Western Rail Access to Heathrow delayed

[zoneking]

Heathrow Underground is in Zone 6 but not Heathrow Terminal Stations for Connect or Express.

 

[332 > 444]

Because the track from Stockley Flyover to T4/T5 is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings and are non-franchised operators which do not have to follow National Rail pricing and until it ends up under NR infrastructure it will continue to be that way so it's LUL services for you still!

HAH want's to charge the DfT 40m a year for Crossrail to use the tracks, and even if HEx don't get granted more track access after 2023, they will be making money from access charges...

 

[coppercapped]

Crossrail will be an all stations service from Reading to Langley, whereas the proposed western rail link service will only stop at Slough and possibly Maidenhead.
The estimated journey time set out in the official project, is given as approx. 26 mins.




I think your maths went wrong there?
The total of the times you've quoted is 48 mins.
Almost double the time of a direct Reading - T5 service.


.

Oops, you're right. It was too late to do proper arithmetic...!

But it shows even more vividly that the dog's leg via Old Oak doesn't make sense.

 

[misterredmist]

This is the most important "missing link" on the entire rail network.

It is impossible to get from the northwest or northeast to Heathrow Airport by train without multiple changes. .

Then chose another transit Airport , fly from your local Airport to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris , doing yourself a big favour and avoiding LHR.....

 

[coppercapped]

Stopping GWML trains at OOC provides opportunities for connections with HS2, which would make some journeys between points west and points north quicker than going on the classic network via Birmingham.

Of course they will. Just it will be set down only towards Paddington and pick up only away from it - it will save passengers from cluttering up Paddington needlessly.

I know that what I am about to write doesn't really fit this thread , but it has developed out of it.

Moot. It depends entirely on the flows being discussed and also assumes that GW Main Line trains will stop at Old Oak. Is it worthwhile adding 5 minutes to every journey for every passenger on a GW Main Line train so some people can change to local services as I can't see a large demand for travel via HS2 to the Midlands and points further north?

For example, I can't see a Bristol to Birmingham passenger wanting to travel by Old Oak Common, but a Bristol - Leeds passenger might.

The assumption that people will travel via OOC doesn't allow for future improvements in the existing network. For example by the time HS2 opens the Didcot - Oxford corridor will have had its capacity increased and journey times to Birmingham are likely to have been reduced. It might even have been electrified by then! Equally Bristol - Birmingham will have been improved (assuming that all the available money isn't spent on HS2 :cry.

For passengers starting or finishing in the swath of country between Swindon, Basingstoke and Reading only those passengers to Birmingham city centre will benefit from any time savings via Old Oak - for other destinations in the west Midlands a change at Curzon Street will be needed, negating any speed advantage.

I would suggest that time savings to Birmingham city centre will only be significant for passengers starting, or finishing, their journey somewhere between Slough and Reading. And these passengers can reach OOC directly by Crossrail or on the rump of the GW outer-suburban services which will be electric by then. No need to stop Main Line (aka 'InterCity') trains.

An HS2 train must have a lot to offer to make it worthwhile not taking a direct train from Reading (or, by then, possibly also Swindon) - no change versus a change (and possibly two) and the extra distance travelled.

For other destinations the calculations may look different, but the Leeds branch is so far away in time it's almost science fiction and not really worth considering at the moment.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure how capacity improvements between Didcot and Oxford will speed up the journey to Brum myself and dont expect anything Bristol Birmingham in CP6 either. In terms of all the GW trains stopping at OOC, that is a given and is a 4 minute penalty at worst. Surely you need to change at New St now for other stations in the West Mids anyway?

 

[Mikey C]

Because the track from Stockley Flyover to T4/T5 is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings and are non-franchised operators which do not have to follow National Rail pricing and until it ends up under NR infrastructure it will continue to be that way so it's LUL services for you still!

HAH want's to charge the DfT 40m a year for Crossrail to use the tracks, and even if HEx don't get granted more track access after 2023, they will be making money from access charges...

If Heathrow wants to win the new runway battle with Gatwick, I'm sure that will be sacrificed...

 

[coppercapped]

Not sure how capacity improvements between Didcot and Oxford will speed up the journey to Brum myself and dont expect anything Bristol Birmingham in CP6 either. In terms of all the GW trains stopping at OOC, that is a given and is a 4 minute penalty at worst. Surely you need to change at New St now for other stations in the West Mids anyway?

