Arup puts forward own plans for "HS2" via Heathrow to the North and Scotland

[Dave]

From
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2982649.ece

Heathrow to Paris at 186mph

AN ambitious plan to build a high-speed rail line north of London via
Heathrow - relieving the pressure for a third runway at the airport - is
being drawn up by Arup, the influential engineering firm.

Arup has a history of originating big transport projects. In the 1980s it
came up with the scheme to route the high-speed line to the Channel Tunnel
via Stratford in east London, ending a planning impasse that had threatened
its construction.

The Heathrow scheme is in its early stages, and has no official backing from
government.

Its first public airing is likely to be tomorrow at a parliamentary
reception to launch The Right Line, a book on the history of the high-speed
link.

Mark Bostock, a director at Arup and one of the key individuals in the
battle over the routing of the Channel Tunnel line, said: "There is total
logic in seeing how Heathrow can be connected to the national and
international rail network.

"This is fundamental to the sustainable development of the airport and would
be a step-change beyond [airports operator] BAA's extremely modest ambitions
for shifting passengers from road to rail," he said.

Arup's plan would see the Channel Tunnel line extended west, parallel with
the Great Western line. After Heathrow, trains would turn north along the
alignment of the Chiltern line, running to Birmingham and Scotland.

"What this plan brings is connectivity - not only bringing the north and the
Midlands onto the international high-speed rail network, but also bringing
Heathrow within two-and-a-half hours of central Paris," Bostock said.

The plan would also free capacity at Heathrow by cutting the need for
short-haul flights to Europe. This could detract from the justification for
a controversial third runway at the airport, plans for which were outlined
by the government 10 days ago.

[tim (not at home)]

Post by Dave
From
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2982649.ece
Heathrow to Paris at 186mph
Arup's plan would see the Channel Tunnel line extended west, parallel with
the Great Western line. After Heathrow, trains would turn north along the
alignment of the Chiltern line, running to Birmingham and Scotland.
"What this plan brings is connectivity - not only bringing the north and
the Midlands onto the international high-speed rail network, but also
bringing Heathrow within two-and-a-half hours of central Paris," Bostock
said.
The plan would also free capacity at Heathrow by cutting the need for
short-haul flights to Europe. This could detract from the justification
for a controversial third runway at the airport, plans for which were
outlined by the government 10 days ago.

Much though I like this idea I just don't see how it stacks up.

Even if we could solve all the political/regulatory problems (which I don't
think we could) and on completion of this line ban all flights from Heathrow
to destinations less than 4 hours direct train ride away from the airport,
that will only be Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Paris, Brussels, Colonge
and Amsterdam.

Is that really going to free up enough slots to be the alternative to a new
runway?

Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness. Remember
that this 4 hour city centre to city centre time is only competitive with
flying because you have added in the 2 hour check in or connection time to
flying's journey time. You can't have a 4 hour journey time and a 2 hour
connection and expect pax to consider it a suitable replacement.

tim

[The Real Doctor]

Post by tim (not at home)
Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness.

Why? Airlines can't guarantee anything like that - nobody with any
sense would allow anything less than two hours between long-haul and
short-haul (or vice versa) at any major interchange. My partner
normally flies longhaul from Edinburgh via Schiphol and has learned -
through bitter experience - to allow four hours if possible for
connections there. Two hours is normally enough for the human to make
it, but not for the luggage ...

Post by tim (not at home)
Remember
that this 4 hour city centre to city centre time is only competitive with
flying because you have added in the 2 hour check in or connection time to
flying's journey time. You can't have a 4 hour journey time and a 2 hour
connection and expect pax to consider it a suitable replacement.

OK, so it's probably not going to coax people out of a Basel to
Edinburgh flight. But that's not the point, is it? If Edinburgh was
two and a half hours from Heathrow up HS2, train would be a very valid
alternative to air for incoming passengers from outwith Europe.

Ian

[tim (not at home)]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness.

Why?

I explained that - for the connecting service to be seen by the customer as
a suitabe replacement.

ATM the pax will book a 2 hour (ish) connection at LHR for their onward
flight, so their total onward journey time will be 2 hour delay, 1 hour
flight, 1 hour wait for luggage/transfer to distant town centre.

For them to accept (and use) a four hour train journey direct to the town
centre as a suitable replacement, they will need a connection time of zero.

Post by The Real Doctor
Airlines can't guarantee anything like that - nobody with any
sense would allow anything less than two hours between long-haul and
short-haul (or vice versa) at any major interchange. My partner
normally flies longhaul from Edinburgh via Schiphol and has learned -
through bitter experience - to allow four hours if possible for
connections there. Two hours is normally enough for the human to make
it, but not for the luggage ...

I don't need a lesson in how it works now. I'm explaining how it will HAVE
to work if it is to be acceptable (to the user) as a replacement for current
in-line connections. If it doesn't work as I have described, then it won't
be any good as an in-line connection and thus the (new) railway will not
take any of the short haul traffic away.

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Remember
that this 4 hour city centre to city centre time is only competitive with
flying because you have added in the 2 hour check in or connection time to
flying's journey time. You can't have a 4 hour journey time and a 2 hour
connection and expect pax to consider it a suitable replacement.

OK, so it's probably not going to coax people out of a Basel to
Edinburgh flight. But that's not the point, is it? If Edinburgh was
two and a half hours from Heathrow up HS2, train would be a very valid
alternative to air for incoming passengers from outwith Europe.

I don't believe that this is enough customers to make a difference.

tim

[Dave]

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness.

Why?

I explained that - for the connecting service to be seen by the customer
as a suitabe replacement.
ATM the pax will book a 2 hour (ish) connection at LHR for their onward
flight, so their total onward journey time will be 2 hour delay, 1 hour
flight, 1 hour wait for luggage/transfer to distant town centre.
For them to accept (and use) a four hour train journey direct to the town
centre as a suitable replacement, they will need a connection time of zero.

Your original scenario applies to both train and plane if the incoming
flight is late. I'd contend that there is far more likely to be another
train along with seats on it quicker than another connecting plane.

Furthermore I'm not sure where you have this 4 hour time from: If such a
line were built, Glasgow and Edinburgh would be under 3 hours from Heathrow.
Only Amsterdam and Cologne would be close to 4 hours from Heathrow and they
have access to much closer major hub airports, so they can reasonably be
discounted for long haul interchange. All other destinations would be better
off, time wise, in your example above.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
Airlines can't guarantee anything like that - nobody with any
sense would allow anything less than two hours between long-haul and
short-haul (or vice versa) at any major interchange. My partner
normally flies longhaul from Edinburgh via Schiphol and has learned -
through bitter experience - to allow four hours if possible for
connections there. Two hours is normally enough for the human to make
it, but not for the luggage ...

I don't need a lesson in how it works now. I'm explaining how it will
HAVE to work if it is to be acceptable (to the user) as a replacement for
current in-line connections. If it doesn't work as I have described, then
it won't be any good as an in-line connection and thus the (new) railway
will not take any of the short haul traffic away.

Clearly in all reasonable journeys it could.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Remember
that this 4 hour city centre to city centre time is only competitive with
flying because you have added in the 2 hour check in or connection time to
flying's journey time. You can't have a 4 hour journey time and a 2 hour
connection and expect pax to consider it a suitable replacement.

OK, so it's probably not going to coax people out of a Basel to
Edinburgh flight. But that's not the point, is it? If Edinburgh was
two and a half hours from Heathrow up HS2, train would be a very valid
alternative to air for incoming passengers from outwith Europe.

I don't believe that this is enough customers to make a difference.

Only considering London - Edinburgh is a somewhat artificial scenario. HS2
could take the connecting pax for Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds/Bradford,
Durham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - potentially on one train. The
number of transit passengers at London airports is shown by the CAA as circa
250000, at Birmingham 90000 and interestingly at Manchester 320000. It could
provide useful extra business, but it is only part of the picture.

Overall, more people traveled between Heathrow and Edinburgh last year (yet
alone the other London airports) as did by train to the whole of Scotland
combined from London. In fact if you add the pax figures for all London
airports to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen it is 7 times that of the
combined rail routes at 7.6m pax/annum. If the London-Scotland rail/air
market share could be reversed, it would be as big as the market for
Eurostar - and this is before other English cities are included as source
and end destinations en route. The whole rail and air market along the full
"HS2" is circa 30m passengers per annum today (i.e no additional growth
taken into account and no influx from road traffic).

See
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2006Annual
and http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/330-rev3.pdf

D

[tim (not at home)]

Post by Dave

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness.

Why?

I explained that - for the connecting service to be seen by the customer
as a suitabe replacement.
ATM the pax will book a 2 hour (ish) connection at LHR for their onward
flight, so their total onward journey time will be 2 hour delay, 1 hour
flight, 1 hour wait for luggage/transfer to distant town centre.
For them to accept (and use) a four hour train journey direct to the town
centre as a suitable replacement, they will need a connection time of zero.

Your original scenario applies to both train and plane if the incoming
flight is late. I'd contend that there is far more likely to be another
train along with seats on it quicker than another connecting plane.
Furthermore I'm not sure where you have this 4 hour time from: If such a
line were built, Glasgow and Edinburgh would be under 3 hours from Heathrow.

Really. I'll believe it when I see it. My vote is for 3:15.

Post by Dave
Only Amsterdam and Cologne would be close to 4 hours from Heathrow and
they have access to much closer major hub airports, so they can reasonably
be discounted for long haul interchange.

Apparently, some utterly stupid percentage of US-Europe pax transist through
LHR (that's why all the other airlines want a piece). Even other 'hubs',
with direct flights, lose pax to via LHR routings so I'm sure that 'more
convenient connections' certainly do.

