Heathrow Southern Link proposals

[cle]

Agree entirely.

Don’t rule out a post Brexit deal to enable US immigration at a U.K. airport. Birmingham and / or Manchester would make things very interesting!

The issue with the pre-clearance immigration is the proliferation of terminals at Heathrow. If Manchester can get VS/DL, United and AA into the same terminal (and long haul should be in the best one, really, for global PR, lounges etc) - then this could be really interesting. Especially for Virgin/Delta/Flybe's hubbing ventures...

 

[Meerkat]

Does Heathrow Southern Link need Heathrow to pay?
Despite all the tunnelling it is surely going to rake in ticket money, particularly if it takes the HEx slots to OOC and Paddington?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does Heathrow Southern Link need Heathrow to pay?
Despite all the tunnelling it is surely going to rake in ticket money, particularly if it takes the HEx slots to OOC and Paddington?

Have a good think about where the money flows now, where it would flow in future, and how that future money would get into the bank account of whoever funds the project.

 

[matt_world2004]

Does Heathrow Southern Link need Heathrow to pay?
Despite all the tunnelling it is surely going to rake in ticket money, particularly if it takes the HEx slots to OOC and Paddington?

Heathrow made a loss on the tunnel link probably because the high fares suppressed demand. When building a tunnel you are often trading on the fact that inflationary increases in fares would pay for it in future (Kind of like a household mortgage ) think how many journeys there would need to be on crossrail to cover the cost of their tunnelling. When the zone one fare is £2.80 and lower for concessionary travel

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Talk about blindness in the sight of the facts! Doubtless from someone who lives nowhere near the damn place. Every expansion at Heathrow is promised to be the last and every time they come back asking for more. It already blights too many lives in London. Enough is enough!

I actually live under the flight path. But thanks.

 

[camflyer]

Nice argument, but the whole purpose of the third runway is (was?) to operate more flights. A lot more!

The government could easily impose a capacity limit of say 90% with the third runway which would relieve the current problems with stacking and give the airport some spare capacity to cope in an emergency.

 

[Meerkat]

Have a good think about where the money flows now, where it would flow in future, and how that future money would get into the bank account of whoever funds the project.

I was assuming the project funders would run the trains, though from memory didnt they just want access charges with the awkward bit being they wanted the DfT to guarantee they would specify services using the line?

 

[Class 170101]

Have a good think about where the money flows now, where it would flow in future, and how that future money would get into the bank account of whoever funds the project.

But why must fares revenue pass to Heathrow at all?

Assuming that its Heathrow Airport Limited building the 3rd Runway then why not as part of the planning permission for said Runway is not / can it not be specified that they must provide southern and western rail access and anything else you care to think of and then, in the case of the rail parts pass over to the DfT / Network Rail to specify service provision and maintenance provision respectively, as part of the planning conditions for acceptance to build the new runway.

 

[matt_world2004]

But why must fares revenue pass to Heathrow at all?

Assuming that its Heathrow Airport Limited building the 3rd Runway then why not as part of the planning permission for said Runway is not / can it not be specified that they must provide southern and western rail access and anything else you care to think of and then, in the case of the rail parts pass over to the DfT / Network Rail to specify service provision and maintenance provision respectively, as part of the planning conditions for acceptance to build the new runway.

The reported ridiculous £500 a train movement HAL charge TfL for moving trains into airport junction is ridiculous.

 

[hwl]

The reported ridiculous £500 a train movement HAL charge TfL for moving trains into airport junction is ridiculous.

That was their proposed level that didn't see the light of day especially when DfT and TfL reminded ORR about Heathrow cosying up to the CAA in order to fund Crossrail less.

 

[Bald Rick]

But why must fares revenue pass to Heathrow at all?

Assuming that its Heathrow Airport Limited building the 3rd Runway then why not as part of the planning permission for said Runway is not / can it not be specified that they must provide southern and western rail access and anything else you care to think of and then, in the case of the rail parts pass over to the DfT / Network Rail to specify service provision and maintenance provision respectively, as part of the planning conditions for acceptance to build the new runway.

The fares revenue passes to Heathrow as it’s their infrastructure, which they paid for.

If the third runway happens, which is now unlikely, it could be specified that the southern / western links are provided. However Heathrow would argue that loading another couple of billion cost into the project would make it unviable, particularly if their revenue from the existing rail links was also taken away.

 

[kevin_roche]

If the third runway happens, which is now unlikely, it could be specified that the southern / western links are provided. However Heathrow would argue that loading another couple of billion cost into the project would make it unviable, particularly if their revenue from the existing rail links was also taken away.

When Terminal 5 was built they promised a new line to support a train service to Woking and I think they should pay something toward providing it even if the third runway is not built. It would help to reduce polution on the M25 and M4 junction one of the most highly polluted part of the country.

