Western Access to Heathrow

[WatcherZero]

A couple of million per year.

Im seriously starting to suspect some people have a vested interest in Reading station.

 

[Rational Plan]

If the Great Western was a 6 track line to Reading and 4 to Bristol, with the current level of service then it would be easy to add loads of extra services direct to Heathrow, but with little extra capacity, the most important destination will receive priority, and that is London.

If the airport could have been built around the mainline then, it would be easy, but it's not. A loop line introduces a time penalty for through services to London and therefore will not be preferred.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

I would imagine* that the majority of LHR passengers from outside the M25 come from the M3, M4 and M40 directions. It makes sense to pull in passengers from these areas which Reading (in combination with Basingstoke for the South Coast traffic) would do admirably well.

*Just my estimation. I would gladly stand corrected.

 

[LE Greys]

That 125 mph stock will be the IEP SET's.

All this fantasising has not addressed three key issues.
1. Will 26 metre stock fit into the Heathrow tunnels?
2. The new junction will reduce the number of paths available and will be counter-productive in trying to increase the number of paths and total capacity of the fast lines.
3. The line through Heathrow is privately owned and not part of the Network Rail empire. There will be a need to protect the planned services (8 tph to London + growth of 2 more). Where does that leave capacity for additional through trains with the required dwell times at both stations (T5 and the Central area)?

And there is the problem. Without some answer to that, making it possible to 'unlock' the paths by converting HEX into a through service, this whole idea is a waste of time and money. That would also allow the HEX ticketing system to merge with the ATOC one, saving time and making through journeys much more likely. You could still keep it as a supplimentary-fare service if necessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the Great Western was a 6 track line to Reading and 4 to Bristol, with the current level of service then it would be easy to add loads of extra services direct to Heathrow, but with little extra capacity, the most important destination will receive priority, and that is London.

If the airport could have been built around the mainline then, it would be easy, but it's not. A loop line introduces a time penalty for through services to London and therefore will not be preferred.

That might be the case with the (almost inevitable) HS3 to Bristol, the West Country and South Wales, but that's a very long way off. Additional stops at West Drayton might have been possible, with some form of shuttle between the two - something like Birmingham International, just a lot longer and higher capacity. Thing is, Heathrow is a product of post-WW2 planning, which ignored the railway completely. As often happens in this country, the result was a series of bodges to try to sort that out. This latest bodge is a descendent of a BR plan to link Heathrow to Victoria and the BOAC Terminal, actually starting off rather like Airtrack. It switched to Paddington to avoid complications in London, while accepting BAA funding compromised the connectivity.

Whether there will be an HS3 and what its alignment will be is anybody's guess, but I hope it will run directly under the airport from east to west to allow it to connect directly with Heathrow Central. That will make getting through Hounslow difficult, but it seems possible (but expensive) by going underneath.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that implementing a through service along Paddington-Heathrow-Slough would be pointless because people not for Heathrow would just catch a train that does not go via Heathrow. By running two seperate services from each direction there is far more timetable flexibilty.

If Crossrail is extended to Reading at the 4tph frequency of the present stopping services, this would leave 15 minute gaps between each of them. The new Heathrow services could run along the slow lines as an extension of the Basingstoke, Newbury and Oxford stopping services. Between Reading and Heathrow they could run as a limited stop service stopping at:

Reading
Twyford
Maidenhead
Slough
Heathrow

The time penalty of stopping at these stations would be minimal. This also means that someone traveling from a branch line, a missed stop or an intercity destination would only need to change once to get to Heathrow.

I think that there might be some merit in looking at restarting the Airtrack project (rail line between Heathrow and Staines) as the trains from the north and the south might then be able to run as through trains and create some new connections. The problem would be that the north has AC and the south has DC.

 

[The Ham]

I think that there might be some merit in looking at restarting the Airtrack project (rail line between Heathrow and staines) as the trains from the north and the south might then be able to run as through trains and create some new connections. The problem would be that the north has AC and the south has DC.

Very little problem with duel voltage, look at the electric spine thread which explains that London to Southampton will be using duel voltage trains.

 

[JamesRowden]

Very little problem with duel voltage, look at the electric spine thread which explains that London to Southampton will be using duel voltage trains.

I do not know if the new Crossrail trains will be able to run on DC.

