Roland Perry writes:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:03:57 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?), but
more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

T123 serves 3 terminals, so assuming it represents equal numbers of
passengers using each terminal, there is not much difference between
2.49m passengers using the station for access to each of terminals 1, 2
and 3 and the 2.35m who use the T4 station.

Graham Murray wrote:
Roland Perry writes:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:03:57 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?), but
more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

T123 serves 3 terminals, so assuming it represents equal numbers of
passengers using each terminal, there is not much difference between
2.49m passengers using the station for access to each of terminals 1, 2
and 3 and the 2.35m who use the T4 station.

Three terminals? No Heathrow station serves more than two terminals.

Not lately. As a hint, it's no longer called T123 station.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:03:57 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

the 73TS were built while the Heathrow extension was
under construction, and a large enough fleet to cover it was ordered.
Without that extension, the order would have been for a significantly
smaller fleet.


They were later modified to have more luggage space by the
doors, with fewer seats.

What was the total cost including the two separate, subsequent extensions
for T4 and T5, the latter also requiring a new grade-separated underground
junction for the T4 and T5 lines to the west of the T123 station? Those
extensions would certainly have much more than doubled the total cost.

And generate double the fares.

Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?), but
more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

But if you're going to estimate that total incremental revenue (as you
did), then you also have to look at the total investment.

To simplify things I've only been looking at the cost, and revenue of,
Phase 1, for most of the thread now.

Costs and revenues in current money terms? But I'm not sure you can
separate them anyway: the central station is served by trains using all
three phases of the project.

In article ,
(Graham Murray) wrote:

Roland Perry writes:

In message

-septembe
r.org, at 08:03:57 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?),
but more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

T123 serves 3 terminals, so assuming it represents equal numbers of
passengers using each terminal, there is not much difference between
2.49m passengers using the station for access to each of terminals 1, 2
and 3 and the 2.35m who use the T4 station.

Actually it's some time since it served 3 terminals. It's been 2 now for a
bit.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
-sept
ember.org, Recliner wrote:
I don't believe that absurdly low cost figure. In 1992 terms, the cost of
the full Piccadilly line extension, including the four stations, was
probably well over £250m, maybe closer to £500m.

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. Don't
ask me where the rest of the money went.

At opening, the fare to central London was 80p.

The T4 loop was 27 million, of which 10.6 million was tunnelling.

HEX, which was under construction when the book was published, is listed
as 280 million.

Someone else can try converting these to today's money.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , at 18:40:42 on Thu,
28 Apr 2016, Graham Murray remarked:
Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?), but
more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

T123 serves 3 terminals,

There's only two at the moment.

so assuming it represents equal numbers of passengers using each
terminal, there is not much difference between 2.49m passengers using
the station for access to each of terminals 1, 2 and 3 and the 2.35m
who use the T4 station.

Not sure what your point is - other than perhaps all the terminals get
quite a lot of passengers.
--
Roland Perry

wrote:
In article ,
(Graham Murray) wrote:

Roland Perry writes:

In message

-septembe
r.org, at 08:03:57 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Probably not double (have you seen how few people use the T4 station?),
but more certainly.

Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

T123 serves 3 terminals, so assuming it represents equal numbers of
passengers using each terminal, there is not much difference between
2.49m passengers using the station for access to each of terminals 1, 2
and 3 and the 2.35m who use the T4 station.

Actually it's some time since it served 3 terminals. It's been 2 now for a
bit.

It went down to two for some time, then back up to three for a transitional
period of a year, and since June last year, has been permanently down to
two terminals.

That's how it's likely to stay for a while, though it's possible that those
two terminals will be merged into one at some stage, as T2 grows and T3 is
demolished. So, eventually, the whole central area could consist of just
one very large terminal, though I'm not clear whether it will all be called
one terminal or two.

Further into the future, if a third runway is built, there will be a new
western terminal, which may be adjacent to T5, and share its three
underground stations.

In message , at 14:24:35
on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, remarked:
Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

T123 serves 3 terminals, so assuming it represents equal numbers of
passengers using each terminal, there is not much difference between
2.49m passengers using the station for access to each of terminals 1, 2
and 3 and the 2.35m who use the T4 station.

Actually it's some time since it served 3 terminals. It's been 2 now for a
bit.

Nevertheless, TfL's usage stats for 2015 still call it T123.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 19:13:36 on Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Latest annual station usage stats:

T123 7.49m
T5 3.90m
T4 2.35m

But if you're going to estimate that total incremental revenue (as you
did), then you also have to look at the total investment.

To simplify things I've only been looking at the cost, and revenue of,
Phase 1, for most of the thread now.

Costs and revenues in current money terms?

Yes I did the sums but you dismissed them, about the same time you
overestimated the phase 1 build cost by at least 5x.

But I'm not sure you can separate them anyway: the central station is
served by trains using all three phases of the project.

Yes, but without phase 2 and 3, people still needed to get to T123, and
they'd all have done it direct, rather than some via T4.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Someone Somewhere
wrote:
Who says that we're getting equivalent value on each different piece of
work? Anecdotally the cost of building railways seems to be going up,

Modern Railways used to use a "Ford Factor" of pi for increases since
privatisation. Some recent issues were using a "carton of milk"
comparison, but I forget the actual numbers.

and that's before you take into account the stupidly over-engineered
stations and so on of the JLE.

Why are you assuming they are over-engineered? They're mostly built in
very different ground to the Blue Clay. I remember reading at the time
that the "big box" design used at some stations was actually the
cheapest way to build them.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: