Creating Heathwick

[Capetonian]

Creating Heathwick. A bit like communism, nice idea but I can't see it working in practice. By the time it's implemented, both airports will be over capacity. I can think of many security constraints too.

The £5bn plan – creating a hub known as Heathwick – would mean there is no need to build another airport to serve London or expand the current facilities at Heathrow.

According to sources, officials at the Department for Transport have already put the idea to the airports and companies involved – but it remains only one option to be considered under the current aviation review. The plans are at an early stage and could easily run into opposition from Heathrow, which is owned by BAA and keen to expand on its own. Gatwick is owned by Global Infrastructure Partners.

There could also be protest from people who live near the area, including the Surrey constituents of Philip Hammond, the transport minister.

To minimise disruption, the trains, travelling at 180mph, would largely follow the route of the M25 motorway and could be underground for part of the way.

Under the current proposals, passengers would not need to go through separate immigration procedures or check-in twice, because Gatwick and Heathrow would be considered part of the same aviation “hub”.

Ministers are under pressure from business groups to find a solution to lack of airport capacity in the South East, after the Coalition ruled out any more runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The main concern is that poor airport infrastructure is making Britain less competitive.

The British Chamber of Commerce first put forward plans for a "Heathwick" hub two years ago, but the idea has only gained ground during the current review of the UK’s aviation capacity.

It would take some time to build the 35-mile line, but less than creating another new airport in the Thames Estuary, which is the favoured solution of London Mayor Boris Johnson.

The Department for Transport is planning to publish its aviation policy in the spring.
http://laperouse.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/elephant.jpg

[BigFrank]

I understand that a UK government paper produced in August suggested that saturation would be reached in 2030.

Gatwick in the last 12 months was I believe at 33m passengers, roughly 6%below its peak year of 2007 when it handled 35m. Will this year be above 2010?

Though major infrastructure projects require a lot of time, this one would on the above figures be quite premature.

Moreover, with the Surrey constituents of the transport minister unlikely to be too impressed......

[ZOOKER]

The Japanese built Kansai in 7 years, (1987-1994). It's in one of the most seismically active areas of the Earth's surface. When the Olympics are over next year, GB will need another big project to work on. So, let's get started on London-Thames-Boriswick.
If we can't build an airport in the relatively benign geological environment of the Thames estuary, quicker than Kansai or a railway line, it's a poor show. We have folks unemployed and a downturn in aviation in which to do it.

[BHX5DME]

Heathrow Gatwick

1976 23,654,444 5,752,601
1977 23,779,035 6,652,077
1978 26,916,107 7,841,095
1979 28,357,119 8,795,694
1980 27,782,566 9,749,038
1981 26,780,417 10,848,364
1982 26,740,324 11,357,900
1983 27,082,714 12,556,133
1984 29,474,329 14,160,992
1985 31,625,856 15,077,421
1986 31,676,175 16,469,429
1987 35,080,197 19,585,638
1988 37,840,962 20,849,664
1989 39,881,922 21,264,430
1990 42,950,850 21,178,766
1991 40,494,494 18,813,995
1992 45,241,892 19,968,736
1993 47,898,952 20,151,369
1994 51,721,980 21,208,977
1995 54,469,152 22,550,310
1996 56,049,706 24,323,741
1997 58,185,398 26,959,020
1998 60,683,988 29,172,954
1999 62,268,292 30,563,627
2000 64,619,285 32,067,843
2001 60,764,846 31,181,869
2002 63,362,097 29,627,436
2003 63,495,318 30,005,264
2004 67,342,743 31,467,234
2005 67,913,153 32,776,731
2006 67,527,923 34,163,579
2007 68,066,028 35,216,113
2008 67,054,745 34,205,887
2009 66,036,957 32,392,782
2010 65,881,660 31,375,290

[BigFrank]

At a glance and without my calculator or spreadsheet, these figures (thanks for providing them) say that the big two were at 96m in 2000 and in 2010 they remain at 96m.

In addition I believe that Stanstead is at roughly 50% capacity.

