New Thames Airport for London

[Capetonian]

I am sorry but is it not niaive to think they would even consider increasing landing fee's 7 fold

Given the way that successive governments are trying to tax air travel out of existence, I don't think it is naive to expect a massive increase, but maybe 7 fold is a bit much.

[vulcanised]

All this speculation is pretty pointless over something that will be kicked into the long grass as soon as it's politically expedient.

[NWSRG]

Have you guys never watched "Yes Minister"?

David Cameron has said publicly that there won't be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. That was good for votes, but he really knows that a 3rd runway is the only short term option that makes sense.

So what does he do? He does what any government does...hold an inquiry! The outcome of said inquiry can almost be written now...Thames Estuary airport would be vastly expensive, heavily impact on the environment, would cause massive demographic shifts in the South East, leave the Heathrow corridor a ghost town etc. etc.

Dave now has an independant voice saying that Thames Estuary is not viable...and that Heathrow R3 is the only realistic option (with STN R2 maybe in the longer term). Dave then says that, reluctantly, he accepts that the new runway must go ahead, despite his concerns for the residents around Heathrow...the decision wasn't his, but the view of "independant experts".

We all get a new runway (and a little breathing space) at Heathrow, and Thames Estuary gets canned for another thirty years.

Simples!!

Am I being too cynical?

[jabird]

NWRSG,

I agree with your analysis, except that as I've said above (or back in December), I think Gatwick is much more politically acceptable, and Stansted the outsider. But yes, another runway at any existing airport is always going to look like a more acceptable deal, cf BI.

But I expect that your true motivation in hurling insults, was to divert attention away from your failed arguments against the Siver-Boris Island. Silver-Boris Island will be built. Not next year perhaps, but in the near future.

Silver, as John Major used to say endlessly in PMQs (if you know what they are) - 'I refer you to the answer I gave moments ago' - or in this case a month or two ago.

The case for BI is far from watertight, it is full of very large holes. This government is strapped for cash - so much so that it is even considering selling the family jewels! Can you imagine Obama selling the White House?

So, I ask you again. If the case of BI is so good - what rate would you set the average PSC at?

[Heathrow Harry]

more Labour voters around LHR cp LGW

[jabird]

more Labour voters around LHR cp LGW

And that's why Gatwick is more acceptable, and HS2 is going ahead.

Q: If surrounded by a sea of safe blue seats, what is the worst that can happen?

A: They become slightly less safe.

LHR is a surrounded by a sea of marginals, all colours are represented, so a hell of a lot to lose by building a new runway.

Foster Island is also surrounded by blue, although Cliffe was Labour in 2003. My thinking at the time, and ditto for Rugby was:

Take one marginal seat, propose something outrageous, and then make a hero out of the local MP(s) for 'saving' their constituents for the David v Goliath battle, in which Goliath had no plans to actually turn up.

The reality was that Rugby, Warwick & Leamington (adjacent) and Cliffe have all gone from red to blue, so that particular cunning plan, if it was intended wasn't actually that cunning.

[jabird]

Capetonian,

I am heavily critical of hs2 too, but I don't accept your assessment. Old Oak Common is one of the better parts of the project, as it would allow easy cross-platform interchange onto Crossrail. Tunnelling through to Euston on the other hand, is exorbitantly expensive for relatively small gains, as you are still on the northern side of Zone1 - but I wouldn't call Euston, where services are currently planned to terminate - the 'outskirts'. It just isn't the best place either - and no consideration has been given about the need to rotate Euston if Boris Island goes ahead.

Also, it isn't about saving 20 mins to Birmingham - the time benefits are much more significant once it extends to Leeds & Manchester, and even more so to Scotland.

Having said that, the first bit does indeed just go to Birmingham, with a spur stopping short of Colwich where the Manchester and Stafford lines meet - so much for capacity!

I could go on, but there is a Jetblast thread on that topic.

With respect to this airport though, there is no provision for a central London terminus for a link from this airport as part of either the first or second phase - everything is hinged on Heathrow, which is going to get even busier with its improved links via Crossrail.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Silver, as John Major used to say endlessly in PMQs (if you know what they are) - 'I refer you to the answer I gave moments ago' - or in this case a month or two ago.

The case for Silver-Boris Island is far from watertight, it is full of very large holes. This government is strapped for cash - so much so that it is even considering selling the family jewels! Can you imagine Obama selling the White House?

