Discussion:
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
Add Reply
Recliner
2017-05-21 08:58:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-hits-buffers-at-heathrow-jwrcctt60?shareToken=703895969b67292fe9096b3e8da8ef44>

Extracts:

The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment funds —
want to recoup its past spending on the private train line with an
“investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train that uses the track,
plus extra fees of about £107 per train.

Transport chiefs and the rail watchdog argue there is no justification for
such a historic charge, and fear it could mean higher ticket prices. The
Department for Transport reckons the extra charges would cost Crossrail
£42m a year.

A High Court judge is expected to rule imminently on the row after Heathrow
challenged the watchdog’s decision to reject the charges. Under contingency
plans drawn up by Transport for London, Crossrail trains could terminate a
few miles short of the airport, with passengers forced to transfer onto
other trains at a suburban station. The trains would then head back to
central London, dodging the £700 fees.

Called the Elizabeth line, London’s newest route was funded by taxpayers
and businesses in the capital and is due to carry 200m people a year. Four
Crossrail trains an hour will start running between Paddington and Heathrow
from next May — though not to Terminal 5 as the Heathrow Express has an
exclusive deal to run services there until 2023.



The company is believed to have identified a location near the airport
where trains could be redirected back towards Paddington or continue west —
though turning around trains on the Great Western line would create a huge
headache on the main artery between the capital and the west of England and
south Wales.
Graeme Wall
2017-05-21 09:10:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-hits-buffers-at-heathrow-jwrcctt60?shareToken=703895969b67292fe9096b3e8da8ef44>
The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment funds —
want to recoup its past spending on the private train line with an
“investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train that uses the track,
plus extra fees of about £107 per train.
Transport chiefs and the rail watchdog argue there is no justification for
such a historic charge, and fear it could mean higher ticket prices. The
Department for Transport reckons the extra charges would cost Crossrail
£42m a year.
A High Court judge is expected to rule imminently on the row after Heathrow
challenged the watchdog’s decision to reject the charges. Under contingency
plans drawn up by Transport for London, Crossrail trains could terminate a
few miles short of the airport, with passengers forced to transfer onto
other trains at a suburban station. The trains would then head back to
central London, dodging the £700 fees.
Called the Elizabeth line, London’s newest route was funded by taxpayers
and businesses in the capital and is due to carry 200m people a year. Four
Crossrail trains an hour will start running between Paddington and Heathrow
from next May — though not to Terminal 5 as the Heathrow Express has an
exclusive deal to run services there until 2023.
Easy answer, charge Heathrow £1k per train for the Heathrow Express to
use the new Paddington layout.

But why didn't someone in the DfT pick up on this before they started
building Crossrail?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2017-05-21 09:46:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment
funds — want to recoup its past spending on the private train line
with an “investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train
that uses the track, plus extra fees of about £107 per train.
Easy answer, charge Heathrow £1k per train for the Heathrow Express to
use the new Paddington layout.
They already have ongoing rights to use Paddington, the only leverage
will be retribution when that ends in 2023 (HEx reportedly want to be
able to run further into the core, then).
Post by Graeme Wall
But why didn't someone in the DfT pick up on this before they started
building Crossrail?
This has been known about all along, but I suspect that the DfT thought
it could stare-down HEx when the time came.

What could possibly go wrong?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-05-22 08:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
ember.org>, at 22:35:02 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Recliner
I think increased rail access will be a mandatory requirement for third
runway approval.
That's the only consideration which matters. In particular there are
stringent atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion issues which
requires them to shift people off the roads and onto trains. That's why
the *only* market that HEx is designed to compete with is a cab to
central London, not least because those passengers would never catch the
tube.
They wouldn't catch the Tube, but might well use the Elizabeth line, which
makes it much more of a HEx competitor. Like HEx, it will offer 4 tph, but
unlike HEx, it will go directly to useful places like the West End, City
and Canary Wharf.

So HAL is trying to do two things with this demand:

1. Raise Crossrail fares to Heathrow so they don't undercut HEx so much.
Otherwise HEx may suffer an early demse.

2. Make enough money from Crossrail to compensate for the lost HEx
revenues.
Similarly, Heathrow Connect is mainly aimed at airport workers, the vast
majority of whom nevertheless drive (often in shared cars).
The airport does its best to deter travellers from using HC, by putting up
no signs for it. Similarly, I don't think it's mentioned on Padd departure
boards (I think it's shown as a H&H service).

For example, this is the sign on the T4 Heathrow Connect station entrance:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26830662545/in/album-72157667996346665/>

It only mentions HEx, which doesn't even serve that station.

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?
s***@potato.field
2017-05-22 09:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:49:11 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
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.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 09:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
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".
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-05-22 10:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:14:15 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
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.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 13:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
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.
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-05-22 15:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:39:03 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
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
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 16:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 08:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 May 2017 17:06:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour. However that only affects a relatively
small area. The extra flights will affect all of london and a significant
portion of Berkshire. All so Heathrow Plc can increase its share price.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-05-23 08:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 17:06:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour.
If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution would
be much worse.

