Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 19:22:12 on Sun, 1 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 19:00:51 on Sun, 1 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
I produced a figure of 7%, if you have a better one please explain your
workings.

Wasn't that based on a surplus of £2 per journey (ie, today's fares and
traffic volumes) vs estimated construction costs in 1969 money?

It was adjusted for inflation.

What about the cost of four more trains?

I didn't include them, but at £1.8m for four of them, it's getting into
the noise level for the £26m total cost.

I think it best to use the figures Clove quoted:

"Rails Through The Clay, which is usually pretty accurate on things, states
that the original Heathrow extension was estimated at 15 million in 1970,
with the final figure given as 30.2 million in 1978. Hounslow West to
Hatton Cross civil engineering was 4 million. Tunnelling on to Heathrow
Central was 2.25 million; the station was another 1.2 million (those three
are all contract prices). The 1973 Tube Stock cost 40.25 million for 87.5
6-car trains. If I've calculated things correctly, the extension added 4
trains to the requirements for the line (15 minutes extra running time, 15
tph service at the time), so 1.84 million."

So the capital cost was £33m (or a bit more, inflating the train costs from
1975 to 1978) in 1978 money.



And was it based on 1985 service levels and fares, or today's?

Fares were adjusted for inflation, but used current passenger numbers.
Back when the line was built all the passengers were going to T123,
whereas with today's figures only about half of them are. Putting some
numbers on it, Heathrow was handling 30m passengers when T4 was being
built, and latest figures (2015) have T123 handling 32.6m [T4+T5 is
40.8m].

So you need to reduce the volumes by about 10%, for the average in the
1977-1986 period?

Also, I wonder how much of that traffic was simply displaced from Hounslow
West, which previously provided the less-satisfactory Heathrow link?


And did you allow for 1980's interest rates on the capital costs?

I don't think they literally borrowed the money to build it, but they
had the rate would have been the lowest government borrowing rate.

I agree that they didn't directly borrow the money for this particular
project, but it would have come from the public sector debt, one way or
another. That means we need to use the gilt yields of the day, about 14%:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...ent-bond-yield

Of course, had it been a PFI contract, as might well have been the case
today, the interest rate would have been significantly higher.

So the cost of servicing the debt (let alone repaying any of it) would have
been at least £4.6m pa. Only if the net incremental operating surplus
exceeded this would you start to see any financial return on the
investment. Obviously, with projects like this, there are other benefits
(less pollution and traffic, quicker and more predictable journeys, etc),
so even if it doesn't make a financial return, you might still do them, and
I think that's the case here and in many other urban public transport
schemes.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:27:47 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Don't they go all the way through to Uxbridge in the peaks?

No, only about half do. See my other post:
"I just looked at the Rayner's Lane departure board, and in the next 15
minutes there will be six through trains (five Met, one Picc) and two
terminators."

Are they running a weekday, or a Saturday, service?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:27:47 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Don't they go all the way through to Uxbridge in the peaks?

No, only about half do. See my other post:
"I just looked at the Rayner's Lane departure board, and in the next 15
minutes there will be six through trains (five Met, one Picc) and two
terminators."

Are they running a weekday, or a Saturday, service?

I'm not sure. But, either way, it proves it can be done, and happens
routinely.

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 08:45:48 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:

And was it based on 1985 service levels and fares, or today's?

Fares were adjusted for inflation, but used current passenger numbers.
Back when the line was built all the passengers were going to T123,
whereas with today's figures only about half of them are. Putting some
numbers on it, Heathrow was handling 30m passengers when T4 was being
built, and latest figures (2015) have T123 handling 32.6m [T4+T5 is
40.8m].

So you need to reduce the volumes by about 10%, for the average in the
1977-1986 period?

I wasn't going to bother estimating second order quantities. For
example, I've ignored the passengers abstracted from the Piccadilly Line
by HEx.

Also, I wonder how much of that traffic was simply displaced from Hounslow
West, which previously provided the less-satisfactory Heathrow link?

That's accounted for by me using the very low figure of £2 extra fares
(at today's prices) being put in the kitty. The rest of the fare goes
towards funding Hounslow to Central London.

Obviously, with projects like this, there are other benefits
(less pollution and traffic, quicker and more predictable journeys,
etc), so even if it doesn't make a financial return, you might still do
them, and I think that's the case here and in many other urban public
transport schemes.

I was a bit surprised to discover that Atlanta's MARTA (bus and 'RER')
was only one-third funded by the fares basket.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:11:07 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Don't they go all the way through to Uxbridge in the peaks?

No, only about half do. See my other post:
"I just looked at the Rayner's Lane departure board, and in the next 15
minutes there will be six through trains (five Met, one Picc) and two
terminators."

Are they running a weekday, or a Saturday, service?

I'm not sure. But, either way, it proves it can be done, and happens
routinely.

One thing that's not been mentioned yet is that this Heathrow reversing
siding would have to be newly constructed. Why do that when there's
already a pair of platforms installed and ready for the through-running
trains?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septem
ber.org, at 08:45:48 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:

And was it based on 1985 service levels and fares, or today's?

