signalling headways are longer west of Reading.

I was also aware of the real issue at Oxford as you describe it- but I thought if I went into too much detail people's eyes would glaze over. 'Easing the load' seemed a suitable euphemism...!

Although there is an issue with crowded peak hour trains between Reading and Paddington, this is not a new phenomenon. What has changed over the recent years is that, apart from the increase in peak hour numbers, the length of time that the peaks last has also increased as well as the length of the typical journey to work. The effect of this is that the number of people affected has increased more than the simple increase in peak hour numbers would suggest.

There is a crying need to add more seats - the shuttle concept is one conceivable way to do this but not to the detriment of services to Heathrow - but I suspect that in the long term more track capacity will be needed nearer London. This will be difficult to justify at current season ticket rates...

 

[Bletchleyite]

To the first point. Any other business would give its eye-teeth to have the flows that GWR has between Reading and Paddington. Putting restrictions on the type and number of trains that travellers are allowed to use smacks of Gosplan's Five Year Plans - you are only allowed to do what I allow you to do.

This attitude, this remnant of central planning should be buried with the remains of the Berlin Wall.

In your opinion (and I do know we have crossed swords about this in the past, both here and elsewhere).

It is firmly my opinion that it is better to segregate long-distance InterCity passengers from short-distance local ones, particularly commuters, as their needs are very different. I favour a German model along those lines. I accept that it is not viable to have a pure German model in much of the UK, though I do believe the obsession outside London of high frequencies with short DMUs is the wrong choice. But that part is OT for here so I won't pursue it.

What I do see is that the situation at MKC reflects the German model quite well as far as it can be reflected with the level of passenger numbers UK commuting brings on. Prior to the "VT Only" fares, it even accurately reflected the idea of an InterCity supplement off-peak (now, with both VT and LM only fares, the fare situation is just pointlessly silly).

It is certainly my view, and I know it differs from yours, that public transport is better off centrally controlled and planned, and that will mean some passengers won't get their first choice for the greater good. So no, that attitude should not be "buried" at all.

The second point is partially correct - but there are significant differences which explain the differences in the train services offered. While the GW is a four track main line all the way from Didcot to London, the WCML has six tracks inwards from Watford Junction meaning that the local services are segregated from the outer suburban ones.

That is true, but I think you slightly misunderstand the effect. There are (just looked at a map) 14 local stations served by GWR on the mainline between Paddington and Reading, not including those two. On the WCML, there are 12 stations served by services on the mainline in between Euston and MKC (though admittedly the GWR ones are more evenly spread). Really, the DC lines/Bakerloo are a completely separate innersuburban railway - in GWR terms the Hammersmith and City Line is the closest equivalent, and it provides those extra 2 tracks on the GWR, albeit for a much shorter distance, not the GWR stoppers.

So to all intents and purposes, the DC line is a completely separate railway that *just happens* to run alongside the WCML.

Now, the effect of a 12 or 14-stop service is much greater if you're running it with sluggish DMUs. But it's about to be run by EMUs, so the equivalence with the WCML is much greater once it is.

To the third point. Because of the characteristics of air travel - it is fast - the requirement for a fast service to Heathrow will not go away after Crossrail opens. Even if the stopping Crossrail trains do run through London to Canary Wharf it is by no means certain that all the air passengers currently using HEx will transfer. What is wrong with slow access to airports is that planes are so quick.

I'd agree - but the thing is, taking HEx to Padd then a taxi (which is what most of these passengers do) is *not* going to be as quick as taking Crossrail much closer to, or all the way to, your destination. IOW, you'd be right if Paddington was actually in something vaguely recognisable as central London rather than a fair way out.

I personally think Crossrail will seriously damage the commercial viability of HEx. We will of course see, though. I'm not proposing just removing it - I just think that Heathrow Airport Ltd will remove it themselves if/when it starts losing them money!