So even if the UK government accepts the economic logic of a New Deal style government funded work scheme to kick start the UK economy (which will be "needing" even fewer business flights and be "affording" even fewer leisure flights) it isn´t going to be a train line through the South Downs or an extra runway anywhere south of Manchester (which is I believe currently on about 33% of capacity.)

[Peter47]

At first I thought it was April Fool's day!

I have thought that a solution to New York's airspace problem would be the linling if JFK & LGA but that is the ability to consolidate masses of flights by commuter jets. You don't get many of these at LHR & LGA.

Does the Government envisage a major shift in the type of traffic at the airports? LGW is largely loco & charter, LHR legacy flights to business destinations. Sure a few pax are transferring from Jersey to long haul and domestic to MCO / TPA / Caribbean but enough to justify a £5bn scheme?

Lets say the capital & operating costs are £500m p.a and 10m pax p.a. (rather optimistic) Thats £50 per trip - about the same in per km as the Heathrow Express. I can't help feeling that KLM could charge less for an itinerary via Schiphol which might reduce the take up.

The trouble with this Government is that on the one hand it seems to be seduced by 300 km/h+ railways whilst doing nothing to integrate the transport network. I suggest that BA gives some ministers / advisors / civil servants a free open jaw ticket to ZRH & back from GVA or vice versa so that they can see how to effectively spend money on rail upgrades.

If they want to build a new railway, route it via London as that it will benefit other users. There is no reason why you can't have a sealed coach on a train used by local passengers - Eurostar sometimes clears customs at St Pancras.

If capacity is constrained logically short haul to long haul transfer traffic will reduce and with it pax wishing to transfer between the two airports.

Here are my thoughts on increasing capacity.

* Limit domestic routes to one airline but force the operator to sell space to competitors. (That would require a waiver from the EU.)

* Encourage routes from regional airports. Possibly VS could make a go of more routes from MAN but realistically it will be foreign carriers such as KL, EK ou CO/UA. (To me the argument for the 3rd runway at LHR isn't about lack of air capacity for the UK but about lack of opportunities for UK airlines / workforce.)

* Build an link from the Midland Main Line to LTN. There is currently a bus link but to be competitive you need a station directly under the air terminal.

* If you are going to build a link between airports rebuild Northolt's runway so that it is parrallel to the two at LHR, build a terminal on Ruislip Underground depot (which will be rebuilt underground like that at White City) and link it to the centre of Heathrow. OK its probably a non-starter owing to local protests (although it might be worth examining how a runway was built at Silvertown (LCY) with minimal fuss).

Of course we have a rather underused high speed line in this country out of St Pancras & "Borisport" could be served by a branch from it. Indeed it would make the £2bn paid for the HS1 concession look rather good value. Perhaps it would make sense for an airport and high speed line to go together.

[BHX5DME]