Fares were adjusted for inflation, but used current passenger numbers.
Back when the line was built all the passengers were going to T123,
whereas with today's figures only about half of them are. Putting some
numbers on it, Heathrow was handling 30m passengers when T4 was being
built, and latest figures (2015) have T123 handling 32.6m [T4+T5 is
40.8m].

So you need to reduce the volumes by about 10%, for the average in the
1977-1986 period?

I wasn't going to bother estimating second order quantities. For
example, I've ignored the passengers abstracted from the Piccadilly Line
by HEx.

Very few, I suspect. Not many potential Tube pax would be prepared to pay
HEx fares.


Also, I wonder how much of that traffic was simply displaced from Hounslow
West, which previously provided the less-satisfactory Heathrow link?

That's accounted for by me using the very low figure of £2 extra fares
(at today's prices) being put in the kitty. The rest of the fare goes
towards funding Hounslow to Central London.

You really need to compare fares and traffic in the 1977-1986 period with
the 1977 investment.


Obviously, with projects like this, there are other benefits
(less pollution and traffic, quicker and more predictable journeys,
etc), so even if it doesn't make a financial return, you might still do
them, and I think that's the case here and in many other urban public
transport schemes.

I was a bit surprised to discover that Atlanta's MARTA (bus and 'RER')
was only one-third funded by the fares basket.

Not too different to LU's 40%, though I suppose you might expect the
Americans to be less keen on subsidies.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:11:07 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Don't they go all the way through to Uxbridge in the peaks?

No, only about half do. See my other post:
"I just looked at the Rayner's Lane departure board, and in the next 15
minutes there will be six through trains (five Met, one Picc) and two
terminators."

Are they running a weekday, or a Saturday, service?

I'm not sure. But, either way, it proves it can be done, and happens
routinely.

One thing that's not been mentioned yet is that this Heathrow reversing
siding would have to be newly constructed. Why do that when there's
already a pair of platforms installed and ready for the through-running
trains?

Well, the through lines also have to be constructed to the west, so
building a reversing siding (or even a pair of sidings) between them at the
same time would be trivial. Why would it affect the existing platforms?

Note that the Piccadilly line already has reversing sidings beyond the
platforms. And something else that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is
that there have been regular calls for the Piccadilly line also to be
extended to the west.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 10:02:23 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:

One thing that's not been mentioned yet is that this Heathrow reversing
siding would have to be newly constructed. Why do that when there's
already a pair of platforms installed and ready for the through-running
trains?

Well, the through lines also have to be constructed to the west, so
building a reversing siding (or even a pair of sidings) between them at the
same time would be trivial.

I'll give you that one.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 09:47:58 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:

And was it based on 1985 service levels and fares, or today's?

Fares were adjusted for inflation, but used current passenger numbers.
Back when the line was built all the passengers were going to T123,
whereas with today's figures only about half of them are. Putting some
numbers on it, Heathrow was handling 30m passengers when T4 was being
built, and latest figures (2015) have T123 handling 32.6m [T4+T5 is
40.8m].

So you need to reduce the volumes by about 10%, for the average in the
1977-1986 period?

I wasn't going to bother estimating second order quantities. For
example, I've ignored the passengers abstracted from the Piccadilly Line
by HEx.

Very few, I suspect. Not many potential Tube pax would be prepared to pay
HEx fares.

HEx is there to abstract from the taxi trade, but there are still people
who would pay HEx fare who previously wouldn't have paid taxi fares and
thus would have used the tube.

Also, I wonder how much of that traffic was simply displaced from Hounslow
West, which previously provided the less-satisfactory Heathrow link?

That's accounted for by me using the very low figure of £2 extra fares
(at today's prices) being put in the kitty. The rest of the fare goes
towards funding Hounslow to Central London.

You really need to compare fares and traffic in the 1977-1986 period with
the 1977 investment.

All monies have been adjusted for inflation, and I'm not sure that T123
tube station is now that much busier than in the early 80's for the
reasons I've given. Heathrow has always had a relatively high percentage
of passengers using public transport - 34% in 1995 is one figure I've
managed to find. And that report mentions 12 million passenger and 3
million staff using the Piccadilly Line. Compared to shade under 10m
for T123+T4 today.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:27:47 on Mon, 2 May 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Don't they go all the way through to Uxbridge in the peaks?

No, only about half do. See my other post:
"I just looked at the Rayner's Lane departure board, and in the next 15
minutes there will be six through trains (five Met, one Picc) and two
terminators."

Are they running a weekday, or a Saturday, service?

I think they must have been running a Saturday service yesterday.

I just looked now, and there are ten trains due at Rayner's Lane in the
next 15 minutes, of which two are terminators. The others are all going to
Uxbridge (six Met, two Picc). The terminators are both followed by through
trains only a minute or two behind. I assume the Met through trains will be
waiting at the signal as the terminators go into the siding.

It also confirms that Met trains have replaced Picc trains on the Uxbridge
branch. It used to be closer to an equal service by both lines, now it's
75% Met beyond Ruislip.

Looking at Acton Town westbound, in the next 15 minutes there are six
Heathrow, one Northfields and three Rayner's Lane/Uxbridge trains.