 

[LE Greys]

I think that implementing a through service along Paddington-Heathrow-Slough would be pointless because people not for Heathrow would just catch a train that does not go via Heathrow. By running two seperate services from each direction there is far more timetable flexibilty.

If Crossrail is extended to Reading at the 4tph frequency of the present stopping services, this would leave 15 minute gaps between each of them. The new Heathrow services could run along the slow lines as an extension of the Basingstoke, Newbury and Oxford stopping services. Between Reading and Heathrow they could run as a limited stop service stopping at:

Reading
Twyford
Maidenhead
Slough
Heathrow

The time penalty of stopping at these stations would be minimal. This also means that someone traveling from a branch line, a missed stop or an intercity destination would only need to change once to get to Heathrow.

I think that there might be some merit in looking at restarting the Airtrack project (rail line between Heathrow and Staines) as the trains from the north and the south might then be able to run as through trains and create some new connections. The problem would be that the north has AC and the south has DC.

That's quite sensible, provided it can be fed back into the slow lines at Langley?? Junction, although it does present a problem with platform occupancy. If it terminates at T5, then that would mean a lot of inter-terminal changing there, in fact someone going from Slough to T4 would have to change twice. To work properly, it has to go through to Heathrow Central, which only has two platforms.

If the vast majority of Reading/Slough to London passengers would ignore it, this is a good thing, since it keeps them off the busy section from the airport to London. I wish I knew more about the passenger loadings on HEX, because I've often been on half-empty trains between the terminals that have not disgorged that many people, and have been on completely empty HCs many times, being the only one in the coach through the tunnel. Maybe I just fly at quiet times.

There might also be the same ticketing problem as with Gatwick Express, which really ought to switch to a supplimentary-fare system (say a flat-rate suppliment on all tickets of £5 if paid before boarding at any ticket office/TVM, and £10 if paid on-board). Since this would apply to all travellers between the airport (either one) and the London terminal, it would still provide BAA with some money for use of the tunnel, yet not affect those using the train for intermediate station journeys. It would also help arriving passengers, since they would be able to buy tickets to anywhere instead of having to use the Paddington (or Hayes & Harlington) ticket offices.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Am I the only member of this forum who lives north of the M4 corridor? It seems that way reading the parochial posts on this thread.

We don't want to fly from Heathrow but often we haven't any choice.

Is it too much to ask for through services from the rest of the country with flexible ticketing at affordable prices on trains with a decent amount of luggage space? Sort of like the Dutch and Germans enjoy to Schiphol and Frankfurt.

 

[Rational Plan]

Am I the only member of this forum who lives north of the M4 corridor? It seems that way reading the parochial posts on this thread.

We don't want to fly from Heathrow but often we haven't any choice.

Is it too much to ask for through services from the rest of the country with flexible ticketing at affordable prices on trains with a decent amount of luggage space? Sort of like the Dutch and Germans enjoy to Schiphol and Frankfurt.

I want a pony too.

There are no underused tracks for lots of direct services. Nor is there the demand for a high frequency long distance network. The greatest amount of travel demand is within a short distance of the airport.

Therefore the best solution is for a shuttle to Reading. If there was the spare capacity then it might make sense to have an hourly train to Cardiff or Plymouth, but they would not be as full as the trains going to London.

As for the rest of the country, the airport is not on any direct northern lines until HS2 there are no quick routes and again runs into capacity issues.

 

[Solaris]

When the DfT reviewed air capacity and demand across the UK in 2002 they found that 6.5M trips per year from people in Wales and SW England were via airports in the SE England - mainly Heathrow. This level of leakage (~65%) out the "home region" of airport demand is higher in Wales and SW England than any other part of the UK. Because of the poor rail access to Heathrow from the west then the vast majority of this demand is delivered on road. If 20% of that demand could be converted to rail that would be 4000 extra rail passengers per day heading to Heathrow by rail from Wales and SW England…..let alone the additional demand from the Thames Valley

 

[LE Greys]

When the DfT reviewed air capacity and demand across the UK in 2002 they found that 6.5M trips per year from people in Wales and SW England were via airports in the SE England - mainly Heathrow. This level of leakage (~65%) out the "home region" of airport demand is higher in Wales and SW England than any other part of the UK. Because of the poor rail access to Heathrow from the west then the vast majority of this demand is delivered on road. If 20% of that demand could be converted to rail that would be 4000 extra rail passengers per day heading to Heathrow by rail from Wales and SW England…..let alone the additional demand from the Thames Valley

Precisely!

