Great Western Coffee Shop

Journey by Journey => London to South Wales => Topic started by: grahame on August 27, 2022, 06:51:26



Title: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: grahame on August 27, 2022, 06:51:26

From Friends of the National Railway Museum (https://www.nrmfriends.org.uk/post/paddington-nearly-wasn-t)

Quote
Proposals for a railway between the capital, London, and the country’s “second city”, Bristol, started to emerge as early as 1824, but it wasn’t until 1832 that things started to get serious. Committees representing business interests in London and Bristol formed, and by March 1833 they had appointed Isambard Kingdom Brunel as Engineer for the proposed railway. Bankers and directors were appointed and when the committees met in August 1833, they adopted the name “Great Western Railway” (GWR). Brunel set off in his horse-drawn “britzka” with assistants to survey the likely routes for a project then estimated at a very conservative £2.8 million. By November 1833, Brunel had submitted a report for a railway line starting at Vauxhall very near to the present-day Vauxhall Bridge over the River Thames in London. The line would then run for the first four miles to the west on viaducts through Brompton, Hammersmith, South Acton towards Ealing and then through a tunnel south of Ealing. From Ealing, the line would run to West Drayton and on to Reading, much as the Crossrail/Elizabeth Line does now. The Sonning area on the approach to Reading was to have got a 1¼ mile-long tunnel where the extensive cutting now is. Another [unpopular] option floated in 1835 was for the GWR to share the proposed London & Birmingham Railway terminus at Euston.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/noneedpadd.jpg)

Paddington - closed and diverted into Euston
Marylebone - closed and diverted into St Pancras

"London Haupbhanhof" - also south and south east trains from there via Blackfriars
Also served by HS1 and HS2


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Electric train on August 27, 2022, 07:25:56
There was a plan a few decades ago to terminate all but a few intercity trains a Reading with only local semi fast stoppers and few fasts, with rest of the stopping services being picked up by the then planned Crossrail all stations from Maidenhead the plan was to demolish the fourth arch at Padd have 6 platforms, 2 for HEX 4 for National Rail under the area and turn the main station into a 'venue.'  This was all part of the Paddington master plan which included Paddington basin, Good Shed area, St Marys', the Royal Mail Sorting Office and the office buildings on Eastbourne Terrace.

The question has to be asked is the viability of Paddington when Old Oak Common station opens as part of HS2, with its connections with the Elizabeth Line, HEX, HS2 trains to Euston, if a station was built on the West and North London Lines, Paddington could become like St Pancras when Thameslink opened.  (St Pancras only being rescued by HS1)


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: TaplowGreen on August 27, 2022, 08:05:42
There was a plan a few decades ago to terminate all but a few intercity trains a Reading with only local semi fast stoppers and few fasts, with rest of the stopping services being picked up by the then planned Crossrail all stations from Maidenhead the plan was to demolish the fourth arch at Padd have 6 platforms, 2 for HEX 4 for National Rail under the area and turn the main station into a 'venue.'  This was all part of the Paddington master plan which included Paddington basin, Good Shed area, St Marys', the Royal Mail Sorting Office and the office buildings on Eastbourne Terrace.

The question has to be asked is the viability of Paddington when Old Oak Common station opens as part of HS2, with its connections with the Elizabeth Line, HEX, HS2 trains to Euston, if a station was built on the West and North London Lines, Paddington could become like St Pancras when Thameslink opened.  (St Pancras only being rescued by HS1)

Paddington Station is a Grade 1 listed building, so I wouldn't start polishing the wrecking ball just yet!  :o


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: broadgage on August 27, 2022, 08:38:29
Daft idea IMHO. Most long distance passengers business or leisure, want to travel to or from central London. Not Reading.

A connecting service via Reading would for most be a backward step. Two legs to the journey means in practice the risk of something going wrong.
The GWR bit will no doubt go on strike on different days to the TFL bit, twice as many days a year of disruption.
Connecting services wont.
Endless arguments about through tickets not being valid. Allow an extra hour to get to Reading or face a huge "fine" when crossrail delays result in missing the GWR train.
Standing on a basic commuter train even for a part of the journey is a distinct downgrade.

