Great Western Coffee Shop

Just reading the latest reports in Sunday papers about the government planning a new Heathrow rail hub as part of the third runway project. Apparently the thinking is to divert the GW mainline through the new hub in order to create new high speed line to the north (via Reading and Oxford, I believe).

Presumably, if it comes off, this makes it inevitable we'll see electrification to Bristol, South Wales and the West as well.

But what happens to the current route through Slough - and shouldn't someone have thought of this pre-Crossrail?

Any news/thoughts/ideas?

New high speed rail link to accompany the third runway?

Why not just throw all of your money away Mr Brown (oh wait - already done that!!!)

Isn't the idea of the High Speed line to reduce domestic flights thus freeing up runway space. Call me no expert but it just seems like the government out for votes!

Although from the point of view of an integrated transport system, the Heathrow hub might make sense without a third runway.........

There is one big problem in the Thames Valley and that's land that is free from habitation to build the new railway on, a tunnel would be fun as a lot of the Thames Valley basin is sand and gravel glacial out wash. Oh and of course all of us NIBY's and our local MP Theresa May that live in the Thames Valley who are apposed the a 3rd runway and the building of a new high speed railway that will have no benefit to us would be opposed,


Oh I forgot could always dig up the M4 and convert that to a railway

A long overdue move. Not everyone using Heathrow wants to go into London, though it should of course be a rail link and no third runway, but the rail link is clearly going to be a sop to try to excuse approving the runway.

While running via Reading and Oxford might be a short-term solution, it's already very busy all the way up to Leamington, so high-speed just isn't an option here.

Any future high-speed line to the north is likely to go up the M40/Chiltern Line corridor. Oxford might be served by a branch, as suggested by Greengauge21, which has drawn up proposals for an HSL. See http://www.greengauge21.net/ (http://www.greengauge21.net/) and click downloads for their report.

DafT indicated to The Guardian last week - the Heathrow idea first ran in the Sunday Times a week ago in an interview with Lord Adonis - that GWML electrification would be an inevitable outcome of such a development.

Adonis was picking up on a proposal from consultants Arup that they came up with last spring. The station site they suggest is said to be three kilometres north of T5, which puts its somewhere in the vicinity of the M4/M25 interchange - and not anywhere near any of the existing terminals, so not sure how handy it might actually be.

And even if GWML expresses all run via an airport loop, the main line would still be needed for local passenger trains and freight, which aren't the kind of things you want cluttering up a shiny airport station. Not everything Crossrail runs will go via Heathrow. Not much use making a call there with a full and standing evening peak service from the city heading west - though the airport would make a better turnback point for all the services from the east that are meant to end at Paddington under the current scheme.

Hi

I've said it before, high speed is not needed, HIGH CAPACITY is.

Saving a few minutes of a 100 or 200 minute journey is not as important as ensuring every can get a seat on said journey. The only route in the UK which arguably justify this is London to Inverness/Aberdeen, and I'm not sure the demand justifies it.

I agree with simonw it is high capacity that is need in and out of Heathrow

The west side of Hearthow is easy to achieve by building a line off of the GWML between Iver and West Drayton into Heathrow, this could merge in with the planned line from Staines into the airport, to provide services to the South Wales, the West of England Oxford etc.

It is the heading north to the midlands and NW that is more difficult to achieve the GWML even with the rebuild of Reading will be at capacity.  To reach the NW and midlands a new line between Iver and West Drayton possibly following the M25 to pick up the Chiltern line the Chiltern Line would need up grading to achieve faster running but was originally built as a high speed route 100 years ago, once the trains get close to Princes Risborough a new HS route could the link across to the WCML at Rugby.  Another possible route would be to run the trains from Heathrow east toward London and the use the Populars and run round the north London line to St Panc and Euston and even run north up the WCML ECML and MML

What a waste of money. <disbelief smiley>

Why not just add a spur from the current airport line to the westbound GWML.

Then extend all XC services which currently terminate at Reading to Heathrow.*

Done - and millions saved.

(and scrap the runway)

Can not run diesel hauled trains into Heathrow the design and safety case for the Heathrow branch tunnels is for electric traction only.

If the non-London airports had a more sensible proportion of the international flights, you wouldn't need so much road and rail capacity for people travelling between Heathrow and places over 100 miles away. It seems to me that if the government are supporting this proposal, they are siding with Heathrow Airport's commercial objective to increase their market share at the expense of regional airports.

Should have known that H&S would prevent such an excellent and cheap solution!

However, a perfect excuse to electrify the XC lines!

No fans to extract diesel fumes. So short sighted design.

But yes, would be another good reason to electrify to Reading and beyond.

Here is one of the articles that stebbo may have been referring to (link below.)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5488942.ece

There is some doubt as to whether the third runway will ever be built (link below.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrows-third-runway-to-fall-foul-of-eu-rules-1299667.html

It's not so much a question of fumes, more to do with the fire risk of the fuel, hot engines etc it was not a railway (BR) decision but more to do with the post KX fire regulations


There is currently a project going on looking at the feasibility of triple power stock  :o that is ac and dc electric traction and to have a diesel engines as well specifically for XC services, principally being driven by the desire to reduce the use diesel fuel

The article seems to imply that the line will be an extension of the CTRL.