4 minutes, 5 minutes - what's the difference? After spending billions on GWML electrification and more money than necessary on IEP, the Reading - Paddington time won't effectively be any quicker than it was in 1976. Not everybody will use Crossrail - many will continue to use the bus, the Underground serving Paddington or walk. And as I have written before - there is no advantage in changing to Crossrail at OOC over Paddington as neither connection is cross-platform. In fact, from the published plans, changing at Paddington looks easier.

And will the new, much vaunted Paddington Bristol non-stop IEPs also stop at OOC? If not, why not?

Capacity improvements between Didcot and Oxford should reduce the allowances for pathing. And if all this money is being spent without increasing the line speed than one despairs. Or rather (one for the conspiracy theorists) one can see an intent to make HS2 more attractive than it otherwise would be.

Regarding Birmingham - at the moment one changes within the same station. When HS2 arrives many will have to change between stations. How is that an improvement?

 

[JamesRowden]

4 minutes, 5 minutes - what's the difference? After spending billions on GWML electrification and more money than necessary on IEP, the Reading - Paddington time won't effectively be any quicker than it was in 1976. Not everybody will use Crossrail - many will continue to use the bus, the Underground serving Paddington or walk. And as I have written before - there is no advantage in changing to Crossrail at OOC over Paddington as neither connection is cross-platform. In fact, from the published plans, changing at Paddington looks easier.

And will the new, much vaunted Paddington Bristol non-stop IEPs also stop at OOC? If not, why not?

Capacity improvements between Didcot and Oxford should reduce the allowances for pathing. And if all this money is being spent without increasing the line speed than one despairs. Or rather (one for the conspiracy theorists) one can see an intent to make HS2 more attractive than it otherwise would be.

Regarding Birmingham - at the moment one changes within the same station. When HS2 arrives many will have to change between stations. How is that an improvement?

Old Oak Common should also have London Overground services via Willesden Junction and to Richmond and Clapham Junction.

 

[coppercapped]

Old Oak Common should also have London Overground services via Willesden Junction and to Richmond and Clapham Junction.

Yup! But as it is no longer proposed to re-align either routes to bring their stations closer to the OOC HS2 or GW stations there will be a walk of a couple of hundred yards to the new stations on each line.

This is lesson 1 in how to encourage people to use the interchanges...

 

[NotATrainspott]

4 minutes, 5 minutes - what's the difference? After spending billions on GWML electrification and more money than necessary on IEP, the Reading - Paddington time won't effectively be any quicker than it was in 1976. Not everybody will use Crossrail - many will continue to use the bus, the Underground serving Paddington or walk. And as I have written before - there is no advantage in changing to Crossrail at OOC over Paddington as neither connection is cross-platform. In fact, from the published plans, changing at Paddington looks easier.

And will the new, much vaunted Paddington Bristol non-stop IEPs also stop at OOC? If not, why not?

Capacity improvements between Didcot and Oxford should reduce the allowances for pathing. And if all this money is being spent without increasing the line speed than one despairs. Or rather (one for the conspiracy theorists) one can see an intent to make HS2 more attractive than it otherwise would be.

Regarding Birmingham - at the moment one changes within the same station. When HS2 arrives many will have to change between stations. How is that an improvement?

OOC isn't just going to be a station: it's going to be a major interchange hub for all sorts of transport modes, as well as being a new business centre for London on a not-incomparable scale to Canary Wharf. It will have superior onward connections than Paddington. Not only that, but as London gets more and more economically powerful more activity ends up spilling out beyond Zone 1. OOC is in a better position to provide onward connections to these areas than Paddington could ever be, so there are probably going to be a lot of people coming all the way from the far reaches of the GWR network who will want to go to OOC rather than Paddington. The benefits of slowing down every service by a few minutes to call there will more than outweigh the costs.

 

[JamesRowden]

Yup! But as it is no longer proposed to re-align either routes to bring their stations closer to the OOC HS2 or GW stations there will be a walk of a couple of hundred yards to the new stations on each line.

This is lesson 1 in how to encourage people to use the interchanges...

Still a lot better than traveling between Paddington and Victoria on the Underground to get to the Victoria branch of the Brighton Mainline (especially considering that the ticket prices might be cheaper).

 

[The Planner]

And will the new, much vaunted Paddington Bristol non-stop IEPs also stop at OOC? If not, why not?

Non stop until HS2 opens.