Heathrow Gatwick Stansted Luton Total

1976 23,654,444 5,752,601 272,767 1,817,503 31,497,315
1977 23,779,035 6,652,077 303,299 1,952,048 32,686,459
1978 26,916,107 7,841,095 324,227 2,060,905 37,142,334
1979 28,357,119 8,795,694 361,169 2,210,208 39,724,190
1980 27,782,566 9,749,038 284,827 2,100,965 39,917,396
1981 26,780,417 10,848,364 267,747 1,986,651 39,883,179
1982 26,740,324 11,357,900 313,345 1,822,550 40,234,119
1983 27,082,714 12,556,133 353,164 1,738,833 41,730,844
1984 29,474,329 14,160,992 538,983 1,820,509 45,994,813
1985 31,625,856 15,077,421 538,668 1,604,117 48,846,062
1986 31,676,175 16,469,429 565,986 1,988,949 50,700,539
1987 35,080,197 19,585,638 749,195 2,611,358 58,026,388
1988 37,840,962 20,849,664 1,109,314 2,833,142 62,633,082
1989 39,881,922 21,264,430 1,375,337 2,848,244 65,369,933
1990 42,950,850 21,178,766 1,177,949 2,695,641 68,003,206
1991 40,494,494 18,813,995 1,723,382 1,975,724 63,007,595
1992 45,241,892 19,968,736 2,353,757 1,976,170 69,540,555
1993 47,898,952 20,151,369 2,702,992 1,872,487 72,625,800
1994 51,721,980 21,208,977 3,288,675 1,824,463 78,044,095
1995 54,469,152 22,550,310 3,919,824 1,829,203 82,768,489
1996 56,049,706 24,323,741 4,864,185 2,435,101 87,672,733
1997 58,185,398 26,959,020 5,426,859 3,238,458 93,809,735
1998 60,683,988 29,172,954 6,862,708 4,132,818 100,852,468
1999 62,268,292 30,563,627 9,448,359 5,284,812 107,565,090
2000 64,619,285 32,067,843 11,878,756 6,186,271 114,752,155
2001 60,764,846 31,181,869 13,665,529 6,534,014 112,146,258
2002 63,362,097 29,627,436 16,054,542 6,491,627 115,535,702
2003 63,495,318 30,005,264 18,722,112 6,797,175 119,019,869
2004 67,342,743 31,467,234 20,910,842 7,535,614 127,256,433
2005 67,913,153 32,776,731 21,998,702 9,147,978 131,836,564
2006 67,527,923 34,163,579 23,687,148 9,425,908 134,804,558
2007 68,066,028 35,216,113 23,779,697 9,927,321 136,989,159
2008 67,054,745 34,205,887 22,360,364 10,180,734 133,801,730
2009 66,036,957 32,392,782 19,957,077 9,120,546 127,507,362
2010 65,881,660 31,375,290 18,573,803 8,738,717 124,569,470

[BigFrank]

137m down to 124.5m in 3 years; with worse to come this year, I surmise.

That´s over 9%.

Only Ryanair´s press office could propose a major infrastructure investment based on these figures. Though to be fair, they would insist that somebody else paid for it for them.

¿ Might Frau Merkel sub us on this one, I wonder ? ¿Or Mr Papandreou, perhaps ?

[LTNman]

With Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted under constraint Luton council can see an opportunity. Don’t dismiss it out of hand. It’s airport has the second biggest catchment area in the UK and while this government has said no new runways for Heathrow and Stansted and that Gatwick is also under expansion restrictions nothing has been said about maximizing Luton's capacity with its single runway. With that in mind the council is looking to push Luton's capacity to 30m


Luton Airport (http://www.leightonbuzzardonline.co.uk/news/business/luton_airport_could_be_size_of_gatwick_1_3131694)

[xtypeman]

I think this is an admission by the present government that the policy of scrapping the third runway was wrong. Sorry just get on with it and let Heathrow become the aviation crossroad that it allways has been do not let it disappear to AMS, FRA, CDG etc etc......

For once lets stay in front I know its not British or sporting for us to be infront but lets do it.

[Capetonian]

Based on what I see and hear, there are too many objections and barriers to an expanded Heathrow for this to be viable.

Given that the government seems to be determined to press on with the HS2 rail project which is going to link Heathrow with Birmigham, would it not make sense to use that to link Heathrow and Birmingham airports, which would take less than 40 minutes.

BHX handled less than 9 million pax last year and has an immediate capacity for double this figure. It has a big catchment area, with 50% of the population of the UK living within 2 hours drive and less by train if the links were adequate.

BHX could then become a serious hub and might even be a viable alternative to Boris' Thames Estuary Airport.

[Facelookbovvered]

This is a non starter and i suspect part of a plan to look at all options before ending back at square one with the only sensible one which is R3 at LHR, by which time it will be kicked into the long grass for who ever wins the next election.

Borisport is a night mare, not to build, that's just (a lot of) money! the big problem is that it will only work if 99% of traffic moves to it from LHR that will only happen if you shut LHR. You are then left with 10's of thousands of airport workers who live in the sit holes around LHR to get across London every day unless you plan to move them?

Heathwick? so you are flying to the far east from the US do you transit by way of FRA,CDG,AMS or Heathwick?

