GWML Electification

[phil-b259]

All as I understood it Phil.

However, wasn't the dispute between TfL and HAL finally settled back in late June, following the court ruling against HAL in May?

.

 

It sounds like it - but given all the effort TfL has had to spend dragging Heathrow through the courts in the first place, until an  actual agreement is signed between the two I remain wary.

 

As I said it could all have been avoided if a certain political party wasn't so obsessed with ideology rather than the best long term interests of society at large 25 years ago.....

[jonny777]

I presume that the elephant in the room here, is the Heathrow third runway plan; which must blight the entire planning process in that area (as well as blighting even more of west London environmentally after it is built)?

 

We couldn't have any other transport infrastructure competing for the vast space which will need to be bulldozed for that expansion to go ahead. 

 

If any of our governments had any guts and environmental considerations, they would slap an immediate 20% VAT on aviation fuel and thus reduce demand for potentially unnecessary flights through higher prices; and spend the tax money on green initiatives (if they and their civil servants even understand what those are). 

[Coryton]

If any of our governments had any guts and environmental considerations, they would slap an immediate 20% VAT on aviation fuel and thus reduce demand for potentially unnecessary flights through higher prices; and spend the tax money on green initiatives (if they and their civil servants even understand what those are). 

 

The problem of course is that on incoming flights airlines will fuel their planes outside the UK as soon as it's cheaper to fly the plane in with fuel for the return journey than fill up in the UK (obviously only for flights short enough to have the fuel capacity).

 

Budget airlines often mix domestic and international flights so could play the same game even for domestic flights.

 

I suppose you could tax the "import" of airline fuel but I'm not sure that would work.

 

I suspect any attempt to do so would meet with tit-for-tat responses from other countries.

 

Heathrow Connect by contrast REPLACED an ordinary Thames Trains / FGW service as far as Hayes before heading to the airport. It was NOT designed for passengers to make end to end journeys (I don't know if Heathrow airport tried the trick BR did in the 1980s at Gatwick where all Non Gatwick Express services were described as terminating at Clapham Junction so as to divert passengers onto the 'premium' service).

 

 

Not at all. When I've been there the signs at Heathrow have made it very clear that there are two options for trains to Paddington - Heathrow Express for a more expensive, more frequent non-stop service and Heathrow Connect for a slower, less frequent but cheaper one. It may not have been designed for end to end journeys but it was presented as such to people arriving at Heathrow.

 

As for Gatwick Express, maybe I have my history muddled but I thought originally it was introduced to get airline passengers (and their luggage) off the regular trains, and that the premium pricing only came in when it became a shadow franchise in the run up to privatisation. So far as I know the premium has never been that large (though larger when you take into account that Network Railcards weren't valid) and it never seemed to me that it was aimed only at business and first class airline passengers.

 

As for BR developing the Heathrow Link as with Stansted (and Manchester?), the Heathrow link must have been a lot more expensive, requiring flying junctions, a long tunnel and electrifying all the way to Paddington (don't know if what I read is true, that diesel trains aren't allowed in new build tunnels of any length). Would they have been able to get the return on investment the government required without a rather substantial premium on the fares?

[Zomboid]

I think there's a limit to how much fuel a plane is allowed to land with, probably to limit the inferno risk if it doesn't go right.

[Oakydoke]

Aviation fuel taxation is governed by international convention and covered by bilateral agreement, so one state cannot impose its own rules.

It would be impractical in any event, as aviation fuel can be bought anywhere and transported by aircraft from one country to another, so it would be impossible to impose an even, regular or fair to each user tax on it in only one tax jurisdiction.

Even if we're to be taxed, on export, i.e. flown out of the country, the tax can be refunded. Self defeating.

[D854_Tiger]

If any of our governments had any guts and environmental considerations, they would slap an immediate 20% VAT on aviation fuel and thus reduce demand for potentially unnecessary flights through higher prices; and spend the tax money on green initiatives (if they and their civil servants even understand what those are). 

