Slough - Hanwell and third track possibility.

[whole diary]

[James]

I read something in rail magazine a while back, that said a possible third track may be inserted between Slough and Hanwell so that some faster crossrail services could run between Maidenhead and Central London. However it seems since the article was written that little action has been taken. I think the article was in the August 2012 Modern Rail Mag. Can anyone confirm if that statement is true or whether it's just talk, thank you

[Network SouthEast]

I read something in rail magazine a while back, that said a possible third track may be inserted between Slough and Hanwell so that some faster crossrail services could run between Maidenhead and Central London. However it seems since the article was written that little action has been taken. I think the article was in the August 2012 Modern Rail Mag. Can anyone confirm if that statement is true or whether it's just talk, thank you

Network Rail's London & South East RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) looked at having two additional lines between Ladbroke Grove and Airport Junction, but ruled it out due to the amount of disruption to install as well as the high cost.

The favoured alternative, which Network Rail are pursuing (Option A5) is for Crossrail services to run more frequently, but with a skip-stop pattern as well as mainline EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) running at 110mph along with all peak hour Heathrow services running on the relief lines with a mixture of calling patterns.

[James]

Thankyou Network Southeast, some useful information.
Problem with that is without additional tracks the train services even from heathrow let alone Maidenhead, will be slower due to more trains that have to call at Southall, West Ealing and Acton Mainline. That means that if disruption occurs well you have a major problem on your hands.
Also it makes sense for Heathrow Express to stay on the relief lines all day instead of switching tracks during off peak periods.

What i would suggest to network rail is to run 2 tph from Maidenhead to London during the peaks and off peaks, which i think is what they will do.
At least the train stock will be air conditioned Class 350's or Class 377's that can do 110mph!.

[Network SouthEast]

Thankyou Network Southeast, some useful information.
Problem with that is without additional tracks the train services even from heathrow let alone Maidenhead, will be slower due to more trains that have to call at Southall, West Ealing and Acton Mainline. That means that if disruption occurs well you have a major problem on your hands.
Also it makes sense for Heathrow Express to stay on the relief lines all day instead of switching tracks during off peak periods.

What i would suggest to network rail is to run 2 tph from Maidenhead to London during the peaks and off peaks, which i think is what they will do.
At least the train stock will be air conditioned Class 350's or Class 377's that can do 110mph!.

The reason why the Heathow Express services won't stay on the relief lines all day is because the capacity is needed for freight trains.

The proposed Option A5, which Network Rail DO want to pursue will see 4tph in the peaks between Reading and Paddington, with all of them stopping at Maidenhead. Half will also stop at Slough and the others will also stop at Twyford. These services will start at Reading on the relief lines and will cross over to the main lines, some after Maidenhead, some after Slough.

A resignalling is also proposed.

If Network Rail get their way and Option A5 becomes a reality we'll see the following peak services (although not for a few years):

20tph main line peak service
 - 9 IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services
 - 1 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) service
 - 4 Reading to Paddington shuttles (as I describe above, but running on relief lines Reading to Maidenhead/Slough)
 - 6 LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) services (from Oxford, Newbury and potentially Basingstoke (option F6)) running non stop between Paddington and Reading

16tph relief line peak service
 - 8tph Crossrail to Heathrow Terminal 5
 - 2tph Crossrail to Heathrow Terminal 4
 - 4tph Crossrail to Reading
 - 2tph Crossrail to Slough

[IndustryInsider]

Originally the Crossrail works included a fifth passenger track between just east of Langley and just east of West Drayton, (achievable with an upgrade and extension to the current up goods line) which would be reversible and allow stopping trains to be overtaken by faster trains on the relief in the peak hours.  Has that plan now been removed from the Crossrail works?

[Network SouthEast]

Originally the Crossrail works included a fifth passenger track between just east of Langley and just east of West Drayton, (achievable with an upgrade and extension to the current up goods line) which would be reversible and allow stopping trains to be overtaken by faster trains on the relief in the peak hours.  Has that plan now been removed from the Crossrail works?

I'm not aware of any plan to drop it. The up relief line would take the place of the current goods loop, with the existing up relief line becoming the new bi-directional goods loop.

[IndustryInsider]

You mean bi-directional passenger loop?  It would be useful in the peaks in the up direction in the morning and down direction in the evening, and useful for freights and as an overtaking section when there's late running in between - though I await with interest how that all fits in with the revised layout at West Drayton and the connection to the Colnbrook freight branch.

[SandTEngineer]

We have discussed this in the Crossrail thread and the drawing referred to in a post by Industry Insider (not me  ) can be found here: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

[Electric train]

This "fifth line" has been banned about for many years, at least 30 to my knowledge. One iteration I saw was to run the UP stoppers from Plat 6 at Slough along it leaving the UP Relief as a bi-di; Langley Stn, Hayes Stn and Southall Stn needed the UP Relief platforms and buildings demolished along with quite a few bridge rebuilds and land takes so the line can run from Slough or the very least Dolphin Jcn, It has always come down to cost BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) just never had the money.

[IndustryInsider]

We have discussed this in the Crossrail thread and the drawing referred to in a post by Industry Insider (not me  ) can be found here: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

True.   

Things do change though, and I was a little surprised to see Network SouthEast hadn't mentioned it in his reply to the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter), given that he's obviously pretty well up-to-speed on the situation, so I just thought I'd ask...

[Network SouthEast]

We have discussed this in the Crossrail thread and the drawing referred to in a post by Industry Insider (not me  ) can be found here: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

True.   

Things do change though, and I was a little surprised to see Network SouthEast hadn't mentioned it in his reply to the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter), given that he's obviously pretty well up-to-speed on the situation, so I just thought I'd ask...

I'm a little late to the party regarding plans for Crossrail and the Western route. Every time I read again the same documents (of which there are so many), I still find new information. For example, the map which S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) gives you credit for is the first time I have seen it. So even I learn something new every now and again 

[James]

Thank you once again Network Southeast, maybe you should run the runways
Even tho the possible skip stop pattern of services will run it will be a mess.
It means that if passenger numbers grow rapidly as they have done, they will be no more capacity. So really another track between Slough and Hanwell (possibly to London Paddington due to the capacity problems) is needed sooner rather than later, regards of the cost. Really people need to look at the Passenger rather than continually at money, as you have to invest in rail services now and in future years to come, and i don't agree with anything else sorry.

[ellendune]

Really people need to look at the Passenger rather than continually at money, as you have to invest in rail services now and in future years to come, and i don't agree with anything else sorry.

I didn't realise we were in a position where government could fund everything that needed doing regardless of cost.

[James]

Well if the government could fund everything, then we would be seeing the construction of two additional lines between Hayes and London Paddington, to make 6 tracks, which isn't going to happen.
The feeling i get is that the government are spending money on wasteful things rather than the things that are needed, and i also speak on a general scale as well

[ellendune]

The feeling i get is that the government are spending money on wasteful things rather than the things that are needed, 

Like what?