[ATNotts]

This idea seems to have come from local london politicians rather than from the government, and it doesn't address the basic UK and UK infrastructure problem - namely that major infrastructure projects only really have worth when they are aimed at the southeastern quarter on England - that tiny southeastern fraction of the UK!

The UK needs to attract more business, and therefore improve infrastructure to the rest of the nation, thus spreading the wealth outwards from the southeast. in doing so it would also ease the pressure on greenbelt for housing and other development in what they call "the home counties".

It's really a question of what comes first, the demand or the infrastructure or vice versa. Having driven around Eastern Germany recently it seems their policy is to put in the infrastructure and then get the industry (jobs and presperity) to follow.

[WHBM]

The government have got themselves into a big hole, realising that the third Heathrow runway is the only sensible national approach. Instead, a combination of ever-increasing APD on domestic flights, and remaining Heathrow domestic slots being flogged off to the highest bidder (mentioning no names, BMI) is turning much of the country into having their main air transport option being as a remote spoke to Amsterdam, Frankfurt, etc. It's not as if the domestic flights were not well used, and in fact from my experience MPs themselves always seem to make up a notable proportion of the total ! Notice how Gordon Brown (MP in Scotland, a BA regular on LHR/LCY-EDI) never squashed the proposals like David Cameron (lives in West London, MP for Oxfordshire, never flies from a provincial UK airport) has done.

If only BAA had presented the closure of runway 23 some years ago and the new building of the north runway as one "runway realignment" project, I feel all the opprobrium associated with the words "new runway" could have been avoided. Airport moves from having three runways to having - three runways. But BAA PR were asleep at the time.

The rail link is a ludicrous proposal, it seems nobody at the DfT has noticed that the airports of London have stratified into different airports serving different carriers and market types. There is actually very little connecting traffic between the two at present, and not much future potential (DfT does not understand/hates connecting traffic anyway, and has gone well out of its way to put more hurdles in the way of connecting passengers at Heathrow than any other government elsewhere has done). Huge cost for the rail link, little demand. A typical government idea. As it would also involve far more digging up alongside homes in marginal political constituencies along the way than the third Heathrow runway would ever need, it's a complete non starter.

I have always thought there is a much more straightforward approach for those smaller numbers who do go between the airports. The Heathrow Express provided a direct train to Paddington. The Heathrow Connect serves stations along the way, so does not need to go right through to Paddington as well. It passes beneath the railway line that takes trains from Watford down the west side of London, through Kensington and Clapham Junction to Gatwick, which itself carries few passengers at the Watford end. Just linking these two with a straightforward bridge (all the land required is already in railway ownership) would enable trains to run regularly from Heathrow to Gatwick via these points. No extra train mileage required at all. If it ran every half an hour you would might get about one train coachload of passengers between the end points, but it would also suit nicely Clapham or Croydon to Heathrow, Ealing to Gatwick, and a range of other journeys all mixed together. Which is what trains are good at.

[ZOOKER]

If one of the UK's main charter operators has started flying on waste from the local chip-shop, perhaps there are bigger issues on the horizon. In the future there might not be a need for 'Heathwick', or for that matter, Gatwick. :E

[jdcg]

WHBM - there is no infrastructure restraint as such to take trains from the Great Western line down the West London line to Clapham Junction and Gatwick. But there is just no capacity. So it can't happen I'm afraid.

[Aero Mad]

Depending on what The Times thinks of it, you might see my halfpenny's worth on the letters page tomorrow.

[BigFrank]

As the above is well beyond the willingness of some of us to subsidise a most disreputable press baron..... do spill the beans.

[TSR2]

This whole 'Heathwick' suggestion appears to me to be little more than a 'sticky-plaster'.

[Dubaian]

I read the article in the Times and as someone pointed out somewhere in the paper the one thing Gatrow (or whatever...) does not provide is any additional runway capacity. Therefore it's not really addressing the SE capacity problem.

