Should All GWR Trains Call at Old Oak Common?

[BayPaul]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-are-people-opposed-to-hs2-and-other-hs2-discussion.177112

Putting 5 minutes into every GW fast service is a pretty big price to pay

Out of interest, would it be possible to stop alternate trains on the mains at Old Oak? I.E. Train xx:00 stops on platform a, train xx:03 overtakes it non stop through platform b, train xx:00 follows it into the slot for train xx:06, train xx:06 stops on platform b, train xx:09 goes non stop through platform a and so forth.

Obviously this would add complexity and so probably reduce reliability, and would mean that there would be limited choice about which trains could and couldn't stop (e.g. I suspect you couldn't stop both the HEX and the following Maidenhead stopper) , but it might make a more practical ratio of stopping trains on the mains.

 

[hwl]

Out of interest, would it be possible to stop alternate trains on the mains at Old Oak? I.E. Train xx:00 stops on platform a, train xx:03 overtakes it non stop through platform b, train xx:00 follows it into the slot for train xx:06, train xx:06 stops on platform b, train xx:09 goes non stop through platform a and so forth.

Obviously this would add complexity and so probably reduce reliability, and would mean that there would be limited choice about which trains could and couldn't stop (e.g. I suspect you couldn't stop both the HEX and the following Maidenhead stopper) , but it might make a more practical ratio of stopping trains on the mains.

That doesn't work timing wise as you still have to slow the non stopping fast services.
As bald rick said further up the thread "all or nothing"

 

[The Ham]

I wouldn’t bet your mortgage on that. Putting 5 minutes into every GW fast service is a pretty big price to pay for, basically, HS2 connectivity to Birmingham and the north for some stations stations west of Reading.

Whilst West Country to Birmingham would be slower via OOC, anywhere further north and it's likely to be quicker.

Exeter to Manchester takes 4 hours on XC, going to Paddington on the semi fast takes 2:30, and 1:10 to that to get from Euston to Manchester and it's 3:40 (3:25 on the express trains).

Not only would is be quicker but it's more frequent, with there being 2 services an hour between Exeter and Paddington.

For most places West of Plymouth to get to a XC service would require a change of train anyway.

Likewise, those traveling on XC from Reading (and South) it would be comparable to get to Birmingham and faster to get to Manchester.

As such there's likely to be quite some demand for a station call at OOC. Especially when you consider that it would also provide connections to Crossrail and the Overground. Which includes links to Heathrow without the need to build the Western Approach.

 

[hwl]

The MML uses the same sort of arrangement (slows/reliefs/goods grouped together). You've lost me a bit as to what the problem is...

GWR always had to do things differently, while others had fast /slow then had main /relief despite the lines operating as fast /slow.
The other problem is a complete misunderstanding/confusion.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, would it be possible to stop alternate trains on the mains at Old Oak? I.E. Train xx:00 stops on platform a, train xx:03 overtakes it non stop through platform b, train xx:00 follows it into the slot for train xx:06, train xx:06 stops on platform b, train xx:09 goes non stop through platform a and so forth.

Obviously this would add complexity and so probably reduce reliability, and would mean that there would be limited choice about which trains could and couldn't stop (e.g. I suspect you couldn't stop both the HEX and the following Maidenhead stopper) , but it might make a more practical ratio of stopping trains on the mains.

Yes you could do this, sort of, but... every overtaken train would have about 8 minutes put in it, which is a rather significant increase, particularly for passengers to reading etc. And you would only get 16 paths an hour on 3 minute headways to get a repeating hourly pattern, rather than 20 if everything stopped. And the lines through both platforms would have to have to be at full linespeed, which when everything stops they don’t need to be, so that becomes a lot more expensive.

Whilst West Country to Birmingham would be slower via OOC, anywhere further north and it's likely to be quicker.

Exeter to Manchester takes 4 hours on XC, going to Paddington on the semi fast takes 2:30, and 1:10 to that to get from Euston to Manchester and it's 3:40 (3:25 on the express trains).

Not only would is be quicker but it's more frequent, with there being 2 services an hour between Exeter and Paddington.