 

In theory, at least, any taxes added to fuel normally have to be justified by related costs, incurred by the government, such as the infrastructure road vehicles need.

 

That's why similar taxes are not applied to aircraft or trains, both modes having their associated costs met by other mechanisms, though noting the air aircraft need comes for free.

 

Also noting that transport finances in most countries are usually such a byzantine mess of cross subsidy, actual subsidy and cost benefit (surely a misnomer) any concept of transport provision being based even closely to some kind of market principle (i.e. charged according to what it actually costs) has been lost decades ago.

 

Most especially roads, where it takes a whole academic study just to find out how much the system really costs (and that alone should ring all the alarm bells) when even the NHS is not afforded that kind of fiscal laxity.

 

Then, in that respect, air travel actually does pretty well, the airports, the aircraft and the journey all being covered by the fare box is pretty much the exception in transport economics nowadays and, with the latest advancement in engine efficiency (especially for smaller aircraft), we are getting pretty close now to an aircraft journey being no worse for the planet than a car one, most especially if that car contains only one person and sits for most of its time in traffic congestion.

 

P.S. Railfreight comes out very well also, in theory no subsidy and kind to the planet (yes even a class 31), just such a shame the same thing could never be claimed for their major, ever present, competitor.

[Coryton]

I think there's a limit to how much fuel a plane is allowed to land with, probably to limit the inferno risk if it doesn't go right.

 

Not sure about that.

 

I think after the Buncefield fire which caused fuel rationing at Heathrow short haul flights had to arrive with their return fuel already on board for a while.

 

Likewise with strikes preventing refuelling.

 

I think there are already cases where even without tax, it's cheaper for airlines to fly fuel in than purchase locally. (Not a straightforward calculation of course, because you're burning fuel on the way out to carry the fuel for the way back...)

[Coryton]

Most especially roads, where it takes a whole academic study just to find out how much the system really costs (and that alone should ring all the alarm bells) when even the NHS is not afforded that kind of fiscal laxity.

 

 

If the congestion-related road charging scheme suggested a few years back had been implemented it would have been interesting to look at the "profitability" of quiet rural roads that would have a very low charge and not many vehicles, but still need maintenance. 

 

And in the days where BR required a certain return on any investment, it would have been interesting to see how well new roads could have justified themselves by the increase in fuel duty etc. due to the additional journeys they would generate.

 

Then, in that respect, air travel actually does pretty well, the airports, the aircraft and the journey all being covered by the fare box is pretty much the exception in transport economics nowadays

 

Especially now that council cutbacks have dramatically reduced tendered bus services, the same is true for most passenger road transport in the UK, and certainly for long distance services.

 

What these have in common with air transport is that in almost all cases the operators are free to concentrate entirely on what makes them money and can cut back or even stop services pretty much at the drop of a hat as they see fit. (OK bus operators do have to give some notice, but not much).

 

There's no need for any enquiry or other consideration of the hardship caused by service changes, except that a bus service could become tendered if dropped commercially, and in a few cases (islands) air routes are considered socially necessary.

[D854_Tiger]

Aviation fuel taxation is governed by international convention and covered by bilateral agreement, so one state cannot impose its own rules.

It would be impractical in any event, as aviation fuel can be bought anywhere and transported by aircraft from one country to another, so it would be impossible to impose an even, regular or fair to each user tax on it in only one tax jurisdiction.

Even if we're to be taxed, on export, i.e. flown out of the country, the tax can be refunded. Self defeating.

 

Back in the day, when the Soviet Union was busy collapsing, some Black Sea Dan Dare outfit used to fly an Ilyushin into Birmingham every Sunday.

 

Normal routine was to fill with fuel (to the brim) back home with enough to reach BHX and get back (just) however even the slightest delay would foil that plan forcing the Captain to take on fuel at BHX (in precious dollars) thus blowing a hole in any profit.