It is intended to be a very high speed, mainly underground, new rail link basically following the route of the M25. 15 minute transit time. It is not intended to use any existing rail lines. But I can't see it happening. If something like this had already been implemented by far-seeing transport policy, say at the same time as the M25 was built or expanded, it would be a great inter-airport transfer link. But starting from scratch now - no way. Tunnelling is very very expensive.

[Suzeman]

Smacks of desperation from The Chambers of Commerce to me - and my guess is that DfT have floated it just to let it get shot down.

It's absolute nonsense of course - a mainly underground high speed line is going to cost how much? Where is the money to come from? How long will it take to build even if it did get planning permission? And what will it achieve? B*gger all I would suggest

It will of course only take 15 mins to make the journey - but if you are transferring, you have to get off the plane, get to the rail point, wait for a train, get to the other airport and transit through to your gate. Total gate to gate time much longer.

And it doesn't increase the runway capacity, so what's the point? The opportunity for the UK to retain its pre-eminent role in World Aviation has gone now due to Government dilly-dallying for the last few decades. :ugh: Other countries and airlines have spotted the opportunity and grabbed it.

The only thing this idea is likely to do is decrease the capacity of the London TMA due to the increased numbers of pies and pigs flying around until it is ruled out. :ok:

Suzeman

[tubby linton]

Southern trains care more about their Brighton line passengers than those who travel to Gatwick so I cannot see them being interested in running anything to Heathrow..

[Capetonian]

October 10, 2011

Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Airlines Group, has poured cold water on a plan to link London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports by high-speed train.

The British government said on Saturday that it was considering connecting the airports -- creating a virtual hub dubbed Heathwick -- to increase capacity in the London aviation market after it rejected a third runway at Heathrow.

"The challenges (Heathwick) faces are very significant," Walsh told the Sunday Telegraph. "I don't know how long it would take to develop. I don't know how much it would cost."

Walsh said he believed that shelving the plan for a third runway at Heathrow, which would have been funded by the airlines using the airport, would be viewed in future years as a "huge mistake".

The Heathwick scheme, which was reported by the Financial Times to cost GBP£5 billion, would be included in the Government's review of aviation policy in spring 2012, a Department for Transport spokesman said on Saturday.

[Honeybuzzard]

With peak oil approaching, I fear the price and availability of Jet A1 fuel will make airport expansion redundant in the very near future.

[A30yoyo]

Are there not parallels to be drawn between shortage of runways (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) and the subsequent selling of slots and WWII Rationing and the subsequent black market? (Same thinking applies to planning laws and the collapse of new house building in the UK causing building land overpricing and corruption in getting planning permissions).
What would be the result if the 3 London airports were given an extra runway each?

[Donkey497]

I have to agree with AttNots in this instance.

From a Geographic, Strategic and (Human) Environmental point of view, it is absolutlely crazy to continue to try cram the majority of flights and business into the already overcrowded southeast corner of the country.

It makes too tempting a target for a terrorist organisation to continue to concentrate everything in the south east corner.
Should, God Forbid, that we ever go to a "formal" war again, bomb this area & you could cripple the country.
If you are unfortunate enough to have to work in this area, I doubt that you can have a high quality of life.

More importantly, in these cash strapped times, I seriously object to any proposal by someone that the government should use some or all of the tax from my hard earned wages to build something that will ultimately benefit one or more foreign private companies.

As an island and a nation, we need to seriously look at diversifying and decentralising where our industry, population and transport links are. There is a balance to be struck between centralisation and de-centralisation & I firmly believe we are at serious risk of irreversible damage to our health & sustainanbility as a nation if we continue with this unhealthy obsession with piling everything into & around the M25 parking lot.

We need to look at better use of the facilities we have nationally and use them more efficiently, looking to expand, gradually and controllably, away from the south east moving gradually out to include Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, Dundee, Aberdeen & finally Inverness. As has been pointed out in previous posts, to do this we need to put the other supporting infrastructure in place beforehand.

Heathwick Island, Boris' Gatrow and associated surface or subterranean rail links are and should remain non-starters.