Please see the large article in Today's Sunday Times. There the case for doing SOMETHING was made as watertight as possible - listing all the important destinations in South Ameica and China that LHR cannot service because of capacity constraints (and noting that both CDG and AMS do service these destinations. They also had quotes indicating that Chinese tourism and trade is being diverted away from London, because of the poor state of LHR (queues, gridlock etc).


The clear message from the Sunday Times was that a new airport MUST be built, but the amount of money we wish to invest is open to discussion. However, I was not so happy with the suggestion that the Chinese should pay for it. All this 'inward investment' through the purchasing UK businesses may give us jam today, but it also makes us slaves of the Chinese for the future (and the future's future).


.

[silverstrata]

pwalhx

I am sorry but is it not niaive to think they would even consider increasing landing fee's 7 fold. Just lazy journalism again to stir up trouble.

Absolutely.

Even if there was going to be an increase in landing fees, there is a good case to be made for the government providing the basic infrastructure, upon which private enterprise creates the airport, to make the project 'cheaper' to the end user.

The government does this with motorways and rail (in return for certain fees), so why not air travel too? Remember the government could, if it put uts 'greater good' specs on, look at a payback time of 50 - 100 years, rather than a standard business plan of 10 years. It would ba absurd to build a world-class facility, and then price it out of the market.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

With respect to this airport though, there is no provision for a central London terminus for a link from this airport as part of either the first or second phase - everything is hinged on Heathrow, which is going to get even busier with its improved links via Crossrail.

Well said, Jabird. We have a distinct lack of joined-up thinking in government.


Firstly, we had a proposal for CrossRail, which had limited goals, other than to drive a tunnel E-W through London.


Then there was the Chunnel link, which inexplicably terminates as Kings Cross, rather than joining onto Crossrail. So Western commuters cannot ride onto Paris. Why? What was the point of Crossrail, in this case?


Then we had a proosal for HS2, which seems to totally ignore the fact that CrossRail is in progress and the Chunnel link finishes at Kings Cross!! HS2 will stop at Euston, which is what, 2km from Kings Cross and the Chunnel line!! Why no union here? And why no link to Crossrail either?? Are the tracks, voltages and and rolling-guage the same?? If not, then why not?? And if so, then why do they not join up?? What is the point of three totally independent projects that appear to ignore each other completely! - all having different termini (Kings Cross, Euston and somewhere in East London) !!


And then there is a parallel discussion about a Silver-Boris Island. But the Chunnel link, Crossrail and HS2 all completely ignore the distinct possibility that LHR may move eastwards by several kilometers !!

.. Chunnel is already built, but did nobody think of asking about the future of LHR before the plans were drawn up? Did nobody think of making a 5km diversion in the line to the N.E. (as it crosses the Thames), just in case?
.. CrossRail stops some 10km short of the Isle of Grain (the Silver-Foster proposal) and a couple of km short of the Chunnel link - so are they planning for a possible extension of the CrossRail line, just in case? And if not, why not?
.. Meanwhile HS2 is going its merry own way and does not link with Heathrow, CrossRail, Chunnel, and nor with Silver-Boris !! Just what is the point of HS2??


A rational government would link HS2 to the Crossrail project at the present LHR site, and then run the trains all the way through London to Silver-Boris Island - where they could link up with the Chunnel line and run onto Brussels and Paris (and Amsterdam). Now that would be joined up thinking.

But will the engeneering allow this?
Are the dimensions, guages and votages on these lines compatible?
Is there sufficient capacity on Crossrail to run all the trains from the north and west of the UK through to Paris??
Have they built 'sideings' on CrossRail, to allow express trains to pass through, on the otherwise slow (multistopping) CrossRail traffic?

Hello - is anyone thinking, out there??


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Take one marginal seat, propose something outrageous, and then make a hero out of the local MP(s) for 'saving' their constituents for the David v Goliath battle, in which Goliath had no plans to actually turn up.

I think, and I do hope, that you are wrong here.

I think, at last, that someone is thinking about the long-term future of UK Plc. I only hope that they make the right decisions, and create a interconnected 21st century transport system.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

NWSRG, very pleased to see you endorse my "Yes Minister" procedure(post #259) in your post #285, you just forgot to mention the shifting of Justine!! Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------
"(3) The government realises that its "no new runways in the south east" policy is unsustainable and may be softening the public up for the desperately needed U-turn.

