High Speed Rail link between London airports?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Speed Rail link between London airports?
Forget about HS2 between London Birmingham and Leeds.
What, IMHO, is needed is a high speed rail link between London, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stanstead.
I don't know the rail logistics of such a plan.
A very fast connection between these airports would change the discussion on an extra runway at Heathrow.
It is my personal belief that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead. All, need an extra runway.
And, a high speed rail link between all of them. Forget HS2.
The third runway at Heathrow must be to the North. Not South at Bedfont.
HACAN could be in for a shock, when their lobbying produces a runway to the South of Heathrow. Even more noise over Richmond and Twickenham.
Idiots.
Third Runway at Sipson. Plus a high speed rail link between:- Gatwick, Heathrow,Luton and Stanstead. And I mean, High Speed !
What, IMHO, is needed is a high speed rail link between London, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stanstead.
I don't know the rail logistics of such a plan.
A very fast connection between these airports would change the discussion on an extra runway at Heathrow.
It is my personal belief that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead. All, need an extra runway.
And, a high speed rail link between all of them. Forget HS2.
The third runway at Heathrow must be to the North. Not South at Bedfont.
HACAN could be in for a shock, when their lobbying produces a runway to the South of Heathrow. Even more noise over Richmond and Twickenham.
Idiots.
Third Runway at Sipson. Plus a high speed rail link between:- Gatwick, Heathrow,Luton and Stanstead. And I mean, High Speed !
Last edited by Stuffy; 13th Jul 2013 at 18:43.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 39
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Heathwick" idea has been around for a while now.
Personally I could see that being a good development. There would be no need to offer any services to certain cities from both airports if you could jump between them in 10 minutes. If the train was airside and landside then that would be even better, allowing much easier connections and allowing people to turn up at either airport and travel quickly to the other.
Heathwick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They used to offer a helicopter shuttle between LHR and LGW! Wonder if that would be at all viable these days?
Airlink (helicopter shuttle service) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personally I could see that being a good development. There would be no need to offer any services to certain cities from both airports if you could jump between them in 10 minutes. If the train was airside and landside then that would be even better, allowing much easier connections and allowing people to turn up at either airport and travel quickly to the other.
Heathwick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They used to offer a helicopter shuttle between LHR and LGW! Wonder if that would be at all viable these days?
Airlink (helicopter shuttle service) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by edi_local; 13th Jul 2013 at 22:41.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They used to offer a helicopter shuttle between LHR and LGW! Wonder if that would be at all viable these days?
Here if anyone's interested - apologies for dodgy fonts but Google Docs does funny things to uploaded PDFs.
And before the chopper we used to operate Islander aircraft LGW/LHR, £2.50 one way and £4 day return, took 15 minutes to fly and twice as long on the taxiway!!
Northolt could be the key, what is needed more than anything is an airport where commuter aircraft can land from domestic routes like NQY etc and connect.
The costs of LHR/LGW/LCY currently makes it impossible on routes that only support small numbers into London.
Northolt could be the key, what is needed more than anything is an airport where commuter aircraft can land from domestic routes like NQY etc and connect.
The costs of LHR/LGW/LCY currently makes it impossible on routes that only support small numbers into London.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High speed rail link is a non runner. Yes allow LGW and STN to expand further but the key is LHR expansion. Boris island is a non runner so lets get practical and pragmatic. In my humble opinion there is a two stage approach:
1. Allow Northholt to accept regional schedules with a fast bus link calling at an underground station and a mainline station as well as LHR, This would be a temporary fix.
2. Whilst the above happens expand LHR with Runway three north of the A4 corridor when complete start Runway 4 to the south.
As a certain Meerkat says SIMPLES........
1. Allow Northholt to accept regional schedules with a fast bus link calling at an underground station and a mainline station as well as LHR, This would be a temporary fix.
2. Whilst the above happens expand LHR with Runway three north of the A4 corridor when complete start Runway 4 to the south.
As a certain Meerkat says SIMPLES........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed as I said. Heathrow does need a runway at Sipson. It was in the original plans in 1949.
Both Stanstead and Gatwick need second runways, Stanstead is underused at the moment.Gatwick definitely does but there is a powerful local lobby against it.
I believe there was a plan to extend the Paddington- Heathrow rail link to Gatwick?
Paddington to Heathrow takes only 16 minutes.
