Roland Perry wrote:
In message 8737bxrr3j.fsf@einstein, at 13:52:32 on Mon, 22 May 2017,
Graham Murray remarked:
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?

Oyster (at least PAYG) is not available on HC to the airport, only to
Hayes & Harlington.

That's a TfL decision, not the airport's.

With the fees for using the link being fixed (see my reply to Recliner)
it seems disingenuous for TfL to price gouge travellers between H&H and
LHR "because they can" when the costs to TfL are the same whether or not
the trains are full or empty.

Is it a TfL or GWR/DfT decision? I don't think TfL controls HC and its
Heathrow stations. But it will operate Crossrail, hence the dispute.

This document is worth a read:
http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/22086/charging-framework-for-the-heathrow-spur-decision-may-2016.pdf

The dispute seems to revolve on whether HAL has, or could, recover the
construction costs from airline charges, as the cost of building it is
included in the RAB (regulated asset base). HAL is entitled to charge for
rail access if it can show that it wouldn't havd built the spur without the
prospect of such chatges. Also, there's a dispute over whether the original
basis for the rail access charges applies to a service beyond Padd, such as
Crossrail, as it's a new service that wasn't part of the original business
plan.

Para 78 also suggests that HAL has already fully recovered the spurs
original construction costs:

"In our proposed decision we also discussed that Schedule 11 of the Joint
Operating Agreement contained a financial model demonstrating how the HEX
service would provide a return on HAL’s investment in the Heathrow Spur.
This model showed that the fare revenue to be received between 1993 and
2016 was forecast to be sufficient to cover all BAA’s initial investment in
building the Heathrow Spur as well as covering operating costs for those
years."