 

[Class 170101]

The fares revenue passes to Heathrow as it’s their infrastructure, which they paid for.

If the third runway happens, which is now unlikely, it could be specified that the southern / western links are provided. However Heathrow would argue that loading another couple of billion cost into the project would make it unviable, particularly if their revenue from the existing rail links was also taken away.

But presumably they don't have to get any revenue for Western and Southern access should they be built, only for the bit already built and operating between Heathrow and Airport Jn? So a train between Paddington and Southampton for example should only gain HAL revenue between Airport Jn and Heathrow, beyond that towards southern routes HAL receives nothing?

 

[Bald Rick]

But presumably they don't have to get any revenue for Western and Southern access should they be built, only for the bit already built and operating between Heathrow and Airport Jn? So a train between Paddington and Southampton for example should only gain HAL revenue between Airport Jn and Heathrow, beyond that towards southern routes HAL receives nothing?

For an imaginary train between Paddington and Southampton (anything on the potential southern link wouldn’t get past Basingstoke), the revenue would go to wherever is operating it. But the issue is it would, presumably, take Heathrow Express paths, which Heathrow Express have the rights to, so they would keep that part. Then presumably, the Southampton - Paddington train would pick up revenue for intermediate stations from Southampton to Woking, and there are other operators who have that revenue now, and would have something to say about it. Also presumably, it would take some (albeit not much) SWML to central London revenue, which would also affect the operator of the SWML franchise.

Most importantly, were the Southampton - Paddington services be a non-franchised operator, like ?Heathrow Express, then whilst the money they earn could pay for the scheme, it would be at the expense of some revenue currently assumed in the franchise model for the SW franchise and XC franchise. Which means that these franchises would pay less premium to Governement. So, in effect, the Governemnt helps to pay for the southern link, even if it is supposedly ‘privately funded’.

Of course it isn’t privately funded, it’s privately financed, which is different and then Governement will ask itself why it is effectively funding major infrastructure at private finance rates, when it could do so at public rates.

 

[Taunton]

Heathrow Express paths, which Heathrow Express have the rights to.

I believe they expire in 2023. They were for 25 years from 1998.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe they expire in 2023. They were for 25 years from 1998.

2028, extended as part of the deal for GW to operate the services.

 

[Class 170101]

For an imaginary train between Paddington and Southampton (anything on the potential southern link wouldn’t get past Basingstoke), the revenue would go to wherever is operating it. But the issue is it would, presumably, take Heathrow Express paths, which Heathrow Express have the rights to, so they would keep that part. Then presumably, the Southampton - Paddington train would pick up revenue for intermediate stations from Southampton to Woking, and there are other operators who have that revenue now, and would have something to say about it. Also presumably, it would take some (albeit not much) SWML to central London revenue, which would also affect the operator of the SWML franchise.

Most importantly, were the Southampton - Paddington services be a non-franchised operator, like ?Heathrow Express, then whilst the money they earn could pay for the scheme, it would be at the expense of some revenue currently assumed in the franchise model for the SW franchise and XC franchise. Which means that these franchises would pay less premium to Governement. So, in effect, the Governemnt helps to pay for the southern link, even if it is supposedly ‘privately funded’.

Of course it isn’t privately funded, it’s privately financed, which is different and then Governement will ask itself why it is effectively funding major infrastructure at private finance rates, when it could do so at public rates.

I believe they expire in 2023. They were for 25 years from 1998.

2028, extended as part of the deal for GW to operate the services.

I doubt somehow that the runway would be in operation along with any associated surface transport infrastructure as discussed above before 2028 (if at all).

If we assumed that franchise boundaries were an issue why would we build any infrastructure at all because it appears to have a negative impact on other franchises yet surely overall is better for UK PLC.

As far as Southampton is concerned that would be my preference as one of the destinations in terms of direction. The other being Portsmouth. Whether or not there is capacity on the railway is a different matter altogether, but it would be my view that getting to Basingstoke would be insufficient as an interchange is then required (with suitcases etc) and this will NOT, in my view, achieve the desired outcome of modal shift.

 

[Bald Rick]

I doubt somehow that the runway would be in operation along with any associated surface transport infrastructure as discussed above before 2028 (if at all).

If we assumed that franchise boundaries were an issue why would we build any infrastructure at all because it appears to have a negative impact on other franchises yet surely overall is better for UK PLC.

As far as Southampton is concerned that would be my preference as one of the destinations in terms of direction. The other being Portsmouth. Whether or not there is capacity on the railway is a different matter altogether, but it would be my view that getting to Basingstoke would be insufficient as an interchange is then required (with suitcases etc) and this will NOT, in my view, achieve the desired outcome of modal shift.

Agree re timing.

It’s not an issue of franchise boundaries as such. The issue is that a private company wants to build and finance the southern link by using a funding stream that currently heads to Government. So although they say it is a private scheme, it effectively needs public financial support. In which case it may as well be publicly funded.

 

[Class 170101]

It’s not an issue of franchise boundaries as such. The issue is that a private company wants to build and finance the southern link by using a funding stream that currently heads to Government. So although they say it is a private scheme, it effectively needs public financial support. In which case it may as well be publicly funded.

In that case how would you get private finance in with the returns to those firms paid for by farepayers and not subsidised by taxpayers / funnelled by the government?

 

[edwin_m]

If it only runs to Basingstoke it's going to abstract less revenue from SWR, so most of the revenue (except that replacing HEX between Heathrow and Paddington) will be new to the railway. It also avoids the problems of continuing on the double track section towards Southampton, which is pretty full so would need either existing services removing or some fairly expensive infrastructure works to provide more capacity. So continuing beyond Basingstoke adds a lot of complication and is in my view unlikely.

It's then a question of setting the stream of new revenue against the cost of building the route and operating the service. It's highly unlikely this will cover the costs so some sort of public support will be needed, probably direct funding or some PFI-type arrangement where the private company borrows the money and is reimbursed according to infrastructure availability or passenger numbers. A PFI should deliver some sort of efficiency benefit, otherwise it's just the government postponing spent but spending much more later due to the private company's interest charges and risk premiums. If the private body was reliant on revenue for reimbursement, then they would also need a guarantee that the service would be allowed to continue as agreed for the period of the concession. A similar agreement would probably be needed including Heathrow for the paths they own into Paddington and the split of revenue on that section.

 

[Taunton]

2028, extended as part of the deal for GW to operate the services.

Presumably because it's thought it will take until then to get Crossrail fully commissioned ...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The issue with the pre-clearance immigration is the proliferation of terminals at Heathrow. If Manchester can get VS/DL, United and AA into the same terminal (and long haul should be in the best one, really, for global PR, lounges etc) - then this could be really interesting. Especially for Virgin/Delta/Flybe's hubbing ventures...

And now that MAN T2 has been extended I see no reason why not - using either the new extension exclusively or even 201-208. Sorry to be slightly OT.

back on topic, a condition for Heathrow to get a new runway must be they pay a substantial sum for WRATH and SaTH to help carbon offset with rail transport.

 

[The Ham]

For an imaginary train between Paddington and Southampton (anything on the potential southern link wouldn’t get past Basingstoke), the revenue would go to wherever is operating it. But the issue is it would, presumably, take Heathrow Express paths, which Heathrow Express have the rights to, so they would keep that part. Then presumably, the Southampton - Paddington train would pick up revenue for intermediate stations from Southampton to Woking, and there are other operators who have that revenue now, and would have something to say about it. Also presumably, it would take some (albeit not much) SWML to central London revenue, which would also affect the operator of the SWML franchise.

Most importantly, were the Southampton - Paddington services be a non-franchised operator, like ?Heathrow Express, then whilst the money they earn could pay for the scheme, it would be at the expense of some revenue currently assumed in the franchise model for the SW franchise and XC franchise. Which means that these franchises would pay less premium to Governement. So, in effect, the Governemnt helps to pay for the southern link, even if it is supposedly ‘privately funded’.

Of course it isn’t privately funded, it’s privately financed, which is different and then Governement will ask itself why it is effectively funding major infrastructure at private finance rates, when it could do so at public rates.

In terms of getting to an airport people seem to over estimate the numbers of passengers which are likely to use such a rail service.

Heathrow has something like 80 million passengers a year. Quite a few of those will be transferring between flights from other places, with few of those places being within the South, so unlikely to switch.

This maybe leaves 60 million passengers. If we assume a target of 30% by public transport that's (just to make the maths easy) 20 million. However (say) 5 million already use the underground/Heathrow Express with a further 8 million using bus based travel. With the building of Southern Approach to Heathrow a further 3 million will approach from Waterloo. That leaves just 4 million from the remainder of the SWR area.

In terms of passenger numbers that's about 1 train an hour for the whole region. That's why the trains are going to be fairly limited in how far they travel. It's also why I think that it would be better if the trains ran as a local service between Basingstoke and Woking. As most people changing trains will do so at Woking and not Basingstoke.

By making it a local service you pick up a lot more local traffic as well as make it convenient for those who live fairly locally to the airport to get there by train. For those in Southampton they have a local airport, and whilst it's got a limited number of destinations it does provide a lot of domestic flights which would further reduce the need for people to travel to Heathrow.

 

[The Ham]

And now that MAN T2 has been extended I see no reason why not - using either the new extension exclusively or even 201-208. Sorry to be slightly OT.

back on topic, a condition for Heathrow to get a new runway must be they pay a substantial sum for WRATH and SaTH to help carbon offset with rail transport.