It works like this:
(a) the consultation spells out the obvious;
(b) the government welcomes its conclusions;
(c) the government accepts that its "no new runways in the south east" policy is unsustainable and is holding the country back;
(d) the government caves in to the inevitable and "reluctantly" accepts that Heathrow expansion is the only viable alternative;
(e) transport Secretary Justine Greening gets promoted out of the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Silver, don't like or dislike Boris and and possibly don't misunderstand him that much. The man's a canny operator, some say he's after "Call me Dave's" job. Who can say?

As for the £100/pax landing fees at Boris/Silver Island, it may be lazy journalism. On the other hand, any backers of Silver Island need a return on their investment. This is one way of achieving this, IF the airlines choose to move there and pay it.

Any potential investors would clearly think they will or they would not bankroll the project, but it is by no means certain that they will. Apart from any other considerations, shifting airports involves huge expenditure for airlines, particularly for those shifting their hubs: BA, BD (yes, probably "BA-BD" by then) and VS. If they don't go, or certainly if BA/"BA-BD" doesn't go, nor will the others, as there are would little point. Think three little letters: YMQ (Montreal-Mirabel)

As for the closing down of Heathrow, dream on. As a privately owned entity, the government would need to take it into public ownership to do this. How many billions would that cost!!

In prime ministers questions on 18-1-12, "Call-me-Dave" stated that Labour Leader Miliband was incapable of doing a U-turn properly. Let's see if he can!

[jabird]

Silver,

There the case for doing SOMETHING was made as watertight as possible - listing all the important destinations in South Ameica and China that LHR cannot service because of capacity constraints (and noting that both CDG and AMS do service these destinations

For a long while, I remained pessimistic about the future of UK aviation. Think of the serious challenges - rising fuel costs, global warming (I know you don't believe in it, but most people do, and so does the government), and the clobbering from APD.

However, there are the plus sides too - namely people living longer and having more leisure time. That is where the 400m pax per year comes from, not from China - although I still think that is way to optimistic.

Recently, there has been an up-surge in routes from Asia, in particular recent routes announced to LGW from ICN, HKG and PEK, joining last year's new routes from HAN & SGN.

Throw these together, and I think London could do with another runway - but four would be overkill imho.

None of us have crystal balls, but the government doesn't have cash either, so airport development has to have a solid business case. Decisions will therefore, for better or worse, be taken by accountants, and they will be conservative.

Also, LHR can serve whatever routes the airlines using it want to - but in order to add a destination, somewhere else needs to be cancelled, or moved to another airport. As we are seeing, this doesn't always mean AMS / CDG etc, sometimes it is just LGW!

They also had quotes indicating that Chinese tourism and trade is being diverted away from London, because of the poor state of LHR (queues, gridlock etc).

They are also investing £1bn in the new 'T2' - which apparently is the same size as T5, but less than 1/4 of the cost - WITH inflation! Wish I could say the same about costs of HS2 re: HS1!

(or is there a lot less ground work / airbridges / rail tunnels etc on this project - could anyone enlighten me?)

T5 gave LHR a lot more space, but pax numbers remained the same - I assume this is due to runway usage restrictions, and that the same applies to the T2 / central complex. Was this planned in anticipation of R3 and then built anyway?

Either way, under the current arrangement, LHR should end up with the same no of pax using a lot more space - better for the Chinese that can get in, better for everyone else too.

Not sure where we got to re: mixed use of LHR runways?

And as for other tourists using other European hubs, do the maths. You are spending a fortnight driving around Europe - do you get stung by UK APD and pick up a right hand drive car, or do you fly into CDG?

It isn't all about capacity!

[jabird]

. Chunnel is already built, but did nobody think of asking about the future of LHR before the plans were drawn up? Did nobody think of making a 5km diversion in the line to the N.E. (as it crosses the Thames), just in case?

Silver,

Infra is built based on policy at the time, diverting HS1 east on the off-chance the govt would ressurrect a long-since dismissed idea would be ridiculous extra expense, and even with this new airport, Eurostar would not want to divert their services through it, as that would lose the very advantage they have of being quicker than flying in the first place!