Capacity improvements between Didcot and Oxford should reduce the allowances for pathing. And if all this money is being spent without increasing the line speed than one despairs. Or rather (one for the conspiracy theorists) one can see an intent to make HS2 more attractive than it otherwise would be.

Don't get sucked in by the line speed saving you loads of time, its 90mph down there now and Didcot to Oxford is 9 miles, you need it all 110mph to save a minute.

 

[coppercapped]

Non stop until HS2 opens.



Don't get sucked in by the line speed saving you loads of time, its 90mph down there now and Didcot to Oxford is 9 miles, you need it all 110mph to save a minute.

I was thinking that with electrification the line speed north of Oxford should be increased - or what's electrification for if it can't supply more horses?

 

[JamesRowden]

I was thinking that with electrification the line speed north of Oxford should be increased - or what's electrification for if it can't supply more horses?

Acceleration, saving money and the environment.

 

[coppercapped]

OOC isn't just going to be a station: it's going to be a major interchange hub for all sorts of transport modes, as well as being a new business centre for London on a not-incomparable scale to Canary Wharf. It will have superior onward connections than Paddington. Not only that, but as London gets more and more economically powerful more activity ends up spilling out beyond Zone 1. OOC is in a better position to provide onward connections to these areas than Paddington could ever be, so there are probably going to be a lot of people coming all the way from the far reaches of the GWR network who will want to go to OOC rather than Paddington. The benefits of slowing down every service by a few minutes to call there will more than outweigh the costs.

There is a full description of the proposals and background here.

If you wish to describe the favoured disposition of new stations on the Clapham and Richmond lines as 'superior onward connections' then that is your prerogative. One station will be 350 metres from the HS2 station and the other 650 metres away; the distances will be even greater if starting from the GW station. Such an arrangement cannot be classified as a 'interchange' - they are more like route marches. I would hope some form of shuttle will be provided - or at least a selection of Boris Bikes.

Paddington will also have Crossrail, so Crossrail cannot be included as a 'superior onward connection' as it is common to both stations. No new rail lines are planned for the area, so the only distribution will be by the existing lines - at best the bus network might be intensified.

If the redevelopment of OOC as an office centre is successful, then it will be because Heathrow will be only a quarter of an hour away - why do you think that the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Verizon, Vodafone and O2 have placed their UK offices in the Thames Valley - not because people at the far end of the GWR network want to get there. And if it is successful then there will be even more pressure for a third runway.

Be careful what you wish for!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Acceleration, saving money and the environment.

Acceleration - more horses.
Saving money - you're joking. Remind me by how much the costs have risen. You can buy several super tankers of oil with the cost increases. Enough to run the railway for years.
Environment - save me the sermon.

 

[JamesRowden]

Acceleration - more horses.
Saving money - you're joking. Remind me by how much the costs have risen. You can buy several super tankers of oil with the cost increases. Enough to run the railway for years.
Environment - save me the sermon.

How many years worth of diesel could you buy?

Plus diesels have greater maintenance costs.

Also, oil is a limited resource and will eventually be virtually used up.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There is a full description of the proposals and background here.

If you wish to describe the favoured disposition of new stations on the Clapham and Richmond lines as 'superior onward connections' then that is your prerogative. One station will be 350 metres from the HS2 station and the other 650 metres away; the distances will be even greater if starting from the GW station. Such an arrangement cannot be classified as a 'interchange' - they are more like route marches. I would hope some form of shuttle will be provided - or at least a selection of Boris Bikes.

Paddington will also have Crossrail, so Crossrail cannot be included as a 'superior onward connection' as it is common to both stations. No new rail lines are planned for the area, so the only distribution will be by the existing lines - at best the bus network might be intensified.

If the redevelopment of OOC as an office centre is successful, then it will be because Heathrow will be only a quarter of an hour away - why do you think that the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Verizon, Vodafone and O2 have placed their UK offices in the Thames Valley - not because people at the far end of the GWR network want to get there. And if it is successful then there will be even more pressure for a third runway.

Be careful what you wish for!

I'm well aware of the distances involved at OOC, but I don't see them being that relevant in the HS2 timescale. By then, driverless electric pods will be able to cart people around on demand if they have luggage or children or whatever. Walk off a train, and the pod will be waiting there for you just to stroll on, and it'll take you straight to where you need to go.

When am I saying that Crossrail is what makes OOC better than Paddington? Go and look at a map of all the rail lines which radiate from the OOC development area: the NLL, WCML/Watford DC, Bakerloo, GWML, Crossrail, WLL, Central Line, NNML and the Dudding Hill Line. That's all of the Paddington ones aside from the SSL lines, plus many, many more, and in all likelihood OOC is just going to have more lines added to it in future as demand picks up.

