Heathrow Express GWR Contract

[Non Multi]

Up until this morning (in the public domain at least) the long term plan had been for Heathrow Airport Holdings to continue to run HEx with their trains...

Today's announcement explains in part why HAL has been determined to impose a steep track access charge on Crossrail.

 

[tomuk]

You would need to release some Turbos to each of these operators to run the services so I'm not sure it is necessary to transfer the services.

Why would another operator want to run one train a day from Worcester to Oxford with GWR running the rest of the service?

As for the line to Marlow, a short look at a map would explain why you simply couldn't install a new chord at Bourne End.

Yes I agree some turbos would need be transferred but the overall number needed would be less as you would be supplementing the existing 165 fleet at Chiltern rather than having a mini fleet at Reading.

Regarding Bourne End. You would need to lose two houses at the end of Donkey Lane. Build a one platform station and a small multistory car park next to the chord and then you could release all of the land (existing station, station car park, old goods yards) between the new station and Station Road. This land would more valuable then that lost under the new chord, station and car park.

 

[matt_world2004]

Today's announcement explains in part why HAL has been determined to impose a steep track access charge on Crossrail.

Why? They would have to impose the same access charge on any concessionaire too.

 

[JonathanH]

Regarding Bourne End. You would need to lose two houses at the end of Donkey Lane. Build a one platform station and a small multistory car park next to the chord and then you could release all of the land (existing station, station car park, old goods yards) between the new station and Station Road. This land would more valuable then that lost under the new chord, station and car park.

Interesting stuff but it would obviously kill off any idea, however fanciful, of running trains along the Loudwater valley in the future.

Is there somewhere sensible to put a straight platform at Bourne End with adequate access to the village?

 

[coppercapped]

It strikes me that people have confused the Class 769 story with the changes at HEx and GWR - the assumption being that they are part of the same package. A closer look shows that they are independent, but both will be happening in a similar time frame.

The HEx / GWR deal means that:

• Many tens of millions of pounds will not have to be spent by HS2 Ltd. on a replacement depot at Langley for the maintenance of the Class 332s. This will please the DfT and help keep HS2's costs under control
• The existing depot at OOC will no longer be a cost carried by HEx as the Class 387s will be maintained at Reading. This will reduce the cost of operation of the HEx service
• The dual voltage Class 387s to be used by HEx are ideal for extending the HEx service to Reading (and possibly Oxford, Newbury and/or Swindon) as well as to Guildford and/or Basingstoke via the proposed new west and south-facing connections from Terminal 5 also mentioned in the press release

  As part of the arrangements, the Department for Transport will progress the development of the proposed new western and southern rail links to Heathrow. These new links would make it quicker and easier for people from the across the south and west of England, and south Wales, to get to the airport.

• A non-stop service to Paddington will be maintained for the next decade as it says in the press release. HEx will not go away in spite of the wishes / desires and hopes of some posters here...

  This agreement, which confirms fast, non-stop rail connections for Heathrow passengers over the next decade,...

• it is entirely likely that premium prices for HEx will continue to be charged...

  and will see Heathrow Airport retaining the commercial aspects including marketing, ticket pricing and revenue,...

  even though they can be paid by Oyster or other contactless payment methods

• Passengers will also benefit from new ticket readers at Heathrow and Paddington, which will allow users of Heathrow Express and TfL Rail (soon to be Elizabeth line) to use pay as you go Oyster or a contactless device.

The cascade of the Turbos from the Reading - Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill - Gatwick line and their replacement by the Class 769s is a completely separate matter.

 

[30907]

Interesting stuff but it would obviously kill off any idea, however fanciful, of running trains along the Loudwater valley in the future.

Is there somewhere sensible to put a straight platform at Bourne End with adequate access to the village?

It would have to be by Donkey Lane, looking at the map - which would rule out a 4- car platform.
You would need a crossing facility somewhere - a dynamic loop south of the river bridge would be least disruptive.
Can't see it being a priority.

 

[Non Multi]

Why? They would have to impose the same access charge on any concessionaire too.

They would be charging themselves, they still own the HEX service. Surely the higher track access charge would compensate for the lower passenger numbers using HEX.

 

[matt_world2004]

They would be charging themselves, they still own the HEX service. Surely the higher track access charge would compensate for the lower passenger numbers using HEX.

Previously they were charging themselves but if gwr were the concessionaire they wouod have to charge gwr that much.

 

[Non Multi]

So have HAL done this to curry favour with the DfT? Easing the path for the 3rd runway?

