Crossrail - West of Paddington - Usage & Future Capacity?

[itfcfan]

The local services west of Paddington (through Ealing Broadway to Heathrow/Slough and beyond) currently receive a pretty poor service in comparison to many routes in other areas of London. Most services are currently 2-6 car turbos (46-138m length) with fairly low frequency (4tph West Ealing, 2tph Hanwell, 6tph at Southall, etc).

Electrification and Crossrail are set to drastically change the situation. The turbos will be replaced 200m class 345s and instead of stopping at Paddington the route will continue through main employment areas of central London. With all the hype around Crossrail, its easy to miss the fact that although trains will be longer the frequency at many stations will not be "tube-like". Ealing Broadway, Southall and Hayes & Harlington will see 10/8tph peak/off-peak but stations like West Ealing and Hanwell will be limited to 4tph all day.

Based on 2015 data, West Ealing and Hanwell had less than 1 million entries/exits per year:

West Ealing 0.99m
Hanwell 0.34m

Ref: [url]https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/train-station-usage/resource/b23a39a1-f387-43ba-950a-19d1cfd8aab6[/url]

However, underground stations within 2 miles of them had 2-4m entries/exits:

(Central Line)
Hangar Lane 3.94m
Perival 2.41m
Greenford 4.71m

(Piccadilly Line)
South Ealing 3.70m
Northfields 4.08m
Boston Manor 2.24m

Ref: [url]https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/multi-year-station-entry-exit-figures.xls[/url]

These parts of the Central/Piccadilly line have 13tph peak with 130m/106m length trains respectively.

The areas surrounding West Ealing and Hanwell have a similar population density to the underground stations two miles away. It seems likely that once people adjust to the new service available, usage at these stations is going to increase substantially. Will the Crossrail service be able to handle this suppressed demand? Maybe the demand will be self-managing with people who are unable to board Crossrail or put-off by the low frequency of service reverting to buses/etc to get to Ealing Broadway or the Central/Piccadilly lines for a more frequent service?

If Crossrail usage west of Paddington does exceed the capacity available from the 10tph planned, are there any measures that could be made with the existing infrastructure to send more than 10tph past Paddington/Westbourne Park?

If capacity does become a problem, the most obvious thing seems to switch the Heathrow Express paths to Crossrail once the usage rights expire and move them to the relief lines stopping all/most stations between Heathrow/Hayes & Harlington and Paddington in place of the residual GWR "slow" services to Oxford/etc that currently run on the reliefs to the mains (making them non-stop until after Heathrow Junction). Is that feasible? What else could be done?

 

[Tio Terry]

"If Crossrail usage west of Paddington does exceed the capacity available from the 10tph planned, are there any measures that could be made with the existing infrastructure to send more than 10tph past Paddington/Westbourne Park?"

When ETCS is installed west of Paddington the route capacity will most certainly be enhanced, at this stage I don't know what the intended capacity is but it could easily be as mush as twice the 10tph. How the service could be changed to suit the additional capacity without delaying semi-fast services is yet to be seen!

 

[rebmcr]

I'm still holding out hope that the Paddington terminators will be sent to Tring once Old Oak Common is sorted out.

 

[coppercapped]

Moving Heathrow Express to the Relief lines and making it call at all or most stations is a never-ending issue which seems to worry a great number of people posting in the forums.

It may well be that some passengers currently using the Piccadilly and Central lines will transfer to Crossrail, but in view of the considerable increase in the capacity of the trains it is highly unlikely that Crossrail will be full west of Paddington in its early years. At the moment the timetables are suggesting that 4 trains per hour will run to Heathrow Terminal 4 - giving a total of 8 trains per hour to the airport - and 4 trains per hour will run to Maidenhead. Of the latter two per hour will continue to Reading. The trains will run skip-stop, the Heathrow trains will call at Hanwell and Acton Mainline and the Maidenhead/Reading trains will call at West Ealing.

If however it is found that more capacity is needed at these smaller stations then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to stop all the Crossrail trains at these smaller stations albeit with some lengthened journey times. This would give eight trains per hour for all the stations but might reduce longer distance loadings which may or may not be commercially important - one should have due regard of the higher fares paid by the longer distance passengers. It might also conflict with the timetabling of the 2 trains per hour Oxford service - and the requirements of people using these services for through trains to the major population and business centres should not be ignored. Simply putting them on the fast lines as far as Airport Junction may not be acceptable and then another issue arises of conflicts at the point where they return to the Reliefs - another grade separated junction may be necessary to avoid delays.

The Great Western is a mixed use railway - it also carries significant quantities of freight as well as longer distance suburban traffic on the Relief lines. For all the wishful thinking about Tube frequencies these factors have to be taken into account.

If Tube frequencies are desired then to avoid trying to run such an intensive service on a mixed traffic railway - and it will continue to remain a mixed traffic railway and the attempt will end in tears - the obvious solution is to give Crossrail its own dedicated tracks at least as far as the Heathrow branch.

Start digging!

 

[DerekC]

"If Crossrail usage west of Paddington does exceed the capacity available from the 10tph planned, are there any measures that could be made with the existing infrastructure to send more than 10tph past Paddington/Westbourne Park?"

When ETCS is installed west of Paddington the route capacity will most certainly be enhanced, at this stage I don't know what the intended capacity is but it could easily be as mush as twice the 10tph. How the service could be changed to suit the additional capacity without delaying semi-fast services is yet to be seen!

ETCS is not a magic bullet to increase capacity. Level 2 block layouts have to be designed in the same way as MAS to meet specific headway requirements - so although resignalling with ETCS will be an opportunity, a capacity increase will only happen if it is specified by NR/DfT in response to actual or anticipated demand increases. And then of course the practical capacity issues raised by Coppercapped (which ETCS doesn't solve) have to be taken into account.

 

[moggie]

ETCS is not a magic bullet to increase capacity. Level 2 block layouts have to be designed in the same way as MAS to meet specific headway requirements - so although resignalling with ETCS will be an opportunity, a capacity increase will only happen if it is specified by NR/DfT in response to actual or anticipated demand increases. And then of course the practical capacity issues raised by Coppercapped (which ETCS doesn't solve) have to be taken into account.

Indeed.

Everytime I read another puff piece on the alleged ETCS (L2) benefits on capacity and costs I think overstating / underperforming are the watchwords waiting in the wings to become the next railway story headlines once reality bites.

Even if / when L3 becomes a funded reality it's use on mixed traffic mainlines with UK densities and constrained layouts will fail to find the magic bullet if the numbers of trains pathed through the plain line sections can't be effectively distributed through key junctions and terminal stations at the end of each journey.

 

[DerekC]

Indeed.

Everytime I read another puff piece on the alleged ETCS (L2) benefits on capacity and costs I think overstating / underperforming are the watchwords waiting in the wings to become the next railway story headlines once reality bites.

Even if / when L3 becomes a funded reality it's use on mixed traffic mainlines with UK densities and constrained layouts will fail to find the magic bullet if the numbers of trains pathed through the plain line sections can't be effectively distributed through key junctions and terminal stations at the end of each journey.

That's right, but there are three very good reasons why a communication based system with minimal trackside equipment should be better - i.e. reduced cost , better reliability and a flexible system which does not need to be tailored to the traffic. Whether Level 3 makes it, remains to be seen. Anyway I guess that's a bit off-topic!

 

[swt_passenger]

At the moment the timetables are suggesting that 4 trains per hour will run to Heathrow Terminal 4 - giving a total of 8 trains per hour to the airport - and 4 trains per hour will run to Maidenhead. Of the latter two per hour will continue to Reading. The trains will run skip-stop, the Heathrow trains will call at Hanwell and Acton Mainline and the Maidenhead/Reading trains will call at West Ealing.

Also, there's a peak extra 2tph that will run to/from West Drayton. Presumably the first potential enhancement is to run them for longer periods of the day, and/or extend them to somewhere further than West Drayton, potentially Maidenhead which ought to still have capacity to turn round 4 tph.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Will the crossrail trains to Heathow be charging Heathrow Connect/Express fares or tfl zone 6 fares beyond Hays Junction?

 

[swt_passenger]

Will the crossrail trains to Heathow be charging Heathrow Connect/Express fares or tfl zone 6 fares beyond Hays Junction?

It has not been announced yet.

They have only ever said that Oyster PAYG will be available at all Crossrail stations, however that doesn't necessarily equate to re-zoning, however logical that may be.

There's no likelihood of HEx fares being charged though.

 

[coppercapped]

Also, there's a peak extra 2tph that will run to/from West Drayton. Presumably the first potential enhancement is to run them for longer periods of the day, and/or extend them to somewhere further than West Drayton, potentially Maidenhead which ought to still have capacity to turn round 4 tph.

Running these extra trains for longer might be a possibility - but it still means that the Relief lines will become more crowded for longer with the requirements for the freights - apart from the Mendips stone trains there are car and container trains which use the Reliefs - and the outer suburban services to and from Oxford which are semi-fast east of Reading.

