Loss of Gatwick Express - BAA's real concern?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loss of Gatwick Express - BAA's real concern?
Sorry if there's already a thread specifically on this (didn't find one), but I think it needs a bit of a rant..
In the ongoing row over SRA v BAA / N Exp group, how much is their real concern over the loss of one of their cash cows, rather than over the service levels given to passengers?
From what I see of the proposals, Victoria originating pax lose slightly by the stop at East Croydon, but this in turn extends a lot of connections opportunities. Why would airport pax be concerned if the train then continues to Brighton - doesn't this make the best use of existing, heavily congested, tracks? So what if they have "only two minutes" - they aren't exactly going to let the train leave without people boarding are they? Then we have the usual safety nonsense trumpeted out as a reason in its defence.
As so much rail fare revenue seems to be carelessly lost due to lack of ticket inspections, how much are BAA really just concerned because a single stop airport to rail terminus service is cheaper to run, easier to get away with charging top whack for, and easier to check tickets on?
Might enforced stops on the Gatwick service also open them up to eventually needing to put on a stopping service to Heathrow?
Aren't these some of the most expensive trains in the world on a cost per mile basis (excluding routes like Jungfrau in Switzerland, where I don't mind paying top whack for the superb views). I can't think of many, if any other cities where such a premium is charged on airport to city rail services which only give one edge of centre, rather than central option - maybe the CAT in Vienna, or the Shanghai maglev, but that's in a different league to anything in the UK, technology wise at least.
Isn't this really about BAA protecting their monopoly yet again, and nothing to do with consumers' best interests?
In the ongoing row over SRA v BAA / N Exp group, how much is their real concern over the loss of one of their cash cows, rather than over the service levels given to passengers?
From what I see of the proposals, Victoria originating pax lose slightly by the stop at East Croydon, but this in turn extends a lot of connections opportunities. Why would airport pax be concerned if the train then continues to Brighton - doesn't this make the best use of existing, heavily congested, tracks? So what if they have "only two minutes" - they aren't exactly going to let the train leave without people boarding are they? Then we have the usual safety nonsense trumpeted out as a reason in its defence.
As so much rail fare revenue seems to be carelessly lost due to lack of ticket inspections, how much are BAA really just concerned because a single stop airport to rail terminus service is cheaper to run, easier to get away with charging top whack for, and easier to check tickets on?
Might enforced stops on the Gatwick service also open them up to eventually needing to put on a stopping service to Heathrow?
Aren't these some of the most expensive trains in the world on a cost per mile basis (excluding routes like Jungfrau in Switzerland, where I don't mind paying top whack for the superb views). I can't think of many, if any other cities where such a premium is charged on airport to city rail services which only give one edge of centre, rather than central option - maybe the CAT in Vienna, or the Shanghai maglev, but that's in a different league to anything in the UK, technology wise at least.
Isn't this really about BAA protecting their monopoly yet again, and nothing to do with consumers' best interests?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SE of Compton
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SRA Route Utilisation Strategy for the London Brighton corridor has identified that the Gatwick Express paths are not particularly efficient when you consider the number of pax shifted. Trains are busy during the morning but come the afternoons they become quiet, additionally platfrom occupancy at Gatwick is a problem. These paths could better serve the tax payer by extending southwards.
The current Gatwick Express service obviously uses dedicated rolling stock that was designed for airport passengers and all that goes with them, specifcally luggage.
I suppose BAA are worried that the ambience on any revised service pattern would be degraded, more crowding and the possibility of rolling stock substitutions where there is less luggage capacity.
BTW, a half hourly stopping service on Heathrow Express commences in Spring 2005 called Heathrow Connect and will serve Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall & Hayes before heading for Heathrow.
The current Gatwick Express service obviously uses dedicated rolling stock that was designed for airport passengers and all that goes with them, specifcally luggage.
I suppose BAA are worried that the ambience on any revised service pattern would be degraded, more crowding and the possibility of rolling stock substitutions where there is less luggage capacity.
BTW, a half hourly stopping service on Heathrow Express commences in Spring 2005 called Heathrow Connect and will serve Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall & Hayes before heading for Heathrow.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an item on Radio 4 about this on Sat. They said that the frequency of trains to Gatwick would actually increase to one every ten minutes. Perhaps thats being economical with the truth as when you combine Gatwick express with South Central, there must be that many already.
So will the fare be £13 or £8 each way?
Will they try to sneak in stops at Clapham Junction?
At the present. personally, I'd save a fiver and take the South Central unless there was a long wait. Its no slower at peak times.
