GWML Electification

[jim.snowdon]

Jim, I raised the point in ignorance of the details of the court's previous determination on allowable charges for use of network rail infrastructure. I know that the HEX branch is a private railway, but I still wonder if they are allowed to charge whatever they like for access. It depends on the details of the previous determination: if anybody knows I would be interested.

In the context of this posting, the following, which is quoted verbatim from the on-line railway website RTM, may be of interest -

 

Proposals to run Elizabeth Line trains through Heathrow Airport have been jeopardised by a legal dispute over fees imposed by the airport.

 

Heathrow, which spent £1bn building the five-mile line linking Heathrow to the Great Western main line 20 years ago, have argued that TfL should pay for the construction of the line through track access charges that could amount to £42m a year.

 

These charges are broken down into a £597 fee per train to recoup historical building costs and a charge for operational expenditure amounting to £138 per train.

 

The ORR had ruled that Heathrow would not be allowed to charge Crossrail for the costs of building the line, the Heathrow Express, which the Elizabeth Line  would run on.

 

A spokesperson said: “In May 2016, taking into account representations and evidence from affected parties, including considerable documentation and submissions from Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL), we decided HAL is not permitted to introduce all of its proposed new charges for train operators to use its track, which links Heathrow ‎Airport to the Great Western main line.”

 

But this is a decision that Heathrow has in an attempt to still try and place the charges on Elizabeth Line services, run by TfL. The hearings were held earlier this year and a High Court judgment is expected within weeks.

Despite this, a spokesperson for the airport said Heathrow was still “committed to increasing public transport to Heathrow and look forward to the arrival of Crossrail in May 2018”.

 

They added that “we need to ensure that track access charges are fair and we are waiting on a ruling from the courts on whether the regulations apply and if so, their correct application to cost”.

 

Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive, stated that Heathrow “could not have it both ways” in terms of increasing links and generating income.

 

“Increasing public transport is integral to ensuring the airport cuts pollution and meets air quality targets,” he said. “This case shows Heathrow is making promises to deliver but isn’t prepared to pay their share of the associated costs.

“This doesn’t bode well for Heathrow’s commitment to pay for surface access costs for a new third runway, which could top £18bn, and means taxpayers could be left footing the bill.”

RTM has contacted TfL for comment, but at the time of publication had not received  response.

 

In short, Heathrow Airport appear to be intent on extracting every last penny out of anything they can.

 

Jim

[RJS1977]

As I see it, Heathrow would have had to borrow the money to build the Heathrow branch, and that loan is being paid back out of the fares on the Heathrow express and Connect services  (hence their premium prices and not normally accepting Travelcards).

 

If TfL take over these services, then Heathrow are left with an unpaid loan and which they will not be able to repay unless TfL compensate them in some way.

[jim.snowdon]

I would suspect that the original construction and operating costs of the Heathrow branch and associated electrification are being paid out of Heathrow's income as a whole, not just the fares. The train service is, after all, just a part of a much bigger operation.

 

Apart from Heathrow's apparent intention to extract every last penny from everything, there is also the small point that Crossrail's 4tph has the potential to get in the way of their nice express service to Paddington, although how that may survive post-Crossrail has to be a moot point.

 

It will be interesting to see what the judge finally has to say, a if it goes against Heathrow, how rapidly they lodge an Appeal.

 

Jim

[jonny777]

Doesn't always make much difference where there are records.  back in the 1970s I attended a site meeting at port talbot where the footings were being dug for the extension of PortTalbot panelbox building.  The contractors had come across what was very obviously a fairly high voltage electric cable and wanted to know if it was dead, alive, redundant or occasionally powered up.  The meeting was attended by the S&T, the ODM plant engineer (who had responsibility for some power cables in that area), the local electricity supply concern, BT (in case it belonged to them and was really a 'phone cable), the steel works plant and electricity supply engineer's rep, and the Docks Board engineer.

 

 All of then turned up with whatever drawings they had of their cables in that vicinity - some going back to the 1930s - and nobody laid claim to the cable so it was duly cut with a digger bucket.  Nothing, no flash or bang - just nothing and no idea of who it might ever have belonged to.

 

 

Some electric services are running.

 

I have seen them passing the Slough webcam on recent days.

 

Sorry, I have added my reply to the wrong post; it should have been 3336.

Edited May 25, 2017 by jonny777

[Northroader]

I noticed some sets were parked in sidings adjacent to the Plasser depot at West Ealing, besides a few coming and going on the relief lines.

[Banger Blue]

I noticed some sets were parked in sidings adjacent to the Plasser depot at West Ealing, besides a few coming and going on the relief lines.