 

[The Ham]

When the DfT reviewed air capacity and demand across the UK in 2002 they found that 6.5M trips per year from people in Wales and SW England were via airports in the SE England - mainly Heathrow. This level of leakage (~65%) out the "home region" of airport demand is higher in Wales and SW England than any other part of the UK. Because of the poor rail access to Heathrow from the west then the vast majority of this demand is delivered on road. If 20% of that demand could be converted to rail that would be 4000 extra rail passengers per day heading to Heathrow by rail from Wales and SW England…..let alone the additional demand from the Thames Valley

4000 may sound a lot but the problem is when you split this between two main origin points (Wales & SW) and over a whole day you end up with about 100 to 200 people per hour, which is low for a primary destination for a train service. It might be enough to justify a few direct services a day, but givin that demand will varry day by day, depending on flights, it would be hard to provide a service that had consistant passenger numbers.

Having said that, and never wanting to say never, it may well be that demand proves sufficiant, although it may well be that once it reaches the Thames Valley it becomes a (semi) stopping service to maximise the number of passnegers it carries and so it doesn't require additional slots east of Reading.

 

[WatcherZero]

200 on each train service for a single destination end to end of 137 miles is not a small loading! Balance it with picking up and discharging some intermediate passengers along the way.

 

[tbtc]

200 on each train service for a single destination end to end of 137 miles is not a small loading! Balance it with picking up and discharging some intermediate passengers along the way.

No, its not a small loading, but that's the figure from a large catchment area (South Wales and South West England) which would be hard to serve with one service.

And are those numbers sufficient to justify slowing down any existing journeys?

 

[DXMachina]

The residual colnbrook branch (proposed, I understand, as the route..) goes through the middle of M25 Junction 15, single track between 2 sliproads

The road related problems of rebuilding this to electrified passenger route standard won't be fun

 

[JamesRowden]

200 on each train service for a single destination end to end of 137 miles is not a small loading! Balance it with picking up and discharging some intermediate passengers along the way.

Actually 200 passengers is a small loading for an intercity service on the line between Reading and Paddington. That is less than what would be required to fill 3 mark 3 carriages. Add to that the fact that no one service could pick up the whole of the market that you are refering to. I do not see why having to make one change at Reading to a frequent service to Heathrow would be so much of a problem.

However, I do think that at least one hourly Crosscountry service from Birmingham New Street (or beyond) should be extended to Heathrow if there are spare paths. Since the service already has enough people using it to justify it running to Reading and it would provide a useful link between Heathrow and the North West.

 

[RobShipway]

When I have talked about this with people within the Railway, I have suggested that there should be a western connection to the east of Iver station that then goes underground and joins the end part of the line into terminal 5, such that teh train can then go on to terminal 4 and the station for terminals 1,2,3 before returning to London Paddington. What I also ideally like to see happen with the western connection to Heathrow, is to have a link in someway to the Waterloo - Reading line again this could be underground that also connects into Terminal 5.

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually 200 passengers is a small loading for an intercity service on the line between Reading and Paddington. That is less than what would be required to fill 3 mark 3 carriages. Add to that the fact that no one service could pick up the whole of the market that you are refering to. I do not see why having to make one change at Reading to a frequent service to Heathrow would be so much of a problem.

However, I do think that at least one hourly Crosscountry service from Birmingham New Street (or beyond) should be extended to Heathrow if there are spare paths. Since the service already has enough people using it to justify it running to Reading and it would provide a useful link between Heathrow and the North West.

Its plenty to serve the redirection of one service an hour from Cardiff or Bristol when others are being newly added. The early business case suggests benefits of £1.5bn a year of which £800m would be between Reading and Heathrow and £700m for longer distance services with an 8minute service for Slough, 22 minutes saved for Reading Commuters and 30 minutes saved from Bristol/SW/Welsh users. The Welsh Secretary says 'The Wales Office has always supported and recognised the importance of connectivity to Heathrow as a major UK air hub for Welsh business and Welsh passengers.' 'The UK Government’s focus goes beyond single nations; hence our decision to build the Western Extension to Heathrow, which will for the first time connect South Wales to the UK’s main air hub and ensure faster journey times between Cardiff and Heathrow.'