We are where we are, and the improvements to public transport are mainly
to reduce the traffic and pollution.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 09:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 17:06:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour.
If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution would
be much worse.
How do you work that out?
Post by Roland Perry
We are where we are, and the improvements to public transport are mainly
to reduce the traffic and pollution.
Agreed
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2017-05-23 09:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution
would be much worse.
How do you work that out?
<cough> wouldn't be so bad.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 10:22:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution
would be much worse.
How do you work that out?
<cough> wouldn't be so bad.
Ah! :-)
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-05-24 00:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution
would be much worse.
How do you work that out?
<cough> wouldn't be so bad.
The cough wouldn't be so bad, I agree.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Basil Jet
2017-05-23 11:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour. However that only affects a relatively
small area. The extra flights will affect all of london and a significant
portion of Berkshire. All so Heathrow Plc can increase its share price.
Heathrow can not spirit more money out of people's pockets unless it is
providing the entire population with more of what they want.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 13:17:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:36:28 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour. However that only affects a relatively
small area. The extra flights will affect all of london and a significant
portion of Berkshire. All so Heathrow Plc can increase its share price.
Heathrow can not spirit more money out of people's pockets unless it is
providing the entire population with more of what they want.
Or charging the airlines more in access charges for a supposed improved
service. Besides, as Heathrow likes to keep reminding us , its a hub, which
means its generally not the population of the UK that gets the benefits.

Still, whats some extra noise, gas and particulate pollution affecting
millions of people when share prices are at risk. Priorities, right?
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-05-23 13:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Besides, as Heathrow likes to keep reminding us , its a hub, which
means its generally not the population of the UK that gets the benefits.
It's around one third hub, two thirds destination.

But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.

Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.

Note that I'm avoiding getting into a second-order pissing competition
over whether or not transit passengers make more or less use of airport
catering and duty free shops compared to non-transit passengers.

Then there's the benefit to local passengers of the increased traffic
from transit passengers making many of the flights economically feasible
in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 15:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.
Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.
Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy
sees many benefits at all. OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite
significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies.
Post by Roland Perry
in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.
One could only hope.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 16:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.
Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.
Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy
sees many benefits at all.
Most of the routine service and clerical staff do tend to come from the
immediate surrounding area.
Post by s***@potato.field
OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite
significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies.
Do many people travel to Heathrow just to visit the shops?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.
One could only hope.
Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-05-23 19:16:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.
Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.
Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy
sees many benefits at all.
Most of the routine service and clerical staff do tend to come from the
immediate surrounding area.
Post by s***@potato.field
OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite
significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies.
Do many people travel to Heathrow just to visit the shops?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.
One could only hope.
Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you?
I guess people who afraid of flying begrudge others' right to travel.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-24 08:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:16:24 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you?
I guess people who afraid of flying begrudge others' right to travel.
Says Mr Fly across the world to watch choo-choos. Good to see you give a
shit about your carbon footprint but as I've said before, most of you lot
are in gods waiting room so it really doesn't matter to any of you. By the
time it bites you'll all be compost.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-22 20:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:39:03 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
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.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 08:51:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 09:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.
If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.

Hence the triple redundancy so you can switch to one of the back-up
circuits, which is probably done automatically.

I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
Post by s***@potato.field
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.
What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.

You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 13:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.
If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.
I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture.
Post by Graeme Wall
What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
Post by Graeme Wall
You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.
See above.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 14:26:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.
If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.
I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture.
I was answering your point about the cable being cut.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
Once you are using screens they can be located anywhere, don't have to
be actually at the airport.
Post by s***@potato.field
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.
See above.
See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 15:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:26:35 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be?
I don't know, something happening nearby that may be of concern. Use your
imagination. The human eye is quite good at catching motion on the peripheral,
perhaps a vehicle or person where they shouldn't be etc. Something you won't
necessarily spot with screens showing narrow angle camera views.
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.
See above.
See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all.
The point being you could do all of that in the control tower. FFS, you can
get all that on flightradar24!
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 16:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:26:35 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be?
I don't know, something happening nearby that may be of concern. Use your
imagination. The human eye is quite good at catching motion on the peripheral,
perhaps a vehicle or person where they shouldn't be etc. Something you won't
necessarily spot with screens showing narrow angle camera views.
If you looked at the reports you'd see they aren't narrow angle views.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.
See above.
See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all.
The point being you could do all of that in the control tower. FFS, you can
get all that on flightradar24!
You still need a screen to to display it, once you accept that then we
are back to the point where it doesn't matter where the screen is
physically located.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-05-23 14:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.
If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.
I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture.
Post by Graeme Wall
What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

Loading Image...
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 15:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-05-23 15:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

