Acton-Northolt Line Status

[MarkyT]

Is there still the physical possibility of it being connected to the Elizabeth Line, for a new branch (perhaps extending some of the Paddington turnbacks to High Wycombe)?

I think it would be difficult to construct a suitable junction for the traffic levels. A junction in the same area was proposed when the new CR link to the WCML was considered, and it included grade separation with ramps/bridges in the area currently reserved for the middle reversing sidings to the west. The narrative then was that such a junction was impossible to accommodate alongside any Chiltern terminal platform(s), so practically it's one scheme or the other.

 

[Watershed]

I think it would be difficult to construct a suitable junction for the traffic levels. A junction in the same area was proposed when the new CR link to the WCML was considered, and it included grade separation with ramps/bridges in the area currently reserved for the middle reversing sidings to the west. The narrative then was that such a junction was impossible to accommodate alongside any Chiltern terminal platform(s), so practically it's one scheme or the other.

Given the "wasted" connectivity from 90% of Shenfield trains terminating at Paddington, I would posit that extending Elizabeth line trains onto the Chiltern line would offer far greater benefit overall.

Of course there's the small issue of cost, particular as you'd need to electrify the Chiltern line, or at least parts of it. So in reality we know which option is going to be taken up, if any...

 

[Falcon1200]

with 4tph going to each of High Wycombe, Banbury, Oxford and Aylesbury/MKC.

I'm sure those would change in time, but basically aiming for an hourly across the Chiltern network. I would think 2tph stopping to HW and 2tph to Oxford (semi until HW) would be better, and more of a regular user service.

Such frequent services would surely have to be instead of, not in addition to, the Marylebone trains and would lead to the closure of that station?!

 

[cle]

Given the "wasted" connectivity from 90% of Shenfield trains terminating at Paddington, I would posit that extending Elizabeth line trains onto the Chiltern line would offer far greater benefit overall.

Of course there's the small issue of cost, particular as you'd need to electrify the Chiltern line, or at least parts of it. So in reality we know which option is going to be taken up, if any...

I agree. It's impossible and won't happen. But imagine if the NNL/Chiltern was wired (severe platform extensions needed) - and Crossrail services were extended.

I'd probably think 4tph stoppers to High Wycombe. No new stations - the Central line is quiet enough as is, after Ealing abandoned it! Or the Central would need another branch somehow - like the Uxbridge/Piccadilly idea maybe. But THAT doesn't solve the edven platforms that the District via Rayners Lane might... many conundrums but I digress.

So Greenford etc I'd skip adding, and maybe only have one Ruislip for Chiltern/Crossrail - maybe only keep South. So West/Gardens people could change there.

But maybe you could do more tph, like Gerrards Cross turns - and have other patterns. You'd want four tracking esp at stations like Beaconsfield, re-do Denham etc etc.

Such frequent services would surely have to be instead of, not in addition to, the Marylebone trains and would lead to the closure of that station?!

I think it would be in addition. This would instigate a lot of new journeys. Think - people who might not have taken a Canary Wahrf job, Heathrow demand, HS2 and GWML connections at OOC, etc etc.

Marylebone would have to serve the Amersham line, and runs 12tph from 5pm to 6pm, for example. And all the services to Bicester, Oxford, Banbury/Leamington and on. But maybe Crossrail/OOC service could become a feeder - although Wembley Stadium and Northolt Park would need consideration. Sudburys should go, or be properly served by 4tph.

 

[Class15]

Such frequent services would surely have to be instead of, not in addition to, the Marylebone trains and would lead to the closure of that station?!

I think it’s 1tph to each destination, giving a total of 4tph. But it confused me too!

 

[12LDA28C]

I agree. It's impossible and won't happen. But imagine if the NNL/Chiltern was wired (severe platform extensions needed) - and Crossrail services were extended.

I'd probably think 4tph stoppers to High Wycombe. No new stations - the Central line is quiet enough as is, after Ealing abandoned it! Or the Central would need another branch somehow - like the Uxbridge/Piccadilly idea maybe. But THAT doesn't solve the edven platforms that the District via Rayners Lane might... many conundrums but I digress.

So Greenford etc I'd skip adding, and maybe only have one Ruislip for Chiltern/Crossrail - maybe only keep South. So West/Gardens people could change there.

