Western Rail Access To Heathrow (WRATH) - merged topics

[whole diary]

[stuving]

There's a second NR^» (Network Rail - home page) consultation, running from 23 Feb to 4th April. They have a web page, and in addition Heathrow also have one that links to it.

This isn't consulting on what to build so much as how to build it. NR have now chosen the scheme they want, and it doesn't include any link to the Main Lines at Langley.

There isn't really a consultation document as such, nor a list of questions.  There is an environmental study, which says quite a bit about the plans. There are also plans relating to some odd-looking specific points; one is how to build the bridge under the Main Lines, another is whether to put in a crossover west of T5.

[Bmblbzzz]

On my our local radio station (which I call dross FM due to choice of music and inane talk) there was a news article which refered to the proposed rail link from Heathrow to Reading - but I can't find anything new about this ? Have I missed something ?

Quite! How can something be improved when it does not actually exist?

[stuving]

A drawing in the Airtrack consultation showed the broad layout below ground, there are three main line gauge 'starter tunnels' extending westward, the middle one of three aligns with the future platform 2 and existing platform 3 track.

The most Northern extension of the four is the turn back siding for the Piccadilly line, they operate with one arrival and one departure platform, so that tunnel is longer.

There is a new WRAtH^▸ (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) plan of the stub tunnels (though that's not why it's there), showing the connections to a northern railway line. Taken together, this and the Airtrack one make clear what the pre-planned T5 station arrangement is, with three two-sided islands:
P1/P2 do not exist, but would line up with a line to Staines. That line as proposed for Airtrack would use those two and also connect to P3.
P3/P4 is what the current Paddington services use, and WRAtH is proposed to connect onto.
P5/P6 is for the Piccadilly line.

We know there's an ongoing discussion/argument about which service would be extended to Reading, with HEx being keen to do it then going cold on the idea. But otherwise it has to be (1) Crossrail or (2) something additional. In both cases I would expect P1/P2 to be built to provide (or reinstate) terminating platform capacity.

Crossrail do still say they will serve T4 only, though I would have thought BA^» (British Airways - about) would like T5 to have trains to Paddington and London. And BA can and do lean quite hard on HAL. Is there any known plan for swapping services around, before or after WRAtH? I don't recall seeing any.

Returning to that WRAtH plan, it shows two options for the track approaching T5 from the west. One has a crossover, the other has none. How this fits into the consultation I couldn't say - I can't see any mention of it. But the crossover shown is a double-slip flat crossing (or diamond), which seems an odd choice. Surely most trains will not be switching track, so will have to wiggle sideways just to go straight on. And that's on top of the reason why these things have been disappearing; AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) that's their worse wear and more difficult maintenance (as shown at Br^tigny-sur-Orge). 

[SandTEngineer]

Just for clarity that plan shows a double slip connection not a crossover.  I'm a bit supprised as this would constrain services to entry/exit only one at a time

[paul7575]

There would presumably be different optimal layouts if all trains ran through, and if some trains terminated.

If optimised for through running would it be better to have up and down islands, with the down 'WRatH' and up 'Airtrack' crossing somewhere west of the station?   Or would you dedicate the platforms by service pattern?   I'd prefer the former, alternating departures towards Central London from either side of the same island must be easier than missing a train and having to cross to the other island for the next one.

Paul

[stuving]

Just for clarity that plan shows a double slip connection not a crossover.  I'm a bit supprised as this would constrain services to entry/exit only one at a time

I've had a closer look, and I think that is the expected double crossover, but drawn oddly. If you check the scale, the outer rails are about 5 m apart at closest, which is consistent with a normal track interval of 3.4 m. For comparison, the twin stub tunnel for platforms 2 and 3 is shown as nearly 10 m wide (though of course the shape of the tunnel is unknown). Since the running tunnels are quite far apart, and the two platform tracks even further (well over 20 m), the box would be very long without the tracks curving inwards to almost meet. 

[stuving]

There would presumably be different optimal layouts if all trains ran through, and if some trains terminated.

If optimised for through running would it be better to have up and down islands, with the down 'WRatH' and up 'Airtrack' crossing somewhere west of the station?   Or would you dedicate the platforms by service pattern?   I'd prefer the former, alternating departures towards Central London from either side of the same island must be easier than missing a train and having to cross to the other island for the next one.

Paul

I'm not sure how much leeway there is, given that BA^» (British Airways - about)/HAL are not going to allow any knocking holes in their basement except in the weak filler walls and floors. I remember how adamant they were about "no DC^▸ (Direct Current) traction".

I've tried to make sense of the various reports, including this one from The Londonist. The two consultation maps certainly should be reliable, as far as they go (i.e. up to the western end wall), and I'm beginning to suspect that the geometry shown by Trackmaps is also correct (which means that the map on the Londonist's video is wrong).

