GWR is apparently improving...

[whole diary]

[chrisr_75]

The options to improve capacity at Paddington are

• Add more platforms, will require land purchases and be expensive
• Add an upper/lower deck to Paddington, fortuneatly it is at the edge of the underground system so possible. Would be very interesting to link a low deck at Paddington with a low deck at Victoria, Waterloo or Kings Cross to allow through trains
• Batch trains together at Didcot/Reading into 2/3/4 joined trains that arrive/depart Paddington as a single train. Will need Platform lengthening and synchronising train times

New through platforms ARE being added at Paddington in a scheme called Crossrail! This will free up capacity in the current train shed for long(er) distance services and allow direct west to east services!

Platforms are also being lengthened at Paddington (13/14) and at least some intermediate stations as far as Reading in preparation for the arrival of new rolling stock for the great western franchise and Crossrail.

[paul7575]

New through platforms ARE being added at Paddington in a scheme called Crossrail! This will free up capacity in the current train shed for long(er) distance services and allow direct west to east services!

Platforms are also being lengthened at Paddington (13/14) and at least some intermediate stations as far as Reading in preparation for the arrival of new rolling stock for the great western franchise and Crossrail.

Isn't there still the possibility of one of the Paddington platforms being lost though, because the existing P12 and P 13 will be joined to form one full length platform, with a resulting simplification of the approach S&C^▸ (Settle and Carlisle ).   (Although this part of the capacity project seems to come and go from the published plans.)

The net change with Crossrail is still more capacity for long distance trains though.

[chrisr_75]

Isn't there still the possibility of one of the Paddington platforms being lost though, because the existing P12 and P 13 will be joined to form one full length platform, with a resulting simplification of the approach S&C^▸ (Settle and Carlisle ).   (Although this part of the capacity project seems to come and go from the published plans.)

The net change with Crossrail is still more capacity for long distance trains though.

I didn't know that is in the plan, although it makes a lot of sense as those little platforms are really quite limited in their use and it makes sense that all platforms are immediately accessible from the main concourse area.

Agreed that Crossrail will free up a lot of capacity at Paddington by taking a lot of the local services away and hopefully we'll then see the end of 2 and 3 car trains occupying full length platforms. If all of the ongoing projects are successful it's certainly interesting times for Paddington and the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, it makes sense to have all terminal platforms full length, even if it means sacrificing one of the four shorter platforms 11-14 (11 is full length, but only if you cut off access to/from 12).  Crossrail should remove six arrivals and departures per off-peak hour from the main platforms at Paddington.  They will, at least in part, be replaced by the additional long distance services planned.

[paul7575]

Yes, it makes sense to have all terminal platforms full length, even if it means sacrificing one of the four shorter platforms 11-14 (11 is full length, but only if you cut off access to/from 12).  Crossrail should remove six arrivals and departures per off-peak hour from the main platforms at Paddington.  They will, at least in part, be replaced by the additional long distance services planned.

If they do eventually combine 12 and 13, I wonder if it might not be planned to be done until after Crossrail's full through running timetable starts?  On the other hand the Crossrail to Heathrow temporary high level service will be 4 tph using longer trains, so will need a long platform or two anyway.   Wasn't P14 also planned to be extended quite significantly as well?  Although it has been resurfaced and given a better platform edge I don't think it has been lengthened much yet?

Paul

[simonw]

The current improvements to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are not adequate, and only really cover the network growth uptill 5/10 years ago.

I totally accept that Crossrail, Electrification, New trains, Signal Chnages and Reading station upgrade will help. However whilst I never had to stand on way home from London to Bristol 20 years ago, I did on occasion 10 years ago and five years ago it got so bad I changed jobs to work in Bristol and got rid of the journey.

[IndustryInsider]

Wasn't P14 also planned to be extended quite significantly as well?  Although it has been resurfaced and given a better platform edge I don't think it has been lengthened much yet?

The track has been extended slightly, but the platform hasn't been done yet - I presume it will be, to accommodate 8x20m vehicles.

The current improvements to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are not adequate, and only really cover the network growth uptill 5/10 years ago.

Well, there's no money available to do anything else, except for the slightly longer term commitments of the Western Rail Access To Heathrow (WRATH) and ECTS in-cab signalling - both of which will impact quite significantly on the dynamic of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).

Batching trains together will only ever work in a very limited number of examples, but there will be scope to run plenty more 12-car EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) in the future than are currently planned to provide extra capacity to Reading/Didcot/Oxford which in turn frees up seats on the longer distance Bristol trains you mention.

[ChrisB]

Once Old Oak Common is open, I suspdct it may become busier than Pad eventually...have to wait & see

[Tim]

The options to improve capacity at Paddington are

• Add an upper/lower deck to Paddington, fortuneatly it is at the edge of the underground system so possible. Would be very interesting to link a low deck at Paddington with a low deck at Victoria, Waterloo or Kings Cross to allow through trains

whilst there may be space for a lower or upper deck, is there enough space in the station throat for the necessary remodelled approach lines?

ChrisB's point about Old Oak Common may well be prescient.  I was assuming that post-crossrail my regular London trips would involve leaving GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) at Paddington to catch a crossrail to Farringdon, but making the change at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) (if that is as far as my mainline train went) would work just as well.   

[stuving]

Once Old Oak Common is open, I suspdct it may become busier than Pad eventually...have to wait & see

Hmmm ... it's the number of trains that's the issue here, so you would need to stop and start trains at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) to have any effect on that. Assuming it has only through platforms, you need to take trains out to prep them, and OOC is just about the worst possible place to do that from.

But seriously, Network Rail in the Western Route Study concluded the capacity pinch was on the twin line out to Airport Junction, and after ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) arrives it's the bit of plaiting from Ladbroke Grove inwards to spread trains over all the platforms. While they mention the need for platform capacity to cope, they don't propose doing anything about it. OK, they would like to get rid of Heathrow Express, but that's not their call.

The one thing the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) is responsible for the is turn-round time, which no-one has mentioned. With 16 tph (post-Crossrail line limit, subtracting 4 HEx) and only 8 platforms (roughly as now) there is 30 minutes per train including all allowances for getting in and out. If there are even three more platforms, that become 40 minutes. That sounds enough, given that there will be no paper reservations and window posters to fix.

If, longer term, you could get NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s Ladbroke Grove flyover and evict HEx, that would be 24 tph in 13 platforms: 32 minutes. That doesn't sound impossible, for a well-organised TOC.

[simonw]

Old Oak Station, also called New Queens Park is not planned to open until 2026, so little more than a pipe dream?

Would all trains go Reading --> OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) -> Paddington?

Still not sure how this helps capacity on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway). Without much larger trains and faster turn rounds at Paddington I cannot see how capacity of Paddington can handle the growth of rail use on GWR.

[dviner]

The options to improve capacity at Paddington are

• Add an upper/lower deck to Paddington, fortuneatly it is at the edge of the underground system so possible. Would be very interesting to link a low deck at Paddington with a low deck at Victoria, Waterloo or Kings Cross to allow through trains

whilst there may be space for a lower or upper deck, is there enough space in the station throat for the necessary remodelled approach lines?

Lower deck - Crossrail tunnels would get in the way.
Upper deck - say goodbye to the Victorian and Edwardian train sheds.

[ChrisB]

Would all trains go Reading --> OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) -> Paddington?

Still not sure how this helps capacity on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway). Without much larger trains and faster turn rounds at Paddington I cannot see how capacity of Paddington can handle the growth of rail use on GWR.

That would be the intention, I understand.
OOC would take pax away from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains), using the former to connect directly to Heathrow and/or Crossrail.