 

[Clarence Yard]

It strikes me that people have confused the Class 769 story with the changes at HEx and GWR - the assumption being that they are part of the same package. A closer look shows that they are independent, but both will be happening in a similar time frame.
The cascade of the Turbos from the Reading - Wokingham - Guildford - Redhill - Gatwick line and their replacement by the Class 769s is a completely separate matter.

Not quite. Although the 769 package is not part of the HEx agreement, there is a linkage. They are effectively two sides of the same project coin - one would not have happened without the other.

That is why this deal has been almost two years in the making. Aligning all the parties involved and getting the appropriately routed funding for both sides of the scheme has not been straightforward.

 

[Non Multi]

Previously they were charging themselves but if gwr were the concessionaire they would have to charge gwr that much.

I'm now wondering why they're still keen on the higher track access charge.

 

[matt_world2004]

So have HAL done this to curry favour with the DfT? Easing the path for the 3rd runway?

I don't think so if OOC was on a lease from either British rail residual or network rail hex would not have been entitled to compensation for its closure providing it was done at the end of the lease. They would not have been entitled to alternative facilties either as here is no obligation for the dft to ensure space for non franchised operators

If they owned ooc outright they would have been entitled to compensation (similar to a compulsory purchase order ) for the loss of space regardless of weather they had a use for ooc or not afterwards.

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm now wondering why they're still keen on the higher track access charge.

The thing with open access, is that all operators need to pay the same equivalent charge if I came to tfl and asked for open access rights to the crossrail core, I would be entitled to providing I paid the same as MTR crossrail paid. .The way operators generally get round this is they limit by making the specifications for open access so tight that they cannot be done by any other operators. For example someone posted the open access agreement for the crossrail core a few months ago. It was something like this:

Doors to be compatible with platform edge doors, that goes the full 9 car length of the platform
Passenger service only with a total pax capacity of 1500 to prevent overcrowding
Electric overhead traction to ensure the tunnel isn't polluted.
Compatibility with crossrail signalling system
Operator responsible for own ticketing on the service.
Stopping at all stops in normal service due to the high frequency of the line

This effectively made it impossible for anyone else apart from MTR crossrail to run a service on the crossrail core,

The only exception to this is london underground, the original example I was going to use for this is the east London line, but then remembered London underground is excluded from open access legislation

 

[Non Multi]

I don't think so if OOC was on a lease from either British rail residual or network rail hex would not have been entitled to compensation for its closure providing it was done at the end of the lease. They would not have been entitled to alternative facilties either as here is no obligation for the dft to ensure space for non franchised operators

If they owned ooc outright they would have been entitled to compensation (similar to a compulsory purchase order ) for the loss of space regardless of weather they had a use for ooc or not afterwards.

Today's announcement is certainly a strategically beneficial outcome for all parties. Should make Western Access to Heathrow more likely.

 

[HSTEd]

Up until this morning (in the public domain at least) the long term plan had been for Heathrow Airport Holdings to continue to run HEx with their trains, which were fitted with ATP and no ETCS, over their own infrastructure. I don't see why H.A.H. should have had to go the expense of refitting all of their own stock with ETCS to run over their own infrastructure, although of course today's announcement means that the ATP equipment can come out once the last 332 service has been run, although by that time the Crossrail service should have been running properly to Heathrow for a while.

I never said HAH should pay for it.
And in any case they would have been eventually forced to fit ETCS anyway, once the overlay is converted to a pure ETCS installation - as would have eventually happened.

As it turns out I think agreeing to this idiotic scheme of letting Heathrow own the railway into the Airport was one of the worst thing to happen in railways in the late BR era - excluding privatisation itself.

 

[pdeaves]

Marlow - New chord and station at Bourne End - Existing station site/yards redeveloped.

Would you be prepared to pay to demolish multiple waterfront properties and, for compliant curvature, the bridge over the Thames in an environmentally sensitive area?

If you are thinking of electrifying the line, remember that there are at least two crossings for yachts on trailers. I shudder to think how high the wires would have to be to avoid contact!

 

[jimm]

To release all turbos

Greenford - Transfer to Chiltern

Electrify TV branches if cancelled/delayed

Marlow - New chord and station at Bourne End - Existing station site/yards redeveloped.

Banbury to Oxford - transfer to Chiltern

Cotswold stopper - Transfer to WMR - Worcester to Oxford

It isn't Banbury-Oxford due to the delay to electrification, it is Didcot-Oxford-Banbury. Chiltern might be able to conjure up a lone 165 if it was just Oxford-Banbury but their fleet simply does not have the spare capacity to do much more than that.