Oh dear,  ::) a high speed line running North from the exit tracks at St Pancras, turning West to Heathrow, then North to B'ham.

This is going to be messy..... >:(

It's dead easy to pull a train using  three (actually two if you count AC/DC  electric as one) traction modes and that's loco haulage. Just change locos when the wires run out, that means you don't have to cart a heavy diesel engine about with a load of flammable fuel along the electrified bits.


Yep you are right Heathrow is completely in the wrong place to start a high speed line to the North even if linked to the CTLR or not. The only way you could get dedicated HS tracks would be to put them in a tunnel from Colnbrook to say Wendover and pick up Chiltern and ex GC alignment to Rugby and possibly Leicester. But avoid Aylesbury to the West. With an interchange/junction station on the Oxford Belchley line between Bicester and Claydon.

But by the time you have done all these complex tunnels, twists and diversions:

a) it will be quicker going direct on WCML! Not everyone want to go to heathrow!

b) line speeds will be reduced. Constant changes in direct go against what HSS are about.

c) it will cost the earth! If the WCML upgrade had to be reduced to 9 billion, how on earth will they afford this? What is it these days? A few trillion pounds a mile?

This needs a serious rethink before money is poured in.

I think a few posters are misplacing the Heathrow Hub, and therefore introducing issues about underground diesel trains and loops off the main line that don't exist.

I believe from the drawings here http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/16799F7A-19BB-316E-4064FA16AFA08CEB.pdf (http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/16799F7A-19BB-316E-4064FA16AFA08CEB.pdf) it will be on the GWML, and north of the terminal for the third runway. The current underground stations under T123, T4 and T5, and the existing spur will be full enough as it is with HEx, Connect, and (at least at T5) Airtrack, which is intended to add at least 6 tph off the SWT network.

Pages 5 and 6 of the link indicate another network (automatic light rail maybe?) looping round the terminals and to/from the Hub...

I don't think I'm misplacing anything. The three kilometres figure is from Arup and that distance north of T5 places it pretty much where I said it would be, ie near the M4/M25 interchange and well short of the GWML. That Arup diagram you cite is meant to be a simplified schematic representation - like the London Underground map.

And of course an HSL will be expensive but it will be quicker than the WCML and not everyone will go to Heathrow, as any new line would be pretty pointless if it didn't allow for direct running north straight out of London. Heathrow would most likely be an offshoot.

No fans to extract diesel fumes being short-sighted? You are joking aren't you? What is short-sighted is that this country has never had a sustained policy of electrifying its major rail routes  - unlike pretty much everywhere else across Europe. Had that been done, you wouldn't even be writing such nonsense.

I think that's the first time I've been accused of writing nonsense in the Coffee Shop, which is probably surprising it's taken so long.  ;D

I agree that the policy not to electrify all our main lines is short sighted, and thank goodness there is some light at the end of the tunnel that this may be changing.

But the whole Heathrow Express project was done on the cheap (er, not that cheap actually, especially once the tunnel collapsed). From the outset there should have been a west facing chord to enable local services to run from Reading, and maybe even Cross Country services which terminate at Reading to run into the Airport, enabling passengers from a large swathe of England to enjoy direct services to LHR with or without electification of those routes. (New St to Heathrow in just over 2 hours anyone?) That's what I mean by shortsighted.

Unfortunately it was BAA that funded the HEX project, if it had been built to there original spec only the Up and Down mains would have been wired and only platform 6 & 7 at Padd, it was pointed out to them by some of the senior BR ops and eng staff, at the time, in meetings I attended in the design phase that it would be absolute lunacy to do only what they required.  Also the tails west of Airport Jcn and into Acton Yard etc were added as it was explained that should at any time in the future these line were to be wired it is easier to splice into an existing part built over lap than to cut one into a running system.

There was the intent when the M25 was built to build a parkway at the Iver ie a park and drive, this was the plan at most other points on the M25 where rail lines crossed it ...... still waiting 

BAA just did not want to fund a future route to the West they saw HEX as being "an airline into central London"

Three points:

1. I agree with John R. Yes, we need to electrify. But if the tunnels could take DMUs and there were west facing chords, there would be less of the need for this new hub.

2. Willc, the plans in the sources clearly say that Heathrow would be the first stop out of London, with the line then bearing north. I think a branch would be better (like on the original plans).

3. If the plans indicate that the hub will be 2 miles out of the airport, it needs to be shelved! The whole point of an airport station is to allow fast access to the trains. Not having to catch a bus, or a light rail link to the airport station!

Is the CrossLink project using Heathrow Airport?

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, it is not likely that Heathrow will get it's third runway, whatever the government wants. The air pollution levels in the Thames Valley near London are too high already, and adding another runway would further breach EU pollution targets. Even making planes much more efficient will not help if the number of plane movements increase by 50%.

The compressed geography of this country, means that hopefully common sense will prevail, and the government will approve funding plans for full network electrification and adding to the current network rather than adding a sepeare HS network.