Post by Dave
All other destinations would be better off, time wise, in your example
above.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
Airlines can't guarantee anything like that - nobody with any
sense would allow anything less than two hours between long-haul and
short-haul (or vice versa) at any major interchange. My partner
normally flies longhaul from Edinburgh via Schiphol and has learned -
through bitter experience - to allow four hours if possible for
connections there. Two hours is normally enough for the human to make
it, but not for the luggage ...

I don't need a lesson in how it works now. I'm explaining how it will
HAVE to work if it is to be acceptable (to the user) as a replacement for
current in-line connections. If it doesn't work as I have described,
then it won't be any good as an in-line connection and thus the (new)
railway will not take any of the short haul traffic away.

Clearly in all reasonable journeys it could.

You're not thinking like a numpty passanger. For them to choose a rail
connection over a plane connection you have to make it really easy.

Post by Dave

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Remember
that this 4 hour city centre to city centre time is only competitive with
flying because you have added in the 2 hour check in or connection time to
flying's journey time. You can't have a 4 hour journey time and a 2 hour
connection and expect pax to consider it a suitable replacement.

OK, so it's probably not going to coax people out of a Basel to
Edinburgh flight. But that's not the point, is it? If Edinburgh was
two and a half hours from Heathrow up HS2, train would be a very valid
alternative to air for incoming passengers from outwith Europe.

I don't believe that this is enough customers to make a difference.

Only considering London - Edinburgh is a somewhat artificial scenario. HS2
could take the connecting pax for Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds/Bradford,
Durham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - potentially on one train.

HS2 is likely to go up the west cost. It is not going to go remotely near
Newcastle.
There are no transiting pax to Birmingham. The flights stopped years ago.

Post by Dave
The number of transit passengers at London airports is shown by the CAA as
circa 250000,

I don't know where you got this figure from but the last time I discussed
this in a group the figure was around 15%. How many pax does LHR get,
40million, 50 million pa? 15% is 8-9 million.

Post by Dave
at Birmingham 90000 and interestingly at Manchester 320000. It could
provide useful extra business, but it is only part of the picture.
Overall, more people traveled between Heathrow and Edinburgh last year
(yet alone the other London airports) as did by train to the whole of
Scotland

Seems unlikey. The whole of LHR-EDI capacity could fit into about 5 trains.
I suppose that the rest of GNER/Virgin's capacity could be 'overlapping'
pax.

Post by Dave
combined from London. In fact if you add the pax figures for all London
airports to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen it is 7 times that of the
combined rail routes at 7.6m pax/annum. If the London-Scotland rail/air
market share could be reversed, it would be as big as the market for
Eurostar - and this is before other English cities are included as source
and end destinations en route. The whole rail and air market along the
full "HS2" is circa 30m passengers per annum today (i.e no additional
growth taken into account and no influx from road traffic).

I don't see the significance of the above. The issue is one of "will
transiting pax use the train from LHR", not "will London originating pax use
a High speed train from StP instead of going to LHR to fly".

London originating pax can be encouraged not to fly by providing a train
alternative (as the TGV has done). But if transiting pax still insist of
changing into a plane, the LHR-EDI (wherever) flights will still have to fly
at reasonably frequency. Such a service might operate with smaller planes
but they will still take up a similar number of slots.

tim

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:10:08 +0100, "tim \(not at home\)"

Post by tim (not at home)
Apparently, some utterly stupid percentage of US-Europe pax transist through
LHR (that's why all the other airlines want a piece). Even other 'hubs',
with direct flights, lose pax to via LHR routings so I'm sure that 'more
convenient connections' certainly do.

Many seem to assume LHR even when there are far superior alternatives,
e.g. LCY for anywhere served from there.

Post by tim (not at home)
You're not thinking like a numpty passanger. For them to choose a rail
connection over a plane connection you have to make it really easy.

And guaranteed. Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

Neil

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Neil Williams
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:10:08 +0100, "tim \(not at home\)"

Post by tim (not at home)
Apparently, some utterly stupid percentage of US-Europe pax transist through
LHR (that's why all the other airlines want a piece). Even other 'hubs',
with direct flights, lose pax to via LHR routings so I'm sure that 'more
convenient connections' certainly do.

Many seem to assume LHR even when there are far superior alternatives,
e.g. LCY for anywhere served from there.

How many intercontinental flights does LCY handle?

Post by Neil Williams

Post by tim (not at home)
You're not thinking like a numpty passanger. For them to choose a rail
connection over a plane connection you have to make it really easy.

And guaranteed. Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If you are flying Air France from Brussels long haul via de Gaulle, the first
leg is by TGV from Midi, not 737 from the airport. All one ticket, check in
at Midi. Even British airlines could presumably organise something similar.

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:26:53 +0000, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall
How many intercontinental flights does LCY handle?

Sorry, read it wrong. But, if the timings fit OK, I'd seriously
consider LCY-AMS-<wherever> rather than direct from LHR.

Post by Graeme Wall
If you are flying Air France from Brussels long haul via de Gaulle, the first
leg is by TGV from Midi, not 737 from the airport. All one ticket, check in
at Midi. Even British airlines could presumably organise something similar.

Indeed, and they should.

Neil

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Graeme Wall
How many intercontinental flights does LCY handle?

Sorry, read it wrong. But, if the timings fit OK, I'd seriously consider
LCY-AMS-<wherever> rather than direct from LHR.

You might, many wouldn't. especially from across the pond.

Post by Graeme Wall
If you are flying Air France from Brussels long haul via de Gaulle, the
first leg is by TGV from Midi, not 737 from the airport. All one ticket,
check in at Midi. Even British airlines could presumably organise
something similar.

Indeed, and they should.

Involves thinking so I wouldn't bank on it.

[Mike Roebuck]

Post by Neil Williams
Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Neil Williams
Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

In the way that BA bought part of Eurostar? 10% and still have it,
afaict.

[Mike Roebuck]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Neil Williams
Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

In the way that BA bought part of Eurostar? 10% and still have it,
afaict.

Not really. Lufthansa buy space on ICEs between Cologne-Bonn Airport
and Frankfurt Airport and sell the seats to their customers using
airline ticketing. The trains effectively substitute for flights.

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Neil Williams
Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

In the way that BA bought part of Eurostar? 10% and still have it,
afaict.

Not really. Lufthansa buy space on ICEs between Cologne-Bonn Airport
and Frankfurt Airport and sell the seats to their customers using
airline ticketing. The trains effectively substitute for flights.

But we have also the system AccesRail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccesRail
where ordinary train connections may be included in the air tickets.
So for example it's possible to issue an air ticket to Lund,Sweden despite
there's no airport at the destination itself. Last leg is Kastrup-Lund by
Öresundstrain

[Roland Perry]

Post by Lennart Petersen
But we have also the system AccesRail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccesRail
where ordinary train connections may be included in the air tickets.
So for example it's possible to issue an air ticket to Lund,Sweden despite
there's no airport at the destination itself. Last leg is Kastrup-Lund by
Öresundstrain

I've had an air ticket where the connecting flight was actually a bus!
Regularly, not as a bustitution. KSC-TAT

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Neil Williams
Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

In the way that BA bought part of Eurostar? 10% and still have it,
afaict.

Not really. Lufthansa buy space on ICEs between Cologne-Bonn Airport
and Frankfurt Airport and sell the seats to their customers using
airline ticketing. The trains effectively substitute for flights.

In what sense have BA "not really" bought 10% of Eurostar?

Or did you mean "buy a block of seats", rather than "the actual train".

[Lüko Willms]

Am Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:23:58 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
In what sense have BA "not really" bought 10% of Eurostar?

First, BA has a share not in the owner company, Eurostar (UK) Ltd,
but only in the manageing company ICRR, and BA is only a silent
partner.


L.W

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by Lüko Willms

Post by Roland Perry
In what sense have BA "not really" bought 10% of Eurostar?

First, BA has a share not in the owner company, Eurostar (UK) Ltd,
but only in the manageing company ICRR,

Who owns EUKL, as a matter of interest? And how long is ICRR's contract?

Post by Lüko Willms
and BA is only a silent partner.

That's their choice - they could use their position to sell "plane
tickets" for use on the train. Indeed that's the most plausible reason
for their involvement.

[Paul Scott]

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by Lüko Willms

Post by Roland Perry
In what sense have BA "not really" bought 10% of Eurostar?

First, BA has a share not in the owner company, Eurostar (UK) Ltd,
but only in the manageing company ICRR,

Who owns EUKL, as a matter of interest? And how long is ICRR's contract?

Post by Lüko Willms
and BA is only a silent partner.

That's their choice - they could use their position to sell "plane
tickets" for use on the train. Indeed that's the most plausible reason for
their involvement.

You don't think it was just an excellent way of having inside information
about a main competitor's loadings and pricing policies on the Brussels and
Paris routes, and then a way in to rail if the short haul air market
disappeared?

Paul

[The Good Doctor]

Post by Paul Scott

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by Lüko Willms

Post by Roland Perry
In what sense have BA "not really" bought 10% of Eurostar?

First, BA has a share not in the owner company, Eurostar (UK) Ltd,
but only in the manageing company ICRR,

Who owns EUKL, as a matter of interest? And how long is ICRR's contract?

Post by Lüko Willms
and BA is only a silent partner.

That's their choice - they could use their position to sell "plane
tickets" for use on the train. Indeed that's the most plausible reason for
their involvement.

You don't think it was just an excellent way of having inside information
about a main competitor's loadings and pricing policies on the Brussels and
Paris routes, and then a way in to rail if the short haul air market
disappeared?

I have no doubt that this was British Airways' motivation for taking a
10% share - then sitting back and doing something approximating to
nothing. Just as it was probably Virgin Groups's motivation before
British Airways came along; the first owners of London and Continental
Railways (LCR) in 1996 included Virgin Group, though LCR quickly got
into serious financial trouble and Virgin Group dropped out in 1998.

To be fair to Virgin I think they were more proactive in the first two
years of LCR than British Airways have ever been since in Eurostar UK,
although that wouldn't be difficult.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Paul Scott

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Lüko Willms
and BA is only a silent partner.

That's their choice - they could use their position to sell "plane
tickets" for use on the train. Indeed that's the most plausible reason for
their involvement.

You don't think it was just an excellent way of having inside information
about a main competitor's loadings and pricing policies on the Brussels and
Paris routes, and then a way in to rail if the short haul air market
disappeared?

It's a possibility, but several legal issues arise, and the information
must be easy to get without that sort of expense.

That's why I don't consider it the "most plausible". Having an insurance
policy to release some short-haul slots at LHR, if necessary, is still
my guess.

[Erwan David]

Post by Roland Perry
That's why I don't consider it the "most plausible". Having an
insurance policy to release some short-haul slots at LHR, if
necessary, is still my guess.

Since BA moved it's CDG-Gatwick flights to Heathrow, I do not think they
want to release slots there...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Erwan David

Post by Roland Perry
That's why I don't consider it the "most plausible". Having an
insurance policy to release some short-haul slots at LHR, if
necessary, is still my guess.

Since BA moved it's CDG-Gatwick flights to Heathrow, I do not think they
want to release slots there...

That does seem to be the short-term view, but I suspect their investment
was longer term. Or maybe just a freak decision from former management
that hasn't worked its way out of the system yet.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Erwan David

Post by Roland Perry
That's why I don't consider it the "most plausible". Having an
insurance policy to release some short-haul slots at LHR, if
necessary, is still my guess.

Since BA moved it's CDG-Gatwick flights to Heathrow, I do not think they
want to release slots there...

That does seem to be the short-term view, but I suspect their investment
was longer term. Or maybe just a freak decision from former management
that hasn't worked its way out of the system yet.

Possibly the move to Heathrow is intended as a precursor to a move to trains
for such a service. The current flights acting as place-holders to maintain
the slots for BA use so that they can be re-allocated to more lucrative
services in the future.

[Dave]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Erwan David

Post by Roland Perry
That's why I don't consider it the "most plausible". Having an
insurance policy to release some short-haul slots at LHR, if
necessary, is still my guess.

Since BA moved it's CDG-Gatwick flights to Heathrow, I do not think they
want to release slots there...

That does seem to be the short-term view, but I suspect their investment
was longer term. Or maybe just a freak decision from former management
that hasn't worked its way out of the system yet.

Possibly the move to Heathrow is intended as a precursor to a move to trains
for such a service. The current flights acting as place-holders to maintain
the slots for BA use so that they can be re-allocated to more lucrative
services in the future.

Perhaps they are moving more services to Heathrow in order to deliberately
create a capacity problem - i.e. to produce usage figures that can be used
to demonstrate the need for the 3rd runway to the government.

D

[Roland Perry]

Post by Dave
Perhaps they are moving more services to Heathrow in order to
deliberately create a capacity problem - i.e. to produce usage figures
that can be used to demonstrate the need for the 3rd runway to the
government.

They are definitely moving services from Gatwick to Heathrow because it
makes economic sense to concentrate operations in one place. BA has been
trying to run down its Gatwick operations for a decade now.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Erwan David

Post by Roland Perry
That's why I don't consider it the "most plausible". Having an
insurance policy to release some short-haul slots at LHR, if
necessary, is still my guess.

Since BA moved it's CDG-Gatwick flights to Heathrow, I do not think they
want to release slots there...

That does seem to be the short-term view, but I suspect their investment
was longer term. Or maybe just a freak decision from former management
that hasn't worked its way out of the system yet.

Possibly the move to Heathrow is intended as a precursor to a move to trains
for such a service. The current flights acting as place-holders to maintain
the slots for BA use so that they can be re-allocated to more lucrative
services in the future.

Perhaps they are moving more services to Heathrow in order to deliberately
create a capacity problem - i.e. to produce usage figures that can be used
to demonstrate the need for the 3rd runway to the government.

You are confusing BA and BAA I think.

[Dave]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Erwan David
Since BA moved it's CDG-Gatwick flights to Heathrow, I do not think they
want to release slots there...

That does seem to be the short-term view, but I suspect their investment
was longer term. Or maybe just a freak decision from former management
that hasn't worked its way out of the system yet.

Possibly the move to Heathrow is intended as a precursor to a move to trains
for such a service. The current flights acting as place-holders to maintain
the slots for BA use so that they can be re-allocated to more lucrative
services in the future.

Perhaps they are moving more services to Heathrow in order to
deliberately
create a capacity problem - i.e. to produce usage figures that can be used
to demonstrate the need for the 3rd runway to the government.

You are confusing BA and BAA I think.

No - I don't think it is any secret that British Airways would like to see
Heathrow expansion.

D

[Graeme Wall]

[snip]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
Perhaps they are moving more services to Heathrow in order to deliberately
create a capacity problem - i.e. to produce usage figures that can be used
to demonstrate the need for the 3rd runway to the government.

You are confusing BA and BAA I think.

No - I don't think it is any secret that British Airways would like to see
Heathrow expansion.

No doubt they would, but it would still be some-one else's (BAA's) problem.
BA would like a lot of things but don't seem keen on exerting themselves to
achieve them. There is actually an advantage to BA in not having a third
runway. They currently have the lion's share of slots and soon their own
dedicated terminal. A third runway would just increase the competition from
people like Virgin.

[Lüko Willms]

Am Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:46:42 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Lüko Willms
First, BA has a share not in the owner company, Eurostar (UK) Ltd,
but only in the manageing company ICRR,

Who owns EUKL, as a matter of interest?

EUKL is a 100% subsidiary of LCR (London & Continental Railways, in
this context), and LCR is owned mainly by the companies which are
LCR's clients for the building of the CTRL (now renamed HS1), i.e. the
partners in the consortium RLE (Rail Link Engineering): Bechtel, Arup,
Systra, and Halcrow; other shareholdes of LCR are UBS, EDF Energy,
SNCF, and the National Express Group.

The various companies who own the CTRL and the Ebbsfleet, Stratford
Int'l, and St. Pancras stations are also 100% subsidiaries of LCR.

And how long is ICRR's contract?

The administration contract with 'Inter-Capital and Regional Rail
Ltd' (ICRR) runs thru 2010. Three more years...

Who will be the UK DfT's candidates for buying all that?


Cheers,
L.W.

[Mike Roebuck]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Neil Williams
Currently, if I buy a through BA ticket from
Manchester to <somewhere> via LHR on one ticket, if I miss my
connection at LHR I'll get put up in a hotel if necessary and put on
the next available flight. If I do Manchester to LHR by train, I
would be told to get stuffed.

If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

In the way that BA bought part of Eurostar? 10% and still have it,
afaict.

Not really. Lufthansa buy space on ICEs between Cologne-Bonn Airport
and Frankfurt Airport and sell the seats to their customers using
airline ticketing. The trains effectively substitute for flights.

In what sense have BA "not really" bought 10% of Eurostar?
Or did you mean "buy a block of seats", rather than "the actual train".

I thought that was clear from at least my second post.

You really can be an annoying pedant sometimes.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Mike Roebuck
Not really. Lufthansa buy space on ICEs between Cologne-Bonn Airport
and Frankfurt Airport and sell the seats to their customers using
airline ticketing. The trains effectively substitute for flights.

Exactly, this is why you frequently see empty seats in the first class
when the booking computer tells you that the train is supposedly full.

Lufthansa reserve (and pay for) a certain number of seats on these
trains to make them available to their customers at short notice -
even on trains that are otherwise fully booked long in advance.

It was Lufthansa's previous scheme that failed, that of operating
their own trains, at their own (higher) fares in virtual competition
to DB. Passengers were frustrated to be told that their ticket wasn't
vaild on a regular DB train, and told to wait for the Lufthansa
Express which might have involved a considerable wait and led to
missing a flight. DB made the same mistake themselves a couple of
years later when introducing their Metropolitan brand of trains. These
failed for much the same reason. A train run by an airline like an an
airliner combines the worst of both systems.

[Neil Williams]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
Lufthansa reserve (and pay for) a certain number of seats on these
trains to make them available to their customers at short notice -
even on trains that are otherwise fully booked long in advance.

At which DB must be laughing, as they can then fill those unused seats
with walk-on, unreserved first class passengers.

Neil

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by a***@yahoo.com
Lufthansa reserve (and pay for) a certain number of seats on these
trains to make them available to their customers at short notice -
even on trains that are otherwise fully booked long in advance.

At which DB must be laughing, as they can then fill those unused seats
with walk-on, unreserved first class passengers.
Neil

Something that's possibly already part of the deal and agreement.
Don't think LH is paying a full price for those seats.

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:12:28 +0100, Mike Roebuck

Post by Mike Roebuck
If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

I suspect such a thing (taking away the worry of the all-too-common
delayed train) would, if promoted right, have quite a few takers, even
without HS2.

Neil

[tim (not at home)]

Post by Neil Williams
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:12:28 +0100, Mike Roebuck

Post by Mike Roebuck
If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

I suspect such a thing (taking away the worry of the all-too-common
delayed train) would, if promoted right, have quite a few takers, even
without HS2.

The LH train offerings are (were) not very popular, so I suspect that this
would not be the case.

tim

[Graeme Wall]

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Neil Williams
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:12:28 +0100, Mike Roebuck

Post by Mike Roebuck
If BA/BMI bought part of the train, as Lufthansa do in Germany, you'd
use it with an air ticket, rather than a rail ticket, and air
conditions would apply.

I suspect such a thing (taking away the worry of the all-too-common
delayed train) would, if promoted right, have quite a few takers, even
without HS2.

The LH train offerings are (were) not very popular, so I suspect that this
would not be the case.

The AF ones do seem to be popular, judging by the queues at the check-in desk
last time I was in Brussels. Perhaps it's the pull factor of the TGV/Thalys

[Dave]

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Dave

Post by tim (not at home)
ATM the pax will book a 2 hour (ish) connection at LHR for their onward
flight, so their total onward journey time will be 2 hour delay, 1 hour
flight, 1 hour wait for luggage/transfer to distant town centre.
For them to accept (and use) a four hour train journey direct to the
town centre as a suitable replacement, they will need a connection time
of zero.

Your original scenario applies to both train and plane if the incoming
flight is late. I'd contend that there is far more likely to be another
train along with seats on it quicker than another connecting plane.
Furthermore I'm not sure where you have this 4 hour time from: If such a
line were built, Glasgow and Edinburgh would be under 3 hours from Heathrow.

Really. I'll believe it when I see it. My vote is for 3:15.

London to Glasow via the route I described below is 460 miles, which with a
220mph (350km/h) averaging 170mph with a couple of stops would be under 3
hours. Of course they will not all be limited stop.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Dave
Only Amsterdam and Cologne would be close to 4 hours from Heathrow and
they have access to much closer major hub airports, so they can
reasonably be discounted for long haul interchange.

Apparently, some utterly stupid percentage of US-Europe pax transist
through LHR (that's why all the other airlines want a piece). Even other
'hubs', with direct flights, lose pax to via LHR routings so I'm sure that
'more convenient connections' certainly do.

Post by Dave
All other destinations would be better off, time wise, in your example
above.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
Airlines can't guarantee anything like that - nobody with any
sense would allow anything less than two hours between long-haul and
short-haul (or vice versa) at any major interchange. My partner
normally flies longhaul from Edinburgh via Schiphol and has learned -
through bitter experience - to allow four hours if possible for
connections there. Two hours is normally enough for the human to make
it, but not for the luggage ...

I don't need a lesson in how it works now. I'm explaining how it will
HAVE to work if it is to be acceptable (to the user) as a replacement
for current in-line connections. If it doesn't work as I have
described, then it won't be any good as an in-line connection and thus
the (new) railway will not take any of the short haul traffic away.

Clearly in all reasonable journeys it could.

You're not thinking like a numpty passanger. For them to choose a rail
connection over a plane connection you have to make it really easy.

Which is exactly why putting the HSR station in the Heathrow terminal
complex is required...

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Dave

Post by tim (not at home)
I don't believe that this is enough customers to make a difference.

Only considering London - Edinburgh is a somewhat artificial scenario.
HS2 could take the connecting pax for Birmingham, Manchester,
Leeds/Bradford, Durham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow - potentially on
one train.

HS2 is likely to go up the west cost. It is not going to go remotely near
Newcastle.
There are no transiting pax to Birmingham. The flights stopped years ago.

Regarding Birmingham, it gives pax from there another option, perhaps many
from there are already driving to Heathrow.

Regarding the route, this "S" option is one put forward by Atkins and has
been discussed on uk.r many times. There is no way such a line would attempt
to traverse the Lake District, but a short trip under the Penines into Leeds
and then on up the ECML would open up many route possibilities and add much
value to the line.

There is no way that it should serve Carlisle (pop 70k) when the other
option is West Yorkshire and then the North East (combined population ~3m)
with less difficult terrain.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Dave
The number of transit passengers at London airports is shown by the CAA
as circa 250000,

I don't know where you got this figure from but the last time I discussed
this in a group the figure was around 15%. How many pax does LHR get,
40million, 50 million pa? 15% is 8-9 million.

The CAA here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2006Annual/Table_09_Terminal_and_Transit_Pax_2006.pdf

Shows 67m total passengers of which 189,000 are transit passengers - which
of course are not the same as people changing airlines.

So taking the figure of 23m *transfers* out of 67m, the prospect for
transfer onto HSR is actually significantly better.
(http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/hacan.transfers_and_transits.pdf)

Wikipedia gives destinations for 2004 as "11% travel to UK destinations, 43%
are short-haul international travellers, and 46% are long-haul"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport)

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Dave
Overall, more people traveled between Heathrow and Edinburgh last year
(yet alone the other London airports) as did by train to the whole of
Scotland

Seems unlikey. The whole of LHR-EDI capacity could fit into about 5
trains. I suppose that the rest of GNER/Virgin's capacity could be
'overlapping' pax.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2006Annual/Table_12_2_Dom_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis_2006.pdf

Gives the 2006 Heathrow - Edinburgh total pax as 1.5 million, which is 5
daily trains of 821.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by Dave
combined from London. In fact if you add the pax figures for all London
airports to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen it is 7 times that of the
combined rail routes at 7.6m pax/annum. If the London-Scotland rail/air
market share could be reversed, it would be as big as the market for
Eurostar - and this is before other English cities are included as source
and end destinations en route. The whole rail and air market along the
full "HS2" is circa 30m passengers per annum today (i.e no additional
growth taken into account and no influx from road traffic).

I don't see the significance of the above. The issue is one of "will
transiting pax use the train from LHR", not "will London originating pax
use a High speed train from StP instead of going to LHR to fly".
London originating pax can be encouraged not to fly by providing a train
alternative (as the TGV has done). But if transiting pax still insist of
changing into a plane, the LHR-EDI (wherever) flights will still have to
fly at reasonably frequency. Such a service might operate with smaller
planes but they will still take up a similar number of slots.

The point is that if the vast majority of passengers on the domestic
connecting flight switch to the train, as you have pointed out there will be
little traffic left from which to pay landing fees and the new tax on each
aircraft. It will not take long before it is uneconomic to continue running
such small services into a major airport and a deal similar to the Air
France / Thalys arrangement is made. If the HSR services call at a Heathrow
station, there is really no excuse for the continuation of airborne domestic
transit.

D

[The Real Doctor]

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness.

Why?

ATM the pax will book a 2 hour (ish) connection at LHR for their onward
flight, so their total onward journey time will be 2 hour delay, 1 hour
flight, 1 hour wait for luggage/transfer to distant town centre.
For them to accept (and use) a four hour train journey direct to the town
centre as a suitable replacement, they will need a connection time of zero.

OK so far. But surely that's Arup's point: an HS2 with a stop at
Heathrow would give services to Manchester/Paris/Edinburgh taking
1/2/3 hours, thus making trains competitive.

Post by tim (not at home)
I don't need a lesson in how it works now. I'm explaining how it will HAVE
to work if it is to be acceptable (to the user) as a replacement for current
in-line connections.

I still can't see, though, where your "4 hours" comes from. Yes, there
would still be places more than 4 hours from Heathrow by train, but so
what - there would be an awful lot of places less time away.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
OK, so it's probably not going to coax people out of a Basel to
Edinburgh flight. But that's not the point, is it? If Edinburgh was
two and a half hours from Heathrow up HS2, train would be a very valid
alternative to air for incoming passengers from outwith Europe.

I don't believe that this is enough customers to make a difference.

As far as I can remember, BAand BMi each run about 20 flights per day
to each of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Those would go, along
with flights to Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Paris and more. Basically
the whole of T1 and much of T2. That's quite a saving.

Ian

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by The Real Doctor
As far as I can remember, BAand BMi each run about 20 flights per day
to each of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Those would go, along
with flights to Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Paris and more. Basically
the whole of T1 and much of T2. That's quite a saving.

I don't think any regulator has the power to actually ban an airline
from serving any destination.

strong rail competition might hurt the bottom line of many an
airline, and some would voluntarily rely on the train rather than
running their own feeder flights. But other will prefer to fight it
out. And a plane with three passengers on board eats away the same
runway capacity as a fully loaded plane. Therefore we are not going to
see this capacity being reallocated to long-haul flights.

In France, where this sort of thing gets regulated without much fuss,
the opening of the high speed line from Paris to Brussels saw Air
France basically abandon thei own short haul flights and put people on
the TGV. Internal services to places like Lyon were similarly severely
reduced. However, there still are short haul flights on these
connections, run by other operators.

In Spain, the situation is even more extreme. Iberia and other Spanish
airlines are refusing to seek cooperation with the railways and will
continue to battle it out with the railways on Madrid-Barcelona even
after the full line is open. Obviously these companies make enough
profit on their long-haul work to be able to stomach an appreciable
loss on their short haul lines - and their historic distrust of
railways is winning over any common sense they may have.

So don't count on any ban, and don't count on the mass of airlines
voluntarily vacating the market. One or two may, but there are enough
out there who will fight to the last passenger. To expect otherwise is
to fundamentally underestimate airline thinking.

[bobrayner]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by The Real Doctor
As far as I can remember, BAand BMi each run about 20 flights per day
to each of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Those would go, along
with flights to Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Paris and more. Basically
the whole of T1 and much of T2. That's quite a saving.

I don't think any regulator has the power to actually ban an airline
from serving any destination.

Why should we? Blunt controls like that would be wasteful and
inefficient.
If the problem is environmental, set a carbon tax. If the problem is
congestion, charge fair prices for landing slots, access to railways,
&c. That way operators & customers can make their own decisions to
find the best compromise between service and pollution/congestion.