In case you haven't noticed, one of the places the Turbos transferred to Bristol will be operating to is Worcester - making it perfectly feasible, if required, for GWR to provide a set to cover the Cotswold halts services from the western end of the line. At the moment, getting a 165 to Worcester for the morning train to Oxford and Didcot involves it running a not exactly heavily-loaded service leaving Oxford at 05.14.

 

[coppercapped]

Not quite. Although the 769 package is not part of the HEx agreement, there is a linkage. They are effectively two sides of the same project coin - one would not have happened without the other.

That is why this deal has been almost two years in the making. Aligning all the parties involved and getting the appropriately routed funding for both sides of the scheme has not been straightforward.

Right, thank you for the clarification. I take it, though, that I am mostly right in that there is no significant operational linkage (apart from the use of some resources shared between the two routes such as capacity at Reading depot) although there are (complex) funding and contractual linkages?

I just wonder whether there might also be a bit of a fudge in here somewhere to help GWR cope with the high 'Train Service Provision Payments' due to Agility Trains for the trains supplied under the 'InterCity Express Programme'? Perhaps included in part of "DA3"? Or am I being more suspicious of the DfT than I need be?

I don't think so if OOC was on a lease from either British rail residual or network rail hex would not have been entitled to compensation for its closure providing it was done at the end of the lease. They would not have been entitled to alternative facilties either as here is no obligation for the dft to ensure space for non franchised operators

If they owned ooc outright they would have been entitled to compensation (similar to a compulsory purchase order ) for the loss of space regardless of weather they had a use for ooc or not afterwards.

The original BR/BAA contract for the HEx infrastructure and service has an end date of 2023. However HS2 Ltd is looking for access to the Old Oak Common site for construction work to start on HS2 by the end of next year and the HEx depot and access tracks are in the way.

Therefore it would have been essential for HS2 Ltd. to have supplied HEx with equivalent facilities for the few remaining years of the BR/BAA contract regardless of whether the site was leased or owned. The solution announced today, as I wrote in my earlier post, saves money all round - HS2 Ltd. (or rather the taxpayer) doesn't have to pay for a new maintenance depot and the overheads of running HEx will reduce as the costs of the OOC depot fall away as the maintenance will be shared at the existing Reading depot.

 

[hwl]

Right, thank you for the clarification. I take it, though, that I am mostly right in that there is no significant operational linkage (apart from the use of some resources shared between the two routes such as capacity at Reading depot) although there are (complex) funding and contractual linkages?

I just wonder whether there might also be a bit of a fudge in here somewhere to help GWR cope with the high 'Train Service Provision Payments' due to Agility Trains for the trains supplied under the 'InterCity Express Programme'? Perhaps included in part of "DA3"? Or am I being more suspicious of the DfT than I need be?


The original BR/BAA contract for the HEx infrastructure and service has an end date of 2023. However HS2 Ltd is looking for access to the Old Oak Common site for construction work to start on HS2 by the end of next year and the HEx depot and access tracks are in the way.

Therefore it would have been essential for HS2 Ltd. to have supplied HEx with equivalent facilities for the few remaining years of the BR/BAA contract regardless of whether the site was leased or owned. The solution announced today, as I wrote in my earlier post, saves money all round - HS2 Ltd. (or rather the taxpayer) doesn't have to pay for a new maintenance depot and the overheads of running HEx will reduce as the costs of the OOC depot fall away as the maintenance will be shared at the existing Reading depot.

All the other big contracts HEx have end between 2017 and 2019 as none were for the full 25 years so this is a well timed exit for HAL from a hands on role in operations.

 

[TEW]

Right, thank you for the clarification. I take it, though, that I am mostly right in that there is no significant operational linkage (apart from the use of some resources shared between the two routes such as capacity at Reading depot) although there are (complex) funding and contractual linkages?

The 769s are needed to provide the slack in the 387 fleet in the short term to allow some of the units to operate Heathrow Express services.
As I understand it;
769s enter service on current 165 worked services out of Reading Depot.
The displaced 165s return to their previous workings on the GWML in place of some 387s.
The displaced 387s are refurbished for and then start working Heathrow Express services.
Crossrail take over stopping services on the GWML out to Reading, freeing up the 165s previously reintroduced to those services.
The displaced 165s transfer to the Bristol area, leaving just a few at Reading for routes not able to be worked by 769s.

The two projects are definitely linked, the 769s are needed to kick the whole thing off.