Finally, the cost of electrification may not be that high, it all depends on the funding method and write-off period that NR uses.

You must be one of the few people who actually thinks this then. BAA wants it and despite all manner of pledges being given over the years about T4 being the last big development at Heathrow, then the same with T5, here we go again. There may be a bit of a rearguard action going on from Defra but DafT is all for it. It may take 10 years, a station and an HSL may take 10 years, but sooner or later it will happen.

We're talking about an airport that was created by stealth anyway, after a small landing strip was commandeered during the Second World War, allegedly for use by the RAF, but they never went anywhere near the place. The Air Ministry bought more land and built lots of runways and hey presto in 1946, you have an airport on the western outskirts of London. No-one was ever asked if they thought it was a good idea, it was just a fact on the ground.

For all the HSL sceptics, perhaps you might care to ponder the following about the Spanish experience, which is the same as has happened in France - 200mph trains kill internal flights, stone dead. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/spain-trains (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/spain-trains)

One of the key arguments deployed about an HSL v a third runaway is that an HSL would ground all the flights to London from Manchester, Newcastle and Scotland, freeing capacity on the existing runways for international flights, so no need for more concrete north of the A4.

Compressed geography has nothing to do with it. You serve the key regional centres only on an HSL, leaving the existing lines to deal with everywhere else, but with some HSL trains branching off to serve other towns along the way (for example Greengauge suggest Oxford and central Birmingham could be served in this way), taking advantage of the trains' ability to run on the existing network as well, which you couldn't do with gee-whiz Maglev.

We will need to do something to increase network capacity as the WCML, ECML and MML simply can't cope with any more traffic without yet more costly and hugely disruptive work.

And can we please, please forget dirty diesels. Birmingham New Street has wonderful ventilation by comparison with anything you can do with fans and is still a stinking fume-ridden hole every time an HST, Voyager or DMU pulls out. As I said previously, the steer from the Government is that any Heathrow project would go hand in hand with main line electrification and if it does take about a decade then it would fit in well with the likely withdrawal date of FGW's HSTs.

And you can't just pop a couple of chord lines in from the west. The current rail link and its stations only have capacity to handle Heathrow Express and Connect because that's all BAA was interested in, as electric train noted. For main line traffic you would need a proper main line station and more tunnels - and after the last attempt, I don't think anyone is keen on trying to do that again anywhere near the central area of Heathrow.

First stop Heathrow? To get there from St Pancras, Euston or wherever, you would have to cross the GW & GC route somewhere, so if you were aiming for the M40/Chiltern corridor eventually, then why not go straight there? Same as with a fully-loaded peak Crossrail train, what's the point of going all the way to the airport with a packed Birmingham train when you couldn't pick up anyone anyway?

That is trure as Croydon was London's International airport in the 1930's Heathrow was chosen dispite being on a foggie swamp as it had more space to expand

Does this mean we can safely disregard the comments of those such as the chairman of the Environment Agency, who are sceptical that EU air quality standards can be met? (link below.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrows-third-runway-to-fall-foul-of-eu-rules-1299667.html

Anyone you thinks the Government, these days, can ignore environmental issues when better alternatives exist is wrong.

Whilst I have no wish to see any more airports in the London area, and would rather see extra runways IF NEEDED at Stanstead and Croydon, the point is that due to Heathrow, the air quality nearby is very poor and no extra capacity can be allowed at Heathrow.

I totally agree that electrification is needed across the network, but I am not sold on a High Speed Line. Such a large amount of money, for so few to gain. If the government added capacity to the current system, restoring some lost routes, then many more people would gain.

November 2008 BAA commit ^230 million to Crossrail

January 2009  3rd Runway at Heathrow announced

Hmm...............   :-\

Lee, this is DafT we're talking about, the people who gave us T5, the Newbury and Twyford Down bypasses, etc. You don't think they'll worry about a little thing like air quality do you? If they want to ignore it, they will, or will say that an HSL would cut the domestic flights, so that would improve air quality. They have a long track record of ignoring environmental issues, especially when it comes to aviation, for example arguing against any attempts to get aviation fuel taxed.

Simon, where do you suggest this extra capacity on the existing network is going to go? WCML has been quadruple-tracked up the Trent Valley in the past couple of years, it is already quad track all the way south from Rugby and up from Stafford to Crewe and is still creaking at the seams. Quad tracking the twin-track bit of the ECML north of Peterborough would be like building a new railway anyway, not forgetting a new Welwyn viaduct nearer London.

Which brings us back to an HSL - for goodness' sake even California is planning to build one now. How is it that we alone don't need one? If you get the long-haul traffic off the existing lines, then you can add more regional services and freight, as they're not crowded out by trains to the North and Scotland, so everybody will benefit.

Ah yes, silly me...

Remind me to be a bit more cynical in future  ;D

Because we're right and the rest of the world is wrong, as usual.  ::) Next you'll be suggesting it's possible to run a train service 7 days a week!  :D

Hi

Not being a rail export, just a customer who commutes from Bristol to Reading and pays twice as much as colleagues who live in Southampton and Worcester, I can honestly say speed is not the issue, it is capacity.