As for the Heathrow Express. "Famous for Fifteen Minutes". The implication being that it takes fifteen minutes, when in fact its more like 20. Thats going to get worse when the Terminal Five service starts. Are all trains going to Terminal five? If they are the service is going to need a shedload more trains, so price increase on the way.
So will the fare be £13 or £8 each way?
Will they try to sneak in stops at Clapham Junction?
At the present. personally, I'd save a fiver and take the South Central unless there was a long wait. Its no slower at peak times.
As for the Heathrow Express. "Famous for Fifteen Minutes". The implication being that it takes fifteen minutes, when in fact its more like 20. Thats going to get worse when the Terminal Five service starts. Are all trains going to Terminal five? If they are the service is going to need a shedload more trains, so price increase on the way.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't see how it wouldn't. They also need an option to "turn left" and go on to Reading - H Express is useless from the west. I know much of this has been talked about, but action is a different story. No doubt the 1/4 mile or so of track needed to make this possible would cost hundreds of millions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is happening regarding rail access to LHR T5 ? Are they extending both the Underground and the Heathrow Express ?
Will the Heathrow Express go from the central station to T4 and then to T5, or will it be a split service after the central station ? If it goes via T4 first before T5, it'll be almost 30 minutes......
As for the Underground, will it go from T4 to T5 before looping back to T1/2/3 ?
As for the Heathrow Express, it seems to me an attractive solution would be a through Paddington to Reading service VIA Heathrow T1/2/3, T4 and T5, which would solve the problem of access to the west. But that would cost millions of billions.
Will the Heathrow Express go from the central station to T4 and then to T5, or will it be a split service after the central station ? If it goes via T4 first before T5, it'll be almost 30 minutes......
As for the Underground, will it go from T4 to T5 before looping back to T1/2/3 ?
As for the Heathrow Express, it seems to me an attractive solution would be a through Paddington to Reading service VIA Heathrow T1/2/3, T4 and T5, which would solve the problem of access to the west. But that would cost millions of billions.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would airport pax be concerned if the train then continues to Brighton - doesn't this make the best use of existing, heavily congested, tracks?
Andy
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the situation of Terminal 5, it looks as though all trains will stop as Heathrow Central then there will be a split with some going to Terminal 5 and some to Terminal 4, with eventually those going to Terminal 5 extending to the National Rail network.
http://www.britishairways.com/tfive/...s/newter.shtml
http://www.britishairways.com/tfive/...s/newter.shtml
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South East UK
Age: 69
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now then, back to the Gatwick Express ( which is what this thread started as ), jabird, I think there may be a misunderstanding - BAA DO NOT own or operate the Gatwick Express and therefore cannot charge heavy monopoly fares for this service - it's run by National Express !
I think the point made about travelling from the airport is very valid. The thought of boarding a packed commuter train coming up from Brighton in the peak morning period, which co-incides with Gatwicks busiest arrival time, just doesn't appeal - it will be crap, crap for the commuter and crap for the airport passenger.
I have used the Gatwick Express on a numerous occasions and although it rarely does the trip in 30 mins ( 35 is average ), it is actually a pretty good experience.
It is possible that BAA would need to build more car parks if the service was withdrawn and that would go against the development plans for the airport which contained a clause around more / better public transport access.
I think the point made about travelling from the airport is very valid. The thought of boarding a packed commuter train coming up from Brighton in the peak morning period, which co-incides with Gatwicks busiest arrival time, just doesn't appeal - it will be crap, crap for the commuter and crap for the airport passenger.
I have used the Gatwick Express on a numerous occasions and although it rarely does the trip in 30 mins ( 35 is average ), it is actually a pretty good experience.
It is possible that BAA would need to build more car parks if the service was withdrawn and that would go against the development plans for the airport which contained a clause around more / better public transport access.
Can see both points of view here - as a passenger on the existing crowded southern railways trains (usually stood I hasten to add) extra trains would be a benefit. However, pax from LGW boarding trains up to London in the morning rush will NOT be able to get on a crowded train from Brighton/Bogner/Littlehampton/Portsmouth - or wherever the train starts from. The same will be true in the evening rush out of London - standing pax on south central trains is the norm on anything leaving Victoria anytime between 1700 and 1830. Where will any pax wanting LGW only put luggage etc? WIll we see the return of the baggage car on the end of these trains - I think not. If the LGW Express does run through to B'ton etc will fares be different to those charged by South Central? Probably not - so we are back to the problem of 2 fare classes for what is in essence a horribly overcrowded, expensive and unreliable service between London and Brighton.
The SRA thing is based on a total myth.
Gatwick Express off-peak trains are usually quiet. The off-peak trains down to Brighton etc are usually quiet.
