HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I've long said that the most effective way to link Heathrow and Gatwick by train is to combine the Heathrow Connect from Heathrow into London, which runs all the way into Paddington but duplicates the Heathrow Express in so doing, with the train from Brighton and Gatwick to Watford, which carries very few passengers north of Kensington, and which crosses the Connect route at Acton, where there is plenty of spare railway land for a link.
This would then provide trains from Heathrow to Clapham Junction and Croydon, and also from Gatwick to Ealing and Southall, as well as linking the two airports directly. None of these flows individually justifies their own train, but put them all together in the same train and you do so."
Certainly makes more sense than going via Guildford.
This would then provide trains from Heathrow to Clapham Junction and Croydon, and also from Gatwick to Ealing and Southall, as well as linking the two airports directly. None of these flows individually justifies their own train, but put them all together in the same train and you do so."
Certainly makes more sense than going via Guildford.
Paxing All Over The World
BKS Air Transport
The people who got stitched up by their travel agents, or misunderstood what a website and/or consolidator was telling them. Most will swear NEVER to be taken for that ride again.
If no passengers are transferring Heathrow to Gatwick, who is using those NX coaches that seem to run about every 10 minutes?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things noticed when Eurostar moved over from Waterloo to St Pancras was how additionally inconvenient it now was for those from SW London, Surrey, etc, to get to it, compared to hopping across platforms at Waterloo. BA experienced a significant increase in Paris traffic from Heathrow after this happened.
I realise a LoCo doing long haul is fraught with problems, but they are trying it out in Asia so I can't imagine it will have escaped the notice of EZY and RYR. Just a thought though, I suppose.
I suspect Easy are happy pushing the limits of the A320 series, but don't want to go beyond that for reasons for fleet management as much as anything else. Also, legacy can feed long haul through their networks, airport costs become far less significant, and locos don't get any discounts on fuel, or more significantly in the UK, APD.
Perhaps you should visit Farringdon which is being built as an underground interchange station between these two lines.
If no passengers are transferring Heathrow to Gatwick, who is using those NX coaches that seem to run about every 10 minutes?
which crosses the Connect route at Acton, where there is plenty of spare railway land for a link.
Can anyone suggest ANY metropolitan area which has made a success of connections between different airports ?
The only rail service I am aware of that links TWO airports in the same city area WITHOUT going through the city centre is the AREX in Seoul.
Now I don't want to beat Gimpo up too much (sorry, couldn't resist) - but it is primarily a domestic airport, with a few regional connections.
Given the choice - similar timings, similar fares - why would you fly via the Incheon-Gimpo combination, say to reach KIX if you could transfer through SIN, HKG etc?
The only reason I can think of is you fall for the marketing campaign that "Gimpo gets you to KIX".
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm one of those who frequently fly into LGW (or LCY) and transfer to LHR, and reverse the journey on the return leg. I do it not because of some inane travel agency or web booking, but simply because there are no flights to LHR from where I live. JER, GCI and even INV pax face the same problem. I suspect there are also many in the regions and even in Europe who hop on a cheap orange 'bus to LGW and then fly out of LHR simply because at the price point they are prepared to pay such a routing is the cheaper option.
I'd like to think that LHR R3 would enable me to transit through LHR, but that is wishful thinking.....
I'd like to think that LHR R3 would enable me to transit through LHR, but that is wishful thinking.....
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to think that LHR R3 would enable me to transit through LHR, but that is wishful thinking.....
Even if there was a (temporary) improvement in regional connectivity, it would only be a matter of time before the slots were reallocated to other more profitable routes; life keeps repeating itself and the greed and self interest of the LHR airlines is so predicable as to be boring; hopefully the Davies Commission will see through their trickery.
The answer for LGW is the new owners (GIP) plan to build a R2 after 2019; this should be combined with a refusal for R3 at LHR on competition grounds, at least until after BAA have completed their Toast Rack works in 20 - 30 year time.
Last edited by Windsorian; 10th Nov 2012 at 09:57.
