New Thames Airport for London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
Now BE have a major presence at EXT, SOU, BHX and a few routes from NWI too. All of these airports are too close to London to feed it by air - but apart from NWI, they are also to the west of London, so any fast rail link is going to work far better going into LHR, not Boris Island. Same also for BRS, BOH etc.
Now BE have a major presence at EXT, SOU, BHX and a few routes from NWI too. All of these airports are too close to London to feed it by air - but apart from NWI, they are also to the west of London, so any fast rail link is going to work far better going into LHR, not Boris Island. Same also for BRS, BOH etc.
I put it to you that the real reason that there is no Flybe turboprop to LHR is that LHR is full, and there are no slots. Personally, I think that demand would be there, if LHR could cope with more arivals.
Note that during the recent snow, LHR cut flights IN ADVANCE, because it knew that ANY significant weather would impact arrival rates - and since LHR is already running at 98% of capacity, it cannot cope with anything less than perfect conditions.
Silver-Boris, with its dedicated 'domestic' runway and terminal, could accomodate any number of shorthaul routes to the regions.
.
Paxing All Over The World
Any regional turboprop service into LHR was:
- Bought up by BA
- Routes shifted to LGW
- Bingo 'new' slots at LHR
- Simples!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
You are talking about the South Devon Sea Wall around Dawlish Warren - that is beyond Exeter, plenty of dramatic photos of that section exist, it is perhaps the rail equivalent of SXM or Kai Tak. Anyone, back to airports:
No, not for the very short hops - APD, fuel costs, the whole wastefulness of such a short rotation, - that is why none of the airports I mentioned have service to any other London airport either.
So I put it back to you - even if it might be desirable to have service through LHR, from CAX, MME, LDY and so on - they are all a bit further away, the huge investment which would be needed in a new airport, spending £2 on relocation for every £1 spent on expansion, combined with the costs of an island location - just aren't worthwhile.
he south coast line (the way I went last time) is slow and tortuous, and often stopped by rough seas.
I put it to you that the real reason that there is no Flybe turboprop to LHR is that LHR is full, and there are no slots.
So I put it back to you - even if it might be desirable to have service through LHR, from CAX, MME, LDY and so on - they are all a bit further away, the huge investment which would be needed in a new airport, spending £2 on relocation for every £1 spent on expansion, combined with the costs of an island location - just aren't worthwhile.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously LBA & MME have been & gone from LHR, as the routes became unviable for various reasons, including the challenges of making optimal use of LHR's slots.
Problem is - build a new airport, and you still have to deal with the huge increases in PSC that would be needed. So the thinner routes would go from being unviable due to slot restrictions to being unviable due to the cost (in addition to all the othe challenges)>
Where's the gain?
Problem is - build a new airport, and you still have to deal with the huge increases in PSC that would be needed. So the thinner routes would go from being unviable due to slot restrictions to being unviable due to the cost (in addition to all the othe challenges)>
Where's the gain?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
No, not for the very short hops - APD, fuel costs, the whole wastefulness of such a short rotation, - that is why none of the airports I mentioned have service to any other London airport either.
No, not for the very short hops - APD, fuel costs, the whole wastefulness of such a short rotation, - that is why none of the airports I mentioned have service to any other London airport either.
I think you will find that the main cost of these 'domestic' routes is the vast cost of the slots at LHR (even if a slot were available). You are talking about £millions in investment, just for the right to fly there, and no short-haul route can justify that.
And such a route is hardly 'wasteful' for a business commuter. The train from EXT puts you into London, which is not exactly where you want to be. A commuter flight will put you straight into the airport, and hopefully with baggage and bording passes already checked into your final destination in South America.
Now THAT is what customers would like, and THAT is what LHR cannot provide. And no amount of building extra capacity at other airports around London or Birmingham can provide that service, either.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
It looks like my prediction for another £50 billion in quantitive easing (printing cash) has come true, as it has been announced by the BofE.
So we now await the further prediction that this money can be used for infrastructure projects like Silver-Boris-Foster Island. The problem for the government, is that it has categorically stated that it will reduce spending, and so if they are to spend £50 billion on an airport, they will have to conceal the spending in some manner.