 

Also normal routine was for the said Captain to declare a fault (which usually mysteriously disappeared on landing) suitable to jump any stack in operation on arrival and be given immediate clearance to land.

 

Needless to say, BHX ATC were getting well p*****d off with this stunt until one day (and them being very-prepared) the Captain declared a fault which, unknown to him in the UK, required a fuel dump before landing.

 

Boy was he ever p*****d off when told this and that he would be grounded if he didn't declaring "Birmingham you are hopeless" to much merriment in the tower.

 

Mind the good citizens of Hampton in Arden (one station up from International) were none too pleased either when a large proportion of said fuel landed all over their summer blooms.

 

P.S. One Sunday another of their Captains was found to be over the limit, after possibly drawing attention to himself by being seen drinking in the airport bar with all the waiting passengers.

 

BHX has never been overly fussy with the kind of exotic outfits they do business with anything to justify that international claim made in their name.

[D854_Tiger]

And in the days where BR required a certain return on any investment, it would have been interesting to see how well new roads could have justified themselves by the increase in fuel duty etc. due to the additional journeys they would generate.

 

The worst example of transport accounting has to be the government (who shall remain nameless but not the one you might think) that was none too keen on financing anymore light rail schemes.

 

In the costs to be used against the project column, they actually put the lost road tax revenue that would result from drivers switching from their cars to the trams.

[Coryton]

The worst example of transport accounting has to be the government (who shall remain nameless but not the one you might think) that was none too keen on financing anymore light rail schemes.

 

In the costs to be used against the project column, they actually put the lost road tax revenue that would result from drivers switching from their cars to the trams.

 

Yes, I've heard about that sort of thing. Wonderful, isn't it?

[D854_Tiger]

Under the acts of parliament granted to authorise construction of the Heathrow link, BAA and their successors had the right to charge a fare supplement to help find construction of the link. BAA also took the decision to market the new train service as a 'premium product' for First Class / Business class airline passengers (in a similar vein to the Gatwick Express) effectively arguing that ordinary airline passengers had the Piccadilly line as an alternative. The luxurious train interiors and 'non stop' nature of the service allowed a further uplift in fares over and above the 'construction levy' Heathrow could charge for use of the link.

 

You do however have to wonder which the passengers will consider to be the premium product when the non-stop flyer flies to terminate at an out of the way Paddington and the poor man's stopper goes all the way to the west end and the city.

 

You have to see BAA's point because my suspicion is that the existing Heathrow Express is going to be shifting largely fresh air around once Crossrail opens and it seems to me as if someone needs to bite the bullet on this (pay up or price up in other words) and integrate the whole operation into Crossrail.

[Mike Storey]

The worst example of transport accounting has to be the government (who shall remain nameless but not the one you might think) that was none too keen on financing anymore light rail schemes.

 

In the costs to be used against the project column, they actually put the lost road tax revenue that would result from drivers switching from their cars to the trams.

 

Not road tax, but fuel duty lost by reduced fuel used. That was not any one particular government. That was required in the Treasury Blue Book (or was it the Green Book?) to be included in all transport business cases ever since I started to help prepare them in the 1980's, and then later when I actually wrote them. It was removed as a requirement before I left NR I think, or just afterwards, so before or just after 2006, by the Blair government.

 

I think the scheme to which you refer was the Leeds tram proposal, which had been submitted several times, and they finally gave up, but I don't think the inclusion or otherwise of fuel duty loss, would have actually made the scheme, as written, any more likely to succeed (from the drafts I saw, when I was a consultee as the Regional Manager for the Northern Major Stations).

[lmsforever]

Think this thread should be GWR Electrification Or Not !

[robertcwp]

I think there's a limit to how much fuel a plane is allowed to land with, probably to limit the inferno risk if it doesn't go right.

It's more to do with the landing weight and how much the gear and airframe can handle on touchdown. Weight also potentially influences approach speed and runway length needed to pull up.

[jonny777]

Think this thread should be GWR Electrification Or Not !