I suspect it would be possible to run the services you suggest, but the effect on timekeeping is likely to be bad.

 

[matt_world2004]

Crossrail is limited stop in the gwml because of the need to clear freight paths, not for journey time reasons.

 

[Rich McLean]

Would need 6 tracks out as far as Airport Junction at least for tube like frequencies

 

[matt_world2004]

It would require a lot of work to reconfigure but most of the route between Heathrow junction and paddington is basically six tracks already the l railway owned land is there certainly,

 

[MarkyT]

It would require a lot of work to reconfigure but most of the route between Heathrow junction and paddington is basically six tracks already the l railway owned land is there certainly,

Much of the space is occupied by goods loops, yards and sidings etc. These would need relocation somewhere if another track pair was added at ground level. Wharncliffe viaduct would be a challenge, as would the Ealing Broadway area. It might be more cost effective to tunnel instead, I can't see full 'tube frequency' would ever be justified however. The GW is not like the LSWR main line with its proliferation of busy diverging inner suburban branches after all.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm still holding out hope that the Paddington terminators will be sent to Tring once Old Oak Common is sorted out.

I'm still holding out that if they decide to spend that money they they spend it as a contribution to extending platforms and wiring out to High Wycombe instead of digging a tunnel and upgrading the Dudding Hill route.

Much of the space is occupied by goods loops, yards and sidings etc. These would need relocation somewhere if another track pair was added at ground level. Wharncliffe viaduct would be a challenge, as would the Ealing Broadway area. It might be more cost effective to tunnel instead, I can't see full 'tube frequency' would ever be justified however. The GW is not like the LSWR main line with its proliferation of busy diverging inner suburban branches after all.

Tunnelled for the mains, anyway.

The effective 6 track bypass of the West Ealing to Ealing Broadway involves the NNML via Royal Oak and the Greenford branch, but rather unfortunately thus misses Acton and Ealing.

As for the Wharncliffe viaduct...it was widened once. May as well do it again

I do however disagree that tube frequencies aren't needed - I would put a considerable sum down that were you to operate a tube frequency service between Heathrow (or at least Heathrow/Hayes/Slough) and Paddington it would have very good loadings within a year, massively relieving the roads, the bus network, and what little rail provision already exists nearby. You only have to look at the state of the roads to see there is massive suppressed peak demand in west London. Once you have the transport infrastructure, you will then see an increase in housing density along the GWML corridor as the transport infrastructure will actually be able to support growth for a change.

 

[hassaanhc]

I do however disagree that tube frequencies aren't needed - I would put a considerable sum down that were you to operate a tube frequency service between Heathrow (or at least Heathrow/Hayes/Slough) and Paddington it would have very good loadings within a year, massively relieving the roads, the bus network, and what little rail provision already exists nearby. You only have to look at the state of the roads to see there is massive suppressed peak demand in west London. Once you have the transport infrastructure, you will then see an increase in housing density along the GWML corridor as the transport infrastructure will actually be able to support growth for a change.

Do agree with this. Certainly in Southall there are probably many people south of the railway line who use a bus or drive to one of the Hounslow area Piccadilly Line stations, instead of getting stuck in traffic near Southall Station, even when using Southall would probably have been quicker.

Until I started using the line on a semi-regular basis (mostly off peak), I thought the services were unreliable, infrequent, overcrowded and confusing.
The route was in the past plagued with many signalling problems, and it isn't hard to lose minutes due to running behind freights or poor passenger behaviour. Have also been unlucky at times with door faults on Turbos, but nothing that I'd consider particularly unreliable.
Infrequent was definitely the case, as there were two trains 7-9 minutes apart then nothing for 21-23 minutes. The Class 387 services introduced recently have made this better, sure they're not an even split across the hour and you still end up with 15 minute waits if you choose the wrong time, but way better than what was there before.
Overcrowding off peak I'm afraid is down to passengers wanting to stick to the rear 2 coaches of trains :roll: time and time again those coaches are wedged with passengers, while at the other end you have multiple seats to yourself. All because everyone wants to be the first out onto the Tube at Ealing Broadway or first out of the stations. This regularly causes extra dwell time, and loss of several minutes is normal, fuelling the "unreliable" bit mentioned above. Crap DOO equipment in the Down direction, especially the look-back at Southall, doesn't help either.
The services are confusing too for those not familiar, with not all services stopping at Southall or at the smaller stations. The facilities at Southall aren't the best either, with long uneven stairs and constant noise due to the construction for the new building. Plus lack of Oyster facilities at the ticket office. Paddington is also difficult to navigate if you are not familiar, and this especially I avoided for years after multiple bad experiences (although they were during the 4th roof span restoration works). Now that I'm used to it, I don't mind using it.

