In message , at 09:09:52 on Mon, 22 May
2017, d remarked:
I wonder if HAL intends to ignore the Elizabeth line in the same way?
Perhaps it will change its policy if Crossrail trains have to pay a hefty
access charge?

Perhaps the government in the form of network rail or tfl should reciprocate
in kind and massively raise access charges for HEx on the NR network and if
they refuse to pay then physically disconnect the line to heathrow from the
GW line.

They can't do that until 2023. And if they did it would give HAL a
golden opportunity to say "Ha! You don't want to cut traffic and air
pollution near the airport after all, do you".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
11:37:52 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:07:19 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
09:22:54 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
If, hypothetically, the judge finds that Heathrow has the right to levy
this charge, it would be possible to charge less per train by running
more trains by adding more destinations. Heathrow Connect to Paddington
is slated to be phased out in favor of Crossrail to Paddington.
Heathrow Connect could be continued as a service to Stratford rather
than Paddington; it would become the easiest way to get from Heathrow
to a number of northern suburbs by mass transit. In addition, trains
could be run from Heathrow to busy junctions - Reading

Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.

What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.

Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?

and Clapham Junction come to mind.

Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.

Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.

Back in the day there was a loop around Old Oak Common, used by XC
trains to/from Brighton. Even if reinstated, where are you going to get
the extra paths from between Heathrow Junction and Acton?

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:49:11 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
remarked:

I think increased rail access will be a mandatory requirement for third
runway approval.

That's the only consideration which matters. In particular there are
stringent atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion issues which
requires them to shift people off the roads and onto trains. That's why
the *only* market that HEx is designed to compete with is a cab to
central London, not least because those passengers would never catch the
tube.

They wouldn't catch the Tube, but might well use the Elizabeth line,

Not when they built HEx in the 90's they wouldn't.


which makes it much more of a HEx competitor. Like HEx, it will offer 4
tph, but unlike HEx, it will go directly to useful places like the West
End, City and Canary Wharf.

But much slower, I expect.

Slower to Paddington. But much faster to the places far more visitors
actually want to go, such as the West End, City, Canary Wharf and the
ExCel.

And will Elizabeth Line have First Class?

No. But I wonder how many HEx pax use First anyway? The First capacity is
very limited (around 10% on average):

Quote:

The units have First class and Standard class accommodation: the four-car
sets can accommodate up to 175 standard class passengers, with up to 239 in
the five-car sets. First class accommodation is in one of the driving cars,
referred to as 'DMF' (Driving-Motor-First) cars. The First class cars have
two different layouts: 332002, 332004 and the five-car sets can accommodate
up to 26 First class passengers, while in the other four-car sets up to 14
first class passengers can be accommodated. This is due to the checked
luggage compartments installed in some DMF cars in 1999.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit...32#Description

HEx won't survive if it's left only with pax who refuse to travel standard
class.



So HAL is trying to do two things with this demand:

1. Raise Crossrail fares to Heathrow so they don't undercut HEx so much.
Otherwise HEx may suffer an early demse.

2. Make enough money from Crossrail to compensate for the lost HEx
revenues.

In other words "just like when Heathrow Connect started".

Crossrail is a serious HEx competitor. HC, by deliberate design, was not.


Similarly, Heathrow Connect is mainly aimed at airport workers, the vast
majority of whom nevertheless drive (often in shared cars).

The airport does its best to deter travellers from using HC, by putting up
no signs for it. Similarly, I don't think it's mentioned on Padd departure
boards (I think it's shown as a H&H service).

That's because it's aimed at airport workers, who know all about it, and
even get reduced fares.

Ordinary Londoners use it too, but most visitors don't discover it.


For example, this is the sign on the T4 Heathrow Connect station entrance:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...um-72157667996
346665/

It only mentions HEx, which doesn't even serve that station.

I wonder if HAL intends to ignore the Elizabeth line in the same way?
Perhaps it will change its policy if Crossrail trains have to pay a hefty
access charge?

But Heathrow Connect already does.

No, HAL wants an increased charge for Crossrail access. That's what the
argument is about.

The interesting sociological experiment will be whether HAL treat the Elizabeth Line
like the tube, or like HC.