Loading Image...
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 15:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7562313022_6f8d4de58c_b.jpg
You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
--
Spud
Basil Jet
2017-05-23 16:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7562313022_6f8d4de58c_b.jpg
You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 16:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7562313022_6f8d4de58c_b.jpg
You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?
No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-24 08:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7562313022_6f8d4de58c_b.jpg
You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?
No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :)
--
Spud
Post by Graeme Wall
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-05-24 13:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7562313022_6f8d4de58c_b.jpg
You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?
No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :)
I visited a friend who works in Stansted Tower. Their desks are several
metres from the windows - there are steps down from the control floor to a
walkway next to the windows, which also allows maintenance access to the
back of the desk equipment cabinets. To look downward out of the windows
the controllers would have to 'unplug' and walk from their desk several
metres to get to the window. It wasn't mentioned as something they ever
did, though I didn't specifically ask.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
s***@potato.field
2017-05-24 14:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 24 May 2017 13:54:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by s***@potato.field
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what
is
Post by s***@potato.field
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.
:)
I visited a friend who works in Stansted Tower. Their desks are several
metres from the windows - there are steps down from the control floor to a
walkway next to the windows, which also allows maintenance access to the
back of the desk equipment cabinets. To look downward out of the windows
the controllers would have to 'unplug' and walk from their desk several
metres to get to the window. It wasn't mentioned as something they ever
did, though I didn't specifically ask.
Its an as and when apparently, presumably when they're worried about ground
vehicle movements conflicting with planes or something like that.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-24 16:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7562313022_6f8d4de58c_b.jpg
You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?
No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :)
Another of your famous "friends"?

My sister is an ATC and she reckons the windows are angled to stop
reflections.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@potato.field
2017-05-25 08:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 24 May 2017 17:06:22 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.
:)
Another of your famous "friends"?
Huh? He's not a friend, he's a brother of a friend.
Post by Graeme Wall
My sister is an ATC and she reckons the windows are angled to stop
reflections.
"Reckons"? Anyway, there doesn't have to be just one purpose. Perhaps the
reflections was the initial reason and a side effect was it led to better
visuals. Or vice verca.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-05-25 18:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 24 May 2017 17:06:22 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.
:)
Another of your famous "friends"?
Huh? He's not a friend, he's a brother of a friend.
Post by Graeme Wall
My sister is an ATC and she reckons the windows are angled to stop
reflections.
"Reckons"? Anyway, there doesn't have to be just one purpose. Perhaps the
reflections was the initial reason and a side effect was it led to better
visuals. Or vice verca.
It leads to better visibility because there are no reflections.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-05-25 20:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 24 May 2017 17:06:22 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.
:)
Another of your famous "friends"?
Huh? He's not a friend, he's a brother of a friend.
Post by Graeme Wall
My sister is an ATC and she reckons the windows are angled to stop
reflections.
"Reckons"? Anyway, there doesn't have to be just one purpose. Perhaps the
reflections was the initial reason and a side effect was it led to better
visuals. Or vice verca.
It leads to better visibility because there are no reflections.
That's clearly (ha ha) the number one reason. The second reason is to
reduce the number of rain drops on the windows. As a by-product, it may
also help downward visibility, but only with control towers that allow
close access to the windows (many have desks and screens in the way). If
they really need a direct view down (irrelevant with most control towers),
a downward pointing camera will be much more useful, providing better
vision without leaving the desk.
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-05-23 22:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
The architects design them that way not because they feel that the
operators want to see if Spiderman is climbing up the tower but for
more practical reasons.
The outward angle reduces reflections from instrumentation from
equipment inside the tower at night and also in the day you dont get
refections of what is visible from an all around set of windows
refecting back and forth like a hall of mirrors effect, an added bonus
is that rain will sometimes drip off quicker than it would on a
vertical window, many ships bridges have windows that slant out at the
top for the same reasons.
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/adventure/adventure7.html
And back on land many an observation post like this former coastguard
one also has them.
Loading Image...



G.Harman
Graeme Wall
2017-05-24 06:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
Post by s***@potato.field
instead of being vertical.
They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No shit! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
The architects design them that way not because they feel that the
operators want to see if Spiderman is climbing up the tower but for
more practical reasons.
The outward angle reduces reflections from instrumentation from
equipment inside the tower at night and also in the day you dont get
refections of what is visible from an all around set of windows
refecting back and forth like a hall of mirrors effect, an added bonus
is that rain will sometimes drip off quicker than it would on a
vertical window, many ships bridges have windows that slant out at the
top for the same reasons.
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/adventure/adventure7.html
And back on land many an observation post like this former coastguard
one also has them.
https://calshot.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/new_nci_banner.jpg?w=640
Or for Southampton Water:
<Loading Image...>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Robin
2017-05-23 16:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.
Well I was told by people who spent their lives in aviation it's so air
traffic controllers don't see distracting reflections in the windows -
e.g. of other controllers or VDUs or doors opening or whatever. They
are tilted so the internal reflections are of the ceiling which don't
have lights.

And guess what? Lots of sites have the same explanation. Eg

http://www.airport-world.com/item/44-tall-story
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 16:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?
You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.
Strangely that is not to enable you to look vertically down.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
ColinR
2017-05-23 10:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.
Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/04/26/sumburgh-air-traffic-control-replaced-centralised-surveillance
--
Colin
s***@potato.field
2017-05-23 13:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
Post by ColinR
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.
Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/04/26/sumburgh-air-traffic-control-replaced
centralised-surveillance
Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland
in 2002:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision

Fantastic.
--
Spud
ColinR
2017-05-23 13:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
Post by ColinR
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.
Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/04/26/sumburgh-air-traffic-control-replaced
centralised-surveillance
Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision
Fantastic.
True, but that accident was caused by the country air traffic control,
not an airport approach control. Like for like comparison would be with
Swanwick which covers the UK country air space.

