Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 11:55 29 Mar 2024
* Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
* Attempted murder charge after man stabbed on train
* KFC Nigeria sorry after disabled diner refused service
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
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
11:05 Swindon to Westbury
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:21 Newbury to Bedwyn
13:48 Bedwyn to Newbury
14:12 Newbury to Bedwyn
14:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
14:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
15:50 Bedwyn to Newbury
16:15 Newbury to Bedwyn
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
12:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
13:55 Paignton to London Paddington
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:10 Penzance to London Paddington
10:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:20 Penzance to London Paddington
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
etc
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, 11:59:55 *
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
[124] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[53] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[49] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[48] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[43] Return of the BRUTE?
[30] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 114
  Print  
Author Topic: Crossrail/Elizabeth Line. From construction to operation - ongoing discussion  (Read 587189 times)
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #855 on: May 26, 2017, 13:38:39 »

I sispect that means no *additional* fees over what Connect are being currebtly charged.
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #856 on: May 26, 2017, 16:15:07 »

I sispect that means no *additional* fees over what Connect are being currebtly charged.

I thought that was obvious from the story so far, and would be obvious even to the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page).   However they gave exactly the same mistaken explanation when the story recently re-appeared, so I guess the BBC never understood the main thrust of the arguments in the first place...

 
Logged
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #857 on: May 26, 2017, 17:17:34 »

I sispect that means no *additional* fees over what Connect are being currebtly charged.
I'm not sure the fees that Connect are currently charged are relevant, particularly given its ownership status. What's happened today is that the Court has thrown out the application for a judicial review. So the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) ruling still stands, which means the vast majority of what HAL wanted to charge they cannot.

It's the investment recovery charge of 460 per movement which can't be charged. You can make your own guess as to how much that might relate to on a ticket given average numbers expected on the Heathrow part of the Crossrail services. 

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


View Profile
« Reply #858 on: May 27, 2017, 01:16:56 »

I sispect that means no *additional* fees over what Connect are being currebtly charged.
I'm not sure the fees that Connect are currently charged are relevant, particularly given its ownership status. What's happened today is that the Court has thrown out the application for a judicial review. So the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) ruling still stands, which means the vast majority of what HAL wanted to charge they cannot.

It's the investment recovery charge of 460 per movement which can't be charged. You can make your own guess as to how much that might relate to on a ticket given average numbers expected on the Heathrow part of the Crossrail services. 

That's right. HAL can charge for their actual costs in running the infrastructure, which they must justify to ORR with evidence. I'm not sure whether ORR have approved that charge at the level proposed by HAL, but they will be reviewing it each year anyway. I note that HAL's network statement has disappeared.

The ORR decision, confirmed by the high court, denies HAL the right to charge for "historical long-term costs". That bit of the regulations does look very strict, in that it says such costs (in this case the cost of building the spur) can only be recovered in access charges if "the project could not otherwise have been undertaken without the prospect of such higher charges". However, ORR have not applied that test literally, i.e. asking "was it otherwise impossible?", but closer to asking "was it ever realistically going to happen?".

HAL never ran the railway, or did its accounts, as if recovering its cost from the railway alone was important to them. That seems to have been the main evidence ORR based their decision on. They do also say that internal HAL documents showed the full cost being recovered by 2016 (that's on top of all operating costs). I would have though that was more relevant, really. After all, if a cost has already been recovered, does it still count as a "historical long-term cost" in a charging scheme? I would have thought not; ORR didn't seem to make so much of that.

Here is ORR's news item on that judgement:
Quote
Court upholds ORR decision on Crossrail charges

26 May 2017

As the independent regulator for the UK (United Kingdom)’s railways, we have a statutory role in ensuring charges to run trains on relevant networks are underpinned by evidence and comply with legal requirements.

In May 2016, taking into account representations and evidence from affected parties, including considerable documentation and submissions from Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL), we decided HAL is not permitted to introduce all of its proposed new charges for train operators to use its track, which links Heathrow ‎Airport to the Great Western main line.‎

HAL launched a judicial review of our decision and after a three day hearing, the court has dismissed HAL’s application and upheld our decision. We welcome this judgment and we will now work with all the affected parties to enable Crossrail services to start running as scheduled into the airport.

Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #859 on: May 27, 2017, 09:10:33 »

Question: who's right/responsibility are the pathing rights from Airport Junction?
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #860 on: May 27, 2017, 09:20:09 »

Question: who's right/responsibility are the pathing rights from Airport Junction?

I think this is a classic case where individual (in this case each is a business entity) rights do not form a sensible basis. A path has to run end to end, or it's no use to anyone. So in practice the answer has to be collaboration.

There is a mention in ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s analysis of the issues behind the case of HEx having preferential rights over the spur line. That was said (though I think by TfL» (Transport for London - about), who were very much parti pris) to detract from the efficiency with which the infrastructure was used. In the case of the spur line itself that sounds questionable, but it was also said about the main line, in which case I think most of us would concur.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #861 on: May 27, 2017, 09:53:44 »

They built a railway yes, but they used statutory powers to do so.  The railway therefore becomes a statutory undertaking.  Arguably the railway was also provided as an adjunct to and was therefore funded as part of another statutory undertaking (namely Heathrow Airport).  The Heathrow Connect services were provided IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly) partly as a planning requirement to provide effective public transport for staff to the airport. 

So although privately owned, the Heathrow branch is not a private siding, it is a public railway just as the Great Western Railway was when it was first built. 

As a public railway the rights of the owner must be balanced with the rights of the public as a whole - we might call it the common good.  That was always the case even before nationalisation of the railways. 

Disputes of charges for running trains over other companies lines have been around from the earliest days as well.  In Swindon, the Midland and South Western Junction is said to have pursued a separate route because of the high charges the GWR (Great Western Railway) would have charged for running into and out of Swindon Junction Station. 

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


View Profile
« Reply #862 on: May 27, 2017, 10:54:17 »

They built a railway yes, but they used statutory powers to do so.  The railway therefore becomes a statutory undertaking.  Arguably the railway was also provided as an adjunct to and was therefore funded as part of another statutory undertaking (namely Heathrow Airport).  The Heathrow Connect services were provided IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly) partly as a planning requirement to provide effective public transport for staff to the airport. 

So although privately owned, the Heathrow branch is not a private siding, it is a public railway just as the Great Western Railway was when it was first built. 

As a public railway the rights of the owner must be balanced with the rights of the public as a whole - we might call it the common good.  That was always the case even before nationalisation of the railways. 

The idea of a "public railway" as being not privately owned is of course quite recent - 1946. Before that they were governed by their railway acts (specific or general) but increasingly by state intervention of several forms.

Now all railways (pretty much) come under the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005, as amended (and other laws and regulations too). There are exemptions, granted case by case, so I think all heritage railways will have one, as well as most depots. Heathrow was granted exemption from some of the charging rules in 2005, and in some cases that was to be "in perpetuity". Since then ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) and DfT» (Department for Transport - about) have viewed that exemption very narrowly - as only applying to trains terminating at a Paddington. Trains from anywhere else (e.g. Crossrail ones, or WRAtH (Western Rail Access to Heathrow)) get "compulsory" access.

Access requests are processed according to the network's "Network Statement" and "Network Code". The "Network Code" isn't a single document, and the whole document set is similar to (but simper than) NR» (Network Rail - home page)'s. The whole process, the documents, and any disputes, are all subject to ORR oversight and approval.

Ignore the link 4064ReadingAbbey gave earlier - it doesn't now work, and in any case the whole regulatory document set is here. HAL's Network Statement (revised in December 2016) covers the process.

That revision has made it much longer and more obviously derived from BR (British Rail(ways))'s version. Pathing is covered by "capacity allocation" and "timetable development", and now the words say this process is subcontracted to NR. HAL still have owners' rights (subject to ORR's oversight), but no longer claim to have their own supply of squared paper. Here's the main relevant bit:

Quote
4 Capacity Allocation

4.1 Introduction
HAL is responsible for the allocation of capacity through grants of TACs (Track Access Contract) and will be responsible for all aspects of the allocation process, including confirming that the applicant complies with all relevant national technical, operational and safety requirements.