Both Stanstead and Gatwick need second runways, Stanstead is underused at the moment.Gatwick definitely does but there is a powerful local lobby against it.
I believe there was a plan to extend the Paddington- Heathrow rail link to Gatwick?
Paddington to Heathrow takes only 16 minutes.
Last edited by Stuffy; 14th Jul 2013 at 08:33.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't know the rail logistics of such a plan."
Well - it would have to be tunneled all the way - you can't run 200mph trains through London on the surface and the disruption and cost of surface lines are inconceivable
And is it to be "hub & spoke" ie a big interchange under C London - or is it going to be networked - eg LHR-LGW under SW London and LHR- Luton under NW London?
The costs would probably grossly exceed Boris Island
Well - it would have to be tunneled all the way - you can't run 200mph trains through London on the surface and the disruption and cost of surface lines are inconceivable
And is it to be "hub & spoke" ie a big interchange under C London - or is it going to be networked - eg LHR-LGW under SW London and LHR- Luton under NW London?
The costs would probably grossly exceed Boris Island
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Arry,
I would have thought Paddington to Heathrow in 16 minutes is fast enough?
Perhaps I should have used the term 'Rapid' rather than 'High Speed'.
I would have thought Paddington to Heathrow in 16 minutes is fast enough?
Perhaps I should have used the term 'Rapid' rather than 'High Speed'.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, IMHO, is needed is a high speed rail link between London, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted.
(As opposed to a better rail speed/link between London and Stansted)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: N Ireland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Airports
Bit out of my expertise here but does Stansted have the real estate for a 4[8] runway solution.
If so this combined with a Shanghai type train link e.g. 400 kmph may be an option.
If so this combined with a Shanghai type train link e.g. 400 kmph may be an option.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If so this combined with a Shanghai type train link e.g. 400 kmph may be an option.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Anybody running odds on RAF Northolt having a high speed link to Heathrow?
Flybe might be eyeing this up after leaving Gatwick
NHT would be ideal for BE, but probably couldnt take all its LGW operations(?). Some would still need to go to SOU.
Quote: Northolt could be the key, what is needed more than anything is an airport where commuter aircraft can land from domestic routes like NQY etc and connect.
Indeed, a terminal adjacent to the railway/tube with an airport station is necessary plus a fast bus to LHR. This could make NHT a very convenient local airport similar to the success stories at LCY and SEN.
However, it cannot be a substitute for 2 more rwys at LHR.
Quote: High speed rail link is a non runner. Yes allow LGW and STN to expand further but the key is LHR expansion. Boris island is a non runner so lets get practical and pragmatic. In my humble opinion there is a two stage approach:
1. Allow Northholt to accept regional schedules with a fast bus link calling at an underground station and a mainline station as well as LHR, This would be a temporary fix.
2. Whilst the above happens expand LHR with Runway three north of the A4 corridor when complete start Runway 4 to the south.
As a certain Meerkat says SIMPLES.....
The meerkat is correct apart from the rwy south of LHR - desirable though it may be, it would be very difficult as there are too many homes to be demolished.
Quote: Both Stanstead and Gatwick need second runways, Stanstead is underused at the moment.Gatwick definitely does but there is a powerful local lobby against it
An additional rwy each at LGW and STN are not as urgent as 2 more at LHR.
LHR needed it 30 years ago!
Quote: Bit out of my expertise here but does Stansted have the real estate for a 4[8] runway solution.
If so this combined with a Shanghai type train link e.g. 400 kmph may be an option
Bear in mind that the PVG "maglev" does not go to Shanghai centre. It ends at a metro station in the eastern suburbs.
Quote: This would cost an absolute fortune. And all this assumes airlines would want to use Stansted.
They dont, that much is evident!
Flybe might be eyeing this up after leaving Gatwick
NHT would be ideal for BE, but probably couldnt take all its LGW operations(?). Some would still need to go to SOU.
Quote: Northolt could be the key, what is needed more than anything is an airport where commuter aircraft can land from domestic routes like NQY etc and connect.
Indeed, a terminal adjacent to the railway/tube with an airport station is necessary plus a fast bus to LHR. This could make NHT a very convenient local airport similar to the success stories at LCY and SEN.
However, it cannot be a substitute for 2 more rwys at LHR.
Quote: High speed rail link is a non runner. Yes allow LGW and STN to expand further but the key is LHR expansion. Boris island is a non runner so lets get practical and pragmatic. In my humble opinion there is a two stage approach:
1. Allow Northholt to accept regional schedules with a fast bus link calling at an underground station and a mainline station as well as LHR, This would be a temporary fix.