Post by a***@yahoo.com
strong rail competition might hurt the bottom line of many an
airline, and some would voluntarily rely on the train rather than
running their own feeder flights. But other will prefer to fight it
out. And a plane with three passengers on board eats away the same
runway capacity as a fully loaded plane. Therefore we are not going to
see this capacity being reallocated to long-haul flights.

That's wrong; because there's strong competition for capacity at
Heathrow. Why should some route that only gets 5 passengers keep on
clogging up the airport when there are other potential routes worth a
lot more?

[furnessvale]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
And a plane with three passengers on board eats away the same
runway capacity as a fully loaded plane. Therefore we are not going to
see this capacity being reallocated to long-haul flights.

If the government carries out its plan to convert passenger tax to a
"per flight" tax I would expect that to concentrate the minds of
airline executives.

George

[tim (not at home)]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by The Real Doctor
As far as I can remember, BAand BMi each run about 20 flights per day
to each of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Those would go, along
with flights to Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Paris and more. Basically
the whole of T1 and much of T2. That's quite a saving.

I don't think any regulator has the power to actually ban an airline
from serving any destination.

I agree. The Italians tried this in order to force airlines to use MXP
instead of LIN, they were told by 'Europe' that they couldn't do it.

tim

[The Real Doctor]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by The Real Doctor
As far as I can remember, BAand BMi each run about 20 flights per day
to each of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Those would go, along
with flights to Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Paris and more. Basically
the whole of T1 and much of T2. That's quite a saving.

I don't think any regulator has the power to actually ban an airline
from serving any destination.

Yet. I expect it'll come, though.

Ian

[tim (not at home)]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)
Not forgetting, that to make this "4 hour" journey time acceptable to
connecting pax you are going to have to 'guarentee' a 30 minute connection
into a waiting train *with* available seats to every one of those
destinations regardless of the incoming arrival plane's lateness.

Why?

ATM the pax will book a 2 hour (ish) connection at LHR for their onward
flight, so their total onward journey time will be 2 hour delay, 1 hour
flight, 1 hour wait for luggage/transfer to distant town centre.
For them to accept (and use) a four hour train journey direct to the town
centre as a suitable replacement, they will need a connection time of zero.

OK so far. But surely that's Arup's point: an HS2 with a stop at
Heathrow would give services to Manchester/Paris/Edinburgh taking
1/2/3 hours, thus making trains competitive.

Post by tim (not at home)
I don't need a lesson in how it works now. I'm explaining how it will HAVE
to work if it is to be acceptable (to the user) as a replacement for current
in-line connections.

I still can't see, though, where your "4 hours" comes from.

Because Paris is 2:40 (from Heathrow). Glasgow/Edinburgh is 100 miles
further so going to be 3:15-3:30. I was also expecting the train to replace
flights to Amsterdam/Cologne/Dusseldorf which are certainly going to be 4
hours.

Post by The Real Doctor
Yes, there
would still be places more than 4 hours from Heathrow by train, but so
what - there would be an awful lot of places less time away.

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
OK, so it's probably not going to coax people out of a Basel to
Edinburgh flight. But that's not the point, is it? If Edinburgh was
two and a half hours from Heathrow up HS2, train would be a very valid
alternative to air for incoming passengers from outwith Europe.

I don't believe that this is enough customers to make a difference.

As far as I can remember, BAand BMi each run about 20 flights per day
to each of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester.

LHR has a total of:
25 to EDI, 20 to GLA, 20 to MAN, 5 to LBA, 7 to NCL. I doubt that the
latter would be replaced as HS2 is not going to anywhere near to Newcastle,
and it might not even get to Leeds. I CBA to count Paris/Brussels but its
about 20 each, so a total of 100 flights or 200 movements, about 5 hours or
one third of a runway's usage.

tim

[The Real Doctor]

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
OK so far. But surely that's Arup's point: an HS2 with a stop at
Heathrow would give services to Manchester/Paris/Edinburgh taking
1/2/3 hours, thus making trains competitive.
I still can't see, though, where your "4 hours" comes from.

Because Paris is 2:40 (from Heathrow). Glasgow/Edinburgh is 100 miles
further so going to be 3:15-3:30.

Hmm. An HS2 to Edinburgh wouldn't involve a relatively slow grind
through a long tunnel, would it. Four hundred miles, 200mph, time for
stops, 3 hours easy. After all, London to Glasgow is not much over
four hours on a Pendolino ...

Post by tim (not at home)
I was also expecting the train to replace
flights to Amsterdam/Cologne/Dusseldorf which are certainly going to be 4
hours.

I think you may be on shaky ground there, rhetorically. You seem to be
choosing routes on which the train wouldn't be competitive, using that
to show that the train wouldn't be competitive and assuming that the
same goes for all other routes. Straw man, I fear.

Can we agree that

(a) there is absolutely no market for flights from Heathrow to
Birmingham or Bristol

(b) that there is a substantial market for trains from London to
Birmingham or Bristol and that

(c) faster trains will increase the distance over which trains have
the competitive edge?

Ian

[tim (not at home)]

Post by The Real Doctor
I think you may be on shaky ground there, rhetorically. You seem to be
choosing routes on which the train wouldn't be competitive,

No, I'm adding in as many routes as possible in order to save a whole
runway's worth. Unless it can be shown to replace the need for a new
runway, this new line is dead in the water (as it will not get funded).

Post by The Real Doctor
using that
to show that the train wouldn't be competitive and assuming that the
same goes for all other routes. Straw man, I fear.

The problem is, the further away the destination, the less frequent the
service will be, but a customer will require a shorter connection in order
to meet his end to end journey time requirement (thus requiring a more
frequent service). I don't see this line replacing anything other than
Manchester services. The combination of journey times and extended gaps
between services will not encourage pax to book plane plus train, even if
the airlines offer through booking with guarenteed 'looking after' if your
flight is late and you miss your train.

I am not trying to demolish this idea. I want it to work. I'm explaining
why I think that it won't.

Post by The Real Doctor
Can we agree that
(a) there is absolutely no market for flights from Heathrow to
Birmingham or Bristol
(b) that there is a substantial market for trains from London to
Birmingham or Bristol and that
(c) faster trains will increase the distance over which trains have
the competitive edge?

Yes?

How does this help us?

tim

[furnessvale]

Post by tim (not at home)
No, I'm adding in as many routes as possible in order to save a whole
runway's worth. �Unless it can be shown to replace the need for a new
runway, this new line is dead in the water (as it will not get funded).

Why should that be? If a sufficient majority would transfer to the
new line why should a new runway be the automatic choice rather than a
new line? Don't forget that the new line would also benefit all those
millions of (sensible) people who already use the train throughout.

George

[The Good Doctor]

Post by tim (not at home)
No, I'm adding in as many routes as possible in order to save a whole
runway's worth. �Unless it can be shown to replace the need for a new
runway, this new line is dead in the water (as it will not get funded).

Why should that be?  If a sufficient majority would transfer to the
new line why should a new runway be the automatic choice rather than a
new line?  Don't forget that the new line would also benefit all those
millions of (sensible) people who already use the train throughout.

The Heathrow protagonists would probably argue that the third runway
is needed now, with the airport already operating far beyond its
designed capacity.

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:36:10 -0800 (PST), The Good Doctor

Post by The Good Doctor
The Heathrow protagonists would probably argue that the third runway
is needed now, with the airport already operating far beyond its
designed capacity.

My answer to that remains that, if it is operating beyond design
capacity, operations should be reduced to the correct level, by way of
law if necessary. Alternatives would then have to be found.

Neil

[furnessvale]

Post by The Good Doctor
The Heathrow protagonists would probably argue that the third runway
is needed now, with the airport already operating far beyond its
designed capacity.

Good God! Are they already compromising safety for profit! Rather
like Manchester airport who are unable to identify aircraft miles off
the flight path when on approach!

George

[Mike Roebuck]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:55:04 -0800 (PST), furnessvale

Post by furnessvale
Rather
like Manchester airport who are unable to identify aircraft miles off
the flight path when on approach!

Tell me more.......

[Dave]

Post by furnessvale

Post by tim (not at home)
No, I'm adding in as many routes as possible in order to save a whole
runway's worth. �Unless it can be shown to replace the need for a new
runway, this new line is dead in the water (as it will not get funded).

Why should that be? If a sufficient majority would transfer to the
new line why should a new runway be the automatic choice rather than a
new line? Don't forget that the new line would also benefit all those
millions of (sensible) people who already use the train throughout.

Tim's point is that the railway has to be able to take sufficient traffic to
free up a runway's worth of slots, so as to be able to make the argument
that the strategy should be HSR and not the 3rd Heathrow runway. If,
however, switching domestic and short haul passengers to rail can only free
up enough slots for half a runway's time, the 3rd runway might still need to
be built.

However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton. Furthermore, Birmingham
airport would be within 30 minutes of Heathrow, effectively making it a
London airport too. It should therefore be possible to rationalise flights
to free up at least one runway's worth of slots between them (and if
necessary provide inter-airport shuttles to provide connections).

D

[Roland Perry]

Post by Dave
Tim's point is that the railway has to be able to take sufficient
traffic to free up a runway's worth of slots, so as to be able to make
the argument that the strategy should be HSR and not the 3rd Heathrow
runway. If, however, switching domestic and short haul passengers to
rail can only free up enough slots for half a runway's time, the 3rd
runway might still need to be built.
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would
inevitably take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and
short-haul routes and potentially also from Southampton. Furthermore,
Birmingham airport would be within 30 minutes of Heathrow, effectively
making it a London airport too. It should therefore be possible to
rationalise flights to free up at least one runway's worth of slots
between them (and if necessary provide inter-airport shuttles to
provide connections).

