Western Rail Access to Heathrow WRAtH cancelled

[ess]

From the Planning Inspectorate

Western Rail Link to Heathrow – Project Update​

A project update has been published.

The project how now been stopped with no further funding to take it forward or future plans for funding in the pipeline from either Department for Transport or Heathrow Airport so please consider the project closed with no future submissions.

The Applicant has withdrawn the project (PDF, 809KB) from the pre-application process.

---

​

You can view the Project information for more information.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Thanks goodness for that, for a moment I thought we were going to build a useful piece of infrastructure!

 

[YorkRailFan]

Sounds like a last ditch attempt by this Government, really showcases their attitude towards rail. Such a shame, was a really necessary rail project.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Thanks goodness for that, for a moment I thought we were going to build a useful piece of infrastructure!

I wonder if the cancellation is made possible by those "Reallocated HS2 funds."

 

[PGAT]

What a shocker

 

[swt_passenger]

I looked up the thread I started back in 2012 - yes that long ago. It was quite optimistic at the time:

Western Access to Heathrow

£500m mentioned in a written statement on aviation today, I wonder what route that will pay for? £500m towards a western rail link to Heathrow, which is in addition to £1.4bn already being invested to improve surface access to airports, including £44m towards upgrading Gatwick Airport station...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[alistairlees]

So it was confirmed as withdrawn in October 2023 but it took the planning inspectorate until May 2024 to acknowledge and publish this?

 

[swt_passenger]

So it was confirmed as withdrawn in October 2023 but it took the planning inspectorate until May 2024 to acknowledge and publish this?

It reads as though the planning inspectorate asked the question in October and NR reply didn’t get through, until repeated in May. Perhaps NR were snowed under with all the other major enhancements they’re progressing…

 

[irish_rail]

So a project that would have had a genuine use to the entire south west, south central and south wales gets cancelled, whilst old oak common mainline platforms carry on unabated. Country has lost the plot.
I wonder if part of the problem is if this was to happen, there really becomes virtually no justification whatsoever for stopping GWR Mainline expresses at Old Oak.

 

[ijmad]

Given we are likely to see a change of government within six weeks, I imagine that once they settle in, we may find some of these projects get a second chance if the economy is looking alright over the next couple years.

 

[lachlan]

Where is the lack of funding from - the airport, government or both?

Personally, I'd rather we prioritised the rest of the rail network rather than improve access to the airport (which, in the case of domestic flights) competes with the rail network. If Heathrow Airport will pay for it themselves then fair enough

I can't see a western access from GWR being particularly useful anyway now Crossrail exists. Old Oak Common will take additional time off the journey to the airport.

 

[irish_rail]

Where is the lack of funding from - the airport, government or both?

Personally, I'd rather we prioritised the rest of the rail network rather than improve access to the airport (which, in the case of domestic flights) competes with the rail network. If Heathrow Airport will pay for it themselves then fair enough

I can't see a western access from GWR being particularly useful anyway now Crossrail exists. Old Oak Common will take additional time off the journey to the airport.

But with this link, passengers from the West could change at Reading onto a Heathrow train, rather than having to travel into Old Oak, past Heathrow Airport then doubling back to Heathrow. And when a justification for Mainline platforms at OOC is Heathrow connectivity then its a relevant point. We should be doing what is best for a vast swathe of the country, not what's best for HS2.

 

[stuving]

The DCO was still at the pre-application stage, which started in 2015 and ground to a halt in 2017. Following an election, Brexit, and Covid, Heathrow have been saying "Covid ate all our spare cash" and DfT are not exactly flush with it. The planning process was put into a "controlled pause" in 2021, so it was pretty much a dead parrot already. TPI's last exchange with DfT was just to confirm that "withdrawn" is the most suitable of the official status labels they have available.

 

[JonathanH]

Given we are likely to see a change of government within six weeks, I imagine that once they settle in, we may find some of these projects get a second chance if the economy is looking alright over the next couple years.

The change of government won't make a difference to projects like this which are a long way down the list, given a broad commitment not to increase spending significantly and many other areas looking for more expenditure.

 

[Brissle Girl]

There are two aspects to this. The one most thought of is airport users, who, if the Old Oak main line platforms are built will have an option that will then require less doubling back than currently, and without the need to pay HEx fares. The perception of doubling back will be much reduced.

The other very important user to think about is airport and airline staff, who will presumably be more local traffic between Reading and the airport. The continued enhancement of non-HEx services since the Elizabeth Line was introduced surely means that the current option of changing at Hayes, whilst not optimal, is much better than when the Western Link project was under development.