I would predict them perhaps getting 'inward investement' from 'abroard', while simultaneously funnelling funding out to these same foreign investors via the overseas aid budget. At £12 billion a year, the ruinously expensive overseas aid budget could pay for Silver-Foster airport in just four years. The only problem here, would be the eventual owners of the airport, for it would be galling in the extreme for the British taxpayer to pay foreign institutions hard cash so that they can own our own infrastructure (as the government has already done with Jaguar Cars and British Steel). Its a bit like you taking a month's salary in cash every year, and scattering it from the roof of an office block - utterly pointless, and ruinous to your own family.
.
It looks like my prediction for another £50 billion in quantitive easing (printing cash) has come true, as it has been announced by the BofE.
So we now await the further prediction that this money can be used for infrastructure projects like Silver-Boris-Foster Island. The problem for the government, is that it has categorically stated that it will reduce spending, and so if they are to spend £50 billion on an airport, they will have to conceal the spending in some manner.
I would predict them perhaps getting 'inward investement' from 'abroard', while simultaneously funnelling funding out to these same foreign investors via the overseas aid budget. At £12 billion a year, the ruinously expensive overseas aid budget could pay for Silver-Foster airport in just four years. The only problem here, would be the eventual owners of the airport, for it would be galling in the extreme for the British taxpayer to pay foreign institutions hard cash so that they can own our own infrastructure (as the government has already done with Jaguar Cars and British Steel). Its a bit like you taking a month's salary in cash every year, and scattering it from the roof of an office block - utterly pointless, and ruinous to your own family.
.
Paxing All Over The World
For as long as politicians in the 21st century, continue to take the same actions of politicians in the 20th, we shall continue to go round in circles.
I am emphatically NOT asking for a retread of one or another brand of what has gone before, nor any mish-mash in the middle. Sadly, any attempt at new thinking is always going to get bashed by the vested interests in not changing anything. That starts with the banks and the press and goes on from their. Things have to get very much worse, before the pressue to do it differently will be big enough.
Look at poor Obama, anything he tried to do has been trashed by vested interests. He will get re-elected by a reduced majority but there is no chance that he can fulfil the promise. Now, I am not trying to make a JetBlast style political row, just saying that £50 Bn thrown the same was as the last will have no effect.
As I have said, this airport is not going to be built.
I am emphatically NOT asking for a retread of one or another brand of what has gone before, nor any mish-mash in the middle. Sadly, any attempt at new thinking is always going to get bashed by the vested interests in not changing anything. That starts with the banks and the press and goes on from their. Things have to get very much worse, before the pressue to do it differently will be big enough.
Look at poor Obama, anything he tried to do has been trashed by vested interests. He will get re-elected by a reduced majority but there is no chance that he can fulfil the promise. Now, I am not trying to make a JetBlast style political row, just saying that £50 Bn thrown the same was as the last will have no effect.
As I have said, this airport is not going to be built.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
Well, a lot of the time, London is exactly where the business traveller from Essex wants to be, and even though Paddington is on the western edge of Zone 1, it is still Zone 1. The City & Docklands will become much closer with Crossrail. For these short journeys, the train also wins on convenience - no downtime for security clearance, no queing at the gate, no long walks to faraway stands, no need to turn off the electronics for acceleration and breaking.
In terms of fuel usage, operating such a short sector is indeed inherently wasteful, and the UK govt also levies an APD charge of £12 for the privilege.
Those are two very key factors which weigh just as heavily against such flights operating as the PSC (which ultimately bears the cost of the slots) does.
Short sectors can still make sense when there is a body of water between the two cities in question - so actually, if you want to complain about the slot issue, go to JER / GCI / IOM etc.
But please don't make a business case based on the niche destinations which can't have access to Heathrow. We all agree that, given an absence of nimbys, Heathrow could do with an extra runway or two.
Where we won't agree is on what if anything can be done about it. So I simply take you back to the question I must have asked you about five times now. Given that £2 out of every £3 spent on the new airport will be replacing, not exanding capacity, at what level would you set PSC to make this airport work?
And such a route is hardly 'wasteful' for a business commuter. The train from EXT puts you into London, which is not exactly where you want to be.
In terms of fuel usage, operating such a short sector is indeed inherently wasteful, and the UK govt also levies an APD charge of £12 for the privilege.
Those are two very key factors which weigh just as heavily against such flights operating as the PSC (which ultimately bears the cost of the slots) does.