I accept that adding extra capacity to the network will be difficult, but adding an HSL will be even more difficult.

On many lines it is not train frequency but size. We need longer trains, and on some routes double-deck trains may be an option.

Cynic  :P   ;) :D ;D ;D

Though I 'm sure you wouldn't complain if the services whisked you from Temple Meads to Reading in 1 hr 4 mins, as they did 30 years ago, instead of the 1 hr 14 we have today. (Similar savings from Parkway weere available, if you commute from there.)

High speed rail will not work as well in the UK!

In France, Spain and other countries, cities are spread out. In the UK, stops would have to be close together - limiting the benefits. As Simonw says, only a tiny % of people will be anywhere near B'ham, Manchester and Leeds to use the link (unless there were more stops and lines). This reduces the use. Air travel would not be slashed in the same way. We have different patterns and city location than Spain.

And for the last time, it is the sources on this thread that imply the Heathrow Hub would be the first stop out of London. I think a branch would be better; the original plans had a branch, but it looks like the Hub is going to be the first stop.

The West facing chords would be a quick and cheap way of connecting the XC network to the airport - no-one is saying they are perfect.

Oh and finally - the gov are not going to fund a 1 billion a mile line when they scaled down the WCML and did it on the cheap! We have also got the Olympics which are wiping a further 10 billion out of the PM' purse (not that there is anything in there anyway!).

Of course, the Olympics will benefit everyone in this country, so is a lot more important than a HS rail link. [/sarcasm]

Thanks BtLine for your response.

Another problem with the geography of the UK is the relative size and economy of cities. In Spain and France population and wealth is better distributed geographically than the UK.

HSL will only work where large cities link together, so

London - Birmingham - Manchester - Glasgow
London - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh
London - Bristol - Cardiff

That is it. The chances of HSL linking anywhere else are very limited, with possible exceptions of Liverpool and Sheffield. An airport link to Heathrow cannot be justified. Train links from Heathrow to London are already good, and CrossRail will further improve them.

The cost of building such high speed links does not address the current capacity problems with the network. We need longer, more frequent trains at better prices.

Completely agree Simonw.

If faster trains are wanted to the West - electrification, tilting trains, and 155 mph running should be implemented.

If faster trains are needed to the North, a HS line would only just be viable. If not, modernise the WCML (properly, this time - 155 mph running; more flyover junctions). Ditto to the ECML (fly overs - 4 tracking etc.).

Ministers have approved the third runway at Heathrow, according to the BBC (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm

The decision is set to be confirmed officially on Thursday. Alongside the commitment to a new runway, Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon is expected to announce increased investment in public transport, including a new high-speed rail link from the airport to central London.

Surprise, surprise. Not.

Now gentlemen, explain the success of the first-ever HSL, the Japanese Shinkansen system. A dedicated high-speed network on a small, densely populated island, with cities close together. Sound familiar?

Also a system as recently visited by Lord Adonis and Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail.


Which is exactly where anyone supporting the idea says they should go and where extra capacity is needed most urgently. Greengauge's core plan actually only takes an HSL to Birmingham airport and then on to join the WCML in the Trent Valley, bypassing the choked-up southern section of the route. And they envisage Heathrow as an offshoot of an HSL, served both from the north and the Continent, with direct running out of central London bypassing Heathrow, which, I agree, btline, is as it should be. The Arup scheme is pretty much focused on the airport idea, not really on an HSL heading north.

Where would all these longer trains be going? At Paddington the platform ends are already on a sharp curve, at Kings Cross you can't extend the platforms as there is only just enough room between the end of them and the tunnels to fit in the pointwork in the station throat, Marylebone is jammed into a tiny patch of land, Liverpool Street, Birmingham New Street the same, etc, etc...

We can't even find the money to extend platforms across the GW network to take 2+8 HSTs now, due to the cost. And for double-deck trains you'd have to replace most rail bridges in this country, even on electrified lines, never mind reboring the tunnels. If you're going to spend a shedload of money, better to do it on something that looks forward and does the job properly, not another patching job on the legacy of the past.

It's official

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm] (http://[/url)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm[/url]

What the BBC doesn't mention is that Hoon also said there was a strong case for "the most heavily used parts" of the GWML and MML to be electrified and a decision will be announced later this year.

It is mentioned in this DfT press release (link below.)
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=389762&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Hoon also announced "The creation of a new company - High Speed 2 - to help consider the case for new high speed rail services between London and Scotland and tasked initially with developing a proposal for an entirely new line between London and the West Midlands which could link to Heathrow and Crossrail through a new international interchange station."

What a complete disaster for local residents. Heathrow should not be expanded, its big enough as it is!!

The amount of people that Heathrow actually benefits is ridiculous. There should be more expansion at regional airports, cutting down on cross country drives to get to the chaos that is Heathrow, at places such as Bristol, Exeter, Robin Hood, Leeds, Liveerpool. etc

I disagree dm- we should stop expansion all together.

Willc, the thing with Japan is that all the cities are in a nice line!

Any viable UK network would be a lot more complicated.

But I can see where you are coming from.