4.2 Description of Timetabling Process
When allocating capacity HAL will prioritise in the following order:
  • maintaining connecting paths from/to the Wider UK (United Kingdom) Rail Network;
  • existing track access capacity allocation;
  • future track access capacity commitments; and
  • other passenger services.
4.3 Description of the timetabling process
HAL will sub-contract out the responsibilities for managing access to the HAL infrastructure, such as the responsibilities for path allocation, co-ordination and validation of the timetable to NR as described in the relevant parts of the HAL Network Code. These responsibilities are undertaken by NR under instruction from HAL. Access to the HAL infrastructure requires entry from the Wider UK Rail Network and therefore applicants for access must not only seek rights from HAL but also from NR. For simplicity the timescale for access requests on HAL infrastructure mirrors the timetable employed on the Wider UK Rail Network. Details of NR’s timetabling process are set out in Annex A.

4.4 Timetable Development

4.4.1 Co-ordination process
In line with its obligations under the Regulations, HAL’s procedures for dealing with requests for capacity allocation (including ad-hoc requests) are designed to ensure that all current and potential railway undertakings are treated in a fair and non-discriminatory way.

Each year HAL circulates detailed plans covering the implementation of maintenance and renewal schemes to its access right holders and will make these available for any new access applicant upon request. HAL consults with access right holders from October to March for the following December timetable when access right holders are required to make a formal declaration of their aspirations for train paths provided under their TACs. In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 2(1) of the Regulations, timetable decisions will not be made until the end of the consultation period. The timetable planning process for HAL infrastructure adopts NR’s industry process to allow for alignment of train paths with main line services. For the avoidance of doubt, Train Operators will bid for paths under one process through NR for both the Wider UK Rail Network and HAL infrastructure as if the HAL infrastructure and the Wider UK Rail Network were one and the same.

NR, as HAL’s agent will provide publication of any key documents, policies and procedures required to manage the timetabling process. These documents include but are not limited to:
  • The HAL Engineering Access Statement
  • Timetable Planning Rules
  • Working timetable and variations to the working timetable
  • Possession strategy notices
  • Sectional appendix
  • Weekly operating notices
  • Performance Data Accuracy Code
  • Delay Attribution Guide
  • Railway Operational Code
  • Railway Systems Code
4.4.2 Ad-hoc requests
In addition to making an application for a path in accordance with the annual timetable process, the potential applicant may submit variation requests for one-off individual train paths to HAL’s appointed contractor, HAL or their appointed contractor will respond as quickly as possible, and at all times within five working days of receipt of a request.

Requests made more than two days prior to the day the train is proposed to run will be dealt with under short term planning arrangements within the NR’s industry process. Any requests made on the day of running or on the two preceding days will be dealt with by the local operational control team.

4.4.3 Future Access Options
A separate TAC, known as an Access Option, must be entered into with HAL where an applicant wishes to operate trains for which specific infrastructure enhancement is required on the HAL infrastructure and for which the applicant will be making a significant investment. Activation of the contract will be subject to the investment and the works having taken place.

4.4.4 Access Dispute Resolution
As described in the Appeals Procedure at 1.5.3, any dispute concerning matters covered by the ADRR is dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed in such rules, annexed in the HAL Network Code. The procedure addresses disputes arising out of the TAC and SAC and provision has been made for the referral of any dispute to a technical, operational or financial panel, as appropriate.

If any Train Operator bids result in disputed paths, these will be raised by the Train Operator through NR who will notify HAL of the dispute. It is the responsibility of HAL to respond to those disputes in accordance with the procedure within the HAL Network Code.

Where any Train Operator Bids and access is not available, NR will notify HAL of the unavailability of the access and HAL will notify the affected Train Operators.

4.4.5 Congested Infrastructure
The Regulations require HAL to declare areas of its network as congested where, after the co-ordination of requests for capacity and consultation with applicants, it is not possible to satisfy all access requests. HAL is not declaring any congested areas at this time. However, should there be congestion, HAL will review the situation in accordance with the Approach to Capacity Management.

With the exception of additional platforms at T5, there is no further opportunity to create capacity over and above the “as built” status on HAL infrastructure.

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


View Profile
« Reply #863 on: May 31, 2017, 17:22:23 »

From railmagazine.com:
Quote
Delayed start for first Crossrail Aventra
31/05/2017 in Fleet

Transport for London was unable to confirm an exact date for when the first Class 345 Aventra electric multiple unit for Crossrail would enter traffic.

The £1 billion train fleet is being built by Bombardier at Derby Litchurch Lane, with three trains so far delivered to Ilford for testing and training. TfL» (Transport for London - about) documents from March confirmed that the first train due to enter traffic was meant to be 345005 on May 23 (RAIL 826). It was to be used on the Shenfield to London Liverpool Street metros, with 11 in traffic by September.