So, very approximately, HEx earns four times as much per passenger per mile as the Reading commuter trains. One should think very, very carefully before putting this income at risk.

Assuming that income continues, which I believe to be a false assumption. Crossrail is a massive game-changer.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If both Heathrow Express and Connect were axed, how many of the paths freed up could be used into Reading?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If both Heathrow Express and Connect were axed, how many of the paths freed up could be used into Reading?

Connect is being axed - Crossrail will replace it.

HEx uses four paths per hour in each direction.

 

[JamesRowden]

If both Heathrow Express and Connect were axed, how many of the paths freed up could be used into Reading?

The idea in the Western Route study is to use the planned connection between Heathrow and Slough to replace Heathrow Express services with Thames Valley services which run via Heathrow and use the existing paths between Paddington and Heathrow. They would potentially include:

• 1tph Bedford via Oxford
• 1tph Milton Keynes Central via Oxford
• 2tph Basingstoke (with 1tph potentially extended to Bournemouth/Southampton)

 

[coppercapped]

That is true, but I think you slightly misunderstand the effect. There are (just looked at a map) 14 local stations served by GWR on the mainline between Paddington and Reading, not including those two. On the WCML, there are 12 stations served by services on the mainline in between Euston and MKC (though admittedly the GWR ones are more evenly spread). Really, the DC lines/Bakerloo are a completely separate innersuburban railway - in GWR terms the Hammersmith and City Line is the closest equivalent, and it provides those extra 2 tracks on the GWR, albeit for a much shorter distance, not the GWR stoppers.

So to all intents and purposes, the DC line is a completely separate railway that *just happens* to run alongside the WCML.

Now, the effect of a 12 or 14-stop service is much greater if you're running it with sluggish DMUs. But it's about to be run by EMUs, so the equivalence with the WCML is much greater once it is.

I see it differently. I wrote that to have an equivalent layout and implicitly a similar service pattern to the WCML, the GWML would have to have six tracks inwards from Slough. The comparison was that Slough and Watford Junction are both about the same distance from their respective terminals and fulfil similar functions.

On the West Coast slow lines there are three stations at which passenger trains can call between Watford and Euston, these are Harrow and Wealdstone, Wembley Central and Queens Park although as far as I know LM trains call only at Harrow.

On the GW there are nine (Langley to Acton Main Line inclusive) on the Reliefs between Slough and Paddington. In addition a busy branch line joins about halfway - the Airport branch - which has no counterpart on the West Coast. If these stations were to be served by an additional pair of tracks - replicating the ‘electric’ local service lines from Euston to Watford Junction - then it would be much easier to path the GW outer-suburban trains - essentially the stopping services to Didcot and Oxford - speed them up considerably and increase the frequency to serve additional destinations. In turn, this would reduce the pressure on the Main line trains which in the peaks have to call at Twyford - which includes Winnersh and Wokingham in its catchment area because their service to Waterloo is so painfully slow - and Maidenhead. I suggest that these services would still call at Hayes for the airport (at least until the Western Rail Access to Heathrow is operational) and Ealing Broadway for the Underground to serve the western reaches of London. Only with a one or two stop pattern can a real comparison be made with that on the West Coast.

Crossrail is essentially the Central Line on steroids - it deserves, and at some point will probably need, a separate set of tracks so its timekeeping through the central section is not affected by the late departure of a Cross Country train from Oxford causing knock-on delays to a outer-suburban service from Didcot in turn causing a late departure of a Crossrail train from Maidenhead and a gap in the service at Tottenham Court Road. Crossrail is the modern equivalent of the Bakerloo to Harrow and the local electric service from Euston to Watford and should be offered the same facilities. It would avoid the curiosity of terminating half the westbound trains at Paddington.