Its important to understand that the expansion of Heathrow is not about serving airline passengers who want to enter the UK it is about serving transit passengers that is people who will spend an hour on UK soil before flying somewhere else, this is where BAA will make their money, the talk of improved and high speed rail links is a Government sweetener which if ever built will be 10 more years after the third runway is open

Quite frankly the way a private company such as BAA has so much leverage over the Government is an outrage. I've travelled from Heathrow, Gatwick and Bristol in the past.

Heathrow was by far the most painfull travelling experience,
Gatwick was fairly pleasant although a 5 hour delay was a downside
Bristol, under Go and later Easyjet was both on time and very pleasant. The airport isn't hectic. Likewise airports abroad such as Orlando Intl and Palma (despite its size) were much more pleasant than Heathrow will ever be.

If Labour stays in government whenever Gordy decides his time is up, I will be flabbergasted.

I'd rather have Gordon and Labour than the do nothing Tories. Cameron will say anything to get votes, and I doubt he'll get round to it!

And as for the swt cuts- NO toc can justify making any cuts as they all make huge profits! How dare swt put up the fares so much, and then make cuts! And I do not believe what they say about the lack of passengers. Got seats? -lower your fares!

Thanks to Labour's spending policies if I choose to stay in Broken Britain, my tax bills will be very high when at the mercy of the government!

Then again, i'm a toff from the South West  ;)

That's not how it works with private railway companies.

And if Labour had not spent and "kept money for a rainy day", who would be moaning about the cuts in the health, transport etc? Yep - you guessed it, the Tories!

We have seen a taster of typical future Tory policy with Boris Johnson in London.

Western Congestion Charge axed. Out go investments in trams, new rail lines, staffing. Up go the fares.

Leaving politics and returning to rail ...

What approximate route would a hi speed link from St Pancras take to Heathrow ?
Can a hi speed route be offered in an urban area like London ?
how long does the train tak from Paddington? The proposed Crossrail from Paddington and the proposed HSL from St Pancras.

Heathrow Express is 15 minutes TO THE TERMINALS (_{Heathorw Connect/Crossrail takes 25 minutes}).

The high speed link could be half that time, but to a "hub" 2 MILES AWAY.

A somewhat sceptical note from Railway Eye (link below.)
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-lucky-people.html

But Heathrow is all about the big international airlines and they don't want to go to regional airports - for example, BA has ditched almost all its flights to the US from them in the past few years - nor do they particularly want to go to Gatwick or Stansted, which was a white elephant until Easyjet and Ryanair turned up, so irrrespective of all the promises made down the years, as soon as BAA says 'we need to expand Heathrow', Governments, of whatever colour, just roll over.

It's lousy for the people who live nearby, but that's nothing new, my brother lived in Hounslow for a year as a student 20 years ago and even then planes were nose to tail coming in to land much of the day. It will be no comfort to the locals but if we get GWML electrification and an HSL out of it then that is to be welcomed.

An interesting opposing view from Christian Wolmar (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2009/01/heathrow-madness/

Recently I had to find my way through the Stalinist monstrosity that is Heathrow Terminal 5 (why do we need that monorail when a moving walkway would do perfectly well?), and my impression is that it symbolises the peak of this nations pomposity and arrogance, and in a few years will be seeing only a fraction of the passengers it was designed for.

I believe air travel is set to decline over the next few decades for a combination of reasons:

- The environment: obviously our present government doesn't care about it, but increasingly other European governments do, and by increasing taxes they will reduce short haul flights, probably in favour of rail. I believe the majority of flights from Heathrow are short haul to Europe.
- Terrorism: not so much the threat to flights themselves, but the overall fear factor as terrorism increases will reduce international tourism, especially perhaps from the US. And terrorism will increase, while the reasons for its existence are not addressed.
- The economy: I've no idea how deep or longlasting this global downturn will be, but I think it's pretty bad. They can't wave a magic wand and bring all that imaginary money back. I'm no expert, but clearly the UK is one of the most exposed nations in this regard -- what exactly was our economy built on apart from the now discredited Financial Services Industry, and overinflated property values?
- More and more people are waking up to the fact that flying is rubbish. You have a long and awkward journey to the airport, you struggle to stay within the luggage allowance, you wait around for hours, then the hassle of security checks, then you're cramped into a tiny area, and the food is poor, and when you arrive you've got loads more waiting around to do and then have a third journey to reach your destination. Yeah it's exciting the first few times but once the novelty has worn off and the cheap flights are gone.... most people would rather drive or take a train.

So it will be ironic if the only major improvements to our rail system are built to service airports.

But hey, let's built a few white elephants for future generations to laugh at, as they remember how in the early 21st century our government thought London was the most important city in the world.  :D

Thanks Lee.  He has a point about low airfares being an indication that there is no lack of capacity. 

Why is it acceptable to use price to control demand on the railway (and they are talking about it on the roads) but not in the sky?