Short sectors can still make sense when there is a body of water between the two cities in question - so actually, if you want to complain about the slot issue, go to JER / GCI / IOM etc.
But please don't make a business case based on the niche destinations which can't have access to Heathrow. We all agree that, given an absence of nimbys, Heathrow could do with an extra runway or two.
Where we won't agree is on what if anything can be done about it. So I simply take you back to the question I must have asked you about five times now. Given that £2 out of every £3 spent on the new airport will be replacing, not exanding capacity, at what level would you set PSC to make this airport work?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, a lot of the time, London is exactly where the business traveller from Essex wants to be
Electrification to Reading would also enable a Reading to LHR through train, instead of the horrible bus link provided at present. Given that Exeter St Davids to Reading takes about 90 minutes, I think this train connection would be much more convenient than flying, especially as there would be no room for BE in T5, even if they wanted it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy
Look at poor Obama, anything he tried to do has been trashed by vested interests. He will get re-elected by a reduced majority but there is no chance that he can fulfil the promise. Now, I am not trying to make a JetBlast style political row, just saying that £50 Bn thrown the same was as the last will have no effect.
Look at poor Obama, anything he tried to do has been trashed by vested interests. He will get re-elected by a reduced majority but there is no chance that he can fulfil the promise. Now, I am not trying to make a JetBlast style political row, just saying that £50 Bn thrown the same was as the last will have no effect.
A few thoughts.
The 'promise' of Obama was 'We Want Change' !! The most vaccuous election 'promise' ever devised, and how people fell for it, one will never know. When I run for president, I will campaign under a banner saying 'We Will Do Something'...
Brown did not throw £50 billion at anything - he threw £250 billion at something. Which is why some helpful wag left a note on the desk of the Treasury, when Labour left office, saying: 'there is no money left'.
You are right, if we make the same mistakes as Brown, then the new money will again dissapear into the Aether the same as the old. But Brown's folly was to use borrowing for daily expenditure, which never works. Borrowing has to be for special infrastructure - where is does work. Like Silver-Foster.
Think about it. If a factory borows to pay the wages, it is simply delaying the day it will go bust. But if a factory borrows to invest in new machinery, to make the precise knurled flange brackets that everyone needs, they are on the road to fame and fortune.
That, was Brown's folly, and the folly of every Labour government.
.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stansted The 3rd London Airport !!!!!!!
We have trodden this path before, they built Stansted !
THe 3RD London Airport Except......
Nobody Moved !
No services to US, Asia, South Africa, India Japan, Australia !
Not one LHR based airline uses STN !
Complete waste of time "if the argument was to replace LHR which at the times it was , it failed"
If the LoCo revolution had not happened it would still be empty !
THe 3RD London Airport Except......
Nobody Moved !
No services to US, Asia, South Africa, India Japan, Australia !
Not one LHR based airline uses STN !
Complete waste of time "if the argument was to replace LHR which at the times it was , it failed"
If the LoCo revolution had not happened it would still be empty !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 63
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transport Secretary Visits Birmingham Airport
The Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, visited Birmingham Airport today to learn more about the huge capacity that is available immediately, and how Birmingham Airport can take pressure off creaking South East airports.
The debate about recently-launched plans for a “Boris Island” has ignited a fierce debate about Britain’s aviation strategy and events of the weekend have heightened worries about the resilience of the UK’s airport infrastructure.
This is a debate worth having. The crisis of Britain’s airports threatens to derail economic growth. We cannot place all of our eggs in one basket.
Whatever the merits of an Estuary Airport, two important questions remain unanswered by London’s Mayor.
Firstly, there is a question of timing. Department for Transport projections, announced in December 2011, forecast that the number of passengers using the UK's airports could reach 540 million a year by 2040, ahead of the 2008 figure of 372 million. With the best will in the world, it hardly seems possible that an Estuary Airport could be built within twenty years. So how is Boris going to fill the gap in the meantime?
Birmingham’s nine million passengers could be doubled today, on existing infrastructure. Its approved ‘Master Plan’ sees over 27 million using the Airport by 2030, and this could increase to over 35 million. Boris will need this capacity to fill the gap.