It all suggests to me that the two tunnel tracks (with a double crossover between them) line up with P2 & P3, and P1 & P4 are/will be reached off them - i.e. as you suggest, an up and a down platform. That seems to be set in concrete, literally, in the shape of the tunnels at both east and west end.

If the box runs between the outer walls of T5 main building and the short-term car park, that's about 260 metres maximum for the platforms, and I don't think that leaves any space for trackwork inside the box. That's certainly true with a maximum-stretch 11-car class 345 (247 m), and I suspect would also be true for something much shorter.

That means the only straightforward option is to stick with just P3/4, as drawn, and extend the terminating service (HEx, without a big change of ideas) to Reading. If 2 out of 4 tph terminate, as initially proposed, they just have to be fairly quick about it. So anyone who prefers central London to Paddington can either change at HXX or PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains), for similar journey times.

Airtrack was proposed as terminating, but with an option of some HEx trains going to Staines. That also fits with T5 as built, and some variations on that might also work - even including WRAtH^▸ (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) - subject to looking at the details. Having trains coming in from the south via P1/2 and going to somewhere different, even in London, seems OK too.

[eightf48544]

Just got myself a ticket for a Maidenhead Chamber of Commerce Event tonight (See their Website)
 , with Mark Langham Western Route Director Network Rail on the Link. Will report back.

Noted length of trains, through running
(Crossrail? TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)?) Possible Airtrack link and no 3rd rail

[grahame]

I'm sure there's a thread on this somewhere ... if any member can find it and post a link, I'll merge them.

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

Heathrow rail link to be delayed by up to two years

Plans for a rail link between the Great Western mainline and Heathrow Airport will be delayed by up to two years.

A planning application for the long-anticipated scheme, which would allow people living to the west of Heathrow to travel direct to the airport, had been expected this year.

But Network Rail said the proposal had been delayed by the impact of Covid-19.

Reading Borough Council's lead for transport Tony Page described the delay as "deplorable".

[Red Squirrel]

This thread starts slightly confusingly, but seems to settle on WRATH... http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9171.msg94187#msg94187

[grahame]

This thread starts slightly confusingly, but seems to settle on WRATH... http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9171.msg94187#msg94187

Thanks for that - not an easy one to find (for me, anyway!) .. I'll merge in the morning

[stuving]

This thread starts slightly confusingly, but seems to settle on WRATH... http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9171.msg94187#msg94187

There's also what is really a continuation of that one in http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15298.0 (also a bit confusing as it was a merger). This does not seem to even have a link back to the earlier one.

[stuving]

There's no sign of that announcement on NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s site (as usual). And just in case you were feeling confusion-deprived ... this is dated yesterday, from New Civil Engineer:

Network Rail is seeking views on its approach to the proposed Western Rail Link to Heathrow project.

According to a periodic indicative notice published this week, this will support the project?s Commercial Strategy Review as the rail operator considers whether its strategy is ?appropriate in view of current market conditions?.

The market engagement exercise and request for information will focus on how the proposed procurement strategy is viewed, the capacity and capability in the market and potential bidding models to deliver the work packages.
...

So what's a "periodic indicative notice" then? It's something in the official contracting system. I can only find that term in the Utilities Contracts Regulations, but then the definition of "utility" does include railway "public bodies". But it sounds rather like another bit of the public contracts system, called a Prior Information Notice!

And then there's Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd, who want the government?s new Transport Acceleration Unit to do ... I wonder what?

[autotank]

So what is all of the work going on the the field on the down side of the line between Langley and Iver? I was hoping it was related to this scheme, but if planning hasn't been approved then presumably not. This got the go ahead 5+ years ago - disappointing that planning hasn't even been gained yet for what is more or less a totally underground railway.

[stuving]

So what is all of the work going on the the field on the down side of the line between Langley and Iver? I was hoping it was related to this scheme, but if planning hasn't been approved then presumably not. This got the go ahead 5+ years ago - disappointing that planning hasn't even been gained yet for what is more or less a totally underground railway.

I think that's Cemex's "North Park" quarry. They got approval in 2016/17 (Buckinghamshire County Council application CM/51/16) to extract aggregates, then refill with ... other less useful stuff. They made a big point in their application that, once NR^» (Network Rail - home page) had buried a railway, extraction would be impossible (the portal is in the middle of the Cemex site). So they proposed a six-year extraction phase, followed by 3 years of refilling, which could be combined with NR building their tunnel. The approval was conditional on cooperating with WRAtH^▸ (Western Rail Access to Heathrow).

I guess that would mean building the tunnel above ground, then raising the ground level so it becomes a proper tunnel. How Cemex are getting on in terms of timescale I don't know, but I doubt there's much chance of WRAtH being delayed by it!