Before the pandemic, capacity was a growing problem, not just capacity on board the trains, but also station and platform capacity, so is reducing this capacity sensible.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: grahame on August 27, 2022, 09:22:41
Daft idea IMHO

Is that in reaction to ...
* Divert trains into "London Central" (a.k.a. Kings Cross / St. Pancras / Euston)
or
* Terminate at Reading and have folks use Crossrail or local trains in from there
or something else
* Terminate at Old Oak

<advocate mode=devil>With Euston services reduced from 4 to 1 an hour to Manchester and to 1 an hour to Birmingham, there is capacity there for:
* an hourly train to Swindon, divide for Taunton via Bristol and for Swansea
* a second hourly train to Swindon, divide for Cheltenham Spa and Weymouth
* an hourly train to Exeter, divide for Paignton and Penzance
* an hourly train to Reading, divide for Hereford via Oxford and for Exeter via Salisbury</advocate>

We may be at a real turning point for railways is everyone concerned doesn't get their reliability and other issues sorted out!


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 27, 2022, 10:42:59
Terminating most services at Reading?  Well, it was a daft idea a few decades ago when it was ‘suggested’ - I’m not sure why Broadgage is speaking as if it’s an active proposal as there’s absolutely no chance of it happening now with the 8 platform GWR/Elizabeth Line station being built at Old Oak Common.

Paddington will become quieter in terms of passenger numbers that’s for sure.  It will become quieter later this year when through Elizabeth Line services commence, and quieter still when Ols Oak Common opens, but I can’t see any fewer long distance trains using it.

I can see the logic in reducing the number of trains at Marylebone by diverting some of the services that currently use that into Old Oak Common.  Marylebone is cramped now with a small concourse and too much platform sharing of trains, has little scope for expansion, and has poor onward connections.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Electric train on August 27, 2022, 12:43:23
There was a plan a few decades ago to terminate all but a few intercity trains a Reading with only local semi fast stoppers and few fasts, with rest of the stopping services being picked up by the then planned Crossrail all stations from Maidenhead the plan was to demolish the fourth arch at Padd have 6 platforms, 2 for HEX 4 for National Rail under the area and turn the main station into a 'venue.'  This was all part of the Paddington master plan which included Paddington basin, Good Shed area, St Marys', the Royal Mail Sorting Office and the office buildings on Eastbourne Terrace.

The question has to be asked is the viability of Paddington when Old Oak Common station opens as part of HS2, with its connections with the Elizabeth Line, HEX, HS2 trains to Euston, if a station was built on the West and North London Lines, Paddington could become like St Pancras when Thameslink opened.  (St Pancras only being rescued by HS1)

Paddington Station is a Grade 1 listed building, so I wouldn't start polishing the wrecking ball just yet!  :o

There was no plan to demolish arches 1 2 & 3 the original Brunel as they are grade 1, however the fourth arc was a later addition 1920's in fact and was never included in the the grade 1 listing, I believe now it is listed.

Terminating most services at Reading?  Well, it was a daft idea a few decades ago when it was ‘suggested’ - I’m not sure why Broadgage is speaking as if it’s an active proposal as there’s absolutely no chance of it happening now with the 8 platform GWR/Elizabeth Line station being built at Old Oak Common.

Paddington will become quieter in terms of passenger numbers that’s for sure.  It will become quieter later this year when through Elizabeth Line services commence, and quieter still when Ols Oak Common opens, but I can’t see any fewer long distance trains using it.

I can see the logic in reducing the number of trains at Marylebone by diverting some of the services that currently use that into Old Oak Common.  Marylebone is cramped now with a small concourse and too much platform sharing of trains, has little scope for expansion, and has poor onward connections.


There may be some challenges in using the old 'High Wycombe' line OOC via Greenford, I'm not sure how much of the right of way will be left intact by the intervention shafts for HS2

Paddington main station will certainly be far less busy from the 6 Nov. 