Most unlikely the existing LHR airlines will allow any new start-ups on BAA's proposed R3
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR - LGW by train
.... another spur off the mainline, allowing some long distance trains to stop at LHR 1-2-3 and LHR-5 is needed
The Airtrack proposal was never intended to go to LGW
Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who should build & operate a R3 ?
What is the mechanism whereby Heathrow's incumbent airlines are able to exercise a veto over new entrant carriers
However let me ask you to consider whether you (and others) would support a LHR R3 if it was to be a no-frills operation built and operated by EasyJet or Ryanair ? A short runway and short haul fights is what these two airlines specialise in and would be ideal in providing the regional connectivity that has disappeared from LHR as the big beasts have withdrawn these links.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsorian answer DaveReid's question please. Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a runway 3 at LHR? Not even close.
Do you even understand how this market performs??? Locos like easyJet operate point to point, they don't do connections. Hence they're a bogus issue here, the business question is how to increase the capacity of a hub airport. Hence point to point is a side issue here.
BA have brought back LBA as they got a once in a generation growth opportunity with BMI coming on board. Runway 3 could be ring fenced to have some slots for UK connectivity, allowing BA or VS to re-connect IOM, INV and JER into LHR. It would be small price to pay for additonal long haul profits, which still need to be fed to be viable.
Do you even understand how this market performs??? Locos like easyJet operate point to point, they don't do connections. Hence they're a bogus issue here, the business question is how to increase the capacity of a hub airport. Hence point to point is a side issue here.
BA have brought back LBA as they got a once in a generation growth opportunity with BMI coming on board. Runway 3 could be ring fenced to have some slots for UK connectivity, allowing BA or VS to re-connect IOM, INV and JER into LHR. It would be small price to pay for additonal long haul profits, which still need to be fed to be viable.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 10th Nov 2012 at 15:43.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Skipness One Echo
I don't mean to be rude, but I understand a detailed 20 year analysis of Heathrow's performance is being prepared and will be submitted to the Davies Commission; it will cover statements made by BAA & BA at the T5 Inquiry and the outcome since T5 opened!
I am well aware that to support their case for a R3 at LHR, IAG and Virgin are desperately trying to reinstate some regional routes; however I understand these will not be ring fenced. Can I suggest you confirm that any ring fenced regional routes will only apply to new R3 slots and not existing slots including the BMI package?
Then we have the question of what will apply to any R3 ring fenced slots when HS2 opens? Will they be returned to the pool for redistribution or retained on the basis of grandfather rights?
It's why I keep pointing out that from the outset R3 will be populated by a combination of resettlements from LGW plus discards from LHR two main runways.
After the DfT decision to award the WCML to First, Virgin rushed out a proposal to fly from MAN to LHR; do you really think the competition authorities will allow them to control both the plane and rail links? I suspect something will have to give.
Also the 12 pairs of BMI slots to be reallocated by the EU may not go to Virgin or BA; it seems Aer Lingus is also bidding and we all know who wants to take-over them!
Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please
I am well aware that to support their case for a R3 at LHR, IAG and Virgin are desperately trying to reinstate some regional routes; however I understand these will not be ring fenced. Can I suggest you confirm that any ring fenced regional routes will only apply to new R3 slots and not existing slots including the BMI package?
Then we have the question of what will apply to any R3 ring fenced slots when HS2 opens? Will they be returned to the pool for redistribution or retained on the basis of grandfather rights?
Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a R3 at LHR?
After the DfT decision to award the WCML to First, Virgin rushed out a proposal to fly from MAN to LHR; do you really think the competition authorities will allow them to control both the plane and rail links? I suspect something will have to give.
Also the 12 pairs of BMI slots to be reallocated by the EU may not go to Virgin or BA; it seems Aer Lingus is also bidding and we all know who wants to take-over them!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Did they really? Eurostar has grown since moving to SPI - there is an inevitable trade-off with the areas you mention losing out, but anywhere to the north (including the Midlands etc) gaining. The reduction in journey time ensures a net gain - but I'm sure BA did indeed pick up pax from the Surrey area - again, LHR's location is a double bonus for them there, but LGW-BRU & CDG long gone.”