 

[cle]

It’s a shame, and I hope it comes back in some shape.

What’s the status on the Southern version?

 

[MarkyT]

Where is the lack of funding from - the airport, government or both?

Personally, I'd rather we prioritised the rest of the rail network rather than improve access to the airport (which, in the case of domestic flights) competes with the rail network. If Heathrow Airport will pay for it themselves then fair enough

I can't see a western access from GWR being particularly useful anyway now Crossrail exists. Old Oak Common will take additional time off the journey to the airport.

Once the infrastructure is in place, airport business can be quite lucrative for rail I expect, and there are many workers in and around a major airport complex whose travel needs might be met by a good service. Having a general-purpose railway that also serves an airport like the EL is no doubt more useful than premium dedicated expresses, but a fast first leg to the airport, then a number of key outer suburban destinations beyond could work for the Heathrow southern link, extending HEX paths to Woking and beyond and providing a link from those stations to HS2 at OOC. Building rail links doesn't encourage domestic air use. People are enthusiastic for those flights anyway, when they're good value, and people will simply drive or taxi to the airport if there are no good transport links. It's worth remembering that airports love parking. They usually make a lot of money from it and, greenwashing aside, would much prefer people to arrive in their own cars really. That's why they are typically lukewarm and non-committal about any major public transport improvements. I think Heathrow built HEX because as well as the prestige and publicity, the service was aimed at the kind of travellers who generally wouldn't be parking, incoming business travellers for example and affluent Londoners who would rather get black cabs all the way from central London than be seen on the Piccadilly Line. As a premium service, it follows that HEX didn't affect parking revenue as much as when Crossrail entered the scene later, which is (possibly?) the real reason why the airport wanted such a high fee for the EL to use their infrastructure.

 

[LLivery]

The only way I see it happening, is if pigs fly and Heathrow Expansion actually happens.

It’s a shame, and I hope it comes back in some shape.

What’s the status on the Southern version?

It was said this year that TfL wants Staines. Whether that's dependent on utilising the Southern proposal or whether they're looking into a 'plan b' - i.e. a simple extension from T5 to Staines, I'm not sure. A simple extension would probably be quite affordable compared to all other projects they want. Especially if they could get a contribution from the Government, the airport (which they absolutely should) and Spelthorne Council (although, they are broke).

Commuting money from Staines would probably be quite a nice earner too...

 

[The Planner]

But with this link, passengers from the West could change at Reading onto a Heathrow train, rather than having to travel into Old Oak, past Heathrow Airport then doubling back to Heathrow. And when a justification for Mainline platforms at OOC is Heathrow connectivity then its a relevant point. We should be doing what is best for a vast swathe of the country, not what's best for HS2.

Platforms at OOC are cheaper, and would have been built anyway.

 

[irish_rail]

Platforms at OOC are cheaper, and would have been built anyway.

Yes but at a greater cost to fast London trains from the southwest. But that's a separate debate.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes but at a greater cost to fast London trains from the southwest. But that's a separate debate.

I'd say a huge opportunity for much new connectivity in West London, part of a polycentric city region the size of a small country that is likely to develop more major activity centres like Docklands at railway superhubs such as OOC and Stratford. I see no negatives in the proposal at all, only benefits. Five minutes added to a three hour journey from the west is nothing, to me at least. There's no intrinsic reason why long-distance trains can't stop more than once in a major city. I'm not saying lets join the Elizabeth line and go all stations to Stratford, but two well chosen major hubs is not at all unreasonable. A peripheral stop is common on the edge of many provincial UK cities, a few miles out often in a different neighbouring town but part of the same broader conurbation and able to serve the larger city's suburbs in the appropriate direction, particularly for carborne customers on the peripheries who sometimes have difficulties accessing central stations. This can provide convenience to a whole new set of travellers, making rail more useful to more people. In Tokyo, Shinkansen routes all* serve a peripheral station en route from their central terminus. These have additional ranges of connections, different to those available centrally, including to various airports.
* - There are a handful of peak top tier expresses a day that miss the peripheral calls - I'm talking 1 or 2 in the morning peak, similar in the evening. They probably knock a couple of minutes off published timings for a headline best and maybe it helps with crowding, but the trains can't save much running time as the stations concerned aren't laid out for very fast through running, and are very busy with trains that are stopping.