HS1 opened in two phases - 2003, then 2007. The design phases was long before the 2003 White Paper, which proposed, and then dismissed an airport at Cliffe, very near to the Foster proposal.

.. CrossRail stops some 10km short of the Isle of Grain (the Silver-Foster proposal) - so are they planning for a possible extension of the CrossRail line, just in case? And if not, why not?

Crossrail doesn't even go as far as Reading, a major interchange point in all directions! Why would they build out to a fantasy airport project long before its proposed opening date?

and a couple of km short of the Chunnel link

It would appear logical to have a junction between Crossrail and HS1 at Ebbsfleet, but that station doesn't even link with the nearby conventional line just round the corner.

Which goes part of the way towards explaining why it, combined with Stratford Int, is such a White Elephant/

Meanwhile HS2 is going its merry own way and does not link with Heathrow, CrossRail, Chunnel, and nor with Silver-Boris !! Just what is the point of HS2??

Silver, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the HS2 plans before dismissing it completely.

HS2 and Crossrail will meet at Old Oak Common - and from there, HS2 passengers can transfer to LHR. However, there is no guarantee they will be able to make a single transfer to T5 - unless the LHR express also stops there, or is integrated into Crossrail. As with Ebbsfleet, a number of other lines pass by - North London, Central tube line, Bakerloo too - which would enable a sizeable London West interchange, but the beancounters have sadly left these out.

There is a thread about HS2 in Jetblast, where I have made many criticisms, including the suggestion that if they are serious about BI - or a second runway at STN as the cheapy option - Euston needs to rotate 90deg quicksmart!

Are the dimensions, guages and vo(l!)tages on these lines compatible?

No. Crossrail already provides relatively few continuation benefits outside the existing TfL zones, as mentioned above. One of the reasons it is so expensive is that it uses 6m diameter twin tunnels - and this is so that it can take overhead electrification - even though 3rd rail is used throughout the south east, and may well have resulted in a much lower build cost, although the trains would have cost more.

Traditional tube tunnels are much thinner at just 3.8m - could they have done a similar job - in effect an express service running past smaller stations, just like NYC?

HS1 & 2 are built to European loading guages, which make it possible to run double-decker trains. Afaik, all are 25KV AC. High speed trains could not run through the Crossrail line - far too many stops, and different train layout - I presume Crossrail platforms will have anti-jump barriers too, like the Jubilee line xn.

However, if BI results in a substantial demand for trains to it from west of London, could a link be provided between the HS1 line and the (by then) electrified line to Reading and beyond? I don't know the technicalities of that, nor do I know if there will be any domestic link between HS1 & 2.

[jabird]

Is there sufficient capacity on Crossrail to run all the trains from the north and west of the UK through to Paris??

I don't think capacity is the problem, it is initially a question of train type. Look at the issues with the border agency re: Amsterdam & Frankfurt to London trains. To be viable anyway, these would join / split in Brussels, where I assume they would also enable BRU pax to (dis) embark.

The market for flights to Paris from BHX is essentially a monopoly tie-up with 6 x approx. 100 seats per day. Also known as half a train load.

So to have any change of working, trains would need to split / join at Brum's M42 station, except that only the hybrid trains can start at Manchester, and will these be capable of going through the tunnel? Come 2032, when phase 2 opens, trains might be able to run through, but given the pressures by then to run clockface timetables, how would they squeeze the slots in? Much easier to run more services on HS1 starting at St P's, which could move to services running at set frequencies - Paris currently 20/day, Brussels 10, but they don't always run at same time past each hour.

So the simplest question would be how to enable an easy transfer between Euston and St P's - again, haven't seen that one in the plans.

Have they built 'sideings' on CrossRail, to allow express trains to pass through, on the otherwise slow (multistopping) CrossRail traffic?

You would never pull a train into a siding to allow a faster one to pass through. That is what stations are for, but no, that just wouldn't work on Crossrail - far too many stops, different purpose.

However, the French do engineer their TGV stations to allow a fast train to come through, but you still have the issue of acceleration and deceleration. That is why there is no HS2 station between OOC and Brum M42 - much as though some of us in Coventry would like one! There are a few of us here who are imbys rather than nimbys!

[silverstrata]

Jabird

It would appear logical to have a junction between Crossrail and HS1 at Ebbsfleet, but that station doesn't even link with the nearby conventional line just round the corner.