Compared to all that, the Tube is simple, with stations well designed and with frequent services (generally). Plus all services stop everywhere, so you only need to look at destination, and info available is much clearer both on station and especially on train. It isn't hard to see why people prefer Tube, bus or car instead (although in my experience, Asians must use their car as a first choice ). Improved services along the GWML may take strain off the Piccadilly Line, which is just horrible to use.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm still holding out that if they decide to spend that money they they spend it as a contribution to extending platforms and wiring out to High Wycombe instead of digging a tunnel and upgrading the Dudding Hill route.



Tunnelled for the mains, anyway.

The effective 6 track bypass of the West Ealing to Ealing Broadway involves the NNML via Royal Oak and the Greenford branch, but rather unfortunately thus misses Acton and Ealing.

As for the Wharncliffe viaduct...it was widened once. May as well do it again

I do however disagree that tube frequencies aren't needed - I would put a considerable sum down that were you to operate a tube frequency service between Heathrow (or at least Heathrow/Hayes/Slough) and Paddington it would have very good loadings within a year, massively relieving the roads, the bus network, and what little rail provision already exists nearby. You only have to look at the state of the roads to see there is massive suppressed peak demand in west London. Once you have the transport infrastructure, you will then see an increase in housing density along the GWML corridor as the transport infrastructure will actually be able to support growth for a change.

Public transport works by the agglomeration of many individual flows into a few densely used corridors. Supporters of railways always seem to think that more railway/higher frequencies will reduce local road traffic. It doesn't, although it may have an effect on longer distance flows.

Having higher frequencies on Crossrail or an extension to Heathrow/Slough - which are radial flows serving central London which are well suited to rail - will not make any significant difference to the number of the many shorter orbital journeys made within the area. It will have no effect on the Brentford to Ealing or the Hanwell to Cranford trips. It will, on the other hand, have an enormous effect on flows from areas near the line to central London. House prices in this corridor will certainly increase as it becomes a more attractive area to live - this is the mechanism which will drive any increase in housing density.

Even with a high frequency Crossrail - road traffic will remain much as it is now.

 

[MarkyT]

The effective 6 track bypass of the West Ealing to Ealing Broadway involves the NNML via Royal Oak and the Greenford branch, but rather unfortunately thus misses Acton and Ealing.

That would be a very slow route for passenger trains, and useless for the freights as it completely misses Acton yard and the North London connection.

 

[Busaholic]

Also, there's a peak extra 2tph that will run to/from West Drayton. Presumably the first potential enhancement is to run them for longer periods of the day, and/or extend them to somewhere further than West Drayton, potentially Maidenhead which ought to still have capacity to turn round 4 tph.

Or might 2 tph (or even 4tph) be diverted from Heathrow to West Drayton should passenger numbers not stack up? This would presumably not entail more resources needed, and as the operators of Heathrow reneged on their funding contribution agreement they could have no objection.()

 

[Class 170101]

and as the operators of Heathrow reneged on their funding contribution agreement they could have no objection.()

Oh I bet they would have an objection. Business as a whole has no interest in paying for public works. Its not an efficient use of shareholder capital.

 

[SWT_USER]

The local services west of Paddington (through Ealing Broadway to Heathrow/Slough and beyond) currently receive a pretty poor service in comparison to many routes in other areas of London. Most services are currently 2-6 car turbos (46-138m length) with fairly low frequency (4tph West Ealing, 2tph Hanwell, 6tph at Southall, etc).

Electrification and Crossrail are set to drastically change the situation. The turbos will be replaced 200m class 345s and instead of stopping at Paddington the route will continue through main employment areas of central London. With all the hype around Crossrail, its easy to miss the fact that although trains will be longer the frequency at many stations will not be "tube-like". Ealing Broadway, Southall and Hayes & Harlington will see 10/8tph peak/off-peak but stations like West Ealing and Hanwell will be limited to 4tph all day.