 

[Class 170101]

Not surprised sadly, but hugely disappinting nonetheless.

Infrastructure is needed around Heathrow to support the Third Runway if (ever) built but I don't think the Private Sector wish to pay for it and expect a free ride with the public sector paying for the supporting infrastructure. The so call free rider problem in economics.

I have my doubts that the 3rd Runway at Heathrow will ever be built and argue it is not in the right place anyway. That should be a second runway at Gatwick Airport.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The private sector is rightly uninterested in making major capital investments at Heathrow when the business of running the UK's most important airport is so heavily regulated. Governments of every political colour essentially want to have their cake and eat it - for shiny things to show off to the electorate to happen, at no cost to the taxpayer, and with absolutely no negative political blowback either.

Heathrow has done an amazing job of optimising for what resources they have, but now they've used up all of the slack. Unlike other airports, they can't increase the number of flights without expanding onto new land that will need compulsory purchase to deliver, and they will struggle to even increase passenger numbers without being bottlenecked on surface transport capacity. Heathrow may, just, be able to fund a rail tunnel up to the GWML but they can't deliver extra GWML paths for airport services, nor pay for major reconfigurations of the Tube network to allow more Piccadilly line trains to come onto the branch.

There's nothing wrong with getting the private sector involved in the day to day operations of the airport but its existence and fundamentals (like surface transport options) are pretty much entirely up to the government, whether they want it or not. There's a strong strategic case for improving connectivity from the rest of the country to Heathrow, but doing so means recognising that it functions more like national infrastructure rather than local infrastructure and that, as a result, local NIMBY complaints shouldn't hold the same weight. If you make a policy of accepting Heathrow as the UK's premier airport and gateway to the world (Gatwick is in the wrong place and a Thames Estuary one would be even worse) then rapid expansion to 3 or 4 runways would follow perfectly logically. The areas of west London blighted by the current and future runways are largely terrible 100-year-old sprawl suburbs anyway and are ripe for demolition and replacement with new, better sound insulated flats at higher density.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The private sector is rightly uninterested in making major capital investments at Heathrow when the business of running the UK's most important airport is so heavily regulated. Governments of every political colour essentially want to have their cake and eat it - for shiny things to show off to the electorate to happen, at no cost to the taxpayer, and with absolutely no negative political blowback either.

Heathrow has done an amazing job of optimising for what resources they have, but now they've used up all of the slack. Unlike other airports, they can't increase the number of flights without expanding onto new land that will need compulsory purchase to deliver, and they will struggle to even increase passenger numbers without being bottlenecked on surface transport capacity. Heathrow may, just, be able to fund a rail tunnel up to the GWML but they can't deliver extra GWML paths for airport services, nor pay for major reconfigurations of the Tube network to allow more Piccadilly line trains to come onto the branch.

There's nothing wrong with getting the private sector involved in the day to day operations of the airport but its existence and fundamentals (like surface transport options) are pretty much entirely up to the government, whether they want it or not. There's a strong strategic case for improving connectivity from the rest of the country to Heathrow, but doing so means recognising that it functions more like national infrastructure rather than local infrastructure and that, as a result, local NIMBY complaints shouldn't hold the same weight. If you make a policy of accepting Heathrow as the UK's premier airport and gateway to the world (Gatwick is in the wrong place and a Thames Estuary one would be even worse) then rapid expansion to 3 or 4 runways would follow perfectly logically. The areas of west London blighted by the current and future runways are largely terrible 100-year-old sprawl suburbs anyway and are ripe for demolition and replacement with new, better sound insulated flats at higher density.

What would hey be?

 

[NotATrainspott]

What would hey be?

I'm mostly thinking of the Uxbridge branch and it being shared between the Piccadilly and the Metropolitan line. Untangling that is going to be pretty difficult.

With some more rolling stock it may be possible to extend existing Northfields terminators westwards. But, even if you can physically run more Piccadilly line trains to Heathrow, that doesn't help the situation at intermediate stops. When most passengers are headed for central London, using a stopping service to carry them means doing it slowly and causing capacity constraints for people who don't have any other option.

The point is still that Heathrow is so big and important as a trip generator that you have to think about it as an entity like the City of London or Canary Wharf in terms of transport planning. It's not really that hard to manage transport planning for urban areas like these, as they're made up of a wide range of individual companies and trip generators. Even if there were a major shift away from banking, places like the City and Canary Wharf would just end up hosting the replacement white-collar workers in insurance or audit or software engineering or whatever else.