Second, there is the question of location. Whilst a high-speed rail link would do much to link an Estuary Airport to other parts of Britain, it is critical that Britain maintains airport capacity near its manufacturing base to create swift, affordable links with our export and import partners.
Mayor Boris should accept that it is no longer desirable for millions of passengers from the North and the Midlands to clog London’s overwhelmed airports, particularly those travelling to destinations well-served by airports like Birmingham.
He should also support the possibility that some London-based passengers would be better off travelling to Birmingham Airport. After all, with a one-hour journey-time from Euston, travelling from central London to a plane at Birmingham Airport is often quicker than the complicated trip to a Heathrow boarding gate. Particularly if you consider the crowded check-in queues and long slog to many gates at Heathrow.
CEO of Birmingham Airport, Paul Kehoe, said, “We were delighted to host the Secretary of State’s ‘fact finding’ visit. Birmingham is a hidden gem and really is the missing part in the aviation capacity jigsaw.
“Boris is right to ask how Britain’s airports can meet growing demand, and to think in ambitious terms about the answer. Because, as he rightly acknowledges, the answer is not a third runway at Heathrow. Everyone accepts that option is now closed.
“Our message to Boris is simple. Britain’s long-term aviation problem requires courageous thinking. But make best use of underused assets, rather than simply adding to the imbalance that has taken place.
“And our message to Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, is that the forthcoming Aviation White paper must recognise the opportunity to distribute aviation in a way that economically benefits the whole UK – not just the South East!"
The debate about recently-launched plans for a “Boris Island” has ignited a fierce debate about Britain’s aviation strategy and events of the weekend have heightened worries about the resilience of the UK’s airport infrastructure.
This is a debate worth having. The crisis of Britain’s airports threatens to derail economic growth. We cannot place all of our eggs in one basket.
Whatever the merits of an Estuary Airport, two important questions remain unanswered by London’s Mayor.
Firstly, there is a question of timing. Department for Transport projections, announced in December 2011, forecast that the number of passengers using the UK's airports could reach 540 million a year by 2040, ahead of the 2008 figure of 372 million. With the best will in the world, it hardly seems possible that an Estuary Airport could be built within twenty years. So how is Boris going to fill the gap in the meantime?
Birmingham’s nine million passengers could be doubled today, on existing infrastructure. Its approved ‘Master Plan’ sees over 27 million using the Airport by 2030, and this could increase to over 35 million. Boris will need this capacity to fill the gap.
Second, there is the question of location. Whilst a high-speed rail link would do much to link an Estuary Airport to other parts of Britain, it is critical that Britain maintains airport capacity near its manufacturing base to create swift, affordable links with our export and import partners.
Mayor Boris should accept that it is no longer desirable for millions of passengers from the North and the Midlands to clog London’s overwhelmed airports, particularly those travelling to destinations well-served by airports like Birmingham.
He should also support the possibility that some London-based passengers would be better off travelling to Birmingham Airport. After all, with a one-hour journey-time from Euston, travelling from central London to a plane at Birmingham Airport is often quicker than the complicated trip to a Heathrow boarding gate. Particularly if you consider the crowded check-in queues and long slog to many gates at Heathrow.
CEO of Birmingham Airport, Paul Kehoe, said, “We were delighted to host the Secretary of State’s ‘fact finding’ visit. Birmingham is a hidden gem and really is the missing part in the aviation capacity jigsaw.
“Boris is right to ask how Britain’s airports can meet growing demand, and to think in ambitious terms about the answer. Because, as he rightly acknowledges, the answer is not a third runway at Heathrow. Everyone accepts that option is now closed.
“Our message to Boris is simple. Britain’s long-term aviation problem requires courageous thinking. But make best use of underused assets, rather than simply adding to the imbalance that has taken place.
“And our message to Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, is that the forthcoming Aviation White paper must recognise the opportunity to distribute aviation in a way that economically benefits the whole UK – not just the South East!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso.
We have trodden this path before, they built Stansted !
THe 3RD London Airport Except...... Nobody Moved !
If the LoCo revolution had not happened it would still be empty !
We have trodden this path before, they built Stansted !
THe 3RD London Airport Except...... Nobody Moved !
If the LoCo revolution had not happened it would still be empty !
Precisely, which is why LHR has to be closed if Silver-Foster is built.