All these connections make the wider OOC area the best-connected area in the UK for businesses, so it's no surprise that they would want to base themselves there. Based there, you have high or fast classic rail services to all the distant reaches of the UK, plus the benefits of being near Central London as well. Lots of jobs, lots of demand for people to stop there on trains. And remember what I said about the fact that central London is filling up. Stratford is already a destination in its own right and there's demand for trains to go there and terminate from the West Anglia corridor.

 

[coppercapped]

How many years worth of diesel could you buy?

Plus diesels have greater maintenance costs.

Also, oil is a limited resource and will eventually be virtually used up.

Brent Crude oil costs at the moment about $35 per barrel - this converts to about £27 per barrel.

The GW main line electrification costs have tripled since approval. To keep the arithmetic simple, let us say the cost increase is £2 billion. For this money you could buy some 725,000,000 barrels of Brent crude which is 29,000,000,000 US gallons or 24,000,000,000 Imperial gallons.

After refining one could get, say, 20% as gas-oil (diesel) making a total of 5 billion Imperial gallons and the rest (petrol, kerosene and so on) you can sell on the open market.

The total timetabled passenger train kilometres for 2012-13 was 522 million (ORR figures), that is some 326 million miles. Assuming the trains consume 1 gallon per mile (roughly what a Class 52 on 10 coaches managed) this equates to 326 million gallons.

So, if all the trains in the country were diesel-powered they could run for some 150 years on the quantity of oil that could have been purchased by the increase in the cost of the GW electrification.

Now tell me that electrification is cheaper.

 

[JamesRowden]

Brent Crude oil costs at the moment about $35 per barrel - this converts to about £27 per barrel.

The GW main line electrification costs have tripled since approval. To keep the arithmetic simple, let us say the cost increase is £2 billion. For this money you could buy some 725,000,000 barrels of Brent crude which is 29,000,000,000 US gallons or 24,000,000,000 Imperial gallons.

After refining one could get, say, 20% as gas-oil (diesel) making a total of 5 billion Imperial gallons and the rest (petrol, kerosene and so on) you can sell on the open market.

The total timetabled passenger train kilometres for 2012-13 was 522 million (ORR figures), that is some 326 million miles. Assuming the trains consume 1 gallon per mile (roughly what a Class 52 on 10 coaches managed) this equates to 326 million gallons.

So, if all the trains in the country were diesel-powered they could run for some 150 years on the quantity of oil that could have been purchased by the increase in the cost of the GW electrification.

Now tell me that electrification is cheaper.

I did not say that electrification was cheaper, just that it is meant to be cheaper.

Oil will run out, so an alternative will be required, and oil should become more expensive as it becomes more difficult to find (plus the effects of inflation).

You don't seem to have considered the cost of refining and transporting the oil, or the cost of buying or maintaining diesels trains rather than electric.

 

[edwin_m]

Brent Crude oil costs at the moment about $35 per barrel - this converts to about £27 per barrel.

The GW main line electrification costs have tripled since approval. To keep the arithmetic simple, let us say the cost increase is £2 billion. For this money you could buy some 725,000,000 barrels of Brent crude

You're a factor of 10 out there for a start.

 

[DerekC]

I did not say that electrification was cheaper, just that it is meant to be cheaper.

Oil will run out, so an alternative will be required, and oil should become more expensive as it becomes more difficult to find (plus the effects of inflation).

You don't seem to have considered the cost of refining and transporting the oil, or the cost of buying or maintaining diesels trains rather than electric.

If you want to have this argument I suggest a new thread might be in order.

Whatever happened to Airtrack? I think that was a much better idea than the western link (but then I do live on the Portsmouth Direct).

 

[JamesRowden]

If you want to have this argument I suggest a new thread might be in order.

Whatever happened to Airtrack? I think that was a much better idea than the western link (but then I do live on the Portsmouth Direct).

Heathrow withdrew its funding, and people were worried about level crossings being too busy.

 

[DerekC]

Heathrow withdrew its funding, and people were worried about level crossings being too busy.

If we had a Department for Transport which did integrated thinking we could have had a couple of tracks alongside the M25 when that was being widened and got round the level crossings.

 

[Tio Terry]

I was thinking that with electrification the line speed north of Oxford should be increased - or what's electrification for if it can't supply more horses?