Especially given that environmental reasons was the reason why it was challenged in the courts.

 

[Dibbo4025]

In terms of getting to an airport people seem to over estimate the numbers of passengers which are likely to use such a rail service.

Heathrow has something like 80 million passengers a year. Quite a few of those will be transferring between flights from other places, with few of those places being within the South, so unlikely to switch.

This maybe leaves 60 million passengers. If we assume a target of 30% by public transport that's (just to make the maths easy) 20 million. However (say) 5 million already use the underground/Heathrow Express with a further 8 million using bus based travel. With the building of Southern Approach to Heathrow a further 3 million will approach from Waterloo. That leaves just 4 million from the remainder of the SWR area.

In terms of passenger numbers that's about 1 train an hour for the whole region. That's why the trains are going to be fairly limited in how far they travel. It's also why I think that it would be better if the trains ran as a local service between Basingstoke and Woking. As most people changing trains will do so at Woking and not Basingstoke.

By making it a local service you pick up a lot more local traffic as well as make it convenient for those who live fairly locally to the airport to get there by train. For those in Southampton they have a local airport, and whilst it's got a limited number of destinations it does provide a lot of domestic flights which would further reduce the need for people to travel to Heathrow.

In a similar vein, there's an argument that perhaps 2tph (the Guildfords perhaps) should stop between Woking and Heathrow maybe not all stations but West Byfleet and Chertsey would seem a senisble compromise. There's enough people living in the area who work in the Heathrow area which is a journey not really possible by public transport currently and could be a useful source of the extra passengers?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Especially given that environmental reasons was the reason why it was challenged in the courts.

You named that tune in one sir.

 

[The Ham]

In a similar vein, there's an argument that perhaps 2tph (the Guildfords perhaps) should stop between Woking and Heathrow maybe not all stations but West Byfleet and Chertsey would seem a senisble compromise. There's enough people living in the area who work in the Heathrow area which is a journey not really possible by public transport currently and could be a useful source of the extra passengers?

Indeed, however you'd probably find a similar number would use the service heading towards Guildford as use it towards Heathrow. There were certainly a good number who would change at Woking for the stopping services towards London at Woking, given that there were a fair few who where private school children I wouldn't expect that they were going very far.

 

[edwin_m]

The advantage of a Paddington-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford/beyond service is that it will carry some non-Heathrow passengers for whom the current rail journey is difficult, such as people from Surrey accessing HS2. This isn't so if the Southern service terminates at Heathrow and the Western one is through-routed to Paddington, since the through route would then mostly duplicate the GWML.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In terms of getting to an airport people seem to over estimate the numbers of passengers which are likely to use such a rail service.

Heathrow has something like 80 million passengers a year. Quite a few of those will be transferring between flights from other places, with few of those places being within the South, so unlikely to switch.

This maybe leaves 60 million passengers. If we assume a target of 30% by public transport that's (just to make the maths easy) 20 million. However (say) 5 million already use the underground/Heathrow Express with a further 8 million using bus based travel. With the building of Southern Approach to Heathrow a further 3 million will approach from Waterloo. That leaves just 4 million from the remainder of the SWR area.

I think your figures may be pessimistic. According to AirportWatch, in 2012 41% of Heathrow passengers arrived by public transport. So a 30% public transport target is actually a reduction!

Also, don't forget journeys by staff at Heathrow. And, if hypothetical Paddington-Heathrow-Woking/etc. train ran, I'd expect them to be carrying not a few, but a lot of passengers who aren't going to Heathrow. (Admittedly though, a few of those would be people re-routing rather than new train journeys though).

 

[kevin_roche]

As far as Southampton is concerned that would be my preference as one of the destinations in terms of direction. The other being Portsmouth. Whether or not there is capacity on the railway is a different matter altogether, but it would be my view that getting to Basingstoke would be insufficient as an interchange is then required (with suitcases etc) and this will NOT, in my view, achieve the desired outcome of modal shift.

The advantage of a Paddington-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford/beyond service is that it will carry some non-Heathrow passengers for whom the current rail journey is difficult, such as people from Surrey accessing HS2. This isn't so if the Southern service terminates at Heathrow and the Western one is through-routed to Paddington, since the through route would then mostly duplicate the GWML.

The Heathrow Southern Railway company have assumed that the 4 trains per hour Paddington-Heathrow-Basingstoke/Guildford services would be replacing the HEX services. There is unlikely to be enough paths on the GWML without.

They also assume that the grade separated junction at Woking is built so that paths to Guildford are available which don't cross the flat junction in Woking. They also mentioned that the long term plan for a grade separated junction in Basingstoke would also make sense. I don't know if the grade separated junctions are all that is required to allow services to go all the way to Portsmouth and Southampton.