In message , at
04:23:34 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Paul Corfield
remarked:

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.

Almost all the fee *is* recovering the past cost. They are actually
proposing reducing the operating expenditure portion from 19% to 16% of
the total.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:39:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Worring about the wolf while not noticing the bear. I'd have thought a 2
mile long slab of concrete plus god knows how many jets taking off overhead
would have been a lot more to worry about than extra traffic. I live under one
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?

--
Spud

In message , at 15:51:16 on Mon, 22 May
2017, d remarked:
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.

Worring about the wolf while not noticing the bear. I'd have thought a 2
mile long slab of concrete plus god knows how many jets taking off overhead
would have been a lot more to worry about than extra traffic.

There's a large five figure number of employees and about the same
number of passengers, every day. That's an awfully big impact on the
local roads and pollution.

--
Roland Perry

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

For a 15 minute trip, I find it hard to understand why anyone would
care. The standard class is not awful, and it's not like they serve
you dinner on the way.

Would it be a fair compromise to put Heathrow (Crossrail) into a different fare zone to Heathrow (Tube)? That way you get to charge a small surcharge for using Crossrail rather than the Piccadilly line, which given the faster journey and more comfortable trains is probably reasonable.

On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:39:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Worring about the wolf while not noticing the bear. I'd have thought a 2
mile long slab of concrete plus god knows how many jets taking off overhead
would have been a lot more to worry about than extra traffic. I live under one
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Is it a TfL or GWR/DfT decision? I don't think TfL controls HC and its
Heathrow stations. But it will operate Crossrail, hence the dispute.

This document is worth a read:
http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/22086/charging-framework-for-the-heathrow-spur-decision-may-2016.pdf

The dispute seems to revolve on whether HAL has, or could, recover the
construction costs from airline charges, as the cost of building it is
included in the RAB (regulated asset base). HAL is entitled to charge for
rail access if it can show that it wouldn't havd built the spur without the
prospect of such chatges. Also, there's a dispute over whether the original
basis for the rail access charges applies to a service beyond Padd, such as
Crossrail, as it's a new service that wasn't part of the original business
plan.

Para 78 also suggests that HAL has already fully recovered the spurs
original construction costs:

"In our proposed decision we also discussed that Schedule 11 of the Joint
Operating Agreement contained a financial model demonstrating how the HEX
service would provide a return on HAL’s investment in the Heathrow Spur.
This model showed that the fare revenue to be received between 1993 and
2016 was forecast to be sufficient to cover all BAA’s initial investment in
building the Heathrow Spur as well as covering operating costs for those
years."

Steve Lewis wrote:
Would it be a fair compromise to put Heathrow (Crossrail) into a
different fare zone to Heathrow (Tube)? That way you get to charge a
small surcharge for using Crossrail rather than the Piccadilly line,
which given the faster journey and more comfortable trains is probably reasonable.

Yes, that may have to be the compromise if the HAL rail access charges
can't be reduced. There is a precedent in that Watford Met and Junction are
in quite different fare zones, despite being only about a mile apart.

HEx will not be part of the Oyster system, so its station in T5 won't be
included or gated, and Hex travel will continue to be free between T5 and
T2&3. Crossrail and HEx will share platforms at T2&3, so it won't be
possible to have barriers there. And the Crossrail service between T4 and
T2&3 will continue to be free, so the T4 station can't be gated either. It
will all be a bit complicated, with none of the three stations gated, some
services free, some charged at Oyster prices, and others at premium prices.
HEx users can buy tickets on board, at the station, or in advance, at very
different prices.

On 2017\05\22 10:49, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

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.

The original curve in the vicinity of Mitre Bridge is gone, but a
diversion route that passes a few yards from Willesden Junction station
is available.

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 1:23:22 AM UTC+5:30, Recliner wrote:
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.

No, the 9-car, 4 tph Crossrail trains will go from Heathrow T4 to Abbey
Wood. They will replace the 5-car, 2 tph Heathrow Connect service 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.

Using what route?

Currently, Heathrow passes Ealing and goes on to Paddington. If it passes Ealing and goes on to Willesden Junction by switching to the Overground, it could get to Stratford.