In 10 years when HS2 and Old Oak Common Stn are functioning Paddington will be even less busy, most people from the West who want to go into the West End, The City, Dockland, even to St Pancras will change at OOC onto The Elzabeth Line


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: paul7575 on August 27, 2022, 13:18:09
The original extract includes this oddity:
“From Ealing, the line would run to West Drayton and on to Reading, much as the Crossrail/Elizabeth Line does now…”  ???
But if writing about the history, shouldn’t it really be “much as the GWR has done since it opened? 

Is Crossrail to the railway like the Premier League is to football, in terms of ignoring what went before?  ???

Paul


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Mark A on August 27, 2022, 15:18:48
Most long distance passengers business or leisure, want to travel to or from central London. Not Reading.

Paddington's out in the fields. The service that until nine months ago took people from Bristol to the City of London on one ticket was a through service and ticket from Bristol to London Terminals ticket via Salisbury, as the ticket was inclusive of travel via Waterloo East and London Bridge to Blackfriars or Cannon Street - and the latter is certainly in the city of London. Can't work out if Blackfriars is in the City, as it's 'in' the Thames.

Mark


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: JayMac on August 27, 2022, 16:37:48
Of course Paddington is necessary.

He brings joy and smiles to many children. And adults too.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Electric train on August 27, 2022, 20:58:24
Of course Paddington is necessary.

He brings joy and smiles to many children. And adults too.

.............. and Marmalade sandwiches  ;D

The original extract includes this oddity:
“From Ealing, the line would run to West Drayton and on to Reading, much as the Crossrail/Elizabeth Line does now…”  ???
But if writing about the history, shouldn’t it really be “much as the GWR has done since it opened? 

Is Crossrail to the railway like the Premier League is to football, in terms of ignoring what went before?  ???

Paul

When Brunel designed Paddington Station (the current on and not the original one) his intention was to have a near flat access to the 'Metropolitain Railway' the Met the GWR were an early partner in the Met line, to give them access to the City.

If you look at the levels even today the Lawn is lower than the surrounding streets and the (now) Circle line platforms are not much lower than the Lawn.

Crossrail is only a modern and expensive version of what the GWR and indeed the BR WR were doing up to the mid 1960's, through trains from the GWR Relief lines via platforms 13 and 16 (originally the H&C line used 14 and 15) so that the GWR could access its sidings under Smithfield Market, there were also passenger services at one time to Liverpool St

Indeed where Crossrail portals are now part of the land had the DN Relief which ran through Royal Oak station


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: eightonedee on August 27, 2022, 22:58:49
Quote
In 10 years when HS2 and Old Oak Common Stn are functioning Paddington will be even less busy, most people from the West who want to go into the West End, The City, Dockland, even to St Pancras will change at OOC onto The Elizabeth Line

This may not be the worse thing in the world! I am not sure what the position is now, post covid, but when I was still working before lockdown I was concerned by the number of times I arrived at Paddington at peak morning time to find  access to the Underground closed due to overcrowding.

If there is a whole new set of choices as to how someone can get to various onward central London destinations from the west, via Reading, Old Oak or from various LT lines at Paddington, perhaps this will no longer be necessary?


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: CyclingSid on August 28, 2022, 08:48:05
How many MPs "commute" through Paddington?


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: froome on August 28, 2022, 09:35:47
Where people want to go in London is a wide variety of locations. Many (but certainly not all) want to reach locations in the central area, but that itself covers a wide area stretching from Park Lane in the west to Tower Bridge in the east. So no terminus is going to be in an ideal location.

Personally I'm quite happy with Paddington being where it is, as it allows me to cycle through Hyde Park and other parks to reach many central locations. It certainly isn't convenient for eastern destinations, but as has already been hinted at, the best way to give most people a chance to get close to their final destination is to have more than one route to London allowing a choice of destinations, e.g. Waterloo for the eastern side, and to have good access to onwards journeys into central London, which Paddington to a degree does give.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Mark A on August 28, 2022, 11:47:52
Personally I'm quite happy with Paddington being where it is, as it allows me to cycle through Hyde Park and other parks to reach many central locations.

+1 to this: Paddington to various destinations between it and the river (and beyond) is very walkable and offers the benefit of crossing Hyde Park and/or the other one on the way. Even a quick paddle in the refreshing but goose-infested Westbourne aka Serpentine.

Mark


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 28, 2022, 13:09:09
Daft idea IMHO

Is that in reaction to ...
* Divert trains into "London Central" (a.k.a. Kings Cross / St. Pancras / Euston)
or
* Terminate at Reading and have folks use Crossrail or local trains in from there
or something else
* Terminate at Old Oak

<advocate mode=devil>With Euston services reduced from 4 to 1 an hour to Manchester and to 1 an hour to Birmingham, there is capacity there for:
* an hourly train to Swindon, divide for Taunton via Bristol and for Swansea
* a second hourly train to Swindon, divide for Cheltenham Spa and Weymouth
* an hourly train to Exeter, divide for Paignton and Penzance
* an hourly train to Reading, divide for Hereford via Oxford and for Exeter via Salisbury</advocate>

We may be at a real turning point for railways is everyone concerned doesn't get their reliability and other issues sorted out!


I agree that a radical rethink is necessary. I've had two trips out in the last fortnight - a day out in London, and a day out in Oxford. Both trips were on Wednesdays.

The least busy trains were the BRI-PAD IETs; I could almost convince myself that they got emptier as we neared London. Places like Bath and Oxford, on the other hand, were heaving; there can be no doubt that the planned improvements at Oxford (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=593.msg324890#msg324890) are vital.

I had forgotten just how uncomfortable the IETs are - I was in some pain when I arrived in London, and even more on the return leg to Bristol. The ride characteristics of these units are also worse than I remember. Perhaps I've just got used to the better comfort levels on the 166's that I usually catch?

The Elizabeth line was astonishing. I've been following the progress of building it on YouTube over the years, but that had not prepared me for the scale of it (I felt like a half-sized scale model of a human). The speed with which it got us from Tottenham Court Road to Paddington was disorientating. I can see that a lot of people may well transfer to the Elizabeth line at Old Oak, assuming the interchange is as easy as it should be. That would certainly diminish Paddington's role.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: didcotdean on August 28, 2022, 16:29:57

The least busy trains were the BRI-PAD IETs; I could almost convince myself that they got emptier as we neared London. Places like Bath and Oxford, on the other hand, were heaving; there can be no doubt that the planned improvements at Oxford (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=593.msg324890#msg324890) are vital.

This matches my recent anecdotal experience on off-peak weekdays and weekend over this summer. Traveling in near empty carriages at the ends of Bristol 9/10 IETs and by contrast in heaving 5 carriage Oxford (& North Cots beyond) trains. Especially the latter on Sunday when these serve Radley as well so there is no local alternative.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: ellendune on August 28, 2022, 20:28:25
The Elizabeth line was astonishing. I've been following the progress of building it on YouTube over the years, but that had not prepared me for the scale of it (I felt like a half-sized scale model of a human). The speed with which it got us from Tottenham Court Road to Paddington was disorientating. I can see that a lot of people may well transfer to the Elizabeth line at Old Oak, assuming the interchange is as easy as it should be. That would certainly diminish Paddington's role.

It depends where you want to go.  If it is to South Kensington  or anywhere of the District line side of the circle the Elizabeth line is not too helpful. 


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: grahame on August 28, 2022, 21:10:14
If you speculate forward ... and take note of the original plan for trains to carry on though Paddington onto the Met:

a) Start the broken circle from Old Oak - then Royal Oak, Paddington, Edward Road, Baker Street, etc
b) Change at Old Oak for Crossrail
c) Change at Ealing Broadway for Central line and District line which sorts out Earls Court, South Ken, Victoria and MPland
d) Change at Paddington still for Charing Cross, Waterloo, and The Elephant - on to Lewisham?