The two sidings are 'West Ealing Light Maintenance Depot'

[Titan]

As I see it, Heathrow would have had to borrow the money to build the Heathrow branch, and that loan is being paid back out of the fares on the Heathrow express and Connect services  (hence their premium prices and not normally accepting Travelcards).

 

If TfL take over these services, then Heathrow are left with an unpaid loan and which they will not be able to repay unless TfL compensate them in some way.

 

Surely after so many years of operation the loans should be pretty much paid back by now? Pretty bad management somewhere if they haven't.

[Red Baron]

Surely after so many years of operation the loans should be pretty much paid back by now? Pretty bad management somewhere if they haven't.

 

Yes they no doubt own the asset they paid for.    When your motgage is paid can i live in your house for free ? 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Red Baron

[jim.snowdon]

The two sidings are 'West Ealing Light Maintenance Depot'

Or in less pretentious terms, West Ealing Carriage Sidings. There really isn't much scope to do more than sweep the trains out, and I can't recall seeing any facilities to undertake toilet emptying.

 

In the mean time, the only serious maintenance facilities are either the wrong side of a gap in the wiring, ie Reading, or still under construction, ie Old Oak Common, which hasn't yet got any access tracks whilst they build what I presume will be the carriage wash across where the access roads will be.

 

Jim

 

Jim

[Titan]

Yes they no doubt own the asset they paid for.    When your motgage is paid can i live in your house for free ? 

 

I would expect you to at least cover a reasonable proportion of the maintenance costs and bills. 

[Zomboid]

Or in less pretentious terms, West Ealing Carriage Sidings. There really isn't much scope to do more than sweep the trains out, and I can't recall seeing any facilities to undertake toilet emptying.

 

In the mean time, the only serious maintenance facilities are either the wrong side of a gap in the wiring, ie Reading, or still under construction, ie Old Oak Common, which hasn't yet got any access tracks whilst they build what I presume will be the carriage wash across where the access roads will be.

 

Jim

 

Jim

I imagine they're using North pole for most things at the moment. Often see units in there, and it's not exactly overflowing with IEPs so far.

[jim.snowdon]

I would expect you to at least cover a reasonable proportion of the maintenance costs and bills. 

And the difference between the ORR and Heathrow interpretation of reasonable is, of course, why Heathrow have ended up in the courts challenging the ORR's interpretation as wholly inadequate.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

I imagine they're using North pole for most things at the moment. Often see units in there, and it's not exactly overflowing with IEPs so far.

 

I think the sets stabled at North Pole - where there were some long before they entered service - are only there for storage although teh ones I've seen have been on what is delightfully known as 'the bog road' so might well have been there for toiiet tank emptying )(assuming the fittings match of course?). 

 

And now an update on recent progress - both Main Lines now have full catenary through Twyford station although on the Up Main the section immediately west of the station only has the catenary wire in placed. Nothing can be done on the Reliefs as there are still two masts missing but there is a large stack of stone next to one hole and the canopy roof has been cut above the other boarded hole so something might happen this coming weekend.  Some pics will follow when I get a chance to upload them.

 

Most lines immediately west of Reading station now seem to have full catenary in place but in some cases it is for no more that one or two short sections; Platform 10 line still only has only a catenary wire in position and the contact wire on No.3 bay still remains very firmly attached directly to the support gantry with what looks like the final fitting method - but without an insulator although there is one in the catenary wire and in both wires on the adjacent No.2 bay catenary (I hope they have a note of that one).  As yet no connections have been made to the long since otherwise completed substation immediately west of Westbury Line Junction.

 

Masts and steelwork continue to appear in a rather haphazard fashion on the B&H and there is quite a large stock of foundation tubes at the workbase east of Midgham and some steelwork in the car park at Theale.  In a typical GWML electrification scheme approach to 'careful sequencing of work'  there are now registration arms in place on about half a dozen masts on the Up Westbury just west of Thatcham station - regrettably if you go a bit further west there are not even masts or bases in place on either side and of course there are none yet at Thatcham station  (thus far in the scheme most wayside station areas seem to have been left to last - Twyford, albeit incomplete, is an exception).   I noticed too that the bracket signal structure at the west end of Newbury station has been replaced by one to full ohle clearances.  So work is definitely proceeding on the B&H part of the scheme.

[dibber25]

I think the sets stabled at North Pole - where there were some long before they entered service - are only there for storage although teh ones I've seen have been on what is delightfully known as 'the bog road' so might well have been there for toiiet tank emptying )(assuming the fittings match of course?). 

 

And now an update on recent progress - both Main Lines now have full catenary through Twyford station although on the Up Main the section immediately west of the station only has the catenary wire in placed. Nothing can be done on the Reliefs as there are still two masts missing but there is a large stack of stone next to one hole and the canopy roof has been cut above the other boarded hole so something might happen this coming weekend.  Some pics will follow when I get a chance to upload them.

