Crossrail: 4tph to Terminal 5?

We were slightly surprised by a fairly recent article in the Evening Standard suggesting that Andy Lord, TfL Commissioner for Transport, wants to at least double the number of Crossrail trains to Heathrow Terminal 5.

To be clear, this sounds a bit more dramatic than it is given that doubling the number of Crossrail trains actually means increasing from 2 trains per hour (tph) to 4tph and, in any case, Heathrow Terminal 5 rail station is already served by 4tph Heathrow Express trains so the total increase would be from 6tph to 8tph.

It is not the suggestion that surprised us for it has been talked about for years, it was the timing and it being initiated by TfL. However, on reflection, both factors would appear to make sense.

In this article we look at why now and what has prompted TfL to raise it. Our suspicious minds also look at possible real reasons for proposing this, what challenges there might be and hazarding a guess as to what frequencies and stopping patterns will operate should the idea come to fruition. Before looking at what is behind this, we wonder who is behind this.

Whose idea is it, really?

It was Andy Lord who brought up the subject at a TfL board meeting but he may have been prompted to do so by either someone above him or someone below him. We look at the likely contenders and their possible reasons for raising this.

The obvious person to believe initiated this was Andy Lord himself. This would make sense. He is the commissioner (a very appropriate word here) and 4tph to Terminal 5 is an obvious objective to pursue in order to provide London with a more attractive, more complete transport network. Additionally, he used to work for British Airways at Heathrow which is one of only two airlines to operate from Terminal 5. The other is Iberia which is owned by IAG which in turn is the parent company of British Airways. Therefore, Andy Lord must be well aware of the benefits that extra Elizabeth line trains to Terminal 5 will bring both to TfL and to British Airways, the national flag carrier.

Equally, we would not be entirely surprised if Andy Lord’s boss, the Mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, prompted Andy Lord to start the ball rolling. That raises the question of why he didn’t openly suggest it himself but sometimes it is better to leave it to someone with better technical knowledge and background understanding to explain and promote a proposal. Or maybe he thought having a mayor suggesting a better service to Terminal 5 whilst opposing the expansion of Heathrow Airport would send mixed messages as to his stance on airport expansion.

If Sir Sadiq were behind this it would probably be in order to increase revenue, present a better image of London to encourage tourists and investment, and to improve the rail service in west London.

Finally, it would not be at all surprising if Howard Smith OBE, TfL’s director of the Elizabeth line, was behind all this as it fits in with his beliefs and past pronouncements. Howard has always talked up maximising the use of Crossrail from long before it was opened. He was also behind the proposal to take over some train services that were originally intended to be run by GWR as limited stop services on the ‘relief lines’ (‘slow’ lines) between various outer stations towards Reading and Paddington. This is why we have 2tph extra peak services to and from Reading that omit quite a few stations stops. Also, prior to Crossrail opening, he pointed out that it was ridiculous that Crossrail was planned to serve the lightly used Terminal 4 station with 4tph but not serve the busy Terminal 5 station at all.

Other beliefs of Howard Smith are the importance of ‘turn up and go’ and, as far as possible maintaining simple stopping patterns. Howard believes in keeping things simple for the passenger with easy to remember departure times, ideally with the same service throughout the day. He also favours simple stopping pattern which, as far as possible, means all trains stopping at all stations. This philosophy can clearly be seen on London Overground.

Thus 4tph to Terminal 5 all day fits in with Howard’s philosophy. 2tph does not.

Why Now and Why is TfL Proposing This?

When 2tph to Terminal 5 was announced a few years ago, it was done with much fanfare and the DfT were keen to emphasise their involvement as well as providing press releases. In these press releases there was talk of them (the DfT) reviewing the possibility of increasing the service to 4tph. We also note that the TfL press release at the time issued on 13 July 2017 stated:

A joint feasibility study is also underway to look at delivering a further two Elizabeth line trains per hour to Terminal 5 meaning eight Elizabeth line trains per hour serving Heathrow, as well as additional work on developing western rail access to Heathrow.

We have heard nothing since about this review and we presume this silence has prompted TfL to take the initiative.

From TfL and the Mayor’s perspective, there couldn’t be a better time to raise the subject. The Mayor is now dealing with a Labour government who one would like to think is more receptive to TfL’s ideas. The current rail minister is Lord Hendy, a former TfL Commissioner for Transport. TfL has new trains on order, due to come into service in 2026, and TfL is currently exploring how these can best be utilised. This is a rare occasion when they don’t have to worry too much about rolling stock implications and costs. Rather cynically, we would point out that this is a scheme that could be implemented before the Mayor stands for re-election, should he choose to do so.

