Would we need a GWML high speed line?

[Benjwri]

This new line removes all London commuter traffic west of Maidenhead from the GWML, allowing it to specialise in being the high speed long distance line this thread espouses.

Being pedantic you would still surely have the 2tph from Reading via Twyford, or are you suggesting they lose their Elizabeth Line service. It also makes little difference to remove trains from the fasts or reliefs that far up, the capacity constraint is after Airport Junction on both lines, and your suggestion only removes trains from the reliefs, which is of no help to the fast trains which would get stuck behind the slower Elizabeth Line services using the Reliefs even if more paths were available.

-£1.0Bn from Heathrow: gets faster and more frequent services, but more importantly an ample supply of cheaper staff a 10-minute train commute away;

Where is Heathrow getting this £1bn from? The whole reason the Western link hasn't happened is they couldn't afford the £900 million, Heathrow has enough to worry about to fund the new runway if that were to ever happen. I highly doubt they would fund such a scheme, considering for the airport itself it offers relatively few (Or perhaps even, less) benefits to a Western Link to the airport.

Obviously the advent of such a tunnel from OOC to Heathrow would also present a significant loss in revenue for the airport, since it would be the death toll for the Heathrow Express, and would decrease traffic and therefore revenue for the airport tunnels. To put it into perspective the loss of the Heathrow Express represents a lost of £30 million profit from pre covid numbers.

The only way to solve this would be higher charges being levied from use of the tunnel, therefore increasing the cost of travel via it, which in turn would have to have knock on impact for prices across the entire South West from London, to maintain fare continuity.

 

[bbuuttlleerr]

In response to Benjwri re: Twyford services and Heathrow's contribution:

Non-T5 GWML Elizabeth Line services would continue - and may increase if only to maintain service frequency, given this line takes over some Stopping and Semifast services that continued to Paddington. It does remove some Fasts too: Newbury and Oxford to Paddington.

The Heathrow premium can still be levied upon exiting that station. Staff are already exempt from this. Those passing through Heathrow would pay normal fares.

I meant it would remove London commuters west of Maidenhead geographically (Twyford in rail terms):
A majority of Reading commuters would switch, which effectively means a lot of Bracknell & Wokingham passengers too.
95% of Oxford+Didcot+Newbury (plus all stations along their lines) will stay on these trains through to central London rather than change onto the GWML for Paddington. Same for those along the Basingstoke Line; it'll also attract some Basingstoke and SWML passengers too.

Staffing costs and the difficulty in acquiring and retaining mostly low-paid / minimum wage employees is a massive proportion of Heathrow's costs. Even the slightest improvement will make some kind of contribution worth their while. Having 200,000 people in affordable homes and who don't need to run a car, within a 10 minute commute will be very valuable to them.

 

[JonathanH]

West Windsor station could see >20M passengers/year with 10,000 commuting to Heathrow alone (they’ll need 20,000 more staff post-Runway 3).

Is runway 3 happening in the near future? Surely that is buried pretty deep in the long grass?

 

[bbuuttlleerr]

Is runway 3 happening in the near future? Surely that is buried pretty deep in the long grass?

Government policy is still for it to proceed, just a matter of economics and the no doubt endless objections.

This Line is wholly dependant on West Windsor, whose justification would be enhanced by Runway 3 proceeding. A new town is a 15-year endeavour by which time the GWML will be even more in need of relief.

It should be noted West Windsor is entirely my fabrication! But such a project seems to be the solution to a lot of problems.
And a new town is the only way to fund a major rail expansion at potentially little cost to the taxpayer hence posting the premise here.

 

[Benjwri]

Newbury and Oxford to Paddington.

Are you suggesting these fasts are run by Class 345s? They are in no way suitable for such long distances, with no toilets etc, but also this will significantly increase journey times, with extra stops, and using 90mph stock rather than 125mph stock.

95% of Oxford+Didcot+Newbury (plus all stations along their lines) will stay on these trains through to central London rather than change onto the GWML for Paddington.

By the time this was all operational OOC would be long open, making the change onto the Elizabeth Line. The speed benefit of 125mph stock will mean it is far faster to travel on the GWR fast services.