Which goes part of the way towards explaining why it, combined with Stratford Int, is such a White Elephant.

I was not thinking there. The southern branch of Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, whichbis only a couple of miles from the Chunnel line. But no thought of linking the two, of course, for that would be far too logical.

Silver, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the HS2 plans before dismissing it completely.

HS2 and Crossrail will meet at Old Oak Common - and from there, HS2 passengers can transfer to LHR. However, there is no guarantee they will be able to make a single transfer to T5.

And wherenis Oak Common? Since they will not publish the two maps overlaid, it is very difficult to see. I presume you mean somewhere close to Acton/Paddington, as that appears to be the closest approach.

But nobody wants a transfer - they want to get off at their destination. Spur lines are a complete nonsense.

What do you do - catch a Chunnel train from Paris to Kings Cross, then a tube from Kings to Euston, then HS2 to the spur junction on HS2, and then a train to LHR and then another train or bus to T5?? Its a nonsense.

Would someone consider such a trip if there was a direct train? I might. I hate all the security issues and waiting at airports, so if I could do a 3-4 hour train journey to catch a long haul, I would do it rather than fly in. But the tortuous links being proposed here make the whole enterprise a nonsense, wherever you live.

No. Crossrail already provides relatively few continuation benefits outside the existing TfL zones, as mentioned above. One of the reasons it is so expensive is that it uses 6m diameter twin tunnels - and this is so that it can take overhead electrification - even though 3rd rail is used throughout the south east, and may well have resulted in a much lower build cost, although the trains would have cost more.

HS1 & 2 are built to European loading guages, which make it possible to run double-decker trains. Afaik, all are 25KV AC. High speed trains could not run through the Crossrail line - far too many stops, and different train layout - I presume Crossrail platforms will have anti-jump barriers too, like the Jubilee line.

As far as I am aware.

a. TGV and Eurostar use the good old Stevenson (of Rocket fame) track gauge, the same as all UK lines.
b. The Eurostar trains uses UK rolling gauge dimensions, so will run on UK lines. European rolling gauge would be better, if Crossrail and the Chunnel will accept it.
c. The Crossrail, as you say, can take pantograph trains.

So there is no reason why HS2 cannot link up with CrossRail at Heathrow (further west than currently proposed). From there the trains could run into London (not stopping at every junction). They would stop in the city, and in Docklands, and from there they would go to Abbey Wood to link up with the Chunnel line. And if the Chunnel line was deviated slightly to the NE, the line would join up with Silver-Boris Island too.

This would negate the need for all that work taking HS2 in through London into Euston (and stopping 2 km short of HS1 at Kings Cross). Why bother, when Crossrail already does this??

I still think nobody is thinking about this, otherwise someone would be publishing the integrated transport map. Where is it?



.

[jabird]

Silver,

Yes, they are thinking about this, and I'm afraid most of your suggestions have been dismissed - either by the engineers, by the beancounters, or both.

One thing for sure - Crossrail and HSR are NOT compatible - period! You just can't shove high speed trains down tunnels with lots of stoppers in them, any more than you would let a Q400 takeoff 30 secs behind an A380. Now you know full well the reasons for the latter, please try and understand the reasons for the former. Or if you prefer, you wouldn't bring an A380 into LCY either, and nor would LCY mgmt want to deal with one, even if it could make it in and out of their runway.

I was not thinking there. The southern branch of Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, whichbis only a couple of miles from the Chunnel line. But no thought of linking the two, of course, for that would be far too logical.

It was originally planned. If BI ever takes off, it will need local AND high speed service, so I expect Xrail WOULD be extended out that way - but we're talking four tracks, not two.

And wherenis Oak Common? Since they will not publish the two maps overlaid, it is very difficult to see. I presume you mean somewhere close to Acton/Paddington, as that appears to be the closest approach.

They HAVE published detailed maps of the whole damned route!

Old Oak Common (I'd prefer Acton Interchange, take the Old out, Common doesn't imply much room for development) is here:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...5301issue3.pdf

NB - sometimes I get a file corrupted message - if you get that, try again later, but the maps are there to digest.

But nobody wants a transfer - they want to get off at their destination. Spur lines are a complete nonsense.