In what sense does it treat the Tube and HC differently now?

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
11:37:52 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:07:19 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
09:22:54 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
If, hypothetically, the judge finds that Heathrow has the right to levy
this charge, it would be possible to charge less per train by running
more trains by adding more destinations. Heathrow Connect to Paddington
is slated to be phased out in favor of Crossrail to Paddington.
Heathrow Connect could be continued as a service to Stratford rather
than Paddington; it would become the easiest way to get from Heathrow
to a number of northern suburbs by mass transit. In addition, trains
could be run from Heathrow to busy junctions - Reading

Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.

What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.

Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?

and Clapham Junction come to mind.

Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.

Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.

Back in the day there was a loop around Old Oak Common, used by XC
trains to/from Brighton. Even if reinstated, where are you going to get
the extra paths from between Heathrow Junction and Acton?

I think the unelectrified route is still there, but it's slow. And, as you
say, there are no spare paths on any of the busy routes the trains would
have to use.

On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:14:15 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:09:52 on Mon, 22 May
2017, d remarked:
I wonder if HAL intends to ignore the Elizabeth line in the same way?
Perhaps it will change its policy if Crossrail trains have to pay a hefty
access charge?

Perhaps the government in the form of network rail or tfl should reciprocate
in kind and massively raise access charges for HEx on the NR network and if
they refuse to pay then physically disconnect the line to heathrow from the
GW line.

They can't do that until 2023. And if they did it would give HAL a
golden opportunity to say "Ha! You don't want to cut traffic and air
pollution near the airport after all, do you".

Given their lobbying for a 3rd runway I think its fair to say heathrow don't
have a leg to stand on wrt enviroment concerns. And airliner on takeoff burns
the same amount of fuel per second as a couple of thousand cars.

--
Spud

On Sunday, 21 May 2017 17:22:54 UTC+1, Ding Bat wrote:
If, hypothetically, the judge finds that Heathrow has the right to levy this charge, it would be possible to charge less per train by running more trains by adding more destinations. Heathrow Connect to Paddington is slated to be phased out in favor of Crossrail to Paddington. Heathrow Connect could be continued as a service to Stratford rather than Paddington; it would become the easiest way to get from Heathrow to a number of northern suburbs by mass transit. In addition, trains could be run from Heathrow to busy junctions - Reading and Clapham Junction come to mind.

Given that the Mayor, TfL and DfT don't agree with the charge then trains simply will not go to Heathrow. They will depict HAL as vicious, money grabbing *******s that are trying to rip off Londoners. Now HAL may not give a damn but their public reputation is rather important in the context of expanding Heathrow and they are reliant on others, such as government, to actually support that scheme. People can change their minds.

Crossrail will wholly replace Heathrow Connect from May next year with a 4 tph service. Clearly a deal is needed by then. From December 2019 the service is extended through the Crossrail core to Abbey Wood. This whole approach by HAL is a wilfull misinterpretation of their right to levy a charge so as to recover the past cost (including financing) of the tunnel link to Heathrow. That is all they are entitled to. Deciding to try to rip off the public purse is nothing short of a scandal. I sincerely hope the High Court tells them to sod off.

--
Paul C
via Google

Recliner writes:


The interesting sociological experiment will be whether HAL treat the Elizabeth Line
like the tube, or like HC.

In what sense does it treat the Tube and HC differently now?

Oyster (at least PAYG) is not available on HC to the airport, only to
Hayes & Harlington.

In message , at 10:34:16 on Mon, 22 May
2017, d remarked:
I wonder if HAL intends to ignore the Elizabeth line in the same way?
Perhaps it will change its policy if Crossrail trains have to pay a hefty
access charge?

Perhaps the government in the form of network rail or tfl should reciprocate
in kind and massively raise access charges for HEx on the NR network and if
they refuse to pay then physically disconnect the line to heathrow from the
GW line.

They can't do that until 2023. And if they did it would give HAL a
golden opportunity to say "Ha! You don't want to cut traffic and air
pollution near the airport after all, do you".

Given their lobbying for a 3rd runway I think its fair to say heathrow don't
have a leg to stand on wrt enviroment concerns. And airliner on takeoff burns
the same amount of fuel per second as a couple of thousand cars.