The Heathrow premium can still be levied upon exiting that station. Staff are already exempt from this. Those passing through Heathrow would pay normal fares.

To do this under the current fare structure would be impossible regardless, unless you ban break of journey on all tickets, which is a significant loss of freedom in rail tickets.
But also currently that Heathrow price goes to Heathrow. Legally the only way for that to happen would be for Heathrow to own these new tunnels and charge track access costs, which would mean every train pays them and therefore everyone's tickets increase in price.

 

[bbuuttlleerr]

will mean it is far faster to travel on the GWR fast services

Given additional Stock would need to be purchased anyway, Class 345b could be specced for 125mph (although for platform commonality I was thinking a 110mph Aventra).

Like many GWML Fasts, this Line's longer-distance services would be scheduled for just one stop between Reading and OOC, at either West Windsor or Heathrow.

no toilets etc

Yeah I did think on-platform toilets would be required at West Windsor & Heathrow. Their ~10tph of service wouldn't make a toilet break super costly.

under the current fare structure would be impossible regardless, unless you ban break of journey on all tickets

Interesting! I'm sure some kind of exception could be made, especially given tap-in/tap-out (likely combined with App location tracking) will be the norm by then.
If not, Heathrow can charge whatever separate premium they like for the privilege of exiting their station. They wouldn't own the Line in the same way they own the Heathrow Link Line.

Thanks for the useful feedback!

 

[73128]

On a pedantic point, I feel these should properly be called Dual-Voltage Bi-modes as you don't call a 750v/25KV unit a 'bi-mode'.

Bigger problem is that GWR are about to hand back their stock of 25KV/750V/Diesel units to the ROSCO, so where do these units come from?

from their new build, intended as diesel or battery, plus ac plus dc (not least for Reading to Gatwick). Churchward project is currently looking into this, effectively to replace all non 387 and IET stock over time with a single basic type, possibly with different interior configurations for different types of routes...

Are you suggesting these fasts are run by Class 345s? They are in no way suitable for such long distances, with no toilets etc, but also this will significantly increase journey times, with extra stops, and using 90mph stock rather than 125mph stock.

By the time this was all operational OOC would be long open, making the change onto the Elizabeth Line. The speed benefit of 125mph stock will mean it is far faster to travel on the GWR fast services.

To do this under the current fare structure would be impossible regardless, unless you ban break of journey on all tickets, which is a significant loss of freedom in rail tickets.
But also currently that Heathrow price goes to Heathrow. Legally the only way for that to happen would be for Heathrow to own these new tunnels and charge track access costs, which would mean every train pays them and therefore everyone's tickets increase in price.

there are precedents abroad, e.g. at Brussels Airport, where the levy is only payable on exiting or entering the staion, not passing through of changing trains there.

 

[quantinghome]

Cracking open the crayons, let's make some optimistic assumptions about the long term future:

HS2 is built in full.
Later on, HS3 is built from Toton to London.

Freed-up capacity on HS2 can be then filled via a relatively short stretch of new line from Aylesbury to Didcot, plugging Bristol and South Wales services into HS2. GWR finally gets to Euston. London end of GWR is freed up. May even provide a fast (albeit circuitous) route from Bristol to the north.

The only 'slight problem' would be the junction with HS2 which would reduce capacity.

 

[stuu]

Cracking open the crayons, let's make some optimistic assumptions about the long term future:

HS2 is built in full.
Later on, HS3 is built from Toton to London.

Freed-up capacity on HS2 can be then filled via a relatively short stretch of new line from Aylesbury to Didcot, plugging Bristol and South Wales services into HS2. GWR finally gets to Euston. London end of GWR is freed up. May even provide a fast (albeit circuitous) route from Bristol to the north.

The only 'slight problem' would be the junction with HS2 which would reduce capacity.

That would only provide capacity for ~6tph into Euston. I'm not sure that's going to be worthwhile, compared to interventions at the London end

 

[zwk500]

Cracking open the crayons, let's make some optimistic assumptions about the long term future:

HS2 is built in full.
Later on, HS3 is built from Toton to London.