I suppose you could make a case for just building another 5 runways at Stanstead, which would be a cheaper option (except good surface links would be more problematic). The only trouble would be that the planning enquiry would last 60 years, and still not come toma conclusion..
BHX
Birmingham’s nine million passengers could be doubled today, on existing infrastructure. Its approved ‘Master Plan’ sees over 27 million using the Airport by 2030, and this could increase to over 35 million. Boris will need this capacity to fill the gap.
Birmingham’s nine million passengers could be doubled today, on existing infrastructure. Its approved ‘Master Plan’ sees over 27 million using the Airport by 2030, and this could increase to over 35 million. Boris will need this capacity to fill the gap.
Except that BHX is not where international passengers want to go.
Have they never heard of interlining? Do they think everyone wants to visit the UK Midlands or the S.E., and that's it? Almost every international flight I have undertaken over the last 3 years has involved an element of interlining - and I never even bother about considering LHR because it is an awful airport that will lose your interlining baggage, and it does not go to where I want to go.
Simply put LHR does not have the capacity to suit the modern traveller, and splitting its capacity with BHX makes the situation WORSE, not better.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 12th Feb 2012 at 06:28.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with "STRATA" why on earth would you go to Birmingham ?
Its transit facilities are mediocre, interline connections are also poor , local roads are appalling, and the City itself is well to be honest dismal, its hardly a magnet for tourism so there is no incetive for inward traffic (sorry).
I just cannot see the argument for this ?
Put capacity where demand ALREADY exists whether that be the South East or infact ........Manchester !
It ALREADY has TWICE the capaciity available NOW that Birmingham could only offer on a "what if", basis.
It has fantastic domestic and European connections, with multiple daily flights to all major US cities. With the recent massive expansion via the Middle East it can at least demonstrate considerable outbound demand. It's also massively poplular as an inbound destination with a host of major attractions.
Airlines, Business and indeed passengers vote with their feet, the only two players in town are Heathrow and Manchester.
I have suggested before build a new airport AKA O'Hare 6/8 runways
and close Luton Stansted, Heathrow Gatwick, City, Southend etc etc.
...will not happen !
Its transit facilities are mediocre, interline connections are also poor , local roads are appalling, and the City itself is well to be honest dismal, its hardly a magnet for tourism so there is no incetive for inward traffic (sorry).
I just cannot see the argument for this ?
Put capacity where demand ALREADY exists whether that be the South East or infact ........Manchester !
It ALREADY has TWICE the capaciity available NOW that Birmingham could only offer on a "what if", basis.
It has fantastic domestic and European connections, with multiple daily flights to all major US cities. With the recent massive expansion via the Middle East it can at least demonstrate considerable outbound demand. It's also massively poplular as an inbound destination with a host of major attractions.
Airlines, Business and indeed passengers vote with their feet, the only two players in town are Heathrow and Manchester.
I have suggested before build a new airport AKA O'Hare 6/8 runways
and close Luton Stansted, Heathrow Gatwick, City, Southend etc etc.
...will not happen !
Last edited by Navpi; 12th Feb 2012 at 09:13.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Department for Transport projections, announced in December 2011, forecast that the number of passengers using the UK's airports could reach 540 million a year by 2040, ahead of the 2008 figure of 372 million. With the best will in the world, it hardly seems possible that an Estuary Airport could be built within twenty years. So how is Boris going to fill the gap in the meantime?
Now let's take the scenario that there is still some growth, and come 2017, Thai Airways want to add more capacity for UK to BKK, and they can't get slots at LHR. They consider LGW v a regional link from either BHX or MAN.
Ryanair have a few routes left at LGW, and Thai approach mgt about the route. Do they keep serving Ryanair at £10 a pop or do they tell MOL to get lost and go for the £20 a pop Thai are happy to pay + increased likelihood of catering, shop spend and parking.
So we play pass the airport - LHR to LGW, then maybe MOL, who has already got his budget terminal at STN, goes there. Maybe, and it is still a big maybe - STN and LTN are by now full, and only then would the low cost routes get farmed out to airports like BOH and BHX. Why on earth to BHX think the premium traffic will go there, just because they have an HS2 link?
If I was BHX mgt, I'd be looking for a Prestwick type deal with whoever takes on the Virgin franchise, which by 2026 will be the 2nd tier operator - and I'd be looking at offering cheap rail deals for anyone using the airport from London or Manchester.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with "STRATA" why on earth would you go to Birmingham ?