Getting the all-stations Crossrail trains off the Reliefs east of Slough would also (a) make space for trains to use the putative Western Rail Access to Heathrow without causing too much congestion and (b) make it possible to path some or all of the non-stop trains from the airport to Paddington - either terminating there or, more likely, continuing through the central Crossrail tunnels - on the Relief lines and so make space for additional long distance trains on the Mains. In turn this makes it possible to add extra trains to Reading and points west.

What’s not to like? But I will be the first to admit that this is probably all pie in the sky as HS2 will have first call on funds for the next 20 years or so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the West Coast slow lines there are three stations at which passenger trains can call between Watford and Euston, these are Harrow and Wealdstone, Wembley Central and Queens Park although as far as I know LM trains call only at Harrow.

Four - add Bushey. But it doesn't really change your point.

which includes Winnersh and Wokingham in its catchment area because their service to Waterloo is so painfully slow

Yes, having used the SWT Reading "service" it is seriously deficient both in terms of capacity and in terms of frequency and speed.

What’s not to like?

For the record I don't oppose two more tracks for the GWML - where we differ is that I still believe that if HEx goes - which I think it will, and voluntarily, too - the Reading problem can still be sorted out with some additional commuter fast trains even without those two tracks.

 

[D1009]

and even if there are some more non-stops in future, there won't be that many, largely the third Bristol service per hour as far as I understand it.

I understood that from the first IEP timetable the existing 2 tph Bristol service via Bath was to be supplemented by an additional 2 tph running non stop from Paddington to Bristol Parkway. Had you heard differently?

 

[edwin_m]

The problem would appear to be largely about evening commuters denying seats to longer-distance passengers. This was said a few pages back to be because GWR boards its trains so soon before departure, so the longer-distance passengers who need a specific train are boarding at the same time as the Reading people who just want the next train that goes there. Is this unavoidable from GWR's point of view, because the number of peak trains relative to the number of platforms forces turnarounds to be very short, or could it be remedied relatively easily?

For example a future franchisee might be required to open trains for boarding say 15min ahead of time (with exceptions during disruption) and staff up accordingly. This costs a certain amount of money but if do-able is a lot cheaper than running an extra group of services if there are actually spare seats on other trains at the same time.

 

[jimm]

So recast the timetable.

Guess what, they're going to do that in December 2018...

But HEx is a fact of life until at least 2023 and thus will remain a fact of life for the timetable planners working out how best to use GWML capacity, even if Network Rail does manage to squeeze in an extra track or two along the GWML in West London.

And people are still likely to use HEx, irrespective of the start of Crossrail services. There are plenty of examples all over the world where people still use airport expresses even when cheaper and rather more frequent alternatives than Heathrow Connect are available, so I don't see any reason to think London will be different, even with the additional destinations Crossrail will offer - as coppoercapped notes, lots of the people flying in and out of Heathrow aren't going anywhere near central or east London anyway.

Also, if HEx does disappear, TfL is guaranteed to bid for more Crossrail paths out to the airport - there will be plenty of its trains turning round at Paddington that could be extended - and cutting Heathrow's rail service to and from central London from eight to four trains per hour isn't going to fly, if you'll excuse the terrible pun, so the end of HEx will not necessarily result in a single extra path for GWR or a successor on the route.

I'm afraid if you want to try to copyright the idea of enforcing some sort of apartheid on Reading commuters, you are many years and threads too late. People have probably been banging on about it for just about as long as this forum has been going.

And please don't try to suggest that Euston, with the long fences down the ramps and the doors at the ends to control flows of passengers on to the platforms, is somehow a more open arrangement than Paddington, where once someone is through the barrier line to 2,3,4 and 5 there is no way to stop them joining a train at any of those platforms.

Nor do I understand where you get the idea that Reading commuters oppose the idea of travelling on fast, high-capacity Class 387s formations - they don't. Most will welcome having the option with open arms - but at the same time they, I and other posters here don't see the need for them to be driven off all other GWR services, given that trying to define plenty of current HST duties - and future Class 800/802 ones as well - serving the likes of Oxford, Didcot and Swindon as long-distance doesn't make much sense.

