In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 23:43:20 on Sun, 31 May
2015, Mizter T remarked:
I think a lot more Londoners would use it if no separate tickets
were required. It would also be easier to sell pre-paid Visitor
Oyster cards if they already came loaded with enough credit to pay
for the journey to London plus some more travelling in London.

I agree, the visitor cards with not enough credit on to be useful are
a bit of a mystery.

Remind us how much credit is included?

£3 and no deposit, so enough to make one single journey, and top it up
when you want to make a seconds - which makes some sense because it
moves the queues away from the terminus stations.

Where do you get £3 from Roland? They all come with £10 credit at
least:

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/visiting-london/visitor-oyster-card

You're probably getting confused with the *non visitor* (i.e. regular)
Oyster cards, which IIRC initially came without pre-loaded credit but
that later changed, and were available from standalone vending machines
in a few Tube stations - this arrangement doesn't exist any more as
regular Oyster cards can now be obtained from the larger sized Tube TVMs.

Yes, I probably have conflated a couple of former schemes. I saw
vending machines at St Pancras, and on reflection they were probably
£10 with a £3 deposit included.

Isn't the deposit £5 these days?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 23:32:46 on Sun, 31 May
2015, Mizter T remarked:
FWIW, Stansted has the highest percentage share for public transport in
terms of surface access (i.e. getting to or from the airport not in a
plane!).

That's easily explained by the train service only (to all intents and
purposes) being to London, and therefore most of the catchment area
simply "has" to drive.

So why would it have the *highest* public transport share?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
-septemb
er.org, at 09:26:52 on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Recliner
remarked:

The plan was outlined by Network Rail in its London and the
South East route utilisation study late last year.
Network Rail believes this would also remove the need for many
passengers travelling between Heathrow and central London to
change trains at Paddington.

BAA had previously campaigned against calls to dovetail Heathrow
Express with Crossrail. It objected to the legislation that
authorised the line, fearing that the Department for Transport
could take over the Express service.

However, Matthews told a Westminster Energy, Environment &
Transport Forum event last week that BAA now backs the idea.

"The opportunity of Heathrow Express going forward with
Crossrail, to make sure you can get from Heathrow not just to
Paddington but to other destinations in London, is going to be
great," he said.

I see that was over four years ago, and even then, it was no more than an
idea.

A RUS is a bit more than "an idea", usually.

I wonder if it's progressed at all since then? Obviously, HAL
requires to be compensated for access to its tunnels, but beyond that, I
wonder if it's that bothered whether it maintains a separate premium
service or co-sponsors an all-Crossrail service, which would be a lot less
confusing for pax.

The only people who'd lose out would be the ones who specifically wanted to
get from Paddington to T5 as quickly as possible, preferably in First.

The trains would still stop at Paddington.

Most other passengers would get a better service, with fewer changes
and possibly lower fares to Heathrow.

Crossrail is only 4tph, and I'm not sure where your "more changes" comes
from.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 05:06:02
on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, remarked:
The point is that when they do start procuring stuff it'll be ITSO
rather than Oyster (unless there's a big change in policy).

We knew that anyway. The Government since the days of the SRA has been
wedded to ITSO. SEFT is not exactly a new project.

All the more reason not to speculate about Oyster extensions.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 05:06:02
on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, remarked:
You're probably getting confused with the *non visitor* (i.e. regular)
Oyster cards, which IIRC initially came without pre-loaded credit but
that later changed, and were available from standalone vending machines
in a few Tube stations - this arrangement doesn't exist any more as
regular Oyster cards can now be obtained from the larger sized Tube TVMs.

Yes, I probably have conflated a couple of former schemes. I saw
vending machines at St Pancras, and on reflection they were probably
£10 with a £3 deposit included.

Isn't the deposit £5 these days?

Yes; it's a while since I saw those machines (but it was after the
Western Ticket Hall opened).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 05:06:02
on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, remarked:
FWIW, Stansted has the highest percentage share for public transport in
terms of surface access (i.e. getting to or from the airport not in a
plane!).