Meanwhile, Heathrow has precisely one economic purpose: an airport. There are plenty of non-airport businesses around but the vast majority are only there because of proximity to the airport and its operations. So, any transport links to Heathrow basically live and die by the number of passengers and amount of cargo flowing through it. It's kind of like the London commuter rail TOC franchise contracts being based on London city centre employment statistics. If the government did stump up the cash for improved surface transport, then it wouldn't be happy if the private owners/operators didn't match their side of the business case bargain and invest in their own corresponding capacity improvements.

The National Audit Office reclassified Network Rail to be a public body, so that its finances counted as public finances rather than the finances of a private company. Doing so meant that some of the numbers couldn't be fudged any more, but in all reality the financial markets already treated it as such anyway. They aren't dumb. I think Heathrow is in this boat now anyway. Investors and asset managers essentially treat the core Heathrow land and operations business as quasi state controlled, because it is so constrained by government policy anyway. It can't go bust, it can't downsize, it can't expand, it can't change most of its operations without government approval. So, if a government took the step to renationalise those core operations, it would be an economic non-event. So long as it still contracted out day-to-day operation and the various bits that can actually operate privately like airport servicing, it wouldn't make a difference. Private financing for expansion will never happen if there's a real risk that a future government will come in and clip the wings of the aviation industry for environmental or other policy reasons, making it impossible to repay the loans. If, however, the state borrowed the money to build more runways and surface rail links at Heathrow, then the markets would see that as having balanced risk and reward. If the government were then stupid enough to ruin its investment, it can pay the price.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where is the lack of funding from - the airport, government or both?

Both. I understood it was only going to progress if Heathrow contributed, and I can’t imagine they woudl show much interest in doing so. The Carbon / pollution effects of land access to the airport will be all but minimised in the next decade or so, and with no 3rd runway on the near horizon, passenger growth is goign to be limited.

What’s the status on the Southern version?

See above!

 

[HSTEd]

The impacts of Heathrow are probably going to get worse with time as development inevitably envelopes the airport.

Millions are already blighted by it, it is fundamentally not a good place for an airport.

Probably a good idea to stop spending money trying to make it fit for purpose, when it never can be.

Especially given how dicey aviation growth is looking with the climate and all.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes but at a greater cost to fast London trains from the southwest. But that's a separate debate.

It’s not really a debate. It’s more like your one man campaign. Is there actually anyone else that thinks it’s a problem?

 

[sh24]

It’s not really a debate. It’s more like your one man campaign. Is there actually anyone else that thinks it’s a problem?

If OOC gives a better interchange onto EL, then I'm all for it.

As someone noted above, longer term the huge development happening will create a W London city centre to rival West End/City and Docklands. That's going to be good for London and good for South West businesses too.

 

[Class 170101]

The impacts of Heathrow are probably going to get worse with time as development inevitably envelopes the airport.

But why would you develop anything there? Even if it was developed I wouldn't buy there as I wouldn't be able to sell it on. The whole area is blighted because of a propsal to build the 3rd Runway either in the recent past, the present or the future.

Millions are already blighted by it, it is fundamentally not a good place for an airport.

Arguably because it is blighted it is probably the best place in preference to somewhere else. The whole idea of the 3rd Runway at Heathrow is of course crackers for many reasons including building it over the M25, an extremely busy motorway and the chaos whilst you build it, but blight isn't one of them.

Probably a good idea to stop spending money trying to make it fit for purpose, when it never can be.

It could be with the right infrastructure supporting it but the private sector doesn't wish to contribute and I have no idea (on a reasonable basis) what it wants in order to make it contribute. If Heathrow feels it shouldn't contribute directly them perhaps taxation is the only way.

Especially given how dicey aviation growth is looking with the climate and all.

Not sure about this I thought aviation was back to where it was or near enough there pre covid. The climate won't bother those businesses despite what they say. Clearly they will look for alternative greener fuels for the PR side but I've yet to see a realistic alternative for flying anything but (and its a very big but) perhaps the shortest of distances.

If OOC gives a better interchange onto EL, then I'm all for it.

As someone noted above, longer term the huge development happening will create a W London city centre to rival West End/City and Docklands. That's going to be good for London and good for South West businesses too.

But public transport is currently very difficult from the SW into Heathrow so Old Oak, slightly further northeast isn't exactly going to improve things for this cohort. Arguably it needs Southern Heathrow Access but @Bald Rick has already poured lots of cold water on this.