The market isn't that flexible when it comes to switching airports.
Heathrow is such a dreadful place that only clueless foreigners and
people who can't possibly fly/connect from somewhere else will use it.

[Lüko Willms]

Post by Dave
ay. If,
however, switching domestic and short haul passengers to rail can only free
up enough slots for half a runway's time, the 3rd runway might still need to
be built.
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton. Furthermore, Birmingham
airport would be within 30 minutes of Heathrow, effectively making it a
London airport too. It should therefore be possible to rationalise flights
to free up at least one runway's worth of slots between them (and if
necessary provide inter-airport shuttles to provide connections).

How about a high-speed ring linking the main London airports,
Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead, and Gatwick, perhaps also London City
Airport, thus creating one airport system.


Cheers,
L.W.

[Graeme Wall]

In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Lüko Willms
How about a high-speed ring linking the main London airports,
Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead, and Gatwick, perhaps also London City
Airport, thus creating one airport system.

Luton and Stanstead mainly cater for the cheapo holiday market and are
already rail connected. The same applies to Gatwick but the latter has a
greater proportion of business flights[1]. There is (was?) a bus connection
between Gatwick and Heathrow[2] and it would be physically possible to
provide a rail link. LCY could connect to through trains on HS1 via the DLR
to Stratford

[1] For want of a better term.
[2] In years gone past there was also a helicopter link.

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by Lüko Willms
How about a high-speed ring linking the main London airports,
Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead, and Gatwick, perhaps also London City
Airport, thus creating one airport system.

Luton and Gatwick are already linked, and Stansted isn't very far
detached from that link. But look at the markets. People use Heathrow
because of the variety of destinations, and all the rest because they
are cheaper.

[Lüko Willms]

Am Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:06:55 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Lüko Willms
How about a high-speed ring linking the main London airports,
Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead, and Gatwick, perhaps also London City
Airport, thus creating one airport system.

Luton and Gatwick are already linked, and Stansted isn't very far
detached from that link.

I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.


Cheers,
L.W.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Lüko Willms
Am Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:06:55 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Lüko Willms
How about a high-speed ring linking the main London airports,
Heathrow, Luton, Stanstead, and Gatwick, perhaps also London City
Airport, thus creating one airport system.

Luton and Gatwick are already linked, and Stansted isn't very far
detached from that link.

I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.

Not sure that would be very attractive to the punter, one modal change
they'll take but two is stretching things a bit far.

[Dave]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Lüko Willms
I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.

Not sure that would be very attractive to the punter, one modal change
they'll take but two is stretching things a bit far.

Just tell them it is a "transit" between two terminals, and they need to
allow 20-30 minutes for the transit :)

D

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Lüko Willms
I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.

Not sure that would be very attractive to the punter, one modal change
they'll take but two is stretching things a bit far.

Just tell them it is a "transit" between two terminals, and they need to
allow 20-30 minutes for the transit :)

The problem is you need to be able to operate a transit system that remains
'airside' for it to work. Not impossible but very difficult and very
expensive. It would require dedicated infrastructure at each airport and I
doubt the traffic handled would justify the cost.

[Dave]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall
Not sure that would be very attractive to the punter, one modal change
they'll take but two is stretching things a bit far.

Just tell them it is a "transit" between two terminals, and they need to
allow 20-30 minutes for the transit :)

The problem is you need to be able to operate a transit system that remains
'airside' for it to work. Not impossible but very difficult and very
expensive. It would require dedicated infrastructure at each airport and I
doubt the traffic handled would justify the cost.

Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between "transit"
and "transfer" passengers. What happens today if I'm transferring at
Heathrow and I need to change from T4 to T1, for example? Or Gatwick North
to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in (even if my luggage
doesn't)?

D

[G]

Post by Dave
Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between "transit"
and "transfer" passengers. What happens today if I'm transferring at
Heathrow and I need to change from T4 to T1, for example? Or Gatwick North
to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in (even if my luggage
doesn't)?

Don't they have airside transfer buses?

[Dave]

Post by G

Post by Dave
Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between "transit"
and "transfer" passengers. What happens today if I'm transferring at
Heathrow and I need to change from T4 to T1, for example? Or Gatwick North
to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in (even if my luggage
doesn't)?

Don't they have airside transfer buses?

They do have buses (having just checked), but looking on heathrowairport.com
it would appear that there is still customs and security checking for hand
baggage, and metal detectors for transfer pax, even international to
international. If you are transferring to domestic services there is also
immigration. So I wonder if it is that much extra hardship if they do go
landside for transfers to another airport.

D

[Roland Perry]

Post by Dave

Post by G
Don't they have airside transfer buses?

They do have buses (having just checked), but looking on
heathrowairport.com it would appear that there is still customs

Not that I've seen.

Post by Dave
and security checking for hand baggage, and metal detectors for
transfer pax, even international to international.

Yes.

Post by Dave
If you are transferring to domestic services there is also immigration.

Yes.

Post by Dave
So I wonder if it is that much extra hardship if they do go landside
for transfers to another airport.

The queues for immigration, and for security going back in, would often
add an hour to the transfer.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall
The problem is you need to be able to operate a transit system that remains
'airside' for it to work. Not impossible but very difficult and very
expensive. It would require dedicated infrastructure at each airport
and I
doubt the traffic handled would justify the cost.

Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between
"transit" and "transfer" passengers.

I can't immediately think of what that distinction might be in the UK.

Post by Dave
What happens today if I'm transferring at Heathrow and I need to change
from T4 to T1, for example?

Did that last month. You walk all the way to the west of T4, catch an
airside bus via the cargo tunnel to the "Connections Centre", get
x-rayed, but not checked by immigration, then take a travelator to T1
departures lounge (emerging near the BA lounge).

Post by Dave
Or Gatwick North to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in

Only if transferring to a low-cost airline that mandates landside
checkin.

Post by Dave
(even if my luggage doesn't)?

[Dave]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Dave
Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between "transit"
and "transfer" passengers.

I can't immediately think of what that distinction might be in the UK.

This might help
http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/hacan.transfers_and_transits.pdf

"A transfer passenger is a passenger who flies into Heathrow in one aircraft
and departs in a second aircraft without breaking his or her journey. A
transit passenger is a passenger who flies into and departs from Heathrow in
the same aircraft, which stops at Heathrow to pick up additional passengers
and/or cargo; and/or to re-fuel."

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Dave
What happens today if I'm transferring at Heathrow and I need to change
from T4 to T1, for example?

Did that last month. You walk all the way to the west of T4, catch an
airside bus via the cargo tunnel to the "Connections Centre", get x-rayed,
but not checked by immigration, then take a travelator to T1 departures
lounge (emerging near the BA lounge).

Fair enough.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Dave
Or Gatwick North to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in

Only if transferring to a low-cost airline that mandates landside checkin.

Perhaps this could be organised so that there is no need to take the shuttle
if you are sticking to the same airline or group of airlines (i.e. they are
at the same airport), but if you would have to go landside anyway, it could
be to a terminal 30 minutes away.

D

[Roland Perry]

Post by Dave

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Dave
Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between
"transit" and "transfer" passengers.

I can't immediately think of what that distinction might be in the UK.

This might help
http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/hacan.transfers_and_transits.p
df
"A transfer passenger is a passenger who flies into Heathrow in one
aircraft and departs in a second aircraft without breaking his or her
journey. A transit passenger is a passenger who flies into and departs
from Heathrow in the same aircraft, which stops at Heathrow to pick up
additional passengers and/or cargo; and/or to re-fuel."

Thanks. I'm astonished they have many transit passengers though. The
various rules make it difficult to operate such flights. Maybe a very
few Middle-East to USA flights that do this?

Post by Dave

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Dave
Or Gatwick North to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in

Only if transferring to a low-cost airline that mandates landside checkin.

Perhaps this could be organised so that there is no need to take the
shuttle if you are sticking to the same airline or group of airlines
(i.e. they are at the same airport), but if you would have to go
landside anyway, it could be to a terminal 30 minutes away.

I expect the flights are largely grouped like that already. The major
"full service" airlines operating from the North terminal and the dross
from the South.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall
The problem is you need to be able to operate a transit system that remains
'airside' for it to work. Not impossible but very difficult and very
expensive. It would require dedicated infrastructure at each airport
and I
doubt the traffic handled would justify the cost.

Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between
"transit" and "transfer" passengers.

The old distinction was 'transit' was passengers rejoining the same plane
after a refuelling stop[1]; 'transfer' was passengers changing
planes/airlines.

[1] Do they still insist passengers get off the plane while refuelling?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall
Do they still insist passengers get off the plane while refuelling?

On low cost airlines it's almost compulsory to be fuelling while
passengers are getting off and on.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall
Do they still insist passengers get off the plane while refuelling?

On low cost airlines it's almost compulsory to be fuelling while
passengers are getting off and on.

So it would seem, however low cost airline don't have transit passengers so I
wondered how the full-fare mob dealt with it these days.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall
Not sure that would be very attractive to the punter, one modal change
they'll take but two is stretching things a bit far.

Just tell them it is a "transit" between two terminals, and they need to
allow 20-30 minutes for the transit :)

The problem is you need to be able to operate a transit system that
remains 'airside' for it to work. Not impossible but very difficult and
very expensive. It would require dedicated infrastructure at each
airport and I doubt the traffic handled would justify the cost.