Problem is, LHR already has 3 stations. Where would you put a high speed one? Also, the PRIME role of high speed rail is to link city centres to each other, serving airports is a bonus. France has built LGVs which skirt the city centres of Paris & Lyon, and doing so has also meant they could serve the airports - but the planning of CDG predates the TGV by a decade or so.

I don't think transfers from LHR to Europe is the primary goal of HS2, but it will bring Heathrow within easier reach of Brum, Manchester, Leeds etc.

Boris Island would be quite a bit further east, so it might get some traffic from France, Belgium etc, but you would still need to be filling 20 car long Chunnel trains, or you'd need to stop & split. Quite messy I think - remember the LHR Exp only has 4 cars per train.

As far as I am aware.

a. TGV and Eurostar use the good old Stevenson (of Rocket fame) track gauge, the same as all UK lines.
b. The Eurostar trains uses UK rolling gauge dimensions, so will run on UK lines. European rolling gauge would be better, if Crossrail and the Chunnel will accept it.
c. The Crossrail, as you say, can take pantograph trains.

a) Yes, the lines are spaced apart at the same width - Brunel used broadguage, but eventually this was torn up and replaced.
b) Yes, the Eurostar trains do, but they are, iirc, 17 cars long - not viable north of London for international services. There were a few shorter sets designed to be used for through services, they were leased to GNER - let me look up what they are doing now. But they would have to pay the same for the track path to go through the Chunnel, and if I recall right from our debate pre-xmas, they either would have to be joined, or there would be issues with fire regs. There are various complications which make Eurostar beyond London (north) a major challenge.

c) As said above. No! Not compatible. Period!

Earlier versions of HS2 did go through Heathrow, but they did a consultation with only one option for everyone living on the line to grumble about, but no room for informed debate. It would add 7 minutes to the journey time of every train heading north, whereas it would only provide a saving for those who wanted to go to LHR.

Also, I think somewhere deep in politics land, they realised that Crossrail is already going to make LHR much easier to get to, at the expense of other London airports -except perhaps LCY. This then re-opens the demand for the third runway - which of course Boris Island may well be a big smokescreen for anyway.

Still, you are right - they really haven't thought all of this through. HS2 +7 mins should still save a lot of time, and bringing a spur down from HS2 into Heathrow is going to cost billions. I still think we'll end up with another runway at Gatwick. One easy link to Gatwick would be from Old Oak Common via Olympia. Better would be to continue HS2 past Euston and on to LGW & possible Brighton - the £5bn planned for the utterly pointless Heathwick should be a good deposit for that one!

And of course, BHX think that HS2 will allow them to become London's 8th (or are we upto 9 now?) airport, negating the need for BI or any other runway.

This would negate the need for all that work taking HS2 in through London into Euston (and stopping 2 km short of HS1 at Kings Cross). Why bother, when Crossrail already does this??

I still think nobody is thinking about this, otherwise someone would be publishing the integrated transport map. Where is it?

Again, please take a look at a map! For starters, Eurostar and SE HS use St Pancras - to the WEST of King's Cross. I've done Euston from there in about 5 mins, but with bags allow 10. Or build a travelator - now that would be integrated transport, but the beancounters would argue for years about who should pay.

However, yes, I agree that the billions (I have heard as many as 6) to go from OOC to Euston is poor value, as it still only leaves you on the NORTHERN side of Zone1. This is where Foster needs to go back to his bosses at DB, and look at what they did in Berlin. There is no point in having a swanky airport without a properly connected rail hub to link it in to.

And whether for a domestic link between HS1 & 2, BI, a fast link to STN, or Eurostar running north which is viable because it also stops in a central London location - to accommodate any of this, Euston needs to make that sharp turn!

[silverstrata]

Jabird


a. You just can't shove high speed trains down tunnels with lots of stoppers in them.


b. They HAVE published detailed maps of the whole damned route!


c. the PRIME role of high speed rail is to link city centres to each other, serving airports is a bonus.


d. Or you'd need to stop & split. Quite messy I think - remember the LHR Exp only has 4 cars per train.


e. Yes, the Eurostar trains do, but they are, iirc, 17 cars long - not viable north of London for international services.


f. For starters, Eurostar and SE HS use St Pancras - to the WEST of King's Cross. I've done Euston from there in about 5 mins, but with bags allow 10. Or build a travelator.


g. There is no point in having a swanky airport without a properly connected rail hub to link it in to.

