Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 9:53:21 GMT
With the likelihood that western connections into Heathrow (being dubbed WRAtH) will be functional around 2020-ish: what do folks here think would be the appropriate method to deal with congestion at Heathrow T1/2/3 while a T4 shuttle is run.
Or should the services be split T5 and west and T4? I foresee difficulty justifying a decent service to T4 without a shuttle.
And how should the SW be included in? Partial completion of AirTrack to Staines for interconnection of SW services with Crossrail? Or extend the T4 link to Feltham for Interchange?
Notes: To maintain their stance of risk mitigation, and because of the use of PEDs (Platform Edge Doors), Crossrail would not accept through operation of trains from DC territory onto Crossrail, and would not want the risks associated with dual voltage stock. So, a SW connection must be by change of train at Feltham, but from Staines, there could be dual-voltage stock run in from the Colnbrook side to the Airtrack platforms at T5. (I personally therefore favour the Staines approach.)
Also, any through operation must be with Crossrail stock, or 25kV stock that has been acquired by other TOCs to be Crossrail-compatible, especially platform doors and signalling/safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Apr 5, 2013 10:03:29 GMT
Currently there is nothing by rail that links T4 with T5 without changing. Maybe something could be done along these lines?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 5, 2013 10:34:35 GMT
I can see the benefits in a route along a route linking Slough to the Hounslow Loop via T5 and T4. This gives two opportunities to change for T123, giving direct T4-T5 links and improving other access in the area too.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 5, 2013 19:36:02 GMT
Wasn't a figure of eight configuration suggested for linking all terminals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 10:23:16 GMT
Currently there is nothing by rail that links T4 with T5 without changing. Maybe something could be done along these lines? Quite! And my question relates to the increased frequencies through to T5 affecting the scope for a "shuttle" to get platform time. Should the possible/probably Slough link be extended back towards Feltham and then linked to T4 to create a Crossrail loop. If so, which way should the Crossrail loop run? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 10:28:25 GMT
I can see the benefits in a route along a route linking Slough to the Hounslow Loop via T5 and T4. This gives two opportunities to change for T123, giving direct T4-T5 links and improving other access in the area too. Please explain your route topology. Are you suggesting reversing at T5 and then via Staines, approaching T4 from Feltham? Or a new direct link from T5 picking up the curved T4 alignment along its way to T4. That's single track. Do you envisage that itself being a loop back via Staines to Slough, or onwards somehow into SWT territory? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 10:29:17 GMT
Wasn't a figure of eight configuration suggested for linking all terminals? Tell me more, please. A link would be wonderful. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 6, 2013 10:33:16 GMT
T4 is mainly long haul and users are not great fans of trains for getting to/from Heathrow. (More luggage)
No real need for expensive work to change things post Crossrail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 12:11:10 GMT
What needs to be done at Heathrow is improvement of operational procedures to speed-up train departures.
More often than not trains remain in platforms for ages after closing the doors but before departing. Slow staff don't help either!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 6, 2013 13:53:27 GMT
I can see the benefits in a route along a route linking Slough to the Hounslow Loop via T5 and T4. This gives two opportunities to change for T123, giving direct T4-T5 links and improving other access in the area too. Please explain your route topology. Are you suggesting reversing at T5 and then via Staines, approaching T4 from Feltham? Or a new direct link from T5 picking up the curved T4 alignment along its way to T4. That's single track. Do you envisage that itself being a loop back via Staines to Slough, or onwards somehow into SWT territory? No, I'm thinking a route unconnected with Crossrail running on a topologically (but obviously not necessarily geographically) straight alignment serving Slough-Heathrow T5-Heathrow T4-Feltham, it would then connect to the Hounslow loop or to improve access so SW even further possiby connect to the existing network around Teddington. The idea is to connect the GWML at slough with outer south-west London via Heathrow. I'm not familiar with the topography or demographics of the area so it's a "line on a map" route as much as anything and would require new tunnelling at least at Heathrow. Heathrow is presently well served by rail from Central London so this is more of an orbital in concept. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 6, 2013 15:37:32 GMT
Currently there is nothing by rail that links T4 with T5 without changing. How many people need to do this? And of those, how many of them are transfer passengers who would rather stay airside? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 22:24:26 GMT
T4 is mainly long haul and users are not great fans of trains for getting to/from Heathrow. (More luggage) No real need for expensive work to change things post Crossrail. I agree. I was highlighting what could become an operational issue (shunting the T4 shuttles in between Crossrail/HeX trains). And wondering if anyone had any thoughts about how to deal with it. Seems there's a variety of ideas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 22:29:45 GMT
Please explain your route topology. Are you suggesting reversing at T5 and then via Staines, approaching T4 from Feltham? Or a new direct link from T5 picking up the curved T4 alignment along its way to T4. That's single track. Do you envisage that itself being a loop back via Staines to Slough, or onwards somehow into SWT territory? No, I'm thinking a route unconnected with Crossrail running on a topologically (but obviously not necessarily geographically) straight alignment serving Slough-Heathrow T5-Heathrow T4-Feltham, it would then connect to the Hounslow loop or to improve access so SW even further possiby connect to the existing network around Teddington. The idea is to connect the GWML at slough with outer south-west London via Heathrow. I'm not familiar with the topography or demographics of the area so it's a "line on a map" route as much as anything and would require new tunnelling at least at Heathrow. Heathrow is presently well served by rail from Central London so this is more of an orbital in concept. Wow! Don't you think that best tied in with the WRAtH project (Western Rail Access to Heathrow, I think it means)? As a separate project altogether, may I suggest that it would run into many an obstacle: political, economic, operational ... ? |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 7, 2013 20:08:30 GMT
Wasn't a figure of eight configuration suggested for linking all terminals? Tell me more, please. A link would be wonderful. Wish I could. Something like Picc through T1-3 then T5 then to the planned airport expansion north at Sipson in a clockwise loop that joins/parallels Railtrack through T1-3, before becoming the existing Picc through T4. A kind of figure of 8 at any rate. |
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Apr 8, 2013 4:57:18 GMT
I'm hoping that BAA has the sense to eventually extend the pod system to link all of the terminals, which would eliminate some of the constraints imposed by the way that the current lines, as built, make it impossible to serve every terminal with a single train (Tube or NR).