Based on 2015 data, West Ealing and Hanwell had less than 1 million entries/exits per year:

West Ealing 0.99m
Hanwell 0.34m

Ref: [url]https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/train-station-usage/resource/b23a39a1-f387-43ba-950a-19d1cfd8aab6[/url]

However, underground stations within 2 miles of them had 2-4m entries/exits:

(Central Line)
Hangar Lane 3.94m
Perival 2.41m
Greenford 4.71m

(Piccadilly Line)
South Ealing 3.70m
Northfields 4.08m
Boston Manor 2.24m

Ref: [url]https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/multi-year-station-entry-exit-figures.xls[/url]

These parts of the Central/Piccadilly line have 13tph peak with 130m/106m length trains respectively.

The areas surrounding West Ealing and Hanwell have a similar population density to the underground stations two miles away. It seems likely that once people adjust to the new service available, usage at these stations is going to increase substantially. Will the Crossrail service be able to handle this suppressed demand? Maybe the demand will be self-managing with people who are unable to board Crossrail or put-off by the low frequency of service reverting to buses/etc to get to Ealing Broadway or the Central/Piccadilly lines for a more frequent service?

If Crossrail usage west of Paddington does exceed the capacity available from the 10tph planned, are there any measures that could be made with the existing infrastructure to send more than 10tph past Paddington/Westbourne Park?

If capacity does become a problem, the most obvious thing seems to switch the Heathrow Express paths to Crossrail once the usage rights expire and move them to the relief lines stopping all/most stations between Heathrow/Hayes & Harlington and Paddington in place of the residual GWR "slow" services to Oxford/etc that currently run on the reliefs to the mains (making them non-stop until after Heathrow Junction). Is that feasible? What else could be done?

I thought all stations were getting at least 4tph? Everything I've seen so far indicates that - including Crossrail's website http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/hanwell-station

 

[itfcfan]

I thought all stations were getting at least 4tph? Everything I've seen so far indicates that - including Crossrail's website http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/hanwell-station

Yes - West Ealing and Hanwell will see 4tph (with no peak extras) while Ealing Broadway and some others will get more:

Ealing Broadway, Southall and Hayes & Harlington will see 10/8tph peak/off-peak but stations like West Ealing and Hanwell will be limited to 4tph all day.

Here's a diagram of planned frequencies for Crossrail (peak-only services in the lighter colour):

 

[Busaholic]

Oh I bet they would have an objection. Business as a whole has no interest in paying for public works. Its not an efficient use of shareholder capital.

Which is why any objection would not be worth the paper it was not written on.

 

[coppercapped]

Oh I bet they would have an objection. Business as a whole has no interest in paying for public works. Its not an efficient use of shareholder capital.

A very curious conclusion.

Businesses pay taxes - the taxes are used to pay for public works. That's why they are called public works.

 

[BelleIsle]

Will the crossrail trains to Heathow be charging Heathrow Connect/Express fares or tfl zone 6 fares beyond Hays Junction?

If I remember correctly, there is an option that the railway can buy out the airport branch after a given period. The rationale being you give the private company enough time to make their money back. I have been told that TfL are actively trying to put together a package to do this early so they can abolish the special fares. However, given the state of their finances and other commitments I cannot see this happening. Moreover, would the agreement not be with Network Rail as the successor infrastructure company and not TfL? The only possibility I could see of this taking place is if there is a deal done as part of the third runway package.

 

[higthomas]

It seems TfL want to increase the crossrail frequency already...
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdf
Both in the core and more interestingly west of Paddington.

 

[swt_passenger]

It seems TfL want to increase the crossrail frequency already...
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/16-elizabeth-line.pdf
Both in the core and more interestingly west of Paddington.

A quick scan suggests they are saying that extras west of Paddington will replace further GW relief line services.

Which has been a fairly long term prediction in these forums.

 

[higthomas]

A quick scan suggests they are saying that extras west of Paddington will replace further GW relief line services.

Which has been a fairly long term prediction in these forums.

Ah, hadn't spotted that bit. I had hoped that would happen, it always seemed stupid otherwise.

 

[Busaholic]

Does anyone know the likely usage of the trains to/from Heathrow in the usual peak hour periods? It's fairly obvious that trains from Reading/Maidenhead/W Drayton will be much more packed eastbound in the a.m. peak and westbound in the p.m peak but this presumably doesn't apply to Heathrow traffic. This factor might imo well alter, in the peaks at least, the pattern of service. If every train heading for W Drayton and beyond is leaving Paddington packed to the gunwhales at 6 p.m. whereas Heathrow trains are half empty (and much less than that once they leave the main line) then it won't take long for a campaign to divert those services (it wouldn't take Mystic Meg to suggest the Evening Standard jumping on the bandwagon sharpish). I don't see this conflict at the eastern end, particularly as Abbey Wood/Woolwich traffic will probably grow significantly quite quickly.