For most places West of Plymouth to get to a XC service would require a change of train anyway.

Likewise, those traveling on XC from Reading (and South) it would be comparable to get to Birmingham and faster to get to Manchester.

As such there's likely to be quite some demand for a station call at OOC. Especially when you consider that it would also provide connections to Crossrail and the Overground. Which includes links to Heathrow without the need to build the Western Approach.

But, is it really worth putting 5 minutes into the journey of every passenger on a fast train heading to or from Paddington for the (rather small) minority of people from those places who are going to, say, Manchester who might save 20 minutes? Almost certainly not. And don’t forget the time to make the connection - I can guarantee that there would be some waiting time at OOC!

Connections to Crossrail are, of course, available at Paddington and Reading, and with the Western link connections to Heathrow will be available at Reading.

 

[hwl]

Yes you could do this, sort of, but... every overtaken train would have about 8 minutes put in it, which is a rather significant increase, particularly for passengers to reading etc. And you would only get 16 paths an hour on 3 minute headways to get a repeating hourly pattern, rather than 20 if everything stopped. And the lines through both platforms would have to have to be at full linespeed, which when everything stops they don’t need to be, so that becomes a lot more expensive.



But, is it really worth putting 5 minutes into the journey of every passenger on a fast train heading to or from Paddington for the (rather small) minority of people from those places who are going to, say, Manchester who might save 20 minutes? Almost certainly not.

Connections to Crossrail are, of course, available at Paddington and Reading, and with the Western link connections to Heathrow will be available at Reading.

The realistic connection time to Crossrail to/from GW fast services is likely to be lower at OOC than Paddington which could offset some of the time cost for a sub-set of GW fast users.
We need Crossrail fully up and running before we can sensibly see what the benefits-vs-costs are. Crossrail may well change the GW fast user passenger mix within a few years if the City /C Wharf become much more accessible.

If the Western link isn't funded (see Heathrow R3 etc.) then OOC fast line platforms become more important.

 

[Bald Rick]

The realistic connection time to Crossrail to/from GW fast services is likely to be lower at OOC than Paddington which could offset some of the time cost for a sub-set of GW fast users.
We need Crossrail fully up and running before we can sensibly see what the benefits-vs-costs are. Crossrail may well change the GW fast user passenger mix within a few years if the City /C Wharf become much more accessible.

If the Western link isn't funded (see Heathrow R3 etc.) then OOC fast line platforms become more important.

Slightly (ok very) OT, but the Western link business case doesn’t need R3. Getting funding from Heathrow may be more challenging now though!

 

[hwl]

Slightly (ok very) OT, but the Western link business case doesn’t need R3. Getting funding from Heathrow may be more challenging now though!

It was more the later I was thinking of e.g. Heathrow's ability to put more on the RAB to free up cash overall.
The NR/DfT case for WRaTH may not involve R3, but Heathrow's owners tax efficiency sure does!

 

[The Ham]

But, is it really worth putting 5 minutes into the journey of every passenger on a fast train heading to or from Paddington for the (rather small) minority of people from those places who are going to, say, Manchester who might save 20 minutes? Almost certainly not. And don’t forget the time to make the connection - I can guarantee that there would be some waiting time at OOC!

Connections to Crossrail are, of course, available at Paddington and Reading, and with the Western link connections to Heathrow will be available at Reading.

Most of the change time would be covered by the journey time which the above figures include for between OOC and Paddington/Euston.

 

[quantinghome]

OOC is going to be the rail equivalent of the M25/M4 motorway junction. Certainly worth all relief line trains stopping, and Hex services on the mains, and also GW trains stopping at Reading or Didcot. Hex leaves slots available past Airport Junction which might allow a workable stopping pattern.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes you could do this, sort of, but... every overtaken train would have about 8 minutes put in it, which is a rather significant increase, particularly for passengers to reading etc. And you would only get 16 paths an hour on 3 minute headways to get a repeating hourly pattern, rather than 20 if everything stopped. And the lines through both platforms would have to have to be at full linespeed, which when everything stops they don’t need to be, so that becomes a lot more expensive.