a. You can run local and express trains if you have station sidings. Standard practice all over the world. Local train waits for the express to speed through.

b. They have not explicity published the two routes (HS2 and Crossrail) combined and anotated, so one can see the grand plan (if such a thing exists). Does Crossrail appear on that map-link you gave? If it does, it is not obvious.

c. Not necessarily. When ever I travel on TGV, the main northern hub in France appears to be CDG - I have not been linked through Gard du Nord once. If you want to go to Paris you take a Paris train, while everything else goes via CDG.

d. Nearly every TGV I have been on has stopped and split, and it takes less than 5 mins. Besides, if Silver-Boris Island is planned as a rail hub (as is CDG), rather than a lonely spur (as we seem to be planning here), then trains much longer than 4 cars can go there. I would imagine a 17-car train splitting at Silver-Boris, with 5 going to London and the remaining 12 carriages carring on to the North of England.

e. Since the northern England tracks will be new, they can make the stations as large as they wish, just as they did in France. All 17 carriages, if there is the traffic to support them. Ever been to Lyon station - the dinosaur carcass??

f. St Pancras and King's Cross are one and the same (300m between them), and I call it Kings Cross as that is the name of the tube stop.

And surely you cannot be serious that a 2km gap between HS2 and HS1 (the Birmingham line and the Chunnel line) is acceptable. If travelling from Bordeaux to Brussels, do you have to get off (with all your bags) and catch the metro for 2km in Paris, to rejoin your train?? So why should you do so when travelling from Paris to Manchester??
Such a stupid gap in the line will completely undermine the logic of high speed rail in N Western Europe, and make the nation a laughing-stock. UK TGV, the only high speed rail network where you have to catch a taxi (with all your bags and screaming children) in the middle of your journey. And what is so difficult, about joining HS1and HS2, that we will actively encourage ridicule from across the world??

g. And the emphasis here is on 'HUB'. CDG TGV is not simply an airport station, it is the northern hub for the TGV system.

[Aero Mad]

All that aside... what happens if some terrorist comes and sets a large bomb off? Don't you immediately destroy London's infrastructure... main airport shut, main railway station shut, road links shut etc.?

[Baltasound]

Firstly, we had a proposal for CrossRail, which had limited goals, other than to drive a tunnel E-W through London.


Then there was the Chunnel link, which inexplicably terminates as Kings Cross, rather than joining onto Crossrail. So Western commuters cannot ride onto Paris. Why? What was the point of Crossrail, in this case?


Then we had a proosal for HS2, which seems to totally ignore the fact that CrossRail is in progress and the Chunnel link finishes at Kings Cross!! HS2 will stop at Euston, which is what, 2km from Kings Cross and the Chunnel line!! Why no union here? And why no link to Crossrail either?? Are the tracks, voltages and and rolling-guage the same?? If not, then why not?? And if so, then why do they not join up?? What is the point of three totally independent projects that appear to ignore each other completely! - all having different termini (Kings Cross, Euston and somewhere in East London) !!


And then there is a parallel discussion about a Silver-Boris Island. But the Chunnel link, Crossrail and HS2 all completely ignore the distinct possibility that LHR may move eastwards by several kilometers !!

.. Chunnel is already built, but did nobody think of asking about the future of LHR before the plans were drawn up? Did nobody think of making a 5km diversion in the line to the N.E. (as it crosses the Thames), just in case?
.. CrossRail stops some 10km short of the Isle of Grain (the Silver-Foster proposal) and a couple of km short of the Chunnel link - so are they planning for a possible extension of the CrossRail line, just in case? And if not, why not?
.. Meanwhile HS2 is going its merry own way and does not link with Heathrow, CrossRail, Chunnel, and nor with Silver-Boris !! Just what is the point of HS2??


A rational government would link HS2 to the Crossrail project at the present LHR site, and then run the trains all the way through London to Silver-Boris Island - where they could link up with the Chunnel line and run onto Brussels and Paris (and Amsterdam). Now that would be joined up thinking.

But will the engeneering allow this?
Are the dimensions, guages and votages on these lines compatible?
Is there sufficient capacity on Crossrail to run all the trains from the north and west of the UK through to Paris??
Have they built 'sideings' on CrossRail, to allow express trains to pass through, on the otherwise slow (multistopping) CrossRail traffic?

Hello - is anyone thinking, out there??

This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....