 

[cactustwirly]

The 769s are needed to provide the slack in the 387 fleet in the short term to allow some of the units to operate Heathrow Express services.
As I understand it;
769s enter service on current 165 worked services out of Reading Depot.
The displaced 165s return to their previous workings on the GWML in place of some 387s.
The displaced 387s are refurbished for and then start working Heathrow Express services.
Crossrail take over stopping services on the GWML out to Reading, freeing up the 165s previously reintroduced to those services.
The displaced 165s transfer to the Bristol area, leaving just a few at Reading for routes not able to be worked by 769s.

The two projects are definitely linked, the 769s are needed to kick the whole thing off.

The 165s can't keep up with 387 timings, especially on the peak time Didcot services which need the 110 mph capability

 

[jdxn]

Many posters on here have issues with HEX. Yes they have been charging lots of money, but a direct Paddington service will still be useful to many. The market will force the price down, but it must be remembered that many business people fly to Heathrow not to go to the City or Canary Wharf. The tube connections from Padd go in a variety of directions, and of course the choice of jumping out into a taxi is great for many. This seems like a good solution esp as the trains can do 110 on the main, and non-stop trains to Paddington will have demand for many years to come whatever the posters on this forum might wish for.

 

[TEW]

The 165s can't keep up with 387 timings, especially on the peak time Didcot services which need the 110 mph capability

They won't need to replace all the 387 workings on the GWML, just some. It is only 12 units that will be working HEX services supposedly, the bulk of the fleet will still be used on standard GWR services. The peak time Didcot services will remain 387 operated throughout.

 

[Non Multi]

The 165s can't keep up with 387 timings, especially on the peak time Didcot services which need the 110 mph capability

I thought everything was still using 90mph Turbo timings.

 

[jdxn]

Would you be prepared to pay to demolish multiple waterfront properties and, for compliant curvature, the bridge over the Thames in an environmentally sensitive area?
If you are thinking of electrifying the line, remember that there are at least two crossings for yachts on trailers. I shudder to think how high the wires would have to be to avoid contact!

Agreed - What is the point of it anyway? Whether its VivaTrain Battery or some new tech in 20 years time, wiring the branches won't be value for money, even discounting massive rebuilding/civil projects. The line isn't even signalled to modern day standards - it uses token to Bourne End and a train staff to Marlow

 

[Non Multi]

P.S. Do I win a prize? Post #78 on the thread from last month: Is Heathrow Express a good use of resources?

HEX has a future, more so when Western Access to Heathrow is built. Might be worth moving the 332s on and using 110mph 387s/379s when they're released by other TOCs, so they can split or join with GWR 387s at Paddington or Reading.

 

[JonathanH]

I thought everything was still using 90mph Turbo timings.

There is a difference between the peak time trains on the fast to Maidenhead and the stopping services on the relief

e.g.
1D91 1649 London Paddington to Didcot Parkway
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C55581/2018/03/29/advanced on the fast timed for 100mph

1N92 1656 London Paddington to Maidenhead
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C55836/2018/03/29/advanced timed on the relief line for 90mph

 

[The Ham]

P.S. Do I win a prize? Post #78 on the thread from last month: Is Heathrow Express a good use of resources?

I'm sure the RF staff can find you a "prize" to win.

On an"unrelated" note what's the website equivalent of peeling potatoes or cleaning toilets?

In seriousness, people will either think that you were possibly aware of rumours or that was an impressive guess. I would suggest the latter as probably anyone really in the know would be in a LOT of trouble of they posted such a comment in a public forum and then highlighted it again.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

To release all turbos
Cotswold stopper - Transfer to WMR - Worcester to Oxford

That's a very silly suggestion.

The evening stopper has been operated by 180s/800s for a long while. There is no physical reason why the morning stopper can't be one too. The constraints are simply platform lengths (three-coach non-SDO stock won't do, two-coach or any SDO stock is fine) and, obviously, stock availability in the peaks.

Local councils have an aspiration for a half-hourly service, potentially fast alternating with semi-fast. But that would require further redoubling, and if Hanborough-Charlbury is to be redoubled then it's extremely debatable whether you keep Finstock and Combe open at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Local councils have an aspiration for a half-hourly service, potentially fast alternating with semi-fast. But that would require further redoubling, and if Hanborough-Charlbury is to be redoubled then it's extremely debatable whether you keep Finstock and Combe open at all.

Looking at a map, Combe seems fairly pointless - it's a bit far from Combe itself for people to want to walk, and if you're getting in the car you might as well go to Hanborough, similarly Finstock to Charlbury though it is rather further away from the two villages.

I do sort of tend to the idea that if a station isn't worth a two-hourly clockface service (or the full service on the line if lesser than that) it isn't worth serving at all.