Do you need more than 16 paths an hour? Off the top of my head, I think there is (or will in a few years be) 1tph to Worcester, 1 to Cheltenham, 2 to Cardiff, 4 to Bristol, and 1 to the West Country. Total 9 trains an hour. And presumably some of the Oxford ones also run fast and use the main lines between London and Reading?

 

[JamesRowden]

Most of the change time would be covered by the journey time which the above figures include for between OOC and Paddington/Euston.

You've missed the option to catch Cross Country to Birmingham and then change onto HS2 for the north. I would expect Bristol/Taunton to Manchester via London to not be a permitted route.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Do you need more than 16 paths an hour? Off the top of my head, I think there is (or will in a few years be) 1tph to Worcester, 1 to Cheltenham, 2 to Cardiff, 4 to Bristol, and 1 to the West Country. Total 9 trains an hour. And presumably some of the Oxford ones also run fast and use the main lines between London and Reading?

All of them! So you’ve got 1tph Worcester, 1tph Cheltenham, 2tph South Wales, 4tph Bristol and 1tph Plymouth - but also 2tph Oxford with one continuing to Cotswolds - and of course 1tph fast to Bedwyn and 1tp2h semi-fast to Exeter!

 

[talltim]

Be a bit of a diversion for Liskeard-Looe service to go via OOC...

 

[JamesRowden]

Would stopping GWML fast services at Old Oak Common really cost 5 minutes since it would make sense for them to be set down only towards Paddington and pick up only from Paddington since Crossrail should offer a frequent no intermediate stop service to/from Paddington?

 

[MarkyT]

You've missed the option to catch Cross Country to Birmingham and then change onto HS2 for the north. I would expect Bristol/Taunton to Manchester via London to not be a permitted route.

You might be able to choose to go that way by summating single journey legs, as a mooted future fares structure might allow, but I expect it will be considerably more expensive, especially at busy times, just like 'via London' options often are with today's fares.

 

[MarkyT]

I think stopping GWR main line express services at OOC is less to do with facilitating interchange between those and HS2 than with efforts to establish the location as a west London super hub with its own mesh of local connections not all so easily available at Paddington for all possible final destinations, and that includes being a better parkway hub for the west of London than Paddington can ever be. London is the size of a small country. Why is stopping long-distance trains at a second station within this Megapolis such a controversial subject? Having a peripheral hub on the outskirts as well as a central terminal is already an established concept in Tokyo on Shinkansen trunk lines radiating from the capital; all but a tiny handful of peak trains make these calls.

 

[The Ham]

I think stopping GWR main line express services at OOC is less to do with facilitating interchange between those and HS2 than with efforts to establish the location as a west London super hub with its own mesh of local connections not all so easily available at Paddington for all possible final destinations, and that includes being a better parkway hub for the west of London than Paddington can ever be. London is the size of a small country. Why is stopping long-distance trains at a second station within this Megapolis such a controversial subject? Having a peripheral hub on the outskirts as well as a central terminal is already an established concept in Tokyo on Shinkansen trunk lines radiating from the capital; all but a tiny handful of peak trains make these calls.

Indeed, as I've suggested before OOC would make a good calling point for a future Wales & Western High Speed Line. Probably without a central London Terminal, rather running around to a Hub for the Eastern Coast High Speed Line and then onto Stratford and quite probably onwards (so as to create a link between all the High Speed Lines and to create cross platform charges to get to European services, i.e. HS2 change at OOC and then again at Ashford to get a Eurostar service to Europe).

In doing so it would make it easier to get to a European service (no Euston to St. Pancras walk) without the limited number of direct services which would happen if there were through trains (i.e. only one or two a day). It could even allow trains to start at Ashford (heading to the continent) of passenger numbers were high enough not to need all services to start at London.

With such a potential future scheme, stopping all services at OOC would also make sense. It's where I think that having a future plan for more high speed lines makes sense. As you'd then look at current decision in the light of what is likely to happen in the future.

One final point, with a call at OOC the need to call at Reading reduces, in that (post HS2) there's be less need to change at Reading to head North, less need to get a rail air coach to Heathrow, less need to change for Thames Valley services (even doubling back to Slough wouldn't add much time to the journey), an easy charge to frequent Crossrail services with most of the time advantage of getting to Paddington, direct connection to Overground services, and so on. It could become similar to Clapham Junction on the SWML, which is probably a comparable zone 2 hub station (just not seen as that before).

