LUTON -8
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Luton
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trains and mountains
"Trains can't travel up steep hills but only gradual gradients and I don't think the trip would be long enough for the amount of height that has to be gained".
Never been to Switzerland then? Not practical in the airport's case (cost?) I'm sure but the Swiss built spiral rail tunnels inside mountains to climb far bigger hills than the one the airport sits on!
Never been to Switzerland then? Not practical in the airport's case (cost?) I'm sure but the Swiss built spiral rail tunnels inside mountains to climb far bigger hills than the one the airport sits on!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that 2500 figure is both ways. Keep in mind that that figure is provided by the TfL PR department! A frequency of fifteen seconds is frankly optimistic in practice - remember boarding/alighting time - but lets accept those figures.
Five passengers, four times a minute for sixty minutes: 5 x 4 x 60 = 1200. Both ways, 2400.
Five to six passengers plus luggage is probably a realistic maximum capacity per gondola. Ten is a squash. An MDG system would be great if there was a steady stream of passengers over the course of the hour, but totally unsuitable if a train turns up every 15 minutes and dumps say, 100 passengers on the platform all at once.
Five passengers, four times a minute for sixty minutes: 5 x 4 x 60 = 1200. Both ways, 2400.
Five to six passengers plus luggage is probably a realistic maximum capacity per gondola. Ten is a squash. An MDG system would be great if there was a steady stream of passengers over the course of the hour, but totally unsuitable if a train turns up every 15 minutes and dumps say, 100 passengers on the platform all at once.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listened to BBC Three Listeners radio today and they interviewed a rail transport expert on the news of the airport wanting to create a new rail-link...
You can listen to this on the below link and fast forward to 2hrs 22mins 50secs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03766n9#play
Some very interesting points and he clearly points out the most likely option would be a tram or light rail system similar to the Docklands Light Rail or People Mover at Gatwick connecting both terminals.
He did however make a very good point that regardless of what this rail link is, it still gives the airport a severe disadvantage compared to the other airports that have direct rail connections to the main terminals, and how passengers still need to use a seperate mode of transport to get up the hill, once getting off the train.
Anyway have a listen!
You can listen to this on the below link and fast forward to 2hrs 22mins 50secs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03766n9#play
Some very interesting points and he clearly points out the most likely option would be a tram or light rail system similar to the Docklands Light Rail or People Mover at Gatwick connecting both terminals.
He did however make a very good point that regardless of what this rail link is, it still gives the airport a severe disadvantage compared to the other airports that have direct rail connections to the main terminals, and how passengers still need to use a seperate mode of transport to get up the hill, once getting off the train.
Anyway have a listen!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rail Link
The recent report and comments by easyJet Commercial Manager Neil Slaven very specifically talks of a rail link. His comments were "There is definitely possibility of a mass transit rail link between the station and the terminal"
In addition an airport spokesman said "We are examining all possible solutions to create a permanent fixed link between Luton Airport Parkway and the Terminal building.
This appears to suggest a rail link pure and simple. Any other ideas like the Emirates Air Line are I suggest pretty fanciful.
In addition an airport spokesman said "We are examining all possible solutions to create a permanent fixed link between Luton Airport Parkway and the Terminal building.
This appears to suggest a rail link pure and simple. Any other ideas like the Emirates Air Line are I suggest pretty fanciful.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are three main issues with the existing service.
1/ It isn't integrated as the rail operator charges a separate fare to use it. While you can buy a combined ticket most don't so it leads to long queues and people who already have a ticket still queue behind those that don't at Parkway.
2/ The frequency is every 10 minutes which might not seem a long time but it is when the bus in front has pulled out in front of you because you couldn't board that bus because of the queue.
3/ The capacity of the buses has gone down hill since last March. With only one bendy bus now in service the chances are that you will be left standing as you head for the airport.
The simple fix
1/ Remove the fare. It used to be free and without it would save alot of time. The fare could be integrated in some way with the standard rail fare to the station.
2/ Double the frequency to every 5 minutes.
3/ Make sure all buses are high capacity bendy buses.
Now if they did that would some sort of rail link be actually needed?
Other points to ponder about a replacement rail link or equivalent.
1/ Would they charge a fare to use it? If they did they have gained nothing.
2/ What would be the frequency?
3/ What would be the capacity?
It could well be that apart from a capacity increase nothing else would change apart from a 5 or 6 minute bus ride becoming a 4 minute rail trip. If my simple fix was carried out would there really be a case for spending 10's of millions on a replacement?
1/ It isn't integrated as the rail operator charges a separate fare to use it. While you can buy a combined ticket most don't so it leads to long queues and people who already have a ticket still queue behind those that don't at Parkway.
2/ The frequency is every 10 minutes which might not seem a long time but it is when the bus in front has pulled out in front of you because you couldn't board that bus because of the queue.
3/ The capacity of the buses has gone down hill since last March. With only one bendy bus now in service the chances are that you will be left standing as you head for the airport.
The simple fix
1/ Remove the fare. It used to be free and without it would save alot of time. The fare could be integrated in some way with the standard rail fare to the station.
2/ Double the frequency to every 5 minutes.
3/ Make sure all buses are high capacity bendy buses.
Now if they did that would some sort of rail link be actually needed?
Other points to ponder about a replacement rail link or equivalent.
1/ Would they charge a fare to use it? If they did they have gained nothing.
2/ What would be the frequency?
3/ What would be the capacity?
It could well be that apart from a capacity increase nothing else would change apart from a 5 or 6 minute bus ride becoming a 4 minute rail trip. If my simple fix was carried out would there really be a case for spending 10's of millions on a replacement?
Last edited by LTNman; 28th Nov 2015 at 06:26.
