One of the issues that stifled Airtrack originally are the level crossings particularly at Feltham, the original timetable from Waterloo to Heathrow, Windsor, Reading etc meant the crossing barriers were only open to road traffic for 15 mins out of every 60! The idea of a reduced service by splitting a Windsor section off at Staines the complexity meant it was unworkable.
The sponsors ie Heathrow Airport decided the most economical option was the western approach on the GWML▸
Airtrack's analysis put "their" level crossing into four groups:
1. Open time reduced by more than 25% - Staines, Pooley Green, Egham, Wokingham station.
2. Open time reduced by 10-25% - Mortlake, North Sheen, Starlane Wokingham, Addlestone.
3. Open time reduced by less than 10% - Barnes (both), Feltham, Rusham, Sunningdale, Waterloo Wokingham, Chertsey.
So Feltham wasn't one of the key crossings, and of course now it's going to be closed (approved but no date yet). Wokingham station crossing has been improved, but what its new capacity for trains is we don't know. We know the trains will be going up from 4 to 7 tph each way soon, and probably losing the present "two trains for the price of one closure". I'd guess a few more have had something done to them as well, and of course the whole line will see more trains before 2019.
But in any case I never really believed that the level crossings issue was the the determining factor for Airtrack.
For a start, why did the TWA application involve all that study of the impact on level crossings, when usually they say little or nothing of the services to be run? I suspect Airrtack made a tactical error there. It's really not their problem, since they proposed the trains would be part of the SW franchise. How many trains somewhere is decided by
DfT» (setting the minimum in the franchise
SLC▸ ),
NR» (refusing to timetable paths above capacity), and the
TOC▸ (if there's any leeway between those two limits).
At least they could have said something like :
"All the local authorities on the route have adopted policies in favour of better rail services, without being more specific. But more trains, to more destinations, and faster, would all be part of anyone's definition of better rail services. This Airtrack proposal would bring all three.
Any extra trains, which these local councils want (and whether for Airtrack or not), will reduce traffic capacity at level crossings. In some cases new or altered infrastructure will be needed, and as is usual all of those who benefit would be asked to help fund this. Airtrack would expect to be a part, but only one part, of this process."
I think they (in effect HAL) decided this TWA business was too much hassle, and gave up the idea.