I understood that from the first IEP timetable the existing 2 tph Bristol service via Bath was to be supplemented by an additional 2 tph running non stop from Paddington to Bristol Parkway. Had you heard differently?

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I did mean the 2tph to run via Parkway - which I believe are going to be five-car formations much of the time, so probably busy enough that Reading will be best avoided.

 

[bramling]

Also, if HEx does disappear, TfL is guaranteed to bid for more Crossrail paths out to the airport - there will be plenty of its trains turning round at Paddington that could be extended - and cutting Heathrow's rail service to and from central London from eight to four trains per hour isn't going to fly, if you'll excuse the terrible pun, so the end of HEx will not necessarily result in a single extra path for GWR or a successor on the route.

Would extra Crossrail services to Heathrow not be on the relief lines though?

The current HEx paths use the fast lines, although obviously extra services on the relief lines could mean more slower services need to use the fast lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, if HEx does disappear, TfL is guaranteed to bid for more Crossrail paths out to the airport

Not on the fasts they won't.

I'm afraid if you want to try to copyright the idea of enforcing some sort of apartheid on Reading commuters

Who said I wanted to do that? As I said, that I had the idea doesn't mean others didn't also have it.

And please don't try to suggest that Euston, with the long fences down the ramps and the doors at the ends to control flows of passengers on to the platforms, is somehow a more open arrangement than Paddington, where once someone is through the barrier line to 2,3,4 and 5 there is no way to stop them joining a train at any of those platforms.

It's not more open - it is exactly the same. Once you are in the platform area you can reach a train on any of the 4 platforms in that section. And unlike Paddington, there are three of those four-platform sections, and two three-platform sections.

Nor do I understand where you get the idea that Reading commuters oppose the idea of travelling on fast, high-capacity Class 387s formations - they don't.

Some on here (not you) seem to be doing.

 

[berneyarms]

This isn't quite as long as 'War and Peace' - I'll have another attempt writing a longer post later!

There seem to be three themes which have emerged from this thread. These are

1. the passenger flows between Reading and London are a problem
2. Reading - Paddington is similar to Euston - Milton Keynes
3. there is a degree of dislike that fast trains serve Heathrow.

All these things are intertwined, but I'll try to address them separately.

To the first point. Any other business would give its eye-teeth to have the flows that GWR has between Reading and Paddington. Putting restrictions on the type and number of trains that travellers are allowed to use smacks of Gosplan's Five Year Plans - you are only allowed to do what I allow you to do.

This attitude, this remnant of central planning should be buried with the remains of the Berlin Wall.

The second point is partially correct - but there are significant differences which explain the differences in the train services offered. While the GW is a four track main line all the way from Didcot to London, the WCML has six tracks inwards from Watford Junction meaning that the local services are segregated from the outer suburban ones. In GW terms this would mean that the stopping services inwards from Slough would have their own dedicated tracks. As the GW does not have this luxury this means that the high speed outer suburban services which are possible on the WCML on the slows are not possible on the GW Reliefs. In future these latter will also have to carry a more intensive Crossrail service.

To the third point. Because of the characteristics of air travel - it is fast - the requirement for a fast service to Heathrow will not go away after Crossrail opens. Even if the stopping Crossrail trains do run through London to Canary Wharf it is by no means certain that all the air passengers currently using HEx will transfer. What is wrong with slow access to airports is that planes are so quick. I speak from experience. A few years ago I lived and worked in Munich and flew back and forth once or twice a month. It takes 1 hour to get from Heathrow to Munich. There is an hour time shift between the UK and Germany and my work started at 7.30 on Monday morning. The last thing I wanted to do is to sit in Neufahrn station at 22.50, having left home at about 16.00, knowing that I still had the best part of an hour to go before I reached Pasing and could get to bed. Getting from Munich Airport to my bed took just as long, if not longer, than the flight from Heathrow to Munich. One leg was 35 km long and the other 950km. Although Heathrow is closer to London than Munich Airport is to Munich the same argument applies.