2. Whilst the above happens expand LHR with Runway three north of the A4 corridor when complete start Runway 4 to the south.
As a certain Meerkat says SIMPLES.....
The meerkat is correct apart from the rwy south of LHR - desirable though it may be, it would be very difficult as there are too many homes to be demolished.
Quote: Both Stanstead and Gatwick need second runways, Stanstead is underused at the moment.Gatwick definitely does but there is a powerful local lobby against it
An additional rwy each at LGW and STN are not as urgent as 2 more at LHR.
LHR needed it 30 years ago!
Quote: Bit out of my expertise here but does Stansted have the real estate for a 4[8] runway solution.
If so this combined with a Shanghai type train link e.g. 400 kmph may be an option
Bear in mind that the PVG "maglev" does not go to Shanghai centre. It ends at a metro station in the eastern suburbs.
Quote: This would cost an absolute fortune. And all this assumes airlines would want to use Stansted.
They dont, that much is evident!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 14th Jul 2013 at 23:40.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
An inter-airport rail link would serve who exactly?
Passengers flying into one airport and out of the other.
How much would these passengers be willing to pay for this facility?
The same as they pay currently for walking for five minutes from gate to gate at Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam - nothing.
Consider, for example, a passenger from Turin to Toronto. Right now, he has a choice of hubbing through AMS, PAR, FRA, ZRH, ROM, probably MAD, LIS and CPH as well.
Or flying BA into LGW and schlepping across to LHR (at his own expense) around the M25.
BA would love to have the capacity available at LHR to bring Turin and other secondary European destinations back to the main hub. It would be a huge multiplier to their network. But the passengers they would grab back from Air France, Lufthansa etc will only be persuaded by a simple transfer within a single terminal, certainly not a rail (or helicopter) journey between two airports.
Passengers flying into one airport and out of the other.
How much would these passengers be willing to pay for this facility?
The same as they pay currently for walking for five minutes from gate to gate at Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam - nothing.
Consider, for example, a passenger from Turin to Toronto. Right now, he has a choice of hubbing through AMS, PAR, FRA, ZRH, ROM, probably MAD, LIS and CPH as well.
Or flying BA into LGW and schlepping across to LHR (at his own expense) around the M25.
BA would love to have the capacity available at LHR to bring Turin and other secondary European destinations back to the main hub. It would be a huge multiplier to their network. But the passengers they would grab back from Air France, Lufthansa etc will only be persuaded by a simple transfer within a single terminal, certainly not a rail (or helicopter) journey between two airports.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSK has rightly identified the HUB (sic) of the problem. No matter what we may think LHR is BA's hub and it is constrained by its capacity. It is just not practable for them to move on mass as there key market is based on LHR. Yes BA have also sub hubs at LGW and LCY but these two cannot connect into the major hub of Heathrow. Its been tried but it does not work. The ramifications for lack of LHR expansion is the loss of business to other hub airports. One could see in the future BA potentially having to contract as the network cant expand with job loses etc etc. The big concern is the speed or lack of speed that will occur when a decision is made. A good example of this is HS2. It should have been built at least 10 years ago but its not planned yet until 2026 and I bet that will be delayed further.
Back off my soapbox........
Back off my soapbox........
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Express required a very short link to the W Region main line - Gatwick , Luton, Stansted all have semi-fast services into C London - but none of them link up - which is what people are talking about on here
CrossRail costs are circa £19 Bn and the vast bulk of that is tunneling under C London
Airport links would probably cost the same or more for a service that will have very low useage
Ain't going to happen
CrossRail costs are circa £19 Bn and the vast bulk of that is tunneling under C London
Airport links would probably cost the same or more for a service that will have very low useage
Ain't going to happen
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Heathrow Express required a very short link to the W Region main line - Gatwick , Luton, Stansted all have semi-fast services into C London - but none of them link up - which is what people are talking about on here
CrossRail costs are circa £19 Bn and the vast bulk of that is tunneling under C London
Airport links would probably cost the same or more for a service that will have very low useage
Ain't going to happen"
Nor should it, it's not needed.
CrossRail costs are circa £19 Bn and the vast bulk of that is tunneling under C London
Airport links would probably cost the same or more for a service that will have very low useage
Ain't going to happen"
Nor should it, it's not needed.