Heathrow Connect suspended/332s withdrawn from service (running again)

[matt_world2004]

eh? what are you talking about?

Heathrow Connect were contracted by GwR to run a service between Hayes & Harlington and London Paddington . Now according to the post above there is no obligation to provide that service . The service has now been suspended without any penalty being levelled at HC that is stupid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Iirc the penalty to MTR Crossrail for failure to run a single trip is something in the region of £10000

 

[Tetchytyke]

This has got naff all to do with GWR and is purely a HX/HC problem, GWR are trying to help out but are under no obligation to!

Heathrow Connect is a joint operation between Heathrow Airport and Great Western Railway. The ITT for the new GW franchise says this:

The Heathrow Connect stopping service between Paddington and Heathrow Terminal Four is operated by the Franchisee between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington. Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited operates the service from Hayes & Harlington into the airport.

So, actually, it has quite a lot to do with GWR. And if they've entered into a contract that means their service can get kiboshed without penalty because Heathrow Airport don't want to run a reduced HEx service, then that was quite exceptionally foolish.

The obvious solution would be a half-hourly HEx and a half-hourly Connect.

 

[332 > 444]

Heathrow Connect is a joint operation between Heathrow Airport and Great Western Railway. The ITT for the new GW franchise says this:



So, actually, it has quite a lot to do with GWR. And if they've entered into a contract that means their service can get kiboshed without penalty because Heathrow Airport don't want to run a reduced HEx service, then that was quite exceptionally foolish.

The obvious solution would be a half-hourly HEx and a half-hourly Connect.

Very tight when only 5 360s, Hex requires 3 in a circuit of x30 mins and HEc requires 2 as per normal, all we now need is for them to run without failure!

 

[matt_world2004]

I hope heathrow airport holdings is reibursing tfl at a rate of £6.00 per passenger for ticket acceptance on the 140 and 350 otherwise they are actually profiting at the expense of others clearing up their mess.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Considering we've not needed to fit GW ATP to a train since 2007, I'd be very surprised if there were the spares to consider fitting it to anything else.

All the new trains (365, 387, 80x) for GWR will need ATP fitting in the near future, so there had better be a plan to manufacture more ATP units.

 

[SWT_USER]

I hope heathrow airport holdings is reibursing tfl at a rate of £6.00 per passenger for ticket acceptance on the 140 and 350 otherwise they are actually profiting at the expense of others clearing up their mess.

More chance of hell freezing over I reckon.

The sooner we see the back of Heathrow Express/ connect the better. Crossrail can't be ready soon enough.

 

[JN114]

You say GWR should be comended ,they are the muppets who contracted a company to provide a service without any financial penalty In failing to provide said service. That really is the height of stupidity.

Heathrow Connect is a joint operation between Heathrow Airport and Great Western Railway. The ITT for the new GW franchise says this:

The Heathrow Connect stopping service between Paddington and Heathrow Terminal Four is operated by the Franchisee between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington. Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited operates the service from Hayes & Harlington into the airport.

So, actually, it has quite a lot to do with GWR. And if they've entered into a contract that means their service can get kiboshed without penalty because Heathrow Airport don't want to run a reduced HEx service, then that was quite exceptionally foolish.

Ok, history lesson time.

GWR (previously FGW and FGWL) don't contract Heathrow Express to run the Connect service. Heathrow Express want to run the service, but don't have the necessary track access or station safety case. Way back in the mists of time HEX approached FGWL, stating their intentions and, knowing FGWL has 2 unused relief line paths in their track access agreement and the relevant safety case to call at intermediate stations, proposed they jointly operate the service. Heathrow Express own the trains, employ the drivers. FGWL (now GWR) do the paperwork.

They're not contracting HEX to do anything - as I said before, the 360s are HEX's trains, if they want to run them on the Express that is entirely up to them. GWR have no obligation to cover HEX's missing services, and can't beyond Airport Jn anyway. However they've elected to attempt to run an hourly 5 car shuttle to Hayes in the Connect path despite stock shortages and an ongoing driver dispute, to try and alleviate the overcrowding HEX's decision has caused.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All the new trains (365, 387, 80x) for GWR will need ATP fitting in the near future, so there had better be a plan to manufacture more ATP units.

No plans to fit ATP to any of the above, it's not required for operation at or below 100mph (365s) and the XC Voyagers that operate between Reading and Didcot on the GWML are unfitted and have a derogation to run up to 125 already, same will apply to 387s and 80X

 

[hwl]

All the new trains (365, 387, 80x) for GWR will need ATP fitting in the near future, so there had better be a plan to manufacture more ATP units.

Oh no there isn't a plan and won't be as ATP is being scrapped and being replaced by ETCS Level 2 / TPWS. TPWS is already fitted to everything apart form the Airport branch and will be fitted as plan B if there are delays to ETCS

See NR submission to ORR on plan B:
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/18856/paddington-0-12-exemption-application-report.pdf

 

[SWT_USER]

Ok, history lesson time.

GWR (previously FGW and FGWL) don't contract Heathrow Express to run the Connect service. Heathrow Express want to run the service, but don't have the necessary track access or station safety case. Way back in the mists of time HEX approached FGWL, stating their intentions and, knowing FGWL has 2 unused relief line paths in their track access agreement and the relevant safety case to call at intermediate stations, proposed they jointly operate the service. Heathrow Express own the trains, employ the drivers. FGWL (now GWR) do the paperwork.

They're not contracting HEX to do anything - as I said before, the 360s are HEX's trains, if they want to run them on the Express that is entirely up to them. GWR have no obligation to cover HEX's missing services, and can't beyond Airport Jn anyway. However they've elected to attempt to run an hourly 5 car shuttle to Hayes in the Connect path despite stock shortages and an ongoing driver dispute, to try and alleviate the overcrowding HEX's decision has caused

They do a very good job of pretending they don't want to run it. Service frequently terminated at Hayes at the first sign of any trouble and as we've seen this week they'd rather cancel all the Connect services than slightly alter their precious express timetable..

 

[JN114]

Very tight when only 5 360s, Hex requires 3 in a circuit of x30 mins and HEc requires 2 as per normal, all we now need is for them to run without failure!

It was discussed in the GWR representations to HEX on the issue on Sunday afternoon when the severity of the problem came to light.

GWR wanted HX to run Half Hourly on the Express (3x 360s), and Hourly on the Connect between Paddington and Hayes bay only (would require 1x 360) - that would have left HX with a spare 360 to run the ITT, act as maintenance cover.

Siemens released one 332 as fit for trafficon Sunday evening, so on that basis they decided to deploy that on the ITT and run a full HeX service with 100% fleet utilisation for the 360s. Their argument being they're short forming their usual 9 car 332 operation, so can't afford to run a less frequent service aswell.

In a sense I completely understand their decision. Their primary business is the Express, the connect is just a bit of a side show for them. It's been a while since I've seen the text of the GWR/HX operating agreement, but it does set out agreed contingencies for this kind of thing. The bottom line in all of it is that the HEX always takes priority over the connect.

In another sense it's given me a lot of additional work and hassle over the past few days, and the sooner the 332s are back in traffic the better!

 

[matt_world2004]

Ok, history lesson time

So according to your "history lesson " the dft handed control of hanwell station with no obligation from gwr to run services from it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Siemens released one 332 as fit for trafficon Sunday evening, so on that basis they decided to deploy that on the ITT and run a full HeX service with 100% fleet utilisation for the 360s. Their argument being they're short forming their usual 9 car 332 operation, so can't afford to run a less frequent service aswell.

In a sense I completely understand their decision. Their primary business is the Express, the connect is just a bit of a side show for them. It's been a while since I've seen the text of the GWR/HX operating agreement, but it does set out agreed contingencies for this kind of thing. The bottom line in all of it is that the HEX always takes priority over the connect.

Earlier you said that HC is not a contracted out service of the gwr now you are saying there is an agreement between the two parties which factors in service priorities. Sounds like a contract to me.

 

[JN114]

So according to your "history lesson " the dft handed control of hanwell station with no obligation from gwr to run services from it!

Yes, in much the same way Coleshill Parkway and Water Orton are London Midland stations, but they don't serve it at all. If XC had to withdraw their turbostars suddenly there wouldn't be this clamour for LM to provide a service now would there.

In Hanwell's case GWR still serve the station twice a day M-F.

Earlier you said that HC is not a contracted out service of the gwr now you are saying there is an agreement between the two parties which factors in service priorities. Sounds like a contract to me.

Oh there's a contract between the 2 operators. That doesn't make Heathrow Connect a "contracted out GWR service". It's that subtle difference I was trying to correct you on.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes, in much the same way Coleshill Parkway and Water Orton are London Midland stations, but they don't serve it at all. If XC had to withdraw their turbostars suddenly there wouldn't be this clamour for LM to provide a service now would there.

In Hanwell's case GWR still serve the station twice a day M-F.

XC is Another franchised operator though. Are you seriously telling me gwr only have to call at hanwell twice a day as part pf their franchise agreement and that anything else is a bonus

Why does the ITT specify that the Heathrow Connect is to be considered operated as part of the franchisee and counts towards ppm

 

[SWT_USER]

From what I can see the service level commitment states the following:

Route Definition
1.1 Services shall be provided between London Paddington and Hayes &
Harlington calling at, Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall.
1.2 Limited stops shall be made at Acton Main Line.
1.3 The services on this Route may be joined to services provided between
Hayes & Harlington and Heathrow Terminals provided by this or another
operator.
2 Frequency
2.1 Mondays to Fridays and Saturdays
(a) Between 0430 and the Early service, two services shall be provided
from London Paddington which need not call at West Ealing and
Hanwell.
(b) Between and including the Early and Late Services, 36 services (34 on
Mondays to Fridays) from London Paddington and 38 services (36 on
Mondays to Fridays) from Hayes & Harlington shall be provided at
half-hourly intervals. On Mondays to Fridays two intervals in each
direction may be extended by up to 65 minutes. Services after 2145 on
Monday to Fridays may omit to call at West Ealing and Hanwell. On
Saturdays the last service from Hayes & Harlington may omit to call at
Hanwell and West Ealing.

taken from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...stern-service-level-commitment-1-22032015.pdf

Clearly this isn't being followed - who is being penalised for this at the moment and is it really that difficult for GWR to stop the Reading or Oxford trains at Hanwell?

Also to note the comments above - currently only one GWR service a day calling at Hanwell (2 on Friday) since the withdrawal of services after 21:15 Monday to Thursday AIUI.

 

[The Ham]

It's all not going to help Heathrow with their bid for a third runway.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The FA is quite clear - you operate the services specified, stopping at the stations specified.

However, there are clauses in there (in the case of GWR, Schedule 1.2 - clauses 6.1. and 6.2) that tell the operator what it has to do in times of disruption. They are "best endeavours" clauses, not rigid, mandatory ones and GWR has to take into account all users of all of the affected services. In this case they must take cognisance of the HeX situation when deciding what it has to do.

In cases like these the DfT is always contacted, otherwise you will probably be in breach. They will have opined on what GWR is doing.

I thought Hanwell was getting an hourly service at the moment.

 

[SWT_USER]

The FA is quite clear - you operate the services specified, stopping at the stations specified.

However, there are clauses in there (in the case of GWR, Schedule 1.2 - clauses 6.1. and 6.2) that tell the operator what it has to do in times of disruption. They are "best endeavours" clauses, not rigid, mandatory ones and GWR has to take into account all users of all of the affected services. In this case they must take cognisance of the HeX situation when deciding what it has to do.

In cases like these the DfT is always contacted, otherwise you will probably be in breach. They will have opined on what GWR is doing.

I thought Hanwell was getting an hourly service at the moment.

It is. Pretty sure best endeavours would include stopping additional services, it's been done before at short notice so clearly not that difficult.

 

[matt_world2004]

From what I can see the service level commitment states the following:



taken from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...stern-service-level-commitment-1-22032015.pdf

Clearly this isn't being followed - who is being penalised for this at the moment and is it really that difficult for GWR to stop the Reading or Oxford trains at Hanwell?

Also to note the comments above - currently only one GWR service a day calling at Hanwell (2 on Friday) since the withdrawal of services after 21:15 Monday to Thursday AIUI.

That service level agreement clearly shows that gwr contracted out their franchise agreement to Heathrow Connect without actually any contract penalty for the contracted out operator breaching that franchise agreement, which is utterly ,utterly stupid
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is. Pretty sure best endeavours would include stopping additional services, it's been done before at short notice so clearly not that difficult.

I am pretty sure best endeavors would also include not transferring the rolling stock used for a franchised service to prop up a non franchised one.

 

[3141]

It's all not going to help Heathrow with their bid for a third runway.

If we think about all the issues relating to extra airport capacity for London: importance of London as a major capital Heathrow as a "hub" for interchanging with other airlines and destinations, the economic impact, the location of Heathrow v. Gatwick for access from other parts of Britain, existing and proposed transport links etc. - I think they will play a greater part in the decision than a short-term suspension of Heathrow Connect.

 

[SWT_USER]

If we think about all the issues relating to extra airport capacity for London: importance of London as a major capital Heathrow as a "hub" for interchanging with other airlines and destinations, the economic impact, the location of Heathrow v. Gatwick for access from other parts of Britain, existing and proposed transport links etc. - I think they will play a greater part in the decision than a short-term suspension of Heathrow Connect.

I didn't realise it was short term. When will the service be back up and running as normal then?

Everything I have seen says until further notice.

 

[Wolfie]

I am pretty sure best endeavors would also include not transferring the rolling stock used for a franchised service to prop up a non franchised one.

Given that HEX own said rolling stock....

 

[matt_world2004]

Given that HEX own said rolling stock....

which for the purposes of the franchise agreement is gwrs responcibility and gwr failed in their agreement with hex to ensure that for their franchised sections of service had either exclusive access to the hc rolling stock or equal priority. That is not taking reasonable endeavours

If a london bus operator cancelled franchised services so its buses could do a tour of the lucrative festival circuit. That franchisee would face heavy fines and would be in danger of losing the franchise

 

[talltim]

TPWS hadn't been invented when the branch was built, whereas the plan at the time was to install ATP everywhere on the network.

As ATP provides a much higher level of safety than TPWS, and the only trains that operate on the branch are ATP fitted (and crucially the 332s are NOT TPWS fitted), why would NR waste their money on a system that wasn't needed, when there was a better system doing a better job?

SO that other trains could run on the line in the advent of a fleet being taken out of service?

 

[Clarence Yard]

This has nothing to do with HeX being franchised or non franchised. Best endeavours to deal with the issue of the total number of all rail passengers affected by the disruption (which is in the FA obligations) may indeed mean that HeX takes priority for use of the cl.360 units and GW has to find resources to deal with the Pad-Hayes issue. That may be the best industry solution.

GW won't be fined by the DfT for not providing it's usual service in an exceptional circumstance such as this. However, if it decided to use it's rolling stock for a lucrative charter and cancel scheduled services as a result, that would be a totally different matter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No plans to fit ATP to any of the above, it's not required for operation at or below 100mph (365s) and the XC Voyagers that operate between Reading and Didcot on the GWML are unfitted and have a derogation to run up to 125 already, same will apply to 387s and 80X

Oh no there isn't a plan and won't be as ATP is being scrapped and being replaced by ETCS Level 2 / TPWS. TPWS is already fitted to everything apart form the Airport branch and will be fitted as plan B if there are delays to ETCS
See NR submission to ORR on plan B:
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/18856/paddington-0-12-exemption-application-report.pdf

Very interesting.
The NR document is actually only about Class 345 on Crossrail routes, and mentions Enhanced TPWS as the fallback if ETCS is not ready.

I thought part of the Class 800 testing on the GW route was precisely because GW ATP needed to be tested?
And has the whole ATP route been fitted with Enhanced TPWS?

 

[matt_world2004]

This has nothing to do with HeX being franchised or non franchised. Best endeavours to deal with the issue of the total number of all rail passengers affected by the disruption (which is in the FA obligations) may indeed mean that HeX takes priority for use of the cl.360 units and GW has to find resources to deal with the Pad-Hayes issue. That may be the best industry solution.