We're talking about a global hub here, and I'm afraid London is the only game in town here. Manchester does extremely well out of its links to the east coast - and iiirc from the Thai example I mentioned, has it not had a BKK route a long while back?
Realistically though, if airlines want to serve the BHX or MAN markets, they can and will do so, and BHX's runway extension will add a handful of extra destinations not currently served.
But as for serving London airports, passengers will want an airport that is actually in, or near, London. Comparisons between walking out to LHR's more distant stands aren't relevant - the walking pace is controlled by the passenger. In the unlikely event that any airport people mover stalls, the flights will be held. HS2 is an entirely separate system - chances are that it will be very reliable, but it won't be infallible. At the moment, less than 20% of BHX pax use public transport to get there - even with HS2, this is unlikely to go much above 30% - so the majority will still use other means, and they will still want their flight to leave on time.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird, had to use CDG a few times while there were no LHR-ORY flights. Always experienced long delays waiting to take off and land despite 4 parallel runways; always used remote stands when plenty of contact stands were available; long bus rides to/from remote stands (thought we were being taken to the Channel tunnel on one return leg!). CDG also has the worst reputation for losing baggage (not mine, was hand baggage only), and for those unfortunate to be passing thru CDCG1 and using the RER train, there's the hassle of a shuttle bus. An airport built
from scratch should be much better organised, so, a truly awful airport!
As for reservation-only trains there a couple of problems with this: not everyone can plan in advance, the advantage of rail is the ability to "walk-on" even if it costs more. The other problem is that on some train services, it is difficult to differentiate between long distance, commuter
and short-hop journeys. A compulsory rail reservation system would push up prices by restricting supply, and be guaranteed to drive people onto domestic flights (where available) and the motorways.
Not convinced that airlines do not value transfer pax. Obviously carriers like EK, EY, QR, SQ, and more recently TK, have transfer pax as a business model, but suspect that it is likely that the likes of BA, AF, KL, LH, etc., probably benefit from a mix. Some routes only exist because
of transfer traffic potential, but they can also generate origin/destination traffic. Obviously in the case of no frills there is no such thing as a transfer pax, even those that are actually doing a transfer.
Silver, your choice of EXT for a EXT-CDG-LYS was a good one not just for the reasons you stated but also because it illustrates the stupidity of "airport junction" being left "unfinished". It only allows rail access to/from LHR to the main line in one direction (to/from Hayes, Ealing, and London).
To save money on a short chord, it is impossible to run trains from a whole swathe of the country to LHR: the West Country (including Exeter), the Severn estuary, south and west Wales and the southern part of the West Midlands, either directly or with one change at Reading. It also doesn't help that long-distance trains do not stop at Hayes. No joined up railway there, no joined-up thinking either! Has no one heard of integrated public transport?
On the subject of a lack of joined-up thinking/integrated public transport agree 100% with Jabird's comment ("utter madness") on the ludicrous decision not to run the Crossrail as far as Reading (or Southend on the other side), as existing commuter trains run up to London from both Reading and Southend on what will become Crossrail.
Silver, you state that LHR has to close for SILVERing Sands to work. That is the biggest fly in the ointment -it won't happen, it's too late. The previous estuary plans were for additional capacity, not to replace LHR. Eventually, STN was chosen instead as a "THIRD London airport" (what did they think LTN was?), and as Bagso stated, STN was chronicly underused until FR and U2 moved in.
from scratch should be much better organised, so, a truly awful airport!
As for reservation-only trains there a couple of problems with this: not everyone can plan in advance, the advantage of rail is the ability to "walk-on" even if it costs more. The other problem is that on some train services, it is difficult to differentiate between long distance, commuter
and short-hop journeys. A compulsory rail reservation system would push up prices by restricting supply, and be guaranteed to drive people onto domestic flights (where available) and the motorways.
Not convinced that airlines do not value transfer pax. Obviously carriers like EK, EY, QR, SQ, and more recently TK, have transfer pax as a business model, but suspect that it is likely that the likes of BA, AF, KL, LH, etc., probably benefit from a mix. Some routes only exist because
of transfer traffic potential, but they can also generate origin/destination traffic. Obviously in the case of no frills there is no such thing as a transfer pax, even those that are actually doing a transfer.
