High Speed Rail link between London airports?

[Stuffy]

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 !

[eu01]

Truly High Speed? Than take into account Manston as well. Linked by TRUE high speed rail it would become sufficiently "close" to be considered as another London airport.

[Stuffy]

Southend has been upgraded with a rail link.

There are enough airports.
All that is needed is rapid links.

[edi_local]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathwick)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlink_(helicopter_shuttle_service))

[EGNS]

Anybody running odds on RAF Northolt having a high speed link to Heathrow?

Flybe might be eyeing this up after leaving Gatwick ;)

[Aero Mad]

They used to offer a helicopter shuttle between LHR and LGW! Wonder if that would be at all viable these days?

I have made a submission to this effect to the Davies Commission for the short-/medium-term.

Here (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Z7mEZjR7qucEVhVnBETzNYekU/edit?usp=sharing) if anyone's interested - apologies for dodgy fonts but Google Docs does funny things to uploaded PDFs.

[GROUNDHOG]

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.

[xtypeman]

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........

[Stuffy]

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.

[Heathrow Harry]

"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

[Stuffy]

'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'.

[ifonly]

It's STANSTED- there is no 'A':rolleyes:

[johnnychips]

What, IMHO, is needed is a high speed rail link between London, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted.

Why?

(As opposed to a better rail speed/link between London and Stansted)

[left rudder]

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.

[johnnychips]

If so this combined with a Shanghai type train link e.g. 400 kmph may be an option.

This would cost an absolute fortune. And all this assumes airlines would want to use Stansted.

[Fairdealfrank]

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 couldn’t 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 don’t, that much is evident!

[The SSK]

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.

[xtypeman]

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........

[Heathrow Harry]

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

[Fairdealfrank]

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.

[Heathrow Harry]

On this we agree Frank................

[Baltasound]

2 of London's airports are already linked by train......

[xtypeman]

I make it 4 if you include the DLR then its 5.

[Peter47]

You do have to take a bus to the train at Luton.

[xtypeman]

OK 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 and LHR also has the Underground as well.

[Phileas Fogg]

Stansted has semi-fast services into C London

Really? When in history was that and I guess not on a Sunday?

The last Sunday I tried I couldn't get any description of rail link from the STN to Stansted Mountfitchet village!

[edi_local]

I think Baltasound was referring to the fact that Luton and Gatwick are linked by a single railway line. The Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton runs through both of them and it's possible to get frequent trains which call at both airports with a journey time of around 90 minutes.

The other London airports are all linked by rail to London, but none are linked to one another like LTN and LGW.

[Heathrow Harry]

"semi-fast" = works half the time............. ;);)

[Fairdealfrank]

We could build many high speed links between "London" airports, but it won't address the immediate problem of hub capacity.

They would take time to build anyway, and would almost certainly be held up by government dithering, planning delays and court challenges.

Moreover, most people do not need to travel betwen the various "London" airports, so what exactly is the point (unless they're all going to pass through the centre of London)?

[Facelookbovvered]

I think you have to start by putting yourself in the shoes of the passengers who might end up using these "linked" services, firstly they are not user friendly around the clock, you can push a trolley or pull a suitcase from gate to gate and i regularly do so at a lot of European airports and even the best of them put serious mileage on shoe leather, start adding a train, lifts that don't work, weekend engineering works, the cost, the time? forget it i'll go via another hub or point to point if i can.

The main London airports do a good job all things considered, it basically splits into a North South operation, with STN/LTN being mainly leisure in the North and LGW doing the same in the South and LHR long haul/business and LCY for business and some leisure routes.

STN does not need another runway ditto LTN both LHR & LGW do and unless you grasp that then, well its back to Boris Island, forget STN with 4 runways it would turn London upside down, remember LHR would have to close, so think long and hard about what you would want as passenger & remember that they get to choose were they fly to and from