In message 117407862.517138464.000186.recliner.ng-
, at 09:44:29 on Mon, 22 May
2017, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 08:49:11 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
remarked:

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.


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??

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):

It's an image thing - a service with First Class is perceived to be
better, even if you slum it in the cheap seats.

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.

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/...mpanynewsandin
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.

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.

For example, this is the sign on the T4 Heathrow Connect station entrance:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...um-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.

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