This bit is approaching RIPAS territory, but if it were me, I might consider extending the PRT to Hatton Cross and then abandoning the T4 loop while I'm at it.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 8, 2013 9:08:02 GMT
I'd be surprised if the pods had enough capacity.
Last time I was down that way the tube was decently loaded at T4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 11:27:57 GMT
Tell me more, please. A link would be wonderful. Wish I could. Something like Picc through T1-3 then T5 then to the planned airport expansion north at Sipson in a clockwise loop that joins/parallels Railtrack through T1-3, before becoming the existing Picc through T4. A kind of figure of 8 at any rate. IIUC, that means the T4 loop would be operated in the opposite direction - needing a flying junction at Hatton Cross, unless it was an INTERNAL figure of 8, not runing through Hatton Cross at all. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 8, 2013 22:02:51 GMT
Wish I could. Something like Picc through T1-3 then T5 then to the planned airport expansion north at Sipson in a clockwise loop that joins/parallels Railtrack through T1-3, before becoming the existing Picc through T4. A kind of figure of 8 at any rate. IIUC, that means the T4 loop would be operated in the opposite direction - needing a flying junction at Hatton Cross, unless it was an INTERNAL figure of 8, not runing through Hatton Cross at all. Well I was describing the route, not the directions the trains would be travelling in. Could be for example T4 - T1/2/3 - T'Sipson' - T5 - T1/2/3.  |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Apr 11, 2013 12:08:54 GMT
For anyone just wanting to go from T4 to T5, that would make them just do the change anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 11, 2013 14:55:26 GMT
There maybe other options such as having double tracks/twin tunnels all the way and operating in both directions, having alternate services T1/2/3 - T5 - T4 and T1/2/3 - T5 - T6 etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 5:37:44 GMT
IIUC, that means the T4 loop would be operated in the opposite direction - needing a flying junction at Hatton Cross, unless it was an INTERNAL figure of 8, not runing through Hatton Cross at all. Well I was describing the route, not the directions the trains would be travelling in. Could be for example T4 - T1/2/3 - T'Sipson' - T5 - T1/2/3. Well you did say "clockwise" from T5 through Sipson to T123 then on to T4 - and I identified a technical issue with that. If it was a complete figure-8, then the line from T4 towards Hatton Cross would diverge again east of T4 and connect with the westbound Picc approaching T123. No track conflicts except perhaps at T123 on the Sipson-T123-T4 leg, where new tunnelling would be involved, and maybe a new platform for T4 could be provisioned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 5:39:58 GMT
There maybe other options such as having double tracks/twin tunnels all the way and operating in both directions, having alternate services T1/2/3 - T5 - T4 and T1/2/3 - T5 - T6 etc. Ah, Mike - this isn't a RIPAS thread, so real world economics apply!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 14, 2013 17:10:03 GMT
Actually I was referring to a semi-official proposal, not my own idea, one described as a figure of eight which you correctly (pedantically) point out it technically isn't. More of an ampersand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 22:53:58 GMT
Actually I was referring to a semi-official proposal, not my own idea, one described as a figure of eight which you correctly (pedantically) point out it technically isn't. More of an ampersand. Mike - wasn't trying to be pedantic, just seeking to understand. A figure-of-8 shuttle would be easier to implement. Otherwise, an anticlockwise ampersand (sort of a teapot). Just think, we could have the Teacup line and the Teapot line. And not a Kettle in sight!!  |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 15, 2013 12:24:04 GMT
^^A good place for rail forumites to let off steam in EMU's no doubt! I would guess the advantage is to serve all termini and the main 1/2/3 twice but as pointed out at some cost and maybe a personal pod system would be better.
|
|