The ARUP plans disturb me because they appear to show FGW HSS stopping at the "hub".  This will lenthen journey times even further

so with the 3rd runway approval we get a 12 platform station built at thorney junction on the m25/m4 between iver and west drayton on the golf course and water works. GREAT. and....if the tories get in, which they will, they cancel the runway project and the station one gets the big hurrah. Chaos ensues and us travellers from Iver/West drayton can continue to stand in shabby overcrowded inadequate transport into Paddington whilst those huge numbers of people from Manchester and Cardiff whizz by on their way to Paris thus saving the planet. Great plan.................. Lets improve what we have then look at doing what we should re environment and airports. I am adding up the cost of T4,T5 the now planned T6 the improvements made to T1,T2 T3 the developmet of the train station and bus depot in the centre of heathrow, the cost of the new runway, the rail hub, the destruction of the land and environmet and trying to compare with the estimated cost of building a new airport off the coast in east london. Forward thinking? What a shambles.

Welcome to the the forum, maninsuit

I'm assuming from the title of your post that you wanted to contribute to this topic, so I have moved your post accordingly.

Hope this is ok.

But it's been like that for years and hasn't put people off flying, because even with all the hassle involved, it's still quicker to most of Europe, except for Paris and Brussels, or there's no other way to get there - and it's not just long-haul that this is the case. I lived in Norway for a while and not once was a flight I took between Oslo and London on time (worst delays were both two hours - as long as the flight itself takes) but what's the alternative? You can't even go by sea any more, as the Newcastle-Stavanger ferry route closed at the end of August.

If I can avoid using any London airport, I will. Flying from Birmingham is not quite a pleasure but certainly very straightforward but there are only so may places you can go from there, so I'm afraid it will have to be Heathrow when I go to visit relatives in Canada later this year.

David Cameron has warned firms not to invest in building a third runway at Heathrow, as his party will scrap the plan if it wins power (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7832693.stm

An interesting further quote from the BBC article:

That's a brave statement by him, as it's exactly those same firms his party will be trying to court favour with to fund his parties campaign at the next general election.

This whole saga of the extra capacity at our airports and the high speed rail route(s) and route electrification of our existing network shows the endemic inability of our government (both politicians and civil servants) to plan a cohesive transport system its all done on knee jerk and political gain and never in the National interest. 

Birmingham airport is excellent!

The only European airport I have been to where your bags are returned quicker is Berlin Tegal.

It is pleasant, calm and VERY efficient.

It really makes you proud to be British when you step off the plane (as you compare your smooth experience with the chaos at the European airport you were flying from).

Are you talking about a different Birmingham in the world then, those descriptions sound nothing like it  ;)

I have never had to wait for bags to be returned.

I have never been delayed.

The ambiance is nicer than most airports.

I was talking about birmingham in general

Oh, I hate B'ham!

It really makes me ashamed to be Britsh when I step out of the train at New Street..... ;D

The problem is most overseas visitors' experience of our airports is Heathrow, a place that is unlikely to make anyone feel proud to be British - however many runways and terminals it ends up with.

And I suspect you've never been to Oslo Gardermoen, built from scratch a decade ago, well away from the city, with a high-speed rail link and also served by trains on the main line to central and northern Norway, it still looks as good as the day it opened and is a model of efficiency. How airports should be - because it's not run by a shopping centre operator like BAA.

Try Bristol airport. Even with bags to reclaim, never taken me more than half an hour to get from plane to car.

I agree that presently there is no alternative to flying for almost all journeys to and from the UK, but my point is that as alternatives increase (for the other reasons I stated), flying will decline, as it has done on many core routes in Europe, eg Paris to Brussels, Madrid to Barcelona etc. The advantages to flying are the cheaper fares and the faster journey time; given a level playing field on fuel taxes and a high speed line, these advantages disappear on short haul routes. I think this will come in the long term..... our present government's policy is based entirely on supporting BAA's business plan but that will not always be the case.

Agreed, Bristol is a fantastic airport! Puts any BAA airport to shame.

Only disadvantage of Bristol airport is that there's no way it could have a rail link - of course, if Filton were redeveloped with Bristol Parkway right next door....

Coventry airport was also very good before it was axed. :'(

It was bit pointless with a well connected airport 10 minutes away!

I like Bristol Airport ... as an airport. But, gosh, I wish it wasn't where it is. As commenter haddynuf said to the Bristol Blogger:


See:
http://thebristolblogger.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/bb-roadwatch-a-touch-of-class/
I had an email from a delegate who's coming on on of our courses - she's arriving next Sunday and asked me about public transport from the airport. Now it's only about 30 miles, so it shouldn't be too hard. And Sunday afternoon is one of the busiest times of the week for people travelling a long distance, so there should be plenty of services.

a) Catch the bus to Bristol Temple Meads Station
b) Catch the train to Bath Spa
c) Catch the bus (route 272) to Melksham

The last leg only runs every 2 hours on a Sunday ... and it expires at 7:30 p.m. on a Sunday (it runs later on other evenings, of course!).

There are other alternatives ... if you just happen to catch the train from Bristol at 18:00, you can change into another train at CHIPPEHNAM to get you to Melksham ... and if you catch the 16:10 or 18:50 train you can change at TROWBRIDGE into the Melksham train.

The problem with all of this?  Even with the best laid plans, the flight may be half an hour late ...

