South Western division connection to Heathrow

[Dr_Intoxicated]

I thought the access charges arose because the airport paid for the construction of the line. If national rail built the new link there would be no access charges. As mentioned above it is in Heathrow's interest to improve public transport links. They don't charge any access fees for the roads.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I thought the access charges arose because the airport paid for the construction of the line. If national rail built the new link there would be no access charges. As mentioned above it is in Heathrow's interest to improve public transport links. They don't charge any access fees for the roads.

They can't charge for any road access as they didn't build the roads to the airport, the roads as far as I am aware were built with public money, not using the airports.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

They can't charge for any road access as they didn't build the roads to the airport, the roads as far as I am aware were built with public money, not using the airports.

That is exactly the point I was making, obviously not clearly enough. If national rail build the new rail link there would be no access charges for the same reason.

 

[swt_passenger]

That is exactly the point I was making, obviously not clearly enough. If national rail build the new rail link there would be no access charges for the same reason.

The recent arguments were not about access charges per se, they were about charging punitively high access charges compared to those already charged to HEx and Connect. AIUI Crossrail will now pay sensible access charges for the airport metals, where previously they would have been unaffordably high.

That's probably a great over-simplification, but is probably near enough.

 

[MarkyT]

They can't charge for any road access as they didn't build the roads to the airport, the roads as far as I am aware were built with public money, not using the airports.

Heathrow must earn a lot of money from parking, either directly or leasing areas they own around the complex to other operators.

I understand the charging for use of the airport owned rail facilities is primarily to pay off the initial fixed construction financing. Therefore the more trains that run, the more the charge should be spread to reduce the fee per individual train. For 20 trains per hour the price should be nearly half that for 10 trains an hour. Not exactly half clearly as there will be additional costs in running more trains, in more frequent rail and contact wire replacement for example.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I thought the access charges arose because the airport paid for the construction of the line. If national rail built the new link there would be no access charges. As mentioned above it is in Heathrow's interest to improve public transport links. They don't charge any access fees for the roads.

Sorry for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick!

 

[Emblematic]

I understand the charging for use of the airport owned rail facilities is primarily to pay off the initial fixed construction financing. Therefore the more trains that run, the more the charge should be spread to reduce the fee per individual train. For 20 trains per hour the price should be nearly half that for 10 trains an hour. Not exactly half clearly as there will be additional costs in running more trains, in more frequent rail and contact wire replacement for example.

But that was the argument rejected by ORR and the courts. The access charges are only allowed to cover the running costs and maintenance of the infrastructure. Heathrow benefitted significantly from the investment in the rail link over 20 years, so it was deemed unacceptable that they attempt to recover that investment via the access charge. There are circumstances where capital costs can be included in access charges, but only if funding from these charges is necessary for the project to proceed. 20 years prior use clearly shows this was not the case.

 

[MarkyT]

But that was the argument rejected by ORR and the courts. The access charges are only allowed to cover the running costs and maintenance of the infrastructure. Heathrow benefitted significantly from the investment in the rail link over 20 years, so it was deemed unacceptable that they attempt to recover that investment via the access charge. There are circumstances where capital costs can be included in access charges, but only if funding from these charges is necessary for the project to proceed. 20 years prior use clearly shows this was not the case.

OK fair enough. In the case of HEX and Connect, as both infrastructure owner and TOC I guess they have opportunity to shift charges and profits from one balance sheet to the other so it may not be particularly easy to determine how much has been made overall, let alone the benefits to the bottom line the presence of the link has had on the overall airport operations. I suppose you can't blame them for trying to hold out for as much as they could get for Crossrail paths, but they also have to figure on continued cooperation from numerous government departments and local authorities for their expansion plans.

 

[The Ham]

Anyway, now we've discussed the rights & wrongs of Basingstoke, perhaps we should get back to topic.

At Woking what are they going to be doing because there is apparently a desire to see Platform 6 converted into a through road and things slewed a bit.

The idea of a flyover is flawed and would probably draw a lot of objections as it will mean the closure of a well used public footpath which goes over both the direct & BML, whereas a dive under allows that to stay in situ, but either way it will still tie up direct services to just platform 1 at Woking unless it drops down or comes up before Victoria Arch (A320) road bridge.

That means one failure and the direct is pretty much stuffed.

A dive under could also help the agglutinate sidings, in that if both the lines towards Guildford were lower at the entrance to the sidings then diggers could sit at ground level to load trains at a lower level rather than the existing banks that have been created.

I would expect that platform 4 would likely become a bi-directional platform and so the main through (down) lines would be on platform 5 and 6 (with the passenger benefits that brings) and so the route from Guildford could come up broadly inline with the centre of platforms 2/4. allowing direct access to both of those and to platform 1 through a change in lines.

Would there be any benefit in lifting the lines towards Basingstoke up a bit to assist in getting the necessary clearances and still have a reasonable gradient up from the dive under before you get to the A320? Given that it looks like it's 450m from the junction; so 4.5m level rise at 1:100, you'll either need the gradient to be steeper (circa 1:70) or the down lines to be higher (plus 1.5m) to get circa 6m of level difference between the two (bearing in mind most bridges need circa 1m of construction to be able to support the loads and allowing for potential future OHLE there should be about 5m of clearance under the bridge).

 

[matt_world2004]

Even if network rail built the track to terminal 5 rail . Terminal 5 rail station would still be heathrow owned infrastructure

 

[swt_passenger]

I would expect that platform 4 would likely become a bi-directional platform and so the main through (down) lines would be on platform 5 and 6 (with the passenger benefits that brings) and so the route from Guildford could come up broadly inline with the centre of platforms 2/4. allowing direct access to both of those and to platform 1 through a change in lines.

Perhaps on the other hand they'll just build the layout shown in the Wessex route study? P4,P5,P6 being down platforms, routed to down fast, down slow and down Portsmouth respectively, and the up flyover route coming down in the gap between the up slow and up fast.

 

[The Ham]

Perhaps on the other hand they'll just build the layout shown in the Wessex route study? P4,P5,P6 being down platforms, routed to down fast, down slow and down Portsmouth respectively, and the up flyover route coming down in the gap between the up slow and up fast.

I was replying to HarleyDavidson's suggestion that a fly over was flawed, to which I would be mindful to agree with.

Personally I would prefer to have 2 up, 2 down and 1 bi directional platform, as it would allow flexibility especially in the peaks when you could have more trains heading in one direction than the other.

Even with 4tph Portsmouth services, 2tph being the Woking stoppers being extended to Guildford, 2tph Guildford to Heathrow (possibly Paddington) that would still leave 7.5 minutes between services towards Guildford on Platform 6. Whilst platform 5 would have 6tph (2 Alton, 2 Basingstoke stoppers and 2 Basingstoke/Heathrow). Likewise platform 4 would also have about 6tph.

Compare that with platforms 1 and 2 which would have 10tph each. Then if we assume an extra 8tph following Crossrail 2 then they would be at 14tph each whilst platforms 4, 5 & 6 would have no more than 10tph each.

Although reversing direction eats capacity, setting each of the outer platforms to 12tph or 13tph means that platform 4 only needs to cope with 4tph or 2tph each way (8tph would be 7.5 minutes so just enough time for a train to enter and leave the station before one heading the other way needs a slot, although it would be better if you could do 2 trains up followed by 1 train down followed by 1 train up followed by 2 trains down) and so could have some scope to help out the outer platforms during times of disruption or busy periods within the timetable.