 

Most lines immediately west of Reading station now seem to have full catenary in place but in some cases it is for no more that one or two short sections; Platform 10 line still only has only a catenary wire in position and the contact wire on No.3 bay still remains very firmly attached directly to the support gantry with what looks like the final fitting method - but without an insulator although there is one in the catenary wire and in both wires on the adjacent No.2 bay catenary (I hope they have a note of that one).  As yet no connections have been made to the long since otherwise completed substation immediately west of Westbury Line Junction.

 

Masts and steelwork continue to appear in a rather haphazard fashion on the B&H and there is quite a large stock of foundation tubes at the workbase east of Midgham and some steelwork in the car park at Theale.  In a typical GWML electrification scheme approach to 'careful sequencing of work'  there are now registration arms in place on about half a dozen masts on the Up Westbury just west of Thatcham station - regrettably if you go a bit further west there are not even masts or bases in place on either side and of course there are none yet at Thatcham station  (thus far in the scheme most wayside station areas seem to have been left to last - Twyford, albeit incomplete, is an exception).   I noticed too that the bracket signal structure at the west end of Newbury station has been replaced by one to full ohle clearances.  So work is definitely proceeding on the B&H part of the scheme.

How sad. It was such a lovely stretch of railway. (CJL)

[david.hill64]

In the context of this posting, the following, which is quoted verbatim from the on-line railway website RTM, may be of interest -

 

Proposals to run Elizabeth Line trains through Heathrow Airport have been jeopardised by a legal dispute over fees imposed by the airport.

 

Heathrow, which spent £1bn building the five-mile line linking Heathrow to the Great Western main line 20 years ago, have argued that TfL should pay for the construction of the line through track access charges that could amount to £42m a year.

 

These charges are broken down into a £597 fee per train to recoup historical building costs and a charge for operational expenditure amounting to £138 per train.

 

The ORR had ruled that Heathrow would not be allowed to charge Crossrail for the costs of building the line, the Heathrow Express, which the Elizabeth Line  would run on.

 

A spokesperson said: “In May 2016, taking into account representations and evidence from affected parties, including considerable documentation and submissions from Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL), we decided HAL is not permitted to introduce all of its proposed new charges for train operators to use its track, which links Heathrow ‎Airport to the Great Western main line.”

 

But this is a decision that Heathrow has in an attempt to still try and place the charges on Elizabeth Line services, run by TfL. The hearings were held earlier this year and a High Court judgment is expected within weeks.

Despite this, a spokesperson for the airport said Heathrow was still “committed to increasing public transport to Heathrow and look forward to the arrival of Crossrail in May 2018”.

 

They added that “we need to ensure that track access charges are fair and we are waiting on a ruling from the courts on whether the regulations apply and if so, their correct application to cost”.

 

Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive, stated that Heathrow “could not have it both ways” in terms of increasing links and generating income.

 

“Increasing public transport is integral to ensuring the airport cuts pollution and meets air quality targets,” he said. “This case shows Heathrow is making promises to deliver but isn’t prepared to pay their share of the associated costs.

“This doesn’t bode well for Heathrow’s commitment to pay for surface access costs for a new third runway, which could top £18bn, and means taxpayers could be left footing the bill.”

RTM has contacted TfL for comment, but at the time of publication had not received  response.

 

In short, Heathrow Airport appear to be intent on extracting every last penny out of anything they can.

 

Jim

The decision supports the ORR against BAA: BAA has no right to count the original construction costs and were not given leave to appeal the decision (though they might try). https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/heathrow-loses-bid-to-charge-crossrail-5nfr6vx02

[The Stationmaster]

The decision supports the ORR against BAA: BAA has no right to count the original construction costs and were not given leave to appeal the decision (though they might try). https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/heathrow-loses-bid-to-charge-crossrail-5nfr6vx02

 

Which raises another question.  If HAL decide to stand on their dignity and really are concerned about the money situation can they deny Crossrail access?  Not entirely clear without going through their Access Conditions with a very fine toothcomb.

 

What however is very clear from their published charging regime is that the Fixed Track Access Charge for a Class 345 train is exactly the same as the comparable charge for a Class 332 or Class 360 train as are the Qualifying Expenditure and Station Long Term Charge  and this continues with the revised charges applying after 2018.   The Variable Usage Charge for a Class 345 is, and will remain, lower than the comparable charges for a Class 332 but is higher (in 2018) than the charge for a Class 360 - that difference being absolutely logical as a Class 345 will have more vehicles than a Class 360.