The Heathrow Airport Management Factor

Looking further afield, there has been a change of management at Heathrow Airport (which owns Heathrow Express). They appear to be far less dogmatic and more pragmatic, which has various implications. The first is that they want a third runway so would be anxious to increase the portion of airline passengers using public transport to bolster their case. With management effort concentrated on presenting as good a case as possible for expansion, there is a feeling that they are currently less concerned about actually running Heathrow Express themselves.

The other consequence of a pragmatic approach is a recognition that it would make sense to increase terminal capacity before building a third runway and regardless of whether or not a third runway would be built. An increase in terminal capacity and adjustments to the existing runways would allow more larger planes to occupy the same number of airline slots and consequently allow modern, quieter, larger, more fuel-efficient planes to bring about an increase in the number of passengers. Terminal 5 is one of two terminals that is proposed for enlargement – and hence more passengers.

What is the Real Purpose of The Proposal?

Our cynical minds always look for the real reasons behind announcements. Is it really to serve Terminal 5? If so, is it solely to serve Terminal 5? As we have mentioned many times before, the number of passengers using Crossrail to go to and from Heathrow isn’t actually that great, although it considerably exceeds the number of passengers using Heathrow Express. If, hypothetically, you could run Crossrail trains non-stop between Paddington and Heathrow, you probably wouldn’t actually have that many passengers aboard the nine-carriage train. Capturing 100% of the Heathrow Express market share wouldn’t improve things by much either.

First Possibility: It really is to just serve Terminal 5

We have to consider the possibility that the reason for serving Terminal 5 really is simple. It is to provide a better service to Terminal 5. However, as described above, the numbers just don’t add-up. One cannot envisage the service running at a loss so this only makes sense is it if is believed that a better service will lead to a massive increase in ridership to Terminal 5 using Crossrail.

Second Possibility: Improve Rail Services in west London

The second possibility for the proposal is the one we believe is what this is really mainly about. It is about improving the rail service between Hayes & Harlington and Acton Main Line which, at least in the peak period, is in serious need of beefing up. Existing proposals for using the extra trains now on order include running extending some Paddington terminator trains to West Drayton and calling at all stations between Paddington and West Drayton.

What could be more sensible than investigating the possibility of running an extra 2tph to Terminal 5, instead of proposing a service to West Drayton? West Drayton already gets 6tph in the peak hours in the peak direction and 4tph at other times. Terminal 5 is busier than West Drayton but that includes Heathrow Express passengers. West Drayton is not an ideal place to terminate trains. The terminating platform there is to the north of the relief lines (the ones normally used by Crossrail) so involves conflicting movements and, furthermore, is also part of a freight loop.

If we are correct about this being the real reason behind this proposal then this won’t have been the first time TfL have publicised a scheme emphasising a particular benefit passengers can relate to when, in reality, the true benefit is somewhere else. A non-TfL example is HS2 when the real benefit is mainly capacity (both passenger and freight) but was promoted as a faster railway. Even the name emphasises speed not capacity.

Third Possibility: Positioning TfL to be in a better place for 2028 review

A review is due to take place to look at best use of track capacity on the Great Western Main Line, with the aim of introducing changes in the June 2028 timetable. If, by then, TfL had already established 4tph to Terminal 5 or at least has gained approval to operate 4tph in future, then it will be in a much better position in these negotiations. These negotiations can last a long time, as anyone following a similar exercise on the East Coast Main Line with its delayed introduction of a radical new timetable will know.

Many have suggested that a primary objective of most parties at these future negotiations will be to argue the case for getting rid of Heathrow Express as a very inefficient, under-utilised constraint on long-distance GWR services. It makes sense for TfL to be ready to take advantage of the situation should Heathrow Express cease to operate.

We were wryly amused by a reassurance from Andy Lord quoted in the Evening Standard article:

“I think that would be complementary to the existing Heathrow Express service, and would deliver real benefit to the airport as well as our ridership and give customers who are arriving and departing from Terminal 5 a greater choice.”

It is hard to see this as just a complementary service to Heathrow Express. Heathrow Express already has pitifully low passenger numbers, which would be almost certain to go down even further should the Crossrail service to Terminal 5 match the frequency of Heathrow Express there. In that scenario Heathrow Express would struggle to survive or at least survive and break even. The only real advantage to most Heathrow Express passengers is speed but, if you are heading to central London, the Elizabeth line is generally a better bet for those burdened with luggage, especially once you factor in the time to exit from the platform at Paddington and change to reach your onward transport.