I DID hear someone advocating (at a rail meeting) light rail or tramway to Bristol (Lulsgate) airport - a branch off the Bristol - Weston line (I suppose) somewhere near Nailsea, but then I see other documents from web searches that tell me that it's impractical to link it directly to the rail network.

Advise for my delegate?  "Let me know when you'll be arriving and we'll get a taxi to collect you" - I'm frankly embarrassed at the complexity of such a short journey from what is supposed to be our regional airport.

I think the gradient up from the main line at Yatton would be much too steep.  The airport is quite high up compared with the rail-line.

Not that there is anywhere appropriate to place the station, without numerous overbridges over the A38 which would probably foul the flight of aircrafts.

I agree that Bristol airport is one of the best airports in the country!

However, unless passenger numbers increase considerably a fixed tram or bus link is unlikely to be justified! Until then, regular bus services should link with Bristol, and arguably Bath/WSM.

For many people, getting to Temple Meads is bad enough anyway. Before a link to Bristol airport is considered, a local transport plan needs to be implemented.

 

There is already a regular bus link from Bristol International Airport into Bristol (including BTM) - cost single ^6, journey time 30 minutes: see http://www.bristolairport.co.uk/getting_to_bia/by_airport_express_link.aspx

And it runs every 15 mins, and (I believe - can anyone confirm) has a cute device to turn traffic lights it's approaching to green, so it's not too badly held up in the rush hour.

So, not a bad alternative given that BIA is unlikely ever to have a rail link given its position.

The link below may also be of interest.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3588.msg27809#msg27809

I'm sure that if there had been a reason to build a line up to Lulsgate in the 19th Century, Brunel would have managed it. However there will never be a rail link to the Airport -- I believe it's actually illegal to lay a new railway track in the Westcountry.

The bus service is excellent nowadays, although ^6 single is a bit of a rip off for a journey of around 7 miles. The reason it exists is because it was made a planning condition when the airport expanded. What is interesting is that originally it was hourly and was known as the "ghost bus" because it was always empty. But since it became every 20 minutes usage has soared and the frequency was increased to 15 minutes with every other bus also going up to Clifton.

I imagine First find it a profitable operation these days, and they didn't even have to take any risk to build it because the airport subsidised it. It must be great to be in a business where someone else takes all the financial risk for you and you get to keep the profits.  ;D

That's an interesting statement - I'd love to hear some more on that if anyone's "in the know"?

Sorry, my attempt at humour.  ;D

I'm not convinced on that one, John: my understanding is that even the local emergency services have decided against using such technology, so it's not been installed.  Apparently, because most adjoining sequences of traffic lights in the city are now inter-linked by computer, it would muck it up if individual sets of lights were to be over-ridden in this way.  ::)


Agreed on that one, though, John: Yatton is about 8 metres above sea level, while BIA, only some 8 km away, is at least 180!  ;D

That's a gradient of the order of 1 in 45. Steep, agreed, but here's an example of a branch to an international arrival / departure point that's 1 in 30:

http://www.craigrailpics.fotopic.net/c1628947.html

Ministers have set up four more high-speed rail companies similar to the one created last week to develop a new link to Heathrow (link below.)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5537004.ece

Companies House documents show High Speed 2 was formed last week, and has two senior civil servants, Robert Linnard and Timothy Well-burn, as directors. They are also directors of four more High Speed companies, numbers 3 to 6, set up at the same time.

Related Scotsman letter (link below.)
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Fast-forward-on-rail.4888390.jp

Lib Dems back high speed rail alternatives to internal and short-haul continental flights (link below.)
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5467

Leeds North West MP Greg Mulholland has put down a Parliamentary motion calling for the new high speed line to be built in a Y shape, splitting at Birmingham with branches to Manchester and to Leeds via Sheffield (link below.)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Splitline-plea-for-highspeed-rail.4887125.jp

Calls for a stop at Coventry to be included (link below.)
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2009/01/17/call-for-coventrty-to-be-added-to-high-speed-rail-link-92746-22715171/

I thought the idea of HS2, and other routes was not to add multiple stops on the line.

Surely Coventry is to close to Birmingham for this to be valid?

Though in practice the line would diverge a mile or so after Nailsea, and would be only 5km long =  1 in 29 average. Also the first stretch would have to be on an viaduct that would get rather high before the line then bored deep into the hillside. So I think we're stuck with the buses.   

Most of the theoretical routes for HS2 go nowhere near Coventry anyway, the most likely idea is that it follows the M40 corridor from north of Banbury somewhere, heading towards then past Birmingham International...

Unlucky Coventry...

Paul

Those 9 words sum up the problems of HSR in the UK.

Who next after Coventry? Milton Keynes? Royal Leamington Spa?

Coventry is less than an hour from London already. Does it need a HSL? (Does B'ham? It's only 1.15 at the mo)

Folkestone is  steep but St Pancras Thameslink to Blackfriars is 1:27 which I believe is now the steepest grade on Network Rail.



That's one advantage of the old GC route North of Alyesbury there's no really no big town until Leicester apart from Rugby.