The other factor that is often forgotten is - the money! I would suggest that the income generated by HEx is out of proportion to its passenger numbers. An annual season from Reading to Zones 1-6 costs £5,024.00. Assuming it is used on 200 days in the year this equates to a ticket price of £12.50 a day each way for a journey of about 40 miles. People using Hex are unlikely to be using season tickets for obvious reasons and the standard single fare is £22 for a distance of about 15 miles. This equates to just over 30p per mile for the Reading commuter and 145p per mile for the traveller to Heathrow.

So, very approximately, HEx earns four times as much per passenger per mile as the Reading commuter trains. One should think very, very carefully before putting this income at risk.

What should not be forgotten is that the railway infrastructure from Airport Junction to the terminals at Heathrow was funded by, and belongs to, HAL. Unless HAL had built the tunnel to the airport there would be no question of running Crossrail trains along it - Crossrail would only have gone to Maidenhead. HAL has to recover the costs of construction, financing and maintenance and pay the access fees for the main line from its ticket sales and any attempt to reallocate train paths which may affect its income will be strenuously resisted. HAL has not been responsible for the general growth in rail travel - adding capacity to cope with this growth is the responsibility of those that benefit from this growth. An organisation which has invested heavily in rail should not be disadvantaged - it sends all the wrong messages to others who have invested or are considering investing in rail transport. This is not just about the ‘hard done by’ commuters and train paths but all about wilfully damaging somebody’s business because one can’t be arsed to find a proper solution to one’s own problems.

There are proposals which have been floating around for some time to extend the railway from Terminal 5 along the M25 to connect with the Virginia Water to Weybridge line near Chertsey. By using the existing grade separated junction at West Weybridge a train service to Heathrow from Basingstoke and Guildford can easily be offered. I suspect that this is the way HEx could evolve - it would use the Crossrail tunnels under London, run fast to Heathrow and then continue southwestwards. I suggest that this, or something similar, is HEx's future. Another solution will have to be found to expand capacity between Airport Junction - or preferably Slough - to London. A new, dedicated, set of tracks for Crossrail would seem to be in order.

Having taken Heathrow Connect to Heathrow in the evening peak, I would never use it again at that time to get to the airport due to the crush loadings. It's grand in the off-peak, but not at peak times. At those periods, the HEx is so much more comfortable when you have cases with you. Paying for a cheap advance ticket, the HEx can be relatively affordable as well.

Also, people keep making the assumption that everyone using the HEx is going to the same destination - they're not of course! People use it to go to different destinations all over central London. The Elizabeth Line is not necessarily going to be significantly faster for everyone.

I think you're right - I believe that there will still be a market for the non-stop express to Paddington from Heathrow despite the introduction of the Elizabeth Line. I certainly would not write it off straight away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with HConn in the peak is that it's fixed formation. If they had had the sense to use 4-car EMUs off peak and 8-car peak the issue wouldn't exist.

 

[coppercapped]

I don’t want to keep banging on about this topic but as chance would have it the ORR has today published its annual estimate of station usage for 2015-16.

For this list I have extracted the figures for station usage at Milton Keynes Central and Reading. The numbers are:

Milton Keynes Central had 6,835,570 entrances and exits of which 1,118,264 were season tickets. There were 462,272 interchanges.

Reading had 16,755,984 entrances and exits of which 2,924,951 were season tickets. There were 3,970,335 interchanges.

Leaving out the interchanges it can be seen that, roundly, 10 million more people per year used Reading than used Milton Keynes Central. Reading was used by nearly three times as many season ticket holders. It is clear in both cases that not all season tickets are used for travel to and from London and accepting that the proportion of seasons presented at Reading for travel to and from London is probably lower than at Milton Keynes (because there is a greater choice of destinations on other routes), it would seem that the Reading - London flow on season tickets is at least twice as large as the Milton Keynes - London flow.

