Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 07:35 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
06:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
07:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
07:49 Bedwyn to Newbury
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:00 Gatwick Airport to Reading
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:23 Hereford to London Paddington
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
07:24 Exmouth to Paignton
07:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance
07:40 Bristol Temple Meads to Westbury
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Delayed
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 07:54:49 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[82] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[76] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[74] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[67] Return of the BRUTE?
[57] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[46] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Heathrow Southern Railway  (Read 3081 times)
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« on: November 16, 2018, 09:00:44 »

Map reveals towns in that could be linked to Heathrow by proposed Heathrow Southern Railway scheme - https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/map-reveals-towns-surrey-could-15422027

https://heathrowrail.com/
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2018, 17:49:12 »

I suppose it keeps the pot boiling in the local press, but I can’t actually see anything new in this ‘news’.

Paul
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2018, 18:29:45 »

I suppose it keeps the pot boiling in the local press, but I can’t actually see anything new in this ‘news’.

Paul

This was presented at last Saturday's RailFuture conference in Reading .. probably one in a round of presentations of the project, or perhaps the GetSurrey journalist was there which is where he was briefed.

I didn't hear any mutterings in that audience to the effect it was new on them ... so I suspect it's pretty new on the more generalist GetSurrey reader and worth the article.   Here with our Coffee Shop geeks, it may well be something we've seen before ... but let's help publicise it for others!
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2018, 19:11:47 »

Get Surrey and various similar outlets have been pushing out very similar articles about Southern Access for quite a few years.  It really should be “old news” to them as well.

Here’s one from Nov 2017:  https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/heathrow-southern-railway-everything-you-13847425

Paul
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 19:17:19 by paul7755 » Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2018, 09:49:45 »

... and the proposed link from Slough, will they have room for planes?

Perhaps a station instead of the third runway. For the cost of the third runway you could build a pukka station. Less noise complaints from the residents.
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4356


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2018, 16:58:27 »

I suppose it keeps the pot boiling in the local press, but I can’t actually see anything new in this ‘news’.

Paul

What makes this proposal more practicable is HEX being operated by 387's which are dual voltage stock, so a Padd - Guildford via Heathrow is achievable
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2019, 17:49:32 »

From the New Civil Engineer

Quote
An official from the Department for Transport (DfT» (Department for Transport - about)) has said that the private sector proposal to build a southern rail link to Heathrow “falls short” of government requirements.

Speaking at a London conference DfT head of private rail investment and contestability George Chilcott said the proposal did have “good ideas” suggesting that the project has not been rejected out of hand. But he concluded that the scheme had “fallen short in understanding the private sector requirements” for private rail projects, dubbed market led proposals (MLPs) by the DfT.

“Heathrow Southern, unfortunately was a sort of parallel project with the same good ideas and good intentions that has fallen short on some of the understanding of the private sector requirements in this sphere.”

The DfT asked the private sector to come up with MLPs for rail schemes in March last year, after original plans for the Heathrow Southern Rail link were originally submitted.

Other schemes, such as the HS4Air scheme and the Windsor to Heathrow rail link have been rejected.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Reginald25
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 301


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2019, 18:35:42 »

Whats happening about the West link to Heathrow proposals from the GWR (Great Western Railway) mainline?
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2019, 19:08:48 »

Whats happening about the West link to Heathrow proposals from the GWR (Great Western Railway) mainline?
AIUI (as I understand it) still going through normal Network Rail processes towards a TWA Order.   It wasn’t subject to private sector proposals in the way a possible Southern link was.

Paul
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2019, 19:44:02 »

Whats happening about the West link to Heathrow proposals from the GWR (Great Western Railway) mainline?
AIUI (as I understand it) still going through normal Network Rail processes towards a TWA Order.   It wasn’t subject to private sector proposals in the way a possible Southern link was.

Paul


It's to big for a TWA - this is from NR» (Network Rail - home page):
Quote
A Development Consent Order application will subsequently be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in 2019. This will seek the required consent to build the new railway in line with the plans that have been developed, with a final decision by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2019, 23:16:49 »

On the subject of what needs a DCO (Driver Controlled Operation) -

Currently this is as defined in the Planning Act 2008 c.29 section 25:
Quote
25   Railways

(1)Construction of a railway is within section 14(1)(k) only if—
  (a)the railway will (when constructed) be wholly in England,
  (b)the railway will (when constructed) be part of a network operated by an approved operator, and
  (c)the construction of the railway is not permitted development.
(2)Alteration of a railway is within section 14(1)(k) only if—
  (a)the part of the railway to be altered is wholly in England,
  (b)the railway is part of a network operated by an approved operator, and
  (c)the alteration of the railway is not permitted development.
(3)Construction or alteration of a railway is not within section 14(1)(k) to the extent that the railway forms part (or will when constructed form part) of a rail freight interchange
etc...

That means that anything not covered by permitted development needs a DCO - irrespective of length and whether it's new or an alteration (though that is usually permitted development).

In 2013, DfT» (Department for Transport - about) proposed to amend that so that smaller rail (and road) projects could use ther TWA route again. I found an impact assessment of the amendment, but nothing to say why it never happened, while several other changes did. This was the issue:
Quote
What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

The definitions of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) in the Planning Act 2008 are insufficiently clear and too widely drafted. A consequence is that most local authority road schemes which connect with the Strategic Road Network, some small Network Rail projects and minor works, and all Highways Agency schemes currently fall within the definition of NSIPs regardless of their scale or scope. These requirements place disproportionate costs and timescales on promoters and give rise to uncertainty in the development process. These problems mean project efficiency is sub-optimal. As the definitions of NSIPs are set in primary legislation, the definition can only be changed by drafting an amending set of regulations.

The proposal would introduce new thresholds for DCOs to be compulsory:
Quote
The threshold for railway schemes will be set so that the construction or alteration of the railway will only require authorisation under the Act where it consists of or includes the construction or alteration of more than 2 continuous route kilometres of railway track (whether this consists of a single or multiple pathways) outside existing operational land.

This would mean that development not including railway track (such as station platforms, bridges etc) or being or including less than 2 continuous route kilometres of track would not require authorisation by a Development Consent Order. Development under permitted development rights will continue to be outside the Planning Act regime.

That would mean that the Ipswich Chord, for example (1.4 km of new double-track route) would no longer need a DCO. But it appears to have been dropped within a few months, for some reason.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page