Is that true? We've already seen there is a distinction between "transit"
and "transfer" passengers. What happens today if I'm transferring at
Heathrow and I need to change from T4 to T1, for example? Or Gatwick North
to South? Surely I go landside, then re-check in (even if my luggage
doesn't)?

I've never had to do either but I'm given to understand there are (were?) bus
services that operate airside to transfer passengers from one terminal to
another. Whether this is still true I don't know.

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by Lüko Willms
I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.

But with Heathrow serving mainly business destinations, and Gatwick the
holiday ones, not enough people want to connect between the two.

[Dave]

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by Lüko Willms
I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.

But with Heathrow serving mainly business destinations, and Gatwick the
holiday ones, not enough people want to connect between the two.

But the original point was that in order to negate the need for a 3rd
runway, those flights that are not removed directly by the HSR line could be
moved to capacity freed up at the other London airports. In other words the
(somewhat artificial*) distinction between business airport and holiday
airport is removed.

*I personally haven't used Heathrow in over a decade and use Gatwick
regularly for business flights. Those Gatwick flights

D

[Dave]

Post by Dave

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by Lüko Willms
I was not thinking about the radial links to London's center, but
about direct links between those airports, which would enable
connecting flights e.g. landing at Gatwick and starting the connecting
flight from Heathrow.

But with Heathrow serving mainly business destinations, and Gatwick the
holiday ones, not enough people want to connect between the two.

But the original point was that in order to negate the need for a 3rd
runway, those flights that are not removed directly by the HSR line could
be moved to capacity freed up at the other London airports. In other words
the (somewhat artificial*) distinction between business airport and
holiday airport is removed.
*I personally haven't used Heathrow in over a decade and use Gatwick
regularly for business flights. Those Gatwick flights

That should say: Those Gatwick flights are full of business traffic.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Dave

Post by Roland Perry
But with Heathrow serving mainly business destinations, and Gatwick
the holiday ones, not enough people want to connect between the two.

But the original point was that in order to negate the need for a 3rd
runway, those flights that are not removed directly by the HSR line
could be moved to capacity freed up at the other London airports. In
other words the (somewhat artificial*) distinction between business
airport and holiday airport is removed.

Good luck convincing the travelling public (let alone the airlines).

[Graeme Wall]

In message <***@eclipse.net.uk>
"Dave" <***@p.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Dave
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton.

Can't see it having much effect on Southampton, It's two hours and three
changes from Southampton Airport to St Pancras. That covers all the domestic
destinations from SAP that HS2 would reach. Its about the same time to
Heathrow and that involves train and bus.

[Dave]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton.

Can't see it having much effect on Southampton, It's two hours and three
changes from Southampton Airport to St Pancras. That covers all the domestic
destinations from SAP that HS2 would reach. Its about the same time to
Heathrow and that involves train and bus.

If Heathrow gets this HS2 station and Airtrack, then the thought was that
Southampton could be sub 4 hours to Scotland with 1 change (presuming that
Airtrack allows services from as far down as Southampton).

D

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton.

Can't see it having much effect on Southampton, It's two hours and three
changes from Southampton Airport to St Pancras. That covers all the domestic
destinations from SAP that HS2 would reach. Its about the same time to
Heathrow and that involves train and bus.

If Heathrow gets this HS2 station and Airtrack, then the thought was that
Southampton could be sub 4 hours to Scotland with 1 change (presuming that
Airtrack allows services from as far down as Southampton).

Even with Airtrack you are looking at an hour minimum to Heathrow,
Southampton-Aberdeen is 2 hours 15 minutes by air. Glasgow and Edinburgh are
an hour and a half. If you check in on line you can easily arrive at the
airport 30 minutes before the flight. City centre to city centre you can do
the latter two in about 2 hours 15 minutes. (SAP is 8 minutes from
Southampton Central)

[Dave]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton.

Can't see it having much effect on Southampton, It's two hours and three
changes from Southampton Airport to St Pancras. That covers all the domestic
destinations from SAP that HS2 would reach. Its about the same time to
Heathrow and that involves train and bus.

If Heathrow gets this HS2 station and Airtrack, then the thought was that
Southampton could be sub 4 hours to Scotland with 1 change (presuming that
Airtrack allows services from as far down as Southampton).

Even with Airtrack you are looking at an hour minimum to Heathrow,
Southampton-Aberdeen is 2 hours 15 minutes by air. Glasgow and Edinburgh are
an hour and a half. If you check in on line you can easily arrive at the
airport 30 minutes before the flight. City centre to city centre you can do
the latter two in about 2 hours 15 minutes. (SAP is 8 minutes from
Southampton Central)

I agree that Southampton is the model of train to plane efficiency (I'll be
using it myself in the not too distant future for one of those journeys),
that was why I said "potentially". Still a market for South Coast to
Scotland by rail exists today, so such an option would surely grow it.

D

[Mike Civil]

Post by Dave
I agree that Southampton is the model of train to plane efficiency (I'll be
using it myself in the not too distant future for one of those journeys),
that was why I said "potentially". Still a market for South Coast to
Scotland by rail exists today, so such an option would surely grow it.

It would be nice if the guage enhancement work along that line could mean
the replacement of one of Southampton Airport Parkway's worst features:
the small, grotty, open-to-the-elements and decidedly disabled-unfriendly
overbridge.

In a previous life I used to commute weekly between Dorchester and Glasgow
via Southampton, and the planes were usually full. Much though I'd have
preferred going by rail (landing at Southampton was usually rough)
I can't see how the journey times could be reduced enough to compete.

Mike

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Mike Civil

Post by Dave
I agree that Southampton is the model of train to plane efficiency (I'll
be using it myself in the not too distant future for one of those
journeys), that was why I said "potentially". Still a market for South
Coast to Scotland by rail exists today, so such an option would surely
grow it.

It would be nice if the guage enhancement work along that line could mean
the small, grotty, open-to-the-elements and decidedly disabled-unfriendly
overbridge.

That's an excellent example of Southern concrete you are maligning there :-)
I've always been amazed it wasn't replaced when they refurbished the station
last time.

[Mike Civil]

Post by Graeme Wall
That's an excellent example of Southern concrete you are maligning there :-)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with the concrete. It's just a pity they
didn't use a bit more of it:)

Mike

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Mike Civil

Post by Graeme Wall
That's an excellent example of Southern concrete you are maligning there :-)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with the concrete. It's just a pity they
didn't use a bit more of it:)

I believe the bridge was reused from elsewhere, not sure where. The original
provision was made when the attitude was we have to provide a station here
but we don't want to encourage people to use it.

[Paul Scott]

Post by Mike Civil

Post by Dave
I agree that Southampton is the model of train to plane efficiency (I'll be
using it myself in the not too distant future for one of those journeys),
that was why I said "potentially". Still a market for South Coast to
Scotland by rail exists today, so such an option would surely grow it.

It would be nice if the guage enhancement work along that line could mean
the small, grotty, open-to-the-elements and decidedly disabled-unfriendly
overbridge.

Only a couple of weeks ago there was a piece in the Evening Echo about this;
apparently the new bridge and lifts is down for next year. Includes a few
ticket machines in the airport, and IIRC the station car park will get a
second storey

Paul

[Mike Civil]

Post by Paul Scott
Only a couple of weeks ago there was a piece in the Evening Echo about this;
apparently the new bridge and lifts is down for next year. Includes a few
ticket machines in the airport, and IIRC the station car park will get a
second storey

Good news.

Mike

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Paul Scott

Post by Mike Civil

Post by Dave
I agree that Southampton is the model of train to plane efficiency (I'll be
using it myself in the not too distant future for one of those journeys),
that was why I said "potentially". Still a market for South Coast to
Scotland by rail exists today, so such an option would surely grow it.

It would be nice if the guage enhancement work along that line could mean
the small, grotty, open-to-the-elements and decidedly disabled-unfriendly
overbridge.

Only a couple of weeks ago there was a piece in the Evening Echo about
this; apparently the new bridge and lifts is down for next year. Includes
a few ticket machines in the airport, and IIRC the station car park will
get a second storey

The second storey on the car park is a hardy perennial! Lets hope they have
the sense to put the new bridge at the north end of the platforms. Ideally
it ought to continue over the airport road direct into the terminal.

[Paul Scott]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Paul Scott
Only a couple of weeks ago there was a piece in the Evening Echo about
this; apparently the new bridge and lifts is down for next year. Includes
a few ticket machines in the airport, and IIRC the station car park will
get a second storey

The second storey on the car park is a hardy perennial! Lets hope they have
the sense to put the new bridge at the north end of the platforms.
Ideally
it ought to continue over the airport road direct into the terminal.

I guess that is reasonably feasible, presumably though it will have to be
significantly higher than a rail footbridge.

It also seems sensible given the numbers that pile off the trains to leave
the existing footbridge in use as well...

Paul

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Paul Scott

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Paul Scott
Only a couple of weeks ago there was a piece in the Evening Echo about
this; apparently the new bridge and lifts is down for next year.
Includes a few ticket machines in the airport, and IIRC the station
car park will get a second storey

The second storey on the car park is a hardy perennial! Lets hope they
have the sense to put the new bridge at the north end of the platforms.
Ideally it ought to continue over the airport road direct into the
terminal.

I guess that is reasonably feasible, presumably though it will have to be
significantly higher than a rail footbridge.

Would have to be able to clear a double-decker bus but that shouldn't be too
difficult. Another advantage of having the new bridge at the north end is
that it could be linked direct to the new multi-story car park which, I
assume, will be built on the site of the existing northern car park, the
southern one being on a slope.

Post by Paul Scott
It also seems sensible given the numbers that pile off the trains to leave
the existing footbridge in use as well...

