On 25/04/2016 17:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 16:19, Colin Reeves wrote:
On 25/04/2016 11:03, Graeme Wall wrote:


They've been talking about a link to Staines since I lived there and
that was 1957!


Why Staines? I recall the old Railbus service went to Woking which links
with the SWT mainline?


There still is a bus between the airport and Woking. To get there by
rail it is proposed to build a line from T5 to Staines across Stanmwell
Moor to link into the existing network. Unfortunately the north to west
curve at Staines has recently been built on so trains would have to
reverse at Staines to reach Woking.


Thanks

On 25/04/2016 17:54, Colin Reeves wrote:
On 25/04/2016 17:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 16:19, Colin Reeves wrote:
On 25/04/2016 11:03, Graeme Wall wrote:


They've been talking about a link to Staines since I lived there and
that was 1957!


Why Staines? I recall the old Railbus service went to Woking which links
with the SWT mainline?


There still is a bus between the airport and Woking. To get there by
rail it is proposed to build a line from T5 to Staines across Stanwell
Moor to link into the existing network. Unfortunately the north to west
curve at Staines has recently been built on so trains would have to
reverse at Staines to reach Woking.


Thanks


There's also a proposal to run a branch from Feltham to the southern
side of the airport in the vicinity of T4 but that is even more speculative.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 16:47:56 on Mon, 25 Apr
2016, Mizter T remarked:

I always thought the Highways Agency was in charge of those motorways,
not TfL; but putting that to one side it does look as if the majority of
the money will be going on public transport, which will then pay much of
it back through fares.

Er... re the last point - where on earth do you get that idea from, let
alone that level of certainty?

Even taking into account the Network Grant, several rail services in the
London area create a surplus.
--
Roland Perry

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/2016 09:14, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/04/2016 09:00, Recliner wrote:
From
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...rt-for-london/

Quote:

Heathrow's controversial proposal to build a third runway would place a
£16bn burden on Transport for London, the agency has said, as it would
require upgrades to the road and railway networks that service the
airport.

TfL said Heathrow had "substantially underestimated" the impact of the
extra runway, as it released a figure eight times higher than the
£2.2bn
that the airport had calculated.

The transport authority instead estimates that the development, which
could
lead to heavier congestion on London's roads, buses and trains, will
have a
£18.4bn price tag.

Heathrow has previously promised that £1.2bn would be raised through
public
contributions, with the airport spending another £1bn, leaving a
shortfall
of more than £16bn.

... continues


Haven't they put off the announcement yet again?


The government has deferred its announcement till after the referendum.
And
perhaps it will find some other reason after that.

But assuming that it will eventually have no choice but to stop
dithering,
the chances are that it will turn out that both LHR and LGW have allowed
for only modest contributions to the public transport improvements
outside
their perimeters. They've almost certainly assumed that most of the
expensive enhancements to the local roads and railways will be paid for
by
the government, not the airports. And this could be the sticking point
with
both proposals.


Costs at LGW, whoever pays, are going to be a lot less than at LHR. Not
sure what the relative political cost will be. No leading politician has
nailed himself to the mast of opposing Gatwick expansion so you will
mainly be dealing with the usual nimbies, many of whom will moan but carry
on voting tory anyway so they can effectively be ignored.

and if if the don't, wont make any difference to the end result

tim

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:47:56 on Mon, 25 Apr
2016, Mizter T remarked:

I always thought the Highways Agency was in charge of those motorways,
not TfL; but putting that to one side it does look as if the majority of
the money will be going on public transport, which will then pay much of
it back through fares.

Er... re the last point - where on earth do you get that idea from, let
alone that level of certainty?

Even taking into account the Network Grant, several rail services in the
London area create a surplus.

Yes, that's an operating profit. I doubt that they're making a bottom line
profit if you allow for the value of the assets used.

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 09:58, Recliner wrote:

As for rail links, with Heathrow, Crossrail will have to pick up most of
the extra passengers to London, with the new western rail link picking
up those headed towards the west. There will probably also need to be
a link to Staines to connect to the SWT routes.

They've been talking about a link to Staines since I lived there and
that was 1957!

Think how much easier and cheaper to build it would have been in 1957!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 20:07:23 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Even taking into account the Network Grant, several rail services in the
London area create a surplus.