The Challenges 4tph Presents

Andy Lord was very open about the challenges that 4tph to Terminal 5 presents. At least he was very open about the operational challenges. No doubt there will be negotiating challenges as well particularly with Heathrow Express, GWR, Network Rail, and DfT. There may also need to be negotiations with ORR (Office of Rail and Road) concerning adjudicating reasonable charges between different affected parties and with freight operators in order to find the necessary passenger train paths on the relief lines.

The two big challenges are:

• Making best use of capacity between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5 stations, including platform use at Terminal 5.
• Providing a suitable timetable. As London Bridge rebuilding, Thameslink’s 2018 changes and the ECML upgrade have shown, timetabling is often the biggest challenge of all and tends to be the greatest unknown.

Capacity Between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5

Operationally, both Terminal 4 station and Terminal 5 station are constrained for Crossrail. Terminal 4 has the luxury of two platforms for 4tph, but unfortunately it is single track between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 4. This means that trains have to be operated at 15-minute intervals with very little leeway in the event of disruption. If just one train is severely disrupted the only realistic option for the controllers is to terminate that train prematurely in platform 5 at Hayes & Harlington.

Terminal 5 station has the opposite problem to Terminal 4. There is double track between Terminals 2 & 3 and Terminal 5 (which is shared with Heathrow Express). However, only one platform is available to Crossrail as Heathrow Express has dedicated use of one platform. Apart from anything else, this makes it nearly impossible to divert a train destined for Terminal 4 to Terminal 5 in the event of disruption.

The dedicated use of platforms can be observed by looking at the relevant live map on Open Train Times. Heathrow Express trains in passenger service have a reporting number beginning with ‘1’ and Elizabeth line trains in passenger service have a reporting number beginning with ‘9’.

The restriction of a single platform at Terminal 5 being available to Crossrail, plus the need not to get in the way of Heathrow Express trains between Terminals 2&3 and Terminal 5 (or have Heathrow Express trains get in the way of Crossrail trains), adds an additional constraint to Crossrail serving Terminal 5.

Whilst on the subject of Terminal 5 station, note the inclusion of platforms 1 and 2 in the above diagram. These are platforms that have been built but not fitted out with the intention of making them available for future use should the need arise. They were built as part of the construction process for Terminal 5 as adding them retrospectively would have been almost impossible. We have not considered the use of them as part of a solution to the challenge of running 4tph on the Elizabeth line.

Timetable Challenges

Timetable challenges to any proposal to increase Crossrail services to Terminal 5 are more significant than might be expected. To keep things simple for passengers (and operators) trains from Terminal 5 need to continue to terminate at Shenfield. The service would have to be retimed to shorten the current layover time at Terminal 5, which is currently 15 minutes and incompatible with 4tph. This means that trains must depart sooner after arriving. They then need a train path that is suitable for a return journey to Shenfield which in turn means they must arrive at Paddington at a suitable time.

Currently, trains to Terminal 5 immediately precede an all-stations train to Terminal 4. This makes some kind of sense as it maximises track capacity with the Terminal 5 train stopping at fewer stations than the Terminal 4 train. Unfortunately, on its return journey it follows the train from Terminal 4 which means it is unable to take much advantage, journey-time wise, of its reduced number of station stops. Ideally, the train from Terminal 5 should precede the train from Terminal 4 on its return journey to London but multiple constraints (including the very short turnround time necessary) might make that difficult.

Another problem is needing to fit in with Heathrow Express timing on the double track between Terminal 2&3 and Terminal 5. Adjusting the Heathrow Express timetable is not a simple option and in a worst-case scenario would require a rewrite of the entire Great Western Main Line timetable with the possible consequential effect of requiring branch line timetables as far as Devon and Cornwall to be rewritten too to ensure branch line connections are maintained.

If there is still a long-term desire to increase the off-peak service to the eastern Crossrail branches (Shenfield and Abbey Wood) to 10tph on both (it is currently 8tph), this could add a further complication as it is more challenging to graft 4tph to Terminal 5, evenly spaced apart, onto a 10tph frequency to Shenfield than it is onto an 8tph one.

A further timetable challenge is to maximise capacity between Airport Junction and Paddington – or Old Oak Common – in future. This can probably be done by having a more regular stopping pattern for all trains. Basically, as an example, trains would be either all stations or they omit Acton Main Line, Hanwell, and West Ealing. This would have to include all trains to and from Maidenhead and Reading, which might upset some peak travellers with their limited stop train currently running non-stop between West Drayton and Ealing Broadway. In future it might be necessary to add Hayes & Harlington and Southall stops.