Silver, your choice of EXT for a EXT-CDG-LYS was a good one not just for the reasons you stated but also because it illustrates the stupidity of "airport junction" being left "unfinished". It only allows rail access to/from LHR to the main line in one direction (to/from Hayes, Ealing, and London).
To save money on a short chord, it is impossible to run trains from a whole swathe of the country to LHR: the West Country (including Exeter), the Severn estuary, south and west Wales and the southern part of the West Midlands, either directly or with one change at Reading. It also doesn't help that long-distance trains do not stop at Hayes. No joined up railway there, no joined-up thinking either! Has no one heard of integrated public transport?
On the subject of a lack of joined-up thinking/integrated public transport agree 100% with Jabird's comment ("utter madness") on the ludicrous decision not to run the Crossrail as far as Reading (or Southend on the other side), as existing commuter trains run up to London from both Reading and Southend on what will become Crossrail.
Silver, you state that LHR has to close for SILVERing Sands to work. That is the biggest fly in the ointment -it won't happen, it's too late. The previous estuary plans were for additional capacity, not to replace LHR. Eventually, STN was chosen instead as a "THIRD London airport" (what did they think LTN was?), and as Bagso stated, STN was chronicly underused until FR and U2 moved in.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those unfortunate to be passing thru CDCG1 and using the RER train, there's the hassle of a shuttle bus. An airport built
from scratch should be much better organised
from scratch should be much better organised
I know AF like to operate through connections in waves, so I wonder if the 'hog' a lot of the contact stands? Similar to many US airports where the airline leases out the gates?
As for reservation-only trains there a couple of problems with this:
Not convinced that airlines do not value transfer pax.
Airlines like EK have to rely mainly on transfer passengers as there just wouldn't be a big enough market just to serve O&D. Having said that, as a result of these airlines existing, DXB has become a major destination in its own right, so now you have VS & BA flying there from LHR too.
To save money on a short chord
* At the time the LHR express opened (98?), the only overhead wires west of Paddington were just the ones serving LHR. It is only recently that the project has begun to electrify the great western route, and even this will only reach certain stations.
* The LHR Exp is a four car unit, so you can't just shove in the kind of trains which currently operate the longer routes anyway (HSTs / Voyagers) - even if they were electrically powered.
* Most people heading on trains into PAD at present want to go to central London and beyond - only a small proportion actually want to go into Heathrow.
* Operating trains into LHR and then back out again would add to journey times - people would change onto direct services.
Ideally, when it comes round to HS4 or 5, they will operate through LHR and beyond. Until then, the most realistic option is for a four car service from a station that already has at least 4 trains per hour - so something like Oxford - Reading - Slough - Heathrow might work.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For similar reasons, it is going to be a challenge to get an HS2 spur into LHR. They are talking about only one train per hour, one from Manchester, one from Leeds - with a join / split at the Birmingham 'M42' station. HS2 uses quite a lot of existing corridor to get as far as Ruislip - but at some point they will have to drop a brand new spur across a new alignment to get into the LHR complex. That would cost a few billion for starters, then they've got a tunnel under the northern runway and somehow distribute a new line to the three terminal areas.
Can you really see that happening just to run one train per hour, without continuation anywhere else (like HS4 as mentioned above?).
Much cheaper to just interchange at Old Oak Common.
And there's Silver thinking 'yet another reason to close LHR'. Except that they haven't considered how to bring high speed rail into the new airport either.
Can you really see that happening just to run one train per hour, without continuation anywhere else (like HS4 as mentioned above?).
Much cheaper to just interchange at Old Oak Common.
And there's Silver thinking 'yet another reason to close LHR'. Except that they haven't considered how to bring high speed rail into the new airport either.
Paxing All Over The World
From The Independent of today's date:
HS2 rail link may face legal challenge - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
Just imagine how many challenges a Thames estury site would have. It is never going to be built.
The Government may face a legal challenge to its £33 billion HS2 high-speed rail project, it was revealed today.
Opponents of the scheme are also contacting the European Commission over concerns about HS2's environmental impact.
Opponents of the scheme are also contacting the European Commission over concerns about HS2's environmental impact.
Just imagine how many challenges a Thames estury site would have. It is never going to be built.