Given that it is in reasonable physical condition it would be pointless to
get rid of it.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
However, that looks at Heathrow in isolation. Such a line would inevitably
take traffic from the other London airports on domestic and short-haul
routes and potentially also from Southampton.

Can't see it having much effect on Southampton, It's two hours and three
changes from Southampton Airport to St Pancras. That covers all the domestic
destinations from SAP that HS2 would reach. Its about the same time to
Heathrow and that involves train and bus.

If Heathrow gets this HS2 station and Airtrack, then the thought was that
Southampton could be sub 4 hours to Scotland with 1 change (presuming that
Airtrack allows services from as far down as Southampton).

Even with Airtrack you are looking at an hour minimum to Heathrow,
Southampton-Aberdeen is 2 hours 15 minutes by air. Glasgow and Edinburgh
are an hour and a half. If you check in on line you can easily arrive at
the airport 30 minutes before the flight. City centre to city centre you
can do the latter two in about 2 hours 15 minutes. (SAP is 8 minutes
from Southampton Central)

I agree that Southampton is the model of train to plane efficiency (I'll be
using it myself in the not too distant future for one of those journeys),
that was why I said "potentially". Still a market for South Coast to
Scotland by rail exists today, so such an option would surely grow it.

Oh there is a market, but any growth would be unlikely to take place at the
expense of the airport. The advantage to Southampton in a good link to HS2
would be for journeys that are not covered by air connections, many of which
are purely there for the business market and tend to be a few in the morning
with returns in the evening.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Graeme Wall
If you check in on line you can easily arrive at the
airport 30 minutes before the flight.

With current levels of security? At busy times? Last thing I saw,
Heathrow were planning/hoping to get the maximum wait or security /
down/ to 45 minutes.

Ian

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:29:15 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor

Post by The Real Doctor
With current levels of security? At busy times? Last thing I saw,
Heathrow were planning/hoping to get the maximum wait or security /
down/ to 45 minutes.

I don't think he was referring to Thiefrow, though I have arrived
there very late for my flight (7:45am for an 8:30 departure) due to a
bit of a botch-up on my part, and walked straight through with no
queue at all.

At LCY and BHX T2 one can certainly arrive that late and still get
through without issues.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by The Real Doctor
With current levels of security? At busy times? Last thing I saw,
Heathrow were planning/hoping to get the maximum wait or security /
down/ to 45 minutes.

I don't think he was referring to Thiefrow, though I have arrived
there very late for my flight (7:45am for an 8:30 departure) due to a
bit of a botch-up on my part, and walked straight through with no
queue at all.

It's hugely variable, which is part of the problem!

Post by Neil Williams
At LCY and BHX T2 one can certainly arrive that late and still get
through without issues.

Yep, I've never seen a queue of more than about five people at BHX T2.
T1 is a completely different story!

[G]

Post by Dave
Furthermore, Birmingham
airport would be within 30 minutes of Heathrow, effectively making it a
London airport too. It should therefore be possible to rationalise flights
to free up at least one runway's worth of slots between them (and if
necessary provide inter-airport shuttles to provide connections).

Didn't someone once come up with a similar HS-rail scheme for making
Liverpool airport an annexe of Manchester's?

[Neil Williams]

Post by G
Didn't someone once come up with a similar HS-rail scheme for making
Liverpool airport an annexe of Manchester's?

Yeah - it was to avoid the second Manchester runway, and as a
by-product bring the rail link between the two cities to a slightly
less third-world standard.

It made sense, which is why it never happened.

Neil

[G]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by G
Didn't someone once come up with a similar HS-rail scheme for making
Liverpool airport an annexe of Manchester's?

Yeah - it was to avoid the second Manchester runway, and as a
by-product bring the rail link between the two cities to a slightly
less third-world standard.
It made sense, which is why it never happened.

Ah yes, I remember now. You are right, it was too sensible.

[Dave]

Post by The Real Doctor

Post by tim (not at home)

Post by The Real Doctor
OK so far. But surely that's Arup's point: an HS2 with a stop at
Heathrow would give services to Manchester/Paris/Edinburgh taking
1/2/3 hours, thus making trains competitive.
I still can't see, though, where your "4 hours" comes from.

Because Paris is 2:40 (from Heathrow). Glasgow/Edinburgh is 100 miles
further so going to be 3:15-3:30.

Hmm. An HS2 to Edinburgh wouldn't involve a relatively slow grind
through a long tunnel, would it. Four hundred miles, 200mph, time for
stops, 3 hours easy. After all, London to Glasgow is not much over
four hours on a Pendolino ...

Exactly - with the additional benefit that top speeds will soon be 220mph
(AVE S-103 in Spain).

The 200mph TGV Est is achieving 175mph average over 100 miles even today.
That's 400 miles in 2h17. Even a more typical TGV journey over long
distance with several stops (e.g. Brussels to Valence), of average speed
150mph, would give 2h40.

See
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2007/09/7742/new_lines_boost_rails_high_speed_performance.html

D

[Dave]

In a similar vein:

Plea to scrap London air link

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1026945_plea_to_scrap_london_air_link


A LEADING Tory has called for flights between Manchester and London to be
scrapped.

Former environment minister John Gummer said there was `no reason' for
people to fly to the capital and they should be made to take the train
instead.

His call came in a report on `green' issues being considered by Conservative
leader David Cameron as he draws up his party's environment policy.

Mr Gummer claimed an increasing number of people were choosing the
high-speed rail link for the 200-mile journey and called for commuter
flights to be grounded to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

There are currently 32 scheduled flights a day between Manchester and
London's four main airports, carrying a total of 1.5m passengers a year.

Mr Gummer is joint author of the wide-ranging Quality of Life Challenge
report, which is being considered by Mr Cameron's team. The report claimed a
quarter of flights out of London airports go to places reached in the same
time by train.

The report also said passengers flying to Heathrow to catch a connecting
flight for overseas should also use trains.

It said: "Around 100,000 of the 470,000 flights using Heathrow every year
are to near-Europe destinations . . . with a reasonable rail alternative,
including Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle."

Mr Gummer said in the Commons: "What are we going to do about the 30-odd
flights a day to Manchester? There is no reason to have those. What about a
transport policy that would enable people to go by train from Manchester to
Heathrow?"

Manchester Airport and air firms accused him of oversimplifying the issue.
The airport's Jonathan Bailey said: "If London air links were removed
overnight, it would put a severe burden on the rail system and remove choice
and competition.

"We would like more direct long haul routes to avoid short hops to hub
airports, but both rail and air are needed for the immediate future."

British Airways said half the people who flew were making connecting
journeys, so `rail is not a practical alternative'.

Climate change minister Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham and Saddleworth, said:
"My constituents have as much right to fly as everyone else."

A spokesman for Tory leader Mr Cameron stressed: "These are Mr Gummer's
personal views rather than Party policy."

Mr Gummer told the M.E.N: "We actually do have to reduce our carbon
footprint. If we don't do that then everybody's life will be in peril..

"The first thing is we must make sure there is an adequate alternative. If
we had a proper infrastructure policy then we would be able to remove the
argument for flying from London to Manchester.

"We don't want to stop people going on holiday but we have to get rid of
these flights that are fundamentally unnecessary."

[G]

Post by Dave
Manchester Airport and air firms accused him of oversimplifying the issue.
The airport's Jonathan Bailey said: "If London air links were removed
overnight, it would put a severe burden on the rail system and remove choice
and competition.
"We would like more direct long haul routes to avoid short hops to hub
airports, but both rail and air are needed for the immediate future."
British Airways said half the people who flew were making connecting
journeys, so `rail is not a practical alternative'.

I live about an hour from Manchester airport, by train or road.
Although there are a lot of international destinations I can reach
directly, there are others where changes in London or Amsterdam are
required.

Wishing to avoid LHR transfers at all costs, it's usually KLM to
Amsterdam. Trawling down to Gatwick is a pain and Stansted is so
inconvenient it's out of the equation completely. But, if there was a
direct rail link to heathrow that could get me there in 3 hours
cutting out the faffing at Manchester, it could become a viable
alternative.

[Dan G]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1026945_plea_to_scrap_l...
A LEADING Tory has called for flights between Manchester and London to be
scrapped.
Manchester Airport and air firms accused him of oversimplifying the issue.
The airport's Jonathan Bailey said: "If London air links were removed
overnight, it would put a severe burden on the rail system and remove choice
and competition.
"We would like more direct long haul routes to avoid short hops to hub
airports, but both rail and air are needed for the immediate future."

There have been attempts at long-range flights from more "regional"
airports before, but the cost of flying aircraft with enough range
part-empty due to the low demand made them uneconomical, and so the
number of internal flights to Heathrow grew (the "hub and spoke"
model).

However the new Boeing 787 is a game-changer - it has long-range, only
moderate capacity (250/290 seats depending on variant), and burns 20%
less fuel than the aircraft it's replacing. It will allow inter-
continental flights from smaller airports carrying only 200 odd people
(the "point to point" model).

Quite a few of the first orders for the 787 were from British charter
airlines who operate from Manchester and Birmingham to fly trans-
Atlantic and elsewhere, so I wouldn't be at all suprised if the demand
for internal flights drops off again. At the same time, the A380
allows more passengers-per-slot out of Heathrow and rising fuel costs
are beginning to brake the growth in passenger numbers, so altogether
it looks unlikely there will still be a case for a third runway at
Heathrow in ten year's time.

Add a decent rail link between Heathrow and the north and the concept
of a third runway would be dead in the water. Expect to see some
impressive lobbying against the rail link idea from BAA and chums.


Dan