 

 

 

No, because that is decided by civil servants. 

 

Us plebs have no say at all. 

 

 

From what I have seen recently, the rules are that as soon as an electrification project gets further than 2 Deg West, it is cancelled. 

 

And this is also the rule for 53 deg North. 

 

 

I heard on the radio that the average transport spend for those in London and SE is £2000 per person.

 

Whereas the average spend west of 2 Deg W is £250 per person. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

......You have to see BAA's HAL's point because my suspicion is that the existing Heathrow Express is going to be shifting largely fresh air around once Crossrail opens and it seems to me as if someone needs to bite the bullet on this (pay up or price up in other words) and integrate the whole operation into Crossrail.

 

 

I'm not sure if the impact on HEX will be immediate.

 

Heathrow Express have a very aggressive marketing approach.

They have adverts in the in-flight magazines of several airlines flying into Heathrow.

One or two airlines also promote Heathrow Express on their pre-landing information videos (long-haul flights), with no mention of Heathrow Connect.

Then when you land at Heathrow, you will see numerous high profile advertisements for HEX, as you make your way through the airport towards passport control, baggage reclaim and through customs.

Often, there are also sales staff positioned along the route, usually towards the exits, promoting and selling tickets.

 

Unless TfL pursue a similar level of marketing for Crossrail, I can see HEX still attracting similar numbers of the unwary, until the existence and benefits of using Crossrail are more widely known.

Also, lots of leisure travellers use travel guides to London, online information sources and travel information from their tour, or booking agency. These will all need to be updated to reflect the opening of Crossrail.

 

If, as widely suspected by many, HEX does eventually start to lose a lot of business after a year or two; this could be occurring in the run up to the HEX agreement running out in 2023.

That timing might present the perfect opportunity for NR, TfL and GWR, to make their case for recovering the HEX main line paths for GW TOC use.

 

.

[Zomboid]

I'm not sure what you mean about 53 Deg North, considering that the line to Dunblane from Falkirk is being electrified with most of the railways in the Edinburgh to Glasgow corridor, along with the Manchester to Blackpool route.

[Mike Storey]

I'm not sure if the impact on HEX will be immediate.

 

Heathrow Express have a very aggressive marketing approach.

They have adverts in the in-flight magazines of several airlines flying into Heathrow.

One or two airlines also promote Heathrow Express on their pre-landing information videos (long-haul flights), with no mention of Heathrow Connect.

Then when you land at Heathrow, you will see numerous high profile advertisements for HEX, as you make your way through the airport towards passport control, baggage reclaim and through customs.

Often, there are also sales staff positioned along the route, usually towards the exits, promoting and selling tickets.

 

Unless TfL pursue a similar level of marketing for Crossrail, I can see HEX still attracting similar numbers of the unwary, until the existence and benefits of using Crossrail are more widely known.

Also, lots of leisure travellers use travel guides to London, online information sources and travel information from their tour, or booking agency. These will all need to be updated to reflect the opening of Crossrail.

 

If, as widely suspected by many, HEX does eventually start to lose a lot of business after a year or two; this could be occurring in the run up to the HEX agreement running out in 2023.

That timing might present the perfect opportunity for NR, TfL and GWR, to make their case for recovering the HEX main line paths for GW TOC use.

 

.

 

All that is true and I would make the following observation - the average tourist has a case or two for each person and they are unlikely to brave the entrances of Oxford Circus or similar with those if they have any degree of sense (the ones without any sense can be seen daily on such heroic enterprise). They will therefore cab it to Paddington (if not on a trip which coaches them all the way back to Heathrow anyway). They are thus still likely then to use HEx, as despite the price differential, which is less now for someone using USD or Euros anyway, the speed and frequency make it a tourist's dream.

 

Business travellers may be the first to desert, as they tend to travel light and many will be coming from the City or Canary Wharf, which CrossRail will serve superbly.