But LHR-CDG, LHR-ORY and LHR-BRU are still there, so are the pax from Middlesex, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, parts (west) of Surrey at least, and points further west of course. There’s no net journey gain on Eurostar from this far out, so flights are still necessary, and sometimes cheaper than the Eurostar.
These flights also provide pax from in and around Paris and Brussels to take advantage of the LHR hub.
Quote: “The only rail service I am aware of that links TWO airports in the same city area WITHOUT going through the city centre is the AREX in Seoul.
Now I don't want to beat Gimpo up too much (sorry, couldn't resist) - but it is primarily a domestic airport, with a few regional connections.
Given the choice - similar timings, similar fares - why would you fly via the Incheon-Gimpo combination, say to reach KIX if you could transfer through SIN, HKG etc?
The only reason I can think of is you fall for the marketing campaign that "Gimpo gets you to KIX".
Was there in 2007, took the subway from GMP to Seoul. At that time, ICN still had no express train to Seoul. Since then AFAIK, the express train between ICN and Seoul has now opened, and as it passes GMP, it might as well stop there.
It is a particularly East Asian arrangement to build a new airport far from the city and have it as the new hub with some domestic flights for connection purposes. The original airport handles point-to-point domestic and near abroad flights. Consequently domestic flights from the regions run into both airports.
It’s not just Gimpo (GMP) and Incheon (ICN) in Seoul: Hongqiao (SHA) and Pudong (PVG) in Shanghai, Songshan (TSA) and Taoyuan (TPE) in Taipei, and Narita (NRT) and Haneda (HND) in Tokyo are other examples. HND has recently restarted some longhaul flights, but still on a relatively small scale (so far).
These four countries also have another thing in common: a very large number of domestic flights, and high speed rail networks. In other words, high speed rail has not killed the demand for domestic flights there, and nor would it in the UK.
Quote: “One of the proposed BAA Airtrack routes was 2tph semi-fast service to Guildford via Staines. LGW is also crying out for improved train connectivity and LGW to Guildford would help to achieve this.
Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.”
You’re having a laugh!
Any idea how long that would take? It’s one hell of a “dog leg”! Even in traffic, National Express buses would be quicker.
Quote: “Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please. Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a runway 3 at LHR? Not even close.
Do you even understand how this market performs??? Locos like easyJet operate point to point, they don't do connections. Hence they're a bogus issue here, the business question is how to increase the capacity of a hub airport. Hence point to point is a side issue here.”
Indeed, this is why no frills operators are at the point-to-point airports: LGW, LTN, STN, etc., and not at the LHR hub airport.
Quote: “BA have brought back LBA as they got a once in a generation growth opportunity with BMI coming on board. Runway 3 could be ring fenced to have some slots for UK connectivity, allowing BA or VS to re-connect IOM, INV and JER into LHR. It would be small price to pay for additonal long haul profits, which still need to be fed to be viable.”
Exactly, it does need a proportion of the new slots created by more rwys to be ringfenced for thin domestic routes. This would also help make more longhaul routes viable (connecting pax). AFAIK, this course of action has been mooted in the House of Lords.
Quote: “The T5 rail station is best used for maximum efficiency by utilising through trains, rather than as a terminus station; there is unlikely to be sufficient demand for terminating trains from the West of Reading.”
No, not terminating at LHR-5, agree that this would be pointless. The idea would be that some long distance trains from west of Heathrow would stop at LHR-5, then LHR 1-2-3, then up to London via airport junction and vice versa of course.
LHR-5 up to London is on existing tracks, sorry, should have made it clearer.
Quote: “Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.”
There is no logic (see earlier in this post). BTW, semi fast would be difficult on that route, especially if frequency is required.
Quote: “Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please”
Am now more convinced than ever that Windsorian and Silverstrata are the same person!
Good old Silver also never answers the question over on the Thames estuary airport thread.