However, I tend to agree with your discomfort, looks like a money saving
idea rather than a safety inspired idea, the point I was making.
--
Colin
Graeme Wall
2017-05-23 14:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
Post by ColinR
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
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.
And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.
Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/04/26/sumburgh-air-traffic-control-replaced
centralised-surveillance
Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision
Fantastic.
All British airspace is controlled for either Swanwick or Prestwick,
your point is?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 09:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1881211349.517135052.089610.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 08:49:11 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
I think increased rail access will be a mandatory requirement for third
runway approval.
That's the only consideration which matters. In particular there are
stringent atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion issues which
requires them to shift people off the roads and onto trains. That's why
the *only* market that HEx is designed to compete with is a cab to
central London, not least because those passengers would never catch the
tube.
They wouldn't catch the Tube, but might well use the Elizabeth line,
Not when they built HEx in the 90's they wouldn't.
Post by Recliner
which makes it much more of a HEx competitor. Like HEx, it will offer 4
tph, but unlike HEx, it will go directly to useful places like the West
End, City and Canary Wharf.
But much slower, I expect. And will Elizabeth Line have First Class?
Post by Recliner
1. Raise Crossrail fares to Heathrow so they don't undercut HEx so much.
Otherwise HEx may suffer an early demse.
2. Make enough money from Crossrail to compensate for the lost HEx
revenues.
In other words "just like when Heathrow Connect started".
Post by Recliner
Similarly, Heathrow Connect is mainly aimed at airport workers, the vast
majority of whom nevertheless drive (often in shared cars).
The airport does its best to deter travellers from using HC, by putting up
no signs for it. Similarly, I don't think it's mentioned on Padd departure
boards (I think it's shown as a H&H service).
That's because it's aimed at airport workers, who know all about it, and
even get reduced fares.
Post by Recliner
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26830662545/in/album-72157667996
346665/>
It only mentions HEx, which doesn't even serve that station.
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?
But Heathrow Connect already does. The interesting sociological
experiment will be whether HAL treat the Elizabeth Line like the tube,
or like HC.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-05-22 09:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
ember.org>, at 08:49:11 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
I think increased rail access will be a mandatory requirement for third
runway approval.
That's the only consideration which matters. In particular there are
stringent atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion issues which
requires them to shift people off the roads and onto trains. That's why
the *only* market that HEx is designed to compete with is a cab to
central London, not least because those passengers would never catch the
tube.
They wouldn't catch the Tube, but might well use the Elizabeth line,
Not when they built HEx in the 90's they wouldn't.
Post by Recliner
which makes it much more of a HEx competitor. Like HEx, it will offer 4
tph, but unlike HEx, it will go directly to useful places like the West
End, City and Canary Wharf.
But much slower, I expect.
Slower to Paddington. But much faster to the places far more visitors
actually want to go, such as the West End, City, Canary Wharf and the
ExCel.
And will Elizabeth Line have First Class?
No. But I wonder how many HEx pax use First anyway? The First capacity is
very limited (around 10% on average):

Quote:

The units have First class and Standard class accommodation: the four-car
sets can accommodate up to 175 standard class passengers, with up to 239 in
the five-car sets. First class accommodation is in one of the driving cars,
referred to as 'DMF' (Driving-Motor-First) cars. The First class cars have
two different layouts: 332002, 332004 and the five-car sets can accommodate
up to 26 First class passengers, while in the other four-car sets up to 14
first class passengers can be accommodated. This is due to the checked
luggage compartments installed in some DMF cars in 1999.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_332#Description

HEx won't survive if it's left only with pax who refuse to travel standard
class.
Post by Recliner
1. Raise Crossrail fares to Heathrow so they don't undercut HEx so much.
Otherwise HEx may suffer an early demse.
2. Make enough money from Crossrail to compensate for the lost HEx
revenues.
In other words "just like when Heathrow Connect started".
Crossrail is a serious HEx competitor. HC, by deliberate design, was not.
Post by Recliner
Similarly, Heathrow Connect is mainly aimed at airport workers, the vast
majority of whom nevertheless drive (often in shared cars).
The airport does its best to deter travellers from using HC, by putting up
no signs for it. Similarly, I don't think it's mentioned on Padd departure
boards (I think it's shown as a H&H service).
That's because it's aimed at airport workers, who know all about it, and
even get reduced fares.
Ordinary Londoners use it too, but most visitors don't discover it.
Post by Recliner
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26830662545/in/album-72157667996
346665/>
It only mentions HEx, which doesn't even serve that station.
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?
But Heathrow Connect already does.
No, HAL wants an increased charge for Crossrail access. That's what the
argument is about.
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?
Graham Murray
2017-05-22 12:52:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
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.
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 15:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graham Murray
Post by Recliner
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.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-05-22 21:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graham Murray
Post by Recliner
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."
Roland Perry
2017-05-24 09:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<501723845.517180008.749269.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 21:24:47 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graham Murray
Post by Recliner
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
...when they take over the service...
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
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.
<http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/22086/charging-framew
ork-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.
So moving the goalposts.
Post by Recliner
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.
It seems likely to me that the charges would apply to "all trains",
especially as there have been various expansion plans very seriously
suggested to be just-around-the-corner the whole time, such as this
diagram in the airport's 97/98 annual report:

<https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/561352_10150901977076637_19064136
35_n.jpg?oh=a44c4c5c976219a024306583d402eb3f&oe=59ABD513>
Post by Recliner
Para 78 also suggests that HAL has already fully recovered the spurs
"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."
The accountants can argue about that.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 15:09:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <117407862.517138464.000186.recliner.ng-
Post by Recliner
In message
ember.org>, at 08:49:11 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
I think increased rail access will be a mandatory requirement for third
runway approval.
That's the only consideration which matters. In particular there are
stringent atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion issues which
requires them to shift people off the roads and onto trains. That's why
the *only* market that HEx is designed to compete with is a cab to
central London, not least because those passengers would never catch the
tube.
They wouldn't catch the Tube, but might well use the Elizabeth line,
Not when they built HEx in the 90's they wouldn't.
Post by Recliner
which makes it much more of a HEx competitor. Like HEx, it will offer 4
tph, but unlike HEx, it will go directly to useful places like the West
End, City and Canary Wharf.
But much slower, I expect.
Slower to Paddington. But much faster to the places far more visitors
actually want to go, such as the West End, City, Canary Wharf and the
ExCel.
Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??
Post by Recliner
And will Elizabeth Line have First Class?
No. But I wonder how many HEx pax use First anyway? The First capacity is
It's an image thing - a service with First Class is perceived to be
better, even if you slum it in the cheap seats.
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
1. Raise Crossrail fares to Heathrow so they don't undercut HEx so much.
Otherwise HEx may suffer an early demse.
2. Make enough money from Crossrail to compensate for the lost HEx
revenues.
In other words "just like when Heathrow Connect started".
Crossrail is a serious HEx competitor. HC, by deliberate design, was not.
Whose design? In other news, the £570 + £107 is very similar to the
existing charge for HC, which is £574 + £138, and it's actually a flat
"season ticket" fee for 16tph, expressed as a per-train amount,
presumably to make it more accessible to the audience. The £574 covers
the amortisation of the agreed capital costs of the tracks and stations,
and the £138 is the day to day running costs.

see 6.1.5:

<http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/Company/Static/PDF/Companynewsandin
formation/rail-network-statement-june15.pdf>

If TfL choose to run more or fewer trains, the total payable remains the
same; unless they choose to run zero trains, which probably isn't
politically tenable, not least because they'll be handing all the
Crossrail passengers over to the mercy of HEx and Hex fares, at
Paddington. Let alone walking away from the HC traffic altogether.
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Similarly, Heathrow Connect is mainly aimed at airport workers, the vast
majority of whom nevertheless drive (often in shared cars).
The airport does its best to deter travellers from using HC, by putting up
no signs for it. Similarly, I don't think it's mentioned on Padd departure
boards (I think it's shown as a H&H service).
That's because it's aimed at airport workers, who know all about it, and
even get reduced fares.
Ordinary Londoners use it too, but most visitors don't discover it.
Because it's aimed at airport workers; if others want to use the trains
then good luck to them.
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26830662545/in/album-72157667996
346665/>
It only mentions HEx, which doesn't even serve that station.
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?
But Heathrow Connect already does.
No, HAL wants an increased charge for Crossrail access. That's what the
argument is about.
No increase - see above.
Post by Recliner
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?
Signage on the concourses, we are told.
--
Roland Perry
John Levine
2017-05-22 16:48:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
No. But I wonder how many HEx pax use First anyway? The First capacity is
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.
Steve Lewis
2017-05-22 19:19:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
Recliner
2017-05-22 21:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Lewis
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.
Ding Bat
2017-05-21 16:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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. 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.
Post by Recliner
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-hits-buffers-at-heathrow-jwrcctt60
The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment funds —
want to recoup its past spending on the private train line with an
“investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train that uses the track,
plus extra fees of about £107 per train.
Transport chiefs and the rail watchdog argue there is no justification for
such a historic charge, and fear it could mean higher ticket prices. The
Department for Transport reckons the extra charges would cost Crossrail
£42m a year.
A High Court judge is expected to rule imminently on the row after Heathrow
challenged the watchdog’s decision to reject the charges. Under contingency
plans drawn up by Transport for London, Crossrail trains could terminate a
few miles short of the airport, with passengers forced to transfer onto
other trains at a suburban station. The trains would then head back to
central London, dodging the £700 fees.
Called the Elizabeth line, London’s newest route was funded by taxpayers
and businesses in the capital and is due to carry 200m people a year. Four
Crossrail trains an hour will start running between Paddington and Heathrow
from next May — though not to Terminal 5 as the Heathrow Express has an
exclusive deal to run services there until 2023.