But maybe you could do more tph, like Gerrards Cross turns - and have other patterns. You'd want four tracking esp at stations like Beaconsfield, re-do Denham etc etc.


I think it would be in addition. This would instigate a lot of new journeys. Think - people who might not have taken a Canary Wahrf job, Heathrow demand, HS2 and GWML connections at OOC, etc etc.

Marylebone would have to serve the Amersham line, and runs 12tph from 5pm to 6pm, for example. And all the services to Bicester, Oxford, Banbury/Leamington and on. But maybe Crossrail/OOC service could become a feeder - although Wembley Stadium and Northolt Park would need consideration. Sudburys should go, or be properly served by 4tph.

This is all cloudcuckooland stuff, and belongs in a 'speculation if money were no object' section of the forum. There isn't the capacity on the Chilterns for all these additional trains and occasional rumours of discontinuous electrification of the CML is about as far advanced as any future electrification plans have got.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A small issue of a lack of OHLE on the Chilterns...

I was asking about the physical possibility really. OHLE on the ANL and the Chiltern Main Line from Ruislip onwards could be reinstated as a 4 track electrified railway to Wycombe as the first stage, not really a major barrier given the benefits of Elizabeth Line services to High Wycombe.

I think it would be difficult to construct a suitable junction for the traffic levels. A junction in the same area was proposed when the new CR link to the WCML was considered, and it included grade separation with ramps/bridges in the area currently reserved for the middle reversing sidings to the west. The narrative then was that such a junction was impossible to accommodate alongside any Chiltern terminal platform(s), so practically it's one scheme or the other.

Ah OK, so you would have to invest a lot into a junction, but it's still technically possible. I don't really see the point of any Chiltern terminal platforms to be honest.

Most people are going to be changing onto a EL service there to go further into London anyway, and running 4tph Elizabeth Line through to High Wycombe (as others have suggested), in conjunction with a 3/4 track electrified Chiltern Main Line from Ruislip to HW makes sense to segregate the increasingly well patronised longer distance Chiltern services from the High Wycombe/Gerrards Cross stopper traffic taking up valuable space at Marylebone.
You could accommodate the Wembley Stadium/Sudbury and Harrow Road/Sudbury Hill Harrow/Northolt Park stops on the High Wycombe shorts by moving them to the Oxford services and removing Beaconsfield/Gerrards Cross (who would have reasonably timed EL services into a much larger swathe of Central London - you could retain some peak calls if there was strong demand for it.)

I would add Greenford as an interchange, because it would help traffic from West London and further out on the GWML stoppers access the Chiltern Main Line. Other than that, it's a great plan to make use of existing railway alignments and drive passenger growth from High Wycombe (and add capacity on longer distance services).

 

[12LDA28C]

I was asking about the physical possibility really. OHLE on the ANL and the Chiltern Main Line from Ruislip onwards could be reinstated as a 4 track electrified railway to Wycombe as the first stage, not really a major barrier given the benefits of Elizabeth Line services to High Wycombe.

Ah OK, so you would have to invest a lot into a junction, but it's still technically possible. I don't really see the point of any Chiltern terminal platforms to be honest.

Most people are going to be changing onto a EL service there to go further into London anyway, and running 4tph Elizabeth Line through to High Wycombe (as others have suggested), in conjunction with a 3/4 track electrified Chiltern Main Line from Ruislip to HW makes sense to segregate the increasingly well patronised longer distance Chiltern services from the High Wycombe/Gerrards Cross stopper traffic taking up valuable space at Marylebone.
You could accommodate the Wembley Stadium/Sudbury and Harrow Road/Sudbury Hill Harrow/Northolt Park stops on the High Wycombe shorts by moving them to the Oxford services and removing Beaconsfield/Gerrards Cross (who would have reasonably timed EL services into a much larger swathe of Central London - you could retain some peak calls if there was strong demand for it.)

I would add Greenford as an interchange, because it would help traffic from West London and further out on the GWML stoppers access the Chiltern Main Line. Other than that, it's a great plan to make use of existing railway alignments and drive passenger growth from High Wycombe (and add capacity on longer distance services).

So you want to put some local stops into Oxford services and remove stops at the much larger centres of population such as Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross because they'll be served by EL trains? This is literally the opposite of what should happen, as the well-off residents of those towns want a fast service to London or Oxford, not stopping at every lamp-post. Not of course that there is any chance of this happening, ever.