 

[Ianno87]

But, is it really worth putting 5 minutes into the journey of every passenger on a fast train heading to or from Paddington for the (rather small) minority of people from those places who are going to, say, Manchester who might save 20 minutes? Almost certainly not. And don’t forget the time to make the connection - I can guarantee that there would be some waiting time at OOC!

Though a couple of other things in the mix:

-Paddington probably has a higher than average % of passengers who carry on by tube anyway, so the material journey time impact won't be felt by all passengers anyway?
-Especially if Old Oak Common helps relieve the station passenger congestion at Paddington, e.g. passengers being held outside the tube station due to crowding (happens quite frequently today, though Crossrail will certainly help that when it opens)

Connections to Crossrail are, of course, available at Paddington and Reading, and with the Western link connections to Heathrow will be available at Reading.

I do wonder if, when connections work out, West-Old Oak Common-Heathrow (i.e. doubling back off a service non-stop from Reading) may work out pretty fast too, particularly if headed for CTA.

 

[PTR 444]

One final point, with a call at OOC the need to call at Reading reduces, in that (post HS2) there's be less need to change at Reading to head North, less need to get a rail air coach to Heathrow, less need to change for Thames Valley services (even doubling back to Slough wouldn't add much time to the journey), an easy charge to frequent Crossrail services with most of the time advantage of getting to Paddington, direct connection to Overground services, and so on. It could become similar to Clapham Junction on the SWML, which is probably a comparable zone 2 hub station (just not seen as that before).

If you are going to allow some trains to skip Reading, you need to make sure connections are not lost from destinations with only 1tph. As Exeter*, Bristol and Cardiff have more than 1 train per hour, they would probably be the best candidates as you can still have 1tph to Reading from those destinations using existing services. You can then allow all express trains to call at OOC.

*Exeter only has 2tph to Paddington every other hour but I think it would make sense to up the semi-fast to 1tph in the near future.

 

[Bald Rick]

Most of the change time would be covered by the journey time which the above figures include for between OOC and Paddington/Euston.

The change time needs to allow for the service frequency though. If there’s a train to Manchester every 20 minute, the change time could easily be 25.

 

[MarkyT]

Indeed, as I've suggested before OOC would make a good calling point for a future Wales & Western High Speed Line. Probably without a central London Terminal, rather running around to a Hub for the Eastern Coast High Speed Line and then onto Stratford and quite probably onwards (so as to create a link between all the High Speed Lines and to create cross platform charges to get to European services, i.e. HS2 change at OOC and then again at Ashford to get a Eurostar service to Europe).

In doing so it would make it easier to get to a European service (no Euston to St. Pancras walk) without the limited number of direct services which would happen if there were through trains (i.e. only one or two a day). It could even allow trains to start at Ashford (heading to the continent) of passenger numbers were high enough not to need all services to start at London.

With such a potential future scheme, stopping all services at OOC would also make sense. It's where I think that having a future plan for more high speed lines makes sense. As you'd then look at current decision in the light of what is likely to happen in the future.

One final point, with a call at OOC the need to call at Reading reduces, in that (post HS2) there's be less need to change at Reading to head North, less need to get a rail air coach to Heathrow, less need to change for Thames Valley services (even doubling back to Slough wouldn't add much time to the journey), an easy charge to frequent Crossrail services with most of the time advantage of getting to Paddington, direct connection to Overground services, and so on. It could become similar to Clapham Junction on the SWML, which is probably a comparable zone 2 hub station (just not seen as that before).