The company is believed to have identified a location near the airport
where trains could be redirected back towards Paddington or continue west —
though turning around trains on the Great Western line would create a huge
headache on the main artery between the capital and the west of England and
south Wales.
Roland Perry
2017-05-21 17:30:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Recliner
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-hits-buffers-at-heathrow-j
wrcctt60
The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment funds —
want to recoup its past spending on the private train line with an
“investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train that uses the track,
plus extra fees of about £107 per train.
Transport chiefs and the rail watchdog argue there is no justification for
such a historic charge, and fear it could mean higher ticket prices. The
Department for Transport reckons the extra charges would cost Crossrail
£42m a year.
--
Roland Perry
Ding Bat
2017-05-21 18:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Recliner
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-hits-buffers-at-heathrow-j
wrcctt60
The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment funds —
want to recoup its past spending on the private train line with an
“investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train that uses the track,
plus extra fees of about £107 per train.
Transport chiefs and the rail watchdog argue there is no justification for
such a historic charge, and fear it could mean higher ticket prices. The
Department for Transport reckons the extra charges would cost Crossrail
£42m a year.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 09:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.
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?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-05-22 09:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.
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. And, as you
say, there are no spare paths on any of the busy routes the trains would
have to use.
Basil Jet
2017-05-22 22:11:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
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.
Ding Bat
2017-05-23 00:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?
It would require some construction. To the east of Heathpark Golf Course, the railroad is in a tunnel. The tunnel would have to be forked and the fork routed to some point before West Drayton station, so that there can be trains from Heathrow to Reading and points beyond. For comparison, there are trains from Frankfurt airport to cities other than Frankfurt.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.
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?
If some trains from Reading (or Bristol) to Paddington are routed to Heathrow instead, that would free up capacity.
Recliner
2017-05-23 00:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?
It would require some construction. To the east of Heathpark Golf Course,
the railroad is in a tunnel. The tunnel would have to be forked and the
fork routed to some point before West Drayton station, so that there can
be trains from Heathrow to Reading and points beyond.
What's the point of this idea when the *much* more useful Western Rail Link
is underway?
Post by Ding Bat
For comparison, there are trains from Frankfurt airport to cities other than Frankfurt.
That's because the airport station is on the main line. The same is true of
Birmingham, Gatwick and Luton.
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.
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?
If some trains from Reading (or Bristol) to Paddington are routed to
Heathrow instead, that would free up capacity.
The airport spur will have 8 tph in each direction, leaving little or no
spare capacity at the termini. The Western Rail Link is a much better
solution.
tim...
2017-05-25 10:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?
It would require some construction. To the east of Heathpark Golf Course,
the railroad is in a tunnel. The tunnel would have to be forked and the
fork routed to some point before West Drayton station, so that there can
be trains from Heathrow to Reading and points beyond.
What's the point of this idea when the *much* more useful Western Rail Link
is underway?
Post by Ding Bat
For comparison, there are trains from Frankfurt airport to cities other than Frankfurt.
That's because the airport station is on the main line.
Historically not,

they had to build the mainline to serve it, for at least the first 20 years
of its existence it was at the end of a simple spur

tim
Roland Perry
2017-05-23 07:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
Once a new line is built beyond Heathrow.
What new line? The same line that takes Heathrow Express to
Paddington can be
used to go to Reading. Trains would just have to turn west toward
Reading instead instead of east toward Paddington.
Across a lake and through the middle of a warehouse. What could possibly
go wrong?
It would require some construction.
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.
Post by Ding Bat
To the east of Heathpark Golf Course, the railroad is in a tunnel. The
tunnel would have to be forked and the fork routed to some point before
West Drayton station, so that there can be trains from Heathrow to
Reading and points beyond.
"Expensive construction" even.
Post by Ding Bat
For comparison, there are trains from Frankfurt airport to cities other
than Frankfurt.
What does that have to do with anything?
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
and Clapham Junction come to mind.
Once an even less likely to ever happen new line, is built beyond
Heathrow.
Why a new line? The line to Paddington crosses the London Overground line
that goes to Clapham Junction. If there's no switch to turn south toward
Clapham Junction, that can be added.
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?
If some trains from Reading (or Bristol) to Paddington are routed to
Heathrow instead, that would free up capacity.
And reduce the service to London from such places. That wouldn't be very
popular.
--
Roland Perry
Ding Bat
2017-05-24 12:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
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.
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
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.
Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950
Roland Perry
2017-05-24 13:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.
Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950
Projects like that are a minimum of five years late, so if it was
suggested they might start tunnelling soon, don't hold your breath until
2016 + 5 years work + 5 years standard delay for an actual service.

Has it even been approved yet (genuine question).
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2017-05-25 10:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.
Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950
Projects like that are a minimum of five years late, so if it was
suggested they might start tunnelling soon, don't hold your breath until
2016 + 5 years work + 5 years standard delay for an actual service.
Has it even been approved yet (genuine question).
As I have posted before,

I started my career working at Feltham and there was a proposal then for
(what is most recently called) "Heathrow Airtrack " to connect to (what I
will call, for the benefit of our obviously American friend) London South
Western lines to Reading/ Woking and beyond, which would be built within 5
years.

I am now with 5 years of retirement, and it is still nothing more than a
proposal and even further away than 5 years from ever being built

Bloody good job I didn't stay living in Feltham on this basis of this
"promised" new service.