Yes, that's an operating profit. I doubt that they're making a bottom line
profit if you allow for the value of the assets used.

No, that's the whole point; several are now making sufficient operating
profit that the premium they send to the Treasury also more than covers
the infrastructure cost.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 20:07:23 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Even taking into account the Network Grant, several rail services in the
London area create a surplus.

Yes, that's an operating profit. I doubt that they're making a bottom line
profit if you allow for the value of the assets used.

No, that's the whole point; several are now making sufficient operating
profit that the premium they send to the Treasury also more than covers
the infrastructure cost.

The costs of maintaining the infrastructure, not the amortisation cost for
building it. In most cases, the costs of building former BR assets were
written off a very long time ago, but that won't be true of new airport
links. Unless premium HEx-type fares can be charged, the fares won't cover
the interest on the loans to build them, let alone the capital repayments.

For example, do you really think the Tube fares cover the full costs of
extending the Piccadilly line to Heathrow, including the three stations?

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 07:35:03 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Even taking into account the Network Grant, several rail services in the
London area create a surplus.

Yes, that's an operating profit. I doubt that they're making a bottom line
profit if you allow for the value of the assets used.

No, that's the whole point; several are now making sufficient operating
profit that the premium they send to the Treasury also more than covers
the infrastructure cost.

The costs of maintaining the infrastructure, not the amortisation cost for
building it. In most cases, the costs of building former BR assets were
written off a very long time ago, but that won't be true of new airport
links. Unless premium HEx-type fares can be charged, the fares won't cover
the interest on the loans to build them, let alone the capital repayments.

No, if you take the money given to Network Rail to subsidise the
maintenance and new "investment" in the system (used by these TOCs) as a
whole, then the fares do cover it.

Last year it might be rebuilding Kings Cross, next year Cambridge North.
15yrs ago it was re-laying much of the ECML because of Hatfield.

As you say, the cost of the wiring in the late 70's was paid for years
ago, although the ongoing maintenance costs undoubtedly swamp any
notional interest payments on the construction cost.

For example, do you really think the Tube fares cover the full costs of
extending the Piccadilly line to Heathrow, including the three stations?

The TOCs I'm talking about are not operating on that particular line.
But on the other hand the fares on that bit of the Piccadilly Line over
the years will be quite a handsome sum.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 07:35:03 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Even taking into account the Network Grant, several rail services in the
London area create a surplus.

Yes, that's an operating profit. I doubt that they're making a bottom line
profit if you allow for the value of the assets used.

No, that's the whole point; several are now making sufficient operating
profit that the premium they send to the Treasury also more than covers
the infrastructure cost.

The costs of maintaining the infrastructure, not the amortisation cost for
building it. In most cases, the costs of building former BR assets were
written off a very long time ago, but that won't be true of new airport
links. Unless premium HEx-type fares can be charged, the fares won't cover
the interest on the loans to build them, let alone the capital repayments.

No, if you take the money given to Network Rail to subsidise the
maintenance and new "investment" in the system (used by these TOCs) as a
whole, then the fares do cover it.

Last year it might be rebuilding Kings Cross, next year Cambridge North.
15yrs ago it was re-laying much of the ECML because of Hatfield.

That's maintenance and renewal, not new building. I'm talking about
acquiring land and building new lines, nit just fixing what's already
there.


As you say, the cost of the wiring in the late 70's was paid for years
ago, although the ongoing maintenance costs undoubtedly swamp any
notional interest payments on the construction cost.

For example, do you really think the Tube fares cover the full costs of
extending the Piccadilly line to Heathrow, including the three stations?

The TOCs I'm talking about are not operating on that particular line.
But on the other hand the fares on that bit of the Piccadilly Line over
the years will be quite a handsome sum.

But that sum (remember, unlike HEx, there's no premium on the Tube fare to
Heathrow, and it's included in daily caps and Freedom Passes) won't have
covered the cost of the tunnelling and station building. Hopefully, it at
least covered the cost of buying extra trains and operating them over the
extended line.

In the same vein, one hopes that Crossrail will at least cover its full
operating cost from the fare box, but no-one expects the fares to pay off
the full construction costs (less the contributions made by businesses).
Ditto with HS2.