All of the peak-time Gatwick Express trains on which I have travelled recently (and it's been quite a few) have been full with people standing; full; or very close to it. All extending this to Brighton will do is transfer overcrowding from one full train to another.
Gatwick Express off-peak trains are usually quiet. The off-peak trains down to Brighton etc are usually quiet.
All of the peak-time Gatwick Express trains on which I have travelled recently (and it's been quite a few) have been full with people standing; full; or very close to it. All extending this to Brighton will do is transfer overcrowding from one full train to another.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to quickly wrap up the LHR transport questions:
LUL Piccadilly Line will change its service pattern: Every alternate train will take the current T4-T123 loop, with the other trains operating T123-T5, thus no direct T4-T5 services.
Heathrow Express: Alternate Trains will go to T4 and T5.
Heathrow Connect: Will not serve T4 (no capacity). Might serve T5.
Jordan
LUL Piccadilly Line will change its service pattern: Every alternate train will take the current T4-T123 loop, with the other trains operating T123-T5, thus no direct T4-T5 services.
Heathrow Express: Alternate Trains will go to T4 and T5.
Heathrow Connect: Will not serve T4 (no capacity). Might serve T5.
Jordan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woofrey,
AFAIK, The "airport express group" is a joint venture between National Express AND BAA. Please correct me if wrong here.
BAA's stranglehold on the London market is well known, and I believe was commented on by a number of airlines in their White Paper response. It does at least look like LTN will be fighting now for a bit more market share, but it is still a very small piece of the pie, and LCY is a mere few crumbs (even if they are premium pax).
If capacity is scarce on a rail route, it makes little sense to stop half the services in the middle of the route - that then creates a vacuum between LGW and Brighton half of the time. No-one's saying it is a perfect solution, but doesn't it make the best use of scarce resources? Trains can be shunted around, new track is a totally different ball game.
I don't know how realistic the re-opening of the line between Uckfield and Lewes might be - that would take some of the pressure away from the Brighton route, although I presume that would then mean a longer journey from Lewes? I know Chiltern are looking at an Oxford to Marleybone alternative route too, so sometimes a little extra mileage can be overcome by better scheduling, easier parking etc - I know they've taken a certain amount of pax from Virgin by opening facilities like Warwick Parkway.
The only other way of increasing capacity would be to increase train length (already done?), use double deckers (too many low bridges?), or reduce headways (no chance of getting past the safety lobby?).
Isn't that why the SRA solution may be the best, or perhaps just least bad, option?
AFAIK, The "airport express group" is a joint venture between National Express AND BAA. Please correct me if wrong here.
BAA's stranglehold on the London market is well known, and I believe was commented on by a number of airlines in their White Paper response. It does at least look like LTN will be fighting now for a bit more market share, but it is still a very small piece of the pie, and LCY is a mere few crumbs (even if they are premium pax).
If capacity is scarce on a rail route, it makes little sense to stop half the services in the middle of the route - that then creates a vacuum between LGW and Brighton half of the time. No-one's saying it is a perfect solution, but doesn't it make the best use of scarce resources? Trains can be shunted around, new track is a totally different ball game.
I don't know how realistic the re-opening of the line between Uckfield and Lewes might be - that would take some of the pressure away from the Brighton route, although I presume that would then mean a longer journey from Lewes? I know Chiltern are looking at an Oxford to Marleybone alternative route too, so sometimes a little extra mileage can be overcome by better scheduling, easier parking etc - I know they've taken a certain amount of pax from Virgin by opening facilities like Warwick Parkway.
The only other way of increasing capacity would be to increase train length (already done?), use double deckers (too many low bridges?), or reduce headways (no chance of getting past the safety lobby?).
Isn't that why the SRA solution may be the best, or perhaps just least bad, option?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first started working at LGW I think the airport was handling around 12 million pax per annum (1976). The dedicated train link didn't exist and the whole experience of travelling by train to/from LGW in peak periods was very unpleasant. Bags were strewn whereevr the owner could put them and if there had been an incident an emergency evacuation would have been almost impossible.
As the Airport grew the BAA lobbied to get dedicated trains for the service between LGW and Victoria. The service was restricted to 3 paths an hour and then grew to the current 4 an hour. Off peak the schedule was reduced. The standard of comfort and convenience offered to the commuter and LGW pax was greatly improved by their segregation on seperate trains.
Now with the airport handling 30 million pax per annum some one thinks it will be a good idea to remove the service. I have to admit that I cannot see the logic in this move. The number of additional paths will not be greatly increased due to Terminal restrictions at Victoria and Brighton, whereas LGW has had a couple of realignments to make it efficient.