These figures show that the crowding issues facing GWR are of a completely different order to those facing VT and LM. It is not surprising that all the trains are full and this is why any restriction on who can travel on which train is unacceptable and unworkable.

It would be nice to add extra capacity and to a certain extent this is coming. Crossrail will make a dramatic difference to the inner suburban services and the longer and faster Class 387 trains will ease the plight of passengers on the outer suburban services to Newbury, Didcot and Oxford. There may well be the opportunity to add a few 387-operated crowd-buster services to Reading but the possibilities are limited. The bi-modes with one more coach than the HSTs and with the longer coaches add, roundly, 100 seats per train, but the number of trains that can run is still limited.

Even with all this increase in capacity I am prepared to bet that in five years time eastbound trains will still arrive at Reading in the morning with standing passengers and the same will happen with westbound trains in the evening. The only workable way to keep travellers to Reading off the longer distance trains from Paddington - if that is what is desired - is to make the first stop for some of them Newbury, Didcot, Swindon or Oxford.

 

[Bookd]

Whilst this thread mostly concerns the GW route others seem very busy, and there is also a heavy contraflow. If I take an early evening SW train from Feltham to London I know that if it is from Reading it will be full and standing; I usually wait for one ex Windsor or Weybridge when I can usually have a seat.

 

[coppercapped]

Whilst this thread mostly concerns the GW route others seem very busy, and there is also a heavy contraflow. If I take an early evening SW train from Feltham to London I know that if it is from Reading it will be full and standing; I usually wait for one ex Windsor or Weybridge when I can usually have a seat.

Yup! The number of passengers on South West Trains has doubled in the last 20 years.

I'm not surprised the trains from Reading are well loaded - they serve largish towns such as Wokingham, Bracknell, Ascot and Staines before they reach Feltham. The trains from Windsor Riverside haven't come as far and the only large town on the way is Staines.

 

[Taunton]

Even with all this increase in capacity I am prepared to bet that in five years time eastbound trains will still arrive at Reading in the morning with standing passengers

Me too - but principally because I expect GWT of that time to slowly sneak in single unit 5-car trains even where they are not practical. Does the lease agreement have any charging by the vehicle-mile element to the payments?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Does Reading just have one gate line covering all platforms or do individual platforms have their own gate lines?

 

[coppercapped]

Me too - but principally because I expect GWT of that time to slowly sneak in single unit 5-car trains even where they are not practical. Does the lease agreement have any charging by the vehicle-mile element to the payments?

Hmm... I was implictly talking about trains arriving at Reading in the peak periods from the west and continuing through to London.

If you are referring to trains arriving at Reading in the peak periods from the west and terminating at Reading, there might be some truth in what you say - if some way can be found to dispose of these trains without losing too many paths.

If you are implying that 5 coach trains will be used in the peaks on trains through to London - then that might be the exception (because, for example, the other part of the train has gone 'technical' at short notice) rather than the rule. The name of the game at the moment is to get as many seats as possible between Reading and London in the peaks. This is, after all, why many 1st Class coaches in the HSTs and the Turbos were modified to Standard - to increase the number of seats.

But if conspiracy theories make you happy - then theorise to your heart's content.

(For what it's worth - as I understand the lease arrangements for the IEP sets, the DfT has contracted for a specified number of diagrams per day. Agility Trains gets paid if the diagram is completed and suffers penalties if it does not fully deliver. Whether the diagrams are for single 5 coach units, pairs of 5 coach units or for 9 coach sets will be fixed during the timetable planning.

However, the lease payments to Agility Trains have been guaranteed by the DfT for the next 27.5 years so if the TOC does not pay for a diagram because it thinks it doesn't need it, then the DfT will have to make up the shortfall. This in turn means that there will be great pressure from the DfT on the TOC to diagram as many trains as possible to minimise payments from the DfT's budget.