Freed-up capacity on HS2 can be then filled via a relatively short stretch of new line from Aylesbury to Didcot, plugging Bristol and South Wales services into HS2. GWR finally gets to Euston. London end of GWR is freed up. May even provide a fast (albeit circuitous) route from Bristol to the north.

The only 'slight problem' would be the junction with HS2 which would reduce capacity.

I can't see a second HSL into London from the North, not after what HS2's gone through. What might be feasible is a connection from south of Birmingham Interchange over to just south of Bromsgrove, to allow XC services from Yorkshire to avoid New Street.

 

[Meerkat]

Is the problem Paddington, or the fast lines from there to Slough?
If its the latter the only solution is a very expensive and politically tricky (its not in the north!) tunnel, and I don't know where you bring it out at the Paddington end.
If its Paddington then do we just have to shrug and make do, hope ECTS can help?

I can't see a second HSL into London from the North, not after what HS2's gone through. What might be feasible is a connection from south of Birmingham Interchange over to just south of Bromsgrove, to allow XC services from Yorkshire to avoid New Street.

I would have thought it would be easier to free up New Street by putting cross city local trains in a tunnel under the city centre.

 

[quantinghome]

I can't see a second HSL into London from the North, not after what HS2's gone through. What might be feasible is a connection from south of Birmingham Interchange over to just south of Bromsgrove, to allow XC services from Yorkshire to avoid New Street.

We'll see. There are certainly lessons to be learned. But once HS2 is actually open, and people see what a step change in capacity, reliability, journey time it gives, and that it's not 'just for rich MPs on expenses' and all the rest of the rubbish the antis come out with, I suspect it will be seen in a much more favourable light.

 

[zwk500]

Is the problem Paddington, or the fast lines from there to Slough?

A bit of both.

If its the latter the only solution is a very expensive and politically tricky (its not in the north!) tunnel, and I don't know where you bring it out at the Paddington end.

You'd have to expand Paddington, and realistically the only space available is downwards.

If its Paddington then do we just have to shrug and make do, hope ECTS can help?

ETCS may help slightly, but Headways on the GWML are already down to 2 minutes in places and it'll be hard to get it much lower. ISTR a discussion of ETCS fitment at Waterloo where a 90 second headway required 50m length blocks.

I would have thought it would be easier to free up New Street by putting cross city local trains in a tunnel under the city centre.

Where do you put the portals? No, avoiding Birmingham is by far the easier solution (a good maxim for driving the M6, and life in General I find )

We'll see. There are certainly lessons to be learned. But once HS2 is actually open, and people see what a step change in capacity, reliability, journey time it gives, and that it's not 'just for rich MPs on expenses' and all the rest of the rubbish the antis come out with, I suspect it will be seen in a much more favourable light.

Maybe, but physically putting the tunnels under North london with all it's tube lines and then finding space next to King's Cross or Liverpool Street (or some other masterplan) for a 10x400m platform station will only increase in cost as time goes on.
You might get some bits of ECML bypass, but not a full HS line.

 

[Meerkat]

Where do you put the portals? No, avoiding Birmingham is by far the easier solution (a good maxim for driving the M6, and life in General I find )

Well yes indeed, the toll is a bargain!
I reckon it would be easier to find space to put the portals around Birmingham than to get an agreement on bunging a high speed line round the south west of Birmingham.
We've already seen the huge NIMBY pressure from people who get no gain from HS2 - that would be repeated round Birmingham.

You'd have to expand Paddington, and realistically the only space available is downwards.

That's just not going to happen in a financially viable way is it? Is platform length maxed out - ie what's the maximum length train you could run from Paddington stopping only at the biggest places?

 

[Bald Rick]

Later on, HS3 is built from Toton to London.

HS3?

if there’s another HSL to the north, it will be via Stansted, Cambridge to Yorkshire, and not via the Nottingham / Derby area.

 

[zwk500]

Well yes indeed, the toll is a bargain!
I reckon it would be easier to find space to put the portals around Birmingham than to get an agreement on bunging a high speed line round the south west of Birmingham.