GW won't be fined by the DfT for not providing it's usual service in an exceptional circumstance such as this. However, if it decided to use it's rolling stock for a lucrative charter and cancel scheduled services as a result, that would be a totally different matter.

The loadings at hayes and harlington and ealing Broadway in the peaks swamp that of heathrow airport (Many lpadings from hayes and harlington are from heathrow airport. The hex is not a franchised service its loadings should have no effect on the decisions on service level for franchised services in effext the hex is a lucrative charter. Running the hex all stations delays the customers of the service by 7 minutes not running the hc delays customers upto an hour

 

[Tetchytyke]

Chiltern Railways were fined a not insignificant sum of money by DfT for attempting to discharge their franchise obligations using an Open Access operator. I'm struggling to see how this is any different, given what has been said on this thread.

I'm not necessarily blaming GWR here, but the fact that a franchised service can be pulled for an Open Access service carting fresh air about is pretty shoddy.

Some of the Connect services feature in the DfT list of the most overcrowded services in the country, and not because of Heathrow passengers trying to save a tenner. It's not good enough.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Maybe that's so but the DfT may well have decided (they must be informed in cases like these) that they value access to Heathrow at a higher level than access to Hayes, Hanwell, etc. If people are unhappy about it, I'm sure their MP can have a word with the Minister.

It is irrelevant in disruption decisions who the service provider is. It could be franchised, concession, open access or direct provision (PTE etc). The obligation is to deal with the effects of that disruption for the totality of all rail passengers.

However, in my experience of disruption management, the relative value of those passengers and therefore who gets priority is always subject to, sometimes heated, debate between operators/sectors/regions etc.

 

[louis97]

Very interesting.
The NR document is actually only about Class 345 on Crossrail routes, and mentions Enhanced TPWS as the fallback if ETCS is not ready.

I thought part of the Class 800 testing on the GW route was precisely because GW ATP needed to be tested?
And has the whole ATP route been fitted with Enhanced TPWS?

That document states, for 800s:

HSTs are due to be largely replaced as part of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP). IEP trains will be fitted with GW-ATP, TPWS and ETCS. It should be noted that the provision of GW-ATP on the IEP trains is a stand-alone facility and not integrated with ETCS. Switching between GW-ATP and ETCS is a manual process carried out before a train enters service at the start of a journey. As such IEP trains will initially operate with GW-ATP until ETCS is provided on a larger area of the Western route.

and for 345s and 387s.

The Crossrail service will replace Heathrow Connect services, but will not be fitted with GWATP. Crossrail trains (Class 345) will have ETCS, TPWS and CBTC train protection systems. Provision of GW-ATP would provide limited benefit as the lines on which the services will primarily operate will ultimately have ETCS available. Trains for local services (mainly Class 165/166) have TPWS only, and there is a plan to replace them with Electric Multiple Units (EMU) prior to Crossrail service introduction. These
cascaded trains will only be fitted with TPWS.

So 800s will have it fitted and will use it until such time that ETCS is available on a larger scale on the GWML and GW-ATP is withdrawn.

 

[matt_world2004]

Maybe that's so but the DfT may well have decided (they must be informed in cases like these) that they value access to Heathrow at a higher level than access to Hayes, Hanwell, etc. If people are unhappy about it, I'm sure their MP can have a word with the Minister.

It is irrelevant in disruption decisions who the service provider is. It could be franchised, concession, open access or direct provision (PTE etc). The obligation is to deal with the effects of that disruption for the totality of all rail passengers.

However, in my experience of disruption management, the relative value of those passengers and therefore who gets priority is always subject to, sometimes heated, debate between operators/sectors/regions etc.

I didnt know that the dft have made a decision not to fine gwr over this incident yet. I didnt know that the dft had even commenced an investigation into gwr yet. But I guess you are right I am sure the MP for Hayes and Harlington is ecstatic about the DFT providing subsidies to an operator whose services are not running because the rolling stock is being used for an private open access services that charge customers £2 a minute to run. With that very same open access operator charging £6 to board a taxpayer funded bus service that charges regular customers £1.50 or less