Taking a look at the Rail Delivery Group statement and longer term strategy

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

fair point, but would you need to take 2x9cars west of EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains)? Maybe a fast 9car plus a slow 5car?

[PhilWakely]

Having been sad enough to go to EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) for the first run of the Class 800, I was surprised just how long the 9 car version was. Pulling right up to the southern extreme of platform 4, there was just about enough room for another two or maybe three coaches before it fouled the level crossing at the rear of the train, so I think you'd even be pushed to get a 9+5 train into EXD.

[ChrisB]

Yup - talking reality, I suspect we're looking at 2x5cars....

[broadgage]

In the near term I agree, but in the longer term some significantly longer trains are going to be needed to handle rising passenger numbers.

An obvious way to achieve this is the running of very much longer trains from platform 1 at Paddington to someplace well outside London where the train may be divided.

The merit of so doing is no extra path is taken up in the congested London area.

Just three such trains would move an extra couple of thousand passengers.

[simonw]

It is surprising that all the upgrades to London mainline stations, and to Birmingham New Street appear to be improved current issues and not address longterm growth issues. A limit of 16 Intercity trains an hour from Paddington is to low.

Whilst I accept that Double Deck trains are slower at stations, we must start to think of radical solutions to our rail infrastructure issues.

One of the ways to address Paddington would be to great a 'Gateway' station at Old Oak Common (part of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))) to allow the better handling handling of trains. As Paddington is not really the destination for most people, this would not be an issue and could address a lot of capacity issues. Trains could terminate/start at Old Oak Common, and visit Paddington before starting their main journey.

[grahame]

Whilst I accept that Double Deck trains are slower at stations, we must start to think of radical solutions to our rail infrastructure issues.

Capacity limits move from the running lines to the stations. At stations with significant passenger numbers off and on, perhaps alternate trains into alternate platforms?

[Bmblbzzz]

One of the ways to address Paddington would be to great a 'Gateway' station at Old Oak Common (part of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))) to allow the better handling handling of trains. As Paddington is not really the destination for most people, this would not be an issue and could address a lot of capacity issues. Trains could terminate/start at Old Oak Common, and visit Paddington before starting their main journey.

Most people's destination is beyond Paddington: in the City, the West End, Docklands or some other part of London, which they'll probably access by tube, bus or taxi. So this just shoves the problems onto the Tube. Paddington doesn't really have particularly good Tube connections IMO^▸ (in my opinion) – it has lots of lines but the access between mainline platforms and tunnels is not good – so possibly Old Oak Common could help if it has better Tube (and bus) connections. Although it seems to be the wrong side... Hopefully Crossrail should help.

[grahame]

Most people's destination is beyond Paddington: in the City, the West End, Docklands or some other part of London, which they'll probably access by tube, bus or taxi. So this just shoves the problems onto the Tube ...

Agreed - and that dilutes the "we must have Plymouth to London (Paddington?) in three hours" mantra somewhat. Quantitative comparators are indeed useful, but timing to a stop at a station platform that's an intermediate changing point on people's door to door journey and from where they have to walk considerably to their ongoing transport makes the comparator somewhat artificial.

The Crossrail interchange an Paddington - assuming a much better change from inbound expresses to the Betty line - should save several minutes, as would an interchange and new measuring "London" point at Old Oak.

[ChrisB]

Once OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) is built & up & running, I foresee more pax changing there for onward connections via Crossriail than at Paddington. OOC will be built to cope with this. All trains will call, I understand, adding at least 3 mins to journeys.

This at a point where the HEX contract expires. I can't see it continuing either, as pax will connect at OOC with Crossrail to Heathrow.

[simonw]

It would be really useful if when OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) is rebuilt, it could allow ALL trains to terminate there, empty, clean and then start their journey and head to Paddington.

This would probably require a lot of platforms/bays at OOC to handle this, but if done properly the current restriction of 16 trains per hour could be lifted, for a lot less than adding another another

• platforms at Paddington.

[ChrisB]

rebuilt?

I don't think the space is there for what you are suggesting, together with the infrastructure to clean (staff accommodation, waste disposal, etc), nor is there the ability to convert PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) into a station where services arrive, pick up & depart, rather than terminate & restart as now. The throat just doesn't have enough lines to achieve this. OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) is already being seen as a station where nothing can terminate....cf Chiltern's proposed services, which are being developed on a loop basis, with no reversals.

[Tim]

Whilst I accept that Double Deck trains are slower at stations

Depends which stations.  At Paddington a double decker isn't slower because the train is already sat at the platform for more than just a minute or two.  They are only slower at intermediate stations and for trains with few intermediate stops that is not much of an issue.  The problem is that when you think about possible trains with few intermediate stops you come up with the idea of running Paddington to Taunton or similar and that is a hell of a lot of miles to lift the gauge (and the lovely new electrification) on.  Increasing the loading gauge is only likely to be affordable for relatively short heavily used routes and those routes will not be the ones you want to run a limited stop service on.

Double Deckers would of course be very suitable for the limited stop services on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).  Please let them build the infrastructure to allow that even if the initial batch of trains are single deckers.

[broadgage]

At the moment we seem to be at somewhat of a stalemate regarding passenger capacity to the southwest.
"it is not worth building significantly longer trains, or extra multiple units to significantly lengthen existing trains, because most busy stations cant accept longer trains"

Followed by "it is not worth lengthening platforms significantly because we have not got/can not afford much longer trains to utilise these platforms"

I, and others have suggested use of the extended platform 1 at Paddington to provide significantly increased capacity by running much longer trains, rather than by more trains.

An alternative might be to run some services from London Waterloo out to traditional GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) territory. Waterloo is arguably as short of paths as is Paddington so the opportunity for extra trains is limited, but Waterloo does have the merit of the very long former international platforms.
How many IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) vehicles could fit into the former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo ? Would 9+9 fit ?

At a time of steadily rising passenger numbers, I do not feel it reasonable for the rail industry to simply state that the network is full and nothing beyond higher density trains and more standing can be done.

[stuving]

An alternative might be to run some services from London Waterloo out to traditional GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) territory. Waterloo is arguably as short of paths as is Paddington so the opportunity for extra trains is limited, but Waterloo does have the merit of the very long former international platforms.
How many IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) vehicles could fit into the former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo ? Would 9+9 fit ?

Network Rail are currently in the process of shortening the old International platforms at both ends, to make more space for milling about (by passengers) and swapping tracks (by trains). I'm not sure how short they'll be - maybe 12 cars, maybe a bit more?  Which kind of answers that question - Waterloo is, after all, the terminal for SWT^▸ (South West Trains)/SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) services.

I came across a picture showing them doing just that a few days ago, but I can't refind it just now.

[grahame]

At a time of steadily rising passenger numbers, I do not feel it reasonable for the rail industry to simply state that the network is full and nothing beyond higher density trains and more standing can be done.

Taking a typical 7 days, I would love to know
a) How many seats are provided into (say) Paddington?
b) How many of those seats are occupied?
c) How many people have to stand because there are no seats available on the train they're on?
d) How many people stand although there's seating available (e.g. elsewhere on the train, or the middle seat of 3)

Departures (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) 18.2 million. Spread over 363 days = 50,000 per day.   I count 393 trains leaving in passenger service (that's counting Real Time trains for next Wednesday) which is 127 passengers per train.  So if evenly spread, there would be a seat for everyone if every train was 2 coaches.   But of course the 18:03 to Penzance is rather busier than the 11:36 to West Ruislip, the 06:27 to Oxford or the 23:03 or 23:10 services to Heathrow ...