EL services would be much more appropriate calling at the smaller, less-used stations such as the Sudburys. (assuming there was space to extend the platforms). Anyway, that's enough of this nonsense which is not what this thread was about in the first place.

 

[The Planner]

I was asking about the physical possibility really. OHLE on the ANL and the Chiltern Main Line from Ruislip onwards could be reinstated as a 4 track electrified railway to Wycombe as the first stage, not really a major barrier given the benefits of Elizabeth Line services to High Wycombe.

You cannot reinstate what was never there in the first place.

 

[AlastairFraser]

So you want to put some local stops into Oxford services and remove stops at the much larger centres of population such as Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross because they'll be served by EL trains? This is literally the opposite of what should happen, as the well-off residents of those towns want a fast service to London or Oxford, not stopping at every lamp-post. Not of course that there is any chance of this happening, ever.

EL services would be much more appropriate calling at the smaller, less-used stations such as the Sudburys. (assuming there was space to extend the platforms). Anyway, that's enough of this nonsense which is not what this thread was about in the first place.

EL services would be faster than the line into Marylebone is at getting people to where they want to be in London. Heading NW towards Oxford/Princes Ris/HW is a different kettle, but again a frequent reliable EL service is bound to be more popular than a slow and overcrowded service into Marylebone.
And EL can't serve the Sudburys/Wembley/Northolt Park as that is on the wrong line (the New North Main Line that EL could use joins the Chiltern Main Line just east of South Ruislip).

You cannot reinstate what was never there in the first place.

I thought that most of the CML was once 4 track or at least 3 track? I'm pretty sure that Gerrards Cross tunnel was definitely built prepared for the reinstatement (should it happen) and HW station had through tracks at some point.

 

[The Planner]

I thought that most of the CML was once 4 track or at least 3 track? I'm pretty sure that Gerrards Cross tunnel was definitely built prepared for the reinstatement (should it happen) and HW station had through tracks at some point.

No, stations were on loops, and short ones at that.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think it’s 1tph to each destination, giving a total of 4tph.

That would be (slightly) more achievable!

 

[cle]

This is all cloudcuckooland stuff, and belongs in a 'speculation if money were no object' section of the forum. There isn't the capacity on the Chilterns for all these additional trains and occasional rumours of discontinuous electrification of the CML is about as far advanced as any future electrification plans have got.

Well, until we have that section, this is the right one. If you don't like speculation, feel free to go somewhere more suited to your tastes.

Worth saying that these plans (the 4tph out of the bays) have been documented, it's not complete fabrication.

And the rest is fairly logical talk about how to enhance the network if that happened (electrification - which is in every Chiltern discussion, loops/more tracks - segregating EL basically) - and then the role of Marylebone after.

Not really that crazy.

I was asking about the physical possibility really. OHLE on the ANL and the Chiltern Main Line from Ruislip onwards could be reinstated as a 4 track electrified railway to Wycombe as the first stage, not really a major barrier given the benefits of Elizabeth Line services to High Wycombe.

It's more the station loops, the weird Denham layout - I think getting 4 tracks to Gerrards Cross would be more realistic, but I could see that people would be reluctant to not have it more segregated and carry/spread delays.

EL services would be faster than the line into Marylebone is at getting people to where they want to be in London. Heading NW towards Oxford/Princes Ris/HW is a different kettle, but again a frequent reliable EL service is bound to be more popular than a slow and overcrowded service into Marylebone.

I think if you asked people of say, Hayes or even Slough if they would prefer more faster trains to Paddington, but give up their one seat rides to West End, City or Docklands, they would not revert. Much like Japan, and all the through-running and merging done, even across multiple business entities, a single longer ride is far preferable once the plaster is ripped. Their equivalent services go far further - you'd have Oxford and Bicester in this plan with Limited Expresses.

Wish we could trust ourselves to have station toilets, and the last problem would be gone.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's more the station loops, the weird Denham layout - I think getting 4 tracks to Gerrards Cross would be more realistic, but I could see that people would be reluctant to not have it more segregated and carry/spread delays.

What's 'weird' about the layout of Denham (assume you mean the station)?

 

[Gloster]

What's 'weird' about the layout of Denham (assume you mean the station)?