I disagree, considering how much of the line in Birmingham is developed up to the boundary and that there's lots of viaducts and retaining. Walls.

We've already seen the huge NIMBY pressure from people who get no gain from HS2 - that would be repeated round Birmingham.

No its wouldn't, because middle class hypocrites don't care about Birmingham like they do the cotswolds.

That's just not going to happen in a financially viable way is it?

in a way it already has with crossrail.a

Is platform length maxed out - ie what's the maximum length train you could run from Paddington stopping only at the biggest places?

Pretty much maxed out with IETs.

 

[Meerkat]

I disagree, considering how much of the line in Birmingham is developed up to the boundary and that there's lots of viaducts and retaining. Walls.

Duddeston are doesn’t look unfeasible.
south side difficul, though if you demolished the student housing just north of Five Ways.
Certainly not easy nor cheap, but then neither will a line round the south be.

No its wouldn't, because middle class hypocrites don't care about Birmingham like they do the cotswolds.

The ones in the affected areas will, and there will be far fewer supporters

in a way it already has with crossrail.a

True, but more underground would need somewhere to go or a lot of platforms - huge project.

Pretty much maxed out with IETs.

I assume it can’t be lengthened in any practicable and buildable way? There Is space at the stops end before you hit buildings…..

 

[zwk500]

Duddeston are doesn’t look unfeasible.
south side difficul, though if you demolished the student housing just north of Five Ways.
Certainly not easy nor cheap, but then neither will a line round the south be.

Demolishing housing would be a retrograde step

The ones in the affected areas will, and there will be far fewer supporters

The opposition to HS2 has largely come from Home Counties dwellers.

True, but more underground would need somewhere to go or a lot of platforms - huge project.

Indeed - see Antwerp Central for something approaching the scale.

I assume it can’t be lengthened in any practicable and buildable way? There Is space at the stops end before you hit buildings…..

No room at the western end of the throat, and you can only eat into the concourse so far before passenger flow becomes too constricted.

 

[stuu]

Demolishing housing would be a retrograde step

Why? Housing gets demolished all the time for all manner of projects. Student housing is a lot easier to demolish as there's no one with sentimental attachment/loss of community to worry about

 

[Meerkat]

Demolishing housing would be a retrograde step

It’s student housing, they are only temporary residents anyway so can Be put elsewhere and then a replacement built over the top once the rail stuff finished.

The opposition to HS2 has largely come from Home Counties dwellers.

Wouldn’t you be going through the Brum Home Counties, and with far fewer supportive voices to counteract. How many will go into the breach for Brum-SW links?

 

[HSTEd]

if there’s another HSL to the north, it will be via Stansted, Cambridge to Yorkshire, and not via the Nottingham / Derby area.

I'd argue that the obvious route for a HSL to Yorkshire from Cambridge would be to slew via Nottingham.


It's not like there is much east of there to hit in population terms, it'd just be a line through beet fields till you get to Doncaster, and even then Doncaster is hardly a metropolis.

Which given that HSLs tend to require high population densities to work sounds like a bad plan. You won't fill nine or ten 400m trains an hour out there.

 

[Benjwri]

It’s student housing, they are only temporary residents anyway so can Be put elsewhere and then a replacement built over the top once the rail stuff finished.

It's this kind of attitude that has caused issues like the recent case where University of Bristol students were housed in Newport. Almost every university around the country has an accommodation shortage. You can't just turf the students out because there simply isn't space for them to be moved. I would argue having to move further afield, in the case I mentioned, is more damaging for a student than it would be for someone working a normal job.

 

[Meerkat]

I'd argue that the obvious route for a HSL to Yorkshire from Cambridge would be to slew via Nottingham.


It's not like there is much east of there to hit in population terms, it'd just be a line through beet fields till you get to Doncaster, and even then Doncaster is hardly a metropolis.

Which given that HSLs tend to require high population densities to work sounds like a bad plan. You won't fill nine or ten 400m trains an hour out there.

They wouldn’t want to serve anywhere out there, just get to Yorkshire, the North East, and Scotland, faster.