In an ideal world, with money no object :-) I would like to see a rail link from a new platform at Parkway Station tunnelled to a new underground station below the terminal with escalator links to check-in.
It would need to have twin tracks or passing places, and vehicles would need to depart at frequent intervals, especially at peak times.
Tunnelling is very expensive, as would be the construction of an underground station, but in the long term such a solution would offer most capacity and most convenience for passengers.
Just to make my wish-list even more fanciful, I would like to see the link operated by the train company holding the Bedford-Brighton franchise so that frequencies can be mandated, through tickets sold, and connections made easy.
Time to wake up?
It would need to have twin tracks or passing places, and vehicles would need to depart at frequent intervals, especially at peak times.
Tunnelling is very expensive, as would be the construction of an underground station, but in the long term such a solution would offer most capacity and most convenience for passengers.
Just to make my wish-list even more fanciful, I would like to see the link operated by the train company holding the Bedford-Brighton franchise so that frequencies can be mandated, through tickets sold, and connections made easy.
Time to wake up?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fare revenue actually goes to the government not to the operator - and the cost of funding the bus service is outside the rail franchise so they don't get the costs back
On that premise there is nothing stopping the airport bringing the link in house again and providing their own bendy bus service. Now whether they would want to do that and absorb the cost when they charge for everything else including plastic bags is another matter but then that brings back the question if they provide a dedicated link at say a cost of £100 million would they then want to run it for free. If they didn't then there is the same set of passengers that is queuing today to pay the fare for a bus that would queue to pay for some sort of rail link so where is the integartion and seamless travel? The link will only improve if passengers just get on it and then go without dipping their hands in their pockets.
Last edited by LTNman; 28th Nov 2015 at 13:27.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single track running at 3mph....ha..ha!
I think the biggest problem for the funicular suggestion might perversely be a lack of a sufficient gradient - which will need to be fairly steep.
On that premise there is nothing stopping the airport bringing the link in house again and providing their own bendy bus service. Now whether they would want to do that and absorb the cost when they charge for everything else including plastic bags is another matter but then that brings back the question if they provide a dedicated link at say a cost of £100 million would they then want to run it for free. If they didn't then there is the same set of passengers that is queuing today to pay the fare for a bus that would queue to pay for some sort of rail link so where is the integartion and seamless travel? The link will only improve if passengers just get on it and then go without dipping their hands in their pockets.
I know you should never buy ex-London but these were withdrawn well before the end of their useful service life. They might last another ten years. 
Anyway, the bodge of an answer is to rename Luton Airport Parkway to something anonymous like "Luton South" so that everyone in future buys tickets to "Luton Airport". Better, I don't know what issues may be involved here, but Luton Airport could become part of the rail network and appear on rail maps as a spur, and as a rail destination in its own right - even if the physical track doesn't actually exist and is actually served by a "permanent replacement bus" service.
Paxing All Over The World
I agree that a frequent (5 minute) bendy bus service will clear most of the problems. I recall using similar services in Europe and it works fast and free. The irritation of having to change mode is relieved by it being fast, reliable and free. As said, the bendys are available and would not have the high service demands of London.
The cost of ANY kind of direct rail link (tunnel/funicular/gondala/spaceship will NEVER pay for itself. They would not be able to charge enough to recoup the investment but a bus service could be running in weeks. In the 30 years I have been using the airport, I have NEVER thought that a fixed rail link would be put in due to cost.
If they were going to do that, the time was in the mid-90s when the new terminal went in. But we all know that the motto of the aiport is 'Do it Cheap and Nasty - Ignore the Future'.
The cost of ANY kind of direct rail link (tunnel/funicular/gondala/spaceship will NEVER pay for itself. They would not be able to charge enough to recoup the investment but a bus service could be running in weeks. In the 30 years I have been using the airport, I have NEVER thought that a fixed rail link would be put in due to cost.
If they were going to do that, the time was in the mid-90s when the new terminal went in. But we all know that the motto of the aiport is 'Do it Cheap and Nasty - Ignore the Future'.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EasyJet and airport bosses would seem to disagree, they are talking in very bullish terms about a rail link so let's hope they're right and it does happen. I agree with others on here that perceptions of the airport will change if the airport has a direct rail link and the airports main airline seem to agree
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
1 Post
Hills and trains do go together but this is Luton Airport we're talking about 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHeQB88m00Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHeQB88m00Y
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport will no doubt be looking for part government funding and maybe a contribution for the council as well. The problem is that grants can take years to come though and are often delayed. A proposed start date of 3 years could easily stretch from 10 to 20 years but a start has to be made somewhere.
The Spanish company running the airport would also need another extension to their lease.
The Spanish company running the airport would also need another extension to their lease.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sweden, Norway & Finland
Why still no flights to Sweden? I seem to recall Ryanair briefly flew into Stockholm Skavsta and even further back, I think (though my memory may be failing me) Debonair flew to Stockholm. So why is Sweden (and indeed Norway and Finland) still without services from Luton?
With Copenhagen now well established, perhaps easyJet might have a go at a Luton-Stockholm route or what about Wizz? They have operations from Sweden to other parts of Europe so perhaps Stockholm and Gothenburg to Luton could work?
At a time when Luton's coverage of European cities is really strong, I've been surprised that this very Northern part of Europe remains very underserved and wondered why that is?
With Copenhagen now well established, perhaps easyJet might have a go at a Luton-Stockholm route or what about Wizz? They have operations from Sweden to other parts of Europe so perhaps Stockholm and Gothenburg to Luton could work?
At a time when Luton's coverage of European cities is really strong, I've been surprised that this very Northern part of Europe remains very underserved and wondered why that is?