Which could be a problem:

Surely Birmingham should be the primary hub for a High Speed Network, not Heathrow?

I think it is fair to say that Ruth Kelly's announcement implying the GC route would be used as far as Rugby was totally ridiculed about this time last year. Their were rumours she had completely misunderstood her briefing...

Paul

Further related article link.
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=5478

Jim Steer (Greenguage21) gives his view in the link below.
http://www.nce.co.uk/opinion/2009/01/jims_blog__whats_next_for_high_speed_2.html;jsessionid=C1CD93134DA1F357174C12219E56FA0E

What Ruth Kelly actually said was the following (taken from Hansard)

"It is also why we have committed to look in future at whether disused rail lines such as the one between Birmingham and London might be brought back into use."

That was why she was ridiculed, because there is no disused rail line between London and Birmingham. She never said anything about Rugby or the Great Central. But her script was provided by DafT....

While the GC was well engineered by comparison with many of its Victorian forebears, it still remains a piece of 19th century engineering, built for the trains of its day, not an LGV, and a new alignment towards Birmingham following the M40 before peeling off north-east to serve the airport at Birmingham International and on to the WCML north-east of the city is the way things are most likely to go. You would be using an existing transport corridor much of the way, like High Speed 1 (M2/M20) and LGV Nord (French autoroute A1) so any further disruption is minimised.

Fair enough. I think that was the general assumption at the time.

Here's how Transport Briefing (who have a reputation for knowing their stuff) reported it:


Interestingly, the member for Rugby played a prominent part in the debate, but didnt pick up on the possible link...

But I think they were just being kind to her.

The thing about the GC line, is that it is dead straight!

But I wish they would shelve this "join the WCML at the Trent Valley" idea.

When are the gov going to realise that line speed improvements need to be reduced NORTH of Crewe to get the Anglo - Scottish/ North West England services quicker. We need a 200 mph line all the way if we are building one. All or nothing. Not a cut price option which will benefit few - the B'ham / Manchester times are ok at the moment and they are the only ones which would see a large % reduction.

And the other reason for HSL all the way is that it needs to be European gauge all the way - so double decker goods trains (and TGV style passenger stock) can operate.

a. To call the GC dead straight gives a whole new meaning to straight. Long sweeping curves perhaps, but nothing new in that, even in the 1890s. Brunel did it just as well in the 1830s, and with picks, shovels and wheelbarrows, rather than steam excavators.

b. Even if an initial bit of HSL only got to the Trent Valley, it would still take 30-45 minutes off London-Glasgow and Edinburgh timings, down to about 3hrs 45mins - not to be sniffed at for 330-odd miles and getting into the time territory (below four hours) where rail really starts to hurt planes.

c. The government has, on the quiet, set up companies called High Speed 3-6, as well as High Speed 2, hinting that there could be much more to come. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5537004.ece (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5537004.ece)

d. You can't operate double-decker goods trains (I'm assuming you mean something like the far more generous North American double-stack container gauge) on any of the UIC loading gauges. For more on gauges, see http://www.btinternet.com/~joyce.whitchurch/gauges/text.htm (http://www.btinternet.com/~joyce.whitchurch/gauges/text.htm). A double-deck passenger train, like the latest generation of TGV, needs far less headroom than two containers.

A- the gc line is pretty straight btw ayles and rugby.

B- what about other journeys? Not everyone goes to London.

D- on European guage lines you can operate goods with 2 containers on top of each other.

Well show me a picture of a double-stack container train in Europe please. You won't be able to, because they do not operate in Europe.

A google search of "double-stack container trains" reveals references only to North America (no problems with electric catenary in the land of the big diesel) and India, where they have been looking at trying it out with specially-installed catenary, at a height of 6.8m-7.5m (22ft 3in-24ft 7in) above the rails - which one depends on whether you load the containers into well wagons or on flat-beds.

European standard height for contact wires is about 5m (16ft) - I'm sure electric train can confirm this - so you simply cannot fit two stacked standard 9ft 6in shipping containers underneath.

PS: Without the traffic to and from London, Virgin and NXEC wouldn't have a business. Why do you think all LGVs go to Paris and Italy's Diretissima lines go to Rome? Not all the German lines go to Berlin, but that's because the country is bigger and developed differently, due to the East-West split, and because the regions are far stronger, politically and economically, than they are in this country.

I must be mistaken..... ??? I am sure that there was a campaign to restore the GC line so double deck goods could be run.

I was talking about large traffic flows like B'ham and Manchester to Glasgow (a lot of people fly/ drive).

I think that the 'Great Central' freight proposal was for gauge clearance to allow carriage of lorries piggy back style, ie more like the Eurotunnel shuttles, but on completely open flat wagons.

However,the GC was only built to whatever 'continental gauge' was when it was built, not necessarily the latest UIC gauge as now defined, and the proposals included an enhanced gauge route round SE and S London, and from Sheffield (ish) to the NW, so I think a good proportion of the route needed a lot of work anyway.

Paul

Yeah, I think Btline is getting confused. Further information on what was planned is here: http://www.crowsnest.co.uk/gauge.htm (http://www.crowsnest.co.uk/gauge.htm)