A complicating factor is that there are so many possible scenarios to model and see if they work – and all these take time.

Where do the trains come from?

You can’t add a new timetabled service without considering where the trains come from. Here is what we believe is the most likely scenario.

We know that TfL are going to receive 10 new trains for Crossrail. These should start to arrive in 2026. We have been told four will be needed to extend some trains beyond Paddington to provide 18tph to Old Oak Common where some trains will terminate.

We have also been told that one train will be needed to cover maintenance. Typically, as a rule of thumb for electric multiple units you need, at most, one train out of ten to be allocated to cover maintenance. That means that five trains would be available for as-yet-undecided service enhancements.

We also know that TfL have expressed a strong preference as a top priority for 14tph in the peaks between both Paddington and Shenfield, and Paddington and Abbey Wood. This has become designated ‘Project East’. You can read about Project East in a TfL document or our article which includes details of project East. In a previous article we calculated that what turned out to become Project East would require three extra trains. So, if our calculations are correct, there are still has two more out of the allocation of 10 trains that are available for further enhancements.

TfL’s other proposal was for an extension of 4tph from Old Oak Common to West Drayton (‘Project West’) in the peak hours. We calculated this would require four extra trains and TfL have already stated that they can’t implement both Project East and Project West with the ten extra trains that will be available in the future. They would probably be able to implement 2tph terminating at West Drayton rather than Old Oak Common in the peak period, but 2tph to West Drayton and 2tph to Terminal 5 is rather unsatisfactory and rather against the ethos of a simple timetable and turn up and go. Remember West Drayton already has 6tph in the peak period in the peak direction and the station isn’t nearly as busy as Terminal 5. Very conveniently, an extra 2tph from extended from Old Oak Common to Terminal 5 would require, by our calculations, an extra two trains.

A further advantage of adding trains to the existing Terminal 5 service is that there would be a reasonable number of passengers throughout the day so it could be an all-day service, rather than a peak-only one which wouldn’t be making best use of rolling stock.

What would the service look like?

We are going to make a whole host of assumptions here but we would argue they are reasonable assumptions to make. We won’t necessarily correctly predict the precise service pattern should 4tph to Terminal 5 be implemented but we suspect it will be close to the final solution.

Assumptions made include:

• Project East is implemented in full.
• An extra 2tph to Terminal 5 is implemented.
• TfL has an aspiration to provide at least 6tph for all suburban Crossrail stations in the Greater London Area – at least for the peak hours and probably off-peak as well.
• The service pattern is kept as simple as practicable.
• The peak-period limited stop services to and from Reading will need to make additional stops at Hayes & Harlington and Southall, because it will be impractical to create sufficient gaps to sensibly run non-stop between West Drayton and Ealing Broadway.
• One extra train is sufficient to cover the additional maintenance requirement.

The table below summarises the number of services (excluding Heathrow Express) at the west London Crossrail stations within the Greater London Area.

The figures in bold in brackets show the peak period enhancement in the peak direction due to a limited stop service to/from Reading being run. For this we have assumed that in future (if two extra tph to Terminal 5 be implemented) it will be necessary for these limited stop trains to make additional stops at Hayes & Harlington and Southall to optimise overall capacity by limiting non-stopping between Hayes & Harlington and Acton Main Line as this generally requires one train to occupy more than one optimised train path.

Acton Main Line (with a *) has an additional two inbound trains call in the morning peak to relieve overcrowding issues at this station.

Despite a desire to have at least 6tph at London suburban stations throughout most of the day, this cannot be achieved at West Drayton outside the peak period due to only 4tph running off-peak between Hayes & Harlington and Maidenhead.

Note that some west London suburban stations on Crossrail currently receive as service that is as good as, or better as their counterparts on the east side of the line and, if the extra services to Terminal 5 are implemented, it is expected that this will apply to more west London stations.

Will this ever happen?

We have no idea of how realistic this all is and, in all probability, it will be creation of a suitable timetable that will make or break this idea. Given the expected popularity of such a move, if it is reasonably practical it will probably happen one day. Establishing a workable timetable, current lack of trains, disruptive engineering work due to the building of Old Oak Common station, and current remedial action taking place to fix Network Rail reliability issues between Airport Junction and Paddington mean it isn’t going to happen soon. We will stick to our previous prediction of “not before 2028” which does not mean it will happen but, if it does happen, it will take some years to implement.