You should also consider the needs of the Electric Spine which aims to run electrically power Freight Trains between Southampton and the West Midlands and also requires many more paths. That is not easily consistent with a speed improvement.

 

[BananaRepublic]

If we had a Department for Transport which did integrated thinking we could have had a couple of tracks alongside the M25 when that was being widened and got round the level crossings.

That wouldn't have addressed the level crossing issue.
The level crossings in question are situated elsewhere, between Staines and SW London.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Brent Crude oil costs at the moment about $35 per barrel - this converts to about £27 per barrel.

The GW main line electrification costs have tripled since approval. To keep the arithmetic simple, let us say the cost increase is £2 billion. For this money you could buy some 725,000,000 barrels of Brent crude which is 29,000,000,000 US gallons or 24,000,000,000 Imperial gallons.

After refining one could get, say, 20% as gas-oil (diesel) making a total of 5 billion Imperial gallons and the rest (petrol, kerosene and so on) you can sell on the open market.

The total timetabled passenger train kilometres for 2012-13 was 522 million (ORR figures), that is some 326 million miles. Assuming the trains consume 1 gallon per mile (roughly what a Class 52 on 10 coaches managed) this equates to 326 million gallons.

So, if all the trains in the country were diesel-powered they could run for some 150 years on the quantity of oil that could have been purchased by the increase in the cost of the GW electrification.

Now tell me that electrification is cheaper.

You're making the mistake the DfT did in the Labour years, as they thought that the upfront capital cost of electrification could never be justified by cost savings.

However, it's going to get more and more difficult and expensive to build diesel rolling stock in future, as every few years sees yet another improvement in emissions standards. Meeting these standards in moving vehicles of any kind is only going to get more and more challenging in future, as you have to make compromises which then result in other increases in costs or decreases in revenues. For instance, in another decade it's quite possible that to build more self-powered 125mph trains will be impossible with under-floor engines, as more and more emissions scrubbers and mild hybrid systems will be required to meet standards. A way of solving this would be to go back to the power car model, as diesel locomotives will still need to be built for freight and engineering trains in future. That then becomes quite a problem when your trains are full and they're as long as the platforms allow. At that point, the costs of not electrifying then include the loss of revenue from not being able to have as many seats on busy, profitable services.

Even if the costs of electrifying the GWML were known back then, it would still have gone ahead. All that would have changed would have been Network Rail's willingness to also commit to other schemes in the same time frame. Even with the problems of the electrification programme, the case for not wiring hasn't got any stronger, as services are getting busier and busier every year. The idea of building huge numbers of DMUs to run 12 car commuter services to Oxford on the Main lines is absurd, but that would be required if electrification didn't go ahead.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Even if the costs of electrifying the GWML were known back then, it would still have gone ahead. All that would have changed would have been Network Rail's willingness to also commit to other schemes in the same time frame.

The costs have risen because it was badly planned and interfered with constantly by Government. If you look at the Manchester to Blackpool works, you'll see there's lots of signal cable tidying going on, new concrete troughing and improved drainage being put in long before a Movax rig appears on site.

If we had known in 2008-2009 what we know in 2016, we would have had more S&T staff/contractors trained, every single cable identified and safely re-routed, new drainage installed, all the other preparatory works organised in a more sensible fashion, and things like public consultation planned a bit more thoroughly.

I believe the oil price is expected to start rising again in 2017, and I notice in today's Guardian that pollution kills 30,000 people in the UK each year, putting everything together, despite the oil price drop, electrification is the only remotely sensible long term approach to improve our network.

If it absolutely comes to re-embracing oil, why not just electrify and plug in oil fired power stations to the grid, instead of running diesel powered trains. If that doesn't work, we can swap what we plug into the grid.

 

[DerekC]

That wouldn't have addressed the level crossing issue.
The level crossings in question are situated elsewhere, between Staines and SW London.

It would if they had linked it to the Byfleet to Virginia Water line where it crosses the M25. And it would have had a nice grade separated junction into the SWML. Dreams!!

 

[swt_passenger]

It would if they had linked it to the Byfleet to Virginia Water line where it crosses the M25. And it would have had a nice grade separated junction into the SWML. Dreams!!

That stretch only accounted for one of four proposed tph. I have a copy saved of the second 2008 consultation leaflet and the majority of the listed level crossing problems are on the radial routes, particular those in the Wokingham area, and towards Waterloo from Staines.