It's this kind of attitude that has caused issues like the recent case where University of Bristol students were housed in Newport. Almost every university around the country has an accommodation shortage. You can't just turf the students out because there simply isn't space for them to be moved. I would argue having to move further afield, in the case I mentioned, is more damaging for a student than it would be for someone working a normal job.

I don’t think they have an accommodation shortage, they have clearly taken on too many students!

 

[quantinghome]

HS3?

if there’s another HSL to the north, it will be via Stansted, Cambridge to Yorkshire, and not via the Nottingham / Derby area.

With apologies to the mods for going off topic...

Yes, via Stansted and Cambridge, but surely it would be easier to plug it in to HS2 at Toton rather than duplicate a high speed line into Yorkshire?

 

[HSTEd]

They wouldn’t want to serve anywhere out there, just get to Yorkshire, the North East, and Scotland, faster.

You won't be able to fill even half a HSL with just those destinations!

None of them are particularly full of people, even if you send half the traffic out of London into East Anglia from Cambridge.

The capacity of HSLs is so enormous that getting enough traffic to defray the construction cost is a major constraint on routing.

EDIT:

Diverting from a straight line Cambridge-Leeds to run Cambridge-Nottingham-Leeds adds ten kilometres to the path length (ignoring terrain in both cases obviously). That's less than two minutes at 320km/h.

And if you aren't going to Leeds then you certainly won't fill the line.

 

[Meerkat]

As I can’t see another HS line being built without the eastern branch of HS2 going to at least Toton why would you put another HS line through there?

Personally I think it would be better to do a load of bypasses on the ECML, as i do for the GWML (bringing us back on topic).
The big problem for GW is Paddington, or where else you could put a station.

 

[zwk500]

As I can’t see another HS line being built without the eastern branch of HS2 going to at least Toton why would you put another HS line through there?

Personally I think it would be better to do a load of bypasses on the ECML, as i do for the GWML (bringing us back on topic).
The big problem for GW is Paddington, or where else you could put a station.

Tbf beyond reading the GW doesn't need any more bypasses, because it has so many routing options. A few speed upgrades on the B&H maybe. The problem area is Paddington-Airport junction, and there's no realistic option to solve it.

 

[JonathanH]

We'll see. There are certainly lessons to be learned. But once HS2 is actually open, and people see what a step change in capacity, reliability, journey time it gives, and that it's not 'just for rich MPs on expenses' and all the rest of the rubbish the antis come out with, I suspect it will be seen in a much more favourable light.

Unlikely, given that the building of HS1 didn't lead to HS2 being seen in a favourable light.

 

[Irascible]

It's this kind of attitude that has caused issues like the recent case where University of Bristol students were housed in Newport. Almost every university around the country has an accommodation shortage. You can't just turf the students out because there simply isn't space for them to be moved. I would argue having to move further afield, in the case I mentioned, is more damaging for a student than it would be for someone working a normal job.

Should wander round Exeter one day, there's new student accommodation *everywhere*. To the point I wonder where anyone not a student is meant to live now ( not in Exeter, presumably! ).

Tbf beyond reading the GW doesn't need any more bypasses, because it has so many routing options. A few speed upgrades on the B&H maybe. The problem area is Paddington-Airport junction, and there's no realistic option to solve it.

A few in South Devon ( but let's not rehash that again ) and some improvement Taunton-Brum would make a difference if it's possible, but an actual HSL is probably asking a bit much. What was the inflation adjusted cost per km of the GWML electrification vs a km of HS2 plain line?

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd argue that the obvious route for a HSL to Yorkshire from Cambridge would be to slew via Nottingham.


It's not like there is much east of there to hit in population terms…

But that’s the point. With the current HS2 running services to Nottingham, there’s not much point having an East Coast HSL going there too. You want to get to Yorkshire as easily as possible. And it’s a lot easier across the western fens and Trent plain, there’s essentially nothing in the way.

And you probably could get reasonably close to capacity, with services to Cambridge (potentially extended to Norwich / Kings Lynn) Lincoln, Leeds, Humberside, Teeside, Tyneside and Scotland.