 

So, it is an unknown equation up to 2023 - tourism is increasing due to the relative cheapness of coming to li'lle ol' England, but business travel is an unknown with the joint uncertainties of Brexit and the presumed necessity for increased foreign trade with a wider world.

[Budgie]

I heard on the radio that the average transport spend for those in London and SE is £2000 per person.

Whereas the average spend west of 2 Deg W is £250 per person.

So? If those where the spend is £250 per person don't like it, they can move to London and SE.

[Mike Storey]

So? If those where the spend is £250 per person don't like it, they can move to London and SE.

 

Presume that was tongue in cheek?

[Gilbert]

During my journey back from Warley today I noticed that there were masts on the Gloucester line going north round the curve from Westerleigh junction on the line from Bristol Parkway to Swindon for about 500m - what's the reason for that? ( "cock up"..does not count as an explanation..)

 

I should add that there was little evidence of electrification between there and Parkway...

[Christopher125]

 

Add to that the proposal for a new Heathrow Express depot, to be located adjacent to these new works; although whether that will be needed is yet to be seen.

.

 

Isn't that necessary to free up the land at Old Oak Common for HS2?

[The Stationmaster]

Ron that drawing you linked shows at Option 2 a fairly substantial realignment of the Main Lines under the flyover (and one drawing I have seen also showed a reduction of linespeed on the Mains although that might not be necessary if the slue can be eased out over a sufficient distance.

 

The Reading sidings situation is an awkward one as any train terminating from either east or west would presumably ideally do so in the two 'middle' Relief Line platforms 13 and 14.  that makes sense if you come in on the Down relief and go back on the Up Relief but if you run from either of those platforms to teh sidings you have to cross the Up Relief to get there.  At the same time there would also be a stopping train service from Oxford/Didcot (2tph probably) which needs to reverse at the west end plus 1 tph for Cross Country also currently handled on that side because there's not always room for it over on the other side of the station with other Cross Country trains in the way).  A lot obviously depends on turnround times which will inevitably set the for platform working but one very simple solution would be for one or two GWR/successor tph not to turn round at Reading at all and run through from Didcot/Ocxford to Paddington (as might well be the pattern or something close to it from January.  Doing that would also eliminate 2 tph Crossrail trains turning round leaving the other 2 tph running through to Reading.  That would give 4 tph (2 GWR, 2 Crossrail) east of Reading and maintain exiting through services between various stations east of Reading with those to the west and, ultimately Oxford as now.

 

Extra turnrounds from the east at Reading will inevitably mean additional turnrounds from the west - unless service frequencies to the west are reduced.  With the amount of commuting into Reading from both east and west on the Thames Valley (as well as the other routes) any reduction in services is unlikely to find public favour and simply turning trains round will also increase the number of connecting passenger milling about various parts of the station.  Simple fact - as you identified - is that the new layout is not suitable for turning round relatively intensive services at closer frequencies while Maidenhead is with the central reversing siding.  Quite why Reading was designed that way I don't know but even back with the previous iteration of Crossrail 25 years ago platforming difficulties at reading quickly became apparent - albeit with only one Crossrail platform face in that plan and that could only manage 2 tph.   Twice as many potential platform faces doesn't necessarily mean twice as many trains.

[The Stationmaster]

During my journey back from Warley today I noticed that there were masts on the Gloucester line going north round the curve from Westerleigh junction on the line from Bristol Parkway to Swindon for about 500m - what's the reason for that? ( "cock up"..does not count as an explanation..)

 

I should add that there was little evidence of electrification between there and Parkway...

 

Run-off plus taking the wires well clear of the junction should work northwards ever materialise.

 

I noticed is evening that there are quite a lot of masts in position south of Appleford Crossing although they don't extend to Didcot North Jcn (although I expect that bases probably do as there are definitely some in place on the Avoiding Line).  If the mast layout is any guide I presume there will be a remote controlled section switching boundary (or whatever they are called) just south of Appleford Crossing similar to those at Pangbourne and opposite the site of the original Cholsey/Wallingford Road station