But LHR-CDG, LHR-ORY and LHR-BRU are still there, so are the pax from Middlesex, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, parts (west) of Surrey at least, and points further west of course. There’s no net journey gain on Eurostar from this far out, so flights are still necessary, and sometimes cheaper than the Eurostar.
These flights also provide pax from in and around Paris and Brussels to take advantage of the LHR hub.
Quote: “The only rail service I am aware of that links TWO airports in the same city area WITHOUT going through the city centre is the AREX in Seoul.
Now I don't want to beat Gimpo up too much (sorry, couldn't resist) - but it is primarily a domestic airport, with a few regional connections.
Given the choice - similar timings, similar fares - why would you fly via the Incheon-Gimpo combination, say to reach KIX if you could transfer through SIN, HKG etc?
The only reason I can think of is you fall for the marketing campaign that "Gimpo gets you to KIX".
Was there in 2007, took the subway from GMP to Seoul. At that time, ICN still had no express train to Seoul. Since then AFAIK, the express train between ICN and Seoul has now opened, and as it passes GMP, it might as well stop there.
It is a particularly East Asian arrangement to build a new airport far from the city and have it as the new hub with some domestic flights for connection purposes. The original airport handles point-to-point domestic and near abroad flights. Consequently domestic flights from the regions run into both airports.
It’s not just Gimpo (GMP) and Incheon (ICN) in Seoul: Hongqiao (SHA) and Pudong (PVG) in Shanghai, Songshan (TSA) and Taoyuan (TPE) in Taipei, and Narita (NRT) and Haneda (HND) in Tokyo are other examples. HND has recently restarted some longhaul flights, but still on a relatively small scale (so far).
These four countries also have another thing in common: a very large number of domestic flights, and high speed rail networks. In other words, high speed rail has not killed the demand for domestic flights there, and nor would it in the UK.
Quote: “One of the proposed BAA Airtrack routes was 2tph semi-fast service to Guildford via Staines. LGW is also crying out for improved train connectivity and LGW to Guildford would help to achieve this.
Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.”
You’re having a laugh!
Any idea how long that would take? It’s one hell of a “dog leg”! Even in traffic, National Express buses would be quicker.
Quote: “Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please. Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a runway 3 at LHR? Not even close.
Do you even understand how this market performs??? Locos like easyJet operate point to point, they don't do connections. Hence they're a bogus issue here, the business question is how to increase the capacity of a hub airport. Hence point to point is a side issue here.”
Indeed, this is why no frills operators are at the point-to-point airports: LGW, LTN, STN, etc., and not at the LHR hub airport.
Quote: “BA have brought back LBA as they got a once in a generation growth opportunity with BMI coming on board. Runway 3 could be ring fenced to have some slots for UK connectivity, allowing BA or VS to re-connect IOM, INV and JER into LHR. It would be small price to pay for additonal long haul profits, which still need to be fed to be viable.”
Exactly, it does need a proportion of the new slots created by more rwys to be ringfenced for thin domestic routes. This would also help make more longhaul routes viable (connecting pax). AFAIK, this course of action has been mooted in the House of Lords.
Quote: “The T5 rail station is best used for maximum efficiency by utilising through trains, rather than as a terminus station; there is unlikely to be sufficient demand for terminating trains from the West of Reading.”
No, not terminating at LHR-5, agree that this would be pointless. The idea would be that some long distance trains from west of Heathrow would stop at LHR-5, then LHR 1-2-3, then up to London via airport junction and vice versa of course.
LHR-5 up to London is on existing tracks, sorry, should have made it clearer.
Quote: “Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.”
There is no logic (see earlier in this post). BTW, semi fast would be difficult on that route, especially if frequency is required.
Quote: “Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please”
Am now more convinced than ever that Windsorian and Silverstrata are the same person!
Good old Silver also never answers the question over on the Thames estuary airport thread.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 10th Nov 2012 at 15:12.
I've no idea what you are on about; please enlighten us !