tim
Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2017-05-25 11:09:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
I started my career working at Feltham
Being a young offender isn't technically a career ;-)
Ding Bat
2017-05-25 14:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.
Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950
Projects like that are a minimum of five years late, so if it was
suggested they might start tunnelling soon, don't hold your breath until
2016 + 5 years work + 5 years standard delay for an actual service.
Has it even been approved yet (genuine question).
As I have posted before,
I started my career working at Feltham and there was a proposal then for
(what is most recently called) "Heathrow Airtrack " to connect to (what I
will call, for the benefit of our obviously American friend) London South
Western lines to Reading/ Woking and beyond, which would be built within 5
years.
I am now with 5 years of retirement, and it is still nothing more than a
proposal and even further away than 5 years from ever being built
Extending the track to T4 further beyond would seem to take it to Feltham; it looks like a natural route on the map.
Post by tim...
Bloody good job I didn't stay living in Feltham on this basis of this
"promised" new service.
What's wrong with living in Feltham without this new service? The rich in Belgravia are moving to Fulham to make way for the super-rich. The masses would have to live even further away for affordability; Feltham seems not that much further than Fulham.
Roland Perry
2017-05-25 14:45:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by tim...
I started my career working at Feltham and there was a proposal then for
(what is most recently called) "Heathrow Airtrack " to connect to (what I
will call, for the benefit of our obviously American friend) London South
Western lines to Reading/ Woking and beyond, which would be built within 5
years.
I am now with 5 years of retirement, and it is still nothing more than a
proposal and even further away than 5 years from ever being built
Extending the track to T4 further beyond would seem to take it to Feltham; it
looks like a natural route on the map.
AIUI the problem is the extra delays at level crossings which such a
route would generate.
--
Roland Perry
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-05-25 15:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
AIUI the problem is the extra delays at level crossings which such a
route would generate.
Do they have to be level?
--
jhk
Recliner
2017-05-25 15:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Roland Perry
AIUI the problem is the extra delays at level crossings which such a
route would generate.
Do they have to be level?
They already are. The abandoned proposal was for a service to Waterloo,
using existing tracks east of Staines.

The new approved plan is to go to Slough instead. I'm not clear if the
project is fully funded or not.
Roland Perry
2017-05-25 17:08:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Roland Perry
AIUI the problem is the extra delays at level crossings which such a
route would generate.
Do they have to be level?
For the budget to be reasonable, yes.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2017-05-25 18:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.
Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950
Projects like that are a minimum of five years late, so if it was
suggested they might start tunnelling soon, don't hold your breath until
2016 + 5 years work + 5 years standard delay for an actual service.
Has it even been approved yet (genuine question).
As I have posted before,
I started my career working at Feltham and there was a proposal then for
(what is most recently called) "Heathrow Airtrack " to connect to (what I
will call, for the benefit of our obviously American friend) London South
Western lines to Reading/ Woking and beyond, which would be built within 5
years.
I am now with 5 years of retirement, and it is still nothing more than a
proposal and even further away than 5 years from ever being built
Extending the track to T4 further beyond would seem to take it to Feltham;
it looks like a natural route on the map.
Post by tim...
Bloody good job I didn't stay living in Feltham on this basis of this
"promised" new service.
What's wrong with living in Feltham without this new service?
It's a shit-hole

tim
Recliner
2017-05-21 19:49:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
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.
Post by Ding Bat
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?
Ding Bat
2017-05-22 23:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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.
Post by Ding Bat
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.
Recliner
2017-05-23 00:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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.
Post by Ding Bat
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.
Why go by such a convoluted, slow route, with a 5-car platform limit (when
Crossrail trains are twice as long), when one branch of Crossrail goes
directly to Stratford anyway?

An interchange between Crossrail, HS2 and LO is planned at OOC.
Ding Bat
2017-05-22 23:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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.
To Paddington en route to a further destination, I mean. From Paddington, some will go on to Abbey Wood, others will go on to Shenfield and still others might take the route to Shenfield but turn back at some point before Shenfield.
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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?
Recliner
2017-05-23 00:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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.
To Paddington en route to a further destination, I mean. From Paddington,
some will go on to Abbey Wood, others will go on to Shenfield and still
others might take the route to Shenfield but turn back at some point before Shenfield.
You make it sound like there will be thousands of Crossrail trains from
Heathrow following many different routes. In reality, I believe all four
Heathrow Crossrail services per hour will go to Abbey Wood, not Shenfield.
This may be partly because of the Crossrail funding that came from Canary
Wharf.
Paul Corfield
2017-05-23 08:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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.
To Paddington en route to a further destination, I mean. From Paddington, some will go on to Abbey Wood, others will go on to Shenfield and still others might take the route to Shenfield but turn back at some point before Shenfield.
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
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?
Heathrow Connect ceases to exist in May 2018. the Crossrail TOC takes over the service. There will be no spare paths for trains to go anywhere else. The rolling stock will presumably go off lease as new class 345s will take over.

TfL have published details of the planned Crossrail service pattern. Heathrow trains will run directly to Abbey Wood. That is the proposed service pattern. The only exceptions will be at the start and end of the peaks and possibly early morning or late night where the service pattern may vary in order to get trains back to / from depots. There will be NO regular service to / from the Shenfield route to / from Heathrow. Shenfield route trains will run to Paddington / West Drayton / Reading.
--
Paul C
via Google
Paul Corfield
2017-05-22 11:23:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
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. 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.
Given that the Mayor, TfL and DfT don't agree with the charge then trains simply will not go to Heathrow. They will depict HAL as vicious, money grabbing bastards that are trying to rip off Londoners. Now HAL may not give a damn but their public reputation is rather important in the context of expanding Heathrow and they are reliant on others, such as government, to actually support that scheme. People can change their minds.