For those trains which have been procured by a ROSCO and are leased to the TOC, then the question of how these lease payments are structured is a matter between the TOC and the ROSCO.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does Reading just have one gate line covering all platforms or do individual platforms have their own gate lines?

Reading has three gatelines - one at each of the entrances. Once inside the choice of platforms is up to you.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

This is, after all, why many 1st Class coaches in the HSTs and the Turbos were modified to Standard - to increase the number of seats.

On the 165s, the former first class areas between the doors and the cabs were just declassified, with the seating remaining 2+2. I had thought the abolition of first class to do with the extension of Oyster and to be consistent with Crossrail trains. The number of standard class seats was increased, but not the overall total. On the HSTs they converted a first class carriage with 2+1 to standard class with 2+2.

 

[coppercapped]

On the 165s, the former first class areas between the doors and the cabs were just declassified, with the seating remaining 2+2. I had thought the abolition of first class to do with the extension of Oyster and to be consistent with Crossrail trains. The number of standard class seats was increased, but not the overall total. On the HSTs they converted a first class carriage with 2+1 to standard class with 2+2.

The changes were made to make more Standard seats available as 1st Class tended to have some empty seats during the peaks. The changes had nothing to do with either Oyster or Crossrail. Oyster only reaches West Drayton on the GW but the trains reach Oxford, Worcester and Bedwyn so Oyster doesn't cover a significant part of the trains' operational area. Crossrail hasn't even started yet but the Class 387 outer suburban trains will still offer 1st Class seating to selected stations between Reading and London.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do the HSTs always use the same pair of platforms?

 

[coppercapped]

Do the HSTs always use the same pair of platforms?

I don't understand what you are trying to find out, but I'll attempt an answer anyway!

In normal operation the Down Main line trains use Platform 7 for West of England services via Newbury. All other Down services - to Bristol, Weston-super-Mare, South Wales, Cheltenham, Oxford and Worcester use Platforms 8 and 9 interchangeably. Late evening long distance trains frequently use Platform 7 as this enables people to leave the station towards the town centre directly through two of the gatelines without having to use the bridge.

In normal operation in the Up direction all long distance HSTs and Class 180s use 10 or 11.

In normal operation platforms 7 and 8 are also used for some of the reversing CrossCountry trains.

In normal operation the higher number platforms (12 to 15) are used for the suburban services and reversing Cross Country trains.

During engineering work or when operations are disrupted all trains can use any platform.

Is this what you meant?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't understand what you are trying to find out, but I'll attempt an answer anyway!

In normal operation the Down Main line trains use Platform 7 for West of England services via Newbury. All other Down services - to Bristol, Weston-super-Mare, South Wales, Cheltenham, Oxford and Worcester use Platforms 8 and 9 interchangeably. Late evening long distance trains frequently use Platform 7 as this enables people to leave the station towards the town centre directly through two of the gatelines without having to use the bridge.

In normal operation in the Up direction all long distance HSTs and Class 180s use 10 or 11.

In normal operation platforms 7 and 8 are also used for some of the reversing CrossCountry trains.

In normal operation the higher number platforms (12 to 15) are used for the suburban services and reversing Cross Country trains.

During engineering work or when operations are disrupted all trains can use any platform.

Is this what you meant?

I was thinking that if the HSTs normally always use the same pair of platforms then them platforms could have their own gateline(s) so that London bound they were exit only and going away from london entrance only

 

[LordCreed]

I was thinking that if the HSTs normally always use the same pair of platforms then them platforms could have their own gateline(s) so that London bound they were exit only and going away from london entrance only

The over-bridge layout would make this very difficult, especially given that the lifts are in the centre of the over-bridge. If you were to put barriers at the top of escalators (which sounds pretty dangerous to me in the first place), then the lifts wouldn't be gated.