To save you from having to look it up, here it is again:
Most unlikely the existing LHR airlines will allow any new start-ups on BAA's proposed R3
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just some background numbers. If BA and VS moved everything on long haul from LGW into LHR, that would be
BA 9 based B772s
VS <=7 max B744/A330s
This is 16 slot pairs. If all of LGW long haul legacy was added :
CA 1 daily PEK (currently thrice weekly)
KE 1 daily ICN (currently thrice weekly)
US 1 daily CLT
VN 1 daily (currently five weekly)
BW 1 daily (currently thrice weekly)
All for twenty one slot pairs. Hardly maxing out any new runway. As to all of BA short haul coming over, that's over twenty based aircraft, at three rotations a day. easyJet won't move as they believe it to be too expensive.
BA 9 based B772s
VS <=7 max B744/A330s
This is 16 slot pairs. If all of LGW long haul legacy was added :
CA 1 daily PEK (currently thrice weekly)
KE 1 daily ICN (currently thrice weekly)
US 1 daily CLT
VN 1 daily (currently five weekly)
BW 1 daily (currently thrice weekly)
All for twenty one slot pairs. Hardly maxing out any new runway. As to all of BA short haul coming over, that's over twenty based aircraft, at three rotations a day. easyJet won't move as they believe it to be too expensive.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another maths lesson from the master !
All for twenty one slot pairs. Hardly maxing out any new runway. As to all of BA short haul coming over, that's over twenty based aircraft, at three rotations a day.
British Airways : 21,238 departures x 2 (arrivals) = 42,476 atms
Virgin Atlantic 2,060 departures x 2 = 4,120 atms
If total transferred to LHR = 46,596 atms
This compares with an initial 110,000 atms for R3 (limit due to existing air pollution).
So it would only need 87 return LHR flights / day (out of 1,310 daily atms) to be transferred from (LHR) R1& R2 for R3 to be full when it opens !!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.I think you're pulling my plonker, as a quick look at the LGW figures for 2011 shows :-
Go back and read it again.
The 21 slot pairs is LGW legacy long haul with existing LHR presence. I am excluding Emirates who serve LGW as a separate market and not as a LHR overspill. However even if you throw the Emirates operation in, that's only three more slot pairs.
Long haul Windsorian, that is long haul.
I then said BA were unlikely to move LGW short haul across in whole. I also said EZY wouldn't move at all. For God's sake try and read the detail and glean the background.
If total transferred to LHR = 46,596 atms
You remain blind to the different business models of point to point (LGW) and hub and spoke (LHR).
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 10th Nov 2012 at 19:12.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Windsor
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for name calling.
it's possibly Silverstrata's Berkshire cousin
Suggest you forget about long haul and legacy, you will only confuse yourself and everyone else. Please try and keep it simple !
If all the existing BA & Virgin flights are transferred back to LHR, that is a total of 46,596 atms. It seems safe to say the broad consensus about R3 is it's nothing more than a dogs dinner and not a long term solution.
Meanwhile NHT tents, taxis & buses remain a possible short term solution to the SE capacity problem.
If BAA had a collection of electic taxis & MPVs along with hydrogen powered single and double decker buses, they would have a pretty flexible choice of transport for anyone transferring between NHT & LHR. If only a handful of pax were transferring a taxi may be suitable, a few more and the MPV may be required; if the demand arose the single or double decker hydrogen bus could be used. Of course BAA would not need as many drivers as vehicles, if they were trained to drive all types.
Last edited by Windsorian; 10th Nov 2012 at 19:57.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest you forget about long haul and legacy, you will only confuse yourself and everyone else. Please try and keep it simple !
One more time, BA have no wish to move all LGW short haul to LHR. Quite the contrary, you need to have a look at the recent IAG presentation to shareholders. There's a lot happening at LGW, I suggest you read up on the background and understand why.
You also need to understand why some routes will work at LHR and not LGW and vice versa.
Meanwhile NHT tents, taxis & buses remain a possible short term solution to the SE capacity problem.
It seems safe to say the broad consensus about R3 is it's nothing more than a dogs dinner and not a long term solution.