Well, I wouldn't miss Reading on any more trains than do that right now (i.e the fast Bristols via Parkway and possibly some additional peak Cardiffs). The whole point of having such good acceleration on electric power is that IET trains can make additional useful stops without a significant effect on journey time. Reading is already a super-hub that serves a vast connectional hinterland as well as the significant town that wants to be a city itself. My long term preference would be to divert GWR long distance into Euston classic side via a new link from OOC to the WCML. Thus OOC would become the primary Elizabeth line interchange for GWR, and the Euston terminus would give simple interchange to Thameslink, SE domestic and Eurostar connections via a much improved inter-terminal pedestrian link. I realise GWR to Euston might be a crayon too far but if possible that could leave Paddington as a capacious terminus for Chiltern long-distance, Heathrow Express (with whatever Heathrow Southern links that might get added to it) and residual Thames Valley locals that don't get absorbed into TfL.

 

[Bald Rick]

My long term preference would be to divert GWR long distance into Euston classic side via a new link from OOC to the WCML.

That would need demolition of much of Somers Town to fit another 8-10 platforms in.

 

[The Ham]

The change time needs to allow for the service frequency though. If there’s a train to Manchester every 20 minute, the change time could easily be 25.

True, but that has to be balanced against the fact that the XC trains are only once an hour, so with 2tph from the West Country there's a better chance you are going to get a train which is better suited to when you want to travel.

 

[MarkyT]

That would need demolition of much of Somers Town to fit another 8-10 platforms in.

Double-deck parts of the classic side of the station in a future rebuild? Perhaps remaining WCML fast line services might need rather shorter layovers than Pendolinos of today so platform utilisation could be improved thus generating some capacity. Long distance GWR typically uses 5 or 6 platforms concurrently, with a maximum of 7 long ones available at Paddington I believe, so why would an increase be required for use of a different terminal? WCML slow line services might also be funnelled into some future Crossrail to create some space.

 

[VT 390]

I do think that ALL services in to Paddington should stop at Old Oak Common, including Heathrow Express services. This is because it then keeps the timetable similar as all fast line services would take the same amount of time and if you wanted Old Oak Common you would not need to worry about getting the right train which stopped there. Also passengers for central London and the Docklands would likely have easier connections available on to Crossrail at Old Oak rather than Paddington.

WCML slow line services might also be funnelled into some future Crossrail to create some space.

I thought it was already decided that no WCML services would divert in to Crossrail?

 

[MarkyT]

I do think that ALL services in to Paddington should stop at Old Oak Common, including Heathrow Express services. This is because it then keeps the timetable similar as all fast line services would take the same amount of time and if you wanted Old Oak Common you would not need to worry about getting the right train which stopped there. Also passengers for central London and the Docklands would likely have easier connections available on to Crossrail at Old Oak rather than Paddington.

Assuming I'm still alive at that future juncture, I would certainly at least try the OOC connection from GWR onto the Lizzie, as it's more likely I'd get a seat than at Paddington I guess. Probably a very similar walking distance and no difference in overall journey time assuming all Paddington terminators are extended to OOC at least.

I thought it was already decided that no WCML services would divert in to Crossrail?

You are correct with respect to the original east-west Crossrail, AKA the Elizabeth Line. I was referring to some as yet to be envisaged additional cross London line, post Crossrail 2, so a very long term aspiration indeed!

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Simple answer:

Everything from all networks should stop at Old Oak. That's nice and easy.

 

[Trainician]

Simple answer:

Everything from all networks should stop at Old Oak. That's nice and easy.

That's if the networks can connect with each other.

 

[Bald Rick]

Double-deck parts of the classic side of the station in a future rebuild? Perhaps remaining WCML fast line services might need rather shorter layovers than Pendolinos of today so platform utilisation could be improved thus generating some capacity. Long distance GWR typically uses 5 or 6 platforms concurrently, with a maximum of 7 long ones available at Paddington I believe, so why would an increase be required for use of a different terminal? WCML slow line services might also be funnelled into some future Crossrail to create some space.

Then you’d be knocking down large tracts of Camden to get the necessary grade speration in for a double deck station. The also conflicts with the oversize development at Euston.

You are correct that the remanant WCML services will probably have shorter turnback times, hence why there’s proposed to be fewer platforms left in the Classic Euston post Phase 2b (11 IIRC).

Currently Paddington long distance regularly has 7 platforms occupied concurrently, which means you need 8/9 to allow for platform reoccupation. With the proposed service expansion plans (post Crossrail and ETCS) this will rise.