A TfL spokesman gave no reason for the delay, telling RAIL: “They are still testing. There is no firm idea [for their introduction].”

TfL has 66 nine-car Class 345s on order. The first 15 will be delivered as seven-car trains initially, before being extended to nine-car sets. There is consideration for extending the deal to 70 trains.

    Author:  Richard Clinnick
    richard.clinnick@bauermedia.co.uk
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7749



View Profile
« Reply #864 on: May 31, 2017, 20:15:45 »

From railmagazine.com:
Quote
Delayed start for first Crossrail Aventra
31/05/2017 in Fleet

Transport for London was unable to confirm an exact date for when the first Class 345 Aventra electric multiple unit for Crossrail would enter traffic.

The £1 billion train fleet is being built by Bombardier at Derby Litchurch Lane, with three trains so far delivered to Ilford for testing and training. TfL» (Transport for London - about) documents from March confirmed that the first train due to enter traffic was meant to be 345005 on May 23 (RAIL 826). It was to be used on the Shenfield to London Liverpool Street metros, with 11 in traffic by September.

A TfL spokesman gave no reason for the delay, telling RAIL: “They are still testing. There is no firm idea [for their introduction].”

TfL has 66 nine-car Class 345s on order. The first 15 will be delivered as seven-car trains initially, before being extended to nine-car sets. There is consideration for extending the deal to 70 trains.

    Author:  Richard Clinnick
    richard.clinnick@bauermedia.co.uk


...............a major rail project delayed? Surely not............you'll be suggesting that it's overspent next!  Cheesy
Logged
Surrey 455
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1229


View Profile
« Reply #865 on: May 31, 2017, 21:15:00 »

Quote
TfL» (Transport for London - about) has 66 nine-car Class 345s on order. The first 15 will be delivered as seven-car trains initially, before being extended to nine-car sets. There is consideration for extending the deal to 70 trains.

Only 9 carriages? My local line uses 8 (M-F) and once Waterloo works in August are complete will be able to have 10 (FirstMTR plans permitting).
Is 9 carriages a preliminary size with a view to increasing in later years?
Logged
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #866 on: May 31, 2017, 21:44:11 »

Originally was going to be 10 x 20m cars, but Bombardier offered 9 x 23m. Most suburban stock is still 20m.

There is an option to extend by another 2 cars and the central platforms have been dug out with this in mind. I suspect it won't be too long before this is needed.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #867 on: May 31, 2017, 22:32:31 »

Originally was going to be 10 x 20m cars, but Bombardier offered 9 x 23m. Most suburban stock is still 20m.

There is an option to extend by another 2 cars and the central platforms have been dug out with this in mind. I suspect it won't be too long before this is needed.

9x23m was presumably chosen due to that being a more suitable length to meet the challenging dwell times TfL» (Transport for London - about) specified - three external doors per side of each 23m vehicle can just about be squeezed in, three doors per 20m vehicle wouldn't leave much room for seats!
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1424


View Profile
« Reply #868 on: May 31, 2017, 22:36:49 »

Although seats seem to be a lesser priority to standing room.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #869 on: June 01, 2017, 12:13:38 »

From railmagazine.com:
Quote
Delayed start for first Crossrail Aventra
31/05/2017 in Fleet

Transport for London was unable to confirm an exact date for when the first Class 345 Aventra electric multiple unit for Crossrail would enter traffic.

The £1 billion train fleet is being built by Bombardier at Derby Litchurch Lane, with three trains so far delivered to Ilford for testing and training. TfL» (Transport for London - about) documents from March confirmed that the first train due to enter traffic was meant to be 345005 on May 23 (RAIL 826). It was to be used on the Shenfield to London Liverpool Street metros, with 11 in traffic by September.

A TfL spokesman gave no reason for the delay, telling RAIL: “They are still testing. There is no firm idea [for their introduction].”

TfL has 66 nine-car Class 345s on order. The first 15 will be delivered as seven-car trains initially, before being extended to nine-car sets. There is consideration for extending the deal to 70 trains.

    Author:  Richard Clinnick
    richard.clinnick@bauermedia.co.uk


...............a major rail project delayed? Surely not............you'll be suggesting that it's overspent next!  Cheesy

Or RAIL magazine got their info wrong (again)....
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 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 114
  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