 

As far as I can see from all the relevant numbers there appears to be no attempt at all in the normal Access Charges to levy excessive amounts from Crossrail and indeed it is in fact getting a better 'deal' per train than a service operated by a Class 332; it will (at 2018 prices) cost them c.£150 per train to serve the CTA/T4 plus an additional c.£170 per train if they also go to T5.  I can see nothing at all for any operator to complain about in those figures especially when they are related to potential passenger numbers.

 

The published table of charges does however note that the Investment Recovery Charge (of £463.96 per movement in 2018, and reducing very slightly from 2019 onwards)  is 'subject to ORR approval' - it would appear that this charge would apply to all movements therefore including HEX.   It seems logical, whatever HAL might think, that the ORR can refuse to approve such a charge.  Such refusal might of course have a subsequent impact on the Variable Access Charge or the Fixed Access Charge but such a proposal from HAL might again bring it into conflict with the ORR, it really depends to what extent they can prove their numbers if they propose an increase.

 

Of course one oddity which strikes me from all of this is that at 2018 prices it would only cost TfL a touch over £600 for a train to run to LHR paying the Investment Recovery Charge plus all the other charges if serving the CTA/T4.  Which still strikes me as being remarkably cheap to access such a potential market and hardly likely to break the budget of a '£15 billion railway'.

[cheesysmith]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they decided to cut the line on their side of the boundary. After all, it's their line, paid for by them, and used by their trains and not even part of the network.

 

Or what if the heathrow express decided to run trains through the tunnel and TfL said no? How would this be different from what's happening now with TfL wanting to run trains over the airport branch?

[jim.snowdon]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they decided to cut the line on their side of the boundary. After all, it's their line, paid for by them, and used by their trains and not even part of the network.

 

Or what if the heathrow express decided to run trains through the tunnel and TfL said no? How would this be different from what's happening now with TfL wanting to run trains over the airport branch?

One thing HEX acn't do is run their trains into the Crossrail tunnel, as they lack the necessary signalling equipment, and I very  much doubt that they would invest in upgrading their trains unless they were also to get a non-stop, or at least limited stop, service as far as Canary Wharf, which they won't get. Of course, that kind of lucrative premium fare traffic might take a bit of a nosedive post-2019 if we carry on as we are, but that's an argument for another place.

 

Jim

[St. Simon]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they decided to cut the line on their side of the boundary. After all, it's their line, paid for by them, and used by their trains and not even part of the network.

It would cost them a massive amount, the signalling is so intergrated, particularly after ETCS Level 2 fitment, that it would take at least 3 or 4 years from decision to implementation.

 

Simon

[jim.snowdon]

Having been involved in the conversion of a railway and a rolling stock fleet, mid-build, just to add complication, it isn't that complicated. If HEX decided to go for Crossrail compatibility, it will not be the first time a train has been adapted to communicate with a new signalling system, or the signalling system to accommodate another type of rolling stock with different, but known, characteristics.

 

Jim

[Grovenor]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they decided to cut the line on their side of the boundary. After all, it's their line, paid for by them, and used by their trains and not even part of the network.

Then they would be unable to run any service except a shuttle from T4 to T5 and would get no income from it at all. Not a very likely scenario!

Regards

 

PS Not sure they could even run the shuttle, do they have a 25kV incomer on their side of the boundary?

Edited May 27, 2017 by Grovenor

[Vanders]

I would think HAL are unlikely to try and upset anybody too much, or at least not to the point that any Ministers or especially DfT get involved. That 3rd runway is still a little tenuous, especially with a General Election looming.

[cheesysmith]

What I'm trying to say is if HAL had compatible trains with the tunnel sections, would TfL even allow access? They have already virtually taken over the GW slow lines and if there wasn't already other trains running over the NLL do you think any freight trains would even get a look in? They do seem to have a attitude of trying to control everything for the benefit of the London. Not that that is wrong, after all it is their job. But rail travel for people from reading inwards will change, but for the better?

[St. Simon]

Having been involved in the conversion of a railway and a rolling stock fleet, mid-build, just to add complication, it isn't that complicated. If HEX decided to go for Crossrail compatibility, it will not be the first time a train has been adapted to communicate with a new signalling system, or the signalling system to accommodate another type of rolling stock with different, but known, characteristics.

 

Jim

Whilst it wouldn't normally be that difficult, the fact that the Class 332s so full of electronics at the moment, due to ATP and other systems, that they haven't got the physical room to install ETCS or CBTC, it would be a whole new train fleet.

 

Simon

[Edwin_m]

Whilst it wouldn't normally be that difficult, the fact that the Class 332s so full of electronics at the moment, due to ATP and other systems, that they haven't got the physical room to install ETCS or CBTC, it would be a whole new train fleet.

 

Simon

332s would never run through the Crossrail tunnels (at least in passenger service) because the door positions are different from the Crossrail stock so they wouldn't line up with the platform screen doors.