That's a different aspect to the environmental impact. The ones the
NIMBYs worry about include traffic congestion and pollution from road
vehicles.
--
Roland Perry

In message 8737bxrr3j.fsf@einstein, at 13:52:32 on Mon, 22 May 2017,
Graham Murray remarked:
The interesting sociological experiment will be whether HAL treat the Elizabeth Line
like the tube, or like HC.

In what sense does it treat the Tube and HC differently now?

Oyster (at least PAYG) is not available on HC to the airport, only to
Hayes & Harlington.

That's a TfL decision, not the airport's.

With the fees for using the link being fixed (see my reply to Recliner)
it seems disingenuous for TfL to price gouge travellers between H&H and
LHR "because they can" when the costs to TfL are the same whether or not
the trains are full or empty.
--
Roland Perry

In message 117407862.517138464.000186.recliner.ng-
, at 09:44:29 on Mon, 22 May
2017, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:49:11 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
remarked:

I think increased rail access will be a mandatory requirement for third
runway approval.

That's the only consideration which matters. In particular there are
stringent atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion issues which
requires them to shift people off the roads and onto trains. That's why
the *only* market that HEx is designed to compete with is a cab to
central London, not least because those passengers would never catch the
tube.

They wouldn't catch the Tube, but might well use the Elizabeth line,

Not when they built HEx in the 90's they wouldn't.


which makes it much more of a HEx competitor. Like HEx, it will offer 4
tph, but unlike HEx, it will go directly to useful places like the West
End, City and Canary Wharf.

But much slower, I expect.

Slower to Paddington. But much faster to the places far more visitors
actually want to go, such as the West End, City, Canary Wharf and the
ExCel.

Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??

And will Elizabeth Line have First Class?

No. But I wonder how many HEx pax use First anyway? The First capacity is
very limited (around 10% on average):

It's an image thing - a service with First Class is perceived to be
better, even if you slum it in the cheap seats.

So HAL is trying to do two things with this demand:

1. Raise Crossrail fares to Heathrow so they don't undercut HEx so much.
Otherwise HEx may suffer an early demse.

2. Make enough money from Crossrail to compensate for the lost HEx
revenues.

In other words "just like when Heathrow Connect started".

Crossrail is a serious HEx competitor. HC, by deliberate design, was not.

Whose design? In other news, the £570 + £107 is very similar to the
existing charge for HC, which is £574 + £138, and it's actually a flat
"season ticket" fee for 16tph, expressed as a per-train amount,
presumably to make it more accessible to the audience. The £574 covers
the amortisation of the agreed capital costs of the tracks and stations,
and the £138 is the day to day running costs.

see 6.1.5:

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...mpanynewsandin
formation/rail-network-statement-june15.pdf

If TfL choose to run more or fewer trains, the total payable remains the
same; unless they choose to run zero trains, which probably isn't
politically tenable, not least because they'll be handing all the
Crossrail passengers over to the mercy of HEx and Hex fares, at
Paddington. Let alone walking away from the HC traffic altogether.

Similarly, Heathrow Connect is mainly aimed at airport workers, the vast
majority of whom nevertheless drive (often in shared cars).

The airport does its best to deter travellers from using HC, by putting up
no signs for it. Similarly, I don't think it's mentioned on Padd departure
boards (I think it's shown as a H&H service).

That's because it's aimed at airport workers, who know all about it, and
even get reduced fares.

Ordinary Londoners use it too, but most visitors don't discover it.

Because it's aimed at airport workers; if others want to use the trains
then good luck to them.

For example, this is the sign on the T4 Heathrow Connect station entrance:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...um-72157667996
346665/

It only mentions HEx, which doesn't even serve that station.

I wonder if HAL intends to ignore the Elizabeth line in the same way?
Perhaps it will change its policy if Crossrail trains have to pay a hefty
access charge?

But Heathrow Connect already does.

No, HAL wants an increased charge for Crossrail access. That's what the
argument is about.

No increase - see above.

The interesting sociological experiment will be whether HAL treat the
Elizabeth Line like the tube, or like HC.

In what sense does it treat the Tube and HC differently now?

Signage on the concourses, we are told.

--
Roland Perry