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that the TOC would not choose to run more services than it needs to over a certain stretch of line (e.g. Bristol-Reading). It is more eccomical to make the travellers to different destinations share a common service over a long distance unless the level of demand is so high that so many trains are required, and so trains can go to different destinations without having a significant effect on the frequency of service to the primary destinations. Since the demand for Heathrow will be tiny compared with that for London, the long distance services should serve London and not Heathrow. Otherwise look forward to fare increases! (someone would have to pay for it)

 

[LE Greys]

The residual colnbrook branch (proposed, I understand, as the route..) goes through the middle of M25 Junction 15, single track between 2 sliproads

The road related problems of rebuilding this to electrified passenger route standard won't be fun

That's the easy bit compared with two major projects.

Building 'Colnbrook West Junction' (or whatever it's to be called), which will either involve cutting a golf course in half or going under the GWML and through several lakes. Either way, it will then have to link to the GWML, grade-separated (so probably over the top, underneath is more tricky) and connect to the line roughly underneath the M25.

Linking the current Colnbrook terminal to the station, which involves crossing a landfill site, diving under the M25 at about the point where it meets with the Western Approach Road and cutting under a corner of the car park to make an end-on junction.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think that the TOC would not choose to run more services than it needs to over a certain stretch of line (e.g. Bristol-Reading). It is more eccomical to make the travellers to different destinations share a common service over a long distance unless the level of demand is so high that so many trains are required, and so trains can go to different destinations without having a significant effect on the frequency of service to the primary destinations. Since the demand for Heathrow will be tiny compared with that for London, the long distance services should serve London and not Heathrow. Otherwise look forward to fare increases! (someone would have to pay for it)

At a point in becomes better to serve the secondary destination with time penalty than the fastest possible service to the primary destination otherwise there would be only one route between Manchester and Liverpool or Glasgow and Edinburgh! What your arguing was if there were 99 services the 100th should serve the same route too because its faster!!???

Theres going to be something like 8 services an hour between Bristol and London, your saying they cant spare a single one for a minor deviation that costs 30 minutes journey time and saves hundreds of passengers 20 minutes journey time?

Under your logic there would be very few rail lines in this country, only following the fastest direct routes.

 

[JamesRowden]

At a point in becomes better to serve the secondary destination with time penalty than the fastest possible service to the primary destination otherwise there would be only one route between Manchester and Liverpool or Glasgow and Edinburgh! What your arguing was if there were 99 services the 100th should serve the same route too because its faster!!???

Theres going to be something like 8 services an hour between Bristol and London, your saying they cant spare a single one for a minor deviation that costs 30 minutes journey time and saves hundreds of passengers 20 minutes journey time?

Under your logic there would be very few rail lines in this country, only following the fastest direct routes.

You have clearly not understood what I said. I simply think that the proportion of trains that run down a route should bare a relation to how popular that route is. Edinburgh and Glasgow are of similar demand and so it makes perfect sense for one Birmingham terminating service to go to Glasgow and the other to Edinburgh.

Presently there are only 2 trains per hour beween Bristol Temple Meads and Paddington and 2 trains per hour between Bristol Parkway and Paddington. There will only be as many trains as there is demand for. Diverting one of those 2 trains per hour would mean halving the service between a Bristol Station and Paddington. Since Paddington is going to be over ten times as popular a destination when compared with Heathow, saving no more than 20 minutes for a Heathrow traveller does not seem worth making virtually everyone travelling on the train have to change at Reading in order to get to Paddington. You might then say that the Heathrow service would run as an addition rather than as a redirecting. Running more trains costs money, and I think that it would be more beneficial to add an extra Paddington service rather than a Heathrow service.

If future demand dramatically rises on the line and there are 4 trains per hour off-peak from one of the Bristol stations then I think that a direct service to Heathrow from Bristol/Wales might be a good idea. However it may be a while before demand is such.

Maybe dramatically reducing the price of off-peak tickets might work to increase demand. I know some people that say that they do not use the railway because it is so expensive. So by reducing the off-peak tickets, there might be a large number of people who would use the train instead of driving and so produce a more uniform demand for the railway during the day meaning that infastructure would be used more efficiently. Only an idea though, I do not know if it would work.

 

[tbtc]

To justify the cost of building this western link we are going to need a lot more than just an hourly service from Heathrow to Reading, lets say four an hour.

But diverting four long distance services an hour is going to delay the Paddington passengers (who are always going to out number the Heathrow ones).

But if you are going to have a Paddington - Heathrow - Reading (and beyond?) service then would that be a direct replacement for HEX? With all the premium fares? Or an extension of Crossrail? Because it'd be unfeasible for Crossrail to go west of Reading (as things stand).

The more I think about it the more I think that a separate Heathrow - Reading - Basingstoke/Oxford service would work best (i.e. not going through to Paddington, as the time penalty would be too great). Call it half hourly to Basingstoke (replacing the 150s on the Reading - Basingstoke local service) and half hourly to Oxford (replacing the western side of the Paddington - Oxford "stopper").

That would give you a fifteen minute service from Heathrow to Reading which should be regular enough to be "turn up and go" for those coming from Birmingham/ Cardiff/ Swansea/ Bristol/ Bath/ Swindon/ Exeter etc to change at Reading okay.

Plus a direct link to SWT at Basingstoke would mean more places were only one change away from Heathrow.

 

[swt_passenger]

Much depends how the 'SW England' in yesterday evening's post by Solaris is defined.

In some contexts is natural to think of it as much of the area served by FGW, but if you included SWT's area as well it looks completely different. What if a significant number are heading to Heathrow through Woking?

 

[CalumCookable]

Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds will have direct trains to Heathrow via HS2, so it's difficult to see why Bristol and Cardiff shouldn't.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds will have direct trains to Heathrow via HS2, so it's difficult to see why Bristol and Cardiff shouldn't.

They will, but direct services further west, and HS2 for that matter, are dependent on the Heathrow Hub which is beyond CP5.

If the Old Oak Common proposal is adopted, then the two main problems discussed above will be overcome. Namely, the time penalty will not exist (trains from Wales and the West could stop at Reading or OOC but not both) and usage would be combined with transfers onto HS2.

 

[LE Greys]

To justify the cost of building this western link we are going to need a lot more than just an hourly service from Heathrow to Reading, lets say four an hour.

But diverting four long distance services an hour is going to delay the Paddington passengers (who are always going to out number the Heathrow ones).

But if you are going to have a Paddington - Heathrow - Reading (and beyond?) service then would that be a direct replacement for HEX? With all the premium fares? Or an extension of Crossrail? Because it'd be unfeasible for Crossrail to go west of Reading (as things stand).

The more I think about it the more I think that a separate Heathrow - Reading - Basingstoke/Oxford service would work best (i.e. not going through to Paddington, as the time penalty would be too great). Call it half hourly to Basingstoke (replacing the 150s on the Reading - Basingstoke local service) and half hourly to Oxford (replacing the western side of the Paddington - Oxford "stopper").

That would give you a fifteen minute service from Heathrow to Reading which should be regular enough to be "turn up and go" for those coming from Birmingham/ Cardiff/ Swansea/ Bristol/ Bath/ Swindon/ Exeter etc to change at Reading okay.

Plus a direct link to SWT at Basingstoke would mean more places were only one change away from Heathrow.

It depends on how you define 'Heathrow'. For BA passengers, it would definitely be one change away, but for some of the others it would be two, even three for Terminal 4. You can probably get away with that, since BA tends to have much more of a UK passenger base (being the national carrier) who would be more likely to arrive from the west than foreign passengers. However, it would surely be much better to access Heathrow Central, and that means mixing with HEX.

If we do end up with more than one route in, but only one requires premium fares, then clever individuals like some of the people here will soon spot something. If you go to Slough and then catch a Reading-Heathrow service back, you miss the premium fares completely. That plus the shift to Crossrail for direct trains would effectively torpedo HEX except for those in a real hurry, meaining either a frequency cut or the end of the premium fares to get passengers back.

 

[tbtc]

It depends on how you define 'Heathrow'. For BA passengers, it would definitely be one change away, but for some of the others it would be two, even three for Terminal 4. You can probably get away with that, since BA tends to have much more of a UK passenger base (being the national carrier) who would be more likely to arrive from the west than foreign passengers. However, it would surely be much better to access Heathrow Central, and that means mixing with HEX.

