| Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by Lee at 09:00, 16th November 2018 |     |
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/
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by paul7575 at 17:49, 16th November 2018 | |
I suppose it keeps the pot boiling in the local press, but I can’t actually see anything new in this ‘news’.
Paul
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by grahame at 18:29, 16th November 2018 | |
I suppose it keeps the pot boiling in the local press, but I can’t actually see anything new in this ‘news’.
Paul
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!
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by paul7575 at 19:11, 16th November 2018 | |
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
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by CyclingSid at 09:49, 18th November 2018 | |
... 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.
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by Electric train at 16:58, 18th November 2018 | |
I suppose it keeps the pot boiling in the local press, but I can’t actually see anything new in this ‘news’.
Paul
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
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by grahame at 17:49, 31st January 2019 | |
From the New Civil Engineer
An official from the Department for Transport (DfT) 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.
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.
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by Reginald25 at 18:35, 31st January 2019 | |
Whats happening about the West link to Heathrow proposals from the GWR mainline?
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by paul7575 at 19:08, 31st January 2019 | |
Whats happening about the West link to Heathrow proposals from the GWR mainline?
AIUI 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
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by stuving at 19:44, 31st January 2019 | |
Whats happening about the West link to Heathrow proposals from the GWR mainline?
AIUI 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:
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.
| Re: Heathrow Southern Railway Posted by stuving at 23:16, 31st January 2019 | |
On the subject of what needs a DCO -
Currently this is as defined in the Planning Act 2008 c.29 section 25:
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...
(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 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:
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 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:
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.
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.
