In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

Not me, guv!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:04:38 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:41:19AM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

They are not permitted to undercut parallel TOC services.

We wouldn't want to have multiple operators on a route actually
competing with each other, would we!

Well the context is suburban services in London, not Inter City or
inter-regional journeys where you might want to argue that buying an
advance, single operator ticket warrants a discount because spare
capacity is available at that time. Hardly works in the context of
jam packed full commuter trains where there's barely an inch of space.
It also doesn't really work in the context of potentially subsidised
TfL operations abstracting revenue from premium paying franchisees.
You're then just shovelling money round parts of the public sector,
looked at a macro level. The Treasury tend not to like "money go
rounds".

I can't see any form of main line rail service competition working on
the London commuter network. We sort of have it between tube and main
line rail in parts of London but the difference there is also on
service frequency etc as well as sometimes on price by virtue of the
different PAYG tariffs.

We have competition between Cambridge and London between GTR and AGA, the
latter offering Advance and other discounted AGA-only fares.

I expect the same sort of thing will start from Oxford to London when the
new route from Marylebone gets going.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:04:38 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:41:19AM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

They are not permitted to undercut parallel TOC services.

We wouldn't want to have multiple operators on a route actually
competing with each other, would we!

Well the context is suburban services in London, not Inter City or
inter-regional journeys where you might want to argue that buying an
advance, single operator ticket warrants a discount because spare
capacity is available at that time. Hardly works in the context of
jam packed full commuter trains where there's barely an inch of space.
It also doesn't really work in the context of potentially subsidised
TfL operations abstracting revenue from premium paying franchisees.
You're then just shovelling money round parts of the public sector,
looked at a macro level. The Treasury tend not to like "money go
rounds".

I can't see any form of main line rail service competition working on
the London commuter network. We sort of have it between tube and main
line rail in parts of London but the difference there is also on
service frequency etc as well as sometimes on price by virtue of the
different PAYG tariffs.

We have competition between Cambridge and London between GTR and AGA, the
latter offering Advance and other discounted AGA-only fares.

I expect the same sort of thing will start from Oxford to London when the
new route from Marylebone gets going.

Indeed so -- Chiltern is used to competing for business with other
operators running on different, established, electrified routes.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:42:26 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:04:38 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:41:19AM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

They are not permitted to undercut parallel TOC services.

We wouldn't want to have multiple operators on a route actually
competing with each other, would we!

Well the context is suburban services in London, not Inter City or
inter-regional journeys where you might want to argue that buying an
advance, single operator ticket warrants a discount because spare
capacity is available at that time. Hardly works in the context of
jam packed full commuter trains where there's barely an inch of space.
It also doesn't really work in the context of potentially subsidised
TfL operations abstracting revenue from premium paying franchisees.
You're then just shovelling money round parts of the public sector,
looked at a macro level. The Treasury tend not to like "money go
rounds".

I can't see any form of main line rail service competition working on
the London commuter network. We sort of have it between tube and main
line rail in parts of London but the difference there is also on
service frequency etc as well as sometimes on price by virtue of the
different PAYG tariffs.

We have competition between Cambridge and London between GTR and AGA, the
latter offering Advance and other discounted AGA-only fares.

Yes I know but there's a big market including tourists, two routes and
two franchised operators. However it's hardly the North London Line
or Enfield Town to Liverpool St by way of the type of service,
stopping patterns etc. I appreciate a lot of people commute on both
lines from Cambridge but my sense of that service is not the same as
for all stops commuter trains in Greater London. There is a
difference in approach to running the two types of service and
certainly a hierarchical view of them within the TOCs - longer
distance routes earn more money and get more operational priority and
more spent on them. TfL can only come along and say "look at how
we're making those suburban services nice" because the preceding three
operating companies spent next to nothing on the trains (and stations)
barring a lick of paint and some branded signs.

I appreciate there can't be competition in a comprehensive suburban network.

They're allowed to offer "competitive" fares in order to try to earn
more discretionary revenue from filling up spare capacity. I doubt
there are any bargain fares on trains leaving London between
1700-1800.

One of the reasons I buy AGA Advance fares is because they are a cheap way
to get to London in the peaks. They are more limited now than they were,
mind. I can't get them on the 06:47 any more, just the 06:51, for example.
Off-Peak fares to London don't have evening peak restrictions so one can
come back in the evening peak, though only if one goes up via AGA too
nowadays.