If we do end up with more than one route in, but only one requires premium fares, then clever individuals like some of the people here will soon spot something. If you go to Slough and then catch a Reading-Heathrow service back, you miss the premium fares completely. That plus the shift to Crossrail for direct trains would effectively torpedo HEX except for those in a real hurry, meaining either a frequency cut or the end of the premium fares to get passengers back.

The complication of multiple stations for Heathrow's terminals (compared to Manchester, which has just one station to cover its three terminals) certainly adds to the mix, true!

The way I'm thinking is that if you extend the current HEX services westwards then they cease to become "premium" (esp if you can use the normal London - Slough fare on the HEX service to get to Slough, but have to pay a significantly higher fare just to do London - Heathrow).

But, if you run a lot of non-stop Paddington - Heathrow services (which extend to Bristol/ Oxford/ Wherever) with normal fares then you partly undermine the case for Crossrail and are using up "overground" platform space at Paddington for Heathrow services at the same that a large number of Crossrail services from the east are terminating at Paddington.

But if you extend more Crossrail services to Heathrow then you either force all London - Heathrow passengers to use an "all stops" service, or you complicate the simplicity of Crossrail stopping everywhere.

Plus, whilst Crossrail could be extended *beyond* Heathrow, its a long way to go on a toiletless train (and certainly no chance of it running west of Reading).

I think the only way of doing it would be to keep the western Heathrow service separate from the eastern Heathrow services (so that it's not affected by whatever happens to Crossrail/ HEX) and run it no further than Oxford/ Basingstoke (so that its not disrupting the Bristol/ Cardiff passengers - they can simply change at Reading).

Unless, of course, the Old Oak Common idea for HS2 becomes an acceptable place to change from all main line services to a Heathrow shuttle, in which case all the millions spent on a western link into Heathrow are a waste!

 

[LE Greys]

The complication of multiple stations for Heathrow's terminals (compared to Manchester, which has just one station to cover its three terminals) certainly adds to the mix, true!

The way I'm thinking is that if you extend the current HEX services westwards then they cease to become "premium" (esp if you can use the normal London - Slough fare on the HEX service to get to Slough, but have to pay a significantly higher fare just to do London - Heathrow).

But, if you run a lot of non-stop Paddington - Heathrow services (which extend to Bristol/ Oxford/ Wherever) with normal fares then you partly undermine the case for Crossrail and are using up "overground" platform space at Paddington for Heathrow services at the same that a large number of Crossrail services from the east are terminating at Paddington.

But if you extend more Crossrail services to Heathrow then you either force all London - Heathrow passengers to use an "all stops" service, or you complicate the simplicity of Crossrail stopping everywhere.

Plus, whilst Crossrail could be extended *beyond* Heathrow, its a long way to go on a toiletless train (and certainly no chance of it running west of Reading).

I think the only way of doing it would be to keep the western Heathrow service separate from the eastern Heathrow services (so that it's not affected by whatever happens to Crossrail/ HEX) and run it no further than Oxford/ Basingstoke (so that its not disrupting the Bristol/ Cardiff passengers - they can simply change at Reading).

Unless, of course, the Old Oak Common idea for HS2 becomes an acceptable place to change from all main line services to a Heathrow shuttle, in which case all the millions spent on a western link into Heathrow are a waste!

You could also add the Reading-terminating XC services. How long do they sit in the bays at Reading? I wonder if an extension to Heathrow would be covered with that.

I would certainly be concerned about stretching Crossrail anywhere further than necessary, it's already an inner-suburban service and trying to push it further than it needs to go is a problem. That's the main reason I looked into 'suburbanising' HEX (and to unlock four paths so that they serve more than one destination). My answer to the premium-fare question would be to switch to a supplimentary-fare system, payable only between Heathrow and London, which is exactly what I'd do with GatEx as well. As long as there was plenty of notice about the suppliment, a nice flat-rate £5 or whatever, then it would solve both the Gatwick validity issue and the Heathrow premium issue. In both cases, there would be non-supplimentary-fare alternatives that are actually quicker, and there is no real need to advertise the fact that they go right through when west of Heathrow (I'm used to travelling on 'Foxton' trains going to Cambridge and 'Finsbury Park' trains going to King's Cross).