Crossrail will wholly replace Heathrow Connect from May next year with a 4 tph service. Clearly a deal is needed by then. From December 2019 the service is extended through the Crossrail core to Abbey Wood. 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. Deciding to try to rip off the public purse is nothing short of a scandal. I sincerely hope the High Court tells them to sod off.
--
Paul C
via Google
Roland Perry
2017-05-22 15:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
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
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-23 09:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business - there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places (especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
Roland Perry
2017-05-23 10:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.

It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.

Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.

Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.

Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-05-23 10:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.
It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.
Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.
Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.
Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.

It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.
Roland Perry
2017-05-24 13:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.
It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.
Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.
Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.
Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.
It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.
Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers.
--
Roland Perry
Ding Bat
2017-05-25 14:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.
It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.
Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.
Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.
Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.
It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.
Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers.
--
Roland Perry
Does HEx have to continue to terminate at Paddington? Can't it go nonstop to Paddington and then continue to Abbey Wood with the same stops as what will replace Heathrow Connect?
Roland Perry
2017-05-25 14:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Does HEx have to continue to terminate at Paddington? Can't it go nonstop
to Paddington and then continue to Abbey Wood with the same stops as
what will replace Heathrow Connect?
If an agreement is negotiated, then it could go further east, if
something is sorted out to get their trains from the fast to slow lines
approaching Paddington. A flat junction is probably out of the question.

Very politically and commercially sensitive project even then.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-05-25 15:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.
It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.
Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.
Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.
Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.
It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.
Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers.
--
Roland Perry
Does HEx have to continue to terminate at Paddington? Can't it go nonstop
to Paddington and then continue to Abbey Wood with the same stops as what
will replace Heathrow Connect?
Even if that were possible, how could it attract a premium fare in such a
case? And how could such a premium fare be enforced?
Roland Perry
2017-05-25 17:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1310793182.517420124.137439.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 15:52:40 on Thu, 25 May 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
Does HEx have to continue to terminate at Paddington? Can't it go nonstop
to Paddington and then continue to Abbey Wood with the same stops as what
will replace Heathrow Connect?
Even if that were possible, how could it attract a premium fare in such a
case? And how could such a premium fare be enforced?
On-board grippers, like they use today. For the leg from the airport to
Paddington, anyway. The rest they'd have offer interavailable ticketing
with Crossrail, which of course would abstract revenue from TfL.
--
Roland Perry
Ding Bat
2017-05-26 08:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.
It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.
Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.
Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.
Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.
It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.
Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers.
--
Roland Perry
Does HEx have to continue to terminate at Paddington? Can't it go nonstop
to Paddington and then continue to Abbey Wood with the same stops as what
will replace Heathrow Connect?
Even if that were possible, how could it attract a premium fare in such a
case? And how could such a premium fare be enforced?
There would be more passengers available to pay a premium, to offset the loss of passengers to the non-express Crossrail. Think Liverpool St to Heathrow with its being express after Paddington. Some proportion of passengers would choose to pay the premium for the time saving and if the express is less full, they'd also be paying the premium for comfort (not having to stand) if the premium keeps passenger count low enough for all, or all in Heathrow designated carriages, to get seats. Remember that standing would be more of a drag for those who have luggage.
tim...
2017-05-26 10:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Recliner
Post by Ding Bat
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it.
City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.
I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.
It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.
Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.
Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.
Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.
It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.
Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers.
--
Roland Perry
Does HEx have to continue to terminate at Paddington? Can't it go nonstop
to Paddington and then continue to Abbey Wood with the same stops as what
will replace Heathrow Connect?
Even if that were possible, how could it attract a premium fare in such a
case? And how could such a premium fare be enforced?
There would be more passengers available to pay a premium, to offset the
loss of passengers to the non-express Crossrail. Think Liverpool St to
Heathrow with its being express after Paddington. Some proportion of
passengers would choose to pay the premium for the time saving and if the
express is less full, they'd also be paying the premium for comfort (not
having to stand) if the premium keeps passenger count low enough for all,
or all in Heathrow designated carriages, to get seats. Remember that
standing would be more of a drag for those who have luggage.
As the trains are going to look like any other train from LSt to Padd with
all the normal use by passengers travelling to/from intermediate points,
they will likely be full at every stop (You've obviously never been on the
Underground)

And even if there are motivations to get on at LSt and pay extra for a
slightly quicker journey for the part from Padd to LHR, how are you going to
enforce that fare?

It can't be done at barriers - and trains are likely to be too full to send
a griper around in the time available.
tim...
2017-05-25 10:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crossrail-hits-buffers-at-heathrow-jwrcctt60?shareToken=703895969b67292fe9096b3e8da8ef44>
The airport’s owners — a consortium of mostly foreign investment funds —
want to recoup its past spending on the private train line with an
“investment recovery charge” of £570 for every train that uses the track,
plus extra fees of about £107 per train.
Transport chiefs and the rail watchdog argue there is no justification for
such a historic charge, and fear it could mean higher ticket prices. The
Department for Transport reckons the extra charges would cost Crossrail
£42m a year.
A High Court judge is expected to rule imminently on the row after Heathrow
challenged the watchdog’s decision to reject the charges. Under contingency
plans drawn up by Transport for London, Crossrail trains could terminate a
few miles short of the airport, with passengers forced to transfer onto
other trains at a suburban station. The trains would then head back to
central London, dodging the £700 fees.
or they could just do the simple thing of charging premium fares to LHR

Works elsewhere (even in the UK, on HS1), it's not rocket science

tim
Loading...