The only place I know of which has an intensive structure of commuter
railways which have pricing freedom and which do compete is Tokyo in
Japan [1]. However the railway industry structure over there is very
different to how we run things here. I simply can't see a way in which
a Tokyo style network of competing commuter railways could be built
and made to work in London.


[1] may also apply elsewhere in Japan but I've not been outside Tokyo.

Japan seems to be in a class of its own!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:48:27 on Sun, 31 May
2015, Mizter T remarked:
Er, I don't think so! Crossrail will be an intensive metro service
through the core, operating with ATO signalling and specifically
designed and high performance trains. There's not going to be
anywhere to reverse trains like you suggest.

So if there's a "one under" at Maryland, the whole core freezes up
for a couple of hours?

I would expect there to be crossovers allowing trains to turn in
emergencies or due to engineering work. That doesn't mean it would be
practical to have trains reversing at Stratford all day every day,
without building an extra platform.

Peter Smyth

Roland Perry wrote:

HEx amd a £230m contribution towards Crossrail, and are letting
Crossrail use "their" platforms and access vis airport junction. I
would not find it surprising if some concessions went in the other
direction (and they'd be paying Crossrail track access charges too).

I'd also found this article:

24 March 2011

Airport operator BAA chief executive Colin Matthews this week
threw his weight behind plans to run Heathrow Express services
through Crossrail’s central London tunnels.

He said he was backing the idea of extending the dedicated
Heathrow services east from their current Paddington terminus
and into the tunnels being constructed for Crossrail, "with
maximum enthusiasm".

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.

Having read the 2011 RUS, it does not propose that Heathrow Express
trains would run onto Crossrail. In fact it proposes the opposite, that
Crossrail would replace HEx, running up to 10tph on the Relief Lines to
Heathrow T4 or T5, skip-stopping to reduce journey times.

Peter Smyth

In message , at 18:11:13 on Mon, 1 Jun 2015,
Peter Smyth remarked:
Er, I don't think so! Crossrail will be an intensive metro service
through the core, operating with ATO signalling and specifically
designed and high performance trains. There's not going to be
anywhere to reverse trains like you suggest.

So if there's a "one under" at Maryland, the whole core freezes up
for a couple of hours?

I would expect there to be crossovers allowing trains to turn in
emergencies or due to engineering work. That doesn't mean it would be
practical to have trains reversing at Stratford all day every day,
without building an extra platform.

You might manage it by "stepping back", but the discussion has revealed
the reversal is more likely to be at Abbey Wood.
--
Roland Perry

"Peter Smyth" wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

HEx amd a £230m contribution towards Crossrail, and are letting
Crossrail use "their" platforms and access vis airport junction. I
would not find it surprising if some concessions went in the other
direction (and they'd be paying Crossrail track access charges too).

I'd also found this article:

24 March 2011

Airport operator BAA chief executive Colin Matthews this week
threw his weight behind plans to run Heathrow Express services
through Crossrail’s central London tunnels.

He said he was backing the idea of extending the dedicated
Heathrow services east from their current Paddington terminus
and into the tunnels being constructed for Crossrail, "with
maximum enthusiasm".

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.

Having read the 2011 RUS, it does not propose that Heathrow Express
trains would run onto Crossrail. In fact it proposes the opposite, that
Crossrail would replace HEx, running up to 10tph on the Relief Lines to
Heathrow T4 or T5, skip-stopping to reduce journey times.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I can definitely see that happening.

On 01/06/2015 19:50, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 18:11:13 on Mon, 1 Jun 2015,
Peter Smyth remarked:
Er, I don't think so! Crossrail will be an intensive metro service
through the core, operating with ATO signalling and specifically
designed and high performance trains. There's not going to be
anywhere to reverse trains like you suggest.

So if there's a "one under" at Maryland, the whole core freezes up
for a couple of hours?

I would expect there to be crossovers allowing trains to turn in
emergencies or due to engineering work. That doesn't mean it would be
practical to have trains reversing at Stratford all day every day,
without building an extra platform.

You might manage it by "stepping back", but the discussion has revealed
the reversal is more likely to be at Abbey Wood.

?

Abbey Wood is the end of the line. (Well, the Crossrail branch.)

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

Abbey Wood is the end of the line. (Well, the Crossrail branch.)

So a good idea not to try to go further then?

--
Colin Rosenstiel