As another poster has pointed out already, this current proposal will not help the peak time situation one Iota for the LGW passenger, and I doubt commuters will appreciate the LGW passengers pushing past with their heavy and oversize baggage, banging knee caps and ripping suits.
One other point which is relevant is that pax baggage is now far larger and heavier than it was back in the late 70's when they had to carry it. Now that pax can wheel their bags it is far larger and heavier.
As the Airport grew the BAA lobbied to get dedicated trains for the service between LGW and Victoria. The service was restricted to 3 paths an hour and then grew to the current 4 an hour. Off peak the schedule was reduced. The standard of comfort and convenience offered to the commuter and LGW pax was greatly improved by their segregation on seperate trains.
Now with the airport handling 30 million pax per annum some one thinks it will be a good idea to remove the service. I have to admit that I cannot see the logic in this move. The number of additional paths will not be greatly increased due to Terminal restrictions at Victoria and Brighton, whereas LGW has had a couple of realignments to make it efficient.
As another poster has pointed out already, this current proposal will not help the peak time situation one Iota for the LGW passenger, and I doubt commuters will appreciate the LGW passengers pushing past with their heavy and oversize baggage, banging knee caps and ripping suits.
One other point which is relevant is that pax baggage is now far larger and heavier than it was back in the late 70's when they had to carry it. Now that pax can wheel their bags it is far larger and heavier.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Vont. I started at LGW in 1973 and there were many complaints from commuters and air passengers about the problems of boarding peak hour trains. The other reason the Express came in was pressure from British Caledonian's Adam Thomson who needed to promote a non-stop dedicated link to central London.
The Express has always promoted a 30 minute journey time for PR reasons despite us locals knowing that the journey time is often more towards 35 mins. Doesn't really matter, does it? It is a comfortable journey (mostly) and I'll pay the extra for the comfort and non-stop service.
I haven't driven in London for 20 years. I always drive to Gatwick and get the train because I know it is four an hour, all night service and non-stop and I can always park. That's what public transport should be.
The Express has always promoted a 30 minute journey time for PR reasons despite us locals knowing that the journey time is often more towards 35 mins. Doesn't really matter, does it? It is a comfortable journey (mostly) and I'll pay the extra for the comfort and non-stop service.
I haven't driven in London for 20 years. I always drive to Gatwick and get the train because I know it is four an hour, all night service and non-stop and I can always park. That's what public transport should be.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London FIR
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'ordinary' trains that link Gatwick with London and the South Coast are certainly best avoided at peak times and also at other times if you've got luggage, etc.
Thameslink in particular is appalling even if you're just an ordinary commuter, simply because the trains are at peak times, always overcrowded.
The same problem arises with the Thameslink service to Luton Airport which is why those in the 'know' take the Midland Mainline service from St Pancras (or from major points north of Luton).
Although not an airport-dedicated service like the Gatwick Express, its 'Turbostar' trains are at least roomy, modern and clean, and the 23-minute journey from London to Luton Airport Parkway is the fastest after Paddington to Heathrow Central.
The plan to stop the Gatwick Express is just crazy, is short-sighted and flies directly in the face of the Blair Government's policy of encouraging the use of public transport. Driving from Central London to Gatwick is a nightmare, with the M23 only offering some relief well after passing Croydon, Coulsdon and the Surrey suburbs.
Another example of utter stupidity is that the Midland Mainline IntercIty 125 trains from/to St Pancras cannot stop at Luton Airport Parkway station because....the platforms are not long enough!!
Perhaps the clown responsible is the same idiot who has proposed scrapping the Gatwick Express.
It just makes you want to
Thameslink in particular is appalling even if you're just an ordinary commuter, simply because the trains are at peak times, always overcrowded.
The same problem arises with the Thameslink service to Luton Airport which is why those in the 'know' take the Midland Mainline service from St Pancras (or from major points north of Luton).
Although not an airport-dedicated service like the Gatwick Express, its 'Turbostar' trains are at least roomy, modern and clean, and the 23-minute journey from London to Luton Airport Parkway is the fastest after Paddington to Heathrow Central.
The plan to stop the Gatwick Express is just crazy, is short-sighted and flies directly in the face of the Blair Government's policy of encouraging the use of public transport. Driving from Central London to Gatwick is a nightmare, with the M23 only offering some relief well after passing Croydon, Coulsdon and the Surrey suburbs.
Another example of utter stupidity is that the Midland Mainline IntercIty 125 trains from/to St Pancras cannot stop at Luton Airport Parkway station because....the platforms are not long enough!!
Perhaps the clown responsible is the same idiot who has proposed scrapping the Gatwick Express.
It just makes you want to