Denham station was built with passenger loop on either side of the main through lines and platforms on the outside of these loops only; this is a common arrangement on this line. In December 1965 the through lines were removed and the signal box was closed in 1975. In 2008 a new Down platform was built on the site of the former Down Through as the old Down platform was suffering from subsidence.

 

[12LDA28C]

Denham station was built with passenger loop on either side of the main through lines and platforms on the outside of these loops only; this is a common arrangement on this line. In December 1965 the through lines were removed and the signal box was closed in 1975. In 2008 a new Down platform was built on the site of the former Down Through as the old Down platform was suffering from subsidence.

I'm aware of that. I just don't see what's weird about it, unless anyone was unaware of the existence of the old platform on the Down side that was replaced for the reason you state.

 

[The Planner]

I'm aware of that. I just don't see what's weird about it, unless anyone was unaware of the existence of the old platform on the Down side that was replaced for the reason you state.

Its quite a unique layout, there can't be many similar, if at all.

 

[AlastairFraser]

No, stations were on loops, and short ones at that.

Ah. Maybe reinstating the loops could help implement 4tph to Wycombe.

It's more the station loops, the weird Denham layout - I think getting 4 tracks to Gerrards Cross would be more realistic, but I could see that people would be reluctant to not have it more segregated and carry/spread delays.

I think you could get to HW with loops at all stations from west of South Ruislip just fine. Eastbound turnarounds may be awkward - maybe a bay for this on the site of the old through lines at HW would be smart (I don't think you'd need to worry about passing services here as it's unlikely that service frequency west of HW will increase by that much).

I think if you asked people of say, Hayes or even Slough if they would prefer more faster trains to Paddington, but give up their one seat rides to West End, City or Docklands, they would not revert. Much like Japan, and all the through-running and merging done, even across multiple business entities, a single longer ride is far preferable once the plaster is ripped. Their equivalent services go far further - you'd have Oxford and Bicester in this plan with Limited Expresses.

I'm not even convinced that EL services would be that much slower than Chiltern, even for places which get stops on the fastest Birmingham services. For example, on Monday, the 0644 to Marylebone from HW is non-stop and takes 26 mins.

It takes 12 mins to reach and pass South Ruislip station, for around 16.3 miles. You'd probably lose at least 5 mins on this section stopping at every station (even with electric acceleration improvements). So say 17 mins. Then it's around 7.2 miles from South Ruislip, with only one proposed stop at Greenford on this section.
If you could upgrade the line speed to 70mph between South Ruislip and Greenford and 90mph between Greenford and Old Oak Common, you may be able to make it in 7 mins.
It's then about 7 mins from Old Oak Common West Junction to Paddington EL (where it would then, of course, join a Paddington terminator).

Maybe my calculations are too optimistic, but that would make it about 31 mins to Paddington and 34 mins to Bond St/36 mins to Tottenham Court Road/38 mins to Farringdon. That would be an incredibly popular proposition for a lot of the line's users (Marylebone is a lovely station, but there isn't really a lot of large employers or tourist attractions within 10 mins of the station).

Not to mention that a stop at the Old Oak Common station would give access to Heathrow Express service with only a 10-15 min journey to all terminals at Heathrow.

 

[12LDA28C]

Ah. Maybe reinstating the loops could help implement 4tph to Wycombe.

I think you could get to HW with loops at all stations from west of South Ruislip just fine. Eastbound turnarounds may be awkward - maybe a bay for this on the site of the old through lines at HW would be smart (I don't think you'd need to worry about passing services here as it's unlikely that service frequency west of HW will increase by that much).

I'm not even convinced that EL services would be that much slower than Chiltern, even for places which get stops on the fastest Birmingham services. For example, on Monday, the 0644 to Marylebone from HW is non-stop and takes 26 mins.

It takes 12 mins to reach and pass South Ruislip station, for around 16.3 miles. You'd probably lose at least 5 mins on this section stopping at every station (even with electric acceleration improvements). So say 17 mins. Then it's around 7.2 miles from South Ruislip, with only one proposed stop at Greenford on this section.
If you could upgrade the line speed to 70mph between South Ruislip and Greenford and 90mph between Greenford and Old Oak Common, you may be able to make it in 7 mins.
It's then about 7 mins from Old Oak Common West Junction to Paddington EL (where it would then, of course, join a Paddington terminator).