I am reminded of how it was when I was in college and commuted into Holborn Viaduct, with most traffic leaving the train at Blackfriars.   And of Hamburg Altona, where the long distance trains have already dumped at Hauptbahnhof.



Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Electric train on August 29, 2022, 07:31:49
If you speculate forward ... and take note of the original plan for trains to carry on though Paddington onto the Met:

a) Start the broken circle from Old Oak - then Royal Oak, Paddington, Edward Road, Baker Street, etc
b) Change at Old Oak for Crossrail
c) Change at Ealing Broadway for Central line and District line which sorts out Earls Court, South Ken, Victoria and MPland
d) Change at Paddington still for Charing Cross, Waterloo, and The Elephant - on to Lewisham?

I am reminded of how it was when I was in college and commuted into Holborn Viaduct, with most traffic leaving the train at Blackfriars.   And of Hamburg Altona, where the long distance trains have already dumped at Hauptbahnhof.



a. - Not sure that would provide much in the way of additional useful connectivity
c. - Build a new Central Line station at OOC at the Western end of the site and stations on both the West and North London Lines would provide connections to most of these and more.
d. - The quickest way to Lewisham would still remain Elzabeth Line to Farringdon, Thamelink to London Bridge and then Lewisham

One thing is certain the pandemic has changed all previous planning of passenger journeys, however over the next year or 2 the new pattern will be clearer, and OOC HS2 station will provide greater journey connectivity than Stratford (East London) 


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: grahame on August 29, 2022, 09:39:07
I find myself wondering if we're going to see asymetric patterns when Old Oak opens.    Passengers going IN to London will change at Old Oak because it should be quick easy.   Passengers coming OUT from London will change at Paddington in the hope of getting a seat on the train, having staff around if something goes wrong, and (initially at least) lots of places to grab a bite to eat.


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Electric train on August 29, 2022, 10:20:51
I find myself wondering if we're going to see asymetric patterns when Old Oak opens.    Passengers going IN to London will change at Old Oak because it should be quick easy.   Passengers coming OUT from London will change at Paddington in the hope of getting a seat on the train, having staff around if something goes wrong, and (initially at least) lots of places to grab a bite to eat.

The HSS dwell times at OOC will be short 2 may be 3 mins, a bit like Reading HSS

There will be staff at OOC to around the same level as you encounter at Reading.

Food outlets I don't think there will be a shortage, indeed the OOC area could develop into something like Stratford especially around the Grand Union Canal, it's just the Elzabeth Line TCD that prevents a big shopping centre as part of the station complex but plenty of opportunity North of the Canal


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Clan Line on August 29, 2022, 11:20:30

Is Paddington necessary?....................just ask my Granddaughter !

(https://i.postimg.cc/y62vFmhm/c927dfa8-1dac-43db-96f6-a73c8a12e3d9.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)



Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Robin Summerhill on August 29, 2022, 13:01:42
If this is such a fantastic idea then presumably somebody is calling for something similar at Stratford?

If they are not then it might give some insight into what other people would be thinking about it...


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: JayMac on August 29, 2022, 13:05:43
Is Paddington necessary?....................just ask my Granddaughter !

(https://i.postimg.cc/y62vFmhm/c927dfa8-1dac-43db-96f6-a73c8a12e3d9.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

... and Finn.
(https://i.ibb.co/hR0kTnJ/2022-06-10-34.jpg)


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: chuffed on August 29, 2022, 21:49:15
Should be renamed PaddFinnton Station....


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Robin Summerhill on August 30, 2022, 15:49:59
Should be renamed PaddFinnton Station....
And in good old-fashioned GWR tradition, OOC could be renamed Paddington Road...


Title: Re: Is Paddington necessary?
Post by: Electric train on August 30, 2022, 18:27:53
Should be renamed PaddFinnton Station....
And in good old-fashioned GWR tradition, OOC could be renamed Paddington Road...

Bishops Road I think would be more apt,



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net