That's easily explained by the train service only (to all intents and
purposes) being to London, and therefore most of the catchment area
simply "has" to drive.

So why would it have the *highest* public transport share?

oops, I read that as *lowest*. Must be all the buses then.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:04:16 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 09:31:35 on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septem
ber.org, at 08:38:30 on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Recliner
remarked:

In effect, what you're really suggesting is the abandonment of HEX and its
premium pricing, with both T4 and T5 having normal 4tph Crossrail services?

No, the premium pricing will arise from non-stopping between the airport
and Paddington (all trains then to go through the core).

But how will it access the Crossrail tunnels from the main lines, without a
flat crossing?

Perhaps we need to ask Network Rail (ie look at the RUS mentioned in an
earlier posting of mine).

There certainly won't be a grade-separated route from the GW main
lines to the Crossrail tunnels in 2018.

So, I can't see any way for trains from T5 to access the Crossrail
tunnels without:

- using the slower relief lines from Airport Junction, or having a
flat crossing on the approach to Paddington (which will lose capacity
and time)

- using the same trains as Crossrail, presumably 345s, for
compatibility with the ATO, common performance and the door spacing.

That's Crossrail, not HEx. I suppose you could brand all the Crossrail
services to Heathrow as something like "Crossrail Heathrow Express" to
justify the higher price for airport link, but the travel experience
from T4 and T5 to Canary Wharf would be exactly the same, and the
price would also have to be the same (but noticeably more than from a
station like Hayes & Harlington).

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:07:28 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septemb
er.org, at 09:26:52 on Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Recliner
remarked:

The plan was outlined by Network Rail in its London and the
South East route utilisation study late last year.
Network Rail believes this would also remove the need for many
passengers travelling between Heathrow and central London to
change trains at Paddington.

BAA had previously campaigned against calls to dovetail Heathrow
Express with Crossrail. It objected to the legislation that
authorised the line, fearing that the Department for Transport
could take over the Express service.

However, Matthews told a Westminster Energy, Environment &
Transport Forum event last week that BAA now backs the idea.

"The opportunity of Heathrow Express going forward with
Crossrail, to make sure you can get from Heathrow not just to
Paddington but to other destinations in London, is going to be
great," he said.

I see that was over four years ago, and even then, it was no more than an
idea.

A RUS is a bit more than "an idea", usually.

I wonder if it's progressed at all since then? Obviously, HAL
requires to be compensated for access to its tunnels, but beyond that, I
wonder if it's that bothered whether it maintains a separate premium
service or co-sponsors an all-Crossrail service, which would be a lot less
confusing for pax.

The only people who'd lose out would be the ones who specifically wanted to
get from Paddington to T5 as quickly as possible, preferably in First.

The trains would still stop at Paddington.

Yes, but wouldn't then run non-stop to Heathrow, as they would be
stopping Crossrail trains on the relief lines, so a slower, less
premium service. As I keep saying, there isn't a grade-separated route
from the Crossrail tunnels to the fast GW main lines, and an unwelcome
flat crossing will lose capacity.


Most other passengers would get a better service, with fewer changes
and possibly lower fares to Heathrow.

Crossrail is only 4tph, and I'm not sure where your "more changes" comes
from.

Passengers from central London to Heathrow T2 and T3 would get eight
direct trains per hour to Heathrow instead of four. Obviously T4 and
T5 will remain as 4tph.

In message , at 12:06:28 on
Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Recliner remarked:
There certainly won't be a grade-separated route from the GW main
lines to the Crossrail tunnels in 2018.

We are talking about post-2023
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:15:08 on
Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Recliner remarked:

The trains would still stop at Paddington.

Yes, but wouldn't then run non-stop to Heathrow, as they would be
stopping Crossrail trains on the relief lines, so a slower, less
premium service. As I keep saying, there isn't a grade-separated route
from the Crossrail tunnels to the fast GW main lines, and an unwelcome
flat crossing will lose capacity.

Yes, I know you have this objection, I haven't got the time to look out
what the RUS said on the matter, at the moment.
--
Roland Perry