Maybe my calculations are too optimistic, but that would make it about 31 mins to Paddington and 34 mins to Bond St/36 mins to Tottenham Court Road/38 mins to Farringdon. That would be an incredibly popular proposition for a lot of the line's users (Marylebone is a lovely station, but there isn't really a lot of large employers or tourist attractions within 10 mins of the station).

Not to mention that a stop at the Old Oak Common station would give access to Heathrow Express service with only a 10-15 min journey to all terminals at Heathrow.

This is all very fanciful. Are you familiar with the Chiltern route, and the line from South Ruislip to the former Old Oak Common West Junction? I’m assuming you’ll be doing away with Greenford East Signalbox and the semaphores as part of this grand scheme? And 90mph between Greenford and OOC? NR could barely maintain the line to 50mph line speed but I admire your optimism.

Regents Park and Madame Tussaud’s are two tourist attractions within ten minutes of Marylebone. What does Paddington have nearby?

 

[AlastairFraser]

This is all very fanciful. Are you familiar with the Chiltern route, and the line from South Ruislip to the former Old Oak Common West Junction? I’m assuming you’ll be doing away with Greenford East Signalbox and the semaphores as part of this grand scheme? And 90mph between Greenford and OOC? NR could barely maintain the line to 50mph line speed but I admire your optimism.

Regents Park and Madame Tussaud’s are two tourist attractions within ten minutes of Marylebone. What does Paddington have nearby?

I know that the Chiltern line between Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield is quite sharply curved, but the New North Main Line was built to carry expresses from Paddington towards Birmingham and Birkenhead. It's capable of much more than the current 50mph linespeed - that's a result of chronic underinvestment in the line since the opening of the Central Line.

Paddington is within 10 mins walk of the Lancaster Gate of Hyde Park if you count Regent's Park as a tourist attraction. It also has a major hospital next door, and a massive office development around Paddington Basin just a few minutes walk away.
These are more important for day to day flows, especially combined with the destinations within reach of the other EL core stations.

 

[Basil Jet]

Paddington is within 10 mins walk of the Lancaster Gate of Hyde Park

Lancaster Gate is a gate of Kensington Gardens near the Columbia Hotel, some way from the tube station and from Paddington. The Kensington Gardens gate closest to the tube station is called Marlborough Gate, and the nearby gate of Hyde Park is called Westbourne Gate.

 

[The Planner]

Ah. Maybe reinstating the loops could help implement 4tph to Wycombe.

If you are happy to have the stopping services with significant journey time increases. Any station loop will cost the stopper 5 minutes if its overtaken, and that is if the timetable can be planned to allow that, which is unlikely considering the amount of stations up to High Wycombe.

I think you could get to HW with loops at all stations from west of South Ruislip just fine. Eastbound turnarounds may be awkward - maybe a bay for this on the site of the old through lines at HW would be smart (I don't think you'd need to worry about passing services here as it's unlikely that service frequency west of HW will increase by that much).

Its got a bay on the east side. albeit too short at 145m

I'm not even convinced that EL services would be that much slower than Chiltern, even for places which get stops on the fastest Birmingham services. For example, on Monday, the 0644 to Marylebone from HW is non-stop and takes 26 mins.It takes 12 mins to reach and pass South Ruislip station, for around 16.3 miles. You'd probably lose at least 5 mins on this section stopping at every station (even with electric acceleration improvements). So say 17 mins.

Not a chance of 5. Even if you ignored Denham Golf Club you have Beaconsfield, Seer Green, Gerrards Cross, Denham and West Ruislip. Each of those need ½ minute dwell minimum, possibly 1 for Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross, so you are 2½-3½ down already, 30-45 seconds penalty braking as you are approach controlled and potentially at a red at the platform as you are going to be overtaken, plus acceleration from each stop is another 6 minutes, so easily a minimum of 9.

Then it's around 7.2 miles from South Ruislip, with only one proposed stop at Greenford on this section.
If you could upgrade the line speed to 70mph between South Ruislip and Greenford and 90mph between Greenford and Old Oak Common, you may be able to make it in 7 mins.
It's then about 7 mins from Old Oak Common West Junction to Paddington EL (where it would then, of course, join a Paddington terminator).

What are you assuming for any grade separated junction at South Ruislip? A stop at Greenford would be another penalty of 1½ minutes. So that leaves you 5½ to do the 7 miles, that is an average of 76mph. 5 minutes is too little.

Maybe my calculations are too optimistic,

Yes! I reckon you are at least 6 minutes short.

 

[Chris Butler]

Worth saying that these plans (the 4tph out of the bays) have been documented, it's not complete fabrication.

Genuine question. Where have these been documented ? I follow this fairly closely and have never sen such plans. Really interested if they have even been made.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Lancaster Gate is a gate of Kensington Gardens near the Columbia Hotel, some way from the tube station and from Paddington. The Kensington Gardens gate closest to the tube station is called Marlborough Gate, and the nearby gate of Hyde Park is called Westbourne Gate.

Thanks for the correction.

If you are happy to have the stopping services with significant journey time increases. Any station loop will cost the stopper 5 minutes if its overtaken, and that is if the timetable can be planned to allow that, which is unlikely considering the amount of stations up to High Wycombe.

Fair point. Could you get 4 tracks from Ruislip to Wycombe for a reasonable price?

 

[The Planner]

Thanks for the correction.

Fair point. Could you get 4 tracks from Ruislip to Wycombe for a reasonable price?

Google Maps is your friend here. Look at the viaducts and tunnels.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Its got a bay on the east side. albeit too short at 145m

That's why I referred to eastbound services I would extend the bay east to accommodate a class 345.
But where would you stable and load eastbound services without blocking P3? Surely 4tph is too much to fit in the bay.

Not a chance of 5. Even if you ignored Denham Golf Club you have Beaconsfield, Seer Green, Gerrards Cross, Denham and West Ruislip. Each of those need ½ minute dwell minimum, possibly 1 for Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross, so you are 2½-3½ down already, 30-45 seconds penalty braking as you are approach controlled and potentially at a red at the platform as you are going to be overtaken, plus acceleration from each stop is another 6 minutes, so easily a minimum of 9.

So that would make it 21 mins HW to South Ruislip, right?

What are you assuming for any grade separated junction at South Ruislip? A stop at Greenford would be another penalty of 1½ minutes. So that leaves you 5½ to do the 7 miles, that is an average of 76mph. 5 minutes is too little.

What would you estimate for this section (if South Ruislip to Greenford was upgraded to 70mph and Greenford to Old Oak Common was upgraded to 90mph)?

Yes! I reckon you are at least 6 minutes short.

Fair enough. So, if you add 6 mins, that's 37 mins to Paddington/40 mins to Bond St/42 mins to Farringdon, right? Still competitive for users unless they are heading directly to anywhere in the vicinity of Marylebone station.

Google Maps is your friend here. Look at the viaducts and tunnels.

I did think about Chalfont viaduct needing duplication, but otherwise the route seems mostly clear as far as Gerrards Cross.

 

[12LDA28C]

Thanks for the correction.

Fair point. Could you get 4 tracks from Ruislip to Wycombe for a reasonable price?

No. You could reinstate the through roads at a few locations for a reasonable price. But widening viaducts to accommodate 4 tracks such as the one over the M25? Forget it.

 

[cle]

Genuine question. Where have these been documented ? I follow this fairly closely and have never sen such plans. Really interested if they have even been made.

I need to look tomorrow, sorry. I think a OOC or HS2 master plan type document.

What would you estimate for this section (if South Ruislip to Greenford was upgraded to 70mph and Greenford to Old Oak Common was upgraded to 90mph)?

Easy answer is to skip Greenford. And run fast. It’s not that important. Including the little line to West Ealing.

And the Central line will be empty! Plus those West Ruislip branch stations have direct one seats into West End and City. Better to focus on badly served markets. And build housing where doable and around stations.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Easy answer is to skip Greenford. And run fast. It’s not that important. Including the little line to West Ealing.

And the Central line will be empty! Plus those West Ruislip branch stations have direct one seats into West End and City. Better to focus on badly served markets. And build housing where doable and around stations.

I don't see the point in skipping it, you'd only save a couple of mins at most. Central emptying out further will be useful, because then you can build large areas of high density housing around the more closely spaced stations to fill that (especially around the east end of West Ruislip station and the parts of Park Royal close to North Acton station).

 

[Harpo]

Given the "wasted" connectivity from 90% of Shenfield trains terminating at Paddington

Precisely! The Little London mentality that’s added trains terminating from the east below Paddington